The Professor X/Charles Xavier Thread

[psylockolussus]

One of the most eXposed X-Men characters in the movie. Appearing in X-Men, X2, X-Men: The Last Stand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men: First Class, The Wolverine, X-Men: Days of Future Past, X-Men: Apocalypse, Logan, Deadpool 2, X-Men: Dark PhoeniX and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Do you want to see the Professor again in every X-Men movie again?! Well I don't.

Who will be the MCU Professor X? Or is still Sir Patrick Stewart?

 

[psylockolussus]

'Just Wow!' Marvel Casts Hollywood's Favourite Villain For Role Of X-Men's 'Professor X'

I prefer if they get someone who's in late 40s to early 50s. Though I wouldn't mind much older if the Professor is only in the mcu for few films.

 

[Marvel united]

John David Washington (39) - 'Tenet'



Zachary Quinto (42) - 'Star Trek'

 

[Mutant 77]

About the age of Xavier in the XCM:

On Earth-10005/Earth-TRN414, Charles Xavier was born in 1938, not 1932. He graduated at the university in 1962, when he was 24 years old (according to the credits of First Class).
The first meeting between Charles (12 years old) and Raven (10 years old) occurred in 1950, not 1944. The "1944" timestamp only referred to 14 years old Erik and his tragedy within the concentration camp.


Quite frankly, I think that having Professor X in his fifties would be the best choice for the MCU. Just my opinion.

 

[psylockolussus]

Age wise, late 40s to early 50s would be ideal. Even someone in his 60s as long as they could appear in all Marvel Studios movies he is planned by the studio to appear in.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

outside of a period piece setting or flashback origin stories... I don't really get wanting a young Xavier (like 30s-40s rang) agian... it worked for first class/ maybe even DOFP

in a modern day setting where he's already at the stage of running the school (not first starting the school, not first class) he should be up there in the years even 50-60 range isn't that old for the character (but, that's on more of a case by case bases there are some actors who still are very young and fit looking at that age...) tho, I can understand wanting someone at a younger age for longevity in the role

but, I mean, look at Patrick Stewart, who started the role at 60 and still played the role 22 years later (an if anything given the timeline in those movies, even he was younger then the character was suppose to be)

I don't think 60-70 rang is out of the question

 

[Marvel united]

outside of a period piece setting or flashback origin stories... I don't really get wanting a young Xavier (like 30s-40s rang) agian... it worked for first class/ maybe even DOFP

in a modern day setting where he's already at the stage of running the school (not first starting the school, not first class) he should be up there in the years even 50-60 range isn't that old for the character (but, that's on more of a case by case bases there are some actors who still are very young and fit looking at that age...) tho, I can understand wanting someone at a younger age for longevity in the role

but, I mean, look at Patrick Stewart, who started the role at 60 and still played the role 22 years later (an if anything given the timeline in those movies, even he was younger then the character was suppose to be)

I don't think 60-70 rang is out of the question

The simplest answer to that question is, Xavier was never an elder in the comics... At least not when the character started. He was always in that mid-late 40s, early 50s range.

And I think it's likely that the core X-Men in the MCU will be introduced as they were in the comics, as teens & young adults. So Xavier is naturally not going to be in his 60s-70s.

Plus you'll probably see Stewart reprise the role one last time in Secret Wars, as that elder/sage-like version of Xavier, before they wipe the slate clean, and start again with a fresh version.

 

[psylockolussus]

I can't wait for Sir Patrick Stewart to finally pass the wheels to someone else for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I just hope the new Professor isn't as overeXposed compare to foXverse which has always been the Wolverine and the Professor show (with three other main characters that I wouldn't mention).

 

[Iceman]

I can't wait for Sir Patrick Stewart to finally pass the wheels to someone else for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I just hope the new Professor isn't as overeXposed compare to foXverse which has always been the Wolverine and the Professor show (with three other main characters that I wouldn't mention).

No need for Xavier to be in the field as much as McAvoy’s version. I think he needs a good intro in film 1 and then can be more of a background character supporting and advising the X-Men at the mansion and meeting some government organisations etc.

 

[Marvel united]

I can't wait for Sir Patrick Stewart to finally pass the wheels to someone else for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I just hope the new Professor isn't as overeXposed compare to foXverse which has always been the Wolverine and the Professor show (with three other main characters that I wouldn't mention).

We firmly agree on this. In fact, I'd go a step further, and say I want the Professor to be framed in a slightly* more antagonistic light. We've never had an X-Men movie *about the X-Men; a movie framed strictly from their POV, focused on their journey, and their growth, as a team.

And I want the Professor to slightly be an obstacle to that growth, as he tries to mold them, esp Scott, into what HE wants them to be, as opposed to letting them be who *they wanna be. The X-Men outgrow Xavier's dream.

Xavier is a massive control freak in the comics, and I really want to see them lean into that for the MCU-616 take. We need to get him away from that grandfatherly, sage-like figure of Stewart, and go in a fresh direction.

 

[psylockolussus]

He should join the Illuminati with Namor.

No need for Xavier to be in the field as much as McAvoy’s version. I think he needs a good intro in film 1 and then can be more of a background character supporting and advising the X-Men at the mansion and meeting some government organisations etc.

A trilogy for the Professor should be the lìmit. There's about 20 other X-Men and a couple of breakout characters I want to see get eXplored in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

 

[Mutant 77]

No need for Xavier to be in the field as much as McAvoy’s version. I think he needs a good intro in film 1 and then can be more of a background character supporting and advising the X-Men at the mansion and meeting some government organisations etc.

I'm fine with this. We already had a more prominent Xavier in the XCM (he was also an X-Man).

In the MCU, I just wanna see the origins of Xavier and his journey towards the creation of the X-Men.

 

[Mutant 77]

I can't wait for Sir Patrick Stewart to finally pass the wheels to someone else for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I just hope the new Professor isn't as overeXposed compare to foXverse which has always been the Wolverine and the Professor show (with three other main characters that I wouldn't mention).

Professor X
Wolverine
Magneto
Jean Grey
Mystique
Beast

Cyclops and Storm as the "symbols" of the X-Men.

 

[psylockolussus]

Professor X
Wolverine
Magneto
Jean Grey
Mystique
Beast

Cyclops and Storm as the "symbols" of the X-Men.

The main characters of foXverse are

The Wolverine
The Professor
Magneto
Mystique
Deadpool

You could basically group First Class/DOFP/Apocalypse/Dark PhoeniX as Charles/Erik/Raven quadrilogy, while X1/2/3/DOFP/Logan as Wolverine and the Professor with the X-Men petralogy. While Deadpool gets to continue his 3rd FoXverse solo movie and Hugh Jackman gets to join him...

Beast was nothing more than a supporting character in the five films he appeared in. While Jean got her biggest role in Dark PhoeniX but it was still heavily continuing the story arc of Erik/Xavier/Raven.

Now this should change when Marvel Studios gets to finally introduce 616 X-Men, but right now they already brought back 3 out of the 5 main characters/cast members of foXverse...

 

[Mutant 77]

No, not at all.

Jean Grey was a main character in X1, X2, TLS, Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix.
Beast was 100% a main character, deeply connected to Charles and Raven.

Deadpool belongs to an alternate universe.

As simple as that, now we're ready for a Cyclops/Storm-centered X-Men movie saga for sure.

 

[psylockolussus]

Thats your interpretation of things. There's no way Beast was a main character when he always played second fiddle to Xavier and Erik. While his love interest with Raven was only a side story arc in the movies.

X1 was mostly Logan, Rogue, the Professor and Erik. Even the Senator played a bigger role than Jean.
Then X2 was mostly Logan, the Professor, Erik and Stryker. Jean played 2nd fiddle to those men, it was only to the climaX that she sorta became a main character. But that was just at the end of the film. In X3, she played fiddle to Erik and Logan when that film should have been hers. Apocalypse was Apocalypse, Xavier, Erik and Raven.

 

[Mutant 77]

Thats your interpretation of things. There's no way Beast was a main character when he always played second fiddle to Xavier and Erik. While his love interest with Raven was only a side story arc in the movies.

Then X2 was mostly Logan, the Professor, Erik and Stryker. Jean played 2nd fiddle to those men, it was only to the climaX that she sorta became a main character. But that was just at the end of the film. In X3, she played fiddle to Erik and Logan when that film should have been hers. Apocalypse was Apocalypse, Xavier, Erik and Raven.

This is your interpretation of things, of course.

We cannot have a Beast-centered movie, that would be madness. There should be an X-Men TV SERIES focusing on many minor/not prominent members, but you can't got that same perspective for a 2-hour movie!
BEAST had a lot of space in the Beginnings saga, as well as Dark Phoenix. His character-arc was compelling, and in Days of Future Past he was definitely one of the LEADS. That's undeniable.

Jean Grey had enough space in X2 and X3, she was one of the main characters for sure. I repeat it, we need a TV series working in synergy with the movies.

Apocalypse was:

Professor X
Apocalypse
Magneto
Mystique
Cyclops
Phoenix
Beast

As each X-Men comic book out there, it's a team story, not a solo story. That's it.

 

[psylockolussus]

Nobody said about a Beast movie. If you think Beast was a major characters in foXverse, then I'll just disagree to agree.

 

[Mutant 77]

Nobody said about a Beast movie. If you think Beast was a major characters in foXverse, then I'll just disagree to agree.

You're entitled to your opinion. No problem.

 

[Marvel united]

This is your interpretation of things, of course.

We cannot have a Beast-centered movie, that would be madness. There should be an X-Men TV SERIES focusing on many minor/not prominent members, but you can't got that same perspective for a 2-hour movie!
BEAST had a lot of space in the Beginnings saga, as well as Dark Phoenix. His character-arc was compelling, and in Days of Future Past he was definitely one of the LEADS. That's undeniable.

Jean Grey had enough space in X2 and X3, she was one of the main characters for sure. I repeat it, we need a TV series working in synergy with the movies.

Apocalypse was:

Professor X
Apocalypse
Magneto
Mystique
Cyclops
Phoenix
Beast

As each X-Men comic book out there, it's a team story, not a solo story. That's it.

Beast only had a character arc in First Class. After that movie, his development was regressed, and he spent the next 3 films just awkwardly being present, never doing anything, developing, or meaningfully contributing... Anything. He was just simply.... There, I guess because Singer liked the look of the character.

Logan was the main character of the OT, and every character, esp Jean, was framed his POV, which is the only lense we ever view her through. Narratively, she's a supporting character in X1 & X2, and the object of the plot in X3-- which is less about *her, and more so about the conflict her transformation induces between different characters e.g. Logan, Charles, Erik etc who are our actual leads.

The same is true of Dark Phoenix, although to a lesser extent, because Jean is our POV. But still, the writers try to anchor the emotional conflict between Charles & Erik, because Jean herself is an underdeveloped character, that audiences have no investment in.

Which is why the movie doesn't really feel like her story, even tho, narratively, she is the POV.

 

[Mutant 77]

Beast only had a character arc in First Class. After that movie, his development was regressed, and he spent the next 3 films just awkwardly being present.

No way.

BEAST was a lead character in DOFP, and he saved the day in many ways. He was "boosting" the plot forward and walking the path all the time. He had a final fight, action-wise. In Apocalypse, he was the soul and the heart of the X-Men, he was pushing for the project to exist in the very first place, and he also had a final fight at the end. In Dark Phoenix, devastated by Raven's death, he left the X-Men and joined the Brotherhood. There was turmoil and deepth inside him, at that point.
Sorry, he had a character-arc (related to his acceptance of his mutation/new body as well as his relinquished love for Raven), and was a pivotal member of the X-Men as well as Xavier's best friend/guardian angel.

Logan was the main character of the OT, and every character, esp Jean, was framed his POV, which is the only lense we ever view her through. Narratively, she's a supporting character in X1 & X2, and the object of the plot in X3-- which is less about *her, and more so about the conflict her transformation induces between different characters e.g. Logan, Charles, Erik etc who are our actual leads.

Logan was the POV, our "Alice" in the Wonderland. It was his journey. When you're dealing with a movie, you need that --- you can have different POVs with a TV series (see Doom Patrol). Otherwise, you need one single POV in your movie saga.
That said, Jean Grey was a much compelling character in X2, and the movie was so memorable even because her.

because Jean herself is an underdeveloped character, that audiences have no investment in.

She's not underveloped at all, but a deep character. Sophie did a fantastic job. Unfortunately, Dark Phoenix was trimmed into one movie, but it was originally supposed to be a 2 part story. They (the studio) botched the plan.
About the investment, that's not true. Sophie is Famke. They are the same character. It's one long story, despite the time travel. You must see the grand scheme of things with the Fox X-Men.

 

[Marvel united]

No way.

BEAST was a lead character in DOFP, and he saved the day in many ways. He was "boosting" the plot forward and walking the path all the time. He had a final fight, action-wise. In Apocalypse, he was the soul and the heart of the X-Men, he was pushing for the project to exist in the very first place, and he also had a final fight at the end.

Yeah, and that's really all he did. Beast didn't do anything of note in either DOFP or Apocalypse, besides fight Erik, and Apocalypse again, the character didn't contribute anything, besides be present. You could take Hank out of both of these movies, and not much would change.

In Dark Phoenix, devastated by Raven's death, he left the X-Men and joined the Brotherhood. There was turmoil and deepth inside him, at that point.

Which felt artificially construed. Hank's relationship with Raven never developed into a romance, yet the movie pretends that they were even more than that. They had one-off fling 30 years ago (in the movie's timeline) that never went anywhere.

Sorry, he had a character-arc (related to his acceptance of his mutation/new body as well as his relinquished love for Raven), and was a pivotal member of the X-Men as well as Xavier's best friend/guardian angel.

Yes, in First Class. Hank had a great arc about learning to not be ashamed of who he is, to "come out of the closet" if you will. And instead of building on that on in DOFP, Singer goes the opposite route, and *literally regresses his character development, by forcing him back into the closet, pretending to be human.

The character never recovered from this IMO.

Logan was the POV, our "Alice" in the Wonderland. It was his journey. When you're dealing with a movie, you need that --- you can have different POVs with a TV series (see Doom Patrol). Otherwise, you need one single POV in your movie saga.

You're not wrong. But this is why you have to choose the POV carefully. Who you choose to anchor the story from, can inform almost everything about the movie, from tone, to conflict, and esp to the presentation of other characters-- because we are seeing the world of the film from that character's eyes.

That said, Jean Grey was a much compelling character in X2, and the movie was so memorable even because her.

More so because of what she does in the movie's climax, and not because of who she is, or what we know about her, which is very little. Jean isn't really developed in X1-X2. What are her wants, her needs, her goals, her dreams, and her fears? What was her childhood like, why is she an X-Man, how does she see the world, and why does she see it that way etc. We never learn these things.

From a narrative perspective, the only reason we're given to care about/invest in Jean, is because Logan cares about Jean, and Logan is our surrogate, as well as our protagonist. And this absolutely works for the story they are telling.

Similarly, Cyclops is *never developed as a character, and only exists to be an obstacle to Logan's want, which is Jean. That's his purpose.

She's not underveloped at all, but a deep character. Sophie did a fantastic job. Unfortunately, Dark Phoenix was trimmed into one movie, but it was originally supposed to be a 2 part story. They (the studio) botched the plan.
About the investment, that's not true. Sophie is Famke. They are the same character. It's one long story, despite the time travel. You must see the grand scheme of things with the Fox X-Men.

Really? What do we learn about Jean in Apocalypse, aside from the fact that she's a telepath? What do we learn about her wants, her needs, and her flaws? These are just the basic tenets of character development, and we're never given anything more than the basic outline of her.

So when it comes time to do Dark Phoenix, the writers have a blank canvas of a character, having to establish all of these things for the first time, because they didn't do it in Apocalypse.

And this time, there's no Logan to tether this Jean to, emotionally, so she just feels hollow.

 

[Mutant 77]

Yeah, and that's really all he did. Beast didn't do anything of note in either DOFP or Apocalypse, besides fight Erik, and Apocalypse .

Again, in DOFP Beast was the guardian angel of Xavier, his emotional and mental anchor to reality. Plus, he was the scientist and served the plot well. He explained the time travel mechanisms to Xavier and Logan.
At last (but not least), he was emotionally connected to Raven (and vice versa).
He was a pivotal character in DOFP and an important character in Apocalypse.
He was a fantastic character in all 5 X-Men movies which he starred in.

Which felt artificially construed. Hank's relationship with Raven never developed into a romance

Not a chance. Everyone can relate to Beast, because everyone loved a person who doesn't reciprocate or doesn't want to develop his/her feelings for you. That's a great theme, and it was depicted beautifully throughout the movies.

And instead of building on that on in DOFP, Singer goes the opposite route, and *literally regresses his character development, by forcing him back into the closet, pretending to be human.

Hank MOSTLY returned to his human form to help Xavier, who was alone and vulnerable. Hank was Xavier's "bridge" towards human race. His character-arc wasn't complete in First Class at all, however. He had still a lot to learn. He turned into the Feline Form accidentally (it was a vanity mistake), and he was still coping with his errors. Plus, he had no special serum yet, so at the end of First Class he had no other choice to be Beast. Singer and Kinberg conceived the special serum as "Eve's apple" for Hank, in order to give him a choice, and develop the character from that point onward. It was a brilliant story direction!
In Dark Phoenix, he definitely came to terms with that forever and chose to be Beast 24h. Raven's sacrifice was the ultimate lesson to learn for him.

You're not wrong. But this is why you have to choose the POV carefully.

Wolverine is a magnificent character. He was the right choice at the time. At the time...

What was her childhood like, why is she an X-Man, how does she see the world, and why does she see it that way etc. We never learn these things.

You need a TV series. Even Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver were mysterious characters in Avengers 2. You needed a TV series for that, and you got it later.
You can say the same for Iron Man in IM1. Or Hulk in all the movies so far.
That said, Famke was marvellous, and X2 made her a compelling figure. That's for sure. She was very intense and fascinating throughout the movie, and her humanity was evident in all her scenes, especially at the end of the movie.

Really? What do we learn about Jean in Apocalypse, aside from the fact that she's a telepath? What do we learn about her wants, her needs, and her flaws? These are just the basic tenets of character development, and we're never given anything more than the basic outline of her.

The encounter between Jean and Wolverine in Apocalypse was very poetic. The final fight showed her soul and spirit, not only her immense power. She was the "mother figure" of the X-Men in that early phase, while the team was forming and Xavier wasn't there. Even more than Mystique, who was basically the mind and the mentor.

Sophie is Famke. You're already emotionally invested into her.
That said, you discover her origins in Dark Phoenix. Dark Phoenix is a wonderful movie, where Sophie delivered the best. Her character arc within the movie was astonishing, despite not having the benefit of the original 2 part configuration.

All the X-Men movies were masterpieces, where you got the maximum amount of storytelling and character development into the minimum amount of sequences. That's pure magic.
I agree that Cyclops was underdeveloped in the original trilogy, but that changed in the Beginnings saga. X-Men movies need an accompanying TV series which works in tandem with the movies. There's no other way. The Fox X-Men movies did miracles, without a TV series to back them up.

Here we go. I think you got a different perspective. Let's return to the main topic: MCU Xavier.

 

[psylockolussus]

After being killed in Multiverse in Madness, i wonder if they'd bring back another Xavier variant that is played by Sir Patrick Stewart? It would be a miss opportunity if they don't include him in Avengers: Secret Wars - if plenty of pre Mcu Marvel actors are back.

 

[Mutant 77]

After being killed in Multiverse in Madness, i wonder if they'd bring back another Xavier variant that is played by Sir Patrick Stewart? It would be a miss opportunity if they don't include him in Avengers: Secret Wars - if plenty of pre Mcu Marvel actors are back.

What about James?