HexThis's forum posts

#1 Posted by HexThis (855 posts) - - Show Bio

Character-driven. These characters have such rich histories that I don't understand why some writers don't capitalize on it, some don't seem to want to be burdened with having to research characters pasts or their personalities. Peter David was awesome at having interesting plots, great dynamics, and character-driven stories, you got the sense that X-Factor investigations was a family. Same with Whedon's run on Astonishing, there was SO much you learned about everyone's relationships and psychology.

#2 Edited by HexThis (855 posts) - - Show Bio

@adamtrmm said:


And I stand by that. I would say the same thing to a person who tries to rationalize Magnetos actions. I love Magneto but I don't agree with him, he's a proponent of guerilla warfare! Also, nice editing, I mentioned that Scott's been beating on cops lately before that....how do you excuse that? How do you explain that? You shouldn't have to. If you're such a fan then good! Great! That doesn't mean you have to insist everything he says and does is moral. Don't mince my words.

I see an absolute authorities defender here, tell me what do you think about rebellions of Spartacus and the Maccabees, about guerrilla warfare waged during World War II against we-know-who? Try to bash these proponents as well? Scott beating on cop, that IIRC are the same cops that wanted to shoot a mutant? I'll tell you more, he should've scarred Xs on their faces as well.

I think I've already told you that, or at least hinted, how these "little morals" are none of my concern.


1) The world has changed an insy bit since Spartacus. I mean, really? It was BC. Come on. The term guerrilla warfare didn't even exist then.

2) Please go back to history class, WWII was a tad more complicated than that. And it was far from being considered guerilla warfare. Are you serious? Really? Am I a Nazi-sympathizer for taking issue with this?

Am I a proponent of "the man" for saying you shouldn't beat on cops? It's pretty elementary. Maybe if the cops were complicit in some facist empire but in the United States we actually have far more peaceful resolutions and a lot of freedom to express grievances other than blunt, sudden violence in retaliation. Lots of people have gotten locked up fighting for their civil rights or for defending themselves, that's one thing, but what Scott did is entirely different. He couldn't try to find a way to influence policy or advocate for the mutants in question, nope, he just went straight to violence. And it worked out so well for him....

I see you want a little game of comparisons, let's play then. Cyclops challenged the whole world to ensure future for his people, sacrificed his previous "boy-scout" self on this path and succeeded in the end. Tell me how he isn't a tragic definition of a hero? Not to the whole world, but to his people. As for the world itself, who cares? They were careless about Genosha, M-day was like a relief to them, they reestablished most inhuman facilities over and over again, to experiment and weaponize mutants, or just created weaponry specially aimed against them - all by the same authorities (to which Avengers are now lapdogs) that you seem to nominate as the obviously good guys. I say he challenged the present day Reign of Terror. Pretty heroic for me and for those of us who despise double-standards. Wasn't this character development an allegory to the person, driven to the edge by hypocrites and corrupt world? It was his triumph in the end, every sacrifice made, it was all worth it - his people now have a future. But he was marginalized so much to finally be turned into a scapegoat. In a world, where Scarlet Witch, Tony Stark, Henry McCoy, Wolverine and the Hulk are all legitimate, authorized and privileged heroes, the real questions about morals and justice are right in front of you as they show you how exactly corruption and protectionism supposed to look like - everything I happen to despise in a real world. To challenge this ugly world? He is more than a hero :)

I actually don't really want or need to make it game of comparisons, I don't even really have to in order to point out some his ridiculous decisions. I'm just saying some of his actions are hypocritical and some of the opinions of people here are as well, they damn Xavier and Beast to hell for one thing and let it slide with Scott.

Also, *string of cruse words emphasizing frustration at a point being so thoroughly missed* I totally, if you read anything I've written, never argued that Scott couldn't be a tragic hero (though I prefer antihero, sue me) and I've been very big on embracing his imperfections. How many ways do I have to say it? I've tried to make all these damn analogies with Mystique, Wanda, and Magneto. If you're not bothering to read up on that then it's really not my problem.

I already answered these endless swirling-the-drain assertions that the entire mutant race is here today because of Scott. Did I not mention Beast finding the cure to the legacy virus? But apparently, that doesn't entitle Beast to anything. Xavier similarly led the X-men for a majority of the time they've been operating. Do you give him the same credit that you do Scott? One person can't take credit for it when so many others sacrificed so much or everything to ensure the survival of mutants. It's a silly thing to say Scott's tactics make him the sole savior of the mutant race. What's Hope entitled to? All of the developments in the past few years hinged upon her presence and her power, does that entitle her to never be questioned for unethical behavior?

The funny thing also is that the Scarlet Witch, Tony Stark, Hank McCoy, and Wolverine all would be willing to hear Scott out just as Cap did. They are not part of the "ugly" infrastructure that oppresses him, they are people who've fought beside him and people who respect him. He could actually come to much more resolutions if he were ever willing to go outside the mutant race for help, to create a bond on the basis of a shared humanity. That was Charles' dream. What Scott is doing is a fricken nightmare. It's worth noting that when Wanda's powers went haywire during the House of M, the Avengers consulted Xavier and called in the X-men to help come to a decision as to what to do with Wanda because she was a mutant. It's interesting how when the roles are reversed and the X-men have the x-factor wildcard, their little patriarch wages war.

Not sure where is the argument here and if it worth my time. He succeeded as a leader, mutants are back, so stop reiterating yourself.

Uhm, it's not necessarily because of Scott that mutants are back. Hope and Wanda kinda had something to with that.

If a defense of questionable "life-forms" embodies mass reality warp and an enforced will upon people who might suffer its consequences, than the answer is obvious, isn't it? But not to your overwhelming double standards. If Cyclops lovers should move to Cuba, I wonder where should SW lovers move to?

She directly altered the world (and recreated her children like they are some tools), that's what Quicksilver asked her to do.

Hahaha, they aren't "questionable 'life forms'", they are real tangible characters both you and I have seen- Wiccan and Speed.

What I always take issue with when it comes to Wanda objectors is this failure to understand the string of events leading up to the House of M. It's not so simple as just what you've read in "House of M", it's explained in "Children's Crusade" that Wanda was under possession of the Lifeforce during that time. It was never Wanda's intention to alter all of reality, she wanted to bring back her children. My point has always been that Wanda has reality altering powers, she's also a human who would probably exhibit the signs of grief that would afflict any person. As a matter in fact, one of the stages of grief is "the bargaining" stage where someone fixates on a lot of variable and probabilities they have no control over. Wanda, however, has a certain command over probabilities and that's where she differs from the average person. I can understand how someone in Wanda's situation may become desperate especially since this grief was combined with feelings of betrayal- remember, these deaths were withheld from her by her closest friends.

Do I think she should've gone to Dr. Doom. Nah. That wasn't a good decision. Do I understand her actions? Sure. I understand grief is a powerful thing and coinciding with feelings of betrayal? Youch. But, like I said, Wanda has repeatedly asserted that she is well-aware and repentant for her role in the House of M and has actively tried to redeem herself. I just happen to think there's a degree of compassion and understanding that should provide clarity to those of you who can't understand her side of things. She's never tried to justify her actions even when she could've.

Wow. None of the points are actually direct, consequential and true. Why won't you bring the next panel where Good Captain tells Cyclops "I wasn't asking." Such a diplomat, and it happens on almost sovereign state, so metaphorically American :) Why are you lying about cavalry and Phoenix when the first one soars right above their head and another is Rachel that controlled PF for years, and the way I know, always flawlessly.

We can talk about the next few panels if you like. The ones where Cap offers to still discuss the handling of Hope under the condition she's contained, where he reminds Scott the Phoenix Force is coming (after Nova crashes on earth to warn them), and where Scott so eloquently just tells Cap to get off the island. Again: Zero skills in the negotiation/diplomacy department when it comes to Scott. This also features a panel where Namor observes Scott was the one who "threw down the gauntlet" and "force Rogers' hand" (but he loves it, of course, it's Namor!). Cap came to the island alone, he had the Avengers on standby just in case but he came to talk. So I wasn't really lying.

Also, to your point about Rachel, apparently you didn't see what @tyger said earlier....

Had the Phoenix ever been beneficial before? Even in stopping Galactus, Rachel was 'eating' universal life force.

#3 Edited by HexThis (855 posts) - - Show Bio

EDIT: I didn't look at the responses the first time over but some of you are seriously are just so pushy right off the bat. Give the OP some leniency, you don't need to be jerks straight out of the gate.

I love the X-men title with an all female cast, I'm thrilled Storm and Psylocke are back, and I think they made huge leaps and bounds as far as women go. But, it wasn't that long ago it was just plain dismal. They still have to clean a few things up too, I am still very annoyed with Marvel's continual disrespect for Jean Grey who is easily one of their hottest commodities. Cap was dead for a second but since Jean died before, she must remain as such (even though the 'Phoenix' is all about destruction and rebirth). Also, Mystique, fricken Mystique is being straight up abused beyond belief. I don't know who hates her up at Marvel but they need to get over it, someone needs to read her solo or anything pre-Y2k. They are intent on making her a complete s--thead to end all s--theads.

But the OP is right, it got pretty bad....

- Jean Grey was killed again

- Storm was married off in an offensively ignorant way, Quesada said it was to appeal to female and black readers. Funny, domesticating Storm and retconning a past with the only other black character as famous as her....just think about that. She went from leader to complete non-presence.

- Boom-Boom was very ignorantly disregarded after years of character development to comeback as a complete ditz after Nextwave (still hasn't been remedied, btw, someone needs to read her Wikipedia entry at least).

- Psylocke came back...only to be taken out continuity with the Exiles and, really, Marvel just surrendered her to Claremont as if he had some exclusive ownership of her. Same with Sage.

- Rogue was a team leader for a hot minute then instantly demoted and rendered comatose.

- Jubilee went from being iconic in the 90's to hardly being featured at all.

- Polaris and Rachel were in space FOR-EVER

It's like they put all of the most iconic and famous women in front of a firing line. The absolute rock bottom had to be this though...

#4 Edited by HexThis (855 posts) - - Show Bio

@adamtrmm said:
@hexthis said:

Is anybody even reading anything I'm writing? Please don't bother replying to me in a heated way if you can't at least read what I said that you feel is so offensive. I compared Scott to fricken MACBETH a few posts earlier and I said it as a compliment and even in my last post I said it was fine with me Scott isn't innocent anymore, I think it's better that way. I've said it like 3 times over, there's no "bull" that needs to be cut.

Oh, I read what you're writing.

"I mean, cripes, why don't all you Cyclops lovers just move to Cuba? There's this Castro guy I've heard of that I think you'll really hit it off with."

And I stand by that. I would say the same thing to a person who tries to rationalize Magnetos actions. I love Magneto but I don't agree with him, he's a proponent of guerilla warfare! Also, nice editing, I mentioned that Scott's been beating on cops lately before that....how do you excuse that? How do you explain that? You shouldn't have to. If you're such a fan then good! Great! That doesn't mean you have to insist everything he says and does is moral. Don't mince my words.

What I'm saying, he has become a too complicated "hero" so simple minds couldn't comprehend "is he a hero or a villain?" and needed an indicating label to finally understand, part of which was AVX. But even under this demonizing process, they couldn't take away everything he achieved in the process, you ask "why is he getting so much credit?" or "how is he a savior?" The answer is simple, without him there would be no mutantkind to save (Second Coming wave, stopped by X-force he assembled), no Hope (again, X-force), no place for PF to be hosted until Hope is ready, or simply no Earth because Avengers took Hope away. But nah, he deserves non of the credit. He is a zealot, a psycho that sends children to become soldiers, like X-men are not about this since 1963.

He's more in antihero territory. Like the originator of "____ was Right" (Che Guvera), there's a distinction between the overall intention of his movement and the actions he executed (or the people, really, in Che's case) for the sake of his movement. By the way, I have no idea why some people are so cozy with that slogan seeing as how it previously used for Magneto and based on t-shirts and signs made to honor Che....which kinda sorta equates Scott with them, doesn't it? Hrmmmm....

Frankly, this idea that he singlehandedly saved mutantkind is bull, the X-men are a team and before Scott led them there were other leaders who could claim the exact same thing. As a matter in fact, Beast came up with the cure to legacy virus (you know, the one Cyke released a strain of on the Skrulls- still ZERO counter to that point so far) and I've seen the poor guy beaten to pulp in this thread. If that's your defense for Scott then it should extend to many of the X-men but none of them have exploited the success of their tactical victories to rationalize their less-than-moral actions. Or when they have, it's someone like the Professor! Who you all are very quick to bash and just love to defend Scott's decision to kick him to the curb. Funny, these days he's in league with Magneto and Emma and Namor who were all blatantly corrupt but since they never harmed him, they were always welcomed with open arms.

Your argument hinges on a "What If?". How do we know for certain that another X-man couldn't have saved the mutant race and even done a better job?

You mean the difference between the one who wants to ensure his kind's survival to the one who wants to recreate bastards of unnatural creation? You're right, this is the juxtaposition in its core - one does it selflessly, another selfishly, one is being judged and demonized, another becomes authority and "hero" - the one finishes what another started, maybe not by himself, but his actions ensured it to happen.

Not sure I should dignify this argument. I still maintain my point that one persons sins were committed basically "in office", so to speak, as a leader and the others were personally-motivated, they're very dissimilar. Also, "bastards of unnatural creation"? You mean Wiccan and Speed are unnatural and didn't deserve to have their lives defended? If I were capable of altering reality and I tragicaly lost someone whose existence I wasn't aware of because my closest friends lied to me then I might do something similar to what Wanda did. She wasn't trying to alter the world, her children were dead and she tried to bring them back to life and being that she's done it before with no consequence then why wouldn't she again? Wonder Man and Magneto are alive because of Wanda, actually. She did that. She thought she could again. In my opinion, the morality ends at her employing of Doom to accomplish this, I can't really say I think that was a good idea. But Wanda couldn't have known this would result in HoM.

Your initial post was full of jugglery, than you show us that scan with Wanda and Hope, taking the whole credibility of Cyclops away, this looked like a manipulation intended to exalt Wanda on the background. And how incorrect is it to use one's name who is responsible for the whole situation from the beginning?

I just think it's silly, almost laughable, that people are slinging barbs at Wanda to spite my arguments. I don't need to manipulate anything, it's as plain as day that at the end of AvX she saved the world and it was only ever in danger because Scott doesn't know how to negotiate. Why attack Cap so readily when he's giving you a platform? Cap didn't come in with cavalry or covertly, he spoke to Scott face to face. Cap gave Scott the respect to make his case and Scott threw down the gauntlet and waged war. Cap even gave him the option to have open discussion about Hope just so long as she was contained and he STILL wanted to fight. Cap was diplomatic, Cap was speaking to Scott as an ally and fellow leader but Scott clearly wasn't aiming for peaceful resolution with his argumentativeness. Does he seriously not understand why Cap might feel obligated to insinuate himself in the situation? Maybe the Phoenix's power could result in "rebirth" but so far we've only seen it restore Jean and little else. The X-men couldn't contain the Phoenix the first time nor the second (Endsong), it was always Jean or the professor that kept the Phoenix at bay.

#5 Posted by HexThis (855 posts) - - Show Bio

@adamtrmm said:

Innocence is boring, and I'm not some teenage fanboy, so cut that bull right there.

Is anybody even reading anything I'm writing? Please don't bother replying to me in a heated way if you can't at least read what I said that you feel is so offensive. I compared Scott to fricken MACBETH a few posts earlier and I said it as a compliment and even in my last post I said it was fine with me Scott isn't innocent anymore, I think it's better that way. I've said it like 3 times over, there's no "bull" that needs to be cut.

And you're giving me an example of Uncanny Avengers, when the only character that "bothered" Scarlet Witch was portrayed as ignorant, whinny and unreasonable eventually even killing her to show us how wrong she is making of a poor and misunderstood Wanda frickin martyr, where writer openly by his story, and by the panel-time arguments he gives to his pet-characters space for statements and elucidations. If someone was "attacked and punched" it was Rogue, by narrative itself. So you're seriously juxtaposing this story as "demonizing" of Scarlet Witch. You know what? Answer me this, assuming you don't get what I say, how is she a damn Avenger again? I know! She is rehabilitated! After everything she did she tells us on the same pages of UA that being mutant is less than important and absolutely not essential. I'm really starting to feel for her!

First of all, I never said Wanda was being demonized, I said Mystique was- more evidence you aren't reading what I've written. I said that because she used to be a character capable of incredibly terrible things but one that was still in touch with her humanity and had an agenda that made sense somewhat like Magneto. Secondly, I was merely noting that Wanda has suffered consequences for her actions and that I'm not denying that she behaved irresponsibly. But anyone with basic critical thinking knows the difference between a woman trying to resurrect her children by going to a morally questionable (sometimes bankrupt) mage and a leader of a sovereign mutant nation harboring a godly force known primarily for destruction in the hopes he might be a beneficiary of it's power. Wanda and Scott have sinned but there are VAST differences between the sins themselves, it's a flimsy comparison at best. By the way, I could've put "juxtaposition" in place of "comparison" in that last sentence in case you need an example of how the word is supposed to be used in this context.

Also, you're clearly targeting Wanda to spite my points about Scott and probably because of my avatar but honestly it's not helping your argument seeing as how they're apples and oranges. Wanda was the catalyst for HoM and Decimation but her first act of heroism after returning was saving the world by being the most effective combatant against the Phoenix 5 and talking Hope out of succumbing to the Phoenix Force. That's not martyrdom, it's a massive motion toward redemption.

#6 Posted by HexThis (855 posts) - - Show Bio

@adamtrmm said:


You absolutely don't get it do you? Cyclops is being judged by everyone and everybody for questionable actions others are not. At least while you 100% OK with your precious Wanda, her actions were selfish and devastating for the sake of it, Cyclops selflessly tried everything to ensure his people survival.

Uhm, Wanda totally has gotten judged, have you read Uncanny Avengers lately? Rogue punched her, she's relentlessly attacked Wanda, and she even stabbed and killed her recently, not to mention for all of Children's Crusade she was running for her life. Still doesn't invalidate my points about the Lifeforce versus the Phoenix or their motives or basically anything I've said and, btw, if you read my last post I totally acknowledged Wanda was flawed so pay attention.

See, this is why Cyclops is getting so much hate. There are still so many fans who try to canonize him and the writers occasionally buy into it or cut him editorial slack where they wouldn't for other characters with interesting moral dilemmas like Mystique. Every other month she gets killed or demonized but with Scott there still has to be all these flimsy, naive, wishfully thought arguments that impede on any interesting developments. His fans should just embrace the fact he's not so innocent anymore, it doesn't make him less interesting.

#7 Posted by HexThis (855 posts) - - Show Bio

Moira is played by Olivia Williams at the end of X3 and she's about 40. But Rose Byrne's Moira was in her late 20's-30's in the 60's. Oy.

#8 Edited by HexThis (855 posts) - - Show Bio

Emma is having the same problems as Mystique currently, a lot of writers are misinterpreting her complexities as damning flaws. They take one facet of Emma and make it everything, usually it's her snobbishness or her jealousy or bitchiness. She comes in, pisses off the nearest girl with a catty remark, cozies up to Scott, and proposes a vicious plan of attack. If you read "Torn" from Whedon's Astonishing X-men run, that is what Emma is supposed to be, she's self-aware and extremely intelligent but very morally-conflicted.

Lately, all I've seen is bitchy Emma who's an accessory to Scott. She needs some independence, her character was around for like 20 years without being involved with Scott at all.

#9 Posted by HexThis (855 posts) - - Show Bio

Even if you are a fan, why do you have to rationalize his decisions? Mystique and Magneto have committed dreadful, awful, senseless crimes but I still love them and while I have already explained Wanda's side a bazzzzzilllllliiiioon goddamn times when it comes to House of M (just read Children's Crusade), I know the woman has been emotionally and perhaps mentally unstable in the past and I'm okay with it. But Cyclops? ZOMG, he's never made a mistake, all those context clues you've been getting from his imprisonment and subsequent exiling and all his friends hating him are just delusions, he's really made wonderful decisions. Haven't you read Macbeth? Ambitious guy and his equally ambitious girl get seduced by power, a lot of blood is spilled and a lot of corruption takes place with tragic consequences. But it's still a good fricken story. If Scott really were "right" as you say it would be the most boring, 2-dimensional comic ever. Scott is Marvel's Macbeth, it should make him cooler to you, get over trying to regress him to the boy scout he once was because it isn't happening.

I hate Scott less when I find something interesting about his spiraling downward. Then people go rabid on me for noting it and I'm like "Oh f--k it, he's annoying as hell" but really it's his fans that are, not Scott. Some writers will get lost in this idea he's supposed to be this idealized, quintessential X-man too and they're of a similar (and equally annoying) school of thought but overall, it looks like Marvel's embracing Scott's ethical complexities and I see that as a good thing.

#10 Edited by HexThis (855 posts) - - Show Bio

@adamtrmm said:
@hexthis said:

I don't know why some of Cyclops' fans have such trouble admitting he's corrupt.

Disregarding the half-truths and intentional concealment of facts, do you consider Scarlet Witch corrupt? Just asking to know if your argument might even have some credibility.

I don't know if Wanda needs as much defense if you've read anything she's been in lately. She's well aware of her wrongdoing and has, on numerous occasions, taken culpability even within the panels I posted above. If you read Children's Crusade, if you read Uncanny Avengers, or even if you've read just Avengers Vs X-men, Wanda hasn't tried to rationalize any of her wrongdoings. She still has enough of a conscience to not be considered corrupt. Also, look at any of Scott's associates and any case against Wanda in Scott's favor is absolutely riddled with holes. But why should I defend her when Wiccan did it so eloquently?

Spoilers- Scott doesn't have a comeback.

Also, just try to discredit my assertion that Wanda knew less about the Lifeforce than Scott knew about the Phoenix.

And has anyone given an adequate excuse as to why Scott used biological warfare against skrulls via a strain of the mutant killing Legacy Virus? That had absolutely no antidote, btw.

@xspectre28 said:

these cyclops haters seem to be forgeting all of that.. that cyclops and the phoenix five brought peace, food, and energy to the planet before the avengers attacked taking Hope which afterwords the P5 started turning dark... for all we know removing Hope from near them is what caused them to descend into maddness

Yeah, for like 3 days. Namor still trashed Wakanda and Emma still went around murdering people without instigation from the Avengers. It was a house of cards.