Am I the only one here who still has a soft spot for Toad?

[Slicknickshady]

I mean damn. I still feel for the guy. He tried to redeem himself. And the school treated him like a**.

[SonOfPsylocke]

Yes, you are.

[AbnormallyNormal]

I mean damn. I still feel for the guy. He tried to redeem himself. And the school treated him like a**.

A lot of people know this. But it's that problem with "snap back to iconic status quo". Trying to give Toad an actual quasi redemptive arc, treating him like an actual character with feelings, thoughts, and motivations. Was kind of pushing the limits of how much change you're allowed in this genre.

[akiresu_]

There's some guy I know who 100% of the time, if you bring up Magneto, will bring up Toad. It's the most bizarre attempt at delegitimisation because it almost seems like this guy has suffered Toad's indignities himself. There's this curious adulation of Toad, despite him appearing to be universally despised, and I think it's because he's just such an easy target that critiques of the franchise, as a whole, like to take him out of context and purport him as a reason for the line itself being flawed.

Reading Toad as the glorified Morlock and lecherous slave is prioritised over reading him as the capricious and cruel character he has also been portrayed as. So Toad, despite serving functionally as an antagonist, is read as a victim. An unwitting participant in Magneto's early bids for world domination. Aaron's Toad is really the first realisation of the character that takes this perspective to heart, twisting him from cowardly and cruel to slimy, but sympathetic. But it doesn't come solely from a radical re-imagination of Toad's social status, rather Toad's janitor role (and WatXM narrative as a whole) almost serves as meta-commentary on the functional status of Toad in the franchise and silver-age villains in general. Toad, by the time of Schism, is a real non-starter. That he ends up in total subservience to the X-Men, and not Magneto, to be denigrated by them, and not Magneto, puts the cyclical nature of superhero comic-books on full display. He is weak, he couldn't defeat the X-Men, so he cannot obtain the coveted recurring villain role. Rather he is a symbol for all of his defeats and cannot exist outside of them. Because of this weakness, the X-Men, despite their inclusive philosophies, despise and humiliate him. It comes down to what all superhero comics eventually devolve into: Can [X] bet [Y]? And once that question is answered, comic-book fans tend to lose interest. They want to know if [X] can beat [Z], and have little to no interest in the further realisation of the [Y] character.

Jumping off from this, I think one of the most interesting things about Toad is that he is really one of the only X-Characters to have synchronised with the movies and had said syncronisation really stick. The reinvention of Toad for X-Men (2000) doesn't get the credit it deserves, considering it is perhaps the best rendition of the character. It allows Toad to serve as Magneto's underling, without challenging the political ideology and character of Magneto set forth, and as a viable enemy to the X-Men, with a change in attitude, power and design. People like to criticise the movie because the X-Men, in their first meeting with Toad, don't wipe the floor with him. Really, there's no reason they should. Equal parts because even the original Toad proved a challenge to the X-Men on their first meeting, but also because the movie Toad is quite distinct from the character it was adapting. But, it again comes down to the coliseum-esque approach to long standing cultural icons in comic-books that takes up the vast majority of people's interest in the genre. It comes down to feats and power levels and rivalries, action-sequence-based realisations of character, not character itself. Arguably, because the characteristics of long-standing pop. culture icons is so immutable, this is the only place for the cyclical, repetitive story to go.

Returning characters, such as Toad, are forced to find new roles (that echo similarity) because they have already served their function. The more they return and have that function repeated, the less of a "threat" they are perceived as and the more they are granted joke status. It may seem that Toad's inherent characteristics lend himself to mockery (ie his name is Toad, he resembles a disabled person in those early appearances- which pop. culture just can't help from laughing at), but rather I'd suggest that it is this repeated return to function that caused this. Toad can no longer come back leading a new Brotherhood of Mutants, yet that was once a viable option for the character. Likewise, Vanisher can come back from silver-age camp and be utilised in the darkest X-Force series published (at the time), because Vanisher was never revisited and humiliated in the same way.

I don't care for Toad, but I do find him interesting. Particularly in how he exists cyclically- abused by Magneto and the X-Men alike. He's one of those many missed opportunities of the Aaron era. That similarity between Wolverine's moral absolutist school (the presented unequivocal good to Utopia's Machiavellian approach) and the deranged Magneto in their similar treatment of a mutant who is considered to be biologically or personally inferior is interesting. It shows that the Jean Grey School had power dynamics of its own. The story went on for something like 42, 43, (??) issues, there was time to unpack things like this. Instead we got clowns and evil children.

[AdamFTF]

Someone must like him. Other than the big plotters like Magneto and Mystique, Toad's the last classic Brotherhood member standing. Quicksilver: reformed. Scarlet Witch: reformed. Mastermind: dead. Destiny: dead. Blob: depowered. Avalanche: dead. Pyro: dead.

Maybe writers think he's just so pathetic that a "shocking death" for Toad isn't worth it.

[Havok83]

Yes. Always hated him

[anyajenkins]

Never cared for Toad, but I do think there's something to the theory that he gets it worse than other 'reformed' villains because he's 'weak'

[ButterRum]

Never cared for Toad, but I do think there's something to the theory that he gets it worse than other 'reformed' villains because he's 'weak'

...And ugly and smelly!

[anyajenkins]

That too!

[Agatha's Ghost]

I am a Toad mega-fan. But he exists to be abused.

[Anduinel]

No love here. His "redemptive" arc under Aaron was creepy, stalker-esque, and came at the expense of Husk's character.

[Slicknickshady]

It’s interesting. Yes lately he has hurt himself a bit. Self esteem was a big part of it. Paige was gonna give him a chance to be a friend even after going back to normal. But the institute was down on him and he came to the conclusion nobody would give him a legit chance so went back to be a villian. I really hated what they had him do to Tyke cause that put him right back to being a real villian and I just thought that was out of character. At least for the Toad we had seen as a janitor.

No love here. His "redemptive" arc under Aaron was creepy, stalker-esque, and came at the expense of Husk's character.

With this I don’t think it’s a Toad issue. Aaron is the one who made Husks powers go hay wire. So it wasn’t exactly Toads fault. He thought it was the regular Paige. So I can see your point about Husk. But I don’t think you can fault Toad.

[Alan2099]

I like how Toad CAN be written, but it seems like everyone is quick to give him an entirely new physical appearance, powers, and personality. It's hard toc are about the guy when you can look back at him and see that he just randomly becomes a new character every few years.

[Baron of Faltine]

No love here. His "redemptive" arc under Aaron was creepy, stalker-esque, and came at the expense of Husk's character.

Hmm I noticed that Aaroon do tend to depict "creepy" very well. But in that case i think it was to point out how that was the only way one like Toad, after all the abuse he suffered could think about how to relate to others.
Overalll I think that as character is at this point stuck in a role and his only redemption could come only with death(and not even then...remember poor pyro)
Still I like him more than Original Five with the exception of Cyke because well Cyke. He is way way more likable than Teen Beast (but not biggie here anything is better than Beast)

[Baron of Faltine]

There's some guy I know who 100% of the time, if you bring up Magneto, will bring up Toad. It's the most bizarre attempt at delegitimisation because it almost seems like this guy has suffered Toad's indignities himself. There's this curious adulation of Toad, despite him appearing to be universally despised, and I think it's because he's just such an easy target that critiques of the franchise, as a whole, like to take him out of context and purport him as a reason for the line itself being flawed.

Reading Toad as the glorified Morlock and lecherous slave is prioritised over reading him as the capricious and cruel character he has also been portrayed as. So Toad, despite serving functionally as an antagonist, is read as a victim. An unwitting participant in Magneto's early bids for world domination. Aaron's Toad is really the first realisation of the character that takes this perspective to heart, twisting him from cowardly and cruel to slimy, but sympathetic. But it doesn't come solely from a radical re-imagination of Toad's social status, rather Toad's janitor role (and WatXM narrative as a whole) almost serves as meta-commentary on the functional status of Toad in the franchise and silver-age villains in general. Toad, by the time of Schism, is a real non-starter. That he ends up in total subservience to the X-Men, and not Magneto, to be denigrated by them, and not Magneto, puts the cyclical nature of superhero comic-books on full display. He is weak, he couldn't defeat the X-Men, so he cannot obtain the coveted recurring villain role. Rather he is a symbol for all of his defeats and cannot exist outside of them. Because of this weakness, the X-Men, despite their inclusive philosophies, despise and humiliate him. It comes down to what all superhero comics eventually devolve into: Can [X] bet [Y]? And once that question is answered, comic-book fans tend to lose interest. They want to know if [X] can beat [Z], and have little to no interest in the further realisation of the [Y] character.

Jumping off from this, I think one of the most interesting things about Toad is that he is really one of the only X-Characters to have synchronised with the movies and had said syncronisation really stick. The reinvention of Toad for X-Men (2000) doesn't get the credit it deserves, considering it is perhaps the best rendition of the character. It allows Toad to serve as Magneto's underling, without challenging the political ideology and character of Magneto set forth, and as a viable enemy to the X-Men, with a change in attitude, power and design. People like to criticise the movie because the X-Men, in their first meeting with Toad, don't wipe the floor with him. Really, there's no reason they should. Equal parts because even the original Toad proved a challenge to the X-Men on their first meeting, but also because the movie Toad is quite distinct from the character it was adapting. But, it again comes down to the coliseum-esque approach to long standing cultural icons in comic-books that takes up the vast majority of people's interest in the genre. It comes down to feats and power levels and rivalries, action-sequence-based realisations of character, not character itself. Arguably, because the characteristics of long-standing pop. culture icons is so immutable, this is the only place for the cyclical, repetitive story to go.

Returning characters, such as Toad, are forced to find new roles (that echo similarity) because they have already served their function. The more they return and have that function repeated, the less of a "threat" they are perceived as and the more they are granted joke status. It may seem that Toad's inherent characteristics lend himself to mockery (ie his name is Toad, he resembles a disabled person in those early appearances- which pop. culture just can't help from laughing at), but rather I'd suggest that it is this repeated return to function that caused this. Toad can no longer come back leading a new Brotherhood of Mutants, yet that was once a viable option for the character. Likewise, Vanisher can come back from silver-age camp and be utilised in the darkest X-Force series published (at the time), because Vanisher was never revisited and humiliated in the same way.

I don't care for Toad, but I do find him interesting. Particularly in how he exists cyclically- abused by Magneto and the X-Men alike. He's one of those many missed opportunities of the Aaron era. That similarity between Wolverine's moral absolutist school (the presented unequivocal good to Utopia's Machiavellian approach) and the deranged Magneto in their similar treatment of a mutant who is considered to be biologically or personally inferior is interesting. It shows that the Jean Grey School had power dynamics of its own. The story went on for something like 42, 43, (??) issues, there was time to unpack things like this. Instead we got clowns and evil children.

That probably one of the most intriguing ideas about the character and his meaning withing the context of superheor comic I have read in a while.