Inhuman and Mutant issues and relations

[ExodusCloak]

dragonmp93 :

and sshe was wrong. Storm could move mists so they will never hit any cities.

Have you read Civil War - X-Men? Storm tried to do that and failed miserably.

Neutralising the cloud saved thousands.

[Child of the Past]

Geez you guys take this crap too seriously. Usually when a storyline has conceptual flaws like this one people will instantly blame the writers or editors. In th this case people seem to focus there hatred for the storyline on the characters, which makes no logical sense. Did BB know the mist could harm mutants? Yes. Have any of the current writers referenced this fact? No. Conclusion, the two storylines aren't related and the writers are either completely ignoring them or the editors want recton them like they did with QS and SW. Th fact that this story seems completely ludicrous in terms of characterization is a dead giveaway. Why in the world did BB release the terrigen cloud because Hickman or some editor made him. Why did the terrigen cloud only start killing mutants after Secret Wars and Soule's initial Inhuman run? Because the editors thought it was a good idea. Marvel editors and writers have made some incredibly controversial decisions the last few years and yet somehow the whole IvX thing has spiraled into one group taking out all their frustration on another group fictional characters instead of the people in charge of the poorly written story. No one seems to blame Lemire for making Cyclops out to be a villain prior to DoX. No one wants to blame Soule for seemingly ignoring the T-mist in Uncanny and destroying BB and Medusa's relationship for pointless melodrama. The whole thing stinks of editorial mandates and two greats writers being hampered by poor executive decisions. BB has always been a character that is level-headed and rational. Scott Summers is someone who has been written as a Boy Scout and a borderline dictator, but he still has a clear and logical mission of protecting and progressing the mutant race. Both men have their species best interest at heart but have work with other numerous time in the past to settle disputes. Are you seriously trying to telling me that you guys are buying a story where both of this men have to come to blows to solve an issue that could easily be resolved via containment or destruction of the cloud. As someone who is a fan of both group this whole situation is just disappointing and seeing a large group of the X-fanbase hate a bunch of characters because they are being written poorly is disheartening. Why can't these same fans treat this like they treat Cyclops actions during AvX. If killing Prof X can be written off as terrible writing then why can this terrigen cloud nonsense be treated the same way. At the end of the day I can't understand why people can't separate characters from plotlines, and poor writing.

P.S. I'm not saying X-fans shouldn't complain be acting like the Inhumans deserve to erased from existence do to a stupid storyline is completely irrational. When I read comments like this I always assume the person in question just want good X-men stories and move on. If you really think the Inhumans are evil I'd suggest you read other stories with them in it. They aren't traditional superheroes by any means but they also aren't a bunch of genocidal maniacs either. Just my two-cents.

[ExodusCloak]

A few points that I don't think anyone is picking up on here for some reason:

1) Fake-clops was about to surprise attack the Royals with a optic blast when Black Bolt killed him in self-defense. It wasn't an execution, it was provoked.

2) It wasn't Cyclops' fault at all. It was Emmas, because she manufactured a fake event so his legacy wouldn't have ended from M-Pox. Scott really died during DOX #1.

3) Storm's X-Men aren't slandering Cyclops' name because he helped get rid of one of the T-Clouds (which they're probably grateful for), instead the X-Men are angry with him for being reckless and risking war with the Inhumans without consulting/against the wishes of the majority of mutants.

4) No in-universe characters have actually called him "Hitler" have they? Let's stick to what the characters mindset is, not what editorial's might be.

5) No one was the villain here. Emma came close, but ultimately knew her fake Cyclops projection wouldn't have hurt any Inhuman. She knew what would happen to him (Black Bolt's actions) and did it intentionally to give him a legacy that he would have lost if everyone knew his real fate. It increased mutant-Inhuman tensions, but there was no villain in this story. Stop acting like ANYONE was villified. Even Cyclops (to the reader) was clearly not even remotely the bad guy of Death of X. And we weren't supposed to think he was; that was the point of the (predictable) twist ending.

1. No it wasn't, Blackbolt has high tier durability, superhuman reflexes, he could have tanked that optic blast and shielded Medusa at the same time.

2. It was Blackbolts for polluting the atmosphere with that fart cloud. Emma actually helped reduce his death count.

3. From their perspective he got rid of one killer cloud. And the inhumans should support that.

[dragonmp93]

Geez you guys take this crap too seriously. Usually when a storyline has conceptual flaws like this one people will instantly blame the writers or editors. In th this case people seem to focus there hatred for the storyline on the characters, which makes no logical sense. Did BB know the mist could harm mutants? Yes. Have any of the current writers referenced this fact? No. Conclusion, the two storylines aren't related and the writers are either completely ignoring them or the editors want recton them like they did with QS and SW. Th fact that this story seems completely ludicrous in terms of characterization is a dead giveaway. Why in the world did BB release the terrigen cloud because Hickman or some editor made him. Why did the terrigen cloud only start killing mutants after Secret Wars and Soule's initial Inhuman run? Because the editors thought it was a good idea. Marvel editors and writers have made some incredibly controversial decisions the last few years and yet somehow the whole IvX thing has spiraled into one group taking out all their frustration on another group fictional characters instead of the people in charge of the poorly written story. No one seems to blame Lemire for making Cyclops out to be a villain prior to DoX. No one wants to blame Soule for seemingly ignoring the T-mist in Uncanny and destroying BB and Medusa's relationship for pointless melodrama. The whole thing stinks of editorial mandates and two greats writers being hampered by poor executive decisions. BB has always been a character that is level-headed and rational. Scott Summers is someone who has been written as a Boy Scout and a borderline dictator, but he still has a clear and logical mission of protecting and progressing the mutant race. Both men have their species best interest at heart but have work with other numerous time in the past to settle disputes. Are you seriously trying to telling me that you guys are buying a story where both of this men have to come to blows to solve an issue that could easily be resolved via containment or destruction of the cloud. As someone who is a fan of both group this whole situation is just disappointing and seeing a large group of the X-fanbase hate a bunch of characters because they are being written poorly is disheartening. Why can't these same fans treat this like they treat Cyclops actions during AvX. If killing Prof X can be written off as terrible writing then why can this terrigen cloud nonsense be treated the same way. At the end of the day I can't understand why people can't separate characters from plotlines, and poor writing.

P.S. I'm not saying X-fans shouldn't complain be acting like the Inhumans deserve to erased from existence do to a stupid storyline is completely irrational. When I read comments like this I always assume the person in question just want good X-men stories and move on. If you really think the Inhumans are evil I'd suggest you read other stories with them in it. They aren't traditional superheroes by any means but they also aren't a bunch of genocidal maniacs either. Just my two-cents.

Well, the point of the Complex is blaming the editorial and the higher ups for the horrible treatment of the X-men, but given that we are constantly called crazy and paranoids; at least we panels of mutants dying in horrific detail to blame the Inhumans for.

[Child of the Past]

Well, the point of the Complex is blaming the editorial and the higher ups for the horrible treatment of the X-men, but given that we are constantly called crazy and paranoids; at least we panels of mutants dying in horrific detail to blame the Inhumans for.

What you're saying is exactly the problem. The Complex uses speculation to justify overly negative attitudes towards Inhumans and their fans. Also, the reason Complexers are called crazy isn't because the blame editors from bad storylines (which is strictly what point was), it's because virtually every new announcement they hear about gets construed as a slight against the X-men. I'm not about to debate the numerous struggles Complexers have had to endure, at this point I couldn't care less. Too many of them have tried their hardest to derail conversations with their theories.

[Mike_Murdock]

At least Inhuman fans can be happy that the only casualties in Death of X were muties.

While I'm sure the Inhumans fans are happy that a character they love didn't die (although they pretty much knew this since they've seen all the characters since then), what makes you think they were particularly rooting for any mutant deaths? I know I wasn't. I did think some kind of death was necessary to give the story stakes, but I wasn't relishing in it.

My question is this: How is Black Bolt not hated by everyone? Dude literally executes Cyclops for no reason. But Cyclops is the pariah and Black Bolt owns a fucking bar.

I honestly think they probably should based on what we saw. Honestly, there's a lot of parallel between Black Bolt here and Cyclops in AvX. Basically, reckless actions designed for the good of their people (Black Bolt with the T-Bomb, Cyclops with the Phoenix Force) leads to the killing of someone trying to stop them (in a fairly similar manner). I think there could have been a good story exploring that issue, but Death of X didn't explore much of anything. Obviously, their treatment afterward was very different. Has Black Bolt been mentioned much in the X-Books? If not, the real practical reason is the only books that really deal with the M-Pox (besides a perfunctory mention to show that it's the same universe) are X-Books. That's the simplest explanation.

However, if you want the in-universe explanation, it probably appeared to everyone that Cyclops was about to attack them and they responded. It appeared that way because that's exactly how it was intended to appear. Emma wanted Scott to go out in a blaze of glory and die as a martyr. If that didn't happen, people would discover that Cyclops was already dead. I don't think it was well-executed on the page, but that's the best explanation for any disparate treatment.

No, actually, Alchemy's death is on his own head, because he *chose* to help Cyclops/Emma, and he did so with eyes wide open. Emma didn't force him to do anything against his will. But if you'd like to play that particular blame game, the deaths of Alchemy, Madrox and Cyclops are squarely on Black Bolt for dropping the terrigen bomb. Either everyone is responsible for their own actions, or they aren't. You can't have it both ways.

One thing I've been thinking about on this subject. I've commented before at how persuasive Scott is in this story. Given that it's really Emma speaking, can we be confident that people following her words are truly acting on their own freewill? Was Alchemy persuaded to be a hero because of Scott's speech or because Emma is a telepath?

I wouldn't say that at all. They didn't defend their point of view enough. They left it to the reader to work out that there won't be any more Inhumans without the mists.

I commented in the Inhumans thread, but this is probably my biggest disappointment. There were ways to make the Inhumans actions look less bad in this issue. I don't think they did that at all. Now this story is a send-off for Scott Summers, so I can understand why they didn't, but I do think it weakened things overall.

Have you read Civil War - X-Men? Storm tried to do that and failed miserably.

Even Death of X makes it clear - it takes the efforts of Storm, Crystal, and Iso to move the cloud. That being said, they did succeed. I think the biggest complaint against Scott's actions are that the crisis was over at that point. But that only postpones the issue (and it only postpones it weeks at most, not eight+ months).

[Namor'sWrath]

I meant that no random Inhumans died. Cyclops has been called a mass-murderer in at least one book, so I at least was expecting some Inhumans would get killed. Even Downer survived.

[Wiccan]

Perhaps he was looking to her for a second opinion on whether to use the Voice. Which is frankly the most questionable aspect of the issue. Black Bolt using his voice in single combat is almost unheard of. Kang, Thanos, am entire Skrull fleet? Sure. But not Scott Summers. Alex's implication was that this was "suicide by cop" on Scott's part, though in actuality Emma fabricating a death epic enough to make him a legend.

Yeah, I actually understood that reading the issue, and what does it change? The comment was about being self-defense because Scott was going to use his optic blasts, when it wasn't that at all. Suicide by cop probably cause "Scott" was already going close to them and doing that whole speech like he knew he was going to be killed or going to kill himself.
Even Charles Soule talks about killing Scott like a decision Medusa and Black Bolt made, and that they don't really regret it.

[spirit2011]

Even Death of X makes it clear - it takes the efforts of Storm, Crystal, and Iso to move the cloud. That being said, they did succeed. I think the biggest complaint against Scott's actions are that the crisis was over at that point. But that only postpones the issue (and it only postpones it weeks at most, not eight+ months).

the crisis wasn't over, the cloud would just move to another place

[dragonmp93]

What you're saying is exactly the problem. The Complex uses speculation to justify overly negative attitudes towards Inhumans and their fans. Also, the reason Complexers are called crazy isn't because the blame editors from bad storylines (which is strictly what point was), it's because virtually every new announcement they hear about gets construed as a slight against the X-men. I'm not about to debate the numerous struggles Complexers have had to endure, at this point I couldn't care less. Too many of them have tried their hardest to derail conversations with their theories.

Like i said, it easier to blame fictional characters because we can point to the comic panels.
Besides, i personally dont have anything against the real life Inhuman fans, everyone can be fan of who they want and spend money on what they want.

[Mike_Murdock]

I meant that no random Inhumans died. Cyclops has been called a mass-murderer in at least one book, so I at least was expecting some Inhumans would get killed. Even Downer survived.

I don't think any Inhumans fan would be upset if Downer died. I'm pretty sure we all thought he was a gonner. Then again, maybe I shouldn't speak for others. I don't get upset by characters I have no attachment to dying. Maybe I'm just weird that way.

[Coin Biter]

Essentially, to approach adequacy, Death of X should have done at least two things.

1. It should have provided a good reason why Cyclops' actions have been portrayed as so unforgivable in Extraordinary X-Men, All New X-Men, and in Champions.

RESULT: Failure. Even if you consider Emma Cyclops' actions in removing the cloud reckless, they were scarcely monstrous. Getting rid of a toxic pollutant is a sensible response to a pollutant. If you have asbestos, you get rid of the asbestos - you don't try to genetically engineer people to be immune to asbestos

This failure is really pretty terrible. It's made the statements in the last 8 months of X-Men comics look ridiculous.

2. To set up Inhumans vs X-Men sensibly, it should have provided a balanced conflict between the two sides, with arguments on each.

RESULT: Failure. It didn't really provide a good reason as to why the Inhumans were opposed to the removal of the cloud.

That said, this would probably have been an impossible task. The apparent justification for being opposed to be removal would be that without the cloud, no Inhumans can achieve superhuman powers. However, they would still exist. They would retain their superior physicals, their advanced technology, and their unique culture and society. On the other hand, the mutants would die.

Preservation of "culture", the Inhuman "way of life" ... when weighed against death, it's an inherently feeble argument. It's the same argument, among others, that was raised for the retention of slavery in the Confederate states. Now of course societies have used that argument, fought wars for that argument, and lost or won those wars. But it's not really an argument behind which you can rally readers, because it is inherently immoral.

And that, ultimately, I suspect, is why the Inhuman "side" of preservation of the mists was not explored in Death of X. Because the writers realize how weak the moral argument is. That's not the fault of Soule or Lemire, nor should it mean we hate fictional characters such as Black Bolt or Medusa, no matter how untenable their behaviour. It's a weakness inherent in the whole plot line, and one of the many reasons it was so desperately misconceived.

[Seren]

Moved this post to the Inhumans thread cause it's not really related to this one.

[Mike_Murdock]

Essentially, to approach adequacy, Death of X should have done at least two things.

1. It should have provided a good reason why Cyclops' actions have been portrayed as so unforgivable in Extraordinary X-Men, All New X-Men, and in Champions.

2. To set up Inhumans vs X-Men sensibly, it should have provided a balanced conflict between the two sides, with arguments on each.

There is a third thing the series had to do, which is to provide an adequate sendoff to Cyclops when he dies.

And that, ultimately, I suspect, is why the Inhuman "side" of preservation of the mists was not explored in Death of X. Because the writers realize how weak the moral argument is. That's not the fault of Soule or Lemire, nor should it mean we hate fictional characters such as Black Bolt or Medusa, no matter how untenable their behaviour. It's a weakness inherent in the whole plot line, and one of the many reasons it was so desperately misconceived.

I think it also wasn't explored because it would have distracted the focus from Cyclops.

[Coin Biter]

There is a third thing the series had to do, which is to provide an adequate sendoff to Cyclops when he dies.



I think it also wasn't explored because it would have distracted the focus from Cyclops.

On the first, yes, fair point; on the second, perhaps. It will be interesting to see whether it is properly explored in IvX, although I very much doubt it, as the writers will want to retain a degree of sympathy for the characters, and therefore will probably choose not to develop some of the more interesting themes.