Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Christopher]

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.

Spidey was already in college when Romita took over. His high school phase was less than 30 issues, a tiny slice of the whole. Iconic characters like Gwen, MJ, and Harry and Norman Osborn weren't introduced until Peter's college years.

I don't think people started seeing Spidey's high school years as "definitive" until the Raimi movie revisited them. Before then, every screen adaptation aside from the 1960s animated series depicted Peter as college-aged at least. The prose novels I'm aware of reflected wherever he was in the comics' present, usually post-college.

 

[YLu]

Spidey was already in college when Romita took over. His high school phase was less than 30 issues, a tiny slice of the whole. Iconic characters like Gwen, MJ, and Harry and Norman Osborn weren't introduced until Peter's college years.

That's why I added "or close to one" after "a teenager." Narratively, I don't think there was all that much different between high school Spidey and college Spidey. I think most fans view that as one big thing -- a "young student" era -- and that's what's seen as definitive.

 

[Christopher]

Narratively, I don't think there was all that much different between high school Spidey and college Spidey. I think most fans view that as one big thing -- a "young student" era -- and that's what's seen as definitive.

I just don't buy that. If there's no difference, why not just have him in college like most pre-Raimi adaptations did?

There's no need to overcomplicate this. Every post-1960s screen adaptation put Spidey in college or after, reflecting the comics. Then Raimi put him back in high school, and every screen adaptation since has put him in high school too. It's obvious what the inflection point was. The first Raimi movie had the same impact on subsequent depictions of Spidey that Tim Burton's Batman had on subsequent depictions of the Caped Crusader in every medium, or that the 2008 Iron Man had on every subsequent screen depiction of Tony Stark.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

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.

The villains existed. So did other mutants who didn't want to be involved. Mutants were *always* bigger than just the X-men, even at their lowest points.

Plus, hands up anyone who seriously expects the MCU to adapt an idea that there are actually literally just a handful of mutants totally in the entire world and not steadily grow their numbers just like the comics did...

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.

I remember multiple scenes from the comics where Hank explained mutation mentioning things like 'many mutants don't even know they're mutants', either because they had no powers or their powers were so unremarkable they never registered the fact that they had powers (They just thought they were naturally smart or fast, etc). Also, known mutants with no powers or negligible powers generally made up a very large portion of the Morlocks and similar groups of characters shown primarily as victims rather than superheroes, so they were hardly rare as a whole - just rare on the super-teams which obviously needed people with powers.

And how does it muddy anything for such people to exist? You act like the movie is going to go on a lecture tour about all the nuances and exceptions of how mutations work. The movies, at most, will do exactly what the comics did and only go into detail on things when the story needs them to be focused on for narrative and thematic purposes. They'll be nothing but background information the majority of the time because the story is about the X-Men, not the people who theoretically could have been X-Men if their genes developed differently.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I would actually bet real money that the MCU X-Men are going to be teenagers. I would also bet that the focus will be on the teenagers and not Xavier and Magneto. Kevin Feige is notorious for not wanting to tread ground covered by other studios work, which is why we didn't get origins for Spider-Man or the Hulk. Feige will want to tell a different story. He certainly won't want to rehash the same ground FoX-Men movies covered.

 

[kirk55555]

Oh god, no more fucking teenage heroes in the MCU, please. Especially not the X-Men. I can't imagine that they'd be stupid enough to pull an X-Men Evolution with the MCU. All they need to do to be different from FOX is to actually use more of the comic material in the MCU adaptation, we don't need more teen heroes. Its bad enough that Spider-Man has been cursed to be a teenager, they'd better not destroy the main X-Men while they're at it.

Teens have Spider-Man and (soon) Ms. Marvel, anything else is too fucking much. I'd be fine with them introducing the real (adult) X-Men first, maybe with ONE teen character (like Jubilee or Shadowcat), then bring in an MCU version of New Mutants/Young X-Men/Generation X/Generation Hope later on.

I don't think there is any chance of Teen X-Men being the first X-Men, though. They know it won't bring in the X-Men fans or general audience who are used to the FOX stuff, and they're going to want at least one or two big actors to play X-Men characters. Adult heroes do better, and anything else would be sabotaging themselves. Feige isn't that obsessed with being "different".

 

[YLu]

The villains existed. So did other mutants who didn't want to be involved. Mutants were *always* bigger than just the X-men, even at their lowest points.

Yes, there'd obviously be more than just the X-Men, but it could still easily be uncommon enough that you wouldn't need some Snap to explain why they haven't come up in all this time. See: Magicians before the Dr. Strange movie.

I remember multiple scenes from the comics where Hank explained mutation mentioning things like 'many mutants don't even know they're mutants', either because they had no powers or their powers were so unremarkable they never registered the fact that they had powers (They just thought they were naturally smart or fast, etc). Also, known mutants with no powers or negligible powers generally made up a very large portion of the Morlocks and similar groups of characters shown primarily as victims rather than superheroes, so they were hardly rare as a whole - just rare on the super-teams which obviously needed people with powers.

Crappy powers ≠ No powers

And how does it muddy anything for such people to exist? You act like the movie is going to go on a lecture tour about all the nuances and exceptions of how mutations work. The movies, at most, will do exactly what the comics did and only go into detail on things when the story needs them to be focused on for narrative and thematic purposes. They'll be nothing but background information the majority of the time because the story is about the X-Men, not the people who theoretically could have been X-Men if their genes developed differently.

I'm finding it hard to explain, but let me put it this way: Under this premise, are people with unactivated x-genes mutants or human?

If they're human, then it means the Snap turned many folks into mutants, not that they were born mutants. Which circles back to the issue I talked about earlier.

If they're mutant, then it turns "society persecutes a minority who is different" to "society persecutes a minority who has some members who are different but most of whom are actually completely indistinguishable on every level from the majority." There's probably actually some interesting social commentary inherent in the latter, but I still think the former packs more punch. Anti-bigotry shouldn't center on "they aren't different, actually" but on "difference is good."

 

[Christopher]

I'm finding it hard to explain, but let me put it this way: Under this premise, are people with unactivated x-genes mutants or human?

I'm partial to Mastermold's line from the first-season finale of the '90s animated series: "Mutants are human." They're not an alien species, they're a stage of humanity's own evolution. Yeah, yeah, I know Marvel likes to call them Homo superior, but it's a questionable designation, given that mutants can still easily interbreed with non-mutant humans and thus are still technically the same species. A few altered genes aren't enough to define a separate species.

I mean, when you get right down to it, humans are essentially mutant chimpanzees. All species are mutants of something.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Yes, there'd obviously be more than just the X-Men, but it could still easily be uncommon enough that you wouldn't need some Snap to explain why they haven't come up in all this time. See: Magicians before the Dr. Strange movie.

It could be, if they wanted to adapt only the silver age and never move beyond that. But that's not at all what the X-Men are known as and I don't see that ever happening on screen.

Crappy powers ≠ No powers

Plenty that had genuinely no powers. And powers that people don't even recognize as powers might as well be no powers, too.

I'm finding it hard to explain, but let me put it this way: Under this premise, are people with unactivated x-genes mutants or human?

If they're human, then it means the Snap turned many folks into mutants, not that they were born mutants. Which circles back to the issue I talked about earlier.

If they're mutant, then it turns "society persecutes a minority who is different" to "society persecutes a minority who has some members who are different but most of whom are actually completely indistinguishable on every level from the majority." There's probably actually some interesting social commentary inherent in the latter, but I still think the former packs more punch. Anti-bigotry shouldn't center on "they aren't different, actually" but on "difference is good."

No, it's society persecutes a minority based on the easiest available means of identifying them, even though that isn't scientifically accurate. Which is exactly what always happens. Some mutants are 'passing', just like some people of various historical minorities were able to 'pass', and others never got the luxury of being able to do that. And just like happened in real history, some people are completely unaware of their own minority ancestry, even though it is there in their genes.

And again, none of this has to be central to the story. It will only be that if the story is tailored to attack this specific type of anti-bigotry metaphor (ie, that people shouldn't have to pass at all).

 

[Nerys Myk]

Oh god, no more fucking teenage heroes in the MCU, please. Especially not the X-Men.

What did teenagers do to you? Like with anything it's all about the execution. The character's ages are irrelevant

 

[YLu]

It could be, if they wanted to adapt only the silver age and never move beyond that. But that's not at all what the X-Men are known as and I don't see that ever happening on screen.

It was the setup during the Claremont years too though, what many consider the definitive run. When new mutants were like rare Pokemon and Xavier and Emma Frost would race each other to recruit a Kitty Pryde.

Plenty that had genuinely no powers. And powers that people don't even recognize as powers might as well be no powers, too.

That honestly doesn't match my reading experience.

No, it's society persecutes a minority based on the easiest available means of identifying them, even though that isn't scientifically accurate. Which is exactly what always happens. Some mutants are 'passing', just like some people of various historical minorities were able to 'pass', and others never got the luxury of being able to do that. And just like happened in real history, some people are completely unaware of their own minority ancestry, even though it is there in their genes.

There are lots of ways to play a metaphor when it's about something as complicated as prejudice. So I'm not saying it -can't- work. But I think mutants are more interesting when they almost all have powers. There's a reason pretty much every adaptation has gone that route, even though it could have significantly saved budget for a TV show or film to say most mutants are just like ordinary humans.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Wasn't Forge's power being really good at inventing stuff?

 

[YLu]

I just don't buy that. If there's no difference, why not just have him in college like most pre-Raimi adaptations did?

There's no need to overcomplicate this. Every post-1960s screen adaptation put Spidey in college or after, reflecting the comics. Then Raimi put him back in high school, and every screen adaptation since has put him in high school too. It's obvious what the inflection point was. The first Raimi movie had the same impact on subsequent depictions of Spidey that Tim Burton's Batman had on subsequent depictions of the Caped Crusader in every medium, or that the 2008 Iron Man had on every subsequent screen depiction of Tony Stark.

Fair point. But still, changing a character from a college student to a high school student isn't the huge divergence from classic Spidey that making the X-Men teenagers would be. Outside the original five, they were never portrayed as teenagers.

Then again, I never thought they'd change someone who's traditionally been the ultimate working class hero into Junior Techbro, so who knows what the MCU will do.

Wasn't Forge's power being really good at inventing stuff?

That and some Native American magic (non-mutant) stuff. Sigh. Because 1980s.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

It was the setup during the Claremont years too though, what many consider the definitive run. When new mutants were like rare Pokemon and Xavier and Emma Frost would race each other to recruit a Kitty Pryde.

And that doesn't match my reading experience. Claremont obviously started with the Silver Age status quo, but he introduced new characters all the time. Plenty of them didn't stick around, but by the end of the claremont era there were several different hero mutant teams co-existing alongside several different villain mutant organizations and also the Morlocks, who were pretty heavily implied to be a *very* large group by themselves, plus various individuals not associated with any group and a heavily increasing implication that there were always more mutants out in the world to find.

There are lots of ways to play a metaphor when it's about something as complicated as prejudice. So I'm not saying it -can't- work. But I think mutants are more interesting when they almost all have powers. There's a reason pretty much every adaptation has gone that route, even though it could have significantly saved budget for a TV show or film to say most mutants are just like ordinary humans.

But, again, the ones the movies focus on most likely will almost all have powers. Why does it matter if other people not part of the story don't?

 

[YLu]

And that doesn't match my reading experience. Claremont obviously started with the Silver Age status quo, but he introduced new characters all the time. Plenty of them didn't stick around, but by the end of the claremont era there were several different hero mutant teams co-existing alongside several different villain mutant organizations and also the Morlocks, who were pretty heavily implied to be a *very* large group by themselves, plus various individuals not associated with any group and a heavily increasing implication that there were always more mutants out in the world to find.

By the end, yeah, but it was a gradual process getting there and the MCU can start at the beginning.

But, again, the ones the movies focus on most likely will almost all have powers. Why does it matter if other people not part of the story don't?

Well, assuming prejudice against mutants in general plays a huge role, then what a typical mutant is like -- such as whether or not there's any tangible difference from humans -- will definitely matter.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

By the end, yeah, but it was a gradual process getting there and the MCU can start at the beginning.



Well, assuming prejudice against mutants in general plays a huge role, then what a typical mutant is like -- such as whether or not there's any tangible difference from humans -- will definitely matter.

Not really. Prejudice has nothing to do with the typical mutant. It's about the fear of what a mutant might be. Bigotry is always based on ignorance.

 

[YLu]

Not really. Prejudice has nothing to do with the typical mutant. It's about the fear of what a mutant might be. Bigotry is always based on ignorance.

I'm not saying it'd make prejudice impossible or implausible. I'm saying it would definitely matter, plot-wise. because an X-Men story, being about societal prejudice, will also be about mutant society as a whole and not just the team.

And bottom line, I just think a sub-species of folks with powers is cooler, as a premise, than a sub-species where some do but most don't.

 

[Christopher]

Outside the original five, they were never portrayed as teenagers.

Kitty Pryde was thirteen when she joined the X-Men.

As for the others, I'm checking my Essential X-Men Vol. 1, and when Xavier first recruits Nightcrawler, he says he runs "a school for gifted youngsters such as you." And Colossus still lives with his parents when he's recruited. In issue 2, Banshee refers to the other X-Men as "all young people, students." I get the sense that, other than Banshee and Wolverine, they were supposed to be college-age at most.

 

[YLu]

Kitty Pryde was thirteen when she joined the X-Men.

As for the others, I'm checking my Essential X-Men Vol. 1, and when Xavier first recruits Nightcrawler, he says he runs "a school for gifted youngsters such as you." And Colossus still lives with his parents when he's recruited. In issue 2, Banshee refers to the other X-Men as "all young people, students." I get the sense that, other than Banshee and Wolverine, they were supposed to be college-age at most.

I was thinking of the team as a group, not individual junior members like Sprite or Jubilee. But interesting point about how old the post-Giant Size team was actually supposed to be! Now that I think about it, Claremont did depict Nightcrawler having the hots for Starfire in the crossover with the TEEN Titans. Though weren't Havok and Polaris shown working on getting their Master's degrees in the same era? Eh, comic book ages...

I guess, for me, it feels like a big jump in a way it doesn't for Spider-Man because the latter kept right on telling the same kinds of stories when he became a college student, while there was a much more significant before vs. after in how the X-Men were written.

 

[Christopher]

Though weren't Havok and Polaris shown working on getting their Master's degrees in the same era?

They were part of the first generation, though -- the original team that had grown up and decided (aside from Cyclops) to move on after Krakoa, ceding the life of X-Men to the new, younger team.