Your Unpopular/Controversial Opinions on the X-Universe

[Will Evans]

The X-men books still haven't recovered from how badly Grant screwed them up.

Technically the only things that haven’t been reversed from his run are exposing the X-Men’s secret identities and location publicly and opening up the school to the public

[Ambaryerno]

Agreed on both points! I once heard that Claremont's original idea of Mr. Sinister was supposed to be some mutant psychic kid's imaginary friend or something. I really like that idea so much more than the campy Sinister and his endless clones.

TBH, I thought Tragic Villain Claudine who is just trying to survive after having been Sinister's unwilling guinea pig from Liu's Daken and X-23 books was FAR more interesting than Essex himself has been in a while.

Then they went and ruined her by having her steal Essex's gleeful mad scientist shtick.

[Odd Rödney]

Then they went and ruined her by having her steal Essex's gleeful mad scientist shtick.

Yep, and I am SO sick of that shtick.

[SiegePerilous02]

The X-men books still haven't recovered from how badly Grant screwed them up.

Beyond the controversial Magneto plot (which he provided an out for himself- it's all Sublime controlling him), he didn't screw up anything and they are the best run after Claremont's original.

[Cane_danko]

I think after morrison they picked up a lot. Not a big fan of whedon but i liked a lot of stuff after. Morrison’s style is just so pretentious.

[yogaflame]

The X-men books still haven't recovered from how badly Grant screwed them up.

Emma, the Cukoos, Fantomex, Glob, and Quire all have a disproportionate presence in the books that I would gladly see vacated, but I think Morrison's run was interesting. Between him and Claremont's Xtreme, it was the most exciting phase of the franchise since Claremont's original run. Hickman's ideas got off to a great start, but him sharing the line with some of these other writers(and his own inconsistencies) might not even be able to exceed it(but to be fair, we'll have to see how it all shakes out).

[chief12d]

Emma, the Cukoos, Fantomex, Glob, and Quire all have a disproportionate presence in the books that I would gladly see vacated, but I think Morrison's run was interesting. Between him and Claremont's Xtreme, it was the most exciting phase of the franchise since Claremont's original run. Hickman's ideas got off to a great start, but him sharing the line with some of these other writers(and his own inconsistencies) might not even be able to exceed it(but to be fair, we'll have to see how it all shakes out).

The main issue with DOX that holds back its potential is that there's only one Hickman. And I say this as someone who thinks he's massively overhyped. The difference in talent between him and most of the other writers is painfully apparent. The X-Universe and his ideas for it are so big he can't possibly tell the story within one or even two titles.

So he has no choice but to bring on subpar writers for stuff like Excalibur or New Mutants which stink up the whole line. I think X of Swords is the first real test of how this integrated storytelling machine will match up against Morrison and Claremont, but if the Empyre tie-in book is anything to go by it'll probably leave some disappointed.

[yogaflame]

HoX and PoX were strong opening salvos. I then went back and read his FF and Avengers stuff. His FF was exceptional, but his Avengers was wildly inconsistent(Illuminati far better than the main team), and his Secret War abysmal. I wonder if he can turn out a satisfying X-run given his limitations as a writer and what the Xfandom like. Only time will tell.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Literally nobody sees him as that. He's a useful monster to the X-Men in-universe and the narrative is signaling that the other shoe is going to drop with him.
Fandom just finds him entertaining but still knows he's an awful person/villains, just one that can hold our attention for once.

They do, it's no secret. Apocalypse, as well. If it was merely being entertained it'd be fine, it's not that.

[Kisinith]

They do, it's no secret. Apocalypse, as well. If it was merely being entertained it'd be fine, it's not that.

No, people see him as an interesting addition. He fills the "Magnificent Bastard" role. His part in the creation of Krakoa is essential and he himself is amazing to read. The books are better for his presence but everyone knows, probably including the mutants, that its only a matter of time until he turns on everyone.

He is looked upon similarly to characters like Hans Gruber from the 1st Die Hard, you know he's a villain, you want him to get it in the end but you love it when he's on the screen because he steals every scene. Other examples are characters like Frank Underwood from House of Cards (even though the actor has since tainted the show), Col. Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds, Heath Ledger's Joker is another great example, or if your a trekkie there was Garek from DS9 and of course the daddy of all magnificent bastards Hannibal Lector.

[numberthirty]

Literally nobody sees him as that. He's a useful monster to the X-Men in-universe and the narrative is signaling that the other shoe is going to drop with him.
Fandom just finds him entertaining but still knows he's an awful person/villains, just one that can hold our attention for once.

Exactly.

I'd need to see exact quotes to even entertain the assertion that it looks like readers might see him that way.

[numberthirty]

No, people see him as an interesting addition. He fills the "Magnificent Bastard" role. His part in the creation of Krakoa is essential and he himself is amazing to read. The books are better for his presence but everyone knows, probably including the mutants, that its only a matter of time until he turns on everyone.

He is looked upon similarly to characters like Hans Gruber from the 1st Die Hard, you know he's a villain, you want him to get it in the end but you love it when he's on the screen because he steals every scene. Other examples are characters like Frank Underwood from House of Cards (even though the actor has since tainted the show), Col. Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds, Heath Ledger's Joker is another great example, or if your a trekkie there was Garek from DS9 and of course the daddy of all magnificent bastards Hannibal Lector.

Really?

It's not even that.

It's that the best chance that mutants, as a race, have of even trying to keep folks like Sinister from undercutting any chance that Krakoa has is to have him there and involved.

[Steel Inquisitor]

No, people see him as an interesting addition. He fills the "Magnificent Bastard" role. His part in the creation of Krakoa is essential and he himself is amazing to read. The books are better for his presence but everyone knows, probably including the mutants, that its only a matter of time until he turns on everyone.

He is looked upon similarly to characters like Hans Gruber from the 1st Die Hard, you know he's a villain, you want him to get it in the end but you love it when he's on the screen because he steals every scene. Other examples are characters like Frank Underwood from House of Cards (even though the actor has since tainted the show), Col. Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds, Heath Ledger's Joker is another great example, or if your a trekkie there was Garek from DS9 and of course the daddy of all magnificent bastards Hannibal Lector.

If only that were true. What he does for Krakoa is irrelevant, they may need him for his expertise but it's like making a deal with Mephisto except Mephisto is more trustworthy. It'll be interesting to see those Sinister fans reactions to him turning on Krakao, I think they'll side with Sinister.

He loved because of this ideology, not in spite of it. I say this as a fan of these characters myself, but I don't think they're right because I like them as characters.

It's why I look at Star wars fans who think Darth Vader was right as being sus. Ledger's Joker is also a character who had this problem of fans thinking he had the right ideas, so did Walter White and Scarface.

[Dthirds3]

Wanda isn't to blame for decimation. Technically its quick sliver for putting her in that situation and the avengers for lying and manipulating the the woman on a verge of a full mental breakdowns for .. how dose time work ? Because they were to lazy to find another magic user

[SiegePerilous02]

They do, it's no secret. Apocalypse, as well. If it was merely being entertained it'd be fine, it's not that.

Post some evidence please beyond vague feelings.

If only that were true. What he does for Krakoa is irrelevant, they may need him for his expertise but it's like making a deal with Mephisto except Mephisto is more trustworthy. It'll be interesting to see those Sinister fans reactions to him turning on Krakao, I think they'll side with Sinister.

They are expecting him to betray Krakoa because he's a villain and we are anticipating it because he's entertaining in a "love to hate" way which is the only way we will "side" with him. We still want him to get what's coming to him though.

He loved because of this ideology, not in spite of it..

Now you're just making this up.