How Bryan Singer's Original 'X-Men' Helped Define Superhero Movies

May 27, 2016

Bryan Singer - X-Men

I'll never forget seeing movies the summer of 2000. I was 11 years old and I was impatiently awaiting this one summer blockbuster that honestly looked unlike anything I had seen before. I remember seeing adverts for the movie in Circuit City. Does anyone remember the original teaser trailer for the film? The tagline teased "Change is coming". I don't think anyone had any idea what that could possibly mean sixteen years later. While Blade and the success of that film made a huge impact just two years earlier, Bryan Singer's X-Men and its sequel X2: X-Men United arguably jump-started and helped define the entire superhero genre as we know it. Let's take a look at how the genre has changed and evolved nearly two decades later.

Before getting into this, check out the teaser trailer for Bryan Singer's original X-Men movie from 2000:

When Bryan Singer's X-Men was unleashed on cinema-goers on July 14th, 2000, it came at a unique time for internet culture – which, to be fair, was still just in the infant stages. In the late 90's and early 00's, internet journalism hadn't quite taken off yet. If you wanted movie news, you had to read Wizard Magazine or one of the movie trades. I remember reading my copy of Wizard in the summer of 1999 where they speculated on the upcoming adaptation of X-Men, talking about who might get cast. As every new issue came out every month, getting updates on the film was sparse. Nowadays, you can follow a film from its announcement all the way to its premiere online without taking a trip to your local Barnes & Noble or comic book store. It's available right at your fingertips. Gone are the days of waiting anxiously for a new piece of information related to any movie. If you want to know something, it's there if you know where to look.

What's more is that studios are making it far easier these days to figure out where you should look for news. In a weird turn of events, 20th Century Fox recently let journalists and bloggers see the newest installment in the franchise, X-Men: Apocalypse, a full two weeks before the film is slated to open. As a fanbase, that's two weeks of speculating, discussing and analyzing if the film will be any good. In the summer of 2000, I just remember seeing a couple of trailers, some previews and pictures before going into the original X-Men. I honestly had no idea what the film was even going to be about. Interesting how times change…

With the times changing, the "superhero movie" has changed, too. I recently re-watched the early X-Men movies in anticipation for Apocalypse – and if you read some of the reviews, one could argue that could be a literal meaning for the franchise itself. What I gleamed from taking a dip into the past is how Singer's first X-Men movie is decidedly spartan in comparison to some of the more recent offerings in the genre. Singer's methodology was somewhat criticized at the time for taking a low-key approach to the world of superheroes but perhaps not surprisingly it worked and has laid the groundwork for every superhero movie to follow. Actors like Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen provided much needed gravitas to their characters and surroundings. If you look at Marvel and all superhero movies today, it's an approach that has been utilized time and time again in order to give said film a certain dramatic gravity among all the superheroics.

X-Men Original

And if we're talking about dramatic gravity, then there's nothing more dramatic and profound than the opening introduction to X-Men – which, in my mind, is one of the best introductions to any superhero movie ever. In that moment, you completely understand Erik Lehnsherr's point-of-view. By giving Erik a sense of human vulnerability, Singer humanized superheroes & super-villains and their actions for anyone that thought they were too out of this world to understand. In Captain America: Civil War, you understand Cap's perspective and you understand Tony's – you even understand where Zemo is coming from – but remember where that started: with a little boy watching his parents being ripped from him in Auschwitz. Erik was not this over-the-top villain who craved world domination - he was just someone who saw the worst of humanity and has never looked back.

Much like the rest of the superhero genre, which has also never looked back, embracing superheroes in such wholehearted ways today makes Singer's movies look almost embarrassingly shy by comparison. Yes, the costumes were black leather in the original X-Men, but they still had a dash of color to lend the characters some individuality. It's an interesting contrast that look to today, where superhero costumes are full of bright, unabashed color. Those choices didn't call attention to themselves – unlike superhero movies of today, which in many ways do. And in sometimes big, bold ways.

If superhero movies today are bold, then Singer's laid back, minimalist approach is unique comparably speaking. Singer might be criticized by fans today – where everything is unquestionably bigger, grander and more epic in scale – but it was an approach that was desperately needed at the time. And it's an approach that might be needed in years to come. You could argue superhero movies are becoming like the X-Men themselves: the more diverse the mutants become, the more grandiose and stranger the movies tend to be. If that is the case, then it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that one of Marvel's strangest characters yet, the aptly titled Doctor Strange, is coming to theaters this November. Without the groundwork that was laid before it, we wouldn't have movies like Doctor Strange or Thor or Guardians of the Galaxy.

However, will we see an inverse reaction to the genre in the years to come? With comic book and superhero movies continue getting bigger and weirder, will they eventually have to revert back to the modest origins found in Singer's X-Men or will things just continue to get a tad stranger? Only time will tell.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

It's difficult to predict what the future might hold for the superhero genre, but I certainly miss the old days of X-Men and X2 which arrived somewhat before our expectations predisposed what we've come to demand in our cinematic superhero tales. There's an impressive simplicity with X2: X-Men United, for example, despite the huge cast of heroes and villains battling each other. Even juggling multiple characters, Singer and his writers orchestrate everything with a certain ease, conducting the chaos in a masterstroke of deft subtlety and nuance. Wolverine's journey might be a tad predictable, but it is unassuming yet masterfully executed. You don't need to have seen his solo efforts to understand what he's after.

In addition, Brian Cox as William Stryker is also arguably one of the best villains in any superhero movie, with motivations clearly defined and a personal vendetta that's easily relatable, sympathetic yet chilling in its own right. Compare Stryker to some of the villains you might find in a modern Marvel movie and he stands considerably taller than the likes of Whiplash or Malekith. I still have no clue what the hell Malekith was after or why Thor was supposed to be intimidated by a Santa's Workshop reject.

The irony is also not lost on me while discussing Singer's austere approach, as the franchise's newest installment, X-Men: Apocalypse, opens nationwide today. The film promises to be the X-Men franchise's biggest and grandest film yet. The film is getting ravaged by some critics online, claiming Singer has "stopped being relevant in a genre he helped create". I'm not here to discuss reviews, as I never let a review sway my anticipation or enjoyment of a film, but it poses an interesting question: In the wake of Apocalypse – a film that ups the ante in almost every way – is Singer's grounded, minimalist approach needed again? There are rumors the next X-Men film will tackle the Dark Phoenix Saga (and hopefully tackle it well this time), a story that is perhaps the most epic and grand X-Men story you might find – a truly out of this world tale. Will Singer continue the series' trajectory of getting bigger & grander (much like Apocalypse himself)?

If that is indeed what the next X-Men movie will be about, will Bryan Singer (or perhaps even someone else) find new ways to interpret the X-Men that helps bring the series back down to Earth?

Time will certainly tell, but I think at some point we are going to look back at what the X-Men series has done time and time again to re-shape the future. In an age of solo movies and crossovers building giant interconnected universes, I believe at some point the superhero genre will implode as any universe does, reverting back to its more unworldly, minimalistic stages that we found in some of Singer's earlier X-outings. It might not reboot itself – as comics tend to do every time they become too convoluted – but I believe at a certain point soon we will be looking at a new age for the superhero genre, that will look back on what great filmmakers like Bryan Singer, Sam Raimi and Christopher Nolan achieved and use those influences as inspirations for reshaping the landscape of superhero movies as we know it.

After all, Singer's X-Men did help define the superhero genre that is flourishing today and something tells me it will continue to help define many other superhero / comic book movies for years to come. What are your thoughts on Singer's original X-Men movies? Did Singer's original creations help define the superhero movie and will they continue to influence the superhero genre? Sound Off!

Find more posts: Discuss, Editorial, Marvel



I remember seeing X-MEN with my dad and thinking it was the coolest thing I had ever seen. Unfortunately, when I recently went back to it, the film was not very good, so yeah, maybe it was the film we needed back then, but nowadays it just can't hang with the break neck speed and precision of MCU films.

DAVIDPD on May 27, 2016


Malekith wanted to return the universe to darkness, where the Dark Elves thrive, and he wanted to use the Aether / Reality Stone to do it. DUH. It's insanely simple, how could you possibly not get it?

DanielShaw on May 27, 2016


How can he see in the darkness ?

tarek on May 27, 2016


With a torch.

Steven on May 27, 2016


;D I "see". He must have a torch factory. Business business.

tarek on May 27, 2016


Because the intentions of the Dark Elves and Malekith were pretty much sidelined for more Loki, not to mention the filmmakers did almost nothing to make them interesting. More work should have been done on the script before production to make room for both instead of having something that's actually relevant to the plot - the reveal of the second Infinity Gem and what it can do - be relegated to a nothing plot to cater to a recently amassed fanbase.

William Coffey on May 27, 2016


This article made me think we have come from: -Oh my god that villain is threatening Peter to reveal his secret identity! To: -Oh my god that intergalactic being is going to collect all 6 infinity stones we have seen in the previous 20 movies and this group of heroes, who have been battling each other because they defer on whether or not the government should control them after a whole city flew up and fell down as a meteorite, will have to stop him! I just remembered the first premise was good enough for an entertaining, well executed movie. You really made me feel nostalgic.

Rubén González Martín on May 28, 2016


I always found these infinity stones cheesy and corny. But hey! they are aiming a certain audience...

tarek on May 28, 2016


I don't mind that kind of plot as long as it's well written, but it's true we have lost the simplicity of the first movies and they're now more and more dependant on an intricate, interconnected universe... I still enjoy most of them but everything has clearly changed a lot

Rubén González Martín on May 29, 2016


But the scale of the threat is irrelevant. A good filmmaker will make you care about Wolverine getting his car keyed! Actually that should be the entire plot of the final Wolverine movie.

bumboclot on Jun 1, 2016


I keep hearing this argument from people about X-men being so important, but I never thought of it that way. When I watched it on opening night I was more or less unimpressed. Other than some great actors as mentioned in the article, the story was pretty lame, and there were a lot of undeveloped characters popping up everywhere. Frankly the X-men franchise started years before Avengers and had so much better source material - as we see with the opening scene involving magneto in Auschwitz - to work with than the Avengers ever did. The movies that pioneered the superhero genre for me were Batman (the one with Keaton and Nicholson) and Spider Man (the first one) because they transformed iconic comic books into MASSIVE box office success. And they were both really great movies even if you never read a comic book in your life! Without those two movies and their profits, no studio would have been willing to invest in the Comic book stuff that followed.

bumboclot on Jun 1, 2016


IDK I think this guy has made one good movie, Usual suspects. Haven't really cared for anything else.

ff on Jun 2, 2016

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram