Is Fox Relying Too Much on Sexuality To Sell X-Men: First Class?

emma_frost_lingerie250.jpgIn the past month, 20th Century Fox has chucked countless X-Men: First Class promotional materials at the public. Trailers, TV spots, posters, strange insurance commercials and over 50 stills came and went leaving audiences with one lasting impression: Fox is really pushing the film's sexuality -- particularly that of lingerie-clad January Jones -- to sell tickets come June 3.

If you weren't convinced by that initial photo of January Jones's Emma Frost lounging in a push-up bra or yesterday's menacing, Basic Instinct-esque clip, then check out the new softcore pin-up image (at right) of Emma Frost in lacy undergarments complete with garter belt and stockings.

For the sexiest X-Men: First Class stills, click here.

Fox is clearly relying on the film's sex appeal as a marketing weapon, but is that so wrong -- especially when other comics adaptations have pushed their own grown-up attributes to sell seats (e.g. the violence and depravity of The Dark Knight)? Either way, X-Men: First Class has already established itself as the most erotic comic-book film to date. In other news, the "Emma Frost" Miracle Bra in Victoria's Secret's next catalog seems imminent.

· January Jones Rocks Sexy Lingerie as Mutant Emma Frost in X-Men [THR]

[CORRECTION: Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this story attributed X-Men: First Class's marketing strategy to Marvel Studios. While X-Men's source comic is published by Marvel, its film adaptations are developed, produced and marketed exclusively by 20th Century Fox. Apologies for the error.]


  • anonymous says:

    I think its a weak strategy. Do people really care that much about sex in pg-13 superhero movies? Sure it appeals to some people but the main thing you need to sell is the action and story for this kind of movie. If that doesn't work no amount of sex is gonna make up for it.

  • ILDC says:

    I think this is more Fox than Marvel.

  • Ryan says:

    Because the "sex sells" angle worked sooooo well for Jennifer's Body. You can't sell a movie just on sex. Sex is the cherry on top when it comes to marketing. You need the sundae and whipped cream as well for it to work. Nobody wants just the cherry.

  • Tommy Marx says:

    Although I was very impressed with the clip of January from yesterday, let's be honest. Both Green Lantern and First Class are releasing a ton of trailers/clips in what is obviously a desperate attempt to stir up interest. With the 7 billion mutants that have appeared in the 2 billion X-men series, why didn't Fox just do a Star Trek: The New Generation move instead of going back fifty years? People that liked the movies have to wonder why Mystique is only, what, 10 years younger than the Mystique introduced in the other movies, while the Beast aged 40 years or so. Sell the sex all you want, this whole idea just seems like a lame attempt to reboot. As for the Green Lantern, if you're looking to launch a series about a superhero most people don't know - and worse, one that the people who do know worship with an obsession that is positively scary - why pick such a generic pretty boy for the lead?
    I predict that both Green Lantern and First Class will struggle to make much more than 100 million while Captain America will surprise everyone with a 200+ million final gross.

  • What? _Jennifer's Body_ was an R-rated film _about_ sex and sexuality. It was poorly marketed, for sure, but at least it wasn't intellectually dishonest.
    Here, we've got a PG-13 comic-book franchise with a track record. I'm sure it's officially all about reaching the sophisticated adult male demo (along with the rest of the '60s vibe), but we have our own movies, thanks. From Jones in her stripper get-up to Jennifer Lawrence's plunging neckline, this is just a bunch of guileless teen-boy wank fodder. I'm kinda surprised the MPAA hasn't raised objections. Enh, no I'm not.

  • Bruce_F says:

    Exactly. This is Twentieth Century Fox's doing, not Marvel's. 20th has held the film rights since the mid-nineties. They're responsible for the creative erosion of the franchise.

  • This was an editing error on my part, sorry about that. It's been corrected.

  • annie says:

    Every woman in this film has to strip down to her underwear. They are definitely trying to appeal to the fan boys.

  • foxxx says:

    That above comment was sarcasm I believe.
    It's weird - this January Jones, she's in top condition, got the nice implants and all, but she looks angry, stiff and 'forced into it' in the photos I've seen from this lame looking, 'is this good enough?' summer movie.
    NO period-perfect Barbarella sybaritic pleasure coming off this actor, just grim exhibitionism, and not character based, either. Shouldn't a villainess in old lady garments have a wicked sense of humor?

  • Tony Tilton says:

    Exactly what do you think the character is dressed like in the COMICS? Why not accuse the source for the undies! Quit the Fox bashing and get your facts straight! Try looking at any comics at all and see the ridiculously sexualized characters, costumes, etc. and you'll see they severly toned DOWN her look! And what kind of prudish reaction to January Jones in her skivvies is this? Grow up!

  • Bruce_F says:

    Okay, then. With that said, the answer is "yes." Absolutely, 100% yes. There's pandering to both genders too. I read just this morning that M. Vaughan, citing the film Armageddon, added a love song specifically because he believed it would attract women.

  • Scott says:

    Another question:
    Is Movieline relying too much on sexuality by using a pic of underwear-clad January Jones in order to get people to click on this article?

  • Yes, God forbid we use a photo addressing the subject at hand to illustrate a story for which it is our business to find readers. You've got us figured out.

  • ILDC says:

    It still looks stupid in live-action.

  • ILDC says:

    Those campy one-liners in the Jennifer's Body ads didn't well represent Diablo Cody's grandma-trying-to-talk-like-a-valley-girl dialogue.

  • friday says:

    I think January was dressed that way to disguise her horrible acting. She should have taken her then boyfriend (Ashton Kutcher) advice and stayed away from acting. She may be good to look at to some who like that type, but she can only go so far with that.