What would you do?

[Omega Alpha]

It's not about being young, specifically young, it's about where characters start and how far you can get away from that while not losing what makes the character. Old, like, grey hair old, is too far. And not going too far still presents risk. Superman and Batman, characters who have been generally presented as middle-aged, elder figures who already have many parental relationships with kids can have straight up sons and that's not going very far. Spider-Man, a character who in most representations is a teenager or young adult, having an actual child ass child and the publisher having to commit to that is more unlikely and would get corporate sweating. Still could happen, but the best chance of it happening is if a wizard wants it.

But Peter Parker is still a young man; and not only he didn't lose any fans marrying MJ, he only got more popular after.

[spirit2011]

I think sometimes it’s best to be ignored based on the severity of characters said actions, take Bishop when he went loco on Hope, how do you explain/fix that? I would prefer it had just been forgotten but it’s a stain on the character no matter what...

Well the writers made him regret going after Hope, exiled on a future fighting demons and then getting possesed by the demon bear. Then he went and saved Hope's live.
There isn't much to do, even the possesed angle was already done 4594 times. a trigger to mind control would work better

[Snoop Dogg]

But Peter Parker is still a young man; and not only he didn't lose any fans marrying MJ, he only got more popular after.

The problem with that marriage, that one specifically, is different. For the age stuff it's fine, it's that they totally rushed into it for artificial reasons and that there is a storied history of people who didn't want that marriage and looked for ways to get it out of the book (in contrast shitty retcons meant to prop it up.) It caused problems, their method to fix it created a bigger problem, and now they have to fix that problem without creating another.

[phoenixzero23]

There are stories that shouldn't have been allowed to be told, the ones i hear the most are the Emma/Scott/Jean love trinagle (not saying scemma shouldn't have happened, only that a different way would have been cooler) and the deal with Bishop and Hope (which was a giant character assasination)
The X-office can pretend nothing happened but the fans will always hold the characters accountable. Ignoring doesn't solve anything.
I'm sure Cyclops and Bishop fans are sick of these stories defining the characters because the characters are honestly way bigger than that and it really isn't fine to resume them and judge them only for that.
The characters aren't responsible for these actions, their fans aren't responsible or chose them to act in that way but it happened. Some people only see them this way and these stories became part and served the development of other characters like Emma or Hope so they can't be retconned (but they definitely should be retconned).

So the best thing Marvel should do is adress the problems and try to fix them, ignoring them will only keep the characters defined by them.
(to be honest if it were up to me i would retcon everything)

[Nazrel]

I'd really like Laura's relationship with walking paradox Angel reframed into something narratively functional for the character; as opposed to it remaining a completely disingenuous, shallow rote, teen coupling, predicated on her acting unrecognizably out of character, that ignored a wealth of personal issues that should have been addressed; an insufferable wrench in gears of the characters consistency and development... though we may be past the point where that is a viable option.

[Omega Alpha]

My problem is less about ignoring stuff than the illogical criteria they use: there's no reasonable explanation as to why people like Cyclops and Emma are treated as "needing redemption" or "was never a hero and never fits the X-men" while Bishop, Wolverine and Namor are welcome back in the fold just fine.

[phoenixzero23]

My problem is less about ignoring stuff than the illogical criteria they use: there's no reasonable explanation as to why people like Cyclops and Emma are treated as "needing redemption" or "was never a hero and never fits the X-men" while Bishop, Wolverine and Namor are welcome back in the fold just fine.

I like Scott but the thing is that he is a pretty big character, sometimes the entire franchice has rested on his shoulders that means that his mistakes somehow affect everybody even if those mistakes aren't as big as other people mistakes. His character is defined by being the responsible, he himself tries to be better that is what makes his mistakes ring harder. It is not the same if for example Wolverine killed someone (which he does all the time, love him BTW) because that is what Wolverine does but Cyclops is the dad, leader, teacher, son of the team (he is somewhat connected to all the most important X-men) the standards are different for him because people expect and need him to be better than the others.

[Omega Alpha]

So, the idea is that other characters have a free pass to try to murder children and teenagers and actually commit MASS MURDER, but Scott has to be "redeemed" anytime he goes out the boyscout route? That's bullshit.

[phoenixzero23]

So, the idea is that other characters have a free pass to try to murder children and teenagers and actually commit MASS MURDER, but Scott has to be "redeemed" anytime he goes out the boyscout route? That's bullshit.

Touche.
I guess I just like Cyclops as a boyscout more, my opinion is pretty biased sorry.

[Omega Alpha]

One can prefer Scott in any direction, really- the problem comes from the fact that if you give standards for him that are so absolutely high that you can't go in any direction that deviates even the slightest deserves "punishment", while giving a free pass to mass murder. Not only is terrible for the character itself, but it makes essentially every other X-man look like an hypocrite.

[FUBAR007]

Touche.
I guess I just like Cyclops as a boyscout more, my opinion is pretty biased sorry.

Don't be. The bar is higher for Scott because he used to be a "boy scout". He was supposed to be an exemplar so his fall was much further than it would've been for a run-of-the-mill, Lawful Neutral everyman.

With Emma, the problem isn't that she's being held to a tough standard. It's that characters who've done as bad or worse--Logan, Bishop, Namor, etc.--aren't.

Namor should've been tried and executed for war crimes. Same with Bishop--he committed genocide FFS! With all the evil shit they've retconned into his background, Logan should be in prison.

[Omega Alpha]

With all the evil shit they've retconned into his background, Logan should be in prison.

Not even that- just the fact he tried to murder Hope in AvX, and nearly doomed the mutant race to boot (possibly the planet), would have been enough for him to get kicked out of the X-men and for them, specially Scott, Cable & Jean, to never forgive him.

[cranger]

One can prefer Scott in any direction, really- the problem comes from the fact that if you give standards for him that are so absolutely high that you can't go in any direction that deviates even the slightest deserves "punishment", while giving a free pass to mass murder. Not only is terrible for the character itself, but it makes essentially every other X-man look like an hypocrite.

That is not so much an issue with 'fixing' a bad story, but rather consistency. Marvel thought that entire thing was a good story, and going all the way back to his downfall all it did was raise questions from the fans of why exactly was this bad and raised comparisons to everyone else doing stuff that was never called out. His redemption amounted to saving a dude and his family while the X-Men got annihilated, and having him admit to doing something that most readers still don't think he even did.

[Omega Alpha]

That is not so much an issue with 'fixing' a bad story, but rather consistency. Marvel thought that entire thing was a good story, and going all the way back to his downfall all it did was raise questions from the fans of why exactly was this bad and raised comparisons to everyone else doing stuff that was never called out. His redemption amounted to saving a dude and his family while the X-Men got annihilated, and having him admit to doing something that most readers still don't think he even did.

Exactly. Also, it's not a matter of not thinking he did it- it's quite simply an outright LIE to say he didn't care about humans, that can be confirmed by picking any comic of that era. even in AvX, his first impulse is make the world a better place for everyone.

[TheCape]

Not even that- just the fact he tried to murder Hope in AvX, and nearly doomed the mutant race to boot (possibly the planet), would have been enough for him to get kicked out of the X-men and for them, specially Scott, Cable & Jean, to never forgive him.

As a Wolverine fan, i actually would have preferred that, never really liked the idea of making him closer to the Summer-Grey clan. I found more damaging what Way retconed into his backstory, because essentially broke his concept as a character and no one has bothered to fix it, it basically made every good Wolverine story from the last decade a lie.