Are the X-men kind of villains now?

[BobbysWorld]

I see what you're saying. I really do, but just because you turned yourself around doesn't mean you don't have to pay for what you've done in the past. The people Mystique killed in the past are still dead. Their families still have to live without them, and those crimes were made on international soil. Krakoa doesn't have the right to wash away crimes committed against. the citizens of while IN those other countries, regardless of whether or not they were committed by mutants. At most, Krakoa can offer asylum, but they don't have the authority to just say 'Hey. It's all good'. It means they're basically harboring fugitives, and I understand that. You have to keep your eye on the prize when you're being hunted, but it is what it is.

The thing is I absolutely do understand peoples' issue with this aspect of the current era - the part I dislike is how people act like mutants are the only ones to ever engage in this. Like, where's this same scrutiny applied to the very weird dynamic between the Fantastic Four family and Dr. Doom? How many of the Masters of Evil, many of them murderers, have gotten redemption arcs? After the original Civil War storyline, how many heroes were willing to tolerate the inclusion of literal Nazis like Baron Blitzkrieg having positions of oversight and authority over superhuman teenagers in their Initiative program, thanks to Norman Osborn (who was already known to many in the hero community, as what kind of person he truly was) being in charge of the whole thing?

I don't mind people being upset that mutants are working with or tolerating the presence of many mutant villains or antagonists. I just hate how its been glossed over that like......they're not even the first ones to do this on a mass scale.

[jwatson]

The thing is I absolutely do understand peoples' issue with this aspect of the current era - the part I dislike is how people act like mutants are the only ones to ever engage in this. Like, where's this same scrutiny applied to the very weird dynamic between the Fantastic Four family and Dr. Doom? How many of the Masters of Evil, many of them murderers, have gotten redemption arcs? After the original Civil War storyline, how many heroes were willing to tolerate the inclusion of literal Nazis like Baron Blitzkrieg having positions of oversight and authority over superhuman teenagers in their Initiative program, thanks to Norman Osborn (who was already known to many in the hero community, as what kind of person he truly was) being in charge of the whole thing?

I don't mind people being upset that mutants are working with or tolerating the presence of many mutant villains or antagonists. I just hate how its been glossed over that like......they're not even the first ones to do this on a mass scale.

Dark Reign was truly a dark time for marvel comics. But they were basically trying to capture what they felt was magic from what morrison did with the xmen. Turning them dark the culmination of all that to me was the Dark reign, Dark avengers, it was like writers found explorer the villains more permanent than exploring the actual heros, to me that was the worse kind of replacement but some people on the board didn't seem to mind as much as they did an the "diversity push" or the xmen apparently currently being villains despite actually still helping humanity.

I also feel a lot of hate mutants get is directly tied to that era as well. The mutants were on the rise, they were "badass" they had movies and leather and were edgy but it lost what they were actually suppose to be so i can't say i was suprised to see a certain segment of the audience were happy when decimation happened because in a lot of ways during morrison they were written like they kind of deserved it, Again for me during that time Xtreme was the saving grace for mutants and the message and i feel Krakoa has honored the spirt of that. They definitely are not acting like they were during that time and those were the supposed heroes.

[Outburstz]

this thread again......mods where you at

[JB]

Look, to read X-men comics just understand that mutants fundamentally operate off a different moral scale where they invented an entire language because they consider all other languages the language of those who endorse genocide…and then the first person to rename themselves with that language is a person who literally has attempted genocide of his own sound kind several times.


Then again we can argue how sound of mind anyone with Apocalypse’s dumb as **** eugenicist beliefs is. Social Darwinism got disproven in the 1900s, you dick.

The way you often use "Apocalypse" and "dick" at the same time tho. I think you love •-[A]-•.

[Saithor]

The thing is I absolutely do understand peoples' issue with this aspect of the current era - the part I dislike is how people act like mutants are the only ones to ever engage in this. Like, where's this same scrutiny applied to the very weird dynamic between the Fantastic Four family and Dr. Doom? How many of the Masters of Evil, many of them murderers, have gotten redemption arcs? After the original Civil War storyline, how many heroes were willing to tolerate the inclusion of literal Nazis like Baron Blitzkrieg having positions of oversight and authority over superhuman teenagers in their Initiative program, thanks to Norman Osborn (who was already known to many in the hero community, as what kind of person he truly was) being in charge of the whole thing?

I don't mind people being upset that mutants are working with or tolerating the presence of many mutant villains or antagonists. I just hate how its been glossed over that like......they're not even the first ones to do this on a mass scale.

A). I hated Dark Reign and the stupid, convoluted series of events that somehow put Norman Fricking Osborn in charge of it all.
B). Doom flip-flops every three years, and between the number of retcons, doombots, and other BS writers pull with him I essentially just look forward to him to be entertained by the hamminess and nothing else. There's not really much left of the golem of a character they've left in his wake to mine.
C). The Masters of Evil were redeemed over a long comics book run that showed their redemption as the Thunderbolts over a long, long time. it wasn't very sudden, some of them ended up slipping back over time (Atlas, Fixer), and the only one of them who was a known murderer (Beetle/Mach V) willingly went to jail for his time until the CSA recruited him for a sting on Justin Hammer. I feel like throwing the Masters of Evil in there isn't exactly fair either because most of the members have either remained villains (Zemo, Moonstone), went back to villainy after a while (Fixer, Atlas) or were never villains on the level of Apocalypse, Exodus, or even Pyro and Avalaunche (Screaming Mimi/Songbird, Beetle/Mach V).

Let me make it clear, I hate a poorly handled redemption arc, I don't like long term tolerating or working for villains when the reason doesn't feel jsutified (And when the biggest threat to justify working with Apocalypse is the clown show that is Orchis, it really doesn't.) We get told a lot that Krakoa needs these mutants to survive but in my opinion the books have not really done a good job of showing since Orchis still doesn't feel like an actual threat.

[BobbysWorld]

I wonder if you men the X-Men proper or mutants in general, because I think there is a good setup currently to see mutants become the become the bad guys now that they are on top and have the power. (Because how can they exercise that power without becoming at least somewhat the oppressors?)

And this is a criticism I have of the current era, and have said so many times, because it comes down to writer execution. Part of why I object so vehemently to painting all mutants (and X-books) with the same brush is the perspective of the individual writer plays a HUGE role in how nuanced their approach to many of these topics are.

For instance, there ARE books where the characters have more of a supremacy overtone, but I think those books are the ones in the hands of writers like Percy or Duggan, who are not marginalized themselves and intentionally or not, can't seem to help but lean into the assumption many non-marginalized people have - that any historically marginalized group, should they ever end up in power, would become oppressors themselves. This is a particularly tantalizing assumption for even non-marginalized people who would LIKE to consider themselves allies to marginalized people to buy into, because it creates an impression that like well, its not even anyone's fault that the currently non-marginalized groups oppress other groups or perpetuate oppression. "Its just inevitable" when one group has power of any kind, see?

Except its NOT actually a given, because HAVING power is not inherently the issue...EXPLOITING that power at others' expense, using that power OVER others....that's a CHOICE, not an inherent symptom of the having of power. And that's where I object to painting mutants as inevitable oppressors the second they enter their glow-up era, because a) that's NOT actually what's happening in even most of the books....a lot of the writers, particularly the marginalized ones, have a hell of a lot more nuanced take on even the most complicated issues of the era. Ayala's interactions between humans and mutants, Ewing's take on resurrection, these things are simply NOT interchangeable with how Hickman and Percy had mutants interacting with humans or their view of resurrection. And I think it does a disservice to the marginalized members of the X-offices, as well as the complexity of these topics in general, to act like only one kind of narrative is coming out of the X-offices.

Especially if the narrative people use as definitive are the ones being pushed by the writers with the least relevant viewpoint on these topics, the ones like Percy or Duggan who have no lived experiences with being systemically disenfranchised TO inform their perspectives on what an actual disenfranchised community would do upon finding themselves in positions of power.

It bothers me that people are letting those writers in particular set the tone of the overall narrative or confining their view of the narratives to just what those writers are pumping out there....in large part BECAUSE they're presenting the most simplistic and easily combated take to the current era, DUE to the lack of nuance in their work. A lack of nuance which stems in no small part from the fact that their perspective is just.....not nearly as informed or expansive as those with a more relevant viewpoint on the current topics.

[Saithor]

The way you often use "Apocalypse" and "dick" at the same time tho. I think you love •-[A]-•.

Apocalypse is fine, as a villain, as much as I might disagree with how much validity certain writers give his heavily racist beliefs about eugenics and social darwinism. As some kind of "See, I was secretly making you stronger all along, all my attempted genocides and crimes and murders of your loved ones and child grooming and psychological torture were for the greater good" he can go get thrown in a dumpster and die.

[BobbysWorld]

A). I hated Dark Reign and the stupid, convoluted series of events that somehow put Norman Fricking Osborn in charge of it all.
B). Doom flip-flops every three years, and between the number of retcons, doombots, and other BS writers pull with him I essentially just look forward to him to be entertained by the hamminess and nothing else. There's not really much left of the golem of a character they've left in his wake to mine.
C). The Masters of Evil were redeemed over a long comics book run that showed their redemption as the Thunderbolts over a long, long time. it wasn't very sudden, some of them ended up slipping back over time (Atlas, Fixer), and the only one of them who was a known murderer (Beetle/Mach V) willingly went to jail for his time until the CSA recruited him for a sting on Justin Hammer. I feel like throwing the Masters of Evil in there isn't exactly fair either because most of the members have either remained villains (Zemo, Moonstone), went back to villainy after a while (Fixer, Atlas) or were never villains on the level of Apocalypse, Exodus, or even Pyro and Avalaunche (Screaming Mimi/Songbird, Beetle/Mach V).

Let me make it clear, I hate a poorly handled redemption arc, I don't like long term tolerating or working for villains when the reason doesn't feel jsutified (And when the biggest threat to justify working with Apocalypse is the clown show that is Orchis, it really doesn't.) We get told a lot that Krakoa needs these mutants to survive but in my opinion the books have not really done a good job of showing since Orchis still doesn't feel like an actual threat.

And hating particular executions of this sort of thing is more than fair. My objection is to the way people act like there's just no precedent period, because those instances weren't well executed either. Hate on the execution, by all means, but there's a definite tone many posters introduce into this topic, where its like, mutants are the only ones to do this and that's just plain not true. Even if people hate the previous times its been done too, like, it still happened, y'know? People don't get to gloss over it because they didn't like it then either but then act like current posters are doing something different when some fans of the current era don't like that aspect of the books either so they'd like to gloss over it too while focusing on the stuff they like.

[Saithor]

And this is a criticism I have of the current era, and have said so many times, because it comes down to writer execution. Part of why I object so vehemently to painting all mutants (and X-books) with the same brush is the perspective of the individual writer plays a HUGE role in how nuanced their approach to many of these topics are.

For instance, there ARE books where the characters have more of a supremacy overtone, but I think those books are the ones in the hands of writers like Percy or Duggan, who are not marginalized themselves and intentionally or not, can't seem to help but lean into the assumption many non-marginalized people have - that any historically marginalized group, should they ever end up in power, would become oppressors themselves. This is a particularly tantalizing assumption for even non-marginalized people who would LIKE to consider themselves allies to marginalized people to buy into, because it creates an impression that like well, its not even anyone's fault that the currently non-marginalized groups oppress other groups or perpetuate oppression. "Its just inevitable" when one group has power of any kind, see?

Except its NOT actually a given, because HAVING power is not inherently the issue...EXPLOITING that power at others' expense, using that power OVER others....that's a CHOICE, not an inherent symptom of the having of power. And that's where I object to painting mutants as inevitable oppressors the second they enter their glow-up era, because a) that's NOT actually what's happening in even most of the books....a lot of the writers, particularly the marginalized ones, have a hell of a lot more nuanced take on even the most complicated issues of the era. Ayala's interactions between humans and mutants, Ewing's take on resurrection, these things are simply NOT interchangeable with how Hickman and Percy had mutants interacting with humans or their view of resurrection. And I think it does a disservice to the marginalized members of the X-offices, as well as the complexity of these topics in general, to act like only one kind of narrative is coming out of the X-offices.

Especially if the narrative people use as definitive are the ones being pushed by the writers with the least relevant viewpoint on these topics, the ones like Percy or Duggan who have no lived experiences with being systemically disenfranchised TO inform their perspectives on what an actual disenfranchised community would do upon finding themselves in positions of power.

It bothers me that people are letting those writers in particular set the tone of the overall narrative or confining their view of the narratives to just what those writers are pumping out there....in large part BECAUSE they're presenting the most simplistic and easily combated take to the current era, DUE to the lack of nuance in their work. A lack of nuance which stems in no small part from the fact that their perspective is just.....not nearly as informed or expansive as those with a more relevant viewpoint on the current topics.

No offense but if the books are having this kind of disjointed messaging, and I'll agree they are, then editorial should be making sure that the actual tone and messaging is consistent. This should have been hammered out when Hickman was first putting those elements in, not right now, 3+ years into this era.

[Saithor]

And hating particular executions of this sort of thing is more than fair. My objection is to the way people act like there's just no precedent period, because those instances weren't well executed either. Hate on the execution, by all means, but there's a definite tone many posters introduce into this topic, where its like, mutants are the only ones to do this and that's just plain not true. Even if people hate the previous times its been done too, like, it still happened, y'know? People don't get to gloss over it because they didn't like it then either but then act like current posters are doing something different when some fans of the current era don't like that aspect of the books either so they'd like to gloss over it too while focusing on the stuff they like.

Oh no, I'll happily agree this isn't unique. The scale of it probably is, and I think that's what people have an issue with. I am struggling to think of a book that suddenly treated a cast of rogues this massive this...way before. My issue is again, execution. I feel like a lot of the set-up for this era has been a lot of tell, not show.

[JB]

Apocalypse is fine, as a villain, as much as I might disagree with how much validity certain writers give his heavily racist beliefs about eugenics and social darwinism. As some kind of "See, I was secretly making you stronger all along, all my attempted genocides and crimes and murders of your loved ones and child grooming and psychological torture were for the greater good" he can go get thrown in a dumpster and die.

I find him more interesting now with the whole family background story. Before that it was very rinse and repeat when he would appear and I got tired of him. Seeing the villains in these different dynamics has been refreshing. Doesn't mean I'll put a poster of them on my wall but you know what I mean.

[BobbysWorld]

No offense but if the books are having this kind of disjointed messaging, and I'll agree they are, then editorial should be making sure that the actual tone and messaging is consistent. This should have been hammered out when Hickman was first putting those elements in, not right now, 3+ years into this era.

I mean, this might be the first time we're in complete agreement (mark the date for posterity, people) but hell yes I absolutely think that's true and something editorial should be doing a DAMN better job at, as its a huge source of so many of these flaws.

[Saithor]

I find him more interesting now with the whole family background story. Before that it was very rinse and repeat when he would appear and I got tired of him. Seeing the villains in these different dynamics has been refreshing. Doesn't mean I'll put a poster of them on my wall but you know what I mean.

Different dynamics is fine. Trying to absolve him or justify his actions is just…gags

Considering he tried to kill 90% of the world at one point and did stuff like Name his kid Holocaust in a timeline where he did succeed, I’m going to say the only way they could have made it worse is if they made him a literal Nazi. I hate stories where characters attempt genocide or eugenics or some other thing and the writers feel compelled to put in some deeper reason for it as if to try and counterbalance.

Like, how do you think this forum would react if the reason Trask made the Sentinels was because of some deep and ancient prophecy about how mutants must be culled to prevent the end of the universe, and then it it turned out to be true?

[Saithor]

I mean, this might be the first time we're in complete agreement (mark the date for posterity, people) but hell yes I absolutely think that's true and something editorial should be doing a DAMN better job at, as its a huge source of so many of these flaws.

I honestly don’t remember us disagreeing that much overall but there’s only a few people on these forums I get heated arguing with. But yes the editorial just needs to set a tone.

[PyroFN]

Right. Although, i'm starting agree with Beast. We probably should put some sleeper agents in some countries. Krakoa has some about what? 3?

Perhaps not sleeper agents. More like double agents like Empath was for Hellions in regards to Sinister. It’s a lot more ethical.