-
X-Men was starved for new good world building more so then character development. Though just because the focus is on one thing, doesn't mean there is no character development. Its just subtle and in subtext. That being said Hickman takes liberties with his characters to get them where he needs them to be for his story, but if the story is good enough you can get away with it.
-
[QUOTE=JKtheMac;4720125]I totally disagree. Soap opera is not character development. That is just melodrama. It is often called ‘situation driven’ or ‘arena driven’ but I call it unfocused writing.[/QUOTE]
Wow. So you really thought the likes of Storm, Rogue, Cyclops, Kitty and most of the classic heroes outside of Wolverine did not get character development in Claremont's iconic run? Emma never got any since she joined the X-men in Morrison's run or heck even Gen X? No development for Kurt over in Excalibur? Havok and Polaris in X-Factor? Cyclops got no character development in the deciMation/Utopia era? None for Psylocke in Uncanny X-Force?
-
[QUOTE=spirit2011;4720188]The best comics have some character development. That is why they are remembered.[/quote] We need to be careful with definitions here. I would call character development an expression of character such that we can see them more clearly. Hickman does this perfectly well. You seem to be referring to character arcs and your preference does not a rule make.
-
[QUOTE=Havok83;4720216]Wow. So you really thought the likes of Storm, Rogue, Cyclops, Kitty and most of the classic heroes outside of Wolverine did not get character development in Claremont's iconic run? Emma never got any since she joined the X-men in Morrison's run or heck even Gen X? No development for Kurt over in Excalibur? Havok and Polaris in X-Factor? Cyclops got no character development in the deciMation/Utopia era? None for Psylocke in Uncanny X-Force?[/QUOTE]
I think you need to read what I was actually saying. You are arguing over my shoulder making counter arguments to something I didn’t say.
-
[QUOTE=JKtheMac;4720263]We need to be careful with definitions here. I would call character development an expression of character such that we can see them more clearly. Hickman does this perfectly well. You seem to be referring to character arcs and your preference does not a rule make.[/QUOTE]
See, I don't see this from him; I just see him putting characters in places and doing/saying things. No development, just...[I]they're there.[/I]
-
[QUOTE=Domino_Dare-Doll;4720276]See, I don't see this from him; I just see him putting characters in places and doing/saying things. No development, just...[I]they're there.[/I][/QUOTE]
That and it’s hard to see any development with these characters when the roster changes every issue outside of Scott
-
[QUOTE=tuck frump;4719030]Right, its almost 2020, who gets hung up on women having more then one partner or how they explore their sexuality?
Unless you're Jean in which case its still 1963 for u and u need a contingent of people to defend your chastity.[/QUOTE]
Why would she need someone to defend her chastity? She's either with one character or dead to ensure that she isn't with anyone besides that one character. She's the most chaste Marvel character by a longshot.
Even Groot gets more wood than Jean. Lmao
-
[QUOTE=Domino_Dare-Doll;4719896][I][B]Thankyou[/B][/I]!! I feel like this can't be stressed enough! Claremont had a much better balance of longer, over-arching plots alongside characterisation; both worked hand-in-hand![/QUOTE]
I love Claremont's original run overall, it still is and will probably always be the #1 X-run.
But he had a tendency to let plots run away from him and come up with weird ideas of his own.
-
[QUOTE=Godlike13;4720204]X-Men was starved for new good world building more so then character development. Though just because the focus is on one thing, doesn't mean there is no character development. Its just subtle and in subtext. That being said Hickman takes liberties with his character to get them where he needs them to be for his story, but if the story is good enough you can get away with it.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Domino_Dare-Doll;4720276]See, I don't see this from him; I just see him putting characters in places and doing/saying things. No development, just...[I]they're there.[/I][/QUOTE]
That's kind of my problem. His writing wants characters to be in certain positions and mindsets, and he almost never takes steps to show how they actually got there. They are just sort of spouting and doing things because the plot says so. Why is everyone OK working with Sinister and Shaw? Because Xavier said so. Why are they implying some kind of polyamory thing going on? Just cause. Etc., etc.
If the overarching story appeals to you, then you might be OK with this. For me, the overarching story is just combining the worst aspects of Avatar, Star Trek Insurrection and Falconia from Berserk
-
[QUOTE=spirit2011;4719507]I think that [b]Fubar[/b] and I want character development and character relationships being developed instead of vague hints about a polyamori that doesn't suit these characters.
ignore isn't a option[/QUOTE]
For now, X-Men is the book that will do worldbuilding and introduce plots for the other x-books to deal with. Character driven stories will also take place in other titles, imo.
The Hordeculture stuff, probably is something that will be happening in Marauders, given Shaw and Emma involvement, just like the Arakko and the demon thing will move foward on Excalibur, given Apocalipse ties to that story.
Shaw and Emma will likely have more character centric stories on Marauders, considering all that is going on with Shaw's son, and I can see the Hordeculture becoming Emma's rivals.
All this to say that, Cyclops probably won't get any character centric plotlines, since Hickman will be using him for introduce new elementos to the mythos.
-
[QUOTE=Kitty&Piotr<3;4720298]Why would she need someone to defend her chastity? She's either with one character or dead to ensure that she isn't with anyone besides that one character. She's the most chaste Marvel character by a longshot.
Even Groot gets more wood than Jean. Lmao[/QUOTE]
If only jean got all the wood to be called names hahah
Now be called names for a OOC development is not what I want
[QUOTE=Ra-El;4720337]For now, X-Men is the book that will do worldbuilding and introduce plots for the other x-books to deal with. Character driven stories will also take place in other titles, imo.
The Hordeculture stuff, probably is something that will be happening in Marauders, given Shaw and Emma involvement, just like the Arakko and the demon thing will move foward on Excalibur, given Apocalipse ties to that story.
Shaw and Emma will likely have more character centric stories on Marauders, considering all that is going on with Shaw's son, and I can see the Hordeculture becoming Emma's rivals.
All this to say that, Cyclops probably won't get any character centric plotlines, since Hickman will be using him for introduce new elementos to the mythos.[/QUOTE]
i don't know why worldbuilding can't be done with some character development. Most of books do this kind of thing.
It's frustrating when Hickman already had 12 issues of setup on hoxpox
Why would you introduce plot points of other books? The books can work their own way of introduce problems and villains
-
I don't have much to say about this issue. It didn't bore or interest me. It's an odd feeling.
-
[QUOTE=spirit2011;4720350]If only jean got all the wood to be called names hahah
Now be called names for a OOC development is not what I want
i don't know why worldbuilding can't be done with some character development. Most of books do this kind of thing.
It's frustrating when Hickman already had 12 issues of setup on hoxpox
Why would you introduce plot points of other books? The books can work their own way of introduce problems and villains[/QUOTE]
Emma and Shaw got GREAT character development here. A+
-
[QUOTE=Domino_Dare-Doll;4720276]See, I don't see this from him; I just see him putting characters in places and doing/saying things. No development, just...[I]they're there.[/I][/QUOTE]
Again, what do you mean by ‘development’. In this issue for example a number of character beats are hit. Those are character moments. What they are not seeking to do is confront inner conflicts. Instead they are revealing of their current status and outlook. That is character development. The word comes from the idea of building character not changing character. These characters are well known to us. They don’t need much development. To claim there is no development is to ignore what is happening on the page, or to choose ones own narrow definition, where 80% of the issue is dedicated to character revealing beats.
-
[QUOTE=Domino_Dare-Doll;4719896][I][B]Thankyou[/B][/I]!! I feel like this can't be stressed enough! Claremont had a much better balance of longer, over-arching plots alongside characterisation; both worked hand-in-hand![/QUOTE]
That’s taste talking. Why compare an apple with an orange by claiming all fruit should contain segments or have a thick skin? Enjoy both for what they are. Seek to understand what the strengths of each are.
At this time of year, this approach always reminds me of ‘The Holly and the Ivy’. Why is Ivy even in that song? Just to make a claim that Holly is better? That’s not a comparison that’s an assertion.
There is a warped notion in the general understanding of writing and it is reflected in almost all definitions of what plot driven and character driven story actually is. Go read a random definition and you will in all probability be reading a definition written by someone that has no idea what plot driven story really is. They talk about it being a spectrum for example, which is nonsensical, they talk about genre fiction being plot driven which is an overgeneralised idea born of snobbery. Elevating the psychological novel over what they see as commercial writing. They talk about this being primarily a television concept, or something only writers need concern themselves with.
The actual definitions are clear and simple.
If the overall thrust of the story is about internal conflicts leading to character change or external conflicts that bring those internal conflicts into focus then it is a character driven story.
If the overall trust of the story is about external conflicts or any internal conflicts are being brought about by external forces then it is a plot driven story.
More contentiously, if the overall thrust of the story is about the world being a conflict riven place that the characters find themselves reacting to them it is Arena Driven. Some, like me think this one is just confused TV writers trying to convince themselves they are part of the higher literary form so that snobs can’t attack them for being genre fiction.
I would define Claremont as being in this Arena Driven space. He, like Lee before him wanted more character focus and squeezed a lot more character arcs into a primarily plot driven story. That is not the same thing as being Character driven. That’s just an emphasis on character. To many of us this makes for a less coherent story. Claremont was certainly good and very entertaining but he is not a great model of how to write comics for a writer who wants to tell a more pure plot driven story.
-
[QUOTE=Havok83;4720282]That and it’s hard to see any development with these characters when the roster changes every issue outside of Scott[/QUOTE]
That’s a fair criticism. I feel though that the role of this book will be more to quickly sketch out the lay of the land for the new Dawn
-
[QUOTE=JKtheMac;4720700]That’s taste talking. Why compare an apple with an orange by claiming all fruit should contain segments or have a thick skin? Enjoy both for what they are. Seek to understand what the strengths of each are.
At this time of year, this approach always reminds me of ‘The Holly and the Ivy’. Why is Ivy even in that song? Just to make a claim that Holly is better? That’s not a comparison that’s an assertion.[/QUOTE]
Depends on if you can even [I]enjoy[/I] the other though. As it stands, I'm calling it an objective, critical observation: Claremont worked large, over-arching plot alongside characterisation, neither was sacrificed for the sake of future threads that may/may not have been picked up.
Hickman suffers from "This is gonna matter [I]later[/I]" without putting much thought into the -now- and seems to relegate the more important points to data pages as opposed to his characters POV/reactions. As such, it becomes a much less immersive and less enjoyable experience.
-
[QUOTE=Domino_Dare-Doll;4720703]Depends on if you can even [I]enjoy[/I] the other though. As it stands, I'm calling it an objective, critical observation: Claremont worked large, over-arching plot alongside characterisation, neither was sacrificed for the sake of future threads that may/may not have been picked up. [/quote]
Calling something objective is not the same as identifying an objective thing. I wrote a lot more than what you quoted to try and clarify my point. In that I would claim that comics were just a as confused and incoherent on this whole idea as much network television was until it changed in the modern era.
Now, we are in an era where TV has mostly worked this out and comics are catching up. We will not see a return to a Claremont style comic, partly because of fashion but partly because of better educated writers who have a more coherent style which maintains the focus they want.
-
[quote]Hickman suffers from "This is gonna matter [I]later[/I]" without putting much thought into the -now- and seems to relegate the more important points to data pages as opposed to his characters POV/reactions. As such, it becomes a much less immersive and less enjoyable experience.[/QUOTE]
You are making a value judgment here. In doing so you are totally ignoring copious Hickman character development because it isn’t a character arc. He isn’t trying to write a character arc and valuing that thing and saying he isn’t doing it is not a criticism it’s an error of classification.
-
[QUOTE=JKtheMac;4720721]Calling something objective is not the same as identifying an objective thing. I wrote a lot more than what you quoted to try and clarify my point. In that I would claim that comics were just a as confused and incoherent on this whole idea as much network television was until it changed in the modern era.
Now, we are in an era where TV has mostly worked this out and comics are catching up. We will not see a return to a Claremont style comic, partly because of fashion but partly because of better educated writers who have a more coherent style which maintains the focus they want.[/QUOTE]
Hey, I quoted just what was there when I was; I deleted nothing. If you went back and edited it in after the fact, sorry mate but not my fault.
And I wasn't calling for a return to Claremont style comic artistry/writing; I was praising it for what it achieved and comparing it to what there appears to be a lack of currently. I would [I]hope[/I] the stronger aspects of Claremont's style (i.e, strong characterisation worked alongside a coherent plot) wouldn't be something to go 'out of fashion,' but like you said, this is just taste.
Additionally, I argue that you don't have to sacrifice good characterisation for the sake of plot, as I've noticed from your edited response. Hickman has good ideas; the execution, however, seems to be lacking from the POV that's supposed to matter, i.e, the characters.
-
[QUOTE=Domino_Dare-Doll;4720723]Hey, I quoted just what was there when I was; I deleted nothing. If you went back and edited it in after the fact, sorry mate but not my fault.[/quote] I didn’t accuse you of that. I have a habit of adding to my posts, and as such I wanted to draw your attention to what I had added to better clarify my points.
[quote]And I wasn't calling for a return to Claremont style comic artistry/writing; I was praising it for what it achieved and comparing it to what there appears to be a lack of currently. I would [I]hope[/I] the stronger aspects of Claremont's style (i.e, strong characterisation worked alongside a coherent plot) wouldn't be something to go 'out of fashion,' but like you said, this is just taste.[/quote] They can’t be compared in this way just because they are both comics.
[quote]Additionally, I argue that you don't have to sacrifice good characterisation for the sake of plot, as I've noticed from your edited response. Hickman has good ideas; the execution, however, seems to be lacking from the POV that's supposed to matter, i.e, the characters.[/QUOTE] This is absolutely nothing to do with sacrificing anything. This is to do with coherent storytelling. If you want incoherent story go read something else, or watch 90s TV.
-
[QUOTE=JKtheMac;4720728] This is absolutely nothing to do with sacrificing anything. This is to do with coherent storytelling. If you want incoherent story go read something else, or watch 90s TV.[/QUOTE]
And yet you miss my point; coherent storytelling can implement [I]both[/I] strong characterisation that is informed by or does directly inform the plot. Plot does not have to over-shadow the characters or reduce them to mouth-pieces for it as is happening here.
-
1 Attachment(s)
X Men 3 variant cover.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]90020[/ATTACH]
Via Reddit user u/dispatchdcu
-
[QUOTE=Domino_Dare-Doll;4720735]And yet you miss my point; coherent storytelling can implement [I]both[/I] strong characterisation that is informed by or does directly inform the plot. Plot does not have to over-shadow the characters or reduce them to mouth-pieces for it as is happening here.[/QUOTE]
I think I have made the point pretty clear already, that there is strong characterisation in this issue and the preceding ones. That what you seem to be asking for is not characterisation but instead evidence of character arcs. You won’t get that with Hickman. He starts his stories with character stances and broadly maintains them. His approach is to change the character beforehand, based on external factors and use a process of character revelation over his run to better illuminate the change that occurred.
-
[QUOTE=JKtheMac;4720740]I think I have made the point pretty clear already, that there is strong characterisation in this issue and the preceding ones. That what you seem to be asking for is not characterisation but instead evidence of character arcs. You won’t get that with Hickman. He starts his stories with character stances and broadly maintains them. His approach is to change the character beforehand, based on external factors and use a process of character revelation over his run to better illuminate the change that occurred.[/QUOTE]
A character arc is different from characterisation, which I'm asking for. I'm asking for a distinct voice between each character, something more that defines that character than on a superficial level plus, meaningful interaction and/or chemistry [I]between[/I] said characters.
-
[QUOTE=Domino_Dare-Doll;4720797]A character arc is different from characterisation, which I'm asking for. I'm asking for a distinct voice between each character, something more that defines that character than on a superficial level plus, meaningful interaction and/or chemistry [I]between[/I] said characters.[/QUOTE]
Again you define things narrowly so you can accuse this book of being bad somehow. This is not objective despite your protests that it is.
We saw plenty of character beats that only fit individual characters, or are you saying Cyclops is just the same as Shaw and Emma in this book? Or even that Emma and Jean are portrayed the same. Your criticism is doctrine. You are mearly spouting received wisdom that Hickman can’t write convincing character and ignoring the fact that he just did it right there on the page.
-
[QUOTE=JKtheMac;4720801]Again you define things narrowly so you can accuse this book of being bad somehow. This is not objective despite your protests that it is.
We saw plenty of character beats that only fit individual characters, or are you saying Cyclops is just the same as Shaw and Emma in this book? Or even that Emma and Jean are portrayed the same. Your criticism is doctrine. You are mearly spouting received wisdom that Hickman can’t write convincing character and ignoring the fact that he just did it right there on the page.[/QUOTE]
In terms of voice, yes, I'm finding it hard to see a difference. Their actions might be different, but they don't seem to have individual voices in my opinion; while the plot-points might come to an interesting fruition, the characters seem very one-note and indistinguishable.
-
[QUOTE=Domino_Dare-Doll;4720806]In terms of voice, yes, I'm finding it hard to see a difference. Their actions might be different, but they don't seem to have individual voices in my opinion; while the plot-points might come to an interesting fruition, the characters seem very one-note and indistinguishable.[/QUOTE]
If you want to claim that with more than lip service you need to point to it on the page, because that’s my point. So far you have shifted your definition of characterisation three times from my perspective. You may think you are being consistent but it’s all very vague from where I am sitting. How exactly is Hickman not using character voice? I see it throughout. Shaw’s character is illuminated wonderfully, Cyclops is shown to be his normal self, shining a spotlight on how he acts when strategic planning fails. Emma’s voice is quintessentially hers.
-
[QUOTE=JKtheMac;4720823]If you want to claim that with more than lip service you need to point to it on the page, because that’s my point. So far you have shifted your definition of characterisation three times from my perspective. You may think you are being consistent but it’s all very vague from where I am sitting. How exactly is Hickman not using character voice? I see it throughout. Shaw’s character is illuminated wonderfully, Cyclops is shown to be his normal self, shining a spotlight on how he acts when strategic planning fails. Emma’s voice is quintessentially hers.[/QUOTE]
If you say so, but basically:
Everyone seems stiff, like cardboard cutouts. There's no chemistry between the characters, they just seem to say things that leave an impression of "Ok?" at best; attempts at humour are tedious and driven out. Scott adheres to his 'boyscout' character trait, yes, but that's it; there's little variation in how that reaction plays out from panel to panel, there's no discernable [I]emotion[/I] in his lines even when he's supposed to be angry, happy, ect, exactly the same with Emma and Shaw. Emma has exactly one note; snarky and apathetic. Shaw is just [I]there.[/I]
How I define characterisation: how those personality traits bounce off of one another as well as how they relate to the situation on a meaningful level.
If you see it, good for you, I [I]don't[/I] and until I see otherwise I'll keep saying it.
-
Some of the characters are older than the people posting here. They've had plenty of character arcs. I don't know how long you're gonna drag out this "character development" excuse to justify why you don't like the story.
-
[QUOTE=staptik777;4717110]0/10 unreadable garbage[/QUOTE]
Completely disagree. I thought this was a good character building issue for Scott and Emma, and to some extent shaw. The point that the villain isn't some young hip 30 year old mad man with a plan is a turn too. Older people can be just as coniving. I really liked this issue
-
[QUOTE=Domino_Dare-Doll;4720826]If you see it, good for you, I [I]don't[/I] and until I see otherwise [B]I'll keep saying it[/B].[/QUOTE]
[B][I]But why though. [/I][/B]
Are you still buying this book?
Your opinion has been noted, so why keep repeating it?
Because at a certain point it stops being about voicing a valid critique or preference, and more like trying to argue people out of enjoying something.
Which, given how hard life is, is a dick move.
-
[QUOTE=Domino_Dare-Doll;4720826]If you say so, but basically:
Everyone seems stiff, like cardboard cutouts. There's no chemistry between the characters, they just seem to say things that leave an impression of "Ok?" at best; attempts at humour are tedious and driven out. Scott adheres to his 'boyscout' character trait, yes, but that's it; there's little variation in how that reaction plays out from panel to panel, there's no discernable [I]emotion[/I] in his lines even when he's supposed to be angry, happy, ect, exactly the same with Emma and Shaw. Emma has exactly one note; snarky and apathetic. Shaw is just [I]there.[/I]
How I define characterisation: how those personality traits bounce off of one another as well as how they relate to the situation on a meaningful level.
If you see it, good for you, I [I]don't[/I] and until I see otherwise I'll keep saying it.[/QUOTE]
You don't think the page where Scott blasts an old woman and she cries about her hip, so then he stops to help her and she hits him had any importance or character building? because i think it does. I think that's an important panel
-
[QUOTE=JKtheMac;4720125]I totally disagree. Soap opera is not character development. That is just melodrama. It is often called ‘situation driven’ or ‘arena driven’ but I call it unfocused writing.[/QUOTE]
Hallelujah!
How many times has Lord Claremont-the Gawd of Character Development, washed rinsed recycled his "Days of Our Lives" relationship dramas only to have the characters right back where they started...neither better, stronger, wiser for having gone through the mess?
Edit...
@JKtheMac...I appreciate your knowledge and understanding.
-
[QUOTE=Devaishwarya;4720892]Hallelujah!
How many times has Lord Claremont-the Gawd of Character Development, washed rinsed recycled his "Days of Our Lives" relationship dramas only to have the characters right back where they started...neither better, stronger, wiser for having gone through the mess?[/QUOTE]
Never??????
-
[QUOTE=Triniking1234;4720883]Some of the characters are older than the people posting here. They've had plenty of character arcs. I don't know how long you're gonna drag out this "character development" excuse to justify why you don't like the story.[/QUOTE]
Lack of character development was one of the critics I most saw on Guggs run.
Not ir is suddenly not important anymore.
I think character development is a must in a story, specially on a new status quo
[QUOTE=Devaishwarya;4720892]Hallelujah!
How many times has Lord Claremont-the Gawd of Character Development, washed rinsed recycled his "Days of Our Lives" relationship dramas only to have the characters right back where they started...neither better, stronger, wiser for having gone through the mess?
Edit...
@JKtheMac...I appreciate your knowledge and understanding.[/QUOTE]
Soap Operas usually have better character development when well written
But seriously?
-
[QUOTE=spirit2011;4720350]i don't know why worldbuilding can't be done with some character development. Most of books do this kind of thing.
[B]It's frustrating when Hickman already had 12 issues of setup on hoxpox
Why would you introduce plot points of other books? The books can work their own way of introduce problems and villains[/B][/QUOTE]
Hit the nail on the head.
[QUOTE=TheDeadSpace;4720398]I don't have much to say about this issue. It didn't bore or interest me. It's an odd feeling.[/QUOTE]
Count me in the ranks of confused, disgruntled fence-sitter. Like, if I applied the 3 episode rule, I'd drop the book for meandering, but since it's a series of one-and-dones (so far), I keep hoping the next issue will actually give substance. Is that insanity? I mean, HoX/PoX is already done...
-
i'm gone the moment that the art dips in quality.
-
[QUOTE=jpmst17;4720888]You don't think the page where Scott blasts an old woman and she cries about her hip, so then he stops to help her and she hits him had any importance or character building? because i think it does. I think that's an important panel[/QUOTE]
VERY important. It was a reminder (and we get them from time to time) that despite an totally understandable and reasonable hardening of his heart over the last decade, it's still in there.
-
[QUOTE=BroHomo;4719623]Damn dude you sure gotta lotta thoughts on how other people should live/act.[/QUOTE]
I'm not expecting children or even teenagers to understand that no one has an infinite amount of time at his/her disposal, or that no one is invicible no matter what they convey to the world...
But an adult should have that level of understanding at the very least, regardless of whether or not s/he acts upon it, yes.
Not to rain on anyone's parade or sound exceptionnally gloomy but we all live on borrowed time. Every last one of us.
Best case scenario, we all grow old and healthy before going out on our merry way...
Worst case scenario?
Some dumb accident cut our lives short.
Or illness.
Or terrorism and war.
Who knows.
Bottom line being, life is a frail and fragile thing and should be cherished as a result and yes, that implies showing at least a moderate form of empathy toward one another in my opinion.
Hence my intense dislike of supremacist talks and attitudes, especially from mutants who know how precarious life is better than most given their unique positions.
Also, not a dude.
[QUOTE=BroHomo;4719623]I'm having a hard time imagining exactly how you'd like the X-Men to be.... what was your favorite era?[/QUOTE]
ANAD is the era that resonated the most with me, closely followed by the New X-Men from Morrison, and Astonishing X-Men from Whedon.
Those are my essentials.
God Loves, Man kills is the story I value the most, hence my signature.
[QUOTE=BroHomo;4719623]I meeeean that's our reality. What can humility do against a world leader with a Nuke and itchy trigger finger?[/QUOTE]
My point was that saying [I]"the mutants are safe on Krakoa" [/I]has been proven wrong twice already.
IRL?
I think we can all agree we Don't live in a safe world altogether, despite some places being in much better situations than others.
Depending on gender, origins or beliefs, it can be dramatically worse even.
[QUOTE=BroHomo;4719623] The Mutants being by themselves and offering humanity life bettering drugs still gets [B]*extremist humans*[/B] hatin on them? #smdh[/QUOTE]
Fixed that for you.
And my response to it is, why would you expect anything else from extremists in the first place? The ones who see the error/horror of their ways and repent from them are few and far between.
[QUOTE=BroHomo;4719623]uhhh world leaders are often ineffectual, con men, who got their position through nepotism...bribes etc. [/QUOTE]
They are still not the ones distributing parking tickets in your streets or patrolling on your country's borders: there are people to do that specifically (typically police and border guards) , which was my point.
Surely the Kraked have a basic understanding of what specialization is in a society.
Now, for massive incidents/disasters?
Sure, they should be there, show support or better yet, actual helping if they can...
It is EXPECTED even, given they are the rulers of their country.
I'd rather Shaw and Frost showed up when the island was being attacked by the Reavers, or any other Council member really, rather than see them show up here "to investigate" when there are tons of mutants who could do that better than them.
The leaders of Krakoa Don't need to go deal themselves with every incident.
[QUOTE=BroHomo;4719623]The X-Men have Mutant powers and are trained for combat.[/QUOTE]
True.
The presence of Cyclops made sense in that regard, beyond the whole Great Captain title...
He should have taken other X-Men with him, or warriors however, not the actual leaders of the island: there's no short supply of them on that island.
[QUOTE=BroHomo;4719623]Who coulda prepared for the attack of the Golden Girls.[/QUOTE]
I Don't understand this reasoning.
Who could prepare to sudden illness or to have someone stole their car or broke into his/her place one day?
No one.
Yet, you Don't find people willfully leaving every door of their place open, or their car wide open with the keys on the contact or not taking care of their health in general if they can...
[B]Because they try to the best of their ability to mitigate the risk of those things happening.[/B]
It's the same here.
The Kraked should have people dedicated to securing their borders, regardless of the efficiency of such a measure...
For crying out loud, Sebastian Shaw of all people mention exactly this in the last issue of Marauders!
[QUOTE=BroHomo;4719623]You took their loss at the hands of the Granny's as proof of Mutants not being superior,[/QUOTE]
They are not.
Ingenuity was the decisive factor here, not brute force/ power.
[QUOTE=BroHomo;4719623] while the fact that they didn't automatically attack armed humans stealing their sh!t is to be applauded [/QUOTE]
Each culture handle thieves differently, so there's litteraly Nothing to be celebrated here.
Hordeculture entered Krakoa illegally and stole essential resources to them; the Kraked had every right to seize them on the spot and bring them to what pass as a court of justice at the moment on their island.
I Don't think these thieves had any Amnesty protecting them from such legal proceedings…
And really, how is their origin relevant here anyway?
If it had been mutants doing the stealing for whatever reason, what would you have said?
Bravo to Cyclops and co for not attacking a fellow mutant?
Big deal.
At the end of the day, it's still a thief or group of thieves here getting away with their crime.
[QUOTE=BroHomo;4719623]Well you can't prepare for EVERYTHING liiiiike....a Mutant riding a tidal wave
lol[/QUOTE]
True, there are fantastical occurrences that are beyond even the most prepared persons on the planet…
That being said, Black Panther and his country had plans on how to deal with the atlanteans - in their own territory at that -, and those plans have proved their efficiency given how devastating the wakandan retaliation was...
So preparadness is still useful, essential even for a country like Krakoa.
I stand by my initial statement.