Your Unpopular/Controversial Opinions on the X-Universe

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

Yeah, because it's totally not like Marvel has ever switched creative teams on a book in the past.

Hill may not have been able to keep up, but Marvel had options to keep it going had they chosen to. You can spin it however you like, but it's CANCELED.

I'm still really puzzled by that actually?? Why didn't they just put a new writer on it? Marvel seems to give up on things quick?

[Kisinith]

The cost was: leave human society (understandable, if sad) and put Apocalypse, Magneto, Mystique and Sinister in charge. Start taking orders from them. Basically abandon any pretense of morality, and then you get a simulacra of your friends back. For some that's too much. And that literally all of them agreed to this without even a hint of discussion or concern is stunning.

Points of contention,
1) You left out Xavier, Jean Grey, Emma Frost, Storm, and Nightcrawler (also Shaw) and a empty seat to be named (expected to be Kate).
2) Most of the X-Men were probably ok with Magneto all things considered.
3) The very first law was "Kill no Human" so much for abandoning morality
4) The writer has explicitly stated they are not simulacra so until something official contradicts it, its an actual resurrection not a simulacra.
5) No one says there wasn't discussion or debate, it (like a fairly large amount of time) simply wasn't shown because the writer didn't think it was important. The X-Men were recruited before they opened the gates we saw this with the planting of Krakoan flowers in HoX #1.
6) Leave human society... but here's a flower gateway that lets you back after a short walk.
7) You also left out how this was part of a plan explicitly stated to prevent future genocides, not that a little thing like that would factor into their reasoning

[spirit2011]

For some people, yes it did. There are still people clamoring for him to be given the keys to the kingdom (Not me, I haven't been a fan of his in a very long time). As to month to month criticism, no idea I wasn't following it at the time

That is only jude Terror. For me is impossible see him back being the headliner writer

I'm still really puzzled by that actually?? Why didn't they just put a new writer on it? Marvel seems to give up on things quick?

True, books change writers all the time and artists too. Fallen angels wasn't mean to last

It's no tlike they didn't knew he was busy

Krakoa's perpetual dance party reminds me a bit of David's cult in the third season of Legion. Didn't he have a magic drug-dispensing, people-absorbing tree too?

Yeah there was a drug 24/7 keeping everyon eon the house drugged.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

Points of contention, 5) No one says there wasn't discussion or debate, it (like a fairly large amount of time) simply wasn't shown because the writer didn't think it was important.

Which I have to say feels like really poor prioritising...or at least a lack of awareness on Hickman's part, both on how readers might react and of the characters themselves. I mean, surely that feels obvious; if you're gonna shake things up so much you have to consider about what kind of arguments you have to put forward for it? And even then there's a million ways to simplify it/strip it down to less than a page without losing any meaning.

[Kisinith]

Yeah, because it's totally not like Marvel has ever switched creative teams on a book in the past.

Hill may not have been able to keep up, but Marvel had options to keep it going had they chosen to. You can spin it however you like, but it's CANCELED.

I'm still really puzzled by that actually?? Why didn't they just put a new writer on it? Marvel seems to give up on things quick?

Due to some film/TV things I have in motion (that's my main career and I have to grow it), I had to take a break after the first arc, but there are already plans to continue the story -- in a very cool way...but I can't comment on that yet.

https://twitter.com/PsylockeNews/s

Lots of possibilities, but seems to be that the story and ideas will be continuing in some form. However it doesn't look like Marvel (Why are you making me defend them) just decided to axe the book questioning Krakoa's status quo.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

That i sonly jude Terror. For me is impossible see him back being the headliner writer

Yeah, I agree; X-Men Forever made it clear that Claremont cared less about writing a story and more about stroking his own ego in-narrative. Wolverine's funeral, for example was just...like, god, I know he and Scott didn't get on great, but the guy would surely have more awareness of whether it was appropriate to celebrate how things 'should have been' in the middle of the wake. Claremont's officially done, unfortunately.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

https://twitter.com/PsylockeNews/s

Lots of possibilities, but seems to be that the story and ideas will be continuing in some form. However it doesn't look like Marvel (Why are you making me defend them) just decided to axe the book questioning Krakoa's status quo.

Eh, even then I'm taking that with a pinch of salt...it's entirely possible that, while they say it's gonna continue, what they mean is that they're only using the characters. Seen it one too many times from other companies.

[Kisinith]

Which I have to say feels like really poor prioritising...or at least a lack of awareness on Hickman's part, both on how readers might react and of the characters themselves.

Fair criticism
Marvel Mythos Podcast (@marvel_mythos) asked:

Will any of the Dawn of X books cover the gap between AoX/Uncanny and the beginning of X1? More specifically, will we see how Storm, Cyclops, Jean, etc. were recruited to the cause?

Jonathan:

Good question. In the same way that we aren’t going to be doing alternate reality stores or time travel stories, we’re also not going to be doing pre-Krakoa stories. Now, I know why you’re asking, because there’s A LOT of meat on the bone regarding not only the recruitment of particular X-Men to the cause, but also there are some pivotal ‘reunion’ scenes that we skipped over. It’s my argument–and argument that I’ll win–that those scenes (where the characters were) will have more power if presented in juxtaposition to later scenes (where the characters are now). I would expect some of that, but only when the time is right.

According to Hickman it was decided to do this for artistic reasons, how valid that is we don't know and can't tell until we see them.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

Fair criticism
Marvel Mythos Podcast (@marvel_mythos) asked:

Jonathan:

According to Hickman it was decided to do this for artistic reasons, how valid that is we don't know and can't tell until we see them.

Valid. But until we do see them it's just as valid to criticise the choice and how it may/may not have hampered the overall narrative. Plus, I gotta be honest, I never trust anything writers say they're going to do until I see it realised on panel--there's been way too many instances of things either never materialising or just outright being changed and abandoned behind the scenes.

[Kisinith]

Valid. But until we do see them it's just as valid to criticise the choice and how it may/may not have hampered the overall narrative. Plus, I gotta be honest, I never trust anything writers say they're going to do until I see it realised on panel--there's been way too many instances of things either never materialising or just outright being changed and abandoned behind the scenes.

That's where the writers history comes in, Hickman writes long arcs seeded with details and, this is important, delivering on the build up much later. This is also why sometimes patience is called for, with this kind of medium, with this style of writer you are simply not going to get all of the details and info early. The criticism may be valid but you have no way of knowing until the end. That's the frustration of long stories in a serial format. Its like watching the extended Lord of the Rings trilogy in 10 minute monthly snippets.

[pkingdom]

Points of contention,
1) You left out Xavier, Jean Grey, Emma Frost, Storm, and Nightcrawler (also Shaw) and a empty seat to be named (expected to be Kate).
2) Most of the X-Men were probably ok with Magneto all things considered.
3) The very first law was "Kill no Human" so much for abandoning morality
4) The writer has explicitly stated they are not simulacra so until something official contradicts it, its an actual resurrection not a simulacra.
5) No one says there wasn't discussion or debate, it (like a fairly large amount of time) simply wasn't shown because the writer didn't think it was important. The X-Men were recruited before they opened the gates we saw this with the planting of Krakoan flowers in HoX #1.
6) Leave human society... but here's a flower gateway that lets you back after a short walk.
7) You also left out how this was part of a plan explicitly stated to prevent future genocides, not that a little thing like that would factor into their reasoning

I would throw Xavier, Shaw and Emma on the pile of villains. Emma has her legion of fans, but where the stories left off with her she had just finished mind controlling all the X-men, the entire world, and still on the run for mass bombing cities around the world and war crimes during the stupid X v I.

'Kill no man'. That doesn't excuse working with, and furthering the goals of, Apocalypse and Sinister. And as soon as things get tough they're going to drop this or fill it with so many caveats it won't matter. But fine, I understand that's just me theorizing.

The clone vs. resurrection discussion is for entire other topics. Hickman wants us to think they are, fine. But it looks like Nightcrawler is going to pop up according to solicits, so that throws a wrench into things. But again, theorizing. There have been so many clones, copies, digital imprints, etc. in the Marvel U, so I don't think its unreasonable to raise your eyebrow at something so bizarre.

Apparently almost nobody leaves, and that actually is part of the text. Its been brought up multiple times.

The future genocides thing nobody really knows. Even Moira doesn't know what's going to happen after this point. Large scale conflict seem inevitable.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

That's where the writers history comes in, Hickman writes long arcs seeded with details and, this is important, delivering on the build up much later. This is also why sometimes patience is called for, with this kind of medium, with this style of writer you are simply not going to get all of the details and info early. The criticism may be valid but you have no way of knowing until the end. That's the frustration of long stories in a serial format. Its like watching the extended Lord of the Rings trilogy in 10 minute monthly snippets.

And, again, I point to the instance of Claremont and his older work vs newer work. A writer's past does not guarantee their future and, so far, Hickman's writing comes across as unnecessarily contrived, devoid of actual character voices and an arrogance that seems to scream "I'm right!!"

I understand that we're not going to get all details right away, but the actual execution right off the bat didn't feel particularly impressive or clever, much less remotely enjoyable. Hence why: month to month criticism is perfectly valid, especially in regards to how its' delivered.

His pay-off might truly be incredible; but it'll always be hampered (in my eyes) in how he's chosen to deliver it especially if it turns out he could have done it in half the time (sometimes less is more, after all.)

[pkingdom]

That's where the writers history comes in, Hickman writes long arcs seeded with details and, this is important, delivering on the build up much later. This is also why sometimes patience is called for, with this kind of medium, with this style of writer you are simply not going to get all of the details and info early. The criticism may be valid but you have no way of knowing until the end. That's the frustration of long stories in a serial format. Its like watching the extended Lord of the Rings trilogy in 10 minute monthly snippets.

I've seen so many writers say things like that and not follow through. Just this year Jim Zubb went on and on about his plans for the Champions, about how he was going to challenge them and have them rise. He had Miles make a deal with Mephisto and there was at least one character breakdown per issue until he got cancelled and rushed the ending. I have no expectation that Hickman will stick the landing. From what I've read of his Avengers all he succeeded in doing is making everyone an asshole.

[Kisinith]

And, again, I point to the instance of Claremont and his older work vs newer work. A writer's past does not guarantee their future and, so far, Hickman's writing comes across as unnecessarily contrived, devoid of actual character voices and an arrogance that seems to scream "I'm right!!"

I understand that we're not going to get all details right away, but the actual execution right off the bat didn't feel particularly impressive or clever, much less remotely enjoyable. Hence why: month to month criticism is perfectly valid, especially in regards to how its' delivered.

His pay-off might truly be incredible; but it'll always be hampered (in my eyes) in how he's chosen to deliver it especially if it turns out he could have done it in half the time (sometimes less is more, after all.)

I've seen so many writers say things like that and not follow through. Just this year Jim Zubb went on and on about his plans for the Champions, about how he was going to challenge them and have them rise. He had Miles make a deal with Mephisto and there was at least one character breakdown per issue until he got cancelled and rushed the ending. I have no expectation that Hickman will stick the landing. From what I've read of his Avengers all he succeeded in doing is making everyone an asshole.

And no one is telling you that you have to like it... however, the overwhelming response so far has been positive, its sales are amazing, and reportedly everyone involved is having a blast so if you can't make peace with the style you're in for a long few years as an X-Men fan.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

And no one is telling you that you have to like it... however, the overwhelming response so far has been positive, its sales are amazing, and reportedly everyone involved is having a blast so if you can't make peace with the style you're in for a long few years as an X-Men fan.

Believe me, I'm aware. There's aspects of the idea I like but, I must emphasise, those come from other writers. Excalibur, Fallen Angels, X-Force; all so much better executions of the concept than from Hickman himself. I can tolerate it to an extent there, but only because they seem to have a much better grasp on characterisation and emotion.

As I've said: Hickman does have interesting ideas. He's just absolutely awful at actually getting it across.

Besides; if it has been received so well, what harm do my criticisms do? And as such; why should anyone feel the need to get angry over them?