Your Unpopular/Controversial Opinions on the X-Universe

[Havok83]

I really don't see Apocalypse or Farouk being redeemed either. The former is still a mass murdering megalomaniac who killed countless people for an insane ideology over thousands of years and shows not an ounce of remorse for it (he is still proud of it infact), only now he has some new addition to his origin and the later merely turned out to be heavily damaged by his long connection to shadowking, which is more a case of explaining his new crimes as himself.

Overall when it comes to the mutant villains many of the current writers seem to more go with trying to excuse, ignore or downplay their past crimes and actions, semingly to justify having the heros stand shoulder to shoulder with them or having them on hero teams.

Now i admit, there is the reasonable argument to be had that they are merely using them for good and keeping them away from the rest of humanity by using Krakoa and freedom from jail or worse as bargain, but it still seems troublesome that some of the worst super powered people in the world are enjoying a permanent 5+ star vacation for free, seemingly giving them the impression their past crimes and actions got validated and that the heros are seemingly untroubled by working with them and having them around.

Which reminds me. This was one reason i didn't vote for Marrow in last years X-men vote. I feel she is 20 years behind in getting a proper redemption and seeking penance for her past crimes, which makes her unsuited to be thrown directly on a public hero team like that. She is generaly not as bad anymore as she was when Storm performed an "improvised first half heart transplantation" on her, but since she dissapeared from the X-men no writer has given her signs of regret anymore. Instead validating her temper and bloodlust as being fine or even to laugh at.
Spec ops team? Sure. Ad hoc formed squad? Sure. Emergency team where the heros can't be picky? Could be worse.
But as part of a team which is supposed to be the public face of mutants? Definetly not. Rogue she is not.

And at least she had a visible change of heart when she was on the X-men (albeit one wasted by a weird fixation on her self image issues), so there is a bit of a basis to welcome her back to a hero team (especialy if we ignore Weapon X...), but many of the villains now added to teams don't even get that.
They just jump on and even keep boasting about their horrible deeds.

I think Apocalypse got a redemption arc. Now whether one thinks it was a good one or not is a different story. Excalibur showed a much softer side to him than we've seen in the past. He worked alongside the rest of the mutants for the greater good instead of trying to usurp power as he's typically done in the past. We saw a less selfish Apocalypse in the Krakoa era. He ultimately sacrificed his place in the mutant utopia so the rest could persevere

[BobbysWorld]

This is probably neither controversial or unpopular an opinion, but here goes:

Editors need to work off a more clear job description entailing what's expected of THEM, with one of the biggest priorities being that it should be the editors' job to make sure all writers sharing or working on the same characters need to be working off of an at least SOMEWHAT agreed upon interpretation of those characters.

Writers will always have different takes on characters, interpret their past stories in at least somewhat different ways. But too often, the problem is that many writers treat specific characters as completely different people. There's ZERO commonality in their interpretations of the characters, at most maybe just superficial commonalities where two writers agree that a character would do action x.....but in reality, both writers have completely opposite and even irreconcilable views of what would DRIVE the character to do that action or how they'd feel about having done it.

And its just plain impossible to have anything approaching continuity of characterization when half the people writing certain characters view them as irredeemable chaotic evil while the other half view them as romantically tragic flawed victims of circumstance. Or when one writer writes a character doing something heinous that the writer doesn't themselves view as all that bad and thus didn't MEAN to write them doing something actually heinous because they don't actually view the character that way and was oblivious to the realization that action would make most readers view them the complete opposite way. Or when writers who haven't done their research literally doesn't know that the character they decided to have just happily flirting with one character for a cute downtime scene actually once vowed to kill that character and ruin their life to avenge their murdered time-traveling kid from the future or whatever.

Like, what do the editors even do, I wonder a lot of the time, because it seems so fundamental to their job title IMO.....that they SHOULD be steering their writers to at least output characterizations and stories that advance a common and consistent character arc or at least build all of a singular character's scenes or story directions off of a starting point all writers are agreed on, or aim a character's scenes or stories in at least the same overall DIRECTION. Like, shouldn't it be an editor's job to look at a writer's pitch for character and be able to tell them hey, this looks great, but unfortunately I'm not going to be able to let you do this story because it will literally undermine and devalue everything this other writer is doing with them in their book, that builds in like....the complete opposite direction for this character?

I mean, personally I like nuanced characters that aren't wholly one thing or the opposite, when written well at least, so its not like I expect or need characters to unequivocally a hero or villain, but I don't think it should be that hard to get a stable of writers who are all frequently said to do a lot of work together and work well together.....like, how hard can it possibly be to just go around the room at one of these X-Office creative summits and ask writers to just say real quick what their core view of this particular character is, like a) tragically flawed, b) messy and chaotic but basically a good egg, c) done some fucked up shit but now seeking redemption, d) done some fucked up shit and not apologizing cuz redemption is for losers, e) laughing at the very idea of redemption and going back to murdering puppies, f) someone who has literally never done anything wrong in their life and been justified in every action they've ever taken except for the unjustifiable ones but obviously none of those were actually their fault.

Y'know? It really can't be that big an ask to get the people in charge of these various characters' depictions, to like.....at least be aware when they're working at cross purposes of each other or when they just fundamentally do not see a character the same way one of the other writers does.

[Writerblog]

I really don't see Apocalypse or Farouk being redeemed either. The former is still a mass murdering megalomaniac who killed countless people for an insane ideology over thousands of years and shows not an ounce of remorse for it (he is still proud of it infact), only now he has some new addition to his origin and the later merely turned out to be heavily damaged by his long connection to shadowking, which is more a case of explaining the reason for his new own crimes.

Overall when it comes to the mutant villains many of the current writers seem to more go with trying to excuse, ignore or downplay their past crimes and actions, semingly to justify having the heros stand shoulder to shoulder with them or having them on hero teams.

Now i admit, there is the reasonable argument to be had that they are merely using these villains for good and keeping them away from the rest of humanity by using Krakoa and freedom from jail or worse as bargain, but it still looks troublesome that some of the worst super powered people in the world are enjoying a permanent 5+ star vacation for free, seemingly giving them the impression their past crimes and actions got validated and that the heros are apperently untroubled by working with them and having them around.

Which reminds me. This was one reason i didn't vote for Marrow in last years X-men vote. I feel she is 20 years behind in getting a proper redemption and seeking penance for her past crimes, which makes her unsuited to be thrown directly on a public hero team like that. She is generaly not as bad anymore as she was when Storm performed an "improvised first half heart transplantation" on her, but since she dissapeared from the X-men no writer has given her signs of regret anymore. Instead validating her temper and bloodlust as being fine or even to laugh at.
Spec ops team? Sure. Ad hoc formed squad? Sure. Emergency team where the heros can't be picky? Could be worse.
But as part of a team which is supposed to be the public face of mutants? Definetly not. Rogue she is not.

And at least she had a visible change of heart when she was on the X-men (albeit one wasted by a weird fixation on her self image issues), so there is a bit of a basis to welcome her back to a hero team (especialy if we ignore Weapon X...), but many of the villains now added to teams don't even get that.

There wasn't redemption for Apocalypse, people just ignored the atrocities he did because now he has a family and a wife that he loves.
His philosophy still the same eugenist crap from before

[Chris0013]

The Dakken one just pisses me off because they retconned his power so what used to be rapes was just him uh "Using what was already there". Which I'm not sure on if that still counts as violating consent or is just a really stupid way of saying it was the victim's fault. Either way, ew.

i think it got worse, attraction isn't the same as consent. The powers are still rapey and he uses them often. Jessica Drew has the same powers and avoid ever using them, because they are bad

Yeah..Daken is just all kinds of creepy...but if I pointed to 1 thing to make him irredeemable it is killing a un powered soldier to get out of Broxton, OK at the end of that fight. With his abilities and skill he could have gotten away clean. Just killed the guy for kicks.

And Jess doesn't use her powers to get sex from people...but she does use them.

[Grunty]

I think Apocalypse got a redemption arc. Now whether one thinks it was a good one or not is a different story. Excalibur showed a much softer side to him than we've seen in the past. He worked alongside the rest of the mutants for the greater good instead of trying to usurp power as he's typically done in the past. We saw a less selfish Apocalypse in the Krakoa era. He ultimately sacrificed his place in the mutant utopia so the rest could persevere

This does sounds like an attempt was made, but as you said one can argue about the quality (and success) of it.

Like did he actualy seek redemption (by our moral standards, not his) or was it just the writer trying to twist the character into a new more noble shape they desire for him (against how the character is meant to be)? Because even if he acted nicer and was given noble sounding goals, i still got the impression he primarily acted selfish (he freed "his" mutants in form of Arrako and basicly unleashed them to the rest of the world) and without remorse, with a good chance that next time he will appear again he could be as antagonistic as ever.

Which is in contrast to both Greycrow and Farouk, who actualy did aknowlege that what they did was wrong and acting according to make up for it (for better or worse).

Guess that also means Farouk's story counts too, even if it was about someone failing to redeem himself.

[Writerblog]

This does sounds like an attempt was made, but as you said one can argue about the quality (and success) of it.

Like did he actualy seek redemption (by our moral standards, not his) or was it just the writer trying to twist the character into a new more noble shape they desire for him (against how the character is meant to be)? Because even if he acted nicer and was given noble sounding goals, i still got the impression he primarily acted selfish (he freed "his" mutants in form of Arrako and basicly unleashed them to the rest of the world) and without remorse, with a good chance that next time he will appear again he could be as antagonistic as ever.

Which is in contrast to both Greycrow and Farouk, who actualy did aknowlege that what they did was wrong and acting according to make up for it (for better or worse).

Guess that also means Farouk's story counts too, even if it was about someone failing to redeem himself.

I think they tried hard to make Apocalypse like they did recently with Doom and failed badly on it. The Crucible for sure didn't made me think he was redeemed

[Outburstz]

For the last time my god Krakoa is not supposed to be a super hero nation. What is all of this talk of redeeming stuff. They simply turned Apoc into a more well rounded character who wasn't just a 2d villian that doesn't make him a good guy like huh.


Krakoa is about mutants good, bad , selfish, etc working together for the benefit of mutants that doesn't suddenly make them good. How can you fail at redeeming Apoc when that was never the intention?

[jwatson]

For the last time my god Krakoa is not supposed to be a super hero nation. What is all of this talk of redeeming stuff. They simply turned Apoc into a more well rounded character who wasn't just a 2d villian that doesn't make him a good guy like huh.


Krakoa is about mutants good, bad , selfish, etc working together for the benefit of mutants that doesn't suddenly make them good. How can you fail at redeeming Apoc when that was never the intention?

Basically. By that logic king pin should be locked up, doc ock, the list goes on and on and on new york, the marvel u, many places contains villians in the marvel u living "reputable" life styles. villains who haven't been hunted near extinction several times.

[marhawkman]

This does sounds like an attempt was made, but as you said one can argue about the quality (and success) of it.

Like did he actualy seek redemption (by our moral standards, not his) or was it just the writer trying to twist the character into a new more noble shape they desire for him (against how the character is meant to be)? Because even if he acted nicer and was given noble sounding goals, i still got the impression he primarily acted selfish (he freed "his" mutants in form of Arrako and basicly unleashed them to the rest of the world) and without remorse, with a good chance that next time he will appear again he could be as antagonistic as ever.

Which is in contrast to both Greycrow and Farouk, who actualy did aknowlege that what they did was wrong and acting according to make up for it (for better or worse).

Guess that also means Farouk's story counts too, even if it was about someone failing to redeem himself.

In Apoccy's case they've talked about his motives many times over the years. Heck, in one case CABLE actually helped facilitate one of Apoccy's resurrections. Why? Because Cable thought Apoccy's skills would be useful in dealing with other villains. But.. that was more about Apoccy killing villains than directly helping anyone.

The old stories about Clan Akkaba.... don't really paint Apoccy in a good light either. They give him a lot of lore and back ground... but... while relatable, he's still not a good guy.

[Bunch of Coconuts]

Basically. By that logic king pin should be locked up, doc ock, the list goes on and on and on new york, the marvel u, many places contains villians in the marvel u living "reputable" life styles. villains who haven't been hunted near extinction several times.

I really don't think you're going to find anyone arguing against locking up Kingpin or Doc Ock...

[Brian B]

For the last time my god Krakoa is not supposed to be a super hero nation. What is all of this talk of redeeming stuff. They simply turned Apoc into a more well rounded character who wasn't just a 2d villian that doesn't make him a good guy like huh.


Krakoa is about mutants good, bad , selfish, etc working together for the benefit of mutants that doesn't suddenly make them good. How can you fail at redeeming Apoc when that was never the intention?

I wouldn’t object to this kind of interpretation, but that’s not how this is being treated in the comics. In the comics, the U.S. and “western” nations are recognizing Krakoa. If this were more like the world outside my window, Krakoa and Krakoans would be excluded from the international banking systems and be under gobs of sanctions for harboring so many terrorists. Until that happens in the comics, then Krakoa is being presented like a respected and accepted nation instead of the safe harbor for active terrorists it actually is.

[jwatson]

Someone has mentioned it before but i surely don't see Wakanda, Latervia, the baxter building outside my window.

[jwatson]

I really don't think you're going to find anyone arguing against locking up Kingpin or Doc Ock...

But they aren't and isn't fisk like mayor of new york or something so why are humans working with a known terrorist and mob boss. Not the first time either, didn't Norman Osborn hold office too?

[Saithor]

But they aren't and isn't fisk like mayor of new york or something so why are humans working with a known terrorist and mob boss. Not the first time either, didn't Norman Osborn hold office too?

Yes. You remember how everyone outside of marvel hated it and called it one of the dumbest things Marvel ever did?

And Kingpin's entire thing is that he keeps his villainy mostly under the board and uses his wealth and influence to get rid of bad publicity or make it seem like it was faked. Apocalpyse tried to kill 90% of the world, at the UN, on TV

[Ambaryerno]

Basically. By that logic king pin should be locked up, doc ock, the list goes on and on and on new york, the marvel u, many places contains villians in the marvel u living "reputable" life styles. villains who haven't been hunted near extinction several times.

There's a BIG difference. Kingpin benefits from the fact that the Marvel Universe pretty much has amnesia over every OTHER time he's been exposed as the villain he really is (in fact, Fisk would be OUTRIGHT INELIGIBLE to hold a public office because of his past criminal record if the MU were anything approaching realistic to US law) and is hiding his criminal actions behind a veneer of good publicity. He's pretending to be the good guy and playing up that public image.

The villains on Krakoa don't seem to even be bothering to hide who they are. Apocalypse is STILL Apocalypse, openly extremist nihilistic Darwinian philosophy and all. He's just been pointed in a more constructive direction that benefits Krakoa.