Stop Marvel From Replacing X-Men With Inhumans!

[natevegas]

I see this as them working within the limitations of the rights in order to have them in a movie they should be in.

 

 

Marvel had to figure out a story reason for them to start off bad & it couldn't involve the use of either M word since Marvel doesn't have the rights to either. They're much more Avengers than they ever were X-Men anyway, so I'm all for them using them in Avengers. They even give a nod to their "former terrorists but now heroes" roots in the movie. This is a pure story-telling maneuver. Plus, they didn't grow up with Magneto as a dad anyway. Or their biological mom. They grew up adopted orphans. And a final thing? The "retcon" of them not being Magneto's kid can be explained away in 1 panel down the line: "Inverted evil Scarlet Witch lied & cast her spell to not affect Magneto so as to screw with her dad & hurt him more emotionally than she could by knocking him out physically". There, "retcon" is now "unretconned"

Actually its them changing 50 years of MU history to make them fit a movie. What a dump on long-term X-men fans. And to think it comes from the very company that Stan Lee & Jack Kirby created them.

 

Please explain...

how they can stick with the (remember, their "they're Magneto's kids" was a retcon unto itself. Otherwise, those early issues of X-Men where he's making Scarlet Witch dance for him get really incest-y) mutant & Magneto origins when they can't actually even mention either of those words without getting slapped with a lawsuit & a demand for money from Fox (that Fox would win in any court in this country)? The audience needs at least some reasonable hand-wave at an origin for them to believe the characters even in this comic book reality and anything other than a power that they gained externally makes them a Mutant, which they can't use.

 

And as I said, that's even ignoring that they were retconned into being his kids later on anyway in X-Men 125 & Avengers 178. At worst, it retconns a 30 year old retcon of a 20-year previously unasked question. And it ignores that they didn't know the identities of their true parents until years after that. They can explain this away too pretty easily: They didn't know their "parents" were actually their adopted parents. Done & done.

They are X-men characters and mutants.

 

They were mutants 50 years ago and were up until now. For anyone to see Avengers to and say they are still mutants in MCU and fabricating it. They were born with their powers not from some HYDRA experiment.

 

[Doktor]

I see this as them working within the limitations of the rights in order to have them in a movie they should be in.

 

 

Marvel had to figure out a story reason for them to start off bad & it couldn't involve the use of either M word since Marvel doesn't have the rights to either. They're much more Avengers than they ever were X-Men anyway, so I'm all for them using them in Avengers. They even give a nod to their "former terrorists but now heroes" roots in the movie. This is a pure story-telling maneuver. Plus, they didn't grow up with Magneto as a dad anyway. Or their biological mom. They grew up adopted orphans. And a final thing? The "retcon" of them not being Magneto's kid can be explained away in 1 panel down the line: "Inverted evil Scarlet Witch lied & cast her spell to not affect Magneto so as to screw with her dad & hurt him more emotionally than she could by knocking him out physically". There, "retcon" is now "unretconned"

Actually its them changing 50 years of MU history to make them fit a movie. What a dump on long-term X-men fans. And to think it comes from the very company that Stan Lee & Jack Kirby created them.

 

Please explain...

how they can stick with the (remember, their "they're Magneto's kids" was a retcon unto itself. Otherwise, those early issues of X-Men where he's making Scarlet Witch dance for him get really incest-y) mutant & Magneto origins when they can't actually even mention either of those words without getting slapped with a lawsuit & a demand for money from Fox (that Fox would win in any court in this country)? The audience needs at least some reasonable hand-wave at an origin for them to believe the characters even in this comic book reality and anything other than a power that they gained externally makes them a Mutant, which they can't use.

 

And as I said, that's even ignoring that they were retconned into being his kids later on anyway in X-Men 125 & Avengers 178. At worst, it retconns a 30 year old retcon of a 20-year previously unasked question. And it ignores that they didn't know the identities of their true parents until years after that. They can explain this away too pretty easily: They didn't know their "parents" were actually their adopted parents. Done & done.

They are X-men characters and mutants.

 

They were mutants 50 years ago and were up until now. For anyone to see Avengers to and say they are still mutants in MCU and fabricating it. They were born with their powers not from some HYDRA experiment.

 

I can't think of 1 time in 1 issue where Scarlet Witch was an X-Man for even 5 minutes. She's been in the Brotherhood & the Avengers (and Force Works, I guess) and Quicksilver has been on X-Factor only. Neither were ever X-Men.

 

Also, I don't know how else to point out that Marvel can't use either M word before you accept that either Marvel can't use Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver or they have to compromise their origin a little bit. Which they can change again if they ever magically get the X-Men rights back with a

"they were adopted & the Mind Gem just activated them because for some reason, they didn't get activated at puberty".

 

 

They're not mutants because they can't be. Do you want perfectly-true-to-comics SW & Q or none at all? Because those are your options. There's no middle ground option. Either they're mutants & not in the Avengers at all, or they're not mutants & can be in the movies.

[natevegas]

I see this as them working within the limitations of the rights in order to have them in a movie they should be in.

 

 

Marvel had to figure out a story reason for them to start off bad & it couldn't involve the use of either M word since Marvel doesn't have the rights to either. They're much more Avengers than they ever were X-Men anyway, so I'm all for them using them in Avengers. They even give a nod to their "former terrorists but now heroes" roots in the movie. This is a pure story-telling maneuver. Plus, they didn't grow up with Magneto as a dad anyway. Or their biological mom. They grew up adopted orphans. And a final thing? The "retcon" of them not being Magneto's kid can be explained away in 1 panel down the line: "Inverted evil Scarlet Witch lied & cast her spell to not affect Magneto so as to screw with her dad & hurt him more emotionally than she could by knocking him out physically". There, "retcon" is now "unretconned"

Actually its them changing 50 years of MU history to make them fit a movie. What a dump on long-term X-men fans. And to think it comes from the very company that Stan Lee & Jack Kirby created them.

 

Please explain...

how they can stick with the (remember, their "they're Magneto's kids" was a retcon unto itself. Otherwise, those early issues of X-Men where he's making Scarlet Witch dance for him get really incest-y) mutant & Magneto origins when they can't actually even mention either of those words without getting slapped with a lawsuit & a demand for money from Fox (that Fox would win in any court in this country)? The audience needs at least some reasonable hand-wave at an origin for them to believe the characters even in this comic book reality and anything other than a power that they gained externally makes them a Mutant, which they can't use.

 

And as I said, that's even ignoring that they were retconned into being his kids later on anyway in X-Men 125 & Avengers 178. At worst, it retconns a 30 year old retcon of a 20-year previously unasked question. And it ignores that they didn't know the identities of their true parents until years after that. They can explain this away too pretty easily: They didn't know their "parents" were actually their adopted parents. Done & done.

They are X-men characters and mutants.

 

They were mutants 50 years ago and were up until now. For anyone to see Avengers to and say they are still mutants in MCU and fabricating it. They were born with their powers not from some HYDRA experiment.

 

I can't think of 1 time in 1 issue where Scarlet Witch was an X-Man for even 5 minutes. She's been in the Brotherhood & the Avengers (and Force Works, I guess) and Quicksilver has been on X-Factor only. Neither were ever X-Men.

 

Also, I don't know how else to point out that Marvel can't use either M word before you accept that either Marvel can't use Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver or they have to compromise their origin a little bit. Which they can change again if they ever magically get the X-Men rights back with a

"they were adopted & the Mind Gem just activated them because for some reason, they didn't get activated at puberty".

 

 

They're not mutants because they can't be. Do you want perfectly-true-to-comics SW & Q or none at all? Because those are your options. There's no middle ground option. Either they're mutants & not in the Avengers at all, or they're not mutants & can be in the movies.

 

The twins debuted in X-men #4 1964.....and were villains in Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. Later on Magneto was named their father about 30 odd years ago. They are mutants in the comics and always were. The point is don't spoon on your long term fans just to run around making a movie. It doesn't matter they were not forced to throw them in the movies if they didn't have the right to use their origins. Do you know how many other Avenger characters they could have used instead? Tons.

[kav]

Isn't Johnny Storm black now? Why no outrage over that? Marvel has constantly changed things. Why this mutant obsession?

[Doktor]

How many other Avengers have been Avengers as long as Wanda & Pietro? Not many that weren't already in the 1st Avengers. And there's not really that many other good ones available. They've already got a plan for Black Panther & Carol & Strange that will be happening down the line. But outside of them, you're getting into some seriously z-list characters that have had that a key to the Avengers Mansion bathroom.

 

Dude, I'm with you when it comes to the comics, but I'm not about to sweat a minor tweak that's very easily reversible in the future that's done in a movie, for a movie. I love the X-books. They're the only books I read religiously.

 

But if you're gonna get angry about the movie, there's a boatload of other things they've changed that could make you equally angry. Hulk not quitting about 15 minutes after being a founding Avenger, no hank & jan, Cap as an original, a number of other relationships & stuff in this movie, Tony being the de-facto leader. But a minor, easily-reversible change to a basically 5-second innuendo of their origin is the least of my quibbles.

 

And they were Brotherhood in 1964 when they debuted and were for about a half-dozen issues until they quit & went to the Avengers, where they showed up about a billion times over the next 47 1/2 years except for a few years when Quicksilver was on X-Factor. Neither have ever been X-Men.

 

[natevegas]

How many other Avengers have been Avengers as long as Wanda & Pietro? Not many that weren't already in the 1st Avengers. And there's not really that many other good ones available. They've already got a plan for Black Panther & Carol & Strange that will be happening down the line. But outside of them, you're getting into some seriously z-list characters that have had that a key to the Avengers Mansion bathroom.

 

Dude, I'm with you when it comes to the comics, but I'm not about to sweat a minor tweak that's very easily reversible in the future that's done in a movie, for a movie. I love the X-books. They're the only books I read religiously.

 

But if you're gonna get angry about the movie, there's a boatload of other things they've changed that could make you equally angry. Hulk not quitting about 15 minutes after being a founding Avenger, no hank & jan, Cap as an original, a number of other relationships & stuff in this movie, Tony being the de-facto leader. But a minor, easily-reversible change to a basically 5-second innuendo of their origin is the least of my quibbles.

 

And they were Brotherhood in 1964 when they debuted and were for about a half-dozen issues until they quit & went to the Avengers, where they showed up about a billion times over the next 47 1/2 years except for a few years when Quicksilver was on X-Factor. Neither have ever been X-Men.

Marvel is tying up lots of their comic books to coincide with their movies. Ask yourself should movies made by a comic book company change comic books? I think we both know the comic books made these movies possible not the other way around.

[jaeldubyoo]

Isn't Johnny Storm black now? Why no outrage over that? Marvel has constantly changed things. Why this mutant obsession?

 

Isn't it Fox's idea for Johnny Storm to be black?

[kav]

Someone said he was black in the comics but I dont read moderns

[Revol]

Marvel is tying up lots of their comic books to coincide with their movies. Ask yourself should movies made by a comic book company change comic books? I think we both know the comic books made these movies possible not the other way around.

 

Now movies are making these comics possible. Marvel selling movie rights in the first place is what saved it from complete bankruptcy.

 

Evolution is healthy for creative fields like comic books. The success of the Iron Man, Captain America, GOTG, Avengers movies has revitalised Marvels intellectual property. Todays creative teams working for todays audiences, shouldn't have to be shackled to story lines that have been around for 50 years. The characters themselves never or barely age within those 50 years, which is in no way realistic, so why should any other aspect of their character remain set in stone?

[VintageComics]

Most people that are upset are upset about the changes because of long term emotional attachments that they make to the characters.

 

Disney isn't looking to keep us feeling warm and fuzzy. They're looking at turning a buck and the best way to do that is to burn through current audiences and reach out into future audiences.

 

They can't reach out to future audiences by asking them to go read X-men #4. They need to do it by building up a new baseline, a new starting point.

 

And let's face it, where Disney's loyalty going to lie? With the 40 - 60 year old readers with a failing customer base or with the younger crowd who have many more potential decades ahead of them?

 

Just wait 20 years from now when some 40 year old who saw the earliest Avengers movies starts screaming about how they are changing continuity again!

 

It's said but I'm coming to accept it.

[Waylander]

Just think of how many very good (and many not so good) ready made stories will NEVER make it to big or small screen because they decided to change the continuity.

 

It's a shame..

[natevegas]

Just think of how many very good (and many not so good) ready made stories will NEVER make it to big or small screen because they decided to change the continuity.

 

It's a shame..

It really is. If and I repeat if another studio was making these movies based on Marvel comic book characters and made such drastic changes to origin stories long term fans would be upset big time. And if this other company was also putting out current comic books and changing origins to match those said movies they'd really be upset and vocal.

 

I found out the Twins join HYDRA because they have a hatred for Tony Stark. This makes no sense at all.

 

And for those posting here about the history of the Avengers here's some history for you.....Black Widow & Hawkeye were not founding members of the Avengers. There are 2 other characters that were but it seems they will debut later on (Hank Pym (Ant-man) and Wasp. Hawkeye was added later in the 60's and Black Widow not till the 70's, Falcon 70's, and War Machine not until 1984.

 

If the MCU was separate from the MU then I'd say whatever they could do anything they want its their party to mess with however this isn't the case. They are setting up current and ongoing comic books to match this history rewrite.

[slym2none]

Much like the comic-book X-Men appearing in black leather & Wolverine's claws coming out from between his knuckles after the X-Men movie hit the theater.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[Doktor]

Sorry, but this is starting to turn into an "I don't want anything to change, rights & reality & reason be damned, and if it does, I'd rather get nothing than something that's not a complete and utter slave to the old material & I won't be pragmatic at all about any of this" tantrum.

 

I'm out. I love me some X-Men but I also accept when stuff has to change. Because if it wasn't changing to match some movies, it would be changing because the books were getting stale eventually & needed a "game changing thing" to happen.

[natevegas]

Much like the comic-book X-Men appearing in black leather & Wolverine's claws coming out from between his knuckles after the X-Men movie hit the theater.

 

 

 

 

-slym

Fox never said their movie versions are exactly like the comic books and thus didn't change stories in the comic books to promote their films just for a short term money grab.

[natevegas]

Sorry, but this is starting to turn into an "I don't want anything to change, rights & reality & reason be damned, and if it does, I'd rather get nothing than something that's not a complete and utter slave to the old material & I won't be pragmatic at all about any of this" tantrum.

 

I'm out. I love me some X-Men but I also accept when stuff has to change. Because if it wasn't changing to match some movies, it would be changing because the books were getting stale eventually & needed a "game changing thing" to happen.

That is already happening, Secret Wars and what comes after will be mix mash of universes and characters from all over, some will die, some will be changed. Marvel is doing it to themselves which makes this all kind of ironic.

[slym2none]

Much like the comic-book X-Men appearing in black leather & Wolverine's claws coming out from between his knuckles after the X-Men movie hit the theater.

 

Fox never said their movie versions are exactly like the comic books and thus didn't change stories in the comic books to promote their films just for a short term money grab.

 

I never put anything on FOX. I just didn't like that Marvel almost immediatley started changing the comic to reflect the movie. At least, for no good reason. One month, Wolvie's claws came out of the back of his hand, the next issue, they were between the knuckles. Nothing happened in the story to affect that change.

 

It would be like Spider-Man shooting his webs out of his butt in the comics the month after the movie came out, if that's what Sony did in the movies. No story to explain the change, just change & deal with it.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[natevegas]

Much like the comic-book X-Men appearing in black leather & Wolverine's claws coming out from between his knuckles after the X-Men movie hit the theater.

 

Fox never said their movie versions are exactly like the comic books and thus didn't change stories in the comic books to promote their films just for a short term money grab.

 

I never put anything on FOX. I just didn't like that Marvel almost immediatley started changing the comic to reflect the movie. At least, for no good reason. One month, Wolvie's claws came out of the back of his hand, the next issue, they were between the knuckles. Nothing happened in the story to affect that change.

 

It would be like Spider-Man shooting his webs out of his butt in the comics the month after the movie came out, if that's what Sony did in the movies. No story to explain the change, just change & deal with it.

 

 

 

 

-slym

I'm betting this was to distance or tie itself to the Fox films. Its very odd what happens. X-men (2000) movie paved the way for what we see today. At that time Marvel wasn't in a position to make movies yet as they were still recovering from the near bankruptcy less than a decade before.

[jaeldubyoo]

It's more of a business decision than a creative decision. Movies make a helluva lot more money than comics. Movies can generate 100's of $millions, while comic sales pale in comparison. The wishes of a few fanboys do not factor into their decision which direction they take.

[natevegas]

It's more of a business decision than a creative decision. Movies make a helluva lot more money than comics. Movies can generate 100's of $millions, while comic sales pale in comparison. The wishes of a few fanboys do not factor into their decision which direction they take.

Its not a good long term plan. To build a brand you have to hit demographics. A comic book company knows roughly what percentage their readership is below 10, 20-30, 30-40 and this breaks down even further to other categories such as gender and income etc. Now yes to the point you made yes the films are making tons of money now...does anyone believe that will continue? Every genre in movie media / tv mediums all fade away. When that happens and yes it will happen the same companies nixing long term fans will beg for their dollars back because lets face it the Disney board will want to make up that income lost from the movie time period.

Years ago I remember hearing artists and writers loving on Marvel because unlike DC, Marvel had synergy and hardcore continuity.

 

Guess those days are over.