Off My Mind: Will Wolverine Lead a Deadlier Version of the X-Men?

O_o scary thought

I haven't been able to find this out. Is Gambit part of Wolverine's new team?

I bet they'll do a reversal. Wolverine will actually lead a more accepting team that takes on mutants for who they are and generally try and find more peaceful solutions so everybody can get along, and leaving the truly nasty stuff to people who can handle it with X-Force (Uncanny X-Force is amazing I just bought all the issues after reading the first 5).

While Cyclops will run the team you would think Wolverine was in charge of more in line with a Brotherhood, end justifies the means sort of way everybody has to do their part...of morally ambiguous actions.

I didn't know Storm was the one who pushed Wolverine to become a leader. I am glad Wolverine became one but I am not yet impressed with how he leads the x-force...... yet. : )

Storm's mohawk hair here as well as her outfit is awesome!

I haven't been able to find this out. Is Gambit part of Wolverine's new team?

Great article!

The highlight? Storm's bitchin' mohawk. Seriously.

Well, I certainly can't image Wolverine leading an altruistic version of the X-Men. From day one he's been the killer of X-Men. He's even the one who took te initiative to restart the Black Ops X-Force. As leader, you are pretty much the spokesman for your group. How does he justifiable preach about peace if it's discovered how much of a killer he is. Could you trust someone to do something peaceful if you knew they used to settle problems with killing?

I will say that if that is Dark Beast with Kid Omaga on Wolverine's team. It should be interesting how he keeps them from killing and live up to Xavier's ideal. Kid Omega hates humans and Dark Beast used to perform human experimentation.

what ever the team that wolverine forms definatly more brutal and pro-active yaeh basicaly x-force on a wider scale

it could(should) be 20 % deadlier and 80% non deadlier but a little vicious version of the x men won't be bad as long as they stay in their limits i mean not killing everyone they meet and storm looks awesome!!

There's so many nostalgic stuff/come backs in comics these days.. We need mohawk Storm back! XD

dark beast still looks like beast before he transformed again into the more lion version, so that's just regular beast who knows wolverine was following orders. especially since both do follow cap's orders as well. wolverine also probably considers westchester to be the place where he gained some semblance of his humanity back and where he actually started doing good. he would want that for all the mutants who just need guidance and not be soldiers. who would better understand that than kitty pryde who he took under his wing and is a good mentor herself. beast is an original x-man who has taught before so it would make sense considering he probably misses the way xavier ran thing as oppose to scott's methods. and iceman is also an original x-man as well as an omega level who could potentially help the kid absurdly named kid omega on some level. it has some potential i'll give it that. i hope he tells cyclops that he has recently seen jean and she offered to be with him (AoA version, but it would still drive him into a rage)

Yes he will and in 12 issues or so Marvel will reboot the series like they do with oh so many of theirs.

It's ironic that he disagrees with Scott's decision to let Idie kill, and yet he is/was on X-force, and the poster regarding the new rosters show X-force on his side. He'll always have the animal side to him, .

@LordRequiem said:

It's ironic that he disagrees with Scott's decision to let Idie kill, and yet he is/was on X-force, and the poster regarding the new rosters show X-force on his side. He'll always have the animal side to him, .

His objections was that she was just a child. Him killing to him was justified because he was an adult.

Off topic - Storm looked so damn hot with a Mohawk.

Well...Kind of.

Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen Wolverine wear an eye patch or cowboy hat, go to Madripoor, or call anyone Darlin' in a long time. That takes priority over leading any team. Come on Marvel, make it happen!

Toad? I don't see him in that picture with Wolverine?

@Sammo21: In between Kid Omega's legs

@Sammo21: Look between Kid Omega's legs and you'll see him.

And Wolverine knows that the X-Men have built up a reputation over the years, and having his own team of X-Men go around killing people is not something he'd probably do. More likely, he'll still have his X-Force do the uncover killing and just let his X-Men stick to saving mutants and other stuff.

I think it's a really cool roster and i'm interested to see how Wolvie handles the situation. To my knowledge he's never led a team whose objective wasn't killing.

@frozenedge: @Steps:

OK, thanks guys. I didn't notice him at first.

Also, Frozenedge, I figured Logan would give up his typical X-Force duties and try to me out front with the standard team. I bet he will delegate it Psylocke.

@frozenedge said:

@Sammo21: Look between Kid Omega's legs and you'll see him.

And Wolverine knows that the X-Men have built up a reputation over the years, and having his own team of X-Men go around killing people is not something he'd probably do. More likely, he'll still have his X-Force do the uncover killing and just let his X-Men stick to saving mutants and other stuff.

hehe That last sentence just gave me the awesome image of Wolverine saving mutant kittens from trees. ^_^

Leading a hit-squad is different from leading a movement or an extended organization. His role with X-Force was really as a "field leader." He was the Sergeant while Cyclops was still the Officer. (I'm not military, does that comparison even make sense? I'm going by Starship Troopers here.)

Seems to me like Wolvie would adapt to the situation. While I do see him maybe adopting some principles of what he did as part of X-Force for his new team, I don't think he'd turn his followers into the black operators that the Force team became. Will they be elite regardless? You bet your @$$ they will be! I'm definitely excited to see how Wolvie's team will be going in light of all these changes.

@Steps: I think the ability to kill is inherent from birth. Wolverine killed at a young age, therefore he has no right to dismcriminate.

@Wingfoot said:

Hi !

Will Wolverine disappear one day forever ? Or at least, becoming again the (real) character I knew 25 years ago, recently seen again in Whedon's Astonishing X-men or in Craig/Yost's X-force ?
I don't think so.

"Wolverine... can either be a bloodthirsty killer... or a caring father-like figure to young and impressionable mutants." Seriously, it's not even a contradiction, it's an aberration and, in some way, dangerously stupid considering comic books are read by young people.

Maybe, some day, Marvel's writers will grow up, read books et become mature. I don't think so...

Hihane washte.

Great statement. Whatever happened to that anti-hero that I loved in the 80s? What's up with his ridiculous popularity and resulting attitude alteration? The writers in the 80s would have NEVER put him into a "father-figure" roll.

@MrCipher said:

@Wingfoot said:

Hi !

Will Wolverine disappear one day forever ? Or at least, becoming again the (real) character I knew 25 years ago, recently seen again in Whedon's Astonishing X-men or in Craig/Yost's X-force ?
I don't think so.

"Wolverine... can either be a bloodthirsty killer... or a caring father-like figure to young and impressionable mutants." Seriously, it's not even a contradiction, it's an aberration and, in some way, dangerously stupid considering comic books are read by young people.

Maybe, some day, Marvel's writers will grow up, read books et become mature. I don't think so...

Hihane washte.

Great statement. Whatever happened to that anti-hero that I loved in the 80s? What's up with his ridiculous popularity and resulting attitude alteration? The writers in the 80s would have NEVER put him into a "father-figure" roll.

Kitty Pryde?

@LordRequiem said:

@Steps: I think the ability to kill is inherent from birth. Wolverine killed at a young age, therefore he has no right to dismcriminate.

But doesn't Wolverine have the problem of being feral? And wasn't it of his own actions? I think Wolverine's objections doesn't lie with Idie killing more on Cyclops "guiding" Idie "to" kill. Wolverine killed based on either his feral nature or of his own choice as opposed to Idie a child being told to kill. It wasn't all Idie's idea to kill she did the action but what pushed her. Think of it like this Wolverine does bad things, he knows this, but that doesn't mean he wants others to follow in his footsteps.

in the picture of him with his claw out and bold everywhere is not right it is creep

All these pictures just make me wish Storm would start rocking the mohawk look again.

She was so much more badass looking in those days...

@Xenozoic Shaman: Lol that's not what I was talking about but that would be an all time low for the X-Men. They have to resort to saving mutated cats instead of kids lol

@Xenozoic Shaman: That sounds like something Logan might do. And it'll also give Psylocke her time to shine apart from her battle with Warren in X-Force

One thing that always bothers me about discussions about killing in comic books is this: that killing is always equated to murder. Killing does not equal murder; murder is an unjust killing. Of course what 'unjust' means is a matter of considerable debate, but there is conceptual space between the two ideas. For instance, if I kill someone in self-defense when they present a legitimate threat to my person (say they are pointing a gun at me or shooting at me after having broken in my home to rob me), while I have killed this person, I have NOT murdered them. This also does not make me a killer at least in the sense that I have seen used frequently in these discussions, which is 'watch out for this person, they've killed before so they're likely to kill again'. The person that kills strictly in self-defense has only killed (presumably) due to the severe risk to her life and the violation of her rights and probably will still feel terrible about what they (justifiably) have done. The sense of killer which I just mentioned seems to be more in line with someone who aims to kill others before they encounter them. She is looking to kill, as opposed to being forced to kill in defense of her life. This kind of person could probably be aptly described as a murderer as will, but again more details would be need to make that assessment. Moreover, justified killing can also occur in OTHER-defense, which of course is in defense of others. Think parents protecting their children as well as police. Police can use their discretion to kill when the situation requires it for defense of themselves and others. Of course, they cannot usually show up INTENDING to kill their targets; they must try to exhaust alternative means in order to capture criminals. However, they can kill, have killed, and when just, the fact that they have killed does not make them a murderer. Or a killer in the problematic sense which I mentioned above. I tend to see Idie in this light. The psychological aspects of her killing are definitely serious and it was very unfortunate that she was put in that position in the first place, but it is not at all clear that she has done something wrong. The people she killed were threatening both her and the lives of innocents and it appeared that she had no alternatives to save herself or others from a legitimate threat, unless she could have used her powers in non-lethal ways.

Now, one distinction that makes this discussion trickier is the contention that police are legally (as opposed to simply morally) authorized to use lethal force against criminals and THAT'S why their killing is sometimes justified, but that of superheroes is not. Police have special authority as a result of this. The first response to this is that law does not always perfectly track morality; laws about killing in self-defense have arisen from the moral permission to kill others in self-defense. But our legal system always provides a check on the actions of our officers; we can review any situation in which they have killed to see if in fact it was justified or not. However, we can not do this or do not usually for superheores. They kill without sanction or penalty, which makes their killing wrongful or unjust as opposed to that of a police officer in the same situation. This point definitely has some resonance, though I don't think it would be sufficient reason make it impermissible for superheores to kill when they are genuinely in situations of self or other defense. How do we make those determinations without a regular reviewing mechanism? That's obviously a crucial question that needs to be answered.

Sorry about the long post, but this has been bothering me for a while in these discussions. I don't think Batman would become just like the villains he fights just by virtue of him killing one of them, unless he is completely psychologically unstable like they are, which would mean in general he would be less admirable than he seems to be. If he killed in self or other defense (again after exhausting other alternatives), he would have the insight and discipline to both recognize these rare situations and not kill again unless in a VERY similar exact position again. He would not change into the Punisher, aiming to kill all criminals. He would be like a police officer who is forced to kill in the most dire situations, who laments that he had to kill even though he was justified, and who resolves not to kill again IF he can help it. And finally, I wonder that if after capturing, for instance, the Joker multiple times, only to have him escape and MURDER rampantly, these prior captures would count as 'exhausting alternatives' so that the next time Batman encounters the Joker, although he could just capture him again and lock him up, he would now be morally permitted to kill him?

@jepizzel: I call it the "superhero" factor where no matter what the reason killing = bad

@jepizzel said:

One thing that always bothers me about discussions about killing in comic books is this: that killing is always equated to murder. Killing does not equal murder; murder is an unjust killing. Of course what 'unjust' means is a matter of considerable debate, but there is conceptual space between the two ideas. For instance, if I kill someone in self-defense when they present a legitimate threat to my person (say they are pointing a gun at me or shooting at me after having broken in my home to rob me), while I have killed this person, I have NOT murdered them. This also does not make me a killer at least in the sense that I have seen used frequently in these discussions, which is 'watch out for this person, they've killed before so they're likely to kill again'. The person that kills strictly in self-defense has only killed (presumably) due to the severe risk to her life and the violation of her rights and probably will still feel terrible about what they (justifiably) have done. The sense of killer which I just mentioned seems to be more in line with someone who aims to kill others before they encounter them. She is looking to kill, as opposed to being forced to kill in defense of her life. This kind of person could probably be aptly described as a murderer as will, but again more details would be need to make that assessment. Moreover, justified killing can also occur in OTHER-defense, which of course is in defense of others. Think parents protecting their children as well as police. Police can use their discretion to kill when the situation requires it for defense of themselves and others. Of course, they cannot usually show up INTENDING to kill their targets; they must try to exhaust alternative means in order to capture criminals. However, they can kill, have killed, and when just, the fact that they have killed does not make them a murderer. Or a killer in the problematic sense which I mentioned above. I tend to see Idie in this light. The psychological aspects of her killing are definitely serious and it was very unfortunate that she was put in that position in the first place, but it is not at all clear that she has done something wrong. The people she killed were threatening both her and the lives of innocents and it appeared that she had no alternatives to save herself or others from a legitimate threat, unless she could have used her powers in non-lethal ways.

Now, one distinction that makes this discussion trickier is the contention that police are legally (as opposed to simply morally) authorized to use lethal force against criminals and THAT'S why their killing is sometimes justified, but that of superheroes is not. Police have special authority as a result of this. The first response to this is that law does not always perfectly track morality; laws about killing in self-defense have arisen from the moral permission to kill others in self-defense. But our legal system always provides a check on the actions of our officers; we can review any situation in which they have killed to see if in fact it was justified or not. However, we can not do this or do not usually for superheores. They kill without sanction or penalty, which makes their killing wrongful or unjust as opposed to that of a police officer in the same situation. This point definitely has some resonance, though I don't think it would be sufficient reason make it impermissible for superheores to kill when they are genuinely in situations of self or other defense. How do we make those determinations without a regular reviewing mechanism? That's obviously a crucial question that needs to be answered.

Sorry about the long post, but this has been bothering me for a while in these discussions. I don't think Batman would become just like the villains he fights just by virtue of him killing one of them, unless he is completely psychologically unstable like they are, which would mean in general he would be less admirable than he seems to be. If he killed in self or other defense (again after exhausting other alternatives), he would have the insight and discipline to both recognize these rare situations and not kill again unless in a VERY similar exact position again. He would not change into the Punisher, aiming to kill all criminals. He would be like a police officer who is forced to kill in the most dire situations, who laments that he had to kill even though he was justified, and who resolves not to kill again IF he can help it. And finally, I wonder that if after capturing, for instance, the Joker multiple times, only to have him escape and MURDER rampantly, these prior captures would count as 'exhausting alternatives' so that the next time Batman encounters the Joker, although he could just capture him again and lock him up, he would now be morally permitted to kill him?

I know what you mean. Murder is far worse than killing can be, even if comics equate killing to murder as you said. To be honest, in the long run,it is hard since it's such a grey matter. But I think in the long run, if self-defense occurs or no other options are available, killing an enemy can be the last resort at times.

On the subject at hand, I dunno if Wolverine will lead a deadlier team of X-Men. Even if James has killed, he still is a samurai, and he would try to stand up for the ideals he has learned as one of the longer running members of the X-Men. I think it just will be a matter of time to see how things work out in the long run.

Right on. It's also a failing of the criminal justice system in the comics that let the dangerous criminals off with just prison terms. I mean, even if Gotham doesn't support the Death Penalty, they gotta make an exception for a psychopath like the joker. He should've gotten the chair a long time ago; but then again, that wouldn't make for a good story. =)

if Cyclops did it, than Wolverine can do better!

Nope I'm thinking since X-FORCE is still unknown to Scott and the X-MEN that he will continue to use that as his hardcore X team and carry on the Gold X-TEAM relatively similar to how it has been run in the past. Maybe a little tougher than the Blue team but not as extreme as Uncanny X-FORCE. As far as I know Wolverine & The X-MEN is not rated mature like Uncanny X-FORCE is, so it won't be as violent.

Wolverine could make a good leader. 
 
1) He's feral, yes, but  that's not a problem : wolves can be quite team centered sometimes. 
 
2) Being a killer and being a father figure is not impossible. It's just the manifestation of the duality of human nature. 
 
3) Last one : Cyclops was a jerk these last time, I finded him more and more detached and lackin of human empathy : this could be a refreshing change.   

Man, I really wanna get into this Cyclops vs Wolverine for X-Men leadership thing but it seems like it's been a looooooong time brewing. What's a good (and fairly recent if possible) jumping in point?

@FoxxFireArt said:

Well, I certainly can't image Wolverine leading an altruistic version of the X-Men. From day one he's been the killer of X-Men. He's even the one who took te initiative to restart the Black Ops X-Force. As leader, you are pretty much the spokesman for your group. How does he justifiable preach about peace if it's discovered how much of a killer he is. Could you trust someone to do something peaceful if you knew they used to settle problems with killing?

I will say that if that is Dark Beast with Kid Omaga on Wolverine's team. It should be interested how he keeps them from killing and live up to Xavier's ideal. Kid Omega hates humans and Dark Beast used to perform human experimentation.

Yup, I look forward to seeing Aaron attempt to not make this book as stupid as it, by all logical accounts, is doomed to be...

Oh well, thank God Gillen's on Uncanny.

He shouldn't be leading a team at all. X-force is enough.

I think things will be done quickly and effectively

The problem with Wolverine is it all depends on who is writing him. There use to be some consistency but now its all over the place. For Wolverine is best when he is on the edge of control, not a calm controlled leader. Thing that for me personally took away a lot of his mystery was him finding out his past, yes I know that was a big success at the time but it forever removed that mystery, and Logan's quest to find out who he is and what happened to him. With this gone the writers seem to be filling the void with other crap, like leadership and playing up his ability to be a reliable mentor and teacher. That would fine but if it was consistent but it is not. Some writers still portray wolverine as a loner, while others have him as the ultimate team player (hence all the teams he appears in, with no explanation as to how it is physically possible to be on the X-Men and the Avengers while still secretly running a death squad on the side and still having time for whatever happens in the solo titles). For me the Wolverine we have today is not the one the fans embraced over the years and what we are getting now is an the Hugh Jackman version of Wolverine forced down out throats. But I suppose as long as the fans buy the titles he appears in nothing will change.

Wolverine just wants to use X-Force to kill his enemies. X-Factor will be interesting to see how he manages them. He should give Havok & Maddrox joint leadership & Polaris & Siryn directly under them. Plus the majority of his squad is on X-Factor & Idie has to kill to survive. Legacy is the true definition to flatliners "outcast" you've got a pissed off renegade Rogue, a thief Gambit, Frenzy & the time displaced former mutant hunting Rachel.

I doubt Logan will lead his team like X-Force after all it's that have the reason the Schism happened that Scott was turning the team into killers

The "superheroes don't kill" rule is an artifact of the Comics Code Authority. Insistence on such an artifact is part of what retarded the art and narrative development of comic books...why so many people still think that comics are just for kids. Our police and military have rules of engagement and operate on a continuum of force that states that violent conflicts should be resolved as non-lethally as possible, but certainly includes the use of deadly force. I appreciate that the X-Men are starting to confront the consequences of using deadly force in a more nuanced psychological way and are not just going over-the-top grim-n-gritty on the one hand or having some kind of silly shiny Care Bear attitude on the other.