Your Unpopular/Controversial Opinions on the X-Universe

[TheDeadSpace]

Cyclops was pushed as the only suitable leader of the X-Men after M-Day, despite other characters existing like Xavier, Magneto, Storm, etc. And the X-Men and mutantkind have survived without him before. The father/son bond was only referenced in those stories as character assassination for Xavier and to prop up Cyclops and his band of villains he was running around with. Writers were only willing to express their own POV because as straight, white males, Cyclops is the character they associate with and live vicariously through, Fraction more than any other writer.

She was his only ally because she was the other terrorist and villain besides him. If he is as objective and skilled a leader as people make him out to be, he should be able to see her true colors and actions and judge without his emotions clouding his judgment but he was willing to accept her actions and let her live, whereas he tried to kill Wanda.

Most of Cyclops' development came from Claremont, particularly the classic iteration of the character, and while I used to disagree with him, after everything that has happened with the character, I'm inclined to Claremont's views now. If Claremont hadn't written Cyclops, we would not have the version of the character we have today so there is a level of respect that must be owed him.

Again, there's a difference between the character being a problem and the writers choosing to run with an idea. They wanted Cyclops to lead. So, they did what they wanted. Cyclops has no say in his portrayal nor did he force the writers to do so. As for the father/son bond, that was something Claremont hinted towards but never went anywhere with. Scott eventually filling his role made sense from a story perspective. I'm not sure what that has to do with character assassination?

With the Wanda situation, I'm not sure what you expect to happen. Emma did something bad, but what does this have to do with Scott? Why would he hunt her down?

I respect Claremont's early work with Cyclops. After Maddie became involved, there's no point. It's too biased. Wanting others to hate a character is too extreme to me.

[Rang10]

That's a really bad argument to use in favor of Cyclops, the guy that left his first wife without telling her anything and cheated on the second.

As for Havok, despite how many times people have tried to explain it, I still don't see why that one speech gets so people up in arms and somehow cancels out everything else he's ever done as a leader.

I dont get it too. I think it was a good speech. God forbid he wanted to have a life beyond the X-men

I think fake blonde is a more appropriate moniker considering how much she has poached from far superior characters, whether Jean, Ororo, or Betsy.

She took a lot from Saturnyne, even if she was created before her, Saturnyne had more of her actual personality and style. morrison really copied claremont there. Then people think Saturnyne is imitating Emma because they never read captain britain old comics

[Agent Z]

That's a really bad argument to use in favor of Cyclops, the guy that left his first wife without telling her anything and cheated on the second.

Scott is actually dedicated to leading despite his flaws.

As for Havok, despite how many times people have tried to explain it, I still don't see why that one speech gets so people up in arms and somehow cancels out everything else he's ever done as a leader.

Who said anything about the speech? The guy clearly wasn't cut out for leadership of the Uncanny Avengers as depicted in the book. Hell, he had seceded leadership of X-Factor to Lorna prior to Uncanny Avengers.

[whitecrown]

Again, there's a difference between the character being a problem and the writers choosing to run with an idea. They wanted Cyclops to lead. So, they did what they wanted. Cyclops has no say in his portrayal nor did he force the writers to do so.

With the Wanda situation, I'm not sure what you expect to happen. Emma did something bad, but what does this have to do with Scott? Why would he hunt her down?

I respect Claremont's early work with Cyclops. After Maddie became involved, there's no point. It's too biased. Wanting others to hate a character is too extreme to me.

My point is that the writers picked Cyclops because he is the safe choice for them since they find him the most relatable. The X-Men cannot grow if it only focuses on one character, especially when there are dozens, it not hundreds, of interesting characters around. Just like Star Wars is doubling down on sticking to Luke Skywalker and stagnating growth, the same is occurring here with the X-Men. These writers, who are most predominantly straight white males, might find Cyclops the most relatable but comic readers have advanced beyond that (in fact they never were exclusively straight white males) and some of us would like to see other characters given their time rather than regressing back to the Cyclops show.

Scott felt Wanda committed genocide and wanted her dead. By that same logic, Emma actually did commit genocide but he didn't try and make her pay. There's been ample time on Krakoa to hold her accountable or flat out kill her if he really applied that same principle. It's not like he hasn't been physically abusive to her before or even killed someone before.

I don't think he ever did anything actively to make readers hate Cyclops. I always liked Cyclops under his pen, even in his most trying moments. If anything, it was other writers after Claremont that made me hate Cyclops, causing me to be partial to Claremont's opinion of him now. Another example is X-Men Forever. The only thing he did was split up Scott and Jean, but besides that, I wouldn't say there was anything in that run that caused Claremont to throw Scott under the bus or sideline him.

That's a really bad argument to use in favor of Cyclops, the guy that left his first wife without telling her anything and cheated on the second.

As for Havok, despite how many times people have tried to explain it, I still don't see why that one speech gets so people up in arms and somehow cancels out everything else he's ever done as a leader.

Yup, karmic justice he was finally cheated on as well.

Exactly, the hate for that speech makes no sense to me. It's really not that far off from some of the stuff Alex was thinking to himself right before he went through the Siege Perilous under Claremont's pen.

Namor is too busy chasing after married women to do any actual leading and Uncanny Avengers is the absolute worst example you can use to argue in favor of Havok's leadership skills.

He had no problem refraining from that as a member of the Illuminati. Fraction's run was just meant to showcase how desirable the fake blonde was for Namor in order to underscore Scott's virility on what a prize she is to other men but how loyal she is to him anyway...up until she wasn't which was karmic justice. Once a cheater, always a cheater. Take that bad writing out of the equation and that's not an issue anymore. Namor has never actively pursued Sue after she got married to Reed.

You might think that about UA but I clearly don't.

Kitty was also later trapped in a giant bullet in outer space.

Which happened on Cyclops' watch I might add. Funny how whenever there were any setbacks when Storm was in charge during the Extraordinary X-Men era, fans were ready to call for her head and how superior Cyclops was, while neglecting all the losses during his tenure as leader, such as Ariel and Nightcrawler in Second Coming. There's a whole lot more people who were killed during his time but I don't feel like rehashing that abysmal period myself.

[Omega Alpha]

Xavier being depowered doesn't mean he couldn't have led the team. And it's not like Cyke's power has ever been that impressive next to Magneto, Jean, Storm, etc. Storm lead the X-Men without any powers and that was one of the X-Men's most capable and prolific periods. Xavier was only written with all that character assassination to purposefully remove him from the narrative so he couldn't usurp King Cyclops. Cyclops had no issue letting Magneto bow down to him and play his flunky despite the public optics of that. As if Magneto would ever bow down to Cyclops lol, this is the territory of fanfic here when you know the writer is living vicariously through Cyclops.

Storm was also written out of the X-Men, much like most other X-Women, so a certain fake blonde could keep her position as head X-Woman which she literally only got based on who she was sleeping with. So much for feminism there. Other Marvel women team leaders like Storm, Monica, Black Widow, Captain Marvel, Kitty, Rogue, etc. have never been granted their positions based on which man they were shacking up with.

There were plenty of other choices besides Cyclops, not even including the obvious choices. Uncanny Avengers showed that Havok was the right choice to step up. If Namor is getting involved with mutants, he's a more logical choice as a monarch and leader than playing flunky to Cyclops, especially when he would only consider a select few men to be his peers like Reed Richards or Steve Rogers.

Yeah, this clearly shows you have no interest in being honest:

a) Pretending to not know Xavier had lost all his credibility; also wasn't he in space for a while during that time?

b) Pretending that Storm being written out of the X-men had anything to do with Emma, rather than because of them wanting to promote Black Panther;

c) Pretending Havok was a serious contender for leadership of all mutantkind, and also Uncanny Avengers was a leadership success. Around that time particularly, he was mostly known for dating a nurse;

d) Pretending that Namor- NAMOR- was going to take charge of mutantkind, mutantkind would follow him, and he would a more logical choice than the guy who's leading the X-men since he was a teenager, LMAO.

Really, what happens is that you're a hater that can't get over that other people don't hate the characters you do. Because, again, anyone that hates a fictional character isn't right in the head.

[Rang10]

Scott is actually dedicated to leading despite his flaws.
s.

So is the KING of atlantis, and a lot of personal problems can be a big problem for ledership

[TheDeadSpace]

I'm out. The discussion is going nowhere to me.

That being said, my "unpopular" opinion is that I don't think any of the X-Men are terrible characters. Some might just need a little work, but I don't hate any of them.

[nandes]

If a white gay man came out saying "the gay word represents everything I hate" and claiming to speak for all homossexuals then I'm sure he would have been very well liked by the LGBTQI+ community

[Rang10]

What X-men have to do with LGBT? Havok is a straight white men. he just have a gene that he is proud but doesnt want to be defined by it

[nandes]

What X-men have to do with LGBT? Havok is a straight white men. he just have a gene that he is proud but doesnt want to be defined by it

In both cases, it's a speech from a model minority member renouncing his identity so he can pass off as more "normal" to mainstream society - basically accepting the idea that your identity is something you should be ashamed of because society tells you so.

As for your first question, I'm sure I don't need to talk to you about the constant themes about identity, culture and self-actualization that have been present in X-Men comics since forever, spirit

[Havok83]

What X-men have to do with LGBT? Havok is a straight white men. he just have a gene that he is proud but doesnt want to be defined by it

Its an analogy

[Rang10]

Its an analogy

And a very bad one.

[Havok83]

And a very bad one.

Its really not. The X-men have always been a metpahor for minority groups. The analogy used is one thats applicable to real life and I get it. As a black man, I cringe when I see celebs denounce being called black. Raven Symone, who identifies as being colorless, Im looking at you. Its an offensive way to denounce one's identity in order to fit in, ignoring the impact that it has on others given the platform they have

[sunofdarkchild]

Havok's speech was written in such a way as to basically erase the mutant identity. It went beyond simply calling for equality or judging people based on their actions instead of their abilities or ethnicity. He said that mutants are not a distinct group and dismissed those who think otherwise as basically being in a cult. He would ban the word mutant with nothing to replace to describe people born with an X-Gene, regardless of the opinion of every other mutant in existence. There would be no group identity for these people despite their shared history and experiences. Persecution of mutants would end because there would be no mutants to persecute.

[Odd Rödney]

That being said, my "unpopular" opinion is that I don't think any of the X-Men are terrible characters. Some might just need a little work, but I don't hate any of them.

Yeah, I'm with you on that. There is story potential in every character, just need the right creator to find it and mold it into something interesting.