Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[kirk55555]

I'm afraid to ask: What godawful shit did the Ultimate comics do with the mutant origin? I may have already read about it and burned it from my memory.

In the Ultimate Universe, mutants were caused by a virus created by (I think) the Canadian government, with Wolverine being the first ever mutant. I think Weapon X was behind it. I don't know much besides that, except I think it was used as a reason to persecute mutants even more in that universe. Honestly, Ultimate X-Men was almost as bad as The Ultimates, so most of the stuff I know is from reading wikis and stuff like that.

Still, making mutants the result of a government created virus is definitely not something I'd want to see in the MCU, but I seriously doubt that they'll go with that origin.

 

[Nightowl1701]

The trickier bit, beyond introducing them in the first place (and in an organic way that makes sense) to the MCU now, is: Why is pretty much the whole human race suddenly going to be fearing/hating mutants when they've had demigods, supersoldiers, aliens and sorcerers running around for fifteen years now? I thought them making Wanda Public Enemy #1 in WandaVision and then her somehow creating the mutants might have been the way into it, but now I'm not so sure.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Killian said in Iron Man 3 that Extremis worked because he found some strange part of the Human Brain that was empty and tapped into it. It gave them powers, which to him meant "Humanity has been destined to be upgraded" and we know from Captain Marvel and Wanda that being exposed to Infinity Stone Energies can trigger power-ups.

So yeah, if we go with the idea that Two Snaps on Earth began a mass activation of Superpowers, it fits.

Yeah, I was thinking that multiple indirect exposure would be necessary. Wanda, Pietro and Carol had direct exposure to Infinity energy. Monica had second hand exposure and it took three exposures to activate her powers.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Yeah, I was thinking that multiple indirect exposure would be necessary. Wanda, Pietro and Carol had direct exposure to Infinity energy. Monica had second hand exposure and it took three exposures to activate her powers.

Oh, good point there about Monica. Yeah, that would make more sense, especially since there were three different Snaps, even if Tony's was on a smaller scale and was used mostly, if not entirely, to remove Thanos and his army (but still used massive amounts of energy).

 

[Nerys Myk]

The trickier bit, beyond introducing them in the first place (and in an organic way that makes sense) to the MCU now, is: Why is pretty much the whole human race suddenly going to be fearing/hating mutants when they've had demigods, supersoldiers, aliens and sorcerers running around for fifteen years now? I thought them making Wanda Public Enemy #1 in WandaVision and then her somehow creating the mutants might have been the way into it, but now I'm not so sure.

Kind of had the same problem in comics. Get your powers from a serum or an odd burst of radiation you're a hero. Get them from a genetic quirk, you're a freak to be hunted and jailed.

 

[Anwar]

Kind of had the same problem in comics. Get your powers from a serum or an odd burst of radiation you're a hero. Get them from a genetic quirk, you're a freak to be hunted and jailed.

That was mainly because around the 80s the X-Men writers became too wrapped up in the "Mutant Hatred" thing and no one had the power/clout/guts to tell them to knock it down.

In the 70s, there were periods where the X-Men weren't hated and Mutants weren't feared by everyone and it was handled with more nuance.

 

[theenglish]

I kept tossing the idea around that the x-men have been around but Xavier just mind wipes the public every time.

I could see the mcu X-men differing from fox’s by having Xavier already dead

The new purpose of the mcu x-men is to reunite after a long time separated

I have a similar, but slightly different theory. The X-Men are around but mutants are very few in number. They operate in secret and Xavier mind wipes, similar to MiB, anyone who comes in contact with them. What is going to draw them out is a sudden explosion of mutant numbers in the world.

 

[Christopher]

Kind of had the same problem in comics. Get your powers from a serum or an odd burst of radiation you're a hero. Get them from a genetic quirk, you're a freak to be hunted and jailed.

The reason mutants are feared, as I believe Senator Kelly spelled out in the first X-Men movie, is because they're seen as a new species competing with humanity, and one that could easily outcompete us and drive us extinct, the way it was long believed that modern humans drove Neanderthals extinct. (It's now known that we interbred with them, though that distinction would be irrelevant to genetic purists). So the belief is that Homo superior has to be wiped out before they wipe us out. Normal humans who get their powers through non-hereditary means don't represent an existential threat to humanity. (Although that's neglecting the idea that the children of such altered individuals are often mutants themselves, like Franklin Richards or Mayday Parker.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

The reason mutants are feared, as I believe Senator Kelly spelled out in the first X-Men movie, is because they're seen as a new species competing with humanity, and one that could easily outcompete us and drive us extinct, the way it was long believed that modern humans drove Neanderthals extinct. (It's now known that we interbred with them, though that distinction would be irrelevant to genetic purists). So the belief is that Homo superior has to be wiped out before they wipe us out. Normal humans who get their powers through non-hereditary means don't represent an existential threat to humanity. (Although that's neglecting the idea that the children of such altered individuals are often mutants themselves, like Franklin Richards or Mayday Parker.)

I'm sure having neo-fascists like Magneto running around talking about mutant superiority and enslaving the human race didn't help. (in the comics)

 

[Nerys Myk]

That was mainly because around the 80s the X-Men writers became too wrapped up in the "Mutant Hatred" thing and no one had the power/clout/guts to tell them to knock it down.

In the 70s, there were periods where the X-Men weren't hated and Mutants weren't feared by everyone and it was handled with more nuance.

The early 70s were a pretty dry spell for the X-Men. They were regulated to guest star status in other books since their book became a reprint title.

 

[YLu]

Kind of had the same problem in comics. Get your powers from a serum or an odd burst of radiation you're a hero. Get them from a genetic quirk, you're a freak to be hunted and jailed.

I’d say that’s a plus, not a problem. The existence of double standards makes it a better allegory for bigotry.

 

[Anwar]

The early 70s were a pretty dry spell for the X-Men. They were regulated to guest star status in other books since their book became a reprint title.

Yes, before the "All New X-Men!" debuted they were that. But even in the Phoenix and Dark Phoenix Sagas, the X-Men weren't really dealing with Anti-Mutant Hatred on a large scale and folks saw them as another superhero team.

 

[Tuskin38]

My first big exposer to the X-Men was the Evolution cartoon.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Nuclear radiation led to children being born mutants. People here are arguing for the Snap to turn people of all ages -into- mutants (well, technically, they want it it to activate dormant x-genes or whatever but that's the same thing for all practical purposes). Not a fan of that. It basically makes mutants the same as the Fantastic Four or Spider-Man or any of the others who got their powers in some sci-fi accident, just on a larger scale.

That's not the same thing at all. There's absolutely no reason why 'activating dormant x-genes' can't just mean that a very large number of potential mutants who might otherwise not have developed their powers now do develop their powers, during adolescence according to the same standard pattern the comics always followed.

Now, if someone here is genuinely arguing for Cyclops to be 40 years old already and still get his powers from the snap, then I stand corrected but I haven't seen any post in this thread which seemed to actually make that argument.

 

[YLu]

That's not the same thing at all. There's absolutely no reason why 'activating dormant x-genes' can't just mean that a very large number of potential mutants who might otherwise not have developed their powers now do develop their powers, during adolescence according to the same standard pattern the comics always followed.

Now, if someone here is genuinely arguing for Cyclops to be 40 years old already and still get his powers from the snap, then I stand corrected but I haven't seen any post in this thread which seemed to actually make that argument.

I doubt the MCU X-Men will be a team of teenagers. (I mean, I know that is actually how they started in the comics, but the concept moved away from that ages ago). Unless you're saying the X-Men will consist of those rare pre-Snap mutants. But if pretty much the entire main cast is going to be pre-Snap mutants, why do you even need the Snap as an explanation for mutants?

Also, what about all those people with dormant x-genes who were past adolescence already when the Snap happened? If they're considered mutants, then there will still be a huge swath of unpowered mutants, which feels unnecessarily messy. If they're not considered mutants, then that means the Snap is essentially turning people into people into mutants, rather than people being born mutants, which I can't say I'm a fan of.

 

[Relayer1]

I doubt the MCU X-Men will be a team of teenagers. (I mean, I know that is actually how they started in the comics, but the concept moved away from that ages ago). Unless you're saying the X-Men will consist of those rare pre-Snap mutants.

It would be nice if they took pointers from the comic chronology and had the original (more experienced ?) team as in their mid 20's and maybe have a spread of ages for Kitty, Storm, Nightcrawler & Co. from early teens to early 20's.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I doubt the MCU X-Men will be a team of teenagers. (I mean, I know that is actually how they started in the comics, but the concept moved away from that ages ago). Unless you're saying the X-Men will consist of those rare pre-Snap mutants. But if pretty much the entire main cast is going to be pre-Snap mutants, why do you even need the Snap as an explanation for mutants?

A teenage team is in no way off the table, imo. However, most likely the majority of the main team will be in their early twenties, with a few pre-snap mutants (Xavier, Wolverine, maybe Banshee) and several younger ones (Kitty Pryde, Jubilee, etc). This would work absolutely fine if the shift began with Thanos's original snap and then accelerated further with the Avengers' multiple snaps. A hypothetical X-Men movie set in 2025 is *seven years* after the first snap. The majority of characters could have developed their powers at thirteen and still be twenty in the film. Older if they got their powers at sixteen or seventeen.

The idea that the ages of the main cast is the only factor relevant to explaining where mutants came from is nonsensical, as well, since the whole point of the X-Men is that they're FAR from the only mutants in the world. The snap (or something else) is necessary to explain mutants as an overarching group, which do not in any way have to exist in the exact same age group as the main seven to ten starring characters of the X-Men films.

Also, what about all those people with dormant x-genes who were past adolescence already when the Snap happened? If they're considered mutants, then there will still be a huge swath of unpowered mutants, which feels unnecessarily messy. If they're not considered mutants, then that means the Snap is essentially turning people into people into mutants, rather than people being born mutants, which I can't say I'm a fan of.

They'll be people with inactive x-genes. Some of them may still get their powers eventually either at a more or less appropriate age because they're currently still young or at an inappropriate age because *insert random plot point explaining anomalous older x-gene activation*. None of this is any different than it's always been in the comics. There have always been 'mutants' who don't have any powers (or any noticeable powers), most of which explicitly don't even know they're mutants. And there have always been various random exceptions to the teenage age rule whenever the writers wanted.

 

[Christopher]

I doubt the MCU X-Men will be a team of teenagers. (I mean, I know that is actually how they started in the comics, but the concept moved away from that ages ago).

Spider-Man moved away from his teen years ages ago (he graduated from high school in 1965), yet all three of his feature film series and his past three animated series have all depicted him as a high school student, at least initially. And all three Fantastic Four feature adaptations (including the unreleased Roger Corman one) have gone back to the beginning when Reed and Sue weren't yet an item, even though they've been parents in the comics for decades. So you never know.

 

[YLu]

Spider-Man moved away from his teen years ages ago (he graduated from high school in 1965), yet all three of his feature film series and his past three animated series have all depicted him as a high school student, at least initially. And all three Fantastic Four feature adaptations (including the unreleased Roger Corman one) have gone back to the beginning when Reed and Sue weren't yet an item, even though they've been parents in the comics for decades. So you never know.

I'd say the difference is that so many folks still consider the epitome of Spider-Man to be the Lee/Ditko/Romita stuff, where he was a teenager or close to one. While the X-Men's height is when they were adults, with many seeing the "All-New, All-Different" era as the when the title finally got good.

 

[YLu]

The idea that the ages of the main cast is the only factor relevant to explaining where mutants came from is nonsensical, as well, since the whole point of the X-Men is that they're FAR from the only mutants in the world. The snap (or something else) is necessary to explain mutants as an overarching group, which do not in any way have to exist in the exact same age group as the main seven to ten starring characters of the X-Men films.

Arguable. The prevalence of mutants is something's that's been handled differently over the years. Back when it was the original five X-Men, the idea wasn't that Xavier just decided to arbitrarily cap his school size at few enough students that he could still count them on one hand. It was that he literally didn't know any other teen mutants who weren't villains or disinterested. Later, when Xavier recruited the likes of Storm and Colossus, the idea wasn't that they were more qualified than all the various mutants in the U.S. It was that mutants were rare enough that he has to travel to Russia and the Serengeti to find suitable candidates for his new team.

They'll be people with inactive x-genes. Some of them may still get their powers eventually either at a more or less appropriate age because they're currently still young or at an inappropriate age because *insert random plot point explaining anomalous older x-gene activation*. None of this is any different than it's always been in the comics. There have always been 'mutants' who don't have any powers (or any noticeable powers), most of which explicitly don't even know they're mutants. And there have always been various random exceptions to the teenage age rule whenever the writers wanted.

With 6 decades of comics, every variation on a concept can be found -somewhere-. Are there mutants in the comics without powers? Sure, but they're very much exceptional cases. The general concept is still "mutants develop mutant powers." "Mutants develop mutant powers, except for the older generations who remain powerless (with exceptions)" just muddies up an elegantly simple concept, I feel.