Unpopular/Controversial Opinions

[dragonmp93]

Once again the ignorance in your post is beyond comical if at best predictable. But than again your X-fan so I forgive your lack of knowledge. I found the X-men much more interesting once half the species was wiped out. Really, well lets kill off Storm, Gambit and Magik just to further that eye for eye. Seems only fair.


How about no given what terrible the concept was during that Spider-Man and the X-men comic, the X-men in that title have made it clear mutant problems are an X-men problem.




Speaking of Rachel wasn't she the cause of the Legacy Virus catastrophe, if she had more faith in her supposed messiah she wouldn't need to have clone him giving Apocalypse a new weapon thus he wouldn't have infected the mutant race with Plague. Causing Moria, Pyro, Colossus, and Magik to die. And now you expect to convince me she could lead a strike force given her incompetence and inconsistent powers. Don't make me laugh.


Or you know Doctor Strange could just put Magik in a catatonic state.

Pot meet Kettle.

[mysterio1989]

Apocalypse did not infect mutants with the Legacy virus plague. Mr.Sinister did via Stryfe.

I know it was Stryfe.

[aja_christopher]

Once again the ignorance in your post is beyond comical if at best predictable. But than again your X-fan so I forgive your lack of knowledge. I found the X-men much more interesting once half the species was wiped out. Really, well lets kill off Storm, Gambit and Magik just to further that eye for eye. Seems only fair.

Actually... "fair" would be the Avengers learning to stand on their own two feet instead of repeatedly trying to use the X-Men to prop up their sales numbers.



You can complain about the X-Men all you like but at the end of the day -- considering the fact that about half of the X-Men in the above video became Avengers -- it's the Avengers who needed the X-Men to boost their popularity... and not the other way around.

[Tiamatty]

Well seeing as how the X-men knocked down the other marvel brands with the Onslaught event seems only fair to eradicate 90% of the C and D list mutants out of Marvels gallery. It's merely payback.

The Avengers dying in Onslaught wasn't about knocking the Avengers franchise down. Quite the opposite: It was an attempt to get people interested in the Avengers, via the Heroes Reborn push.

You know, i never liked the Avengers, but i didnt have anything against them either until AvX.

I still have nothing against them. I've always preferred the X-Men. But quite honestly, the Avengers office is just putting out better books right now. I still consider myself primarily an X-Men fan, but at the end of the day, my money goes towards comics that I think are of high quality and deserve to continue. The only X-title getting my money right now is All-New Wolverine.

Like Cyclops was doing in Uncanny X-men 600 ?.
Anyways, for civil rights, you need human rights first, isnt it ?.

Exactly. That sort of rally. I loved that scene. It was exactly the sort of thing I want to see more of from the X-Men franchise.

Once again the ignorance in your post is beyond comical if at best predictable. But than again your X-fan so I forgive your lack of knowledge.

Hey, here's an idea: Don't be a condescending dick. Seriously, this comment is ridiculous. It is totally uncalled-for. There's being controversial, and there's being an ass, and you've crossed the line into "ass" territory. Pull it back.

I found the X-men much more interesting once half the species was wiped out. Really, well lets kill off Storm, Gambit and Magik just to further that eye for eye. Seems only fair.

Decimation was an interesting idea, and there were some good stories to come out of it. But the franchise was at its most interesting during the Morrison era, where the minority angle was really pushed. Mutants as a minority with their own culture and with a degree of social legitimacy is far more interesting than mutants on the edge of extinction. Also, aja's point was that, since the top 3 X-Men - Xavier, Scott and Logan - have been killed off, then killing the top 3 Avengers - Steve, Tony and Odinson - would be fair. So killing off another three popular X-Men would throw it out of balance again.

Speaking of Rachel wasn't she the cause of the Legacy Virus catastrophe, if she had more faith in her supposed messiah she wouldn't need to have him cloned in turn giving Apocalypse a new soldier to manipulate thus Stryfe wouldn't have infected the mutant race with the Plague. Causing Moria, Pyro, Colossus, and Magik to die. And now you expect to convince me she could lead a strike force given her incompetence and inconsistent powers. Don't make me laugh.

"She made a decision that ended up having consequences that there was no possible way for her to ever even consider seeing - what an idiot!" Nonsense.

Or you know Doctor Strange could just put Magik in a catatonic state.

Or maybe she'd manage to resist long enough to get to Limbo, where she has total control.

[mysterio1989]

The Avengers dying in Onslaught wasn't about knocking the Avengers franchise down. Quite the opposite: It was an attempt to get people interested in the Avengers, via the Heroes Reborn push.


I still have nothing against them. I've always preferred the X-Men. But quite honestly, the Avengers office is just putting out better books right now. I still consider myself primarily an X-Men fan, but at the end of the day, my money goes towards comics that I think are of high quality and deserve to continue. The only X-title getting my money right now is All-New Wolverine.


Exactly. That sort of rally. I loved that scene. It was exactly the sort of thing I want to see more of from the X-Men franchise.


Hey, here's an idea: Don't be a condescending dick. Seriously, this comment is ridiculous. It is totally uncalled-for. There's being controversial, and there's being an ass, and you've crossed the line into "ass" territory. Pull it back.


Decimation was an interesting idea, and there were some good stories to come out of it. But the franchise was at its most interesting during the Morrison era, where the minority angle was really pushed. Mutants as a minority with their own culture and with a degree of social legitimacy is far more interesting than mutants on the edge of extinction. Also, aja's point was that, since the top 3 X-Men - Xavier, Scott and Logan - have been killed off, then killing the top 3 Avengers - Steve, Tony and Odinson - would be fair. So killing off another three popular X-Men would throw it out of balance again.


"She made a decision that ended up having consequences that there was no possible way for her to ever even consider seeing - what an idiot!" Nonsense.


Or maybe she'd manage to resist long enough to get to Limbo, where she has total control.

First off I didn't name call anyone so get off your damn high horse you hypocrite. Second I still stand by Rachel's incompetence, yeah I lost respect for Morrison when he introduced a virus as the cause for the mutant hatred it was on the borders of golden age nonsense glad he left Marvel. As to Heroes Reborn it was pure garbage with one decent artist and several bad ones.

And yet Magik was still KO by a decrease in powered Doctor Strange.

[Tiamatty]

First off I didn't name call anyone so get off your damn high horse you hypocrite. Second I still stand by Rachel's incompetence, yeah I lost respect for Morrison when he introduced a virus as the cause for the mutant hatred it was on the borders of golden age nonsense glad he left Marvel. As to Heroes Reborn it was pure garbage with one decent artist and several bad ones.

And yet Magik was still KO by a decrease in powered Doctor Strange.

Dude. Pull it back. You really, really need to pull it back, because you're really coming across as an ass.

Yes, Heroes Reborn did suck. Most of the artists attached were actually really popular at the time, but the comics were just crappy. Just the same, it was an attempt to boost interest in the Avengers, because its sales hadn't been as good as Marvel wanted. Just because it failed doesn't mean it was Marvel trying to sabotage the Avengers or something. It wasn't trying to boost the X-Men at the expense of the Avengers; the X-Men didn't need a boost at that point.

Here's what people should remember: Marvel has never tried to hurt one book to boost another. They want all their books to do well. The mentality of books being pitted against each other? That's a fan mentality. Even AvX wasn't actually about hurting one side or the other. Everyone involved was genuinely trying to create a good, well-told story that would be enjoyed by fans of both franchises, and possibly even get fans of each franchise reading the other.

Marvel has no shits to give about the X-Men/Avengers rivalry. They'll have stories that play it up, but they also have stories that play up rivalries within each faction, and they pretty much always end up making everyone friends again at some point. It's readers who refuse to let shit go.

[ZNOP]

Speaking of Rachel wasn't she the cause of the Legacy Virus catastrophe, if she had more faith in her supposed messiah she wouldn't need to have him cloned in turn giving Apocalypse a new soldier to manipulate thus Stryfe wouldn't have infected the mutant race with the Plague. Causing Moria, Pyro, Colossus, and Magik to die. And now you expect to convince me she could lead a strike force given her incompetence and inconsistent powers. Don't make me laugh.

I know it was Stryfe.

Ironically, the Legacy Virus was originally created by Apocalypse in the future (engineered to kill off baseline humans) which Strife obtained, altered and brought to the past (re-engineered to killed off mutant humans instead) which he then gave to Mister Sinister claiming that the container contained 2,000 years worth of genetic material from the Summers bloodline.

More importantly, it was Gordon Lefferts (a lackey of Mr. Sinister) who opened the container and released the Legacy Virus. Blaming Rachel is ludicrous because had Apocalypse not infected Nathan with the T.O. Virus and Rachel not cloning him En Sabah Nur would have stolen Nathan's body and powers and proceeded to enslaved the planet. Strife did what he did because of Apocalypse's influence.

[aja_christopher]

Marvel has no shits to give about the X-Men/Avengers rivalry. They'll have stories that play it up, but they also have stories that play up rivalries within each faction, and they pretty much always end up making everyone friends again at some point. It's readers who refuse to let shit go.

And I think this is where a lot of the conflict comes from -- most X-Fans were quite happy to let the mutants do their own thing in their corner of the Marvel Universe, while the Avengers, the FF, and Spidey did theirs. Of course there were occasional interactions between various individuals from both sides (like Cap and Wolverine, Carol and Rogue, Spidey and Iceman, etc) but generally they were limited to said individuals rather the entire group.

Most of the arguments I hear from the X-Fans is that the ongoing conflicts between these groups (Avengers and X-Men especially) did very little to improve the storytelling in said books. Crossovers tend to take many writers out of their "zone" and usually depend on ridiculous gimmicks ("Phoenix training", "Xavier's brain", etc) to force said groups to fight with one another. I know that, personally, as an X-Fan, I was far more interested in seeing the New Mutants team up with the X-Men to defeat the Enchantress and Loki than I was in seeing the X-Men fighting with the Avengers over the deus ex machina known as the "Phoenix force".

Carol vs. Rogue was organic -- it was rooted in a serious conflict between two individuals who happened to be on opposite teams and of course Carol had every right to want to knock the taste out of Rogue's mouth for stealing her powers and psyche. I could likewise say the same for Rogue and the Scarlet Witch, or Magneto and the Red Skull, as similar examples of viable "friction". But when conflicts seem "forced" (such as Wolverine vs. Cyclops or Cyclops vs. Cap or Storm vs. Black Panther) then the storytelling suffers as a result.

I'm not saying that every issue should feature a baseball game at the Xavier Mansion or a party on Tony Starks' yacht, but, conversely, the conflicts between individual and team "heroes" shouldn't result in said characters always coming to blows. I know that it's a well-word trope in comic books that heroes will often fight first when meeting one another, but when the reasoning behind the fighting is weak (and often completely avoidable) it demeans the "heroes" both as individuals and as a whole. Certainly I might expect Wolverine to mix it up with both hero and villain more often than not, but Cap and Cyclops -- as longstanding leaders with decades of experience -- should both know better, and it detracts from the the story to see grown men -- heroic grown men, no less -- acting like school kids fighting over things that could easily be resolved via dialogue and diplomacy.

I really think Marvel underestimates the audience sometimes in that respect -- we don't need to see Professor Xavier or Night Thrasher or Rhodey or Synch or Cyclops die for a story to have meaning and validity, nor for it to have gravitas or foreshadow serious consequences moving forward. Granted, sacrifice can be a powerful means of building your story up (Uncle Ben, Gwen Stacy, the Mutant Massacre, the Stamford Incident, etc) but when said sacrifice becomes the "selling point" of the story -- rather than allowing the story to sell itself on it's own merits -- then it comes off as exactly the kind of cheap sales gimmick that it is.

That kind of storytelling is exactly why I moved on to Vertigo (Sandman, Shade, Animal Man) after Onslaught... but I can also admit that the numbers don't lie, and that Marvel profits greatly when these 'events' tie so many different books together, which is why they continue to do it. I think the happy medium is to at least make sure that the "event" stories have more depth to them than watching Cap and Cyclops go at it over the "Phoenix force" -- when Rachel could have probably offered a solution from the very start. Because the foundation of the conflict was so weak, it only made killing off Xavier and making Cyclops Public Enemy #1 seem completely "forced" and not at all natural in terms of storytelling.

While I often said Storm should lead the X-Men, that was never because I disliked Cyclops or felt that he was a poor leader -- it was because I felt that Storm could be just as effective a leader as Cyclops, and that -- given the fact that Storm won leadership from him in a fair duel -- Cyclops should lead a second team instead (which he did). But having him fight with the Avengers and kill Xavier just went way too far overboard -- it was something I could possibly see Wolverine doing in a "beserker rage" but Cyclops was always a strategist, and such behavior just seemed completely out of character for him to me.

If anything, I would think having the power of the Phoenix force would make him even more strategic in his thinking -- as someone who spent his entire life learning to maintain absolute control over his power, having even more power should have made him even more cautious in it's application, rather than less. Jealousy over Namor and Emma and the ongoing feud with Logan was understandable, but I simply could not buy that Scott would outright murder Xavier in cold blood, even in self-defense.

And I think this is what many X-Fans didn't (and still don't) like about the current situation. Most of us were content to let the X-Books operate like a loosely knit family that dealt with it's problems from within (without killing one another, I might add). This was a legacy that Claremont built up -- whether it was Sam asking Kitty for help with his homework, or or Kurt consoling Logan's loss of Mariko over a beer at the bar. When the stories begin to stray too far from said legacy, a lot of what made the X-Men special is lost.

Carol vs. Rogue, Logan vs. the Hulk, Magneto vs. Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch -- these kinds of conflicts help build character... but the Avengers vs. the X-Men or the Inhumans vs. the Mutants just seems like a cheap way to force issues between groups of heroes that would probably be far more inclined to work together than to try to tear one another apart.

[mysterio1989]

Well Tia you can always report me like everyone else and while your at it tell the mods to ban me to for extra measures.

Reading your post Aja I was content with the Marvel U and X-men just being seldomly associated to the occasional team ups. I just felt agitated by the complaints from fans composing why didn't Avengers and other heroes save Genosha or solve the mutant problem. Meanwhile they had their own stories to tell but those excuses didn't satisfy those fans.
So I became disgusted and left the X-men and I never looked back since. I know it's not an excuse for my attitude but the constant comparison of superiority team and insults or who should be punished can just become grating. Don't get me wrong I hate having X-men invadeing other Marvel teams vice versa on Avengers joining X-men but it's a phase I believe will eventually die off like holo covers.
I hope one day things will go back to normal. But given Marvel and DC the status quo will return.

[Tony Stark]

There are stories when the X Men didn't help out the Avengers either. I never get why people bring that up other than to start a flame war.

[Pat Thomas]

There are stories when the X Men didn't help out the Avengers either. I never get why people bring that up other than to start a flame war.

Probably could have used them against Korvac.

[Draegwolf]

I hate Red Skull having powers, everything leading up to that moment and how it was handled was utter garbage imo.

I think Onslaught should come back, either as a unique entity or as an embittered adult Franklin Richards.

Cable works better as a precog preventing drastic events than as another overpowered time travelling psychic from the Summers-Grey dynasty.

Magik should be a villain given that she is both insane and ruler of a hell dimension.

[Kurolegacy]

Gonna get flack for this one but, I find that the Iceman being gay retcon was complete and utter bullshit. The way that it was written, it wasn't that he wasn't aware about his sexuality but that he was hiding that he was gay the whole time as he couldn't stand the negative view of being both a mutant and gay. Now the problem there is that here is that he has been around the world's most powerful telepaths for nearly his entire existence and yet somehow none of them picked up on that. Hell Professor X may not have been the patron saint but given some of his other students, there's no way he wouldn't have been supportive of Bobby and told him it was alright to be who he is in all these years. The whole thing feels less like an evolution of the character and more like they just wanted to have a token gay among the X-Men while ignoring that they have numerous established LGBT characters.

[Draegwolf]

Gonna get flack for this one but, I find that the Iceman being gay retcon was complete and utter bullshit. The way that it was written, it wasn't that he wasn't aware about his sexuality but that he was hiding that he was gay the whole time as he couldn't stand the negative view of being both a mutant and gay. Now the problem there is that here is that he has been around the world's most powerful telepaths for nearly his entire existence and yet somehow none of them picked up on that. Hell Professor X may not have been the patron saint but given some of his other students, there's no way he wouldn't have been supportive of Bobby and told him it was alright to be who he is in all these years. The whole thing feels less like an evolution of the character and more like they just wanted to have a token gay among the X-Men while ignoring that they have numerous established LGBT characters.

^^^^

totally agree with you, everything about that entire situation was just more Bendis wish fulfillment. Marvel was taking the X-Men away from him and he wanted to end his run by doing something that whoever replaced him would have to acknowledge in some form or another. It was forced in several ways and shouldn't have ever happened. That being said I still say that it's more feasible that Jean messed with his mind to reach that outcome and stop Bobby's womanizing, it's not like we haven't already seen her abuse her powers whenever someone pisses her off or disagrees with her.

[AgSurfer]

Here's a controversial opinion: Wishing for characters that people love to be killed off is kind of dickish. You don't like a character? Don't pick up books they're in. It's easy. No need to want them dead.

Hate is lazy.

Yeah but the problem is when that character you hate is on a team you love efing the whole issue up. I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape when you say you want someone dead. Its ok just to hate on a character and wish them dead, they're not real people, and sometimes there are much better people who should be alive...cough...Richard Rider...cough....