So say that the Disney/Fox deal does go through and Marvel is able to get the X-Men back, do you think that they will treat the X-Men characters much better in the movies than the Fox movies did?

X-Men and all the surrounding properties except Wolverine, I think. Fox did the best and worst job with Wolverine, but I think they'll treat the X-Men better.

That said, given how the Inhumans TV series launched, I do have a few fears on how they'll insert them in. Granted, the Inhumans were a relative unknown, and GotG was more successful than most standalone franchises, but the risk is there.

I agree that there is a risk in inserting the X-Men into this universe. They might go the Inhumans route and rush the projects out there that the characters wouldn't be well developed or they might make the characters unlikable and that could ruin any chance of the X-Men being inserted into the Marvel Universe properly. But hopefully, Marvel learned their lesson from the disaster that was the Inhumans TV series and will try to take their time in inserting the X-Men into the MCU.

Of course.

If the xmen franchise will be handled by a different company, I dont think other companies can handle the xmen franchise better than Disney. If other companies will ba able to do good xmen movies, those xmen movies will still be second only to what the avengers movies have accomplished.

Only Disney can make the xmen have the opportunity to be bigger than the avengers movies.

And definitely, Disney will handle the xmen franchise better than the lame fox xmen movies.

Probably not.

The Disney films are usually pretty shallow/lowest common denominator, not to mention that Fox has already pretty much used up the well of good X-Men material, unless you expect to see a story based on "Curse of the Mutants" or something. Fox had the capacity in the past to give us ballsy movies like Logan, Deadpool, and even X2 was more serious and realistic which was the antithesis of summer action comic book film for its time, Marvel gives us Ant Man.

Nope

@jhazzroucher: The people who run Marvel Studios are the same people who worked the easily X-films.

Of course they will...

Absolutly, Fox has no reason to even call their movies X-Men due to their treatment...

@shepardoakenprime: What is that suppose to mean?

No way they can beat Fox or the actors.

No, because Comcast bought them out.

@DevilMayehm666: Not getting too into it but there's almost no point of some characters even appearing or being named. Why even call Mystique by her name at this point, why call them X-Men if they barely even acknowledge the source material.

Absolutely. Disney has the cash to get amazing actors for the roles.

Yes, if they give the X-Men an alternative cinematic universe to play in, which would occasionally allow a multi-universe cross-over.

No if they try to shoe-horn the X-Men into tv series within the main MCU (aka Inhumans).

@shepardoakenprime: Because the pre-Claremont era X-Men sucked. It’s not hard to see why they made most of the changes they made.

Yeah, people really need to retire this argument if you're going to debate accuracy in the Fox X-Men films in comparison to Marvel's films, unless you can point out when Iron Man was Spider-Man's mentor, or when Spider-Man was best friends with Ned Leeds, who was a rotund kid of South Asian descent instead of a 30 something White reporter so he just might as well have been a different character, or when Scott Lang could ever use growing powers, or when anyone else besides Hank Pym was Yellowjacket, or when Hawkeye had a secret family on a farm somewhere.....I could go on, but you get the point.

Not to mention that aside from the appearances of Drax and Rocket the Guardians of the Galaxy in the movies are almost completely different from their comic counterparts almost to the point where they should just be original characters. Even Steve Engelhart, the person who created Mantis, has stated he didn't like Mantis' portrayal in the films...

“Well, I was not happy with Mantis’ portrayal," Englehart said. "That character has nothing to do with Mantis. I will say that I liked the film quite a bit overall, they’re doing good stuff and I enjoyed my night at the movies so long as I turned my brain off to the fact that that’s not Mantis up there. I really don’t know why you would take a character who is as distinctive as Mantis is and do a completely different character and still call her Mantis. That I do not know.”

So yeah, Marvel aren't exactly the masters of adaption themselves.

I don´t think they can top stuff like DoFP or Logan

But better than Apocalypse , The Wolverine or The Last Stand? Sure

Comcast is trying to buy fox

@galactic_1000: Yep. :/

Yup I'm very aware they changed things in the mcu and no doubt they will do so for the X-Men when they get them. But there's a big difference between changing the source material to better fit the plot (Vision) and feel of the movie (Shuri), and when things are changed for literally no reason at all or even worse, are sacrificed for further development for other characters consistently all over multiple movies.

Psylocke and Jubilee are literally just there and do nothing even though they were greatly advertised. Cylops is no longer an orphan...and before then we literally got no development on him, he was completely ignored. Jean is nothing more than a powerful mutant who likes Cyclops and Wolverine. Storm's reputation is completely destroyed by following in Apocalyps's plan in destrpying thw world just so Mystique can be the good guy and lead the X-Men, it doesn't get worse than that but on top of it her backstory is completely twisted and ignored. Angel is completely different and thrown away at the end. Everyone in the future of DOFP is there to die. Rogue is just a confused teenager. Then there's Mystique...who is the completely opposite of her character just because Lawrence is playing her to keep her around.

It's just so ridiculous, if some of the changes or decisions actually mattered it would be a different story, but at the end of the day they literally throw in characters, ruin them and toss them away and it doesn't create a better situation in any way. I wouldn't be surprsed if Marvel has made as stupid of decisions as well, but Fox has proved they continually do this. They get a few good movies in like Deadpool but let's not pretend they actually deserve credit for that.

@shepardoakenprime: Oh, yes Marvel has and recently. I don’t see how changing Thanos’s motive about impressing death to being about overpopulation better fits the plot when it makes zero sense, considering he has the power to making more resources and makes the mass murder unnecessary.

And Infinity War’s TV spots made it look like Black Panther was going to have a major role in the film. But he doesn’t show up until over a hour and was underutilized. That movie had plenty of characters that were just there.

I don’t see how Storm being a Hosremen ruins her rep. When plenty of X-Men have been Horsemen in the comics. Even Xavier blew up a few submarines for Apocalypse in the movie. And it had nothing to do with Mystique, Apocalypse was a Shadow King stand-in.

So now we can see the same simple movies Disney has been pumping out for years, but now with an “X”

See, you're doing a thing where you're like "It's ok if Marvel changes things, but not ok when Fox does it because I have bias".

Plenty of characters in the MCU are very different from their comic counterparts, almost to the point where they're not even the same character...seriously, I could go down a list as long and just as or even more comprehensive then your second paragraph. Just for example, in the comics, Hawkeye is a tall, younger characters who is very important to the Avengers mythos and has been a fill in leader on more than one occasion and has even led his own versions of the Avengers, in the films, he is a middle aged SHIELD agent who is essentially an afterthought in most films. Ragnarok was super important story in Thor's mythos and in the films, it plays sub plot to a space adventure...a space adventure that also wasted the Planet Hulk story. Basically, neither studio has a flawless record here.

I would argue that the X-Men films have a better track record. The first two X-Men films are solid, First Class and DoFP are usually held in high regard, The Wolverine is decent for what it is and Logan and the Deadpool films are favored, not to mention the Legion series gets a lot of praise from fans. That is like an 85% efficiency rating, most of Marvel's solo films sans the first Iron Man film, The Winter Soldier, and Black Panther are thought to be as bland as shit and people only really like the crossover films, which, if you take the fight sequences out of really don't have much going for it other than jokes and fan service.

Things weren't just changed for narrative sake in the Fox films, they were sacrificed.

Fox operates like a classic Hollywood studio. There's a movie and it needs a lead character, and we'll give him all the lines so the audience isn't "confused". He can be our entree point into that world and he'll be the only person with an arc.

The sole focus on one or two characters was never going to serve the franchise. Yeah, Storm did weather stuff and Jean Grey can move things with her mind, oh and there's a guy with laser eyes... Did we actually get to know them? No, we have no idea what they're like, they had no real stories.

The disdain for their unique looks and personalities also bothered the shit out of me, even as a young girl. Rogue and Storm were my favorites, but in the movies they were supporting characters.

Marvel Studios does not work like that, they do focus on everybody, which is how they were able to craft a cinematic universe with actual stakes and several characters we care about. It's never been done before and it's a really amazing feat. I have no doubt that they'll do the X Men justice.

@enigma-force: Except Marvel Stuido does work that way. Remember the Wolverine and The X-Men Cartoon? That had Kevin Feige as a producer and the writer of Thor 3. Even the GOTG films work that way. They are Starlord led films and you have to be pretty intellectually dishonest to think otherwise. He’s only one who’s backstory is shown in the first film and he gets more screentime than Wolverine did in any of the films in the original trilogy. The second film focuses on him even more with everyone else except Gamora being mere comic relief. We still don’t have Groot’s backstory at all. And then there is Infinity War which is Thanos’ movie with pretty much no one having an arc and most of the characters are just used for action set-pieces.

Funny that you mentioned Rogue and Storm. Because that is exactly what happened with Mantis and even the creator of the character complained about that.

So yes, Marvel Studios does work that way. I think this is just a case of selective perception on your part.

What are you talking about?

The X-Men cartoons are the polar opposites of the movies. Even if the focus was on a certain character, we got plenty of personality from the others. And those are 20 minute episodes.

As for Guardians of the Galaxy, in the first film, Gamora has an arc, Rocket and Groot have arcs and Drax has an arc. They're more than supporting characters, even if Peter is the leading man. In Guardians 2, Rocket and Yondu and Gamora and Nebula have incredibly important emotional arcs. To a lessor extent even Drax and Manits. The movie wouldn't even make sense without them.

Both movies are about family and Peter can't be family by himself, so they made sure the audience could relate to and grow to love everyone apart from him.

Everyone apart from Wolverine (and to a lessor extent Xavier) is replaceable in the X Men movies. Everyone.

And the thing with Marvel is, we could still get Groot's backstory. Fox's characters are so uninteresting, no one even cares. They announced Gambit and everyone on the internet said "No thanks".

@enigma-force: Wolverine and The X-Men the opposite of the movies? A lot fans have the same complaints with that show as they did with the original film trilogy. Over focusing on Wolverine, shifting Cyclops, cameos of characters just for the sake of it, etc.

Oh, I never denied that that other characters in first GOTG had an arc and that Gamora had an arc in the second film. But Rocket and Drax had a character arc? You mean them developing a friendship with Yondu and Mantis? Like Storm and Nightcrawler did in X2? And you’re counting non-guardians members like Nebula and Yondu who came to the good side? Like Magneto and Mystique?

See where I’m getting at? The X-Men films do focus on other characters and gives them arcs. I could name more characters like Pryor, Beast, Iceman, and X-23. I seen that you’re a very casual viewer of these movies that doesn’t remember them very well.

No, Groot is dead. That mini-Groot you see is his son, according to James Gunn.

@enigma-force: And I think you misunderstand people’s problem with Gambit getting a movie. They have no problem with him appear, theynjust don’t think he is a strong enough character to have a solo.

I have a feeling that Comcast won't succeed in this, even if they do offer more money than Disney.

Comcast? what movies have they done great? nothing?

@rabbitearsblog: if at&t able to buy Time Warner in 12 June.

Then Comcast can buy Fox.

@cattlebattle: iron man became Peter's benefactor during his time with the new Avengers and Lang has been able to use the growth powers since his first run with the FF but avoids it.

You're taking small periods of a character's long storied history and using to justify a bizarre decision that the MCU made, it would be like if whenever someone complained about Mystique's affiliation with the X-Men in the films I pointed to the brief stints Mystique had on the X-Men team in the comics and said "See!!" "It's the same!!"

The fundamental affiliation and dynamic of the Stark and Spider-Man relationship is completely original in the films. In the comics, Spider-Man wasn't even taken all that seriously by the other super heroes in the Marvel Universe in his high school years, let alone recruited to help them or mentored by any of them,. Other than the "Marvel Team Up" series Spider-Man mainly kept to his own continuity and comics. As for Lang, he was Ant Man for the vast majority of his career, even if he does have the ability to grow, the Gian Man identity has always been more synonymous with Pym or the subsequent characters he gave the ability to like Bill Foster or Hawkeye.

@cattlebattle: Both franchises started out pretty comic-accurate, but I've noticed the deviance from the comics tends to coincide with growing success. The early MCU stuff tried pretty hard to stick to the comics in feel and personality--if not always in details, like the Howling Commandos--and the original X-Men trilogy was surprisingly canon-like for the times. But as they get bigger and bigger the filmmakers go for awe factor over accuracy, which is why we get movies like Civil War and Infinity War when there are only like 8 real heroes in the entire MCU--they want to make money now so the bubble doesn't burst. It makes me think of 90's Marvel when everything was a crossover and the actual heart was lost in the process. Spider-Man: Homecoming was entertaining, Guardians was fun, and Ant-Man was surprisingly good, but they were about as accurate as the 2005 Fantastic Four or X-Men: First Class.

That isn't to say both franchises didn't do interesting things, but this "Disney is perfect" idea needs to die a sudden death. They've handled the overall universe better, yes, but their actual movies ebb and flow just like Fox's, because they fit a pattern. It's the same problem I have with the new Star Wars movies--it all becomes about being family-friendly and selling merchandise, not making a quality movie. Even Infinity War spent the first half of the movie sticking to the common trope of jokes and banter and bright colors.

The X-Men movies could use a reboot, on that I can agree. But allowing Disney to micromanage them might just drop us into another hole. Give me the intensity of the Fox movies, coupled with the correct assembly of classic Marvel--and only a faint skimming of humor--and I'll be content.

yes

The problem with the X-men is that its a very team focused story with multiple major characters jockeying for prominent roles. You have the core Xavier vs Magneto, you have Wolverine as the golden cash-cow, Cyclops and Jean drama (pairs with Logan), then all the other big names like Storm that demand a decent bit of attention.

MCU is able to get around this with their crossover films by most characters having solo films where you get a deeper look at the characters...so when the team-up films happen audience already knows who everyone is as characters and no one feels super shafted, and most of the team-up films are giant action fests with only 2-3 characters getting major attention. Thats the nature of the film medium. Even characters without solo films have been able to get their attention by having sidekick roles to the major solo's with focused subplots (see Black Widow in Winter Soldier)

But the X-men are all about a team from the onset, only a small handful of the characters can really support their own solo (gambit isn't one of them). X-men films have been struggling with this since the beginning...trying the juggle all the characters they need while still telling the story they want to tell.

IMO...fox has done an overall good job with the franchise. X1+X2 are solid....X3 tried to do way to much and wasn't able to juggle it all. First class and DoFP are solid....Apocolypse had to many characters and plotlines. Origins Wolverine was awful, The wolverine was a decent solo.

Could Marvel take the templates and improve it...of course they could.

Did Fox royally drop the ball and blaspheme the franchise....not by a long shot. (Fantastic 4 on the other hand)

I agree that even though Fox had some bad X-Men movies (Last Stand and Origins: Wolverine), it wasn't completely bad. The only problem Fox had with their X-Men films is that they shafted too many characters and I'm hoping that Marvel will eventually fix that if they get the rights to the X-Men.

Fox xmen movies are not real xmen movies.

Way better...WAAYYY better.

lol Spite no-contest.

If Marvel does a full reboot...I think the best bet would be to first not include wolverine. For one thing, Hugh Jackman has stated multiple times that he is not playing the character anymore, and he is to iconic in the role to recast so soon I feel. The other thing is Logan has been the focal point for Fox's X-men, and focusing on him so exclusively lead to a lot of other characters being overshadowed or ignored

I would also try to keep the team small for the first few films, I mean a possible 3 person team at most. Add in Xavier and whatever villain you choose to start them off with and you have 5 major characters you want to give attention to. Adding anymore to the team basically guarantees someone gets shafted in terms of development and screentime. If you resign yourself to having a cardboard cut-out villain like you had with Malaketh, Ronin, or that one guy working for Dormamu in Dr. Strange you can free up more time and maybe get another protagonist in there.

Once those core members are established you can start adding in more team members. Could even have some sort of Gold+Blue split, allowing individual characters more time to grow on smaller teams, then bring them together for your Avengers-type full X-men team up. Once they have a decent roster built, then we can all wait for the inevitable MCU AvX.

I’d like to see the X-Men under the Disney/Marvel banner before going to Comcast. I know Disney is all about the dollar, but I think they would treat them better than Comcast would.

Well what I feared and/or wanted is coming true: http://boundingintocomics.com/2018/06/10/marvel-studios-kevin-feige-promises-different-incarnations-of-characters-after-avengers-4/

The inevitable fall of the MCU due to the injection of identity politics. Pretty much the stuff ruining the comics is going to be ruining the movies post Avengers 4 (Where some fan favorite actors will retire the roles) except we'll see if the general movie audience will accept or reject these new heroes. I can't wait. If what is happening to Star Wars is anything to go by then we are in for a real treat from our mouse overlords. *grabs popcorn* Where do I preorder?

After Disney ruined Spider-Man and gave us the least faithful live action incarnation for him, I don't have high hopes for their take on the X-Men. The MCU isn't as faithful to the comics as many people seem to think it is.

I could say previous sipderman movies we're also good so comparing it to disney spiderman movie is understandable. However fox xmen are really poorly made movies.

I agree.

I think they will do a lot better than Fox. But Fox has that realistic feel to it. But yes they will do great in the hands of Marvel.

This is a company that hasn't produced a good X-Men comic in more then a decade. Why would their movies be diferent?

Last Stand was pretty bad but the others were all good to great for me. I don't really agree with certain characters being the focus over other established X-characters but thats a minor complaint.