New Mutants: A possibility?

[Previsionary]

Steve got the chance to sit down with Fox CEO Tom Rothman at CinemaCon in Las Vegas.  While they talked about a number of Fox properties throughout the course of the conversation (look for more updates here on the site soon), we wanted to bring you a tidbit of information that Rothman dropped about a feature film adaptation of a really fun Marvel property: The New Mutants.  Hit the jump to see what he had to say.

...

Steve: I know you guys have like The New Mutants and a lot of characters in the X-Men universe.  Obviously you guys are moving forward on an X-Men sequel, you’re moving forward on Wolverine, do you envision New Mutants or some of these other characters as franchises that the door can be open to?  It does seem to me that the superhero genre is bigger than it’s ever been, and you guys have some of the crown jewels. Rothman: (smiles) Yes.
When can fans expect an announcement on some of these other properties?  Before Comic-Con, after Comic-Con, at Comic-Con?

Rothman:  In the summer.

Are you talking to filmmakers right now?

Rothman: Let me just say this.  All I have to say is, I agree with you in your assessment of the potential in a lot of these characters.

more: http://collider.com/new-mutants-movie-tom-rothman/162192/

[BentonGrey]

Well...I can't say I have much interest in more Fox X-Men films.  I'd rather they stop making them and let Marvel get the rights back.

[GogglesPizanno]

Well...I can't say I have much interest in more Fox X-Men films.  I'd rather they stop making them and let Marvel get the rights back.

And that is exactly WHY they will keep making them.

Also I liked First Class.

I'm still waiting for the Strikeforce Morituri TV show the SciFi (er syfy) channel was gonna make a few years ago. Maybe Fox should trade marvel the X-men rights back for a whole slew of crazy lesser stuff Marvel wants nothing to do with (New Universe anyone?)... THAT could be interesting.

[Cyber Burn]

I wouldn't mind seeing a "Classic New Mutants" film.

[Talavar]

Tom Rothman is an infamous tool (most of the problems with the X-men film franchise can be laid at his feet), so it's possible he's just meaning new mutants (ie, not yet been on film) rather than "New Mutants," Sunspot, Cypher, Magma, et al.  It's not exactly explicit, all he says in that interview is yes, and could easily have misinterpreted the question.  I'll be interested to see just what Fox announces in regards to X-men characters.

[BlueBard]

Well...I can't say I have much interest in more Fox X-Men films.  I'd rather they stop making them and let Marvel get the rights back.

And that is exactly WHY they will keep making them.

Except that if they keep butchering them, fewer people will want to go see them, they'll have to spend more on actors and SFX to pull people in, and they'll lose more and more money.  Eventually they'll have to quit making them.

But as long as Fox and Sony can't touch Iron Man or the Avengers, I'm happy.

[Cyber Burn]

I enjoyed First Class, but I thought it was a bit over-rated. Definitely not the best superhero movie ever. Sorry, but it was a good attempt.

[Talavar]

I enjoyed First Class, but I thought it was a bit over-rated. Definitely not the best superhero movie ever. Sorry, but it was a good attempt.

Who's saying it was the best superhero movie ever?  Because this is the first I'm hearing about that.  It wasn't even the best superhero movie of that summer, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a solid movie.

[Cyber Burn]

I enjoyed First Class, but I thought it was a bit over-rated. Definitely not the best superhero movie ever. Sorry, but it was a good attempt.

Who's saying it was the best superhero movie ever?  Because this is the first I'm hearing about that.  It wasn't even the best superhero movie of that summer, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a solid movie.

Definitely a good movie, I agree with that. But before I saw it, I had family telling me that it was the "Best Superhero Movie" ever made. I just thought it fell short of that in comparison to other movies.

[Tomato]

It's apples and oranges. First Class was made under pretty grueling time restrictions to meat Fox's stupid contractual "make an X-men film every _ years" deadline, whereas CA and Thor were multi-million dollar films with the full might of Marvel Studios and Disney behind them.

[laughing paradox]

I'd rather have a New Mutants animated film, based on the real New Mutants (Cannonball, Magik, Karma, et al.).

I'm pretty certain what they'd consider "New Mutants" here are going to be a hodgepodge of random mutants and have little relation to the original Claremont book.

[BentonGrey]

I'd rather have a New Mutants animated film, based on the real New Mutants (Cannonball, Magik, Karma, et al.).

I'm pretty certain what they'd consider "New Mutants" here are going to be a hodgepodge of random mutants and have little relation to the original Claremont book.

Ditto, LP.  I have actually been thinking that I needed to collect the original New Mutants book, having read the X-Men series that goes alongside it.

[Cyber Burn]

I'd rather have a New Mutants animated film, based on the real New Mutants (Cannonball, Magik, Karma, et al.).

I'm pretty certain what they'd consider "New Mutants" here are going to be a hodgepodge of random mutants and have little relation to the original Claremont book.

Ditto, I would pay to see an animated New Mutants film.

[BWPS]

I enjoyed First Class, but I thought it was a bit over-rated. Definitely not the best superhero movie ever. Sorry, but it was a good attempt.

Who's saying it was the best superhero movie ever?  Because this is the first I'm hearing about that.  It wasn't even the best superhero movie of that summer, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a solid movie.

Me. Yes it was. Solid-ly placed as the best superhero movie ever. (TDK gets a tie because I don't want to bother comparing them for no reason)

As long as Matthew Vaughn and Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy are involved, X-Men FC needs to stay *the* X-Men movies. I want ten or more movies in the series, taking place over the next 40 years with the same actors.

I'm sure Marvel would have done as great as they always do, and maybe kept it closer to what fans of the 80s/90s/animated series plots that we all love. But I know it wouldn't have been as much brain-exploding awesomness as XMFC was. When you know how to make the movie good as a movie and not as a comic-book movie and you make something that is every bit as good as what Claremont did, you're allowed to take liberties with characters and not be forced to adhere to established plotlines. If you're Brett Ratner, you can drink bleach and ammonia.

So if Matthew Vaughn is no longer forced to kinda-sorta make it a prequel to the other movies and he can use all the characters he wants while meanwhile someone else makes hopefully halfway-decent Hugh Jack-Man movies, I'm going to be happy as Clam-Man.

I'm sure they're going to make an X-Men movie at some point in the future that doesn't star Michael Fassbender. I don't know about you but I am definitely not wager to see it anytime soon.

I have no idea what people want to see in a superhero/X-Men movie that First Class didn't deliver.

[Tomato]

Umm... some villains that weren't cardboard cutouts?

Don't get me wrong, I loved first class... it may actually be my favorite of the X-men films in general... but you'd have to use some pretty heavily tinted glasses to see film as the best Superhero film of all time. The characters are often bland and underdeveloped (Most of the villains have less development than side characters in Wolverine Origins. That's pathetic.), the main villain plan was corny, and it's not at all helped by the fact that Fox rushed it into production to satisfy their stupid cinema needs.

Was it a good movie? Absolutely. Do I want them to continue making X-men movies in this vein? Absolutely. Is this film even close to the level fans have come to expect from ANY of the Marvel Studios films? Absolutely not.

[Previsionary]

First Class was acceptable and only acceptable, if we're looking at it objectively. It only got so much praise because A) It was a Fox film and B) people were expecting the worse from it because it was a "reboot" and followed Wolverine/X3. Let's not make more of it than it was. Most of the characters in the movie were completely interchangeable, and that's never a good sign for an ensemble film. Magneto, Xavier, and Mystique, however, were awesome. Here's hoping for improvements when they begin filming First Class 2 in January.

[BWPS]

Umm... some villains that weren't cardboard cutouts?

Don't get me wrong, I loved first class... it may actually be my favorite of the X-men films in general... but you'd have to use some pretty heavily tinted glasses to see film as the best Superhero film of all time. The characters are often bland and underdeveloped (Most of the villains have less development than side characters in Wolverine Origins. That's pathetic.), the main villain plan was corny, and it's not at all helped by the fact that Fox rushed it into production to satisfy their stupid cinema needs.

Was it a good movie? Absolutely. Do I want them to continue making X-men movies in this vein? Absolutely. Is this film even close to the level fans have come to expect from ANY of the Marvel Studios films? Absolutely not.

Villains were there to give Magneto someone to kill as awesomely as mutantly possible. It's not ideal to concentrate on villains too much in a first go at a team movie when you're developing what will be the best villain possible in the future. Yeah, I honestly wish Betty Draper never existed, but Emma Frost is a terrible character anyway. What Marvel Studios movies have had less corny or more developed villains? Red Skull? Whiplash? Loki? Obadiah Stain wasn't even developed enough and they got the best actor to play him. None of those movies suffered. When factoring in Magneto as a villain, XMFC is second ONLY to The Dark Knight for the villain development of Two Face.
Movie was amazing. I watched it a lot of times, I'm an expert.

[Tomato]

So basically what you're saying is, you're choosing to ignore a gigantic, elephant sized flaw in First Class because the villains don't matter in a superhero movie? Because it's not at all possible to do a lot with a character in only a few scenes (for goodness sake man, WOLVERINE developed its characters more than First Class developed it's villains for God's sake. The techno dude who died in the first 20 minutes of THAT film was more fleshed out than Azazel, Emma, or the whirlwind dude, despite all three having at least double the amount of screen time). To say that "they didn't matter" is a cop out, ESPECIALLY since Emma Frost is supposed to be Shaw's right hand woman and because ALL THREE are being carried over into the next film. Much as I love that film, the fact that it couldn't be bothered to develop the villains more than the guys who were killed OFF CAMERA in WOLVERINE is not just some silly little thing to be ignored.

Compare that with what is generally the least favorite Avengers movie among comic fans (I happen to like it more than certain others, but hey, I'm a nerd that way) The Incredible Hulk. Not only do we see actual thought and effort into the characters who the movie is based around (Banner, Betty, General Ross, Emile Blonsky) we even see it in characters who don't really factor into the film that much... Doc Samson has a little mini-arc where he gives Banner's location over but stands up to Gen Ross after seeing his real nature, The Leader has a little mini-origin where he's envious of the Hulk's power. Say whatever else you want about that film, it took the time to develop ALL it's characters, it didn't just throw in characters just to ignore them entirely.

Want another comparison? How about "X-men" itself. Here we have a movie that's even MORE of an introduction that First Class was. Even though the brotherhood members are more or less only there as punching bags for the X-men, each and every one of them is given a distinct personality. Toad is a bit of a smug jerkface who likes messing with Sabertooth, Mystique has issues with humans forcing her to hide her real form (something First Class was able to build off of BTW), Sabertooth is a bit bestial but there are indications of a shared background with Wolverine.

Azazel is supposed to be Nightcrawler's father, something the writers clearly knew when they included him. But there isn't even a single look, a mention of her looks, or ANYTHING shared between him and Mystique the ENTIRE film. Beyond that, We ALL know the major shortcomings of Emma's actress (again, a huge detraction from your "best superhero film" BS) and is there any reason wind dude was put in here other than his powers? And all that is not even going into Angel and her half-a$$ed character arc.

I'm sorry, but I can look at almost any of the Avengers films and find better adaptions of the source material, better characterization, better overall acting, and just plain better FILMS than First Class. It's good, but "Best film of all time" is a statement that blindly ignores the DOZENS of flaws that film has.

My point is, you can sit there and say it's your favorite of the superhero films, and you can say that the film resonated with you in a way none of the other films have done. I can accept... hell, I can relate to that sentiment. I designed not one, not two, but THREE X-men movie skins based upon how much that movie resonated with me, something I haven't done for ANY of the Marvel Studios films. But if you honestly think that First Class, as a FILM, was anywhere NEAR the same league as The Dark Knight, you're lying to yourself as well as to everyone else.

[Previsionary]

BWPS, I can never tell if you're being satirical, intentionally trolling, are just very enthusiastic about your likes, or are genuinely sincere. This mystery is intriguing... to someone else.

*disappears in a flash of blasphemy*

[BWPS]

BWPS, I can never tell if you're being satirical, intentionally trolling, are just very enthusiastic about your likes, or are genuinely sincere. This mystery is intriguing... to someone else.

*disappears in a flash of blasphemy*

I make jokes about everything except superhero movies. I don't know, guys. It's just not registering with me how a movie can be so awesome in every scene, have such great acting, and actually do something original with the characters they were given.

So basically what you're saying is, you're choosing to ignore a gigantic, elephant sized flaw in First Class because the villains don't matter in a superhero movie? Because it's not at all possible to do a lot with a character in only a few scenes (for goodness sake man, WOLVERINE developed its characters more than First Class developed it's villains for God's sake. The techno dude who died in the first 20 minutes of THAT film was more fleshed out than Azazel, Emma, or the whirlwind dude, despite all three having at least double the amount of screen time). To say that "they didn't matter" is a cop out, ESPECIALLY since Emma Frost is supposed to be Shaw's right hand woman and because ALL THREE are being carried over into the next film. Much as I love that film, the fact that it couldn't be bothered to develop the villains more than the guys who were killed OFF CAMERA in WOLVERINE is not just some silly little thing to be ignored.

Compare that with what is generally the least favorite Avengers movie among comic fans (I happen to like it more than certain others, but hey, I'm a nerd that way) The Incredible Hulk. Not only do we see actual thought and effort into the characters who the movie is based around (Banner, Betty, General Ross, Emile Blonsky) we even see it in characters who don't really factor into the film that much... Doc Samson has a little mini-arc where he gives Banner's location over but stands up to Gen Ross after seeing his real nature, The Leader has a little mini-origin where he's envious of the Hulk's power. Say whatever else you want about that film, it took the time to develop ALL it's characters, it didn't just throw in characters just to ignore them entirely.

Want another comparison? How about "X-men" itself. Here we have a movie that's even MORE of an introduction that First Class was. Even though the brotherhood members are more or less only there as punching bags for the X-men, each and every one of them is given a distinct personality. Toad is a bit of a smug jerkface who likes messing with Sabertooth, Mystique has issues with humans forcing her to hide her real form (something First Class was able to build off of BTW), Sabertooth is a bit bestial but there are indications of a shared background with Wolverine.

Azazel is supposed to be Nightcrawler's father, something the writers clearly knew when they included him. But there isn't even a single look, a mention of her looks, or ANYTHING shared between him and Mystique the ENTIRE film. Beyond that, We ALL know the major shortcomings of Emma's actress (again, a huge detraction from your "best superhero film" BS) and is there any reason wind dude was put in here other than his powers? And all that is not even going into Angel and her half-a$$ed character arc.

I'm sorry, but I can look at almost any of the Avengers films and find better adaptions of the source material, better characterization, better overall acting, and just plain better FILMS than First Class. It's good, but "Best film of all time" is a statement that blindly ignores the DOZENS of flaws that film has.

My point is, you can sit there and say it's your favorite of the superhero films, and you can say that the film resonated with you in a way none of the other films have done. I can accept... hell, I can relate to that sentiment. I designed not one, not two, but THREE X-men movie skins based upon how much that movie resonated with me, something I haven't done for ANY of the Marvel Studios films. But if you honestly think that First Class, as a FILM, was anywhere NEAR the same league as The Dark Knight, you're lying to yourself as well as to everyone else.

Nah.