Countdown for Krakoa's downfall

[SiegePerilous02]

You need scans to prove X-men shouldn't be celebrating ritual sacrifices?

There are no ritual sacrifices being celebrating. Crucible is not a sacrifice. Aero would have to remain dead to qualify as a sacrifice, and this is all being done for her benefit, no one else's.

In Claremont's stories were featured controversial people but his good guys were good. Without any doubt. No grey areas.

That's really not the case in the 80s stories. Wolverine alone is a grey anit-hero, and we have stuff like him nearly killing Rachel after she nearly murders Selene in cold blood, the previous example of Colossus killing Riptide (and earlier, Proteus), Betsy suggesting they kill Havok, Betsy using her telepathy to push everyone through the Siege Perilous without their consent, Storm making the dick move decision to fake the X-Men's deaths and let their loved ones grieve for nothing, not even bothering to let Kitty and Kurt know they were alive, even allowing Magneto on the team, etc.

[Devaishwarya]

Praise be to SiegeP. Can I get an Amen!

[Zelena]

That's really not the case in the 80s stories. Wolverine alone is a grey anit-hero, and we have stuff like him nearly killing Rachel after she nearly murders Selene in cold blood, the previous example of Colossus killing Riptide (and earlier, Proteus), Betsy suggesting they kill Havok, Betsy using her telepathy to push everyone through the Siege Perilous without their consent, Storm making the dick move decision to fake the X-Men's deaths and let their loved ones grieve for nothing, not even bothering to let Kitty and Kurt know they were alive, even allowing Magneto on the team, etc.

Claremont pushed his characters very far, that's sure. He was a 'sucker' for emotional turmoil.
But he questioned their actions through other characters, about what is wrong and right and it was the occasion of a lot of dialogues.



It is different from an author who doesn't clearly state what is wrong and what is right, when it isn't even a subject.
Well, for Wolverine stabbing poor Rachel… let's say that sometimes he went a bit far. He made so many stories that it isn't without contradictions and questionable slips that fuel the funny Mind Control Central.

[SiegePerilous02]

Praise be to SiegeP. Can I get an Amen!

Amen!

Claremont pushed his characters very far, that's sure. He was a 'sucker' for emotional turmoil.
But he questioned their actions through other characters, about what is wrong and right and it was the occasion of a lot of dialogues.



It is different from an author who doesn't clearly state what is wrong and what is right, when it isn't even a subject.
Well, for Wolverine stabbing poor Rachel… let's say that sometimes he went a bit far. He made so many stories that it isn't without contradictions and questionable slips that fuel the funny Mind Control Central.

Not clearly stating what is right or wrong isn't a downside IMO, when it's done well (and I think it's done well here) it encourages you to think more. Claremont also wrote during a period with a much different writing style with long narrations and thought balloons so there was much less ambiguity. He was more complex that a lot of his contemporaries and his run is justifiably regarded as legendary, but there is no escaping the fact that it is dated.

There is also the fact that his time on the franchise hadn't accumulated stuff like the attack on Genosha or "No more Mutants," and a whole bunch of other crap aimed at the collective mutant people. And I think it "when it isn't even a subject" is a severe oversimplification, at least when it comes to stuff like the Crucible. Clearly it is not meant to have a simple "right or wrong" aspect to it, that's what makes it so interesting. And we already have Scott and Kurt questioning it.

[Havok83]

What is wrong with there being morally grey characters? It makes for more real characterization IMO bc most situations arent a simple black/white

[Tycon]

Good characters were just the characters with whom the readers can identify.
They weren't perfect… like the reader isn't perfect.
Claremont was holding up a mirror to his readership.
The characters who wanted to do the right thing always exist in Claremont's universe.

When he did exactly the opposite, it was for the sake of drama. He loved to explore all the possibilities offered by his beloved characters.

Not exactly sure what your point is. The X-Men were more militant and willing to side with their mutant brethren for the greater good of mutantkind even under Claremont’s pen. The whole issue with Havok being introduced to this new status quo was for the explicit purpose of showing how far the X-Men have changed since the Stan the Man/King Kirby days.




Morally grey characters are a feature, not a bug. It’s evolved storytelling for something as complex as what mutants are supposed to represent to the real world. You can’t just easily separate civil rights leaders or LGBTQ+ liberation groups into “right” and “wrong.”

[BroHomo]

What is wrong with there being morally grey characters? It makes for more real characterization IMO bc most situations arent a simple black/white

I hate being monochromatic

[Zelena]

What is wrong with there being morally grey characters? It makes for more real characterization IMO bc most situations arent a simple black/white

When all the characters are grey, it's lacking of contrast, it's blurry, indistinct… i.e. the almost interchangeable position of Xavier and Magneto in Hickman's run.

There's a lack of prominent characters with distinct personalities. Well, true, there are prominent characters… the villains.

[Zelena]

Morally grey characters are a feature, not a bug. It’s evolved storytelling for something as complex as what mutants are supposed to represent to the real world. You can’t just easily separate civil rights leaders or LGBTQ+ liberation groups into “right” and “wrong.”

Even militants want to think they are 'in the right' and want to convince the rest of that. The question of the rightness of their actions still arises. It isn't just a matter of being the strongest or the more dominant. Xavier attracted the mutants to him by giving to them a good opinion of themselves, "come to me and you will do 'the right thing'".

Proof of this, this forum is often a battle of who is the 'most moral'? And people tarnish those they dislike.

[Lucyinthesky]

Even militants want to think they are 'in the right' and want to convince the rest of that. The question of the rightness of their actions still arises. It isn't just a matter of being the strongest or the more dominant. Xavier attracted the mutants to him by giving to them a good opinion of themselves, "come to me and you will do 'the right thing'".

If I remember well he said "come home" not "we are right" Come home means come to your family, quite an appealling sentiment for a group of ppl who have not known much peace during their life.

Proof of this, this forum is often a battle of who is the 'most moral'? And people tarnish those they dislike.

I kind of hate this attitude:

1.- It makes some readers judge other readers over what they like to read, that doesn´t have anything to do with personal morality, just like or dislike of things and it´s even worse when they begin to call each other names and then form sides, I have seen this on different fandoms and it doesn´t lead to anything good, it becomes a moral persecution(moral pólice you could say) between one sector of fans vs the other while both believe they are in the "right" sigh, that´s why we need to rememeber we are discussing fiction.
2.- I think it reduces the options for storytelling, because everytime a writer wants to make stories that put in question the main heroic characters instead of trying to understand(not justify) their reasons for acting X,Y,Z or explore their characterization, they are simply called villains imo if this kind of attitude was kept during past stories not much of the characterization we know and love the characters for would we see today imo.

[Tycon]

Even militants want to think they are 'in the right' and want to convince the rest of that. The question of the rightness of their actions still arises. It isn't just a matter of being the strongest or the more dominant. Xavier attracted the mutants to him by giving to them a good opinion of themselves, "come to me and you will do 'the right thing'".

Proof of this, this forum is often a battle of who is the 'most moral'? And people tarnish those they dislike.

You do know that the entire backbone of Xavier’s ideology is dividing mutantkind into blanket “good” & “evil” mutants, right? That’s the entire pitfall of respectability politics, that it’s so simple to just try and keep the status quo AND change things for the better for marginalized communities without understanding the systematic oppression that keeps them down in the first place. What drew mutants to Xavier was his optimism because ppl flock to positivity like crack because it’s easier to fight for such a simple cause.

Proof of that not working is.... well look at social movements in real life.

[Havok83]

When all the characters are grey, it's lacking of contrast, it's blurry, indistinct… i.e. the almost interchangeable position of Xavier and Magneto in Hickman's run.

There's a lack of prominent characters with distinct personalities. Well, true, there are prominent characters… the villains.

All the characters arent grey though so I dont see the problem

[Steel Inquisitor]

There are no ritual sacrifices being celebrating. Crucible is not a sacrifice. Aero would have to remain dead to qualify as a sacrifice, and this is all being done for her benefit, no one else's.

Sacrifices don't have to be dead to be sacrificed, she willingly allowed Apocalypse to kill her in a ritual created by Apocalypse himself. Only "strong" mutants get their powers back with their process. This process benefits Apocalypse, it gives him immense social influence among the populace and he gets a say in who gets to get their powers back. They play by his rules, not theirs.

[Tycon]

Only "strong" mutants get their powers back with their process. This process benefits Apocalypse, it gives him immense social influence among the populace and he gets a say in who gets to get their powers back. They play by his rules, not theirs.

This is not true.

[Steel Inquisitor]

This is not true.

That's all the Crucible is. It's built on his Survival of the Fittest ideology, and only the strong on krakoa get their power back. It's made by Apocalypse, initated by Apocalypse and judged by Apocalypse. You don't play by his rules, you don't get your powers back. He now holds every depowerred mutants future in his hands and the Quiet Council gave him that authority freely.