...including Spider-man, apparently.

If this is actually true, I suppose it could be simply a progression of the "what good are rules?" attitude that has served the current editorial team pretty well. They've had a big increase in Avengers sales by ignoring long-held beliefs about what characters make up that team. I'm not any kind of long-time X-men reader (or even current Marvel reader) so it certainly doesn't bother me. Admittedly though, I still think of Bendis' Avengers as less "real" than the classic Avengers, and I would suspect X-men fans would feel the same way about the random additions to their favorite team.

The cynical part of me, however, can't help but wonder if this is driven by movie deals. Maybe not explicitly, but still... Marvel/Disney essentially gets pennies on the dollar for most of their movie franchises... Spider-man, X-men, The Fantastic Four, etc. are all set up and owned in perpetuity by other studios. As long as those studios keep churning out movies based on the properties, they retain the rights to them. So essentially, Disney is never going to get the chance to make money off of X-men films, or Spider-man (outside of merchandise and publishing, certainly nothing to be sneezed at, but still). At least, not until other studios have run them into the ground enough to not even bother continuing them.

Is it really a surprise that since these deals have been in place, Marvel has focused on making the Avengers it's premiere title? That is the largest franchise they own in which they retain all the movie rights. I had long been wondering if the X-men, the former crown jewel of Marvel's franchises in sales, had been permanently relegated to the backseat because the profit that it could bring in was capped. Nearly all movie money from Wolverine films, or Deadpool films, or any number of X-men spin offs will go to Fox and not Disney. As a business model, it just didn't make sense for Marvel/Disney to focus their resources on putting that book back on top.

How to change that? Any new character created for the X-men would presumably go towards the Fox deal, or at best be unusable by Disney as-is for a film spin off. (I suspect Marvel isn't allowed to put out other films capitalizing on the concept of mutants, whether Fox has rights to the characters or not.)

Ah, but what if they stocked the X-men with non-mutant characters that Marvel still owned all rights to? I believe "Blade" movie rights are back with Marvel... lo and behold, he's now an X-man. That new She-Hulk? An X-man. Throwing Spidey on the team doesn't give them a spin-off option (Sony owns his rights) but it does make the new, random X-men a big deal well outside the usual comics audience. People with no understanding of the Marvel Universe can grasp the idea of Spider-man joining the X-men, and now you're bringing in new readers. You're also reigniting interest in Blade. Also possibly introducing a few other non-mutants to people, thus raising their value for possible future movies.

So maybe we can expect the Marvel Universe to get more homogeneous as a whole. Then, if X-men or Fantastic Four or Spider-man comics catch a new wave of popularity, there are characters within those comics that can be spun into money-making movie franchises for Marvel. Putting the X-men back on top doesn't hurt so much when it increases the value of characters still in Marvel's pockets.

Like I said, this is probably cynical thinking, and there was likely no overt plan along these lines... But I can't help but believe that it's a direction that the company as a whole would be encouraged to go.

Before he was an Avenger, I think Spider-Man would have fit the "protecting a world that fears and hates them" schtick of the team pretty well.




I think that adding this many non-mutants is a gimmick for one story arc. I really can't see Spider-Man joining the X-Men and serving on the Avengers. I realize Wolverine does it, but he's a full-time superhero; Spider-Man is supposed to be the everyman trying to hold down a private life and job.







That's really quite the theory that makes a lot of sense. I try not to be cynical like that but I think you have probably nailed it on the head here.




I can't see Marvel giving up the rights to every new character to put an X on their shirt in perpetuity though. I would imagine there is a pretty structured list of exactly who was included in the original deal, and at this point I'm sure Marvel wouldn't be adding any more characters to the list.

I agree though that Marvel probably isn't allowed to use mutants as they are in their own films, which is a shame since it might have been nice to see Pietro and Wanda join up and cause some mutant controversy in the Avengers sequel (though I guess you could just make them reformed criminals and that would get controversy going).




I also have to wonder if putting Blade on the X-Men is a way to try and catch on to all of the Twilight-inspired vampire craze, putting Blade front and center much more than he'd be on any other title (other than maybe the Avengers).







I think you really could be onto something here, actually.

In pure story-telling terms, I always felt that the X-Men should have had the occasional non-mutant member in the line-up. They want to be accepted by the outside world, but don't allow "regular" superhumans into their club.

The Avengers have always welcomed mutants onto the team, so why not have some non-mutants with the X-Men? If you want to be accepted by the outside world you have to allow the outside world in. Having someone like the Thing on the roster for a little while would do wonders for the mutant cause; the Thing looks different from regular humans, IS different from regular humans, but is loved pretty universally. He would bring a real positive image spin to the X-Men.

Of course then you get into the whole "token human" argument I suppose and it's the Falcon and Gyrich all over again.

~Hat~

I agree... Didn't Marvel have a subplot where people believed he actually was a mutant for a while?





I'd say you were right, but then logic doesn't seem to have much sway over Marvel's story decisions these days. I personally still think having him on the Avengers is a tortured premise, considering how much of that time they've had the Avengers be "outlaws". In the times that they weren't outlaws, Spider-man got so messed up living famous and happy that they essentially had to reboot the character.

You can either be the indie-rock guy playing seedy bars, or you can be the headliner at stadium concerts. You really can't be both.

In any event, I have no idea where the X-men are even based anymore. I find it hard to imagine Peter going to hang out with them regularly though...





As much as I'd love to see Pietro and Wanda in an Avengers film, I would have to imagine they're tied up with the X-men franchise unless they were specifically withheld. They premiered in X-men, and have been at least recurring characters on every X-men TV series made since that original one. I'd like to think that Marvel was smart enough to keep them in reserve, but considering how much they gave up in that deal I can't really bring myself to count on it.

Oddly enough, Rogue premiered in the Avengers, and Mystique in Ms. Marvel, so maybe the deal did go character by character.





Personally, I'm rather shocked that nobody has leaped to skewer the Twilight trend with either a Blade or a Buffy movie. There was talk of that one Buffy movie being made without Whedon or any of the cast, but that seemed more like an effort to specifically do another vampire love story.

I did hear Wesley Snipes was talking about Blade recently...





I think there are plenty of non-mutant characters that would not only make sense but make for some good stories if they were to have an extended stay on an X-men line-up. Naturally, the Vision could fit in with both his history of persecution and the fact that Magneto was his father-in-law... Emotionally, he's tied to that world already. The Thing suggestion was also a good fit... it's hard to go from a bigger celebrity position than on the Fantastic Four to the other end of the spectrum.

I never read those comics where that mutant team stayed in Asgard for a while... Was that New Mutants? Whatever... I think there's a lot of potential in widening the focus of the X-men books. I just think this one smacks of a stunt at best...

I do think the main reason for it is marvel saying "Hey, tossing a bunch of random high profile characters in there worked on Avengers..."

...the least literal reading of these ads suggests that Marvel's trying to make the X-Books part of the larger Marvel Universe again, while the most literal is actually having non-mutant heroes join the team. But the X-Books have been broken since House of M took away the entire reason for the team's existence, and they've only gotten more absurd since.

The notion editorial had that cutting down the mutant population would make the concept more special might have worked if

A.) they'd cut down the number to one greater than an average Facebook fan page ( as Paul O'Brien put it )
B.) they'd not had every remaining mutant congregate in a refugee camp, giving the book a cast of 198 characters
C.) they hadn't wasted the repowering story by putting us on the third consecutive wild goose chase for the Messiah Child, and
D.) they hadn't made the X-Men act like isolationist extremists, to the point where Magneto joining the team without having made another big personality 180 is a sadly logical development

Basically, I'm not holding my breath, and at least Blade as an X-Man is an amusing prospect based on how ridiculous it is, so....why the hell not.

Also, this would explain why the Thing is rejoining the Avengers along with Spidey, & Wolvie.

So a mixed bag everywhere. Huh. Different.

I think those non mutants arn't joining or if they are, for a short time. Still, kinda makes me want to buy a Marvel Legends Blade.

Hmm... tempting...