The Last Fox X-men Thread - no spoilers

[Winterfell is Burning]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I’d say the simple answer is to just stop using Magneto for everything. He’s an interesting villain for sure but he’s been worn out IMO. There are a ton of other villains to choose from and do properly in the X-verse and I’d rather they do that then try and reboot the same old story but with a modern twist. I have no problem with updates, I mean moving Punisher from Vietnam to Afghanistan made sense, but I don’t see much reason to do this.

Lets have a Mr Sinister or let’s do Apocalypse properly , or the Brood or the Marauders instead 

Exactly. There's no reason to use him- heck, in the last decades, he was actually more used as an ally and even X-men leader than a villain. 

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I’d say the simple answer is to just stop using Magneto for everything. He’s an interesting villain for sure but he’s been worn out IMO

Fundamentally disagree with this, the Xavier/Erik dynamic is the basis of the X-Men, he needs to be in any adaptation.  I agree they've got a lot of interesting alternatives in terms of X-Men villains, but Magneto is more than just a villain in the XMen universe.

[Jeor]

Yes, I think the Magneto/Xavier relationship is at the heart of the X-Men storyline. Not just the personal history between the two, but the divergent philosophies (the Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr parallels) and Magneto's anti-hero qualities.

I know a lot of people think the Age of Apocalypse was a giant folly, but I quite liked that big arc and seeing Magneto as the leader of the X-Men and pursuit of a (deceased Xavier's) dream.

Sinister and Apocalypse are great villains as well, but even though they aren't one-dimensional by any means, they don't quite have the moral complexity of Magneto. 

[Darth Richard II]

Age of Apocalypse was a crime against humanity.

[Heartofice]

Sure Xavier / Magneto has always been a central pillar of the X-Men story, but its not all there is. In fact most of my favourite X-Men stories don't involve either of them and were during a period when Xavier disappeared. 

Whats so good about the wealth of X-Men stories is that there are so many great characters to choose from and focus on. Why keep going back to mine the same old storylines. Jean Grey and Cyclops is done! Let's have an X-Men led by Storm, for instance, more nightcrawler and a proper colossus, then kitty pryde or gambit. It doesn't matter, I just don't want to have to sit through the same old crap knowing that there is so gold out there to work from.

[Winterfell is Burning]

The Xavier/Magneto dynamic is NOT the basis of the X-men. Like I said, in recent decades, Magneto has been an X-man or ally at least as often as he's been an opponent. And the X-men as a rule have always been better and more interesting when Xavier wasn't around.

And how the hell is Cyclops leadership done since he hasn't led the X-men at all in the movies?

[Heartofice]

40 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

And how the hell is Cyclops leadership done since he hasn't led the X-men at all in the movies?

This is also true. They have done a mostly pretty poor job of translating all the X-Men to screen and I've never got a sense that they relate to the comics at all. Having Mystique lead the team is a total joke. I would have liked to have seen a proper OG team led by Cyclops but they mostly balls'd it up so I say lets move on.
 

[red snow]

13 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Exactly. There's no reason to use him- heck, in the last decades, he was actually more used as an ally and even X-men leader than a villain. 

To be fair that's exactly the same of the films. To the point of it being silly how he always does the reluctant/necessary ally only to try and betray everyone for his own goals. That's every film except x1 and maybe x3 where he was always trying to use phoenix to his own end.

 

1 hour ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

The Xavier/Magneto dynamic is NOT the basis of the X-men. Like I said, in recent decades, Magneto has been an X-man or ally at least as often as he's been an opponent. And the X-men as a rule have always been better and more interesting when Xavier wasn't around.

And how the hell is Cyclops leadership done since he hasn't led the X-men at all in the movies?

The best thing about cyclops over last decade was that he supplanted the old xavier/magneto dynamic showing there was a third way that put mutants first whilst still protecting humanity. It was so powerful that Magneto became Cyclops underling/lieutenant. But then editorial and bendis decided Cyclops was evil and had to be replaced with teenage self.

If the x-men are folded into the MCU i think this version would work best. A group who will happily help save the day but if you mess with them or their kind, there will be trouble. A bit like a less extreme killmonger in charge of wakanda.

[Winterfell is Burning]

3 hours ago, red snow said:

 

 

The best thing about cyclops over last decade was that he supplanted the old xavier/magneto dynamic showing there was a third way that put mutants first whilst still protecting humanity. It was so powerful that Magneto became Cyclops underling/lieutenant. But then editorial and bendis decided Cyclops was evil and had to be replaced with teenage self.

If the x-men are folded into the MCU i think this version would work best. A group who will happily help save the day but if you mess with them or their kind, there will be trouble. A bit like a less extreme killmonger in charge of wakanda.

To be fair, that started earlier than Bendis, and during Aaron/Gillen's runs, the plan was to make Cyclops Magneto and Wolverine of all people the Xavier, so to reset things to status quo. Bendis actually softened up Scott's stance and had him as a hero.

[DMC]

There are many different ways to explore the Xavier/Erik dynamic, some of which have yet to be depicted on film.  I don't see how it's really "stale."  I just think the MCU introducing the X-Men into their universe without including Magneto would be like introducing New Coke without carbonation.

As for Cyclopes, I'm aware he plays a big roll in many of the comic (although I haven't read any of them), but IMHO he's the most boring character they got.  But I like the idea of putting more focus on Storm, or finally giving Gambit a fair shake.

[HexMachina]

This film was awful. But even in such an awful film, Jessica Chastain and the Groots of Wimperly Woods stood out as particularly terrible 

[Heartofice]

37 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

This film was awful. But even in such an awful film, Jessica Chastain and the Groots of Wimperly Woods stood out as particularly terrible 

I’ve read a few reviews but what was so awful about it?

[HexMachina]

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I’ve read a few reviews but what was so awful about it?

Jessica Chastain gave the worst performance of her career and the "character" and underlings were just tacked on to the film and not explored at all. They were unnecessary and the film suffered by including them.

They also had a ridiculous design from what little you got to see of them. Hence the Groot comment

[Trebla]

I still find it hilarious that they wanted to make up for how bad The Last Stand was so they handed over the reins to the guy who WROTE The Last Stand. 

10 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Jessica Chastain gave the worst performance of her career and the "character" and underlings were just tacked on to the film and not explored at all. They were unnecessary and the film suffered by including them.

They also had a ridiculous design from what little you got to see of them. Hence the Groot comment

Is there a reason that they couldn't just use the Shi-ar or does my comment above answer that question?

[red snow]

4 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

To be fair, that started earlier than Bendis, and during Aaron/Gillen's runs, the plan was to make Cyclops Magneto and Wolverine of all people the Xavier, so to reset things to status quo. Bendis actually softened up Scott's stance and had him as a hero.

True i think it sort of started when axel alonso was editing but there was this weird thing of every time they tried to make Cyclops look bad, the readers embraced him further because he had more depth. Bendis' main crime was the whole teenage cyclops but i guess at that stage we could let him off for continuing the "evil cyclops" material. 

He was good in "wolverine and the x-men' too where he was weirdly the rebellious loner and wolverine was the boy scout leader.

52 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

This film was awful. But even in such an awful film, Jessica Chastain and the Groots of Wimperly Woods stood out as particularly terrible 

Another brave soul tackling the film!

1 hour ago, DMC said:

There are many different ways to explore the Xavier/Erik dynamic, some of which have yet to be depicted on film.  I don't see how it's really "stale."  I just think the MCU introducing the X-Men into their universe without including Magneto would be like introducing New Coke without carbonation.

As for Cyclopes, I'm aware he plays a big roll in many of the comic (although I haven't read any of them), but IMHO he's the most boring character they got.  But I like the idea of putting more focus on Storm, or finally giving Gambit a fair shake.

Well, the MCU template would have Magneto as Xavier's loyal side-kick for two films before becoming the antagonist in the third.

And you need to read some of the major cyclops stories so you can have an informed humble opinion as from "no more mutants" onwards they turned him into the most interesting x-character (possibly marvel character in general). Although some of the surrounding stories weren't as excellent as his depiction in them. He was also great in all of the early Claremont stories and was essential to the dark phoenix story. Although oddly the character became more dull over time with Claremont. I think it was partly to do with making other characters seem cooler (wolverine, gambit etc) by making Cyclops the by the rules loyal soldier.

[red snow]

3 minutes ago, Trebla said:

I still find it hilarious that they wanted to make up for how bad The Last Stand was so they handed over the reins to the guy who WROTE The Last Stand. 

Is there a reason that they couldn't just use the Shi-ar or does my comment above answer that question?

Clearly they must have thought the only issue was the direction. I guess everyone was shouting "brett fucking rattner" at the time so they maybe thought this was genuinely the case. But still to let the guy who apparently finished directing fant4stic seems bizarre.

Impressive how some-one can fail twice at telling the same story.

Fox was doing the take-over so they maybe didn't want fox using the shi-ar. I could see them being useful in the cosmic side of the MCU which seems to be expanding according to rumours.

[The Anti-Targ]

59 minutes ago, red snow said:

Clearly they must have thought the only issue was the direction. I guess everyone was shouting "brett fucking rattner" at the time so they maybe thought this was genuinely the case. But still to let the guy who apparently finished directing fant4stic seems bizarre.

Impressive how some-one can fail twice at telling the same story.

Fox was doing the take-over so they maybe didn't want fox using the shi-ar. I could see them being useful in the cosmic side of the MCU which seems to be expanding according to rumours.

I saw a youtube rumours video yesterday suggesting Phase 4 would have 2 big bad villains: Earth based Norman Osborne; Cosmic some dude I've never heard before. So it does seem like Feige has a plan for 2 distinct series of movies that possibly culminate with both series coming together for the Phase 4 finale. Seems like a good idea, and I like the notion of Osborne not being a one and done villain. Interesting he's a Spider-verse villain, so perhaps he'll be introduced in a Spider Man movie and then make the leap across to the MCU. Could be interesting to think about Osborne being a villain through most of phase 4, but when the cosmic threat comes along he winds up temporarily allying with the Avengers. Grey villains are really a lot more interesting. Killmonger, Mysterio (by the look of things), Adrian Toomes (Vulture), even Thanos to a degree all got praise (Mysterio TBC) as being great villains. Magneto is in the same vein (to bring it back to the X-men).

[Winterfell is Burning]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

There are many different ways to explore the Xavier/Erik dynamic, some of which have yet to be depicted on film.  I don't see how it's really "stale."  I just think the MCU introducing the X-Men into their universe without including Magneto would be like introducing New Coke without carbonation.

As for Cyclopes, I'm aware he plays a big roll in many of the comic (although I haven't read any of them), but IMHO he's the most boring character they got.  But I like the idea of putting more focus on Storm, or finally giving Gambit a fair shake.

Cyclops, is, if you look at the history of the X-men comics as a whole, from the 1960's to present, comfortably the most important character, way ahead of both Xavier and Magneto, let alone Storm or Wolverine. And in the 00's he became probably Marvel's most interesting character, although part of it was completely by accident.

And people who love Gambit typically only saw the Animated Series. Writers struggled to make him evolve from "guy in a trenchcoat speaking bad French".

[Darth Richard II]

Cyclops sucks.

[Nictarion]

15 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Cyclops sucks.

No, he really doesn’t.