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

[Technopriest]

Exactatiously.
And nowhere in the great Marvel Handbook does it state that characters and their motivations must not change and evolve with the times.
Which is exactly what we've been getting (for good and bad) with this new iteration of of our favourite Mutants.

Motivations can evolve and change, and if that is the case it needs to be explained within the story. Also, the issue I was getting at is that Apocalyse has never been a Mutant supremacist and his goals have never been a mutant utopia. If that is what Apocalyse's goal is now so be it, but let's not pretend that it has always been so, since we have decades of comics that show that is not the case.

[JB]

Motivations can evolve and change, and if that is the case it needs to be explained within the story. Also, the issue I was getting at is that Apocalyse has never been a Mutant supremacist and his goals have never been a mutant utopia. If that is what Apocalyse's goal is now so be it, but let's not pretend that it has always been so, since we have decades of comics that show that is not the case.

But it has been explained in story. In fact, it was September 18, 2019 when his change started. It's been almost a year.

[Devaishwarya]

Boop! There it is! (How quickly some forget)

[Technopriest]

But it has been explained in story. In fact, it was September 18, 2019 when his change started. It's been almost a year.

It is a soft recon, but a recon nonetheless. I go back to what I said earlier, Apocalypse motivation was never of mutant supremacy or a mutant utopia. I understand Hickman 'adjusted' Apocalypse's motivation to fit the story, but even within that story it was never a paradigm shift for him. We basically have to accept that Apocalyse endgame was always his people's ascension to the top, but it really wasn't. I know what the story presented, my point was that this new viewpoint of his is not something that he always has had. Apocalypse was always about culling the weak, if those he deemed weaker were half the mutant population, he would have exterminated them as well. He was never the mutant supremacist that has been presented in DOX (once again, if that is the new status quo so be it, but let's not pretend that apocalypse has always been about that).

[cranger]

One (two) silent panels does not change a character. That can be interpreted many ways. In no way does someone see that and think "Apocalypse learned the lesson of mutant peace". It is what it is, but let's not pretend this was some developed change. But, if this is not just another case of misdirection, as a fan of what Apocalypse brought to the X-Men mythos, it feels like misuse.

[Technopriest]

Boop! There it is! (How quickly some forget)

No, I haven't 'forgotten' anything. The discussion was not whether Apocalyse new motivations hasn't been presented in story, bit if it is something that has always been part of Apocalypse's motivation, and it hasn't. Once again, Apocalyse has never been a mutant supremacist, none of the Externals were as a matter of fact. Heck, as a matter of fact neither Selene nor Apocalypse were meant to be Externals, but that was retconned before DOX.

[Devaishwarya]

I see where this is leading to so...

Yes. Absolutely.

[Technopriest]

One (two) silent panels does not change a character. That can be interpreted many ways. In no way does someone see that and think "Apocalypse learned the lesson of mutant peace". It is what it is, but let's not pretend this was some developed change. But, if this is not just another case of misdirection, as a fan of what Apocalypse brought to the X-Men mythos, it feels like misuse.

Exactly, Apocalypse's motivation was never of a mutant community or a mutant utopia. A couple panels does not explain away years of characterization that directly contradict that. If that's the direction that Hickman wants to take and those panels is all the explanation he wants to give for that shift that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a recon nonetheless.

[Technopriest]

I see where this is leading to so...

Yes. Absolutely.

Uh? I was commenting on this development, I don't know where you think this leads to, but whatever, is not a huge deal for me at the end of the day.

[JB]

One (two) silent panels does not change a character. That can be interpreted many ways. In no way does someone see that and think "Apocalypse learned the lesson of mutant peace". It is what it is, but let's not pretend this was some developed change. But, if this is not just another case of misdirection, as a fan of what Apocalypse brought to the X-Men mythos, it feels like misuse.

As I said, it was when it started. The opportunity to have his original horsemen/children back, along with grandchildren he's never known, is what sparked the change in his viewpoint. Krakoa's reaction to his arrival was actually the very first bit. I personally don't see it far-fetched for a father to change when presented with an opportunity to be reunited with his lost family.

No, I haven't 'forgotten' anything. The discussion was not whether Apocalyse new motivations hasn't been presented in story, bit if it is something that has always been part of Apocalypse's motivation, and it hasn't. Once again, Apocalyse has never been a mutant supremacist, none of the Externals were as a matter of fact. Heck, as a matter of fact neither Selene nor Apocalypse were meant to be Externals, but that was retconned before DOX.

I read what Killerbee wrote differently then, about how his dedication to Krakoa is coming from a purer place than Steel interprets it. To each their own.

[Technopriest]

As I said, it was when it started. The opportunity to have his original horsemen/children back, along with grandchildren he's never known, is what sparked the change in his viewpoint.



I read what Killerbee wrote differently then, about how his dedication to Krakoa is coming from a purer place than Steel interprets it. To each their own.

I actually belive they could both be right, that Apocalypse sees his motivations as pure where Krakoa is concerned (and like Beast, believes that what he is doing is for the greater good) and still comes across as nefarious to others. DoX is kind of a weird story in the sense that not only are the characters within the story expected to forgive and forget, but the readers are also expected to accept this new status quo no questions asked. Is weird to me to see Wolverine for example sharing a beer with Gorgon, or Gorgon himself accepting this new role within Krakoa that seems to run contrary to his own personal ambitions. I understand the thematic message that Hickman is presenting, it is still weird though, because x-comics don't start and end with DoX In any way, I wouldn't mind if Apocalyse himself ends up becoming a second alternative for mutants, not necessarily the villains but still the antagonist to the story that Hickman is weaving. I actually liked the panels I read from the upcoming issue of Excalibur, although I wouldn't put it past Apocalypse to betray the High Lords to get their powers.

[JB]

I actually belive they could both be right, that Apocalypse's sees his motivations as pure where Krakoa is concerned (and like Beast, believes that what he is doing is for the greater good) and still comes across as nefarious to others. DoX is kind of a weird story in the sense that not only are the characters within the story expected to forgive and forget, but the readers are also expected to accept this new status quo no questions asked. Is weird to me to see Wolverine for example sharing a beer with Gorgon, or Gorgon himself accepting this new role within Krakoa that seems to run contrary to his iwn personal ambitions. I understand the thematic message that Hickman is presenting, it is still weird though, because x-comics don't start and end with Doc. In any way, I wouldn't mind if Apocalyse himself ends up becoming a second alternative for mutants, not necessarily the villains but still the antagonist to the story that Hickman is weaving. I actually liked the panels I read from the upcoming issue of Excalibur, although I wouldn't put it past Apocalypse to betray the High Lords to get their powers.

All good points and it circles back to really what's been the main debate since HOX/POX - how much readers are willing to ride with the new status quo. And for that we have millions of pages of discussion we can refer to. At the end of the day I'm glad people are passionate about these characters.

[pkingdom]

If Apocalypse wants his first Horsemen back because they are his strongerst/favorites, that's fine. But if he's suddenly some kind of family man wanting the best for his people it would be baffling. He would basically be an entirely new character.

I've always found Cyclops kind of bland, and had a hard time getting a grasp on his personality. Right now he's OK with what's happening because he has his whole family around (despite Kid Cable killing OG Cable, who he actually had a relationship with, and everything surrounding Madelyne Pryor). Him turning on a dime when Havok could have faced consequences for screwing up just made him look shallow. Screw all this island paradise business if my brother gets in trouble.

[Lapsus]

I actually belive they could both be right, that Apocalypse's sees his motivations as pure where Krakoa is concerned (and like Beast, believes that what he is doing is for the greater good) and still comes across as nefarious to others. DoX is kind of a weird story in the sense that not only are the characters within the story expected to forgive and forget, but the readers are also expected to accept this new status quo no questions asked. Is weird to me to see Wolverine for example sharing a beer with Gorgon, or Gorgon himself accepting this new role within Krakoa that seems to run contrary to his iwn personal ambitions. I understand the thematic message that Hickman is presenting, it is still weird though, because x-comics don't start and end with Doc. In any way, I wouldn't mind if Apocalyse himself ends up becoming a second alternative for mutants, not necessarily the villains but still the antagonist to the story that Hickman is weaving. I actually liked the panels I read from the upcoming issue of Excalibur, although I wouldn't put it past Apocalypse to betray the High Lords to get their powers.

This is how i usually see Apocalypse fall, not betraying Krakoa but the X-Men for failing to his expectations.

But i dont see him as the main villain, he is the one that stand out the most but life 9 maybe indicates that he has an important role to do.

I still pick Sinister as the endgame villain of all of this.

[Grunty]

This is how i usually see Apocalypse fall, not betraying Krakoa but the X-Men for failing to his expectations.

But i dont see him as the main villain, he is the one that stand out the most but life 9 maybe indicates that he has an important role to do.

I still pick Sinister as the endgame villain of all of this.

I would agree that Apocalypse being the main villain and/or cause of Krakoa's downfall is a bit too obvious. However the same would be the case for Sinister too.

Overall i have the feeling most of the major villains welcomed in House of x #5 will either not step up to the role, or will fail when they try their hand at taking over or destroying the Nation.
All so it can look as impossible to fail as possible. With Xavier and Magneto always one step ahead of the game because of Moira's work. Which will be when the big reveals will come and the downfall beginn, to be as shocking as possible after all the previous success.

As for who the main villain will be then? We will see and there will have likely been little hints.
External enemy wise, my guess is on a Dominion because Moira didn't erase that timeline like she thought she did. But i have no clue on the internal one.