New ‘X-Men: First Class’ Clip, Featurette & Cast Interviews

Published 4 years ago by , Updated March 3rd, 2014 at 7:06 am,

xmen first class young mystique charles xavier New X Men: First Class Clip, Featurette & Cast Interviews

Matthew Vaughn’s X-Men prequel/reboot X-Men: First Class is just a week away from theaters, and FOX is (finally) kicking the promotional campaign for the film into high gear. Along with Vaughn talking about the First Class sequel, a new clip from the film has debuted online, featuring the first meeting between Charles Xavier and Mystique.

In addition to the new clip, we have several video interviews with the cast and director of X-Men: First Class, plus a new “sneak-peek” featurette for the film. It’s a good time to be a X-Men fan.

If you’ve been checking out the First Class character trailers then you’ll remember a Mystique trailer which featured a brief glimpse of a young Charles Xavier meeting a young Raven Darkholme (Mystique’s real name). That scene raised a lot of questions – and a little ire, since it’s not part of X-Men comic lore.  The most prominent question was how, exactly,  Mystique ages in the film, since the older-younger version of the character is being portrayed by Jennifer Lawrence (The Hunger Games) – an actress over a decade younger than James McAvoy, who is playing the older-younger of Charles Xavier.

The clip we have today fleshes out the scene in which young Charles and young Mystique meet, and certainly addresses that question of Mystique and aging (only watch if you want to know):

Xavier Meets Mystique

Matthew Vaughn’s attention to details such as these (Mystique and aging) were noted in a number of the X-Men: First Class early reviews that appeared online recently. It’s also good to see that he isn’t wasting time on these sorts of details, but is rather incorporating them into the film with a matter-of-factness that really establishes the world of X-Men, strange mutant powers and all. As good as Singer’s films were, one thing that always felt slightly off was the way that they treated every use of mutant power as a “big deal” effects moment. It should be interesting to see an X-Men movie that treats the characters’ powers more nonchalantly.

Now that you’ve seen the clip, kick back and enjoy this plethora of X-Men: First Class promotional goodies (All SPOILER-FREE) – including a new sneak peek ad for the film, as well sa video interviews with director Matthew Vaughn and stars James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender (Magneto), January Jones (Emma Frost), and producer Bryan Singer.







We’ll have our own cast interviews and official review of the film coming soon, so be sure to check back for that. In the meantime, tell us what you think: is Matthew Vaughn bringing something new and refreshing to the X-Men movie franchise?

X-Men: First Class will be in theaters on June 3rd.

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Ok, January Jones…. Just don’t talk. Just be hot.

    • haha

  2. Darwin turning it stone? Judging by the trailer, it didnt look automatic like in the comics… Thats the biggest reason that i am cautious abut this movie… Otherwise it looks promising, cant wait to see it…

  3. Ugh, that looks terrible. The acting of the little kids.

    • Yeah, too bad that there aren´t any kids with 20 years of acting experience, huh?

      • hilarious!!! lol

      • You know I would agree with you except there are kids who CAN act. It isn’t always about having extensive acting experience 😉

      • hahahahaha now thats funny

    • Well I thought they were cute, stop being so mean Mister Bill. haha

  4. Don´t like

  5. Raven’s blue coloration represents skin and not cloth.

    I was very shocked when I saw the first trailer that showed young Mystique essentially topless. I thought that that was horrible enough.

    Now this trailer shows that they also made her bottomless and in effect devoid of clothing. That’s very tasteless and disgusting. It is a little girl!

    I have asked this before after an article on Sucker Punch: What is on the minds of these producers/directors? Why are they so intrigued by conceptualizing young females in this way? This is borderline pedophilic.

    It also raises the question as to when Mystique becomes self-conscious of her appearance as a blue mutant. It would make more sense that she would have started becoming self-conscious before she meet Xavier, and not after. As such, wouldn’t she have reverted back with some clothes on, and allowed only her face, arms and legs to be blue and bare? Especially since this is the first time she meets Xavier? This only contributes to the fact that the producers/directors wanted to show a young girl in this manner.

    Females always seem to be objectified in film/tv even if it is in a minor way. Why is it allowed so freely? Take a look at the Xmen in their yellow and blue suits standing in a line in the hanger. Some have variations to their suits: Banshee’s suit is customized to help him fly/glide, Havok’s suit is tweaked with the device to help him direct his power, and Mystique’s suit is zipped halfway down to show her chest because it has something to do with her power.

    • self conscious? Maybe she wasn’t trained to be ashamed of her body! This is not pedophilia because there is nothing sexual about it. Her scales are covering up her nipples (OMG! nipples runnn!) and the other parts of her are covered up regardless of what you call them. But they are naturally covered up the private areas. Now if they showed genitals or nipples (OMG NIPPLES!! is that a nipple??) then I’d be alil closer to what you were saying. But the kid is covered up, the Rebecca Romain was also covered up. She had make up and prosthetics over her. Now if you find something wrong with that, then you definitely need to look at other mediums cause this happens a lot. It’s covered period.

      We have a true sickness in this country, when someone’s body is something to be ashamed of, and you cannot see or hear about nudity at all. The human body does not have to be associated with sex, or anything like that. As an artist myself, I see people of all ages nude and I draw them, and it’s nothing that they should be ashamed of. Human beings, men or female are naturally beautiful in all shapes and sizes. The human body is not innately EVIL nor is it BAD, it is not SINFUL. If you think it is, don’t watch the movie. Boycott it.

      I think in the X-men movie Mystique is about not having to hide or shun herself for humanity. She knows she’s a freak and she is at first ashamed of it, but then she rebels against it totally. That’s my take on her. She wants to help create a world where we don’t have to hide who we really are cause of another’s limited perceptions.

      • The human body is nothing to be ashamed of, it is not sinful, bad or evil, but it is something to be respected. When we lose respect for things, then they become devalued and become prone to misuse purposefully or inadvertently. How many people pick up a picture of women or a guy and then abuse it for their own satisfaction. Sometimes, it is a good idea to look beyond they way you would handle something, and think about how others who may not be as refined or as mature as you may be, will handle the same thing.

        It doesn’t matter that we do not see exposed privates just because it is covered by prosthetics, we see her shape and we know where everything is supposed to be. And just because something happens a lot, does mean that it is the correct thing. Keep in mind that nature tends towards disorder, we as intellectual beings should provide structure, otherwise things will only get worse. You would probably ask how, and I would answer: think about it.

        Now I wonder what was the reason why you have to respond childishly with your repeated “OMG Nipples” statement? Is it because you take a women’s privates as nothing more than things. I do not. I have a wife and kids, and I work in the hospital taking care if people of all ages. I see male and female bodies everyday, and many times I have to convince someone that removing an article of clothing in a respectful manner is necessary for examation or tests. I do not think it is necessary for the young Mystique not to have any clothes on. And I’m sure you cannot give me any reasons why it is necessary, beyond “OMG Nipples”.

        “She wants to help create a world where we don’t have to hide who we really are cause of another’s limited perceptions”. Of course she that is her intention, but it has to do with the fact that she is a mutant, not because she is a woman. In life your either a male or a female, and being a female is not a abnormality and nothing to be ashamed of. The mutation that Mystique is ashamed of can be likened to diseases, disorders, malformations and normal biological differences that exist and lead some people to be self-conscious.

        Anyways, you missed a point that I was making. And that is it is male producers/directors dressing up females, even little girls, the way they want them to look.

        • *Just because something happens a lot, does not mean it is the correct thing.

        • what are nipples?

        • “How many people pick up a picture of women or a guy and then abuse it for their own satisfaction.”

          Oh, your one of those people. Not the place for this discussion, but just so you know, it doesnt send you blind or make you grow hair on the palms of your hands.

          • Wow. I cite my wife, kids and the patients I take care of as the source of my concern and you reply “Oh, your one of those people”.

            • my comment was aimed at a specific part of your rant. and yes, you are one of those people who feel all sexual feelings should be repressed. sexual abuse and disoreders should never be taken lightly or diregarded but you obviously consider the scene with the young mystique as a sexual image, which it clearly isnt.

    • It’s BLUE SCALES!!!!! You act like it’s child porn or something!!! In real life, I assure you, they are blue pants, relax. Jeez!!! Girls are girls and boys are boys. If you see little boys playing in the rain in their underwear on some dramatic movie like ‘TREE OF LIFE’ you say nothing. Hypocrite! Get over it! Don’t see the movie if offends you that much. Send the message to Hollywood’s wallet, I promise it will be more effective than this blog. Take pride in knowing you have a large hand in the reason why women are legally not allowed to go topless. Good day.

      • “It’s BLUE SCALES!!!!!” There is no need to yell. I was hoping to avoid a response like yours, and so I prefaced my original post with: “Raven’s blue coloration represents skin and not cloth”. But that did not deter you, did it? LOL. You still went on your illogical rant, just spewing out whatever came to mind.

        I have not watched “Tree of Life”. But having little boys and even little girls in their underwear playing in the rain is very different than painting a girl nude even if she is blue. You do realize that the actress represents a little mutant girl who is nude? You do under film don’t you? As a medium that you can bring stories and imagination to life.

        I never said this was child porn. I said this was a projection of one fantasies through another person in the legal form of film, and as such it is terrible. There are many mentally disturbed individuals in the world, and it our responsibility to protect our children even if it is initially from filmmakers. Would it have been so hard for her to have some clothes?

        Eddie, do you want women walking around topless?

        • Doesn’t Mystique create the appearance of clothing from her skin, so in effect she is always naked even when “wearing” clothes? If she wore actual clothes then they wouldn’t change when she changes forms, thus negating her abilty to adapt at will.

          Does that make sense?

          • That makes sense and I agree with your point since Mystique is shifting the formation of her cells. That’s why I made sure to mention in my initial post that it also seems contradictory that Mystique who is ashamed of her appearance wouldn’t create any clothes to partially hide behind when she reverted back to her normal appearance in front of someone she just met.

            The scenes of Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique, that we have seen in trailers, have shown her both shape-shifting under real clothes and with the creation of her own biological clothes.

            Anyway, I was under the impression that in the comics, unless changes have been made since the first Xmen film, Mystique always shape-shifted with clothes.

            • I’m not that familiar with the x-men comics, but I assume that since alot of kids read (or did read)those comics she would have shifted with some form of clothing, if memory serves it was a short sleeve-less white dress.

            • “Do you want women walking around topless?”

              Is that a trick question?

            • You know it is people like you that contribute to the ridiculous panic over pedophilia, that results in innocent parents being arrested for taking pictures of their kids in the bathtub? That’s what happens when we let common sense be overtaken by hysteria, over-reacting and general irrationality.

              Even if she was stark naked without the blue paint- so what? What is so evil about a naked child? Any parent with daughters has seen a little girl naked before. What’s the big deal?

  6. Boy…one has to wonder at the lenghts one will go to pick the nits. If your so outraged by this IMAGINARY CHARACTER, I suggest you don’t watch the film…cripes! Maybe your outrage is a reflection of your own “guilty pleasures”, but please spare us the editorializing. Its ony a movie, and you have the choice to ignore it…sort of like the Venus di milo or the David…interpretation is 99% directed by ones own views and remorse. If they are free of those resraints, its called ART.

    • What lengths did I go to? I did not analyze anything more than one small portion of a short clip.

      “…IMAGINARY CHARACTER…”. You know, many things in this world are born from imagination, and many people constantly live in a world supplanted by their imaginations.

      My “guilty pleasures”; no it is not! When you have seen people, including young boys and girls, who have been victims of a sexual assault, and have to examine and/or take care of them, then you would understand my outrage and concern.

      Interpretation is also directed by experience.

      “If they are free of those resraints, its called ART”. Really? Art is only for people free of restraints? That is dangerous declaration. Some people veiw murder as a form of art, do you agree?

      • I think it is simply a case if in-movie logic. Mystique makes clothes from her skin, so she is always naked. She would have to consiously create clothing all the time to look as though she is covered and I would imagine this would be somewhat tiring for anyone, especially a little girl.

        As for the actress herself I’m fairly certain she is not nude but wearing some form of prosthetic unitard.

        • I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree that it is in-movie logic.

          For example, in my initial post I mentioned that among the Xmen standing in the hanger some have variations in their yellow and blue suits. Banshee’s suit is customized to help him fly/glide, Havok’s suit is tweaked with the device to help him direct his power, and Mystique’s suit is zipped halfway down to show her chest because it has something to do with her mutant power.

          Yes, I realize that the young actress is wearing a unitard, but why do they have to give the little Mystique the appearance of being nude? Girls her age are usually shy and adament against being unclothed in public.

          • Without seeing the movie I honestly couldn’t give an answer to her motivation, sorry.

      • The actress is not naked. the charcacter is, but in this version of Mystique, she has no nipples or genitals, maybe raising some other questions, and therefore not needing clothes. Are we really turning this into a discussion about child porn or sexual assault?
        This image is clearly not intended to arouse, or give an erotic response. If it does to anyone, I ask you to seek professional help before you hurt anyone.

        • I agree.

          I guess it’s one of the risks with a live action comic book movie. It’s not a problem showing a female with a figure hugging suit in a comic but the second it is translated to the screen it is suddenly sexualized. I mean how many times have we heard the same bondage jokes with catwoman.

  7. Im sorry, someone please explain to me how that clip explained Mystique’s aging. This is the comic book movie ive been waiting for the most this summer

  8. if a nude child by itself causes an adult to turn into a sex fiend and abuse children, than yes i agree the image of mystique nude should be censored. but if that were the case all parents would be guilty, in fact most of the adult population. yes there are a select few who will see that movie, get a sick idea and go on to abuse children. but those people also get a thrill looking at kids in underwear in clothing catalogues. where does it end? should we censor everything that in itself is innocent but ‘may’ lead to destructive behaviour? a serious question for a serious comment.

  9. Well in Richard Donner’s original Superman movie Clark Kent (Kal-El) emerged from the crater his spaceship had made completely naked and full frontal. I haven’t heard anyone demand that this be banned, changed or label it obscene. It’s just a naked infant. I know we have to protect children but recent years have made society overly sensitive. I’d feel odd taking photos in a park if too many children were around in case someone got the wrong idea. That in itself is a shame.

    I think there is nothing wrong with the Mystique scene. But I must admit that at first I was surprised that there was a topless (not really topless) girl in it, until I realized that it was only the last few years of over-sensitive public opinion that had groomed me to think it at all unsuitable.