Your Unpopular/Controversial Opinions on the X-Universe

[Bunch of Coconuts]

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?

You're arguing whether they are in jail, whereas I'm saying you won't find many people that think they shouldn't be.

The Krakoa villains aren't in jail...but...

[jwatson]

You're arguing whether they are in jail, whereas I'm saying you won't find many people that think they shouldn't be.

The Krakoa villains aren't in jail...but...

No my argument would be why should mutants be clamoring to be rid of the likes of apoc when humans are actively voting for people like fisk and latervians love doom despite the destruction he creates across the mu. I don't see posts asking the humans of the mu to denounce them in fact sometimes the heroes work with them.

At the very least mutants didn't actively vote for anyone on their council the rest can't say the same

[Wolverine12]

Controversial opinion: The only redemption arc done well in this era was Greycrow.

I’d say Apocalypse’s redemption was better but Greycrow was pretty good. If leading a team to Otherworld to stop a demon army led by your wife doesn’t count as redemption then I don’t know what you could want.

[Rift]

To be fair to the Latverians, Doom controls them through - among other things - fear, propaganda and nationalism. He's done right by them many times, but I'd hardly say his relationship with them is healthy. They don't have much of a choice in the matter.

[Rev9]

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.

I get your issue in the main, but an example of a character you find all over the place from book to book in this era would be helpful.

[Bunch of Coconuts]

No my argument would be why should mutants be clamoring to be rid of the likes of apoc when humans are actively voting for people like fisk and latervians love doom despite the destruction he creates across the mu. I don't see posts asking the humans of the mu to denounce them in fact sometimes the heroes work with them.

At the very least mutants didn't actively vote for anyone on their council the rest can't say the same

I'm treating the Fisk thing as a pseudo-analogy for Trump: people voting for someone that's not really for their favor.

And the...mentality of many a Latverian citizen has been called to question.

[rcaguy]

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?

You think these guys won't be happy untill he runs around screaming "Apoc Smash Puny Humans"

[Bunch of Coconuts]

You think these guys won't be happy untill he runs around screaming "Apoc Smash Puny Humans"

He's basically already done that.

Which is kinda the point. LOL

[Saithor]

I'm treating the Fisk thing as a pseudo-analogy for Trump: people voting for someone that's not really for their favor.

And the...mentality of many a Latverian citizen has been called to question.

Please that's an insult to Fisk

[Bunch of Coconuts]

Please that's an insult to Fisk

I did say pseudo.

::shrug::

Same overall concept. A segment of a population gets conned into voting for a man they think is out for their best interests.

[Alan2099]

Out of curiosity, when did Apocalypse switch from just being pro-strong person to pro-mutant? Was that another Krakoa thing?

His Dark Riders were Inhumans. One of his Horsemen was the Hulk. He used to just not care what a person was as long as they were strong, and if somebody was weak he didn't care if they were a mutant or not.

[numberthirty]

...

Gorgon....its hard to tell as they barely did anything with him. He was largely just there and then died

...

That assessment would have to hit the gym to bulk up to "Might Have Missed A Few Things..."

That's the only way to explain calling what he did "Then Died..."

[numberthirty]

Out of curiosity, when did Apocalypse switch from just being pro-strong person to pro-mutant? Was that another Krakoa thing?

His Dark Riders were Inhumans. One of his Horsemen was the Hulk. He used to just not care what a person was as long as they were strong, and if somebody was weak he didn't care if they were a mutant or not.

Ask him who the best Horsemen were.

[marhawkman]

Ask him who the best Horsemen were.

Yeah, but.... how long has that actually been... It's kinda a retcon and all ya'know?

[Zelena]

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?

We, humans, are in nations where there are good, bad people…

But it is not a decision of us. If you invent a nation, would you say: “wellcome, murderers, genociders, like everyone else…” Would you like to live in such a nation?

I suppose you would say that the mutants don’t have a choice. It’s that or “being persecuted by the humans”… But, still, this fact doesn’t disturb the rest of people on the island? It doesn’t disturb the X-men?