What do you like/dislike about Krakoa? (As a concept)

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

We definitely don’t need confirmation that we’re reading about the same X-Men we’ve always been reading about. X-Men #7 will expand on it, but you can’t really think that much is changing.....right?

Nah, I wouldn't be shocked to find out these are totally different people. I mean, it'd explain why everyone's voices seem...basically non-existent. Under this direction, with how everyone's acting (except a handful like Wolverine, Gambit, ect,) these just aren't the same characters.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

Agreed. As soon as Gambit lunged for •-[A]-• I thought "now is not the time bruh, monsters everywhere!"

Yeah, but look at it from Gambit's perspective: as far as he's concerned Brad might well be the one responsible for even the monsters rising about them. He's so sick of the situation and pissed off at how pompous he seems that it's literally his brain clicking into a "If I shut you up, then problem solved" mode. I don't blame him.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

Also, having glanced about the thread following my absence (apologies for that, by the way, post-operative nerve pain's been getting me!) Is it possible that stories do rely too much on 'survival' as a stake? Regardless of how we feel about comic book deaths or the resurrection protocols, is it possible that writers need to open up a little in terms of what we consider high-stakes?

For instance: Can high stakes be in relation to the emotional toll a character might suffer? Or what the actual consequences of a choice or action might bring?

What do you think? What other 'high stakes' can there be?

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

Meh. Genosha was a super-power too. Magneto revitalized it's economy and they rebuilt from the [post Aussie X-Men/X-Tinction Agenda-caused] civil war ravaged place to the next gleaming city on the hill. It just happened at the end of the 90's and they didn't focus on it very much other than the aborted world take-over(when Jean mind controlled her way into distracting Magneto long enough for Wolverine to stab him in the back...), which was essentially followed up by E is for Extinction. I think there were mini series that covered the nation of Genosha's reformation as a mutant state, but it was a peripheral issue, and certainly not a line-wide influence as we see today. Magneto sought to gain through military might was Krakoa is now trying to do through pure economics, but Genosha was still a superpower in that regard; to legitimately challenge the human superpowers. Really it was only the X-Men that had a chance, since Magneto didn't destroy them outright[due to their complicated relationship].

This is interesting though, because though it's similar to Krakoa, the X-Men seemed to view Magneto's take on this as facist. Let's discuss guys: How is Krakoa different from Genosha in this regard? What's the key difference in principles between Genosha and Krakoa?

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

Arrogance and domination is an attitude, not a strategy. You don't change your personality depending on circumstances.

You say that mutants have human allies, fine. But, how do these human allies feel about this attitude? Are they ok with mutants displaying "arrogance and domination"? More, alliances are not the same as friendships. We can see in our world how they can break easily…

The Queen of England… well, of UK has no political power. Elisabeth Braddock, only answering to the Queen, is undermining the UK government (which really don't need it).

I agree on one point: Genosha and Utopia have failed because they didn't try to find allies outside the mutant realm…

This is also a good point I feel we should be discussing a bit more!

What human-mutant alliances or friendships have we seen so far: How did they come across to you? Does it feel genuine, as if it promotes prosperity? Or does it feel disingenuous? False perhaps? Do these friendships and alliances overlap?

Also, is anyone else a bit like me and struggle to take it as "X-Men Canon" unless it's seen directly in the X-line? How does that affect your reading if applicable?

(AlsoAlso, that's true: The Queen doesn't have any political sway. She's more of a safe-guard or stop gap regarding acknowledging who Prime-Ministers are after an election, are and what they might want to do as they go on.)

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

We arent seeing any objections amongst the X-men/utants

Another good talking point we all need to have. There's definitely a big divide between how this affects people's read of the situation. So let's get into it:

For me, personally, the lack of objection from characters presents a much too convenient approach. It makes everything feel disingenuous, even renders the core concept of the X-Men and their ideals a bit over-simplified. It feels very "Us vs Them" without really properly going into why.

[pkingdom]

We definitely don’t need confirmation that we’re reading about the same X-Men we’ve always been reading about. X-Men #7 will expand on it, but you can’t really think that much is changing.....right?

Why would that surprise you? We already know the copies are incomplete because they lack their recent memories. Its not a stretch to just assume they're all clones, and this turns into a 'what is the measure of a copy?' type of thing the Clone Saga tried.

What I think you're getting at is that it would be a terrible writing decision, which it definitely would be. So maybe Hickman is going to swerve in a way I can't predict. But they've talked enough in interviews about a 'bringing back someone who turns out not to be dead' that its going to happen.

[Tycon]

Nah, I wouldn't be shocked to find out these are totally different people. I mean, it'd explain why everyone's voices seem...basically non-existent. Under this direction, with how everyone's acting (except a handful like Wolverine, Gambit, ect,) these just aren't the same characters.

Why would that surprise you? We already know the copies are incomplete because they lack their recent memories. Its not a stretch to just assume they're all clones, and this turns into a 'what is the measure of a copy?' type of thing the Clone Saga tried.

What I think you're getting at is that it would be a terrible writing decision, which it definitely would be. So maybe Hickman is going to swerve in a way I can't predict. But they've talked enough in interviews about a 'bringing back someone who turns out not to be dead' that its going to happen.

Their essence makes them who they are, not their most recent memory. What I’m getting at is that Hickman is smart enough to not turn this into an island of clones and cheat his entire X-Slack out of writing the characters they’ve pitched in. The thing is that “mutants don’t die” not “mutants die but don’t worry, a clone of them takes their place”

[Kisinith]

Why would that surprise you? We already know the copies are incomplete because they lack their recent memories. Its not a stretch to just assume they're all clones, and this turns into a 'what is the measure of a copy?' type of thing the Clone Saga tried.

What I think you're getting at is that it would be a terrible writing decision, which it definitely would be. So maybe Hickman is going to swerve in a way I can't predict. But they've talked enough in interviews about a 'bringing back someone who turns out not to be dead' that its going to happen.

Your forgetting, one reason Hickman used this method of resurrection was that it had been previously used to resurrect people in the X-Franchise. This isn't some brand new, revolutionary idea on how to pull this off. There is established precedent set up by papa Claremont himself that this is a true resurrection method. (Uncanny X-Men #167 March, 1983) The only difference is that the new bodies are made by combining mutant powers rather than alien cloning technology.

"The afterlife is ‘technically’ part of Marvel continuity (and Jack Kirby is ‘technically’ ‘God’), so if you want to make an argument that there's strict Judeo-Christian set of post-death rules for a resurrection to result in a soul-reclaimed and soul-equipped being, then cool," Hickman said to AIPT. "The problem is that we don’t do that. Almost every single character death we undo, or character we bring back through whatever story construct or general shenanigans doesn’t go on a soul quest to recover their essence (in the past, yes, sometimes, but not anymore–imagine if we did that nowadays in our current death-resurrection cycle, that’s a lotta issues)."...
... To finalize, Hickman brought up that this specific style of resurrection was purposefully created because of its ties to the past of the X-Men and their larger history, specifically with Professor X.
"The broader point is we bring back characters all the time in much less elegant ways, and this one is actually based on an experience Professor Xavier had in earlier X-Men comics, so it makes sense he would think of something like this. He knew it worked...As for the reason it seems creepy, well, it feels that way because we did all the resurrections at (generally) the same time and presented it as a ceremonial. It feels religious. It feels other. It feels terrifying. Unless you’re them, and then it feels ascendant. It feels like victory."

[pkingdom]

Your forgetting, one reason Hickman used this method of resurrection was that it had been previously used to resurrect people in the X-Franchise. This isn't some brand new, revolutionary idea on how to pull this off. There is established precedent set up by papa Claremont himself that this is a true resurrection method. (Uncanny X-Men #167 March, 1983) The only difference is that the new bodies are made by combining mutant powers rather than alien cloning technology.

I'm not familiar with that story. Can you fill the rest of us in?

[yogaflame]

I'm not familiar with that story. Can you fill the rest of us in?

In that era, all the X-Men and the Professor were implanted with Brood eggs. Wolverine's healing factor saved him, Storm used a galactic core to purge hers, and the rest of the X-Men were cured by freeing the Acanti soulsinger(yep, that's the Brood Saga; it's actually awesome), but Prof still had his back on earth.

The Brood-possessed Xavier gathered the New Mutants[under the pretense that the X-Men were dead and the next generation needed to be trained, but actually the Brood Queen inside Xavier just wanted more mutants to put eggs in(see early New Mutants, also awesome)], and when the X-Men arrived back from space, they kicked the kids asses and Xavier's as he turned into the Brood-Queen.

The Starjammers and Moira helped the X-Men restore him. They cloned him a new Xavier body, and then moved his mind/soul over to the new body. So yes, this resurrection protocol definitely has a precedence in the X-canon, by none other than Lord Claremont themselves.

[CRaymond]

Gotta check on Google, but he might be referring to Xavier’s cloned body following the Brood event.

The big difference FOR ME is that the X-Men are using iCloud back-ups, and there’s no direct relationship between death and rebirth.

[CRaymond]

I was right!

[Tycon]

Even the “egg” thing is set in previous resurrection processes. During Secret Wars II after Beyonder killed the New Mutants, he gathered their essence and formed appropriate bodies through his powerful molecular manipulation. Of course he was missing the “memories” portion because he needed them as a blank slate but there’s also precedent for anima being crucial to resurrection. The Five basically run the exact same process except Xavier is able to implant their memories.

[pkingdom]

So did Xavier move his own consciousness into the clones body? Because I know telepaths have done things like that before, sometimes outright possessing people