When I say that the X-Men have become decidedly bloodthirsty (I don't mean just Wolverine although he continues to kill without anybody seeming to complain about it)over the years. Once upon a time, the team mantra was "X-Men don't kill!" but slowly but surely there have been cases of X-Men such as Colossus, Rogue or Dust killing without any subsequent expulsion from the team or even censure by their peers.

To be fair, these killings should be seen in their context- they were either prompted by extreme measures, such as protecting themselves or other X-Men

(just as police officers are permitted to use deadly force to subdue criminals or soldiers in wartime can kill the enemy). Some heroes such as Daredevil, Spider-Man, Iron Man and his fellow Avengers(despite their bloodthirsty title, individual Avengers such as Captain America) rarely kill, ditto the Fantastic Four, but I for one find this seeming casualness in taking human life disturbing?

We can of course note that individual X-Men and the group have saved MANY more lives than they have ever taken and some X-Men( Storm, Nightcrawler, Shadowcat )have never killed, but each life taken(no matter how justifiable it may be), is a burden that never goes away- were it not, soldiers would not suffer from PTSD and cops involved in OIS( Officer Involved Shooting) would not require psychiatric counselling before being allowed to go back on duty?

Anybody think as I do?

Terry

I'm pretty sure Storm has killed before just cant think of the example off the top of my head

as far as the actual subject i think its the context of comics that have changed when X men first stated such things were strictly forbidden in comics, HEROES didnt kill period, Now comics are much more real and instead of everything being black or white we dangle more in the shades of grey that is reality (such as Soldiers, and cops having to kill people to protect)

That's a crassly catastrophic generalization of things. I see the change in modus operandi as a progressive adjustment and logical accommodation of the situations they've continuously been placed in, for a better facilitation of the 'dream' (despite the fact that killing is contrary to what they stand for). The whole "x-men don't kill" slogan pretty much flew out the window after Storm--mind, body and soul--embraced the mohawk for all that it entailed and spoke of. I emphasize Storm because she was/is the orthodox paradigm for pro-life proponents and the maintenance of its sanctity. "Consecrated to life", she often said. Not going into the change itself, but the whole damn thing and evocation of morality was beautiful, point being, it was a particular way of life that she needed to adopt. Not preemptive killing but the fact that killing was the lesser of two evils if circumstances ever came up.

They're not bloodthirsty as you'll find the majority tread with trepidation when the k word comes up, but whatever it takes, i suppose. It's something they've all had to learn and assimilate and makes for good stories when done right.

I think the old idea of "X-men don't kill" still basically holds up, but it sort of depends on how you look at it. I don't even think this was a thing until after Wolverine had joined the team, so, in a way, he's sort of the measure of it. It's assumed that he'd killed many times before joining, and we know he's killed several times since, yet even he uses the expression. The only explanation for this really is that, during the times he's killed since joining, he considers it to be not as an X-man; ie, something he does on his own when he's not with the X-men .

As the self-appointed protector of the team, it's just as possible that, because he does believe that X-men shouldn't kill, he does the killing he deems necessary without them, so they don't have to. Consider that, when Colossus first takes a life (in the Proteus arc of the late 70's), Wolverine, despite his rare showing of genuine fear, seems like he would gladly take Colossus' place in this task so that Colossus wouldn't have to do it. Which is an idea that's been explored somewhat in his versions of X-force, a team that existed to protect the X-men in secret so as not to be associated with the ideal of the team.

this do-as-I-say,-not-as-I-do attitude that Wolverine has seems to be one of the defining lessons of Wolverine as a mentor, being as much for the protection of the individual members as for the image of mutants that the team exists to propagate. Even when the X-men are disbanded and Jubilee has the opportunity to kill her parents' murderers, even while conceding that they deserve it, he still warns her against it by explaining what a terrible burden it will be on her. This is a lesson we've seen him impart on several characters, even to the point that if any other X-man (who hasn't killed before) has to take a life, he sees it as a personal failure.

Granted, there are some X-men that simply value human life less because of their own experiences, most notably Emma and Magneto, as well as those who would condone killing to protect someone else (like Wolverine, Cyclops, or Colossus), but, to me, those are all sort of meant to be exceptions that prove the rule; as a general rule for what the team is actually about, "X-men don't kill" still does (and should) hold up.

mm. I think this is why we can see characters like Colossus, Dust, or Oya as somewhat tragic heroes, because they're haunted by having had to kill, Magneto and Emma as anti-heroes because they feel justified in killing, and Wolverine as a slightly more heroic anti-hero because, despite being a killer, he doesn't want to see anyone become one.

But, in a way, they all help define the "X-men don't kill" rule by illustrating the effects of killing on the killer, thus humanizing it.

I do totally agree that killing shouldn't be taken lightly, even in fantasy stories like the X-men; but as long as the use of killing is used in the service of illustrating these types of ethical distinctions, and not as just a default to glorify violence, then I think it can still serve it's proper function as a story element.

exactly that...on the whole, most X-men haven't killed still...Kitty for example has threatened to kill multiple people multiple times, but still does not have any blood on her hands. Its still considered a big deal I think...Wolverine used to be the only one who would be willing to do what he felt had to be done, so that the rest of the team would not have that burden. Since then times have changed, comics went in a darker more realistic direction and white/black was replaced with heavy shades of gray. Colossus, Cyclops, and others have had to take life to either protect themselves, innocents, or the rest of the team...and it changed those characters, it weighed on them just like Logan knew it would.

I loved this.

Agreed. Personally, I am glad they have shifted to telling stories that are morally grey and have actions that are questionable.

And yes Storm has killed multiple times over the years (and nearly added Callisto and then later Marrow to that list). She still struggles with it to a degree (like when she killed that room full of vampires and their human victims in Curse of the Mutants), but I am glad that the veteran X-Men (I think Rogue and Colossus have also had to kill) are growing as characters through these type of experiences.

The days of the simple black and white thinking/approach are gone. Now heroes do what needs to be done. That's how it should be.

This is ironic considering how PG i was thinking the X-Men have been in the last year or so......2 X-Force books with minimal life loss. Iceman goes super crazy and only minor casualties. And the X-Men fighting a war with eachother and a future team....and nobody from this time died....not even bystanders.

Magneto and Uncanny Avengers are the only books where innocent mutants/humans have died or been beat up badly in....the actual X-Men titles have been relatively cheery.

well, I'm not saying that kids can't handle or shouldn't be exposed to stories with violence (because I know I loved that when I was a kid), but X-men comics should at least be for kids. I'm not saying X-men comics can't or shouldn't explore more mature or complex themes, but if an X-men comic is being made strictly for adults I think it's kind of missing the point.

Also, I thought lots of people did die because of Iceman's rampage, just none of the characters. They spent an issue or two making sure he felt bad about that.

@oldnightcrawler: I'd have to check but i think i remember them saying something along the lines of "you got lucky there weren't many casualties" or something. Thats sort of the reason i didnt get bothered by his appearances in the other X-books ignoring the story.

But yea, i think its evident that they're trying to pull more kids into the books (i mean even comparing the colorfulness of 2014 with 2011 is jarring) and i'm happy for growing the fandom, but there's a good case to be made that the X-Men haven't had a lot of fights or tackled controversial issues in their own world because of the attempt to bring in younger audiences.

I'm not saying that kids are solely to blame, since there one of many demographics marvels tried to bring in with the last year of repeated rebranding, but people trying to appeal to what they think kids want can basically justify a run like Aaron's WatX

@ageofhurricane said:

I loved this.

Emma feared for her life MULTIPLE times with confrontations with Storm. Reminding her who the Real Queen of the X-men truly is. Mwuahaha.

@paracelsus: It's about time. How long does a people have to be systematically slaughtered before they are justified in girding themselves for war?

...or just about any Marvel comic up until the mid-90's.

it's funny that so many people criticize Aaron's WatX-men for being childish, as though that in itself is a criticism, as though X-men comics aren't supposed to appeal to children.

I mean, if something doesn't appeal to your sensibilities, then it doesn't, but the distinction seems pretty arbitrary when one considers that X-men (and superhero comics in general) were originally created for children, and mostly remained so until at least the 80's. So, it's not like it's any more childish than many of the stories by Claremont, or anything from before him.

The funny thing about it, for me, is that everyone I know who really liked Aaron's WatX-men is in their 30's and liked it for being like the comics they read as a kid.

I think your missing the point. There is a difference between a comic kids can enjoy and one that's too kiddy. Kids can and will enjoy reading about mature stuff if you give them the chance, there is no need to make it all goofy, it's like the difference between Spider-Man Animated Series and Ultimate Spider-Man.

I think you're missing my point, which is that something made for children can't really ever be too childish. That doesn't mean that it's good, or that it's going to be for everyone, but just because something is too childish for one person's tastes, doesn't mean it won't be the thing that makes someone else want to read the characters.

I'd only been reading the X-men comics for a year or so when TAS came out, I was like 12 or 13, but I remember thinking that it was silly and just for kids; even though I was a kid, it seemed childish compared to what I'd read in the regular series. But a lot of people loved that series, or they liked X-Men Adventures which was based on it, and that's how they first got into the comics.

Besides which, Aaron's WatX-men might not have been to my tastes either, but I think that it was pretty far from the most childish X-men comic, really.

I use Aaron's WatX-men because its the most glaring example. It's a playful take on the X-Men, and it focuses on a cast of young students dealing with the crazier aspects of the X-Men.
And it works for what it is.

But if there's a scale where you balance your audience of, younger "kids" and older/mature fans .....then Aaron's WatX is going to be the furthest left among recent X-books. And the X-Men books in general have moved more left of center then they were say...pre AVX.

Younger audience have a stigma attached to them that they have a weaker grasp of story and shorter attention spans then more mature readers. And true or not if you appeal to that to much then we'd get less complex stories and more flash then substance.

I think there should be a little bit for both sides. Because as much as superheroes appeal to younger audiences, most of my friends are familiar with comics through cartoons and I didn't know many kids that actually bought comics other then myself. But at the same time I've never liked X-Force very much and during the 2000's it was definitely on the mature side of the scale.

So I'm OK with a book where a fight for the souls of the afterlife is told in the form of a pirate adventure....so long as i can move from that to a book like David's X-factor where i can get more serious tones as well. It just doesn't seem like there's as many options as there were, say when Aaron's run first started.

I think in general maybe they have, but even that I feel was a reaction to how serious the tone of the books had become through decimation and the Utopia era, where many long-time fans felt the books were reflecting more adult themes at the expense of the feeling of family that the X-men had.

It could be argued that Aaron swung further than he needed to into the sillier aspects of the X-men mythos, and I wouldn't disagree with that, but of the books that came out of Regenesis, his was actually one of the ones that incorporated some of the darkest element: children who remorselessly killed their own parents and hunted humans for sport, Kitty's weird pregnancy, and especially the very graphic depiction of Broo getting shot in the face, are all elements that made it among the least kid-friendly, to my mind.

It's one of the reasons that I don't consider books like X-force or even X-factor to be the same animal as actual X-men books, because (besides not really being about the X-men), at their best, they're alternatives for audiences who are looking for something more mature and subtle than what the X-men are generally about; in a way, the point of either of them is that they're not the X-men despite their premise being based in the same mythos.

I agree with you that the idea that kids won't understand the X-men as they are, and need simpler alternatives like X-Men Adventures or All-New X-Men to introduce them to the stories, generally makes for more watered-down, derivative stories in general. But, even if they make for weaker and/or redundant stories in the long run, that doesn't necessarily make them less appealing or enjoyable for, as you say, what they are.

Pretty much. I mean, if there's 5-10 X-books being put out all the time, it's kind of silly to have them all be appealing to the same parts of the fan-base, let alone the same themes. And I do think there can be X-men or X-related stories for a broader range of tastes, so I think it's silly to think that all books are going to be for me.

I know I enjoy books for what makes them distinct from other stories, and on that level, even as a long-time fan, I can see the merit in books like Aaron's WatX-men or Bendis' Uncanny' as much as books like Claremont's Excalibur or Morrison's New X-men, just in a different way. Because the real strength of all of those, for me, lies in the things that make them distinct, I think they are better appreciated for what they are rather than what they're not.

And, while there may be less X-men books than there was before Regenesis, there's still a lot more options than there were when I started reading, and the books are becoming more distinct from each other than they really ever have been.

@poisonfleur said:

@ageofhurricane said:

I loved this.

Emma feared for her life MULTIPLE times with confrontations with Storm. Reminding her who the Real Queen of the X-men truly is. Mwuahaha.

As for the thread as much as I love the classic story telling, I'm glad writers changed their perception to more grey areas bringing much realism and a darker tone to the stories. If handled correctly killing can be justified. Especially if it saves the lives of many or in worst cases is the lesser of two evils.(As some would put it.) If Jean hadn't killed Meme those souls trapped within the demon would have been tormented forever. Hadn't Storm ripped Marrow's heart out a bomb would have killed a great number of people. If X-Force hadn't been formed an even greater number of mutants would have perished. Honestly the X-men code for non killing has been tweaked by nearly every character that has been under those circumstances.

@roddy010 said:

@poisonfleur said:

@ageofhurricane said:

I loved this.

Emma feared for her life MULTIPLE times with confrontations with Storm. Reminding her who the Real Queen of the X-men truly is. Mwuahaha.

As for the thread as much as I love the classic story telling, I'm glad writers changed their perception to more grey areas bringing much realism and a darker tone to the stories. If handled correctly killing can be justified. Especially if it saves the lives of many or in worst cases is the lesser of two evils.(As some would put it.) If Jean hadn't killed Meme those souls trapped within the demon would have been tormented forever. Hadn't Storm ripped Marrow's heart out a bomb would have killed a great number of people. If X-Force hadn't been formed an even greater number of mutants would have perished. Honestly the X-men code for non killing has been tweaked by nearly every character that has been under those circumstances.

This is why i loved storm so much lol

Blood for blood was one of the most enjoyable parts of this X-era, 'thanks' to Remender (and Aaron) it turned into something tasteless and pretty much ended with two worthless and lame X-forces that came after him :'( I yet didn't figure what exactly Spurrier is doing, for now at least I have Magneto to enjoy in that category.

How can anyone be described as bloodthirsty when basically all they are doing is trying to survive when close to extinction and responding in kind to years and years of heinous treatment? I think its more a case of giving what you get and when a whole species survival is on the line threats should be neutralized.

That said what I dont like is that so many good villains are dead. We need villains again instead of the hero vs hero take that we've been getting steadily since Civil War.

When it comes to the thing about the childishness of certain books..... I realize people have different taste but when a writer like Aaron goes about making a mockery of everything thats what I have a problem with. I saw where someone mentioned the animated series which I thought was not silly in tone at all, though some of the voices and a few sprinklings of episodes here and there did have a silly aspect to them. To try an compare Aaron to Claremont though is just asinine imo. Where do people get off thinking that things have to be silly and childish to appear to kids. Especially when some will try and justify or build on some of the so-called social messages as being good for the younger generation.

My thing is, if you want silly go read Looney Tunes, which I pick up for my kids by the way. Dont come to books like Xmen or Avengers or Batman for that. Considering all the messages and tones of some of the kiddie movies like Frozen and Up and others just to name a few, I dont think the silliness is necessarily the way to appeal to kids. It certainly didnt appeal to me as a kid when it came to comics. These days kids are into karate and boxing and the video games they play dont lend themselves to the childish silliness that Aaron cursed us with. The biggest sales in the novel world are coming from the YA section and generally they are your dystopian futures or catastrophic life altering events. As evidenced by Hunger Games and Divergent and even Twilight could be thrown into that YA genre. When you read reviews and recommendations or conduct surveys, the parents who are purchasing these books are buying many times for their 6th and 7th graders and these books contain sometimes pretty heavy subject matter.

While Im ok with a lighter tone sometimes, I think said tone can be featured and explored without being childish and silly and not to the detriment of character continuity. Wood's Xmen could be an example of a team just being superheroes and that could be the lighter tone. Or a New Mutants team focused on just being heroes and saving the world could be a lighter tone. But having kids set up a school having super-villains working under them and for them in that school, teaching kids to be villains, while dressing young girls in lingerie- i guess meant to be a mirror image of Dark Phoenix, while subsequently featuring a mutant named Snot Boy, is beyond silly and is not a lighter tone. Rather its just plain stupid and a mockery of the franchise.

@hawk2916: this. Completely and utterly correct.

I noticed. The x men are not like before. Sometime I wonder why writers are ruin them? Are they actually trying to put the x men THAT low, so the Avengers become the best? I truly hate the Avengers and if it wasn't for Wiccan and Speed, I would have never bother getting it.

@poisonfleur said:

@ageofhurricane said:

I loved this.

Emma feared for her life MULTIPLE times with confrontations with Storm. Reminding her who the Real Queen of the X-men truly is. Mwuahaha.

totally cool

why is it that in her battles with storm, emma still fights, but with jean, she easily concedes (when jean found out about the telepathic affair)? how many times did jean and emma fight?

i stil think most of the x-men are still level headed. some doesnt even want to resort to fighting.