X-Force #12 Spoiler/Review - DOOF! The Condescension of Hank McCoy

[Technopriest]

My issue is not whether Hickman and the other writers are developing Apocalyse this way, if that's the story that they want to tell so be it. Is the fact that some people insist that this is always been his portrayal or that it has always been a part of him. Eh? No, not in the 80s and definitely not in the 90s. The Apocalyse of AoA wasn't an "alternative" version, he was the 616 Apocalyse without Xavier and the X-Men there to stop him, and he took over the world, commited genocide and culled the weak, and if those weaker were mutants so be it. Apocalyse has always been about survival of the fittest, that is his core concept. In Blood of the Apocalypse he put a human vs Gazer (a mutant) in a match to the death and if the human was victorious he would have chosen him to be his new War. He has empowered Inhumans and humans alike. He is not Magneto and has never been a mutant supremacist, for the simple reason that he precedes mutant persecution (something that, once again, would be a blip in his lifetime). Now the ones that are lusting after Apocalyse, well that's a different can of worms that I am not touching (don't care about the daddy part, is the genocidal part that is weird to me, but whatever).

[numberthirty]

My issue is not whether Hickman and the other writers are developing Apocalyse this way, if that's the story that they want to tell so be it. Is the fact that some people insist that this is always been his portrayal or that it has always been a part of him. Eh? No, not in the 80s and definitely not in the 90s. The Apocalyse of AoA wasn't an "alternative" version, he was the 616 Apocalyse without Xavier and the X-Men there to stop him, and he took over the world, commited genocide and culled the weak, and if those weaker were mutants so be it. Apocalyse has always been about survival of the fittest, that is his core concept. In Blood of the Apocalypse he put a human vs Gazer (a mutant) in a match to the death and if the human was victorious he would have chosen him to be his new War. He has empowered Inhumans and humans alike. He is not Magneto and has never been a mutant supremacist, for the simple reason that he precedes mutant persecution (something that, once again, would be a blip in his lifetime). Now the ones that are lusting after Apocalyse, well that's a different can of worms that I am not touching (don't care about the daddy part, is the genocidal part that is weird to me, but whatever).

Politely, you are just plain wrong about that assertion.

The Rise Of Apocalypse was released in 1996.(Well, '96 and one month of '97...) That is pretty darn squarely "Nineties..."

[Technopriest]

Politely, you are just plain wrong about that assertion.

The Rise Of Apocalypse was released in 1996.(Well, '96 and one month of '97...) That is pretty darn squarely "Nineties..."

What part? Because Rise of Apocalyse is his origin story and in no part of it Apocalyse is depicted to be concerned about "his people" and at the end we are left with an En Saban Nur that is on his way to became the Apocalyse of the 80s and 90s. So with all due respect, you are wrong, but I'll agree to disagree because we are going in circles now.

[numberthirty]

What part? Because Rise of Apocalyse is his origin story and in no part of it Apocalyse is depicted to be concerned about "his people" and at the end we are left with an En Saban Nur that is on his way to became the Apocalyse of the 80s and 90s. So with all due respect, you are wrong, but I'll agree to disagree because we are going in circles now.

Again, go over the page where his adoptive father dies.

While it might not be exactly what you(as a reader...) would want to cement the idea that he had concern, the idea that none of the seeds for what folks are following up on now are there is a particularly flawed idea.

As for "On His Way...", yes. On his way to being a character that is more complicated than most folks want to accept.

[Technopriest]

Again, go over the page where his adoptive father dies.

While it might not be exactly what you(as a reader...) would want to cement the idea that he had concern, the idea that none of the seeds for what folks are following up on now are there is a particularly flawed idea.

As for "On His Way...", yes. On his way to being a character that is more complicated than most folks want to accept.

Uh? I don't still get your point. It's an origin story. Yes, he shows the capacity for concern, care, even love, so? At the end of the story he is on his way to become the Apocalypse of the 80s and 90s. Or do you think they were actually planting seeds for his depiction in DOX before it was even a thing? Because I can assure you that was not their intention, their intention was to create an origin story that would be consistent with his characterization until then. He was a villain, whether YOU want to accept that or not, that was his depiction back then. If Hickman and the writers of DoX want to depict him as more of a grey character that's fair, but to say that they were planting seeds back in Rise is absurd, they were not. He was firmly a villain that was given an orgin with layers, but at the end of that story the point was to get Apocalypse on his way to became the character that he was in the 90s, not the character in DOX. As I said, we'll agree to disagree, I am done with this particular topic because it will just go in circles, no disrespect intended in any case.

[numberthirty]

Uh? I don't still get your point. It's an origin story. Yes, he shows the capacity for concern, care, even love, so? At the end of the story he is on his way to become the Apocalypse of the 80s and 90s. Or do you think they were actually planting seeds for his depiction in DOX before it was even a thing? Because I can assure you that was not their intention, their intention was to create an origin story that would be consistent with his characterization until then. He was a villain, whether YOU want to accept that or not, that was his depiction back then. If Hickman and the writers of DoX want to depict him as more of a grey character that's fair, but to say that they were planting seeds back in Rise is absurd, they were not. He was firmly a villain that was given an orgin with layers, but at the end of that story the point was to get Apocalypse on his way to became the character that he was in the 90s, not the character in DOX. As I said, well agree to disagree, I am done with this particular topic because it will just go in circles, no disrespect intended in any case.

No one was planting seeds.

They are writing the character who is absolutely what is in blue. No discussion to be had about if it "Is..." or "Is Not..." the case. Hickman is writing the character whose origin is in that miniseries.

While I do get that folks apparently want to largely ignore that reality to try to create a reality where "Their..." Apocalypse is solidly a capital "V" villain, that doesn't change that the origin in that miniseries has not been so much as slightly reworked in the time since. It is where the character came from, and who he is.

[Technopriest]

No one was planting seeds.

They are writing the character who is absolutely what is in blue. No discussion to be had about if it "Is..." or "Is Not..." the case. Hickman is writing the character whose origin is in that miniseries.

While I do get that folks apparently want to largely ignore that reality to try to create a reality where "Their..." Apocalypse is solidly a capital "V" villain, that doesn't change that the origin in that miniseries has not been so much as slightly reworked in the time since. It is where the character came from, and who he is.

He was solidly a villain in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, I am sorry, but if that bothers you it is what it is, Apocalyse was never a character that was grey until recently. Yes, Hickman is writing the same character as the one in that mini, so? Claremont was writing the same Magneto in the 80s that was in the Lee, Kirby, etc comics in the 60s and 70s. Doesn't change a thing that the character was firmly a villain for almost 2 decades until Claremont decided he wanted to write him as a more of a grey character. There is no reality that people are ignoring, I was actually collecting those comics as they came out and Apocalyspe was always a villain in all of the X-men media, from comics, to tv show, to video games all the way to that godawful movie. Once again, if this is the way Hickman wants to write the character that's fine, but he was never a grey character before that, that he had added layers in his origin doesn't change that. Everybody from Doctor Doom, to Lex Luthir to the freaking Joker have been given sympathetic origins or at least stuff in their origins that you can relate to. So what, it is comics, when you are writing a story from a villain point of view you give them enough sympathetic traits so readers will at least relate to the characters somewhat, doesn't change anything at the end. Just because Lex Luthor was made a member of the freaking Justice League and given a valid motivation for it doesn't change the decades of depiction as a villain not it alters what was written before, unless you go into massive retcons. You enjoy Apocalyse current depiction? That's fine, I am willing to go along for the ride, but let's not pretend that Apocalyse was a grey character or depicted as an antihero before, because he wasn't.

[Killerbee911]

I think an issue with Apocalypse is that he was a cackling two-dimensional caricature of a villain when introduced in the eighties, all genocidal and over the top and not even remotely needing to be 'fleshed out' or have any deeper motivations since he was for punching, not talking to.

Now he's getting some complexity added, as somewhat befits a dude who's been around for millenia, is ridiculously powerful, and yet, inexplicably, we'd never heard of having any significance, historically, ever before. (Uh, he napped a lot? Lol.)

Magneto went through the exact same evolution, over decades, and even suffered a regression to 'mad terrorist twat' before being salvaged back to the more nuanced character he had transitioned to. (No doubt Apocalypse will have similar bumps in his journey, as some writer who doesn't like a 'gray' portrayal of him and wants a more cut and dried 'this is the bad-guy, full stop' Apocalypse of his childhood, gets their hands on the character and drags him back to genocidal warmonger territory.)

Now, I should note, just because he's 'complex' or 'nuanced' or somewhat less a two-dimensional and over-the-top genocidal Darwinist maniac as he was when he woke up all cranky a few decades back, doesn't mean that I think he's morally right about anything. (Honestly, I wake up after a 1000 year nap and have no coffee, I'll probably want to kill a few million peeps too...)

I'm still not convinced that Magneto is right about anything. He's just more enjoyable to read about now. Ditto Emma, for that matter. Her methods and motives can be self-serving and sketchy and undemocratically aristocratically elitist as hell, but she's *fun* to read about.

I can enjoy their antics without necessarily thinking they are all 'good people' or admirable role-models or pillars of moral (or ethical) rectitude.

Great post.

I will just throw if Marvel use to reboot its universe (and people can argue about the good and bad of that if they want to) we would have lots of better villains with out the complications of the bad stories. Superhero comics especially those have gone for over decades are big game of trial an error. Plus an exercise in who remembers that story.

Some fans want awful stories and characters to stand because well it justifies their fandom keeping some bad stories that they remember. I want the better version of the character to be used even if means ignoring some stories. I rather have the Thanos and Killmonger in comics for one or two seconds had you like you know that makes a lot sense. I want the Apocalypse who isn't necessarily the genocidal manic but guy who would help save earth as well. You know this guy



For me I ask the question is the character better now, If so then I am just rolling with that presentation. Keeping it real those stories that you guy think count don't as much as you think they do.

[numberthirty]

He was solidly a villain in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, I am sorry, but if that bothers you it is what it is, Apocalyse was never a character that was grey until recently. Yes, Hickman is writing the same character as the one in that mini, so? Claremont was writing the same Magneto in the 80s that was in the Lee, Kirby, etc comics in the 60s and 70s. Doesn't change a thing that the character was firmly a villain for almost 2 decades until Claremont decided he wanted to write him as a more of a grey character. There is no reality that people are ignoring, I was actually collecting those comics as they came out and Apocalyspe was always a villain in all of the X-men media, from comics, to tv show, to video games all the way to that godawful movie. Once again, if this is the way Hickman wants to write the character that's fine, but he was never a grey character before that, that he had added layers in his origin doesn't change that. Everybody from Doctor Doom, to Lex Luthir to the freaking Joker have been given sympathetic origins or at least stuff in their origins that you can relate to. So what, it is comics, when you are writing a story from a villain point of view you give them enough sympathetic traits so readers will at least relate to the characters somewhat, doesn't change anything at the end. Just because Lex Luthor was made a member of the freaking Justice League and given a valid motivation for it doesn't change the decades of depiction as a villain not it alters what was written before, unless you go into massive retcons. You enjoy Apocalyse current depiction? That's fine, I am willing to go along for the ride, but let's not pretend that Apocalyse was a grey character or depicted as an antihero before, because he wasn't.

Not if you have read his actual origin miniseries.

You are not "Solidly..." if your origin mini pretty clearly lays out that you are not a villain.

If you are a reader who looks at things in percentages and makes a calculation as to what a character "Really..." is based on that, totally your call.

That said, it is just foolish to try to lay out that there has never been any grey area when it comes to a character whose origin story obviously tosses a gigantic monkey wrench into the assertion that the character is squarely a "Villain..."

[numberthirty]

Never mind that the every idea that the character is squarely "Villain..." doesn't even make a lick of sense if you take more than a couple of minutes to think over what we collectively know.

Let's say that the character is legitimately this villain that is squarely dedicated to survival of the fittest. If he is truly dedicated to said rule, explain that he would rebuild a Warren Worthington who clearly was not the "Fittest..."?

[Technopriest]

Not if you have read his actual origin miniseries.

You are not "Solidly..." if your origin mini pretty clearly lays out that you are not a villain.

If you are a reader who looks at things in percentages and makes a calculation as to what a character "Really..." is based on that, totally your call.

That said, it is just foolish to try to lay out that there has never been any grey area when it comes to a character whose origin story obviously tosses a gigantic monkey wrench into the assertion that the character is squarely a "Villain..."

Read it, and yes, he was still solidly a villain since his introduction. An origin story doesnt change that, especially since at the end, he is on his way to became the Apocalyse of the 80s and 90s. His status didn't change until Hickman decided to change it, same with Claremont and Magneto. He was a villain, in all media, until DoX. As I said, most villains have been given "sympathetic" origins or traits, that doesn't change their statuses as villains. Once again, if this is the direction that Hickman wants to take the character in, it's his call. It doesn't change that the character was a villain for most of his publication history. They are, after all, fictional characters, abd subject to the whims of the writer in charge.

[Technopriest]

Never mind that the every idea that the character is squarely "Villain..." doesn't even make a lick of sense if you take more than a couple of minutes to think over what we collectively know.

Let's say that the character is legitimately this villain that is squarely dedicated to survival of the fittest. If he is truly dedicated to said rule, explain that he would rebuild a Warren Worthington who clearly was not the "Fittest..."?

Because he has always used people, mutants and non mutants, that way. He gives them the choice to become strong or die with their weaknesses, and because, as I said, they are characters subject to the whims of the writers. Warren was a protagonist in X-Factor, so the story has to work for him to be able to come back, because you know, they are fictional characters at the end of the day. Apocalyse didn't save Warren out of concern, or love, or redemption, or any of that, he saved him so he could use him as Death. In real life I imagine a character like him would probably go after the strongest mutants, but that was Warren story so it needed to work with him (the idea was to take a character that has been pretty much rendered obsolete by the 80s, and upgrade him. His power was freaking flight for crying out loud, a bunch of mutants by then could fly as a secondary aspect of their powers)

[Technopriest]

and yes, the idea that he is/was a villain actually makes complete sense, since he was created to be just that, just like Dr. Doom was created to be a villain, Magneto was created to be a villain, etc. But now I am truly done, as I said, agree to disagree, is comics at the end if the day and I am not interested in discussing this anymore, is not going to go anywhere. I will see where this story will take us, I am at least intrigued by the idea of the Externals, so we will see from there.

[Technopriest]

Great post.

I will just throw if Marvel use to reboot its universe (and people can argue about the good and bad of that if they want to) we would have lots of better villains with out the complications of the bad stories. Superhero comics especially those have gone for over decades are big game of trial an error. Plus an exercise in who remembers that story.

Some fans want awful stories and characters to stand because well it justifies their fandom keeping some bad stories that they remember. I want the better version of the character to be used even if means ignoring some stories. I rather have the Thanos and Killmonger in comics for one or two seconds had you like you know that makes a lot sense. I want the Apocalypse who isn't necessarily the genocidal manic but guy who would help save earth as well. You know this guy



For me I ask the question is the character better now, If so then I am just rolling with that presentation. Keeping it real those stories that you guy think count don't as much as you think they do.

I don't have an issue with that, but first, a lot of those stories are not bad, even if they potray Apocalypse as a villain because that was his purpose. The characters can evolve and change, they are fictional after all. It doesn't change the fact that he was portrayed as a villain for most of his publishing existence, ignoring that is just weird considering that he was portrayed as a villain in all of X-Men media, not just the comics. Whether you like that particular portrayal doesn't change the fact that that was the intent of the writers at the time.

[Sutekh]

Some fans want awful stories and characters to stand because well it justifies their fandom keeping some bad stories that they remember. I want the better version of the character to be used even if means ignoring some stories. I rather have the Thanos and Killmonger in comics for one or two seconds had you like you know that makes a lot sense. I want the Apocalypse who isn't necessarily the genocidal manic but guy who would help save earth as well.

Comic book stories have definitely evolved. DC is on the same bandwagon. Vandal Savage, for instance, is running a very similar progression from being a two-dimensional villain for ages, but now being re-imagined as someone who has spent the last millenia testing and strengthening and even protecting humanity (albeit testing-unto-destruction in many cases, and culling the weak), and has ended up fighting various other threats to the planet.

Doom, Loki, Doc Ock, Galactus, etc. all have much more complex stories these days than just 'bad-guy, because... reasons.'

But there's always a certain segment of the population who push against anything that isn't 'black and white' because they want permission to have the simplicity of being able to hate some people, to divide people into 'good guys' and 'bad guys,' it to be acceptable to hate the ones in the black hats. These guys (supervillains, orcs, Sith, whatever) are always just bad for no reason at all, genetically, and we don't have to think of them as people, who might have reasons (crappy unjustifiable self-serving reasons, perhaps, but understandable reasons) for being 'the bad guy,' because that adds an unwelcome degree of complexity to the story. It's just easier to grok, for some, who don't want meaningful characterization or moral complexity or ethical dilemnas, they just (understandably!) want people who desperately deserve to get punched in the face to indeed get punched in the face since that sometimes doesn't seem to happen to people in the real world who we think deserve to get punched in the face, and it's cathartic to see Cap punch Hitler, when your own government seems (at the time) to be politely ignoring 'that business in Europe' and saying 'let's not get involved.'

Thankfully, many keep it firmly in their comics / games / whatever, but others try to apply this 'some people are always bad' logic to populations that they don't like, such as Muslims or gays or black people, and then this simplifying 'you have permission to hate these people' storytelling shortcut gets problematic.

For me I ask the question is the character better now, If so then I am just rolling with that presentation. Keeping it real those stories that you guy think count don't as much as you think they do.

It's also, for me, a case of 'can you tell more stories with this character now.'

And that's a yes. Apocalypse can *still* get up to shenanigans that many other X-folk would violently oppose (heck, X-folk have violently opposed *each other* on occasion, so there's hardly any need to worry about Apoc, Sinny, Selene, Mags, Proteus, etc. never being able to be used as foes again!). Or he can interact with them, in this wary, fragile sort of attempt at finding a common ground.

It's a net plus, IMO.