Your Unpopular/Controversial Opinions on the X-Universe

[Glio]

People who consider anything "Not as Claremont would have written it" OOC are the worst of the fandom. Characters cannot change or evolve, they have to always be as Claremont would have written them in the 80s.

[Odd Rödney]

People who consider anything "Not as Claremont would have written it" OOC are the worst of the fandom. Characters cannot change or evolve, they have to always be as Claremont would have written them in the 80s.

I loved Claremont's stuff but I'm with you on this. If you want nothing but Claremont's interpretation well, that's why we got X-Men Forever.

[Glio]

I loved Claremont's stuff but I'm with you on this. If you want nothing but Claremont's interpretation well, that's why we got X-Men Forever.

I love Claremont too but we had decades of Claremont's stuff. The editorial line and the characters can (and should) explore new approaches, new possibilities. Some characters are no longer like Claremont envisioned them because many years have passed without him. You may like it or not like it but it is not OOC.

It's pretty ridiculous when people consider OOC things that have been a certain way for 15 years because 30 ago they weren't.

[Odd Rödney]

I love Claremont too but we had decades of Claremont's stuff. The editorial line and the characters can (and should) explore new approaches, new possibilities. Some characters are no longer like Claremont envisioned them because many years have passed without him. You may like it or not like it but it is not OOC.

It's pretty ridiculous when people consider OOC things that have been a certain way for 15 years because 30 ago they weren't.

I agree completely and to be honest, Claremont's more modern stuff, like X-Treme X-Men, was not great, pretty good but kinda predictable. As an Aussie I did enjoy that the villain was named Bogan though.

[Devaishwarya]

People who consider anything "Not as Claremont would have written it" OOC are the worst of the fandom. Characters cannot change or evolve, they have to always be as Claremont would have written them in the 80s.

Exactatiously. Agreed 100%

[Ambaryerno]

Exactatiously. Agreed 100%

Ditto. It's been holding the franchise back for 40 years.

[Steel Inquisitor]

Post some evidence please beyond vague feelings.

I don't have to. It's fascinating how people will say except admit what they're doing is going too far.

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.

And they'll turn on Krakoa as if they never supposed it in the first place. It'll be like being a Republican after George W Bush.

Now you're just making this up.

Just calling it as a I see it. When people idolising fictional monsters for inspiration in the real world it's time to double check what's going on.

[yogaflame]

Ditto. It's been holding the franchise back for 40 years.

40 years ago Lord Claremont was just getting started building the franchise up to the best in the industry(still not exceeded to this day)....?

[Devaishwarya]

Enh! ...Claremont who?
It's 2020... there's no one here by that name.

[Alan2099]

I loved Claremont's stuff but I'm with you on this. If you want nothing but Claremont's interpretation well, that's why we got X-Men Forever.

X-men Forever proved why Claremont shouldn't be allowed to just do whatever he wants. That series was a mess.

[Ra-El]

People who consider anything "Not as Claremont would have written it" OOC are the worst of the fandom. Characters cannot change or evolve, they have to always be as Claremont would have written them in the 80s.

Mostly people who's favorite character aren't perfect and the center of the X-Men anymore, just like I miss Morrison, Whedon and Gillen because during their runs Cyclops was amazing.

[Silver Fang]

Well can only go by X-twitter for now. So I guess it's unpopular or controversial that I think it's good Wolverine is getting a new arch enemy. His previous one is washed up & imo doesn't represent what an arch foe should be.

But in the last few hours of this announcement, 98% of the responses have been negative with many hating the disrespect to Sabretooth. HA! as if that wasn't a thing until just now. lol To a lesser extent, Omega Red & Deathstrike have been mentioned as passed over.

https://twitter.com/Marvel/status/1303785246983413761

But I can only scoff, laugh, and ask where were all these "fans" before. Prior to this announcement, nobody cared about Creed. Hell he's been gone almost a year without a peep from anyone -comic or fan wise.


I think majority of the complaint is nostalgia bias talking.

[Killerbee911]

Well can only go by X-twitter for now. So I guess it's unpopular or controversial that I think it's good Wolverine is getting a new arch enemy. His previous one is washed up & imo doesn't represent what an arch foe should be.

But in the last few hours of this announcement, 98% of the responses have been negative with everyone wondering what happened to, or what was wrong with, Sabretooth.
https://twitter.com/Marvel/status/1303785246983413761

And can only scoff, laugh, and ask where were all these "fans" before now. Prior to this announcement, nobody cared about Creed.

I don't think he is washed up but I do think that he is poor archenemy for Wolverine now. Just in the same Dr Doom is also a poor archenemy for the FF now.

[Silver Fang]

Nope. Washed up is about right. lol That's why he is where he is right now.

Nothing of note has been done with him, and there were only 4 Marvel writers who cared him enough to do anything decent with him & 2 of those did it with him being an extra or cameo is someone else's book..

Non-washed up characters don't job to everyone & their sister, get the worst fight showings possible, killed twice in 1 year, embarrassed & thrown in the trash with a contrived, half-assed story execution, and go erased from existence for 11 months & counting. lol

[Zelena]

I love Claremont too but we had decades of Claremont's stuff. The editorial line and the characters can (and should) explore new approaches, new possibilities. Some characters are no longer like Claremont envisioned them because many years have passed without him. You may like it or not like it but it is not OOC.

It's pretty ridiculous when people consider OOC things that have been a certain way for 15 years because 30 ago they weren't.

Then, Unpopular Opinion:
Out-of-charaterization is just out-of-characterization. It’s not evolution.
Evolution would mean that characters change but stay in-character. It would be a plausible, credible evolution.
And it’s a natural phenomenon: times change, authors change… of course, fictional characters change…

And I’m fine with it… as long as it’s as good as it was.
And for me, it’s not the case with the current run: characters lack the depth, the humanity they had.