What about Jimmy from Ultimate X-Men 
Almost everything based of a book, cartoon, comic, video game is an adaptation. Rogueâs character never made sense at all for an X-men adaptation. Rogue was always known as this brash southern red-neck like chick who body slammed guys like juggernaut while flirting and talking shit during the same time. Who cares if her character assassination was perfect for the film? There is a reason why the Avengers and itâs characters have a bigger impact on todayâs generation/media because the MCU did not lame-axe those characters; they portrayed them correctly for the standards of a universal audience. How would you like it if they decided to make the Blackwidow some runaway scared little girl just like Rogue? Rogue was one of the most interesting female characters in Marvel because of how her character was written and in the movies she was nothing more than a kid whoâs entire scenes are composed of her romance with her BF. Get out of here with your shit.
I agree it was a huge step and it was the actual movie that started this whole comic to movies for this generation. Sadly, it doesnât save the fact that other Marvel movies are kicking itâs ass due to itâs lame character portrayal, inferior plots, and stupid inconstancies.
They did not get anything from the comics well. We got Rogue down and lets not forget the shit ass Phoenix, cyclops, and how the fuck did Shadowcat manage to time travel people, Baraka-pool. They got allot of personalities wrong. Other than the character ruining, the inconstancies in movies were that retarded that they had to go âoh you know what, just pretend none of those movies ever happenedâ and go all âthis is how it all happenedâ on internet movie blogs.
The X-men direction is horrible man. They are good movies to watch but they are the dan tier of the Marvel/Comic adaptations by far; even the majority of DCâs adaptations kick itâs ass. And that is sad since X-men were the most popular comic book franchise during the 90âs and maybe mid 80âs.
Man, it makes sense from the narrative standpoint. Teenager runaway hunger for affection who cannot but prevented from touching people, disables Magnetoâs device by absorbing his powers, then heals absorbing Wolverineâs⌠itâs a perfectly round story.
They also gave her a personality more like Kitty Prydeâs, because they needed her to be the gateway character for the teenager audience, again perfect decision.
I think the movie version is a little more believable. And grounded. You would have to change her story/power set to explain why she has permanent flight and super strength.
Also, she would have been much more powerful than any other member of the group because sheâs nearly invulnerable and can fly better than Storm. Or escalate everyone elseâs power by the case⌠which was something audiences were open to by the moment, they didnât want more Superman like the terrible Superman III and IV. They seriously did the best they could with the material they had. And it worked fucking well⌠except for purists.
I just told you. Not X-Men being a success, there would have not been an MCU. The tone and level of belief the MCU manages couldnât have been used back then, if X-Men movies would have not paved the way.
Now, they could have probably managed X-Men 3 a little better and give Rogue her comic book counterpart powers, at least⌠It was a missed chance, I agree on that.
Jean was not destroyed until third movie, Cyclops was not that bad in the first movies either, there was chance to improve I agree. Storm was terribly underused. Wolverine Origins was a complete disaster (except for the excellent Sabretooth).
But they nailed Mystique and Nightcrawler and improved them in many ways, they made Iceman sort of much more respectable, Beast was fine, Kitty was OK, Magneto and Xavier were brilliant, specially in the sequels, and they generally made a great Wolverine (despite of his excessive protagonism on X-Men 3).
I think theyâve been generally good and the last two movies were great. If you want everything to be the cookie-cooter generic Marvel Studios movies, I guess I can understand that, but X-Men series has given us great moments, even if theyâre not your flavour.
Unfortunately, thatâs a very overused trope lately in cinema and comics, trying to humanize characters. Humanize him, humanize her, humanize this, humanize that. Some people dislike whatâs happening right now with Superman losing his powers. When you read Superman you want to read about him bring fucking Superman, not how everything hurts him now and he has to deal with bad breath now. Personally, I got fed up with it when they made that Mortal Kombat youtube series where they tried to humanize Raiden. He lost his powers because why the hell not
I would have preferred Rogue to be the tank of the team. Itâs not like they had to explain her origins right away. And even so, they would probably find a way to screw it up like they did with the Phoenix originâŚ
To be fair, itâs not that her healing factor is stronger naturally, itâs just that Wolverineâs has to fight the adamantium poisoning all the time.
Well, it seems it worked pretty well for a general audience because X-Men was able to establish as a superhero franchise after who-knows-how many-years, in which Superman and Batman had been the only viable movie series and after that even they crashed and burned.
You canât please everyone, but I think X-Men did what it took to keep afloat.
Last words on Rogueâs adaptation: Remember this was a time where creating a superhero movie franchise at first hit was practically unthinkable. They did everything to make sure this worked FOR A SINGLE MOVIE, I donât think there was many hopes about a sequel (remember too it was a time where action movie sequels were something rare to see). Of course we had sequels, and at least the first ones had to stay consistent with the continuity, so Rogue was a casuality in order to make the first movie work better.
Am I the only one that thought Man of Steel was actually a pretty OK movie?
Also, Rogue in the movies was solid. She was put into a position where she had to fill a LOT of roles in the movie, being the key to Magnetoâs plan for overtaking society, a de facto daughter for Wolverine, being the centerpiece of the younger generation of X-men and being the prime example of how being a mutant can seriously suck. The Rogue in the movies was actually really well done in that regard, whether you like her more or less than her comic equivalent.
I was fine with film Rogue, yeah. And I didnât think Man of Steel was a terrible movie like everyone said. I thought it was fine. I went in with low expectations sure, but I felt fine with it after all was said and done.
Man of Steel was wayyyyyy better than Superman Returns. Iâm totally fine with it. Not sure where the hatred really emanates from. Itâs not like they had him spin around the world to travel back in time or anything.
I donât like film Rogue. Jubilee and Kitty usually take on the roles Rogue had in the films. I would had preferred then.
For the folks 20-29 years old, Shadow Cat isnât actually a particularly well-known character. I got introduced to Marvel as a youngâun through the X-Men cartoon and she never even appeared on that (at least, not that I can remember). Obviously sheâs an incredibly important character in the comics, but for a lot of the casual fans, Rogue is much more identifiable.
Kitty was a major character in X-Men Evolution which ran at the time the movie dropped. If Kitty wasnât well known at the time Jubilee was. She was the audience surrogate for the 90s X-Men cartoon.
I think Jubilee looked to âgroovyâ and colorful for whatever this movie was striving for⌠if Jubilee had been there she would have looked too silly. Using Rogue was the right choice.
She did appear on the original cartoon, and made even more appearances on the other cartoons
X-Men (1989)
X-Men: Evolution (2000-2003) she was like in every episode here
Wolverine and the X-men (2009)
So, I donât think youâve got to be an old fan to know who Shadow Cat is.
All the characters lost their colorful costumes in the films. What makes you think thy wouldnât have traded her yellow jacket for a leather one like everyone else?
100% this:
Jubilee also doesnât have nearly as much story value as Rogue.
Rogue ties into most of the major X-Men storylines from the last few decades and has a much bigger, more engaging backstory. Jubilee doesnât tie into any of them and barely even has a personality.
Jubilee wouldâve been another âI shoot stuff out of my handsâ character while Rogue, like I said, actually has powers that demonstrate the drawbacks of being a mutant.
Rogue fit into the relatively dark and brooding team a lot better than Jubilee and her bubblegum and Bret Hart sunglasses would have.
The colorful sparks power?
Jubilee may not have as dark of a backstory as Rogue but her story is still engaging. She is someone who was homeless and had to fend for herself by being a mallrat. How can you accuse Jubilee of having no personality when angst was all there is to film Rogue. Nothing of the strong flirtatious southern bell we all loved from cartoon and comics were present in those films. Even the more interesting things about her like being Mystiqueâs adapted daughter never made itâs way into the films.
In Generation X she has the potential to detonate matter in a sub-atomic level. It could have been something a movie could have run with if they want to use her powers as a plot device.
Again, all the films stripped the characters of the more colorful aspects of their characters. Iceman is one of the brightest characters in X-Men and look at what the films done to him.
Rogue was basically an amalgam of Rogue, Jubilee and a little of Kitty.
Iâd say even the âgothic Rogueâ makes more sense than Rogue being a Southern belle, given the characterâs powers and personal history⌠call it generation gap or anything, but that version of Rogue speaks much more to modern youth than the Superman Rogue from the '80s comics⌠and reflecting whatever happens outside your window is something the X-Men comics were always striving for.
World wasnât ready for that, and also it was not the tone they were looking for the movie. You canât simply have everything from the comics because you can translate a comic book directly to live action movie and make it work.
If they had put that âstrong flirtatious southern belleâ on Rogue it would have been been overlooked as another crappy superhero film from the Superman IV era, for example de JLA pilot movie, or the terrible Generation X pilot.
Not to mention it wouldnât have even been loyal to the comics because she got her Superman powers from a Kree-mutated superheroine. You would have the make the first movie âRogue: Originsâ if you wanted to see that.
Where would have you put that? I liked the small scale level they went with for the character relationships, itâs not like the Marvel comics when it suddenly one character is another oneâs character and everything become more of a family conflict and devoids from the central concept of the film⌠All those movie details can be kind of cool but you first have to make sure thereâs time to breath, and for a first try, X-Men and X2 were not safe bets, in fact it was because of them that superhero movies started to be seen as viable franchises.
They didnât even play with the idea that Nightcrawler was Mystiqueâs son, because many things were happening on X2 and they didnât want to overcrowd the movie, and they did it wisely.
Again, I think they played it wisely in order to be relevant back in 2000, where superhero movies were stigmatized and no one trusted them. And I think the tone they use might be a little removed from the comics, but it can also give birth to some really cool movies, like DoFP, that had a darker and more serious, more social theme and more relevance than the often half-serious but still family friendly Marvel movies⌠not even Winter Soldier could manage that level of drama and awareness we saw in the '70s scenes from DoFP.
Who knows, with this sort of reboot from X-Men: DoFP we could probably see more comic book references thrown into. I still love the X-Men series for what it is and I think itâs a different animal from the comics, that can really create very cool movies if the right person is behind the camera.
Not to nitpick, but wasnât the original X-Men cartoon 92-97 instead of 89? Isnât that where the title âX-Men 92â came from that one thing recently?
Yourâe grossly overestimating how much you can actually fit into one movie. You keep saying the X-Men got watered down and, yeah, they were because they had to be. Xmen wasnât the Avengers where you had a bunch of folks with their own movie series all coming together.