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

  • 106 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Posted by G-Man (34334 posts) - - Show Bio

Despite his years as a member of the X-Men, Wolverine has often been portrayed as the ultimate loner. He would be quick to question authority and had no problem taking matters into his own hands in a deadly manner. Yet, he's been an active team member since Professor X recruited him. Recently not only did he expand his team activities by joining the New Avengers, he also lead the covert X-Men black ops team, X-Force.

Wolverine has two modes to his personality. He can either be a bloodthirsty killer when in berserker mode or a caring father-like figure to young and impressionable mutants. It's this combination that makes him a good candidate for leading a team, especially these days when mutants are constantly being hunted.

From the results of Schism, Wolverine will no longer be wiling to follow Cyclops' lead. The two have butted heads from day one, usually over the affection of Jean Grey, but it was evident Logan respected Scott as a leader. That was the only reason he would follow him so willingly. With the split in the X-Men, Wolverine will be taking his own team of X-Men back to Westchester. What will be the goal of the team. What are the chances this team will become as deadly as his X-Force team?

== TEASER ==

Years ago (in Uncanny X-Men #220), Wolverine made it clear he didn't want to lead a team. In a conversation with a depowered Storm, he stated that it wasn't what he wanted. Storm practically had to force him to even consider it. Leading a team like X-Force suited his strengths.

Wolverine does know a thing or two about stealth and killing. Even though he has taken young mutants like Kitty Pryde, Jubilee, Armor and, to some extent, X-23 under his wing, what will he do with a team of X-Men.

His team roster is a little unusual. From the Regenesis teaser we've seen Kid Omega will be part of it. In Schism #1, Wolverine was ready to do away with the problematic mutant. It's hard to say what Iceman's stance will be on Wolverine's team. Bobby has always been a jokester but we haven't seen too much of him lately. Beast is also an odd addition. Assuming this is the regular Beast (and not Dark Beast), Hank left the X-Men after discovering Cyclops sanctioned X-Force, a team of killer X-Men. Would he be willing to take orders from Wolverine after that? Kitty Pryde is a good fit due to her past with Wolverine. Toad is another odd choice. Wolverine can't stand him. Then again, Toad has always been one willing to please his master. This could be his chance to try to do some good by way of following Wolverine's orders. Idie seems to be the cause of the Schism. She used her powers to kill some members of the Hellfire Club's mercenaries in trying to prevent a bomb from killing innocents. Wolverine has been seen making small advances on taking her under his wing. Now he will get the chance to ensure she can deal with becoming a killer.

To kill or not to kill?

Wolverine is a killer. There's no question about that. Regardless, he would support the idea that the X-Men killing is unacceptable. With X-Force, it was another story. All the members had a dark past and were already walking down the road to Hell. Iceman and Beast will not kill. Kitty Pryde may have been trained to be as deadly as a ninja, but she's not the killing type unless pushed to her limits. After arguing with Scott over allowing Idie to kill, you would think he would try to protect her. Then again, he was pissed that Scott put X-23 on X-Force but didn't really do anything to stop her until the team seemingly disbanded at the end of Second Coming.

If Wolverine is leading this group of X-Men, is his time with X-Force finished? From the teaser, they've also lost Angel. Psylocke is going to be busy being on two X-Men teams so is it possible Wolverine can be on two X-teams as well. But what about his numerous solo adventures and time with the New Avengers?

Regardless of who is on his X-Men team, they should not kill. That's not the way of the X-Men. If he felt killing is an option in some situations, there's no point in calling them X-Men. He could just make them an extended part of X-Force. On their first outing, they will be dealing with the Hellfire Club. There's also mention of a classic villain coming their way. We'll have to wait and see how Wolverine handles leading his new team.

How Wolverine handles leadership of an X-Men team will be interesting to see. Would he be able to lead and protect his team at all costs without resorting to killing? As skilled of a fighter he is, it shouldn't be a problem...in theory. Wolverine isn't exactly known for his patience or restraint. If he wants to try to protect Idie and prevent her from killing again, he's going to have to set a good example and keep Toad and Kid Omega in line.

The X-Men shouldn't kill. If Wolverine is committing himself to upholding everything Xavier set out to accomplish with the team, he is going to have to work to ensure Toad can reform, Kid Omega can accept co-existing with humans and Idie has the chance to regain her innocence. With Kitty, Beast and Iceman at his side, maybe it won't be so hard to accomplish.

Staff
#1 Posted by spiderturtle (66 posts) - - Show Bio

O_o scary thought

#2 Posted by Hjels (2 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#3 Posted by Wingfoot (98 posts) - - Show Bio

Hi ! 
 
Will Wolverine disappear one day forever ? Or at least, becoming again the (real) character I knew 25 years ago, recently seen again in Whedon's Astonishing X-men or in Craig/Yost's X-force ? 
I don't think so. 
 
"Wolverine... can either be a bloodthirsty killer... or a caring father-like figure to young and impressionable mutants." Seriously, it's not even a contradiction, it's an aberration and, in some way, dangerously stupid considering comic books are read by young people. 
 
Maybe, some day, Marvel's writers will grow up, read books et become mature. I don't think so... 
 
Hihane washte.
#4 Edited by Doctorchimp (62 posts) - - Show Bio

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

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

#5 Posted by jhazzroucher (15809 posts) - - Show Bio

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

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

#6 Posted by leokearon (1807 posts) - - Show Bio
@Hjels said:

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


He's in X-Men Legacy which is part of Logan's side
#7 Posted by TheOlympian (111 posts) - - Show Bio

Great article!

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

#8 Edited by FoxxFireArt (3554 posts) - - Show Bio

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

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

#9 Posted by howlett76 (59 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#10 Posted by jubilee042 (1353 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#11 Posted by Eyz (3095 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#12 Posted by GBrutality (192 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#13 Posted by TheBuck (104 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#14 Posted by LordRequiem (1315 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#15 Posted by Steps (657 posts) - - Show Bio

@LordRequiem said:

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

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

#16 Posted by AgeofHurricane (7297 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#17 Posted by TDK_1997 (14896 posts) - - Show Bio

Well...Kind of.

#18 Posted by Xenozoic Shaman (410 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#19 Posted by Sammo21 (696 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#20 Posted by Steps (657 posts) - - Show Bio

@Sammo21: In between Kid Omega's legs

#21 Posted by frozenedge (1240 posts) - - Show Bio

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

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

#22 Posted by Or35ti (1101 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#23 Posted by Sammo21 (696 posts) - - Show Bio

@frozenedge: @Steps:

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

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

#24 Posted by Xenozoic Shaman (410 posts) - - Show Bio

@frozenedge said:

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

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

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

#25 Posted by fodigg (6146 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#26 Posted by RedheadedAtrocitus (6885 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#27 Posted by LordRequiem (1315 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#28 Posted by MrCipher (276 posts) - - Show Bio

@Wingfoot said:

Hi !

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

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

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

Hihane washte.

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

#29 Edited by fodigg (6146 posts) - - Show Bio

@MrCipher said:

@Wingfoot said:

Hi !

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

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

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

Hihane washte.

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

Kitty Pryde?

#30 Posted by Steps (657 posts) - - Show Bio

@LordRequiem said:

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

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

#31 Posted by akimamg (10 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#32 Posted by ImperiousRix (1069 posts) - - Show Bio

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

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

#33 Posted by frozenedge (1240 posts) - - Show Bio

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

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

#34 Posted by jepizzel (5 posts) - - Show Bio

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

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

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

#35 Posted by Steps (657 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#36 Posted by BigBDawg (263 posts) - - Show Bio

@jepizzel said:

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

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

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

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

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

#37 Posted by Blastov (23 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#38 Posted by Doctor!!!!! (2055 posts) - - Show Bio

if Cyclops did it, than Wolverine can do better!

#39 Edited by MetropolisKid41 (515 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#40 Posted by The Devil Tiger (1263 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#41 Posted by TheHT (72 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#42 Posted by Crowman (435 posts) - - Show Bio

Watch out, Bubs.
#43 Posted by JonesDeini (3620 posts) - - Show Bio

@FoxxFireArt said:

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

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

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

Oh well, thank God Gillen's on Uncanny.

#44 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29501 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#45 Posted by Larkin1388 (1760 posts) - - Show Bio

I think things will be done quickly and effectively

#46 Posted by lorex (954 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#47 Posted by Namor1987 (1889 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#48 Posted by Wingfoot (98 posts) - - Show Bio
@fodigg
 
Yes you're right, in 1984 with a special 6-issues. But the Wolverine's father/older brother thing happened so many times since (Jubilee, Katie Power, Rogue, X-23...) that's became a cliché
I insist : it's a big problem if you (not you specificaly, of course) think that a cold-blooded killer is also capable of love. It's teenage fantasy, not reality.
#49 Posted by leokearon (1807 posts) - - Show Bio

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

#50 Posted by Malonius (886 posts) - - Show Bio

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

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.