HexThis's forum posts

#1 Posted by HexThis (898 posts) - - Show Bio

I understand why a character being replaced, regardless of whomever is replacing them, is controversial. But I feel like with this new Thor people are more mad that she's female than anything else. It's so funny to me how patriarchal the response to it has been. "Thor is the son of Odin, she can't be the son of Odin. She's a girl"....well, who's saying she is the son of Odin? We have no idea how she acquires her power or why she refers to herself as Thor. Loki was girl but since he's something of the sissy villain trope, that's all well and good to everyone. But masculine, legendary, epic Thor? A woman? BLASPHEMY! It must be a Disney conspiracy because god knows Disney is just always trying to push this empowered feminist agenda with all of their lovesick princesses who, if they have any power at all, are afraid of it. What if people hated the new Cap because Captain America is classically known to be an Aryan man? Would that be acceptable? Of course not. But the woman who dares to take Thor's namesake is suddenly subject to more scrutiny than anybody else. Why is that an acceptable prejudice?

We know absolutely nothing about her. And, by the way, no need to leave tears on your pillow over this. Thor still is a blockbuster star of the movies with multiple iterations in cartoons and gaming, plenty of merchandise...he also still has that mythological backdrop that goes back for lifetimes too. But the presence of a Thor with a vagina in comics is just so threatening. I sometimes have such hope that other comicbook fans are more enlightened than they're given credit for, that if we just moved a few female superheroes into the girl's section of Toys R' Us, we would see that girls also aspire to be heroic too. But things like this have me thinking a lot of people are stuck with these almost medieval values. It's really disappointing.

#2 Posted by HexThis (898 posts) - - Show Bio

Unpopular opinion probably but Hulk. He's always been a danger to basically everyone and it's not as a result of possession or temporary corruption, he's ingrained with deadly, destructive x-factor that has him turning on people all the time. Every recent iteration of Hulk outside of the comics has him attacking his own teammates. I was watching Avengers again recently and right between him trying to kill Black Widow and Thor, I just had to wonder why he's even worth the risk. Hulk could very easily kill people in the crossfire.

#3 Posted by HexThis (898 posts) - - Show Bio

It's definitely possible. Joss wanted Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch for this movie really bad because they were the Avengers he was raised on. He, at one point, even tried to arrange to have Ant-Man and Wasp in the first picture as well but Marvel wouldn't allow him to (which I think is a BIG mistake). So there's a 60's/70's inspiration behind his Avengers and the Scarlet Witch and Vision were a big deal in those days. But this movie is so jam-packed, I don't think they'll get to it. It looks like the most character-heavy elements are going to be Hawkeye, Hulk, Black Widow, Quicksilver, and the Scarlet Witch because they're going to focus on characters who don't have individual franchises. Maybe down the line they'll get to Vision but he'll probably be more of an extension of Ultron than anything else.

I personally think Scarlet Witch and Cap would be better but with Sharon Carter in the picture, that won't happen now or maybe ever. Hawkeye also had a thing for Wanda and there have been paparazzi pictures of Hawkeye and Wanda but I'm not sure. Either Hawkeye and Black Widow will be a couple or Hulk and Black Widow (which was rumored). Just so long as Wanda and Pietro aren't a couple, I'm okay with whatever Joss comes up with.

#4 Edited by HexThis (898 posts) - - Show Bio

I kinda love Scarlett witch's costume but I'm a sucker for that style. It's reminiscent of Wanda when she appeared on x-men evolution just less over the top.

Me too, that was my introduction to Wanda as a kid so I've always held a certain fondness for that goth look. I kind of wish they found some way of integrating the design of the headpiece though, Joss said they thought about referencing it with a headband of a similar shape or something. I think if they just had two pointed horn-like shapes on a headband, she would look like a total badass. It's just too iconic for them to ignore.

I'm surprised at the crap quality of these pictures though, some of the paparazzi shots of Aaron and Elizabeth were much more badass.

#5 Edited by HexThis (898 posts) - - Show Bio

Cassandra Nova gave Emma and Xavier quite a run for their money and used her telepathy to construct herself a body, she's one of the few telepaths to externalize her power in an offensive way. But I think Jean could've kicked her ass.

#6 Edited by HexThis (898 posts) - - Show Bio

It was before Marvel NOW!, really. I think removing Genosha from the equation was actually a big mistake, had it remained they could've used it the way "Wolverine and the X-men" (the cartoon) did. Joe Quesada had it destroyed because there were "too many mutants" but with Genosha, the mutants were still a people rather than a militaristic island of elite superheroes starting civil wars every week. If the X-men were the bridge between Genosha and America, the neutral force between the two, then they would've had more to do. Also, Magneto wouldn't have had to have gone bad then be retconned into being Xorn, the House of M could've had a different context and a more lasting effect, and characters like Mystique who should be more anti-heroes would have a playground to work with. Killing Jean was another mistake because, frankly, Messiah Complex and Second Coming weren't really that good and neither was the Sisterhood arc because it was all about filling the void Jean left with inadequate substitutes and annoying misleads. Killing Xavier twice and having him exiled polarized and divided the fans because it led to Scott running the show and the X-men ceasing to be a team and/or family and more of an army. Also, let's face it, as popular as Wolverine is, his character was never meant to be a leader. He did just fine as the scrapper of any team he belonged to, it made no sense to make him a more defining leader of the X-men than Storm or Beast or Jean.

I sometimes think 616 needs a partial-crisis. Not a complete reboot, just a cataclysmic event that resolves some cases of neglect and mismanagement. Another House of M but one that adds to the franchises, not just reduces.

#7 Posted by HexThis (898 posts) - - Show Bio

@darkday said:

@hexthis: To be fair, let's point out how out of character all of that was. First off, I dig Wanda and that wasn't a very Wanda thing to say going in. All in all Wanda has way more empathy for people than (she's not always so great with the romance or making up her mind, but empathy for others she's good at) that and saying it on top of Xavier's grave...yeah no. That would be like Nightcrawler giving people crap for failing to live up to his ideals when we all know that Kurt has too much empathy for anything like that and thus understands that people are human and have faults which are to be forgiven both by him and by God in whom he believes. Also, I figure whomever wrote that forgot about Children's Crusade entirely or else they didn't take Rogue's defense of Wanda in that book to mean anything. I mean after the fight was over she actually says to Wanda that the X-Men would come around and that they were just irrationally angry because of the things they'd been through up until then. She basically says that Wanda was a scapegoat. So with that said, that entire scene was about establishing an animosity between Rogue and Wanda that didn't really exist before and honestly didn't have reason to exist then. If anything it should probably have been Wolverine confronting Wanda seeing as how he wanted to kill her, not once but twice. But of course at this point Marvel was playing the "We have to make Wolverine seem like the hero of AvX" card and so what do you expect really.

That is true that Rogue did defend Wanda but that was before the death of Charles Xavier continuity-wise, Children's Crusade was bi-monthly so the issues didn't always align to the current story. But here's what I think Remender (the writer) neglected to mention that would've made that whole scene in the graveyard make much more sense. Cyclops, at that point, was gallivanting around with Magneto and had been for some time with a sudden (and uncharacteristic) admiration of Magneto's tactics. Obviously Wanda resents her father quite a bit and probably has little to no respect for his tactics given that his methodology was imposed on her when he forced Pietro and her to repay the debt they owed him by joining the Brotherhood. Now I'm not sure if Wanda knows about Magneto's relationship with Rogue but that maybe should've been a part of the discussion too.

So, from Wanda's perspective, Rogue and Scott and many of the X-men were calling for her execution while harboring the likes of Magneto. He sent an electromagnetic pulse through the globe and killed thousands of people, he tried to take over San Marco, he's tried to kill the X-men themselves even...and they not only have him in their ranks but they want her dead? So it's easy to see that, especially given her relationship with Magneto, she believes the X-men have gone astray. If Remender had made that apart of the discussion, I think it would've been better but Uncanny Avengers, I think, is still quite good.

Now, when it comes to the Avengers vs X-men, I don't know what to say. Frankly, it was a pretty hard for me to believe that the X-men and Avengers would resort to violence so readily, I like certain aspects of it but I just think there are SO many overlaps that a lot of people just wouldn't want to fight one another. But my feeling on that, outside of the political back-and-forth, is that Scott should've probably handled the situation better. If you have a star-killing cosmic entity in your possession, how offended can you really be when the cavalry comes a knockin'? They're only doing their job and probably just really don't want the universe to be destroyed which isn't so unreasonable. I just feel as though Scott was only looking out for the interest of the mutants and forgetting that the Phoenix force could just easily wipe everyone out.

#8 Posted by HexThis (898 posts) - - Show Bio

@hexthis: It's the definition of genocide you can't just hand-wave it away because your favorite character did it. Are crimes against a entire race of people not matter when you're a special nexus person?

Yes, grief over losing your children is traumatic but that's no justification for trying to warp reality to try and bring them back (but Wanda already screwed with powers beyond her to make them in the first place). I never said that I didn't sympathize with what happened to her (well before Uncanny Avengers which made my sympathy meter go to zero) and like Hal Jordan and Jean Grey before her I believe writers should either leave the characters be (not going to happen) or write a story that doesn't try to hand-wave away blame to some entity we never heard of before.

I didn't just "hand-wave" it away, I disagree with this notion that you would equate a mutant witch superhero's spell in an alternate reality with the actions of dictators of countries. Clearly, there's a massive distinction. Clearly, the context is 100% different. Clearly, genocide is the tactical, systematic, and often prolonged and political extermination or attempted extermination of a people. Wanda's situation does make her a special case, it's not because she's better, she's just different.

Also, you even admit Wanda conceived her children on her own, she also resurrected Agatha Harkness and Wonder Man. In the case of Agatha and Simon, there weren't any ramifications. She would later resurrect Magneto subconsciously- no ramifications. So it's not totally irresponsible or unreasonable of her to think she could be capable of resurrecting her kids. Like Wonder Man, they were pure energy and thus could be restored to tangibility by manifesting that energy. When they "died" they were just absorbed into Mephisto. It makes sense that Mephisto, being an omnipotent and dark force, would require Wanda use dark magic to extract Billy and Thomas and, thus, seek out Dr. Doom.

And really, if you lost someone and you thought you had a chance at bringing them back, wouldn't you?

Love that misshaping the facts about AvX but that's not what this is about though Wanda would gladly change the subject to Cyclops 'crimes' instead of everything that happened being because of her and her issues.

It is a matter of throwing stones from a glass house. Cyclops is responsible for his own actions, what happened in AvX didn't need to and he was a large part of that. You could argue Cap was too, I don't subscribe to that myself but there's an argument. Cyke has been drawing lines of division for a long time now, veering dangerously into the category of mutant supremacist and people like Rogue supported him. Rogue also banged Magneto, btw, and had a romantic relationship with him and he has lots of blood on his hands. That alone sinks Rogue's arguments.

Anyways, Children's Crusade still doesn't change the fact that Wanda was coerced by Pietro to create the House of M reality while she was still disconnected from reality. The more complex the House of M got, the more out of control she became, the more trauma she experienced, the less grip she had on reality. Not even a skilled omega telepath like Emma could infiltrate or control Wanda's mind and the power on her shoulders was even too much for Dr. Strange to regulate. On top of that, Pietro was murdered in front of her by her father whose ideals that entired reality was constructed on. Without knowledge of Dr. Doom's role, I'd say the situation informs a lot. And even with all that, Wanda still feels guilty, she's still pledged to make a difference on behalf of the people she hurt and in AvX, she and Hope basically saved the day. She's a hero and Remender is writing her that way, it isn't revisionist.

#9 Edited by HexThis (898 posts) - - Show Bio

@night4345 said:

@tyger: Genocide isn't just killing.

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Straight from the United Nations legal definition of Genocide. She effectively stopped all births of mutants from happening EVER in multiple realities (check out House of M's Wikipedia page for other consequences of Wanda's actions.).

Stryker stopped wanting to end mutantkind in God Loves, Man Kills II.

You know, the UN doesn't have a clause for people who are Nexus beings with reality-altering abilities who happen to also be superhero mutants. Ascribing real world international law to this is just beyond silly, it's absolutely ridiculous. No genocidal maniac in the history of the world was ever in anything anywhere near to Wanda's situation, with Wanda's power, with Wanda's colossal instability ever, the context is WILDLY different. If Wanda is to be judged, it's certainly not a judgement humanity can make. She did, in essence, become a god of sorts much like the Phoenix was. Wanda just didn't have a convenient alter-ego name for her mystical corruption.

Anyways, nonetheless, this nonsense is all just a big distraction from this....

And this

And this

She was a deluded, tormented, mentally-ill person with the weight of the world on her shoulders who was coerced by her brother in a state of extreme emotional duress wherein she was hardly even cognizant of reality. At the catalyst of M-Day, she was cradling her dead brother, in denial of her children's deaths, with her mutant supremacist father hovering over her before she said those 3 words and all the Wanda-haters just want to muck all that up and drag on and on and on about how what happened after, what happened as a result. No consideration whatsoever for what came before and led up to M-day, no consideration for the fact that she was distraught and mourning the deaths of both her children when she lost control. Just the results, just the effect, just a mere part of the picture.

When Wanda's talking to Rogue in the panels @darkday posted, she's referring to the events of AvX. Wherein the X-men, in full control of themselves, attacked their allies to protect the Phoenix and had to be put down....specifically with Rogue's help, by the way. Not even Rogue actually agreed with what Scott was doing which was why she betrayed him and joined the Avengers. Rogue herself even went on to say she unfairly blamed Wanda for M-day not because of editorial favoritism toward Wanda but because Remender and other writers actually have enough awareness of the comics they published and their content to know it's not all Wanda's fault. You can't read HoM or Children's Crusade thoroughly believing Wanda was just an a-hole and if you still are....almost 10 years later.....hating on Wanda over this, maybe you just don't like her in general and that's more what this is about. But coming up with this whole over-simplified cockamammie crusade against her is just absolutely ridiculous.

#10 Edited by HexThis (898 posts) - - Show Bio

Again, why not just make her Janet? If she's going to look like Janet, be Wasp like Janet, be involved with an Ant-Man like Janet was then why not just change the H-O-P-E in her name to J-A-N-E-T. Why does she have to be old just because Hank is too? I don't mind change that's necessary but this just bothers me so much, there's nothing wrong with Janet as a character and she's not necessarily defined by Hank. If they didn't want to address the dynamic between Janet and Hank then they wouldn't have to if in this iteration they were never involved. OR why couldn't they make Janet be named after her mother?! AAaaaaggh.

While they're in production they should just stop being so silly, pay respect to an iconic character you've cashed in on for Pete's sake!