Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Anwar]

I don't know, I think it's fairly well engrained that Scott's defining character trait is "the good son" and "the boyscout",

They used to say that about Captain America too, but the MCU sure did more with him than that. Take elements from the different interpretations of Cyclops and blend them together like they did with Steve.

Again, look at how X-Men Evolution did Scott and Jean. That should be the gold standard.

The problem with the original X-Men team isn't that they were inherently boring characters, it's that for the good backstories they were given, the writers at the time never DID anything with the characters until it was too late and the book was temporarily canceled.

so starting him off as the antithesis of that might come off as contrarian, edgy for the sake of edgy, and just generally overcompensating.

Not necessarily an antithesis, I mean Fathers and Sons tend to cross swords. Having him mindlessly support Xavier in everything is bad though. We should see they aren't always agreeing on everything.

IE, Xavier is more about reacting to things and staying hidden. Scott thinks they could be more proactive, even if that potentially could go wrong.

As for Jean; I might be inclined to pull a 'Londo & G'Kar' and set her on the opposite trajectory. That way you get to keep the tragic romance angle and not have to re-tread the tired Logan love triangle.

I'd be happy if they didn't do the Jean/Logan/Scott thing at all, or put a different character in there. We've have Jean/Scott/Emma and Jean/Scott/Rogue before, maybe here we could get a better thought out version of Jean/Warren/Scott.

As long as it's about more than just romantic feelings and it involves actual personality clashes beyond "Raaagh, you're a stick in the mud" and "Raaagh, you're a wild card!"

 

[Reverend]

They used to say that about Captain America too, but the MCU sure did more with him than that. Take elements from the different interpretations of Cyclops and blend them together like they did with Steve.

And yet the MCU's Steve was indeed very much the clean cut boy scout. His arc was about becoming more self aware, and learning to allow himself to have a life, but his core morality never changed. It would be a mistake I think to try and reproduce that, since it's not an easy act to follow.

Again, look at how X-Men Evolution did Scott and Jean. That should be the gold standard.

You'll have to refresh my memory on that one as I haven't watched the show since it aired. Mostly I just vaguely remember them being teenagers, with all that entails.

Not necessarily an antithesis, I mean Fathers and Sons tend to cross swords. Having him mindlessly support Xavier in everything is bad though. We should see they aren't always agreeing on everything.

IE, Xavier is more about reacting to things and staying hidden. Scott thinks they could be more proactive, even if that potentially could go wrong.

I just think it's a more interesting story to show how someone goes from a blind follower to a clear eyed leader.
If you start out with Scott always butting heads with Xavier then it's not much of a surprise if he eventually buggers off to do his own thing.
To give an example of this done poorly in recent media . . .

Spoiler: LotR: The Rings of Power

In Rings of Power, they for some reason opted to show Isildur as a privileged fuck-up with commitment issues. Which is the LEAST interesting take because of course that's not the guy who's going to be able to destroy the One Ring. There's no arc there. No room for growth. No room to fall. They should have made him the Steve Rogers or the Jon Snow of the series. That would have made his ultimate failure far more meaningful.

See also: Walter White or Anakin Skywalker. How interesting would either of their stories have been if they'd started out as selfish gobshites, in stead of the good people that they were? Not very.
I also mentioned Londo & G'Kar; there you have a has-been clown of a man who becomes a tyrant, and villainous firebrand who becomes the voice of reason and wisdom.

Character arcs are in and of themselves journeys, and the furthest a character travels from where they began, the more interesting their story can potentially be. In the case of Scott, how interesting would it be if they initially gave the audience exactly what they imagine Scott to be, then over time show how he becomes something almost unrecognisable?

 

[fireproof78]

To give an example of this done poorly in recent media . . .

Completely OT but man I could not disagree more with this take. Rewatching that media I was like, "Oof, I like this arc a lot. It carries weight and frames the story in a different light. Completely unexpected but perfectly enjoyable set up."

 

[Anwar]

And yet the MCU's Steve was indeed very much the clean cut boy scout. His arc was about becoming more self aware, and learning to allow himself to have a life, but his core morality never changed. It would be a mistake I think to try and reproduce that, since it's not an easy act to follow.

It would be a mistake to do it 1:1, yes. I'm just saying that if they could take a "Boyscout" and make him as beloved to moviegoers as Steve ended up, it's not impossible.

You'll have to refresh my memory on that one as I haven't watched the show since it aired. Mostly I just vaguely remember them being teenagers, with all that entails.

Well, in that one Logan was Xavier's adult right hand man and Scott was the one chosen to lead the students. He had relationships with people outside the X-Men who we saw him interacting with so we got him doing non-X-Men stuff. He and Jean weren't together right from the start so they spent time with other characters. Scott was a big brother/best friend to Nightcrawler and Shadowcat and hung out with his brother Alex (who wasn't an X-Man here) and was the only one who tried to reach out to Rogue to get her to leave the Brotherhood and thought it was wrong to treat her like an enemy. He was also more of a personal enemy to Mystique, beyond Xavier and Logan.

He also had a bit of a "Hero Complex" where he felt compelled to use his powers to help people in need, even if it risked exposing the School as a Mutant Sanctuary.

I just think it's a more interesting story to show how someone goes from a blind follower to a clear eyed leader.
If you start out with Scott always butting heads with Xavier then it's not much of a surprise if he eventually buggers off to do his own thing.

Agree, to an extent. But we should see from the start there's more than just "Blind Follower".

See also: Walter White or Anakin Skywalker. How interesting would either of their stories have been if they'd started out as selfish gobshites, in stead of the good people that they were? Not very.
I also mentioned Londo & G'Kar; there you have a has-been clown of a man who becomes a tyrant, and villainous firebrand who becomes the voice of reason and wisdom.

Yes, though upon a rewatch you could clearly see the seeds for the eventual fates were there all along. Where they ended up was unexpected, but not out of nowhere.

Character arcs are in and of themselves journeys, and the furthest a character travels from where they began, the more interesting their story can potentially be. In the case of Scott, how interesting would it be if they initially gave the audience exactly what they imagine Scott to be, then over time show how he becomes something almost unrecognisable?

Yes, and it's just what MCU X-Men needs to differentiate itself from the FoX-Men where the characters barely ever changed. IE, Xavier and Magneto.

 

[Reverend]

Completely OT but man I could not disagree more with this take. Rewatching that media I was like, "Oof, I like this arc a lot. It carries weight and frames the story in a different light. Completely unexpected but perfectly enjoyable set up."

Are you sure we're talking about the same character? Kind of my whole point was that there wasn't any set-up for that character to speak of.

Yes, though upon a rewatch you could clearly see the seeds for the eventual fates were there all along. Where they ended up was unexpected, but not out of nowhere.

Exactly. That's the sign of good writing and a well plotted arc. Surprising inevitability. Which is exactly what I'd like to see.

 

[fireproof78]

Are you sure we're talking about the same character? Kind of my whole point was that there wasn't any set-up for that character to speak of.

If I tracked along your spoilers then yes, I think so. And I just rewatched the series, as I commented in the appropriate thread.

 

[Anwar]

Has anyone been thinking over how the origin for Mutants will be in the MCU going forward? In the comics, the usual explanation is that mutants were an unintended side-effect of the Celestials' experiments on humans.

Ms Marvel implies that being a Human/Alien hybrid is what caused Kamala's mutation, and now Wakanda Forever is stating that Namor's mother changing into a different lifeform than human while she was pregnant is what caused Namor's mutation, therefore he's another Human/Nonhuman hybrid.

So it seems that interbreeding with non-humans that can cause mutations to emerge.

Agents of SHIELD states that the Kree Empire created the Inhumans in the distant past as a Biological Weapon Experiment, but they became too powerful and rebelled and drove the Kree scientists away.

There is a way to tie this together: If the Kree connection to the Inhumans is maintained, they could say that after the Inhumans broke free not all of them went to live in Attilan and isolated from Humanity. Some hid within the ancient human population and interbred with them. The Human/Inhuman breeding, generations down the line, would create the X-Gene.

So it all ties into, overall, Mutants being the product of Alien experiments and interbreeding with humans. Not all the same aliens though.

Admittedly, this is a tad nihilistic because it means there was no Direct Meaning in the Mutants' existence. They weren't created on purpose, they're just an unintended side effect.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Has anyone been thinking over how the origin for Mutants will be in the MCU going forward? In the comics, the usual explanation is that mutants were an unintended side-effect of the Celestials' experiments on humans.

Is that the latest thing? Used to be be parental radiation exposure (which is how Xavier got his powers and I think the Beast as well) or just random genetic flukes. Then they came up with the X gene. Which I guess is a "gift" from the Celestials now?

Ms Marvel implies that being a Human/Alien hybrid is what caused Kamala's mutation, and now Wakanda Forever is stating that Namor's mother changing into a different lifeform than human while she was pregnant is what caused Namor's mutation, therefore he's another Human/Nonhuman hybrid.

Namor's powers come from being in utero when his mother was transformed into a "mermaid". Which goes back to the earliest cause of mutation, exposure to exotic elements.

 

[Christopher]

Then they came up with the X gene. Which I guess is a "gift" from the Celestials now?

I seem to recall that being established decades ago.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I seem to recall that being established decades ago.

I've been reading comics for over fifty years. Even "decades ago" seems new.

 

[JD]

Have we heard anything about when we might see Namor, and Talocan next? I've been avoiding anything Marvel related since Thursday.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Nothing official. Speculation is either the Avengers films or the Fantastic Four film. My bet is on the latter.

 

[JD]

Oh yeah, he's got some pretty close ties to the FF in the comics, doesn't he?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Nothing official. Speculation is either the Avengers films or the Fantastic Four film. My bet is on the latter.

The latter would be nice, as Namor's (re)introduction to Marvel Comics was in the FF.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Oh yeah, he's got some pretty close ties to the FF in the comics, doesn't he?

Let's just say that whoever they cast as Sue needs to have chemistry with both whoever they cast as Reed and Tenoch Huerta.

 

[YLu]

Assuming the Fantastic Four film starts with the Richards already married, they might skip the Namor triangle all together. (And I think that's a reasonable assumption because they'll want to get Val and Franklin in there as characters eventually. And if they're not even born yet, that would require too long a wait, barring another time jump. The Reed and Sue actors' contracts will be over by then!)

 

[Anwar]

Oh yeah, he's got some pretty close ties to the FF in the comics, doesn't he?

In the comics, after WWII Namor became this amnesiac homeless man until the Human Torch found him.

The Torch then burned off all his hair and threw him in the ocean to try and job his memory.

....Yeah.

 

[Nerys Myk]

In the comics, after WWII Namor became this amnesiac homeless man until the Human Torch found him.

The Torch then burned off all his hair and threw him in the ocean to try and job his memory.

....Yeah.

Then he spent years trying to conquer the surface world and wooing Sue Storm. Occasionally at the same time.

 

[Nightowl1701]

Assuming the Fantastic Four film starts with the Richards already married (which I think is a reasonable bet because how else do you get Val and Franklin in there -- as actual characters and not crying toddlers -- short of a time jump), they might skip the Namor triangle all together.

The dude's 450 years old (looking a fit 40) and has watched generations of people go from cradle to grave, I don't think Sue being a 30/40-something MILF's going to bother him that much. Especially if Reed hasn't been the most attentive of husbands lately.

 

[YLu]

On Namor's part, sure, but I don't see them having Sue contemplate adultery.