Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
The difficulty of using super-people as a metaphor for any kind of real life discrimination has been gone over many times, with that being the most obvious problem.
I quite like the idea of throwing the occasional FF character into other movies for a while before doing their own one. Probably easier than it would be with X-Men.
"Have you tried not being a mutant?"
"I don't know, Mom, have you tried not being such a hamfisted social metaphor?"
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"lol...though to the credit of X-2, it also has my favourite moment in the whole X-men movie verse. It's when Nightcrawler asks Mystique why she doesn't simply blend end and she says that she doesn't do it because she shouldn't have to. Ironically that line made me fell in love with the character and you can imagine that I really didn't like the more recent portrayals of her.
Still, Cloak and Dagger has way more to say about the plight of minorities and systemic racism than X-men ever did.
Funny that she didn't take off with her own series. You could have her portrayed by almost any actress or even actor and have it still make sense. No binding contract requiring 5-8 years of your life for 8 films necessary.
She canbe involved in big bad guy movements while not being so overpowered that competent use of her abilities defuses most situations she's in (Quicksilver), or makes the rest of her allies look like chumps (Superman), nor does she require a cosmic/alien opponent to be threatened (Captain Marvel). She's not dependent on massive amounts of CGI for her power to be portrayed effectively either (Hulk).
Edited by Soble on Apr 9th 2019 at 6:03:04 AM
I'M MR. MEESEEKS, LOOK AT ME!Oh, that would be hilarious. Have her in practically every film in a minor role, played by a different actor/actress every time.
[scene of an overweight security guard grabbing files, then his eyes turn yellow]
I liked that the crux of the plot in days of future past came down to whether she’d go for magneto’s attempts to control her or Charles’ and reasonably she went ‘actually screw both of you’
I haven’t seen Apocalypse because I saw the Quicksilver scene on You Tube and that seemed to be the only scene I’d regret missing but it’s comical to me to describe her as a spotlight stealing squad when days of future past was rewritten to star Wolverine
Forever liveblogging the AvengersYeaaaaah, I have to disagree. I actually like Mystique getting a backstory and being developped instead of being The Dragon to Magneto and never talking. I'll agree she became a Spotlight-Stealing Squad, but it wasn't really a problem to me until Apocalypse.
Overall, though, I think that's just a general problem with the X-Men movies; they always chose to focus on only a small number of characters rather than on the group as a whole. I'd say Avengers has the advantage of giving each character a movie first, but Guardians of the Galaxy didn't have that and still managed to avoid that problem.
It's actually kind of hilarious to see how much shilling and Adaptational Heroism Mystique gets in the movies, considering her comics incarnation is one of the most treacherous and scheming individuals in the Marvel Verse.
Disgusted, but not surprisedNeither are the Skrulls.
Edited by RAlexa21th on Apr 9th 2019 at 10:46:37 AM
Continue writing our story of peace.Wolverine always stole the spotlight from anyone else, no matter how short his appearance in a movie was. Hence I always disliked the argument that Mystique should have stayed a background character. When I say that I liked her better when she was a "lesser" character, what I mean is that they made her more boring the more they "developed" her. Because Singer is sh... with female characters.
The ideas for Mystique in First Class were some of the best of the movie. But it was idiotic to turn her into a heroine. An Anti-heroine, yeah, that could have worked, but not an outright heroine. And she should have been blue more often.
Careful, Spoiler tags. Anyway The Skrulls are getting more interesting if they aren't one-note evil. Mystique is less interesting when she is one-note heroic instead of being "Mutant and proud".
Edited by Swanpride on Apr 9th 2019 at 10:51:21 AM
I'll admit Mystique should have probably stuck to Anti-heroine. I am fine with Adaptational Heroism is fine, but seeing her become basically a heroic icon for the world is kinda hilarious when you know how evil and treacherous her comic book self is.
To be fair, though, she is far from the worst case of In Name Only in these movies.

I admit, while I do like when they use these media to criticize prejudices, comparing to gay people and black is kinda inappropriate on occasion, given gay and black people do not have the potential to be a Person of Mass Destruction. I am for tolerance regardless of the context but it's a bit harder to defend the ones who are being prejudiced against when they are actually dangerous.
Edited by Theokal3 on Apr 9th 2019 at 2:21:23 PM