X-Men #3 [Hordeculture] - Review/Spoilers

[spirit2011]

Some of the characters are older than the people posting here. They've had plenty of character arcs. I don't know how long you're gonna drag out this "character development" excuse to justify why you don't like the story.

Lack of character development was one of the critics I most saw on Guggs run.
Not ir is suddenly not important anymore.

I think character development is a must in a story, specially on a new status quo

Hallelujah!
How many times has Lord Claremont-the Gawd of Character Development, washed rinsed recycled his "Days of Our Lives" relationship dramas only to have the characters right back where they started...neither better, stronger, wiser for having gone through the mess?
Edit...
@JKtheMac...I appreciate your knowledge and understanding.

Soap Operas usually have better character development when well written

But seriously?

[xiyon]

i don't know why worldbuilding can't be done with some character development. Most of books do this kind of thing.
It's frustrating when Hickman already had 12 issues of setup on hoxpox

Why would you introduce plot points of other books? The books can work their own way of introduce problems and villains

Hit the nail on the head.

I don't have much to say about this issue. It didn't bore or interest me. It's an odd feeling.

Count me in the ranks of confused, disgruntled fence-sitter. Like, if I applied the 3 episode rule, I'd drop the book for meandering, but since it's a series of one-and-dones (so far), I keep hoping the next issue will actually give substance. Is that insanity? I mean, HoX/PoX is already done...

[Michael Watkins]

i'm gone the moment that the art dips in quality.

[JTFSXX]

You don't think the page where Scott blasts an old woman and she cries about her hip, so then he stops to help her and she hits him had any importance or character building? because i think it does. I think that's an important panel

VERY important. It was a reminder (and we get them from time to time) that despite an totally understandable and reasonable hardening of his heart over the last decade, it's still in there.

[People Of The Earth]

Damn dude you sure gotta lotta thoughts on how other people should live/act.

I'm not expecting children or even teenagers to understand that no one has an infinite amount of time at his/her disposal, or that no one is invicible no matter what they convey to the world...
But an adult should have that level of understanding at the very least, regardless of whether or not s/he acts upon it, yes.
Not to rain on anyone's parade or sound exceptionnally gloomy but we all live on borrowed time. Every last one of us.
Best case scenario, we all grow old and healthy before going out on our merry way...
Worst case scenario?
Some dumb accident cut our lives short.
Or illness.
Or terrorism and war.
Who knows.
Bottom line being, life is a frail and fragile thing and should be cherished as a result and yes, that implies showing at least a moderate form of empathy toward one another in my opinion.
Hence my intense dislike of supremacist talks and attitudes, especially from mutants who know how precarious life is better than most given their unique positions.

Also, not a dude.

I'm having a hard time imagining exactly how you'd like the X-Men to be.... what was your favorite era?

ANAD is the era that resonated the most with me, closely followed by the New X-Men from Morrison, and Astonishing X-Men from Whedon.
Those are my essentials.
God Loves, Man kills is the story I value the most, hence my signature.

I meeeean that's our reality. What can humility do against a world leader with a Nuke and itchy trigger finger?

My point was that saying "the mutants are safe on Krakoa" has been proven wrong twice already.
IRL?
I think we can all agree we Don't live in a safe world altogether, despite some places being in much better situations than others.
Depending on gender, origins or beliefs, it can be dramatically worse even.

The Mutants being by themselves and offering humanity life bettering drugs still gets *extremist humans* hatin on them? #smdh

Fixed that for you.
And my response to it is, why would you expect anything else from extremists in the first place? The ones who see the error/horror of their ways and repent from them are few and far between.

uhhh world leaders are often ineffectual, con men, who got their position through nepotism...bribes etc.

They are still not the ones distributing parking tickets in your streets or patrolling on your country's borders: there are people to do that specifically (typically police and border guards) , which was my point.
Surely the Kraked have a basic understanding of what specialization is in a society.

Now, for massive incidents/disasters?
Sure, they should be there, show support or better yet, actual helping if they can...
It is EXPECTED even, given they are the rulers of their country.

I'd rather Shaw and Frost showed up when the island was being attacked by the Reavers, or any other Council member really, rather than see them show up here "to investigate" when there are tons of mutants who could do that better than them.
The leaders of Krakoa Don't need to go deal themselves with every incident.

The X-Men have Mutant powers and are trained for combat.

True.
The presence of Cyclops made sense in that regard, beyond the whole Great Captain title...
He should have taken other X-Men with him, or warriors however, not the actual leaders of the island: there's no short supply of them on that island.

Who coulda prepared for the attack of the Golden Girls.

I Don't understand this reasoning.

Who could prepare to sudden illness or to have someone stole their car or broke into his/her place one day?
No one.
Yet, you Don't find people willfully leaving every door of their place open, or their car wide open with the keys on the contact or not taking care of their health in general if they can...
Because they try to the best of their ability to mitigate the risk of those things happening.

It's the same here.

The Kraked should have people dedicated to securing their borders, regardless of the efficiency of such a measure...
For crying out loud, Sebastian Shaw of all people mention exactly this in the last issue of Marauders!

You took their loss at the hands of the Granny's as proof of Mutants not being superior,

They are not.
Ingenuity was the decisive factor here, not brute force/ power.

while the fact that they didn't automatically attack armed humans stealing their sh!t is to be applauded

Each culture handle thieves differently, so there's litteraly Nothing to be celebrated here.
Hordeculture entered Krakoa illegally and stole essential resources to them; the Kraked had every right to seize them on the spot and bring them to what pass as a court of justice at the moment on their island.
I Don't think these thieves had any Amnesty protecting them from such legal proceedings…

And really, how is their origin relevant here anyway?

If it had been mutants doing the stealing for whatever reason, what would you have said?
Bravo to Cyclops and co for not attacking a fellow mutant?
Big deal.
At the end of the day, it's still a thief or group of thieves here getting away with their crime.

Well you can't prepare for EVERYTHING liiiiike....a Mutant riding a tidal wave
lol

True, there are fantastical occurrences that are beyond even the most prepared persons on the planet…
That being said, Black Panther and his country had plans on how to deal with the atlanteans - in their own territory at that -, and those plans have proved their efficiency given how devastating the wakandan retaliation was...
So preparadness is still useful, essential even for a country like Krakoa.
I stand by my initial statement.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

But why though.

Are you still buying this book?
Your opinion has been noted, so why keep repeating it?

Because at a certain point it stops being about voicing a valid critique or preference, and more like trying to argue people out of enjoying something.
Which, given how hard life is, is a dick move.

Just pointing out, I'm borrowing the copies from my boyfriend because I like to know what's going on.

But also, I'm not trying to argue anyone out of enjoying anything: I'm stating my critique as anyone is able to do here, it just so happens the same problems keep popping up week after week. I get responded to and so I respond. It's a forum and no different than how any other users react.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

Some of the characters are older than the people posting here. They've had plenty of character arcs. I don't know how long you're gonna drag out this "character development" excuse to justify why you don't like the story.

Character development is different to wanting characterisation with personality and is a valid critique; it's a factor that prevents enjoyment of the story. It's a valid criticism.

[Zelena]

That’s taste talking. Why compare an apple with an orange by claiming all fruit should contain segments or have a thick skin? Enjoy both for what they are. Seek to understand what the strengths of each are.

At this time of year, this approach always reminds me of ‘The Holly and the Ivy’. Why is Ivy even in that song? Just to make a claim that Holly is better? That’s not a comparison that’s an assertion.

There is a warped notion in the general understanding of writing and it is reflected in almost all definitions of what plot driven and character driven story actually is. Go read a random definition and you will in all probability be reading a definition written by someone that has no idea what plot driven story really is. They talk about it being a spectrum for example, which is nonsensical, they talk about genre fiction being plot driven which is an overgeneralised idea born of snobbery. Elevating the psychological novel over what they see as commercial writing. They talk about this being primarily a television concept, or something only writers need concern themselves with.

The actual definitions are clear and simple.

If the overall thrust of the story is about internal conflicts leading to character change or external conflicts that bring those internal conflicts into focus then it is a character driven story.

If the overall trust of the story is about external conflicts or any internal conflicts are being brought about by external forces then it is a plot driven story.

More contentiously, if the overall thrust of the story is about the world being a conflict riven place that the characters find themselves reacting to them it is Arena Driven. Some, like me think this one is just confused TV writers trying to convince themselves they are part of the higher literary form so that snobs can’t attack them for being genre fiction.

I would define Claremont as being in this Arena Driven space. He, like Lee before him wanted more character focus and squeezed a lot more character arcs into a primarily plot driven story. That is not the same thing as being Character driven. That’s just an emphasis on character. To many of us this makes for a less coherent story. Claremont was certainly good and very entertaining but he is not a great model of how to write comics for a writer who wants to tell a more pure plot driven story.

I'm not sure you can make a distinction so clear-cut between "plot driven stories" and "character driven stories". In all good stories (or good movies) I read/saw, external events had an effect on characters and revealed the relationships between them, show the vulnerabilities. People change through events, they don't decide to change.
I have the impression that this "plot driven story" story is more an excuse to treat characters with superficiality.
I have also the impression that what you call 'lack of coherency', I would call it richness, complexity.

[Sutekh]

I missed it, but was there a reason they portaled to Australia to get a ride from Gateway, when they name-dropped Paris (Exodus) earlier and his main power is teleportation? It's not like Ilyanna was their only teleporter... We know Pixie's on the island, for instance, and Nightcrawler can extend his range and teleport an entire team when powered up by Rachel (and, presumably, Jean or someone similar to Rachel in power). Vanisher might be there as well, or Ariel, from Fallen Angels, or Lila Cheney.

It just seemed like a wasted step, and weird, since Exodus, in particular, has teleportation (and teleporting others without necessarily going to the destination point himself) as his primary power, the one he was named after, not just 'telepath number eleventy-bleem.'

[marvelprince]

I missed it, but was there a reason they portaled to Australia to get a ride from Gateway, when they name-dropped Paris (Exodus) earlier and his main power is teleportation? It's not like Ilyanna was their only teleporter... We know Pixie's on the island, for instance, and Nightcrawler can extend his range and teleport an entire team when powered up by Rachel (and, presumably, Jean or someone similar to Rachel in power). Vanisher might be there as well, or Ariel, from Fallen Angels, or Lila Cheney.

It just seemed like a wasted step, and weird, since Exodus, in particular, has teleportation (and teleporting others without necessarily going to the destination point himself) as his primary power, the one he was named after, not just 'telepath number eleventy-bleem.'

Many ways to skin a cat. Cyclops was tasked with figuring what’s up, and he chose Gateway. Like you said there were a number of ways to get there.

[Triniking1234]

I missed it, but was there a reason they portaled to Australia to get a ride from Gateway, when they name-dropped Paris (Exodus) earlier and his main power is teleportation? It's not like Ilyanna was their only teleporter... We know Pixie's on the island, for instance, and Nightcrawler can extend his range and teleport an entire team when powered up by Rachel (and, presumably, Jean or someone similar to Rachel in power). Vanisher might be there as well, or Ariel, from Fallen Angels, or Lila Cheney.

It just seemed like a wasted step, and weird, since Exodus, in particular, has teleportation (and teleporting others without necessarily going to the destination point himself) as his primary power, the one he was named after, not just 'telepath number eleventy-bleem.'

Exodus got retconned to being mostly psychic-classed and he was name dropped cuz he also felt Krakoa being in pain just like Emma did.
Pixie was the one ambushed on PAGE ONE
Hickman just wanted to use Gateway and Gateway's better than Nightcrawler.

[JKtheMac]

Character development is different to wanting characterisation with personality and is a valid critique; it's a factor that prevents enjoyment of the story. It's a valid criticism.

I wasn’t saying your criticism was invalid, I was saying I don’t recognise it as relating to this comic and was interested in you providing some actual evidence, considering you said it was objective earlier. It seems extremely subjective and possibly unfounded from where I am sitting.

[JKtheMac]

I'm not sure you can make a distinction so clear-cut between "plot driven stories" and "character driven stories". In all good stories (or good movies) I read/saw, external events had an effect on characters and revealed the relationships between them, show the vulnerabilities. People change through events, they don't decide to change.
I have the impression that this "plot driven story" story is more an excuse to treat characters with superficiality.
I have also the impression that what you call 'lack of coherency', I would call it richness, complexity.

My entire point is that the distinction is very clear cut but that most people look at it on the wrong level. Its simply about what the story is trying to say or achieve at the level of intended meaning. It has nothing to do with individual arcs.

My point being that there is a wide variety of storytelling styles but there are only a handful (possibly only two or three depending on who you ask) of types of story at that higher level. And that level is so fundamental that criticising one for not containing the essential elements of the other is pointless.

What you are referring to has very little to do with a story being plot or character driven. This is also why the word ‘development’ is not very descriptive because to me that term is more like the development process of a photograph, and not really about how characters change but how a character is drawn or portrayed.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

I wasn’t saying your criticism was invalid, I was saying I don’t recognise it as relating to this comic and was interested in you proving some actual evidence, considering you said it was objective earlier. It seems extremely subjective and possibly unfounded from where I am sitting.

Alright, here ya go.

Compare the panels in X-Men #3, to these of Scott:

https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/up...madelyne02.jpg

https://terrigen-cdn-dev.marvel.com/...ction-card.jpg

https://hoomahmoos.files.wordpress.c...t-like-jea.jpg

https://scontent-yyz1-1.cdninstagram...74&oe=5E85C020


And I don't mean in terms of the art, I mean in terms of the dialogue itself. Even in the most static artwork, there's personality and difference between each of those characters: Scott's pause and stutter vs Alex's more direct saying of his name, vs again Corsair's wariness. That all comes across in the writing; the little things, the breaks, the pauses. Same with Madelyn; she has a direct manner of speech which is further different from say, how Kitty or Ororo might speak.

Then the single panels I've shown, where Scott says very little. The way it's laid out gives pause and emphasis. I can hear the tension in his voice. That's another shade of his boy-scout-esque personality, which Hickman hasn't presented as far as I can see.

Then, in the champions panels: the way the dialogue bounces off of each character as it does. How they interrupt each other, how Scott seems calmer compared to say, Kamala or Nova. That's important.

We don't see that from Hickman; there's no conversation, not really. Someone says one thing. Someone says another. There's no chemistry between it, nor much of any kind of personality outside of one note. Even here, look, where the art is pretty much unexpressive:

https://66.media.tumblr.com/7b18c937...p2mo2_1280.png


In those two panels you hear more nuance than you do in the entirety of this book, because the dialogue has room to breathe.

It feels more human, it feels more natural. It rings of a distinct voice because you're able to pick up even just a slither of emotion from it from that pause alone.


And that's part of what makes an engaging story, plot-driven or not. There's obviously plot going on, in a much larger story especially from the Claremont panels, but the characters were pivotal to getting it across. Here, these characters could literally be anyone, replaced by anyone even.


Also, there's no 'wrong level' of looking at a story; if it's evoked these reactions then there's a reason.

[Striderblack01]

Just pointing out, I'm borrowing the copies from my boyfriend because I like to know what's going on.

But also, I'm not trying to argue anyone out of enjoying anything: I'm stating my critique as anyone is able to do here, it just so happens the same problems keep popping up week after week. I get responded to and so I respond. It's a forum and no different than how any other users react.

But why though.

You, and a few other like-minded individuals, post the same criticisms on these threads, week after week, in a manner that can be best described as stubbornly inconsolable.
It's pretty clear that the group is not a fan of Hickman's writing or the current direction of the line.

So what do you all get from reading something you don't like?
What do you all get from repeatedly posting the same criticism? Do you hope that it will be noticed and incorporated it into the writing?
Have you found that you've changed any one's mind or gathered new support?
Is this a part of your grieving process?

I ask because I find the behavior curious, and I worry the group is finding relief in attempting to stymie enthusiasm for the book.
Which is a terrible coping mechanism and, overall, a dick move.

Most people in that situation would say their peace, and move on for a while.
I found myself in similar predicament with Spider-Man and OMD. It became very clear that the book I wanted was not the book I was going to get, so I left.
Broke my heart, but I didn't buy a single issue for years.

However, at no point did I try exorcise my feelings by posting constant criticism after every issue.