Your Unpopular/Controversial Opinions on the X-Universe

[SturdyMike89]

The obvious solution is to have bad guys with goals other than "exterminate Mutants".

Exactly this. There are dozens of variations you could use on the oppression of mutant's theme. Also, some of the evil mutant motivations could be altered from just wanting revenge.

[marhawkman]

Kelly Hu's Lady Deathstrike is a better character than the comic version who's just an Orientalist joke with shallow writing.

I mean... they have only the name in common TBH.

[Til]

I'm not overly fond of Kitty. When I started reading the X-books in the 90's, she was on Excalibur, which I didn't read. The first time I read something really featuring her was Whedon's Astonishing, where she was treated like a very big deal, and I remember not getting it at all. Skip ahead a few years to post-Schism, and it's the same thing. She co-ran the Jean Grey school with Logan and was one of the core characters who everybody respected and never questioned. Same thing when Bendis took over in his books (All-New X-Men, Uncanny X-Men, Guardians of the Galaxy). And it's continued like this over the years throughout different writers and editors.

I don't hate her or anything, it's just weird to see all these writers absolutely love her and act like she's the beating heart of the X-franchise, when I don't see that at all. To me, she's mostly come off as judgemental and full of herself over the years I've been reading her.

[Agent Z]

I mean... they have only the name in common TBH.

And I consider that a good thing.

[IllusiveGorn]

Bastion is the most boring character among major Sentinels-based ones.

[Winter_fury]

Decimation/messiah era is among the top 5 x-men eras

[Zelena]

I'm not overly fond of Kitty. When I started reading the X-books in the 90's, she was on Excalibur, which I didn't read.

I liked her in Excalibur, she was reserved and responsible. Like Rachel Summers… And doesn’t like her anymore afterwards. Same for Rachel Summers.

[marhawkman]

And I consider that a good thing.

well, it means the new one is functionally a new character.

[GoingGreen]

I'm not overly fond of Kitty. When I started reading the X-books in the 90's, she was on Excalibur, which I didn't read. The first time I read something really featuring her was Whedon's Astonishing, where she was treated like a very big deal, and I remember not getting it at all. Skip ahead a few years to post-Schism, and it's the same thing. She co-ran the Jean Grey school with Logan and was one of the core characters who everybody respected and never questioned. Same thing when Bendis took over in his books (All-New X-Men, Uncanny X-Men, Guardians of the Galaxy). And it's continued like this over the years throughout different writers and editors.

I don't hate her or anything, it's just weird to see all these writers absolutely love her and act like she's the beating heart of the X-franchise, when I don't see that at all. To me, she's mostly come off as judgemental and full of herself over the years I've been reading her.

I couldn't stand comic-Kitty up until Astonishing. Everything before was everything you said - "she mostly comes off as judgmental and full of herself" - preach. She's a character used to show how empathetic other people are, like Storm and Wolverine, but she lacks empathy. I think she earned her fighting chops, but I don't think the canon respect of leadership she is given by teammates and other X-Men was earned or deserved at all. And I think a lot more characters have reason to resent her than they are willing to allow, for some reason.

Still a cool ability though. Simple yet effective.

[Grunty]

well, it means the new one is functionally a new character.

A new character with no personality, no identity, no relevant backstory, no agency and just one single line of dialoge for the entire movie.

She is essentialy just Striker's human attack drone.

Even her fight with Wolverine is just a drawn out repeat of his fight with Mystique in the first one. Infact she seems to be just a repeat of Mystique in general.

Come to think of it. Isn't there an old but enduring stereotype in action movie for villains to have a mostly silent sexy asian assassin/killer lady as his second in command or at least notable henchmen?

So the movie version would arguably be just another shallow female asian movie stereotype aswell.

[marhawkman]

A new character with no personality, no identity, no relevant backstory, no agency and just one single line of dialoge for the entire movie.

She is essentialy just Striker's human attack drone.

Even her fight with Wolverine is just a drawn out repeat of his fight with Mystique in the first one. Infact she seems to be just a repeat of Mystique in general.

Come to think of it. Isn't there an old but enduring stereotype in action movie for villains to have a mostly silent sexy asian assassin/killer lady as his second in command or at least notable henchmen?

So the movie version would arguably be just another shallow female asian movie stereotype aswell.

Yeah... different stereotype. I mean everyone is in movies TBH. There's stereotypes for everything.

TAS Deathstrike at least had her own motives and story.

[NK1988]

Yeah... different stereotype. I mean everyone is in movies TBH. There's stereotypes for everything.

TAS Deathstrike at least had her own motives and story.

She was a weird compilation character, an old love of Logan's IIRC. Maybe given Meriko's role or something? I watched TAS before I read any comics.

While we're talkin' Wolverine, though, I like Daken and am sad he was sacrificed for the pointless gorefest of Sabretooth War. If they bring him back as a villain, though, I might forgive this. I was not terribly fond of his characterization by Williams in X-Factor, anyway.

[Grunty]

Yeah... different stereotype. I mean everyone is in movies TBH. There's stereotypes for everything.

TAS Deathstrike at least had her own motives and story.

That's true. Storytelling always requires arche- and stereotypes to some degree. Familarity tends to make things easier and comfortable for the audience. Even trying to be different or subvertive usualy require an established baseline to be compared to.

The question then becomes what role/arche-/stereotype suits a character the best? Especially when said character was allready established in a different story/medium.

[Agent Z]

A new character with no personality, no identity, no relevant backstory, no agency and just one single line of dialoge for the entire movie.

She is essentialy just Striker's human attack drone.

Even her fight with Wolverine is just a drawn out repeat of his fight with Mystique in the first one. Infact she seems to be just a repeat of Mystique in general.

Come to think of it. Isn't there an old but enduring stereotype in action movie for villains to have a mostly silent sexy asian assassin/killer lady as his second in command or at least notable henchmen?

So the movie version would arguably be just another shallow female asian movie stereotype aswell.

She's only sexy in that she's portrayed as an attractive woman. She isn't sexualized like Mystique is. Her silence is a result of the villain controlling her, not the narrative not bothering to give her a voice and we're clearly meant to see her as a victim of Stryker like the other mutants.

[Sutekh]

Unlike the other Marvel properties, X-men feels built for a passing of the guard. So having the generations pass the torch on would be great.

It is weird to have a book with evolution as a central theme, be one in which the cast is never allowed to evolve. (Either as characters, always being reset back to factory settings, or as a culture, or as a species, in the passing on of their genes, values, legacies, etc.)