http://www.comicbookresources.com/?p...ticle&id=53682
Printable View
I can already predict what it is.
It's already been set up with the Avengers 2 movie.
Mutants will go away.
But the new term for them will be Inhumans.
Just as Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are being called Inhumans in the Avengers 2 movie.
I assume, this is so that Marvel can create an "X-Men" movie despite Fox currently having the rights - since they won't be mutants anymore.
Same reason why Quicksilver can appear in X-Men Days Of Future Past, as well as Avengers 2.
They're going to say it's different characters, in a round about way.
That's my theory and I am sticking to it.
God, people are ridiculous. Marvel isn't gonna cancel the X-Men, just like they're not going to cancel the Fantastic Four and they would never cancel Spider-Man just because they don't own the movie rights. Ludicrous rumours.
Replace the word "cancel", though, with "pause", and re-read your statements again. Think about it, how many times have a character or team or series been "paused", or put on hold, or killed off to be brought back at a later time? Even Wolverine is going to die at last, and presumably be gone for at least a year or so, in order to revive the character. And Peter Parker was killed off, as well. Suddenly, not so ridiculous?
And, as stated in the article, the question that was asked? it was never directly answered. Why? Why would they not just answer, No?
That man cannot even attempt to put rumors to rest without being a condescending jerk.
The sooner they end the X-Men, the sooner HE can stop writing them. Can I get a "THANK GOD"?
But, I doubt they will CANCEL the X-Men. If anything, it's more like what FP said. It makes absolutely NO business sense for them to completely cancel-FOREVER-the X-Men.
I don't believe for a moment that they're going to cancel the X-Men. Not at all. Too much money there. But reboot the X-Men? Yes. I can see that possibly. And in said reboot, change them from "mutants" to "Inhuman" - I can see that happening as well. They're already doing it, as I said, in Avengers 2, in order to use Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver.
Well, weren't Chuck Austen, Greg Land, and Bendis also put in charge of X-Men titles?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bendis
Weren't they called 'Miracles'?
(Which in no way contradicts your theory, just alters the phrasing a little.)
Only in, ugh, the Ultimates universe.
~ Le Messor
"I found it soft, yet strong and absorbent."
~ Blackadder reviewing a magazine
Le Messor, I'm pretty sure that Superior Spider-Man was in the regular Marvel U. I didn't read it, but I am fairly confident that Doc Oc took over Parker's body and life when Parker died.
So just to check, you have read all 15 issues that I'm referring to?
Austen made Northstar an X-Man. I'll always respect him for that.
Yup. The whole 'Inhuman' thing stems from anti-Marvel paranoia and hatred that's been spread round the internet with no evidence. (Not aimed at Tawmis; I've read maaaaaaaaaaaaany other people saying it)Quote:
Weren't they called 'Miracles'?
(Which in no way contradicts your theory, just alters the phrasing a little.)
Parker didn't die.
Doc Ock's switched their personalities and then his body died.
Could you like him for that instead?
Wait... are you trying to say they're making comics for a world that hates and fears them?
Part of my confusion.
(FP - 'my bad' can mean 'my mistake', I think. I certainly meant it that way. :))
~ LM
"No task, rightly done, is truly private. It is part of the world's work."
~ Woodrow Wilson
Phil, no offense, but...I fail to see how that differs from dying. The body that Peter Parker was trapped in, died, leaving him with no body for his consciousness to live on in. Although his original body survived, he was not in possession of it. I'd call that 'being dead'.
His body was alive and his consciousness was alive.
No part of him was ever dead; he just wasn't in control of his own body.
If you are in somebody else's body, and that body dies with you in it, and you cannot go back into your own body...I call that being dead.
If you read ASM #698-700 and Superior Spider-Man it's made clear he never died.
The clues were there all along; Slott had it planned from the start.
No, it's still pretty ridiculous. Killing off a single character isn't the same as shelving an entire corner of the universe for no reason other than pettiness. Even when they "killed" Peter Parker (which, as mentioned, they didn't really), it didn't mean they suddenly weren't publishing Spider-Man books.Quote:
Replace the word "cancel", though, with "pause", and re-read your statements again. Think about it, how many times have a character or team or series been "paused", or put on hold, or killed off to be brought back at a later time? Even Wolverine is going to die at last, and presumably be gone for at least a year or so, in order to revive the character. And Peter Parker was killed off, as well. Suddenly, not so ridiculous?
Whatever they do with Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in order to make them (and possibly some variation on mutants in general) viable for the MCU isn't going to suddenly rearrange the entire mutant corner of the comic world, especially since the movie isn't even finished being made yet.
Okay, let's add to the list of "Things Marvel Would never Do Because It Sounds Stupid" -
http://www.newsarama.com/21572-thor-...his-place.html
Um, how about replacing Thor with a brand-new Thor? Also, I see in this article that we are also getting a brand-new Captain America this fall as well.
Yup, there is No Way that Marvel will stop putting out X-Men books. LOL. Think Again, true believers!
Indeed. New Captain America is coming. Thor will be a brand new female character. (Even though there is already an existing Thor Girl).
And with the popularity of both of these characters (Cap and Thor) with their movies - and they're making these bold moves... if one thinks they won't tamper with the X-Men in a major way (or all "mutants" - well that's just silly!) Like I have been saying - they won't cancel the X-Men - EVER - but I have a feeling they're going to do something that allows Disney not to fook around with FOX and movie rights.
They had Dark Horse stop their run of STAR WARS (here very soon) - and what is Marvel doing?
http://www.nerdist.com/2014/07/marve...ibus-editions/
Releasing their old Star Wars comics again.
Disney wants to capitalize in every regard. And if it means changing X-Men to something else - I see it happening.
Why is it stupid though?
What's wrong with young female readers having a big three Avenger they can look up to?
Eric Masterson has been Thor, Beta-Ray Bill has been Thor, hell, a Frog has been Thor. Why can't a woman become Thor?
We all know it'll be reversed by the time Avengers 2 is in theatres so why not enjoy the storyline if it's good. Or y'know, actually wait and see if it is before calling it stupid?
Again, See Bucky-Cap, Nomad, etc etc.Quote:
Also, I see in this article that we are also getting a brand-new Captain America this fall as well.
They won't.Quote:
Yup, there is No Way that Marvel will stop putting out X-Men books. LOL. Think Again, true believers!
That's the equivalent of saying because there was Xavier there couldn't be Jean Grey, or Emma Frost, Or Psylocke.
That was always part of the license though.Quote:
They had Dark Horse stop their run of STAR WARS (here very soon) - and what is Marvel doing?
Releasing their old Star Wars comics again.
What's wrong with a new generation being able to finally read these comics for the first time?
And new material is coming.
Which is the job of any company, surely?Quote:
Disney wants to capitalize in every regard.
Do you work for free?
Changing, possibly. Cancelling, no.Quote:
And if it means changing X-Men to something else - I see it happening.
As you said above the point is to capitalize; X-books sell, Inhuman books don't. Marvel aren't going to destroy profits just to spite Fox.
My point was, people are calling the rumours of cancelling (or halting, stopping, or momentarily ceasing, or ultimately changing) the X-Men comics Stupid...things Marvel would never do. Yet here are examples of huge changes coming, ones which people would never have believed would be happening, yet here they are.
My comment was more about those who call the rumours of what is coming Stupid.
And I don't necessarily think that changing Cap and Thor is a Bad Thing, not at all. Actually, I don't collect those titles (or any Marvel titles), so I couldn't care less. Heck, at this point, I am all for it! It is a 'plot' that Marvel has come up with, one to freshen up stories, and to sell more merch...which should indeed be expected of them. In the same way, whatever change comes to the X-Men comic franchise, will be done with the same thoughts in mind - and I likely won't think THAT is Stupid, either.
Changing is totally different though.
The thread title specifically says the word 'Cancelling' which is ludicrous.
There have been X-Men titles since 1963.
Even when the title wasn't publishing new stories it reprinted old issues and thus there were X-titles.
Even when the Age of Apocalypse were on there were X-titles.
X-titles practically got Marvel through bankruptcy in the 90's.
If you took out every X-title in the Top 300 Marvel would seriously lose their marketshare and not make a profit.
Changes are not 'Cancelling' though - There will still be a Thor title and a Captain America title.Quote:
Yet here are examples of huge changes coming, ones which people would never have believed would be happening, yet here they are.
You're the only one that's used the word stupid though.Quote:
My comment was more about those who call the rumours of what is coming Stupid.
Panicking that the sky is falling or prematurely dancing on Marvel's grave based on unsubstantiated rumours of 'Cancelling' X-titles is pointless.
If we get an official press release from Marvel saying that the X-Titles have been 'cancelled' then people can deal with it (and you can fully rub this thread in my face)
Then I'm really lost as to what your point is.Quote:
In the same way, whatever change comes to the X-Men comic franchise, will be done with the same thoughts in mind - and I likely won't think THAT is Stupid, either.
The whole thing stemmed from rumours regarding the Fantastic Four title.
Fantastic Four is a different beast; it's less profitable and it's one single title.
I can totally see another FF situation or a Heroes Reborn situation; but again that's a change, not a cancellation.
However I admit cancellation could be possible for that particular title based solely on money.
The X-titles won't be cancelled.
Changed, is a possibility; and I've never disagreed with that.
Even if the only X-titles are ones without the word "X-Men" (ie. Cyclops, Storm, X-Factor, whatever...) there will still be X-titles.
Wolverine, even in death hasn't been cancelled; there are at least a year's worth of books with Wolverine in the title coming out while he's dead.
Really?
Well, isn't it possible that Marvel has come up with a plan of action that has some big cosmic character coming along, The Collector or The High Evolutionary or Thanos, or whomever, and this character then reveals that "mutants" were never any such thing. That they aren't the next stage of human evolution, but something implanted into humans on purpose.
That is really all that it would take to "suddenly rearrange the entire mutant corner of the comic world" - it makes perfect sense, at that point, to have all "mutant" titles drop the terms mutant and mutie, even drop the "X" out of the titles, change things up and go on, somewhat sort-of status quo, but with a big change in behind the scenes.
That also alleviates any pressure when it comes to Marvel Studios now using characters that were 'previously associated' with the X-Men, as the X-Men are no more.
You see, that is the problem here; I can see PLENTY of perfectly logical reasons for Marvel to change up the mutant corner of its universe.
And, let's be honest of two things here; (1) Fans of a certain book, aren't going to drop it suddenly because its characters no longer call themselves mutants (or Marvel changes the title of the series), and (2) Marvel doesn't make much money on comics, they are MUCH more concerned with movies and other merchandising where they make the real bucks.
Actually, Phil, the 'whole thing' came from this thread, originally.
http://community.comicbookresources....e-to-the-X-Men
And I'm not quick to dismiss this as mere fiction.
And, X-Titles without the word "X" in them are still X titles?!? That makes very little sense.
I'm talking about the potential to limit the use of most of the mutant characters, pick and choose a few to use (on teams called Avengers, Defenders, whatever, just not a 'mutant team'), and then wait a few years for the hullabaloo to die down, see what they want to do down the road. It may not make sense from a comics viewpoint, but from a Financial viewpoint, big-picture? Considering that another movie company is getting filthy rich off of Marvel's mutant characters? Yeah, it makes a Lot of sense.
Why would they stop calling themselves X-Men though?
They still have the "x-factor" even if that "x" is implanted.
They still have "x-tra" powers.
They were still founded by "X-avier"
Your fix doesn't explain why they'd stop being X-Men which is what you say this whole mess is to avoid.
It makes no sense at all.Quote:
it makes perfect sense, at that point, to have all "mutant" titles drop the terms mutant and mutie, even drop the "X" out of the titles, change things up and go on, somewhat sort-of status quo, but with a big change in behind the scenes.
X-Men is a brand that sells.
You lose that brand name you lose money.
Marvel may as well burn their profits.
What pressure though?Quote:
That also alleviates any pressure when it comes to Marvel Studios now using characters that were 'previously associated' with the X-Men, as the X-Men are no more.
Where is this pressure?
Change, yes. Cancel, no.Quote:
You see, that is the problem here; I can see PLENTY of perfectly logical reasons for Marvel to change up the mutant corner of its universe.
Disagreed.Quote:
Fans of a certain book, aren't going to drop it suddenly because its characters no longer call themselves mutants (or Marvel changes the title of the series)
A name can mean a lot.
Absolutely completely untrue.Quote:
Marvel doesn't make much money on comics, they are MUCH more concerned with movies and other merchandising where they make the real bucks.
The money does not go to the same place.
Marvel Comics and Marvel Entertainment/Studios are two completely unconnected beasts finance-wise; one does not fund the other, the money never swaps hands. A deficit in comics is never filled with a surplus from the films.
Marvel Comics wants to make as much money as they can from Comics.
People at Disney may not want to give Fox free advertising for their films but it doesn't mean they'll risk their comics publishing arm to do so.
This is shown by the high volume of Disney books starring Marvel characters there has been since the buy-out; they aren't just interested in the films.
Which came from
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/05/...r-to-snub-fox/
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/05/...ur-characters/
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/05/...rtainment-fox/
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/06/...antastic-four/
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/06/...-2015-but-how/
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/06/...can-ascertain/
No, instead you're promoting it as likely happening and creating ways to defend it.Quote:
And I'm not quick to dismiss this as mere fiction.
I'm pretty sure 'X-Factor' has an X in it.Quote:
And, X-Titles without the word "X" in them are still X titles?!? That makes very little sense.
The point is that it's the word "X-Men" that is supposedly the issue as Fox currently own the film rights to "X-Men"
But titles starring X-Men characters are clearly still X-Titles.
Again, the two are not connected and no it doesn't make sense.Quote:
It may not make sense from a comics viewpoint, but from a Financial viewpoint, big-picture? Considering that another movie company is getting filthy rich off of Marvel's mutant characters? Yeah, it makes a Lot of sense.
While Marvel Studios/Disney wish they were getting the film money from the "X-Men" films they're not going to cut their publishing profits just to spite Fox.
The comics get a small spike when the films come out, at least in trades/collections etc. - Fox's films help Marvel Comics to an extent.
If Marvel get rid of the X-titles now they'll be destroying the fan-base that watches the films and then the films will be worthless when they regain the rights.
No. And that's my point. Why would Disney sit on making an X-Men movie, because Fox has the rights to Marvel's mutants?
As a way to get around it, they're making Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver Inhumans in Avengers.
We have seen already that the Terigan Mist or whatever - has restored mutant powers to MANY mutants who lost their powers thanks to Scarlet Witch's "No More Mutants."
Is it a far stretch to say - the mist restored these powers - because they were mutants? And those humans, who have recently gained powers, did so because they had the "X" factor in their genes (let's not call it the Mutant Gene). And the Mist simply awakened their powers.
And thus, couldn't we logically say, that all "mutants" are indeed Inhumans?
Is that such a far leap?
I think not.
No, but it would still be completely pointless. Retroactively calling them Inhumans isn't going to magically let Marvel Studios make movies about X-Men characters, that's not how licensing works. They can use Quicksilver specifically because he's an Avengers character every bit as much as he's an X-Men character and so fell into a tricky grey area regarding who can and can't use him. They're not allowed to use the twins BECAUSE they're not calling them mutants, mutantdom is just the one PART of them that Fox inextricably owns. Just because you say "turns out Gambit was an Inhuman all along" doesn't make him eligible for Avengers 3, he's still an X-Men character and Fox still owns the movie rights to him.
So no, while it wouldn't be IMPOSSIBLE for Marvel to rebrand the entire X-Men line (not even remotely close to 'cancelling' it, as this thread starting out by saying), it would be completely pointless and would only serve to hurt their sales by completely altering a flagship property, in name if nothing else. If all McDonalds changed all their signs to Burgerville overnight, it probably wouldn't go so well. Branding counts for a lot. It's never gonna happen.
Because of the legal contracts signed before Disney were on the scene, that Marvel made to stop them going bankrupt.
Marvel Studios will not risk getting sued.
We haven't seen that at all.Quote:
As a way to get around it, they're making Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver Inhumans in Avengers.
We have seen already that the Terigan Mist or whatever - has restored mutant powers to MANY mutants who lost their powers thanks to Scarlet Witch's "No More Mutants."
The Phoenix Force and Hope Summers un-did Scarlett Witch's hex at the end of AvX.
The Terrigan Mist had absolutely nothing to do with it.
All the Terrigan bomb did, at the end of Infinity a year after AvX & a year after new mutants, was re-awaken the hidden Inhumans.
And they're not making them Inhumans in the films as far as we know so far - they were clearly called 'Miracles'
Yes it's a complete stretch in the Marvel mythology.Quote:
Is it a far stretch to say - the mist restored these powers - because they were mutants? And those humans, who have recently gained powers, did so because they had the "X" factor in their genes (let's not call it the Mutant Gene). And the Mist simply awakened their powers.
It really is though.Quote:
And thus, couldn't we logically say, that all "mutants" are indeed Inhumans?
Is that such a far leap?
It's the IP and branded trademark of the character/series that's the problem; not the word mutant. The word mutant isn't copyrighted. There are varying films with mutant in the title and there still can be.
The mutant gene isn't the problem it's the trademarked character names under the X-Men umbrella.
The agreement between Disney and Fox for Scarlett Witch & Quicksilver so that both companies and universes can freely use the characters is that they're not referred to as mutants in MCU films so as not to cash in on each other's films - a fair compromise and one that certainly doesn't stop X-Men comics being created.
He never said those things were stupid - only that they sounded that way on the surface.
Agreed.
Mutatis mutandis... or something. Mutancy is about change.
Hasn't this already happened? Aren't they the result of Celestial tampering?
"Moichandising! Moichandising! Where the real money for the film is made!"
~ Yogurt
I've never known Marvel (or DC, for that matter) to be big-picture thinkers.
~ Le Messor
Dr Evil: "We punch a hole in what I call" (air quotes) "the Ozone layer."
#2: (cough) "Sir... That, too, has already happened."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrigen_Mist
It is also shown in this series that depowered mutants, if exposed to the Terrigen Mists, gain an uncontrollable version of their former powers. For example, the Mists restore the hyperacute senses of Callisto, but all the amplified stimuli cause her to fall into a coma. However, the effect is only temporary as powers fade after a short while. As shown with Quicksilver, the bodies of those exposed to the mists for extensive periods begin to produce their own Terrigen Crystals with the same mutagenic effects. At the end of the Son of M series, the U.S. government confiscates the Terrigen Crystals dropped by Quicksilver, which leads Black Bolt to declare war on the United States.
Emphasis on the temporary part.
And even then, that wasn't 'many'
Plus:
Quote:
Plus that was 8 years ago.
It was temporary, sure. But if you're saying "It was 8 years ago..."
Can I just bring up Vulcan? The third Summers brother (ugh).
And what they did with Giant Size X-Men #1, which was over 30 years ago?
Or Bucky to Winter Soldier?
Marvel has no problem jumping back to reference some event many years ago.
And make it work for some random event.