Pretty sure the Jamie Moss/Josh Schwartz trivia is backwards. Sheldon Turner wrote the first draft (a couple drafts actually) from a story Bryan Singer pitched. It was set in WW II era. It was called Origins: Magneto (Or Magneto Origins, I forget which). It was concurrently developed at the same time as the Wolverine flick which had a similar title Wolverine Origins which became the Hugh Jackman, Ryan Reynolds flick. Sheldon Turner's story was almost entirely centered around Magneto. He was the only mutant in the story (save two concoctions at the end) and a brief run-in with a young Charles. The story also had a framing device. It started and ended with old Magneto. The story wasn't working for anyone (It was pretty bad tbh. Not knocking Turner. It just wasn't an X-Men script) -- so they hired Jamie Moss/Josh Schwartz to have a go at a new take on it. The script they wrote was titled something like X-Men: Year One. This one was set in the Cuban Missile crisis Bay of Pigs era, but had different mutants than they end up using in the final film. This was more similar to what ended up onscreen. They brought in Matt Vaughn fresh off of Kick-Ass/Stardust. He brought his writing partner Jane Goldman in to do a couple rewrites, which became the script X-Men: First Class. Because of the number of writers, the script went to automatic arbitration. Because Sheldon Turner had been the first writer (working off a story Singer pitched), they ended up getting a writing credit -- even though the brunt of the story you see onscreen was laid out by Moss and Schwartz. In subsequent interviews, Sheldon Turner even comments on how ridiculous a decision that was. I'm 99% positive that's the history of that script.

It's a shame the Academy 'overlooks' sci-fi. This was IMO one of the best movies I'd seen that year. Much like the recent Avengers movie, you have multiple characters, each with there own arc, yet all tied together. They we thrilling, fun and satisfying. These are complicated stories well executed yet the Academy ignores them.

To answer the question, Charles is calling Eric to a much bigger adventure. Eric had a 'path' -revenge- not so much an adventure. It's Charles' hope to turn Eric away from is path so he can find a larger purpose for his life.

Thanks for that clarification, James. I just grab the trivia from IDMB. Most of the time they appear to be correct, but I guess when it comes to screenwriting process, that might be a bit more challenging for them [whoever 'them' is] to get right as it's pretty inside the development process.

Yes, a substantial story is probably going to have more than one Call, to more than one character, and at different points in the narrative - and it doesn't even have to be a verbal Call, sometimes it's just an event.... I haven't been able to participate in the NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN discussion, but this is an opportunity to shoe-horn in some examples of Calls in that movie.... CALL # 1 - BELL'S NARRATION - Sheriff Bell talks about his problems coming to terms with the new wave of crime, and his specific quandary - "I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand... More than that, I don't want to know. A man would have to put his soul at hazard (to know). He would have to say, okay, I'll be part of this world." Bell is making a Call to himself - is he going to try to come to terms with this new strain of evil, and try to know it, even though it may put his soul at hazard? CALL #2 ANTON CHIGUHR'S ESCAPE - A manifestation of this new (in Bell's view) evil, Anton Chiguhr, escapes from captivity and kills a deputy - a Call to the world that evil is afoot, and especially to Sheriff Bell who has the responsibility to contain this evil. CALL #3 MOSS FINDS THE MASSACRE AND THE MONEY - Moss finds the massacre and the money and there are two Calls implicit in this event - call the authorities and do your part to help restore order, or keep the money for yourself... Moss answers the latter Call, and we're off to the races.