X-Men: Before the Fall - Heralds of Apocalypse Review/Spoilers

[OG Storm]

(Maybe I’m bias), but I don’t find the storyline here as contradictory as the Apocalypse. Here we’re learning that Apocalypse was a different person in the DEEP past and that now after some pretty life changing events there may be echoes of that showing up again. I don’t see this comic as trying to make us think Apoc is suddenly a good person, especially because he still gives Genesis access to Planet Arrakko.

In Excalibur, what frustrated me was that several heroic characters were fawning over Apoc when he hadn’t done ANYTHING to prove he was worthy of trust and was actually actively deceiving them for much of the run.

I agree Apoph keeps dragging krakoa and now Arrako into war. He's not warm and cuddly and hasn't really taken a heel turn if anything he's been given a great deal more complexity.

[OG Storm]

Well let me be the worse of us up in here. Because THIS, This was a god damn love story. The whole time i was reading i was getting emotional, whatever their motives, they were honest, they were best friends, they were people who truly chose to be with each other and respected each other free will until it was revealed that Genesis withheld her decision made with Amenth, which to me was the first point in which their relationship was truly shaken. She took Apoc free will in that moment, whether what we think they did was wrong or right it was presented as though they accepted each other's choices and even challenged each other on things, but ultimately made a choice to be together and admittedly it could change tomorrow or be forever but in that sense it felt pure. Then to have that revealed and Apoc still of his own will choose to love her and her him i can understand how others could be like " that makes no sense or Apoc should never" but it felt like he got his free will back and that is what it was. This was really a good issue for me. Powerful. I also enjoyed learning his mutant power is simply to have complete control of every atom of his body, which perfectly explains everything he is capable of in my mind, from melding with celestial technology, size manipulation, everything, but yet really simplify. Kudos.

It's a really good love story for two people that love violence, war, conquest and genocide as relationship goals. They are two of the most destructive beings I have ever seen. Their love is legendary and obscene.

[Saithor]

It's a really good love story for two people that love violence, war, conquest and genocide as relationship goals. They are two of the most destructive beings I have ever seen. Their love is legendary and obscene.

“We shall be the most reviled couple since Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun my dear!”

“Wait, why am I the passive female? You dick!”

“Uh…it was only an analogy my dear.”

“Also why is someone named Roberto texting me to look up someone named Autumn Rolfson?”

I mean turnabout is only fair play. If Orchis can arm this threat by telling the truth, only fair for Krakoa to disarm it by telling the truth.

[Til]

Genesis is absolute garbage. She condemned countless generations of mutants to the horrors of Amenth just because she likes war. I'm especially thinking of the 10% of Okkarans who instantly lost their minds when Arakko landed there, and fled into the wastes only to be captured and used as forced breeding stock by the demons. Genesis has a lot to answer for.

[Saithor]

Genesis is absolute garbage. She condemned countless generations of mutants to the horrors of Amenth just because she likes war. I'm especially thinking of the 10% of Okkarans who instantly lost their minds when Arakko landed there, and fled into the wastes only to be captured and used as forced breeding stock by the demons. Genesis has a lot to answer for.

I don’t think it needs to be said but it should also be noted that a nation-state being at war rarely ever improves it, and even the most amoral of philosophy and nations tend to reject the idea because war is generally a ruinous state for all involved. There’s exceptions tend to be exaggerated (US during world war 2 benefitted from having no way for their enemies to damage the home territories and even then there’s a good argument that the war overall hurt the US economic potential at the time and for the future), and even nations thought of being at war, like the Mongol empire under Genghis, was arguably its greatest after he was forced to consolidate his gains. Most other nation states formed from continuous conquest with no stopping in between tended to be extremely unstable and collapsed after the death of whatever charismatic figurehead had formed them through conquest in the first place (Attila’s empire, Alexander the Great, Nazi Germany). Economically countries rarely benefit from warfare, the most that can be achieved is wealth redistribution that tends to destroy more wealth than it creates and is very fragile in nature (Hunnic tribute that ended the moments the Eastern Romans had rebuilt, payments and worker slaves sued by Nazi Germany to try and keep their teetering economy afloat).

Genesis isn’t just a bloodthirsty lunatic, she is also a terrible nation-builder or manager who even at the times she would have been alive her ideas would not have been taken seriously by any of the budding nation states of the time.

[Agent Grayson]

I enjoyed this issue, albeit in a conflicted way. I think part of my enjoyment was my want to enjoy it more than I actually did.

The big topic, which has already been discussed at length in this thread, is whether the portrayal of Apocalypse fits with the character as we already know him. I don't get the argument of "this is automatically good because it adds another dimension to a character and stops him being stagnant". No one is complaining about a character being made more complex - but it's the job of the writer to make that kind of development feel natural and earned, especially in a case like this where elements of the character's past are being revealed. Without this skill and nuance to the writer's work, the characters are just blank slates propelled by plot and character traits become meaningless. If it were suddenly revealed that Nightcrawler had been a secret agent for Orchis all this time, it would add another layer to his character, but it would rightly be hated because it wouldn't make sense for who we know Nightcrawler to be.

I haven't been shy in saying that one of my big pet peeves of this era has been characters being used as plot devices and villains being unilaterally redeemed with their pasts seemingly erased. Apocalypse was one of the biggest examples of this, so I actually appreciated Ewing's effort here to give his new personality and role some context. Did it work? Not fully for me. I still can't reconcile this brow-beaten, apparently peace-loving Apocalypse with a character who's about to go and maim and kill fellow mutants for a survival of the fittest ethos. It's like he was dulled down to make Genesis seem more abhorrent, which seems like a lazy way to elevate a new villain. For example, it didn't seem like Apocalypse's style to be almost hiding from Genesis in fear of her reaction to Arakko's changes - but it did make Genesis seem more terrifying and psychotic.

My opinion on all of this is all coloured by a fear that Apocalypse is being set up to be the big hero here, especially after editorial allowed him to be referred to as "the most hopeful mutant" at the end of Betsy Braddock: Captain Britain. I've also been let down by a couple of Ewing's big climaxes now, so I'm going into this with a slightly more measured enthusiasm.

All that being said, I think there's the potential for this to be a great arc and I'm willing to overlook the Apocalypse problem in expectation of an epic story. The idea of a war between new and old Arakko is awesome, particularly as it will now be ideological as well as literal. Storm vs Genesis is bound to be an awesome fight. And despite my reservations about Apocalypse, Ewing usually does solid character work, so I'm looking forward to seeing characters being forced into uncomfortable positions with difficult choices. Here's hoping Nova gets a chance to shine too!

This pretty much. This issue is trying to do the heavy lifting of suggesting that everything Apocalypse did (The torture of characters, the genocide, the child-grooming, the genocide, the mental abuse, the attempted genocide) was Al in service of some noble goal and is trying to use that to set up a “Was Apocalypse ever really that had to begin with?”

Yes. Yes he was. And honestly this only works because these characters are fictional, because if you tried to apply this to one of the historical people of the world who tried to put social dawrwinism into practice the writer would probably end up cancelled, and for good reason.

On a side note, I was surprised that so many people (invariably people who love this story) had an issue with this post and the fact that it made a real life comparison, given that mutants are constantly discussed as an analogy for real life minorities. I'm not saying which side I fall on, but it just seems like a weird place to draw the line!

[jwatson]

I enjoyed this issue, albeit in a conflicted way. I think part of my enjoyment was my want to enjoy it more than I actually did.

The big topic, which has already been discussed at length in this thread, is whether the portrayal of Apocalypse fits with the character as we already know him. I don't get the argument of "this is automatically good because it adds another dimension to a character and stops him being stagnant". No one is complaining about a character being made more complex - but it's the job of the writer to make that kind of development feel natural and earned, especially in a case like this where elements of the character's past are being revealed. Without this skill and nuance to the writer's work, the characters are just blank slates propelled by plot and character traits become meaningless. If it were suddenly revealed that Nightcrawler had been a secret agent for Orchis all this time, it would add another layer to his character, but it would rightly be hated because it wouldn't make sense for who we know Nightcrawler to be.

I haven't been shy in saying that one of my big pet peeves of this era has been characters being used as plot devices and villains being unilaterally redeemed with their pasts seemingly erased. Apocalypse was one of the biggest examples of this, so I actually appreciated Ewing's effort here to give his new personality and role some context. Did it work? Not fully for me. I still can't reconcile this brow-beaten, apparently peace-loving Apocalypse with a character who's about to go and maim and kill fellow mutants for a survival of the fittest ethos. It's like he was dulled down to make Genesis seem more abhorrent, which seems like a lazy way to elevate a new villain. For example, it didn't seem like Apocalypse's style to be almost hiding from Genesis in fear of her reaction to Arakko's changes - but it did make Genesis seem more terrifying and psychotic.

My opinion on all of this is all coloured by a fear that Apocalypse is being set up to be the big hero here, especially after editorial allowed him to be referred to as "the most hopeful mutant" at the end of Betsy Braddock: Captain Britain. I've also been let down by a couple of Ewing's big climaxes now, so I'm going into this with a slightly more measured enthusiasm.

All that being said, I think there's the potential for this to be a great arc and I'm willing to overlook the Apocalypse problem in expectation of an epic story. The idea of a war between new and old Arakko is awesome, particularly as it will now be ideological as well as literal. Storm vs Genesis is bound to be an awesome fight. And despite my reservations about Apocalypse, Ewing usually does solid character work, so I'm looking forward to seeing characters being forced into uncomfortable positions with difficult choices. Here's hoping Nova gets a chance to shine too!



On a side note, I was surprised that so many people (invariably people who love this story) had an issue with this post and the fact that it made a real life comparison, given that mutants are constantly discussed as an analogy for real life minorities. I'm not saying which side I fall on, but it just seems like a weird place to draw the line!

I think the difference is the same people that do that are usually the ones that are very vocal about mutants NOT being a good "stand in" or comparison for such a thing, usually when it comes to lgbt and minorities. Not saying saithor but just giving an example of how exactly it is different. Also i don't think any one has a problem with the poster saying it but in general i do wonder why it's on repeat. It's like okay we get it, now we up to Ava Braun and stuff. It just gets to a point, imo where it just doesn't even feel like a genuine analogy because at the end of the day the same thing about black, lgbt, etc. is the same thing true of fiction, we are what we are. but hitler and ava braun and every other person out there that are doing actual acts of wrongness including black, lgbt. etc have a choice. Apoc didn't, so it sort of becomes intellectually disingenuous imo, like your it's trying to be used to shape people opinions or feelings rather than just stating and embracing what a person's own thoughts and opinions are on something, though i admit it might not be that at all.

So there is what someone is and then there is what someone is. Sounds very similar in principle but not.

[Agent Grayson]

I think the difference is the same people that do that are usually the ones that are very vocal about mutants NOT being a good "stand in" or comparison for such a thing, usually when it comes to lgbt and minorities. Not saying saithor but just giving an example of how exactly it is different. Also i don't think any one has a problem with the poster saying it but in general i do wonder why it's on repeat. It's like okay we get it, now we up to Ava Braun and stuff. It just gets to a point, imo where it just doesn't even feel like a genuine analogy because at the end of the day the same thing about black, lgbt, etc. is the same thing true of fiction, we are what we are. but hitler and ava braun and every other person out there that are doing actual acts of wrongness including black, lgbt. etc have a choice. Apoc didn't, so it sort of becomes intellectually disingenuous imo, like your it's trying to be used to shape people opinions or feelings rather than just stating and embracing what a person's own thoughts and opinions are on something, though i admit it might not be that at all.

So there is what someone is and then there is what someone is. Sounds very similar in principle but not.

I guess I just read Saithor's post differently and in isolation from the 'history' you've gone into, more as a critique of the writing and development of Apocalypse and commentary on the blanket acceptance of it by some fans, rather than as a specific reference. (I'm also talking specifically about that original post - to be honest, I only skimmed the later conversation where name were brought up.) I personally prefer to take the stories a bit more lightly so don't tend for look for allegories unless they naturally speak to me that way, but I know that not everyone approaches things the same.

[Criticalfan]

So, just to confirm, only one X-book came out this week and it's a book that features no X-Men??

[charliehustle415]

So, just to confirm, only one X-book came out this week and it's a book that features no X-Men??

other than Storm, you are correct

[Kingdom X]

So, just to confirm, only one X-book came out this week and it's a book that features no X-Men??

I really hope once FoX starts they’ll get their release schedule back on track. I swear some weeks 5 books come out and others we just get one.

[Nicoclaws]

A thing I like about what I'm reading here about Apocalypse "redemption" is that he seems to insist that it's Krakoa that changed his vision. It's interesting to note that the very thing that lots of people complain (the trauma before Krakoa and spirit of freedom and deliverance after Krakoa making characters act OOC) seems to be what motivates the villains to change to.
Kate became more hardened. Kurt adapted his spirituality. Xavier became even more shady and isolated. But Exodus became more open and at peace. A (and the Arakki that are now on Mars) changed their perspective from war to peace. Etc.

[Micabe]

Not to stir the pot, but... When was the last time any of you people read...


Rise of Apocalypse

or


Apocalypse vs. Dracula?

[CGAR]

are you all still going on about this

just agree to disagree

some people like it some people dont

who cares

[Jackraow21]

Genesis is absolute garbage. She condemned countless generations of mutants to the horrors of Amenth just because she likes war. I'm especially thinking of the 10% of Okkarans who instantly lost their minds when Arakko landed there, and fled into the wastes only to be captured and used as forced breeding stock by the demons. Genesis has a lot to answer for.

I find myself wondering what made her this way. We got that mini back in the 90s showcasing Apocalypse's origin story -- 'Rise of Apocalypse' which Micabe references above (I've read it!) -- and what made him who he was. Would be interested in understanding Genesis' backstory, which is no doubt tragic.