New X-Men film director appears to be adapting writings of Jonathan Hickman

According to this IGN article, Jason Schreier, the director of a new X-Men movie (and previously the Thunderbolts), is basing his screenplay on not one, but two sources, the 2nd not a good one:

The filmmaker leading the charge on what seems to be the first post-Avengers: Secret Wars movie spoke about some of the corners of the mutant universe he and MCU boss Kevin Feige have already started digging through during an interview with Good Morning America. The conversation followed the film's explosive D23 2026 X-Men cast reveal, which included announcements for characters like Rogue, Storm, Professor X, and Mister Sinister.

With its May 2028 release still almost two years away, Schreier, who previously helmed Marvel's Thunderbolts*, stopped short of revealing too much about the movie's plot. Instead, his comments suggested fans may want to brush up on the work of comic book authors Chris Claremont and Jonathan Hickman.

"One of the great things about the comics is there is such a rich and broad history," he said. "That was one of the first things that Kevin and I talked about when I came in; they made many great movies in this world, and they've made so many great things. Let's find the things that haven't recently been done well. All these other corners of the universe…"

"Digging back into those comics like 20 years, the whole Chris Claremont run, the newer Jonathan Hickman stuff. There are so many stories that are still untold, to honor and to reach into, and then to meet this cast and try to do something new, I think you always want to see something that reveres where it came from and then is still taking a new spin on where we want to go."

Considering the Thunderbolts movie, spelled as it is with an asterisk, is one of those things that hasn't been done well, I'm not sure what Schreier's point is. Hickman's run was overrated, right down to the part where he turned Moira MacTaggart into yet another mutant, which takes away the uniqueness of the character as a civilian co-star. Does Schreier intend to make use of that?

In any case, I've long grown weary of these non-stop live action adaptations, and Schreier's claim there's a rich and broad history is another example of failing to make distinctions between any era. He likely doesn't care that X-Men began to lose mileage when crossovers like Age of Apocalypse came about. Or that Scott Lobdell was considered a very mediocre writer back in the day. Or that the X-books overall began to lose any meaning or significance by the turn of the century, and even Claremont's talent plummeted post-2000. So what's the use of keeping on with the films, when the comics are in such bad shape as it is due to editors like Joe Quesada bringing them down years ago?