HexThis's forum posts

#1 Posted by HexThis (892 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.

#2 Posted by HexThis (892 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.

#3 Edited by HexThis (892 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.

#4 Edited by HexThis (892 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!

#5 Posted by HexThis (892 posts) - - Show Bio

Let me just point out that Wanda isn't really the one that gets bloodier hands from most of the post-M Day deaths, and I am thinking about those who were murdered; because there were people who hated mutants before M-Day, William Stryker existed before M-Day. She can't be held responsible for the actions of people like those.

THANK YOU.

@adamtrmm said:

@hexthis said:

Saying that is honestly just silly, particularly since genocides are a real world thing and it's very trivializing to compare this to them in that way. People who are genocidal actually have a murderous intention, Wanda didn't have one. It's really that simple, Wanda extracted a genetic trait and it happened to kill some people. She didn't directly murder those people. Her actions resulted in their deaths. Hitler didn't try to de-Jew people, he had huge groups of them along with gypsies and homosexuals tortured and killed. He wanted them dead and gone, it was the same thing in Rwanda, it was the same thing Cambodia with the Khmer Rogue- Wanda didn't do anything like that at all, whatsoever.

What silly is to discuss non existing characters like they're living beings and to pretend they have their own free will, so you shouldn't make those comparisons to "real world", in-universe we have a racist chick that committed mass murder and sterilized the whole species.

Sounds genocide to me. Intended or not, the act itself was GENOCIDAL as it was directed at specific group of people.

Hitler didn't try to "de-Jew" people, Torquemada did try to de-Jew Jews who refused to convert into Christianity by either banishing them or burning at stake. History lesson to your history lesson. Ironically enough, his ancestors were converted Jews themselves, with Wanda's complete denial of mutantcy, makes both somewhat much more analogous. Hitler doesn't own genocidal monopoly over history, it has had so many faces lost in time, it's just the most recent atrocity that speaks so loudly to us, but let's not forget it wasn't the only.

Take it up with Webster's dictionary, sorry the definition of genocide doesn't suit your agenda. Torquemada isn't a sensible comparison either. He, once again, intentionally brutalized and killed people which is something Wanda didn't intend to do, it was just the result of her actions. You can't unintentionally commit genocide, hahahaha, I mean...really?

Like most of us tend to say, the act itself doesn't make irredeemable as what you say is can be considered as mitigating circumstances, it's her ignorance, lack of responsibility acceptance and denial of acknowledging what a terrible mistake she has committed, that what makes people hate this character. With all being considered, I totally agree with them even though I'm waiting for the moment when she'll actually SUFFER the consequences of her genocidal act, like so many she forced her will upon suffered because of that. And the idea that she won't has a very wrong massage.

Wanda's never been more popular, actually. But that aside, M-day has been spoken of a lot, have you been reading Uncanny at all? Children's Crusade? Avengers vs X-men? Even in Axis apparently Wanda is going to, once again, address M-day. She's not ignorant or irresponsible, some readers are just stupid, quite frankly.
#6 Edited by HexThis (892 posts) - - Show Bio

@night4345 said:

@hexthis: Yes it was genocide. She stopped mutant births from happening, effectively killing the race (in the standards of the Marvel universe x-gene mutants are a subspecies of homo sapien) along with changing most of mutantkind to human (which is heinous in and of it's self)

Saying that is honestly just silly, particularly since genocides are a real world thing and it's very trivializing to compare this to them in that way. People who are genocidal actually have a murderous intention, Wanda didn't have one. It's really that simple, Wanda extracted a genetic trait and it happened to kill some people. She didn't directly murder those people. Her actions resulted in their deaths. Hitler didn't try to de-Jew people, he had huge groups of them along with gypsies and homosexuals tortured and killed. He wanted them dead and gone, it was the same thing in Rwanda, it was the same thing Cambodia with the Khmer Rogue- Wanda didn't do anything like that at all, whatsoever.

Wanda was at fault for everything because she went to Dr. Doom to try and bring her children back in the first place. Nothing that follows would have happened if she hadn't.

Nothing would've happened had Janet not told Wanda she had twins, nothing would've happened had Agatha not instructed the Avengers to never tell Wanda. So the buck doesn't stop with Wanda if you really want to play the blame game. There were a lot of moving parts, it's not solely Wanda's fault. Dr. Doom didn't have to grant her the Lifeforce, Pietro didn't have to tell Wanda to create the House of M world under the misunderstanding she would die otherwise, Magneto didn't have to bludgeon Quicksilver to death in front of Wanda...but they somehow aren't responsible according to you? It's an argument that just doesn't hold water.

#7 Edited by HexThis (892 posts) - - Show Bio

She's a platitudinous 2 string character. She really hasn't did any before or after the no more mutants thing. Evidently Marvel doesn't care enough to do any more with her.

She had like no on goings at all, just a little mini series with Vision, Give her a book with something new in it for her

Then will talk

Whoa, that's not true. First of all, the mini with Vision was by popular demand. Secondly, the House of M happened because of her major storyline with the West Coast Avengers wherein she lost her sons in the first place, she was the centric character in that arc. She and Pietro were also subject to quite a few major arcs throughout Avengers history. Thirdly, she's been elected to leadership positions by the Avengers a few times over and has been very crucial and centric to a lot of the goings on of the group since the 60's- she's never really left the Avengers for any length of time.

Also, Wanda has the distinction of being intellectual property to two franchises - the X-men and the Avengers, only her and Pietro have that. Thus far, she's been in every X-men television series to date, the Iron Man series, a short-lived Avengers series in the 90's, the Superhero Squad, the second X-men Legends game, she was apart of the first wave of Marvel Heroes characters on Marvel Heroes 2015 and has been the subject of the Children's Crusade which re-introduced her after House of M. She was a MAJOR part of AvX too and was used for a lot of the promotional material not to mention she'll be in Age of Ultron AND possibly even Age of Apocalypse.

#8 Edited by HexThis (892 posts) - - Show Bio

Here's a few noteworthy points to be made.

1) What Wanda did wasn't genocidal by definition, it's the systematic extermination of a people. Wanda didn't exterminate mutants, she removed their x-genes which happened to result in some deaths, she never said "Kill all mutants" or something like that. So people who say she's genocidal are just plain wrong, there isn't a term for crazed, nexus beings magically altering a group of people in our world....you know, coz we like don't rly have any of that.

2) Wiccan said this best....

Wiccan makes a very sound point- the X-men have taken many deliberate murderers and criminals into their group, Cyclops has been intimate with and married to a host to a cosmic force that murdered a whole planet of people. He also harbored the Phoenix himself knowing this full well! Magneto especially intentionally killed thousands of people but the X-men don't seem to hold him to that the way they have Wanda because it wasn't a mutant-specific crime but should that really matter? She didn't intentionally kill any of the mutants on M-day, her actions just left them vulnerable, there's a massive difference between intentional killing and death as a result of certain actions. Funnily enough, Magneto himself probably gets that more than anyone, Mr. Mutant Supremacist went out of his way to protect Wanda during the Children's Crusade. I have a theory she's his favorite.

3) Wanda was the period at the end of House of M but it actually wasn't Wanda who is wholly responsible for it. Pietro made Wanda think the Avengers were going to kill her because he misunderstood what he overheard in their meeting with the X-men. He further deluded her and told her to use Xavier's telepathy to grant everyone their greatest wishes in a mutant utopia of sorts. When Wanda accomplished that she noted to Dr. Strange she had very little control over her powers and appeared to be very confused about what was real and what wasn't. She also said "No more mutants" shortly after Magneto savagely murdered Pietro before her eyes, a lot of things set this into motion that have yet to be acknowledged.

4) People don't necessarily even hate Wanda anymore....

5) Wanda's children died, she sought out a solution to their deaths because their lives were mystical in nature and she has a certain command over mystical abilities and has brought people back before. She did something reckless in grief by approaching Dr. Doom but I hardly consider it an act of villainy and I understand a lot of people would compromise their beliefs to save their children. How could she have known it would result in such a global way? Her powers were never capable of doing anything like that before.

#9 Posted by HexThis (892 posts) - - Show Bio

One thing I absolutely hate on these boards is the horrible fanboyism of the comic 'purists'. If it means that the final product functions better as a film, then by all means change the source material around, different mediums have different ways to succeed.

I don't know if it's puritanical fanboyism, I more associate that with people who complain about how Heath Ledger's Joker didn't have Joker venom or whether or not Spider-man's webshooters should be natural or invention. Petty crap like that is fanboyism to me. But, in this case, the legacy of this character they're now deciding to capitalize on is being tampered with in a way that does the intellectual property an injustice. There would be no Ant-Man movie to make if Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne weren't imagined in the early 60's and really helped to carry that character through the last half-century and beyond. So to drastically change/eliminate them feels like a s--ty thing to do. Do you know what I mean? In a weird way, it's like Janet and Hank get Marvel money as characters, they're a commodity and Marvel is treating that valuable commodity too frivolously.

#10 Posted by HexThis (892 posts) - - Show Bio

@chrisj_1 said:

@hexthis said:

Excited for the film but...why couldn't they have just had Janet name her daughter after herself? Why Hope? It should be Janet so that at least people are familiar with her when they read the comics. I mean, I just despise pointless revisions like that, especially since Janet was really a founding Avenger, as was Hank. If Hank can't be with the Avengers then Janet at least deserves a shot. I always feel as though Wasp gets the shaft, she got eaten by Blob in Ultimate, she's always the weakest combatant in the cartoons, she's been made to be exceptionally frivolous, she got killed because Marvel actually had her on a list of characters acceptable to kill....it's like WTF is going on? If it weren't for Uncanny Avengers, I'm not certain that they wouldn't have done something else terrible to her.

Multiple reasons. Hank and Janet already have a daughter named Hope in the MC2 universe. But mostly because you'd have her end up as Scott's love interest instead of Hank's and I shouldn't even have to tell you how much fan backlash there would be if that happened. Here you have Hank as former Ant man Janet possibly as former Wasp the characters married to each other and not anyone else and you still get to have the same dynamic between Ant Man and Wasp with the new generation Scott and Hope.

But backlash with Janet with the wrong man versus backlash over either no Janet or an old Janet? The latter would be much bigger, is much bigger, actually.

It's just so weird to me there's going to be a movie about a less popular Marvel character, a less popular version, with the two most popular people associated with that character being basically cut out of the action. What are they thinking? All of this wouldn't be a problem if Paul Rudd was just playing Hank, Evangeline Lily was just playing Janet, and Michael Douglas was playing another character altogether. So bizarre.

Rumor has it there's a Korean actress who might do a Wasp cameo in Age of Ultron though....but damn, now she can't be friggen Janet Van Dyne even if she is!!! Unless Hope has an adopted sister. God, that name.