Should Emma and Scott have a child and raise the child in Uncanny X-Men

  • 63 results
  • 1
  • 2
Edited 1 year, 2 months ago

Poll: Should Emma and Scott have a child and raise the child in Uncanny X-Men (53 votes)

yes 42%
no 47%
maybe 11%
#1 Edited by Quintus_Knightfall (84508 posts) - - Show Bio

I'd actually love if Scott and Emma had a child, but I dont want them to raise it. Maybe Mr. Sinister kidnaps it or something. The minute Marvel turns Emma into Susie Homemaker is the minute she turns into Jean Grey.

Moderator
#3 Posted by time (4841 posts) - - Show Bio

To be honest Emma been headed that way with matt fraction and kieron Gillian writing. I would like something to happen with Emma and Scott, cause nothing really has.

#4 Edited by IllyanaRasputin (1088 posts) - - Show Bio

I'd love for this to happen, but let's be honest, no one is going to have the X-Men actually GROW UP. I mean it's the same shit with them ALL The time. I mean, I'd love for the X-Men to actually get over all their mutant problems and actually break off from being an x-man to start their own life. That being said, I think Emma and Scott should definitely retire being X-Men after this whole Mutant Revolution nonsense is over and done with. Really enjoyed them as a couple in House of M and also loved Emma as a mother in X-Men The End.

#5 Posted by papad1992 (6822 posts) - - Show Bio

That boat has sailed... the relationship should have ended after AvX!

I would have said Yes if it were before AvX... but now, NO!

#6 Posted by Eternelle (1070 posts) - - Show Bio

They're not ready for a kid yet, not with where Scott's head is.

@gambler said:

I'd actually love if Scott and Emma had a child, but I dont want them to raise it. Maybe Mr. Sinister kidnaps it or something. The minute Marvel turns Emma into Susie Homemaker is the minute she turns into Jean Grey.

To be fair, Emma's always had a proclivity for teaching and for kids (and this is touched upon in ReGenesis). Doesn't mean she'd settle down by any means, I could see her going even more hardcore in an effort to ensure that child's safety. There are plenty of key personality traits that make Emma differ from Jean, as you well know.

#7 Edited by akbogert (3192 posts) - - Show Bio

They aren't even in a relationship anymore, and Scott's distracted by the reappearance of his ex-lover (albeit the way-too-young, not-the-same-person version). So from a purely relational standpoint this question, as it stands now, really doesn't make sense.

And from a narrative standpoint, they have their hands full trying to keep other kids alive. It would be irresponsible and ludicrous of them to try to bring a new one into the world they currently inhabit right now.

#8 Posted by HAWK2916 (1584 posts) - - Show Bio

Didnt they have a kid, Ruby Summers or something like that

Online
#9 Edited by Quintus_Knightfall (84508 posts) - - Show Bio

@gadai: Teaching kids and settling down to raise one are two completely different animals.

@hawk2916: I believe that was an alternate timeline. Emma was dead (if I remember correctly) but Ruby was badass.

Moderator
#10 Posted by Eternelle (1070 posts) - - Show Bio

@hawk2916 said:

Didnt they have a kid, Ruby Summers or something like that

That's the future, which makes it an alternate timeline. But yes, Ruby was badass.

@gambler: I don't disagree with that, just bringing it up as an added example of why it wouldn't be entirely out of character for her. Considering she herself has mentioned how she wants one. I don't think it would detract from her badass factor, personally.

#11 Posted by Avenger85 (1602 posts) - - Show Bio

Nope. Not gonna happen given the state of their relationship.

But if the 616 Jean returns, then yeah she should have a kid with Scott ( Rachel !) :P

#12 Posted by Quintus_Knightfall (84508 posts) - - Show Bio

@gadai: The way she's kissing the Stepford's asses in Uncanny seems to suggest its already started (the decline of badassness). And picture this, AvX Emma and Namor are standing there in that sexually charged scene wheeeen, "Mommy mommy." yeah, there goes that moment right out the window ;)

Moderator
#13 Posted by Eternelle (1070 posts) - - Show Bio

@gambler: That moment was sh!t anyways :D

#14 Posted by Quintus_Knightfall (84508 posts) - - Show Bio

@gadai: You're a girl what do you know :P

Moderator
#15 Edited by HAWK2916 (1584 posts) - - Show Bio

An interesting storyline would be for her to get pregnant, considering everything they've been thru mybe Scott would oblige, if not get him stupid drunk or for one night just give in. Then she could go to a different timeline maybe the future to raise the child without telling Cyclops. She could take a young team of xmen with her and set herself up as a teacher with her own school and a team of her own to help protect the school and her child. That could be interesting. Especially since I want Scott to get with Frenzy and I want Monet to join UNcanny Xmen. This makes room for that and adds another task to Scott's plate- in addition to the revolution and maybe restoring his standing, searching for his child and Emma

Online
#16 Edited by Eternelle (1070 posts) - - Show Bio

@gambler said:

@gadai: You're a girl what do you know :P

Class act right there :P

#17 Posted by Quintus_Knightfall (84508 posts) - - Show Bio

@gadai: As if you didnt know any better ;)

Moderator
#18 Posted by Eternelle (1070 posts) - - Show Bio

@gambler: Haha you act all classy sometimes and then I remember you're just a dumb boy :D

#19 Posted by TheGreyOutcastX (2051 posts) - - Show Bio

That boat has sailed... the relationship should have ended after AvX!

I would have said Yes if it were before AvX... but now, NO!

Emma still has feelings for Scott. Did you see how Emma reacted when Eva talked about him? Emma was less than amused about someone else thinking about Scott in that fashion. Made me chuckle.

#20 Edited by oldnightcrawler (4246 posts) - - Show Bio

@gambler said:

I'd actually love if Scott and Emma had a child, but I dont want them to raise it. Maybe Mr. Sinister kidnaps it or something. The minute Marvel turns Emma into Susie Homemaker is the minute she turns into Jean Grey.

Because that's what happens to women when they have children, they lose their personalities.

Seriously, though, Cyclops doesn't need any more kids he's not gonna raise. To me, the most interesting thing about them having a kid would be actually seeing them raise it. Outlaws have children, too; how would that effect their decision making?

It could be really interesting to see a person actually born into the world they live in; we've never really seen that. Maybe the in the FF, but having mutant revolutionaries for parents, Magneto building your robot nanny.. actually, I guess it's a bit like in AoA with Magneto and Rogue, but we never really saw that happen either. Anyway, I think it would be cool.

and cooler still if it was Ruby Summers..

#21 Posted by Quintus_Knightfall (84508 posts) - - Show Bio

@gambler said:

I'd actually love if Scott and Emma had a child, but I dont want them to raise it. Maybe Mr. Sinister kidnaps it or something. The minute Marvel turns Emma into Susie Homemaker is the minute she turns into Jean Grey.

Because that's what happens to women when they have children, they lose their personalities.

Dont they? I have examples if you'd like. Real and fictitious.

Moderator
#22 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

I'd love for this to happen, but let's be honest, no one is going to have the X-Men actually GROW UP. I mean it's the same shit with them ALL The time. I mean, I'd love for the X-Men to actually get over all their mutant problems and actually break off from being an x-man to start their own life. That being said, I think Emma and Scott should definitely retire being X-Men after this whole Mutant Revolution nonsense is over and done with. Really enjoyed them as a couple in House of M and also loved Emma as a mother in X-Men The End.

This is a terrific post and 100% accurate.

#23 Posted by oldnightcrawler (4246 posts) - - Show Bio

@gambler said:

@oldnightcrawler said:

@gambler said:

I'd actually love if Scott and Emma had a child, but I dont want them to raise it. Maybe Mr. Sinister kidnaps it or something. The minute Marvel turns Emma into Susie Homemaker is the minute she turns into Jean Grey.

Because that's what happens to women when they have children, they lose their personalities.

Dont they? I have examples if you'd like. Real and fictitious.

Real examples that are fictitious? I've no doubt that you do. You can keep 'em.

#24 Posted by papad1992 (6822 posts) - - Show Bio

@papad1992 said:

That boat has sailed... the relationship should have ended after AvX!

I would have said Yes if it were before AvX... but now, NO!

Emma still has feelings for Scott. Did you see how Emma reacted when Eva talked about him? Emma was less than amused about someone else thinking about Scott in that fashion. Made me chuckle.

That's just like saying a girl still has feelings for their ex. The question the OP said was that if they should have a kid... I think that they should of had one years ago either before Messiah Complex or during their stay on Utopia. Now it's just too awkward of a situation to even think about. Plus Emma has a powerful ego (or she had one, her characterization has been off lately), she would be the one in a relationship to move on while the other still is in disbelief.

#25 Posted by Quintus_Knightfall (84508 posts) - - Show Bio

@oldnightcrawler: Shame :( read X-Men the End though and you'll see Emma as a mother. You tell me if its the same personality.

Moderator
#26 Posted by ArturoCalaKayVee (11060 posts) - - Show Bio

Nope! I want Jean (original Jean, not past Jean) to return so she can whip Scott back into reality!

#27 Edited by Quintus_Knightfall (84508 posts) - - Show Bio

@papad1992 said:

(or she had one, her characterization has been off lately),

Is that due to her losing her mental abilities? Or has that been resolved?

Moderator
#28 Posted by TheGreyOutcastX (2051 posts) - - Show Bio

@thegreyoutcastx said:
@papad1992 said:

That boat has sailed... the relationship should have ended after AvX!

I would have said Yes if it were before AvX... but now, NO!

Emma still has feelings for Scott. Did you see how Emma reacted when Eva talked about him? Emma was less than amused about someone else thinking about Scott in that fashion. Made me chuckle.

That's just like saying a girl still has feelings for their ex. The question the OP said was that if they should have a kid... I think that they should of had one years ago either before Messiah Complex or during their stay on Utopia. Now it's just too awkward of a situation to even think about. Plus Emma has a powerful ego (or she had one, her characterization has been off lately), she would be the one in a relationship to move on while the other still is in disbelief.

That means the door is always open for the two on them to get back together. I am surprised their relationship didn't end more disastrous given how Bendis stated they were done (with a vengeance). But I never said I think they should have children. Scott has no time to play Baby daddy especially given his other kids with Jean that he really doesn't do the father thing with.

#29 Posted by oldnightcrawler (4246 posts) - - Show Bio

@papad1992 said:

That's just like saying a girl still has feelings for their ex. The question the OP said was that if they should have a kid... I think that they should of had one years ago either before Messiah Complex or during their stay on Utopia. Now it's just too awkward of a situation to even think about. Plus Emma has a powerful ego (or she had one, her characterization has been off lately), she would be the one in a relationship to move on while the other still is in disbelief.

That means the door is always open for the two on them to get back together. I am surprised their relationship didn't end more disastrous given how Bendis stated they were done (with a vengeance). But I never said I think they should have children. Scott has no time to play Baby daddy especially given his other kids with Jean that he really doesn't do the father thing with.

Cyclops never had any kids with Jean; she went to the future with him to raise Cable, but Cable is Cyclops and Madelyne's son, and he's the only child that Cyclops has ever had.

As for him and Emma being in too awkward of a situation to have a kid, well, I think that's half of what would make it so interesting. It doesn't mean they have to get back together, or that Emma would have to leave the team. They can raise a kid, as friends; and if they're both as committed to this new team as they seem, I can't see having a kid changing that. If anything, it may just strengthen their resolve and add another layer of depth to the stories. I think it could be really refreshing.

#30 Posted by Veitha (2886 posts) - - Show Bio

If it was Ruby Summers and if she grew up in a couple issues, then yes. Otherwise I don't Emma to become a sweet mother.

#31 Posted by BlueLantern1995 (2448 posts) - - Show Bio

maybe.

#32 Edited by oldnightcrawler (4246 posts) - - Show Bio

@veitha said:

If it was Ruby Summers and if she grew up in a couple issues, then yes. Otherwise I don't Emma to become a sweet mother.

see, to me that just seems like the sort of re-hashed fast track to introducing a character that would essentially maintain the status quo, rendering the whole idea pointless.

I'd love it to be Ruby Summers, mind you, but why not watch her actually grow up with a team of mutant outlaws? Why not have Cyclops and Emma have some legitimate real-people concerns to help develop their characters? Why not bring in the issue of raising a kid in this context?

And why why WHY does everyone assume that Emma having a kid will stop her from being a super bad-ass bitch? has no one on this site ever met a real person?

#33 Posted by PhoenixoftheTides (3449 posts) - - Show Bio

@gadai said:

They're not ready for a kid yet, not with where Scott's head is.

@gambler said:

I'd actually love if Scott and Emma had a child, but I dont want them to raise it. Maybe Mr. Sinister kidnaps it or something. The minute Marvel turns Emma into Susie Homemaker is the minute she turns into Jean Grey.

To be fair, Emma's always had a proclivity for teaching and for kids (and this is touched upon in ReGenesis). Doesn't mean she'd settle down by any means, I could see her going even more hardcore in an effort to ensure that child's safety. There are plenty of key personality traits that make Emma differ from Jean, as you well know.

I agree. Emma is no Susie Homemaker. That's what makes her interesting - she's her own woman and doesn't fit the standard bad or good girl archetypes. She may have been called the White Queen but she's always been morally grey.

#34 Posted by TheGreyOutcastX (2051 posts) - - Show Bio

@thegreyoutcastx said:
@papad1992 said:

That's just like saying a girl still has feelings for their ex. The question the OP said was that if they should have a kid... I think that they should of had one years ago either before Messiah Complex or during their stay on Utopia. Now it's just too awkward of a situation to even think about. Plus Emma has a powerful ego (or she had one, her characterization has been off lately), she would be the one in a relationship to move on while the other still is in disbelief.

That means the door is always open for the two on them to get back together. I am surprised their relationship didn't end more disastrous given how Bendis stated they were done (with a vengeance). But I never said I think they should have children. Scott has no time to play Baby daddy especially given his other kids with Jean that he really doesn't do the father thing with.

Cyclops never had any kids with Jean; she went to the future with him to raise Cable, but Cable is Cyclops and Madelyne's son, and he's the only child that Cyclops has ever had.

As for him and Emma being in too awkward of a situation to have a kid, well, I think that's half of what would make it so interesting. It doesn't mean they have to get back together, or that Emma would have to leave the team. They can raise a kid, as friends; and if they're both as committed to this new team as they seem, I can't see having a kid changing that. If anything, it may just strengthen their resolve and add another layer of depth to the stories. I think it could be really refreshing.

Cyclops has three children: Nathan Christopher Summers (Cable), Rachel Summers (Marvel Girl), and Nathaniel Grey (X-Man). While yes, he technically only has one biological child in the 616, Rachel and Nathaniel have assimilated to the 616, and are looked at as Scott's children regardless. It's no different that what Jean did with Cable and adopted him into their 616 family. Both Rachel and Nate are his children with Jean (each from another universe, but still his children in his eyes.)

As for Emma, I can see both arguments, but I can tell that the likelihood of anything like this happening is slim to none or it's just gonna repeat what happened to Cable, just to age the child. Sadly, only Franklin Richards can have his cake and eat it too.

#35 Posted by Arkhamc1tizen (2113 posts) - - Show Bio

yes

#36 Posted by oldnightcrawler (4246 posts) - - Show Bio

@oldnightcrawler said:

Cyclops never had any kids with Jean; she went to the future with him to raise Cable, but Cable is Cyclops and Madelyne's son, and he's the only child that Cyclops has ever had.

As for him and Emma being in too awkward of a situation to have a kid, well, I think that's half of what would make it so interesting. It doesn't mean they have to get back together, or that Emma would have to leave the team. They can raise a kid, as friends; and if they're both as committed to this new team as they seem, I can't see having a kid changing that. If anything, it may just strengthen their resolve and add another layer of depth to the stories. I think it could be really refreshing.

Cyclops has three children: Nathan Christopher Summers (Cable), Rachel Summers (Marvel Girl), and Nathaniel Grey (X-Man). While yes, he technically only has one biological child in the 616, Rachel and Nathaniel have assimilated to the 616, and are looked at as Scott's children regardless. It's no different that what Jean did with Cable and adopted him into their 616 family. Both Rachel and Nate are his children with Jean (each from another universe, but still his children in his eyes.)

As for Emma, I can see both arguments, but I can tell that the likelihood of anything like this happening is slim to none or it's just gonna repeat what happened to Cable, just to age the child. Sadly, only Franklin Richards can have his cake and eat it too.

So, Cyclops never had any kids with Jean.

Anyway, if Cyclops and Emma do have a kid, I hope they break the mold; I don't want to see another Cable/Hope/Magik , rapidly aged kid or another Franklin Richards, basically never ages kid. I wanna see them actually raise a kid; for the MU, that could be revolutionary.

#37 Posted by TheGreyOutcastX (2051 posts) - - Show Bio

Anyway, if Cyclops and Emma do have a kid, I hope they break the mold; I don't want to see another Cable/Hope/Magik , rapidly aged kid or another Franklin Richards, basically never ages kid. I wanna see them actually raise a kid; for the MU, that could be revolutionary.

Won't happen. It breaks the timeless feature that the characters are supposed to have. Having a kid age normally would force the aging of Scott and Emma to explain how their child ages and that's a can of worms that can't be dealt with. Why do you think Franklin has stayed around the same age? Cause they couldn't age him without aging the rest of the Fantastic Four. So that's why he always get de-aged. Franklin is Marvel's first son so unless they do it to him first, it wouldn't happen to any other character. Minimal aging is one thing, but natural aging is a continuity buster.

#38 Edited by oldnightcrawler (4246 posts) - - Show Bio

Won't happen. It breaks the timeless feature that the characters are supposed to have. Having a kid age normally would force the aging of Scott and Emma to explain how their child ages and that's a can of worms that can't be dealt with. Why do you think Franklin has stayed around the same age? Cause they couldn't age him without aging the rest of the Fantastic Four. So that's why he always get de-aged. Franklin is Marvel's first son so unless they do it to him first, it wouldn't happen to any other character. Minimal aging is one thing, but natural aging is a continuity buster.

yeah, unfortunately, you're probably right.

But, other than Franklin and a few others, most characters in the MU do age, just at a reduced rate. So it would take little Ruby 55 years of our time to reach adulthood; by then, surely many of the current characters would be played out (many of them having been active for up to 30 years, their time). I know some characters are essentially immortal, like Wolverine or Iceman, but some things can't change. When Magneto was in a concentration camp, what, 60 years ago now? 115 by the time little Ruby should be an adult? maybe it's time to start moving forward..

#39 Edited by TheGreyOutcastX (2051 posts) - - Show Bio

@thegreyoutcastx said:

Won't happen. It breaks the timeless feature that the characters are supposed to have. Having a kid age normally would force the aging of Scott and Emma to explain how their child ages and that's a can of worms that can't be dealt with. Why do you think Franklin has stayed around the same age? Cause they couldn't age him without aging the rest of the Fantastic Four. So that's why he always get de-aged. Franklin is Marvel's first son so unless they do it to him first, it wouldn't happen to any other character. Minimal aging is one thing, but natural aging is a continuity buster.

yeah, unfortunately, you're probably right.

But, other than Franklin and a few others, most characters in the MU do age, just at a reduced rate. So it would take little Ruby 55 years of our time to reach adulthood; by then, surely many of the current characters would be played out (many of them having been active for up to 30 years, their time). I know some characters are essentially immortal, like Wolverine or Iceman, but some things can't change. When Magneto was in a concentration camp, what, 60 years ago now? 115 by the time little Ruby should be an adult? maybe it's time to start moving forward..

Agreed, but like I said, Minimal aging is one thing, natural aging is a continuity buster. Minimal aging can be managed. Magneto has been de-aged several times now. There are questions as to how old he is giving the de-aging he got throughout his live. I do agree that we should age some characters a tad more, but it has to be manageable so to keep the quality of the title and the characters. Solid debate, friend. : )

#41 Edited by oldnightcrawler (4246 posts) - - Show Bio

@oldnightcrawler said:

But, other than Franklin and a few others, most characters in the MU do age, just at a reduced rate. So it would take little Ruby 55 years of our time to reach adulthood; by then, surely many of the current characters would be played out (many of them having been active for up to 30 years, their time). I know some characters are essentially immortal, like Wolverine or Iceman, but some things can't change. When Magneto was in a concentration camp, what, 60 years ago now? 115 by the time little Ruby should be an adult? maybe it's time to start moving forward..

Agreed, but like I said, Minimal aging is one thing, natural aging is a continuity buster. Minimal aging can be managed. Magneto has been de-aged several times now. There are questions as to how old he is giving the de-aging he got throughout his live. I do agree that we should age some characters a tad more, but it has to be manageable so to keep the quality of the title and the characters. Solid debate, friend. : )

Think of it this way, the New Mutants became X-force more than twenty years ago, and they've all been on the X-men now, so why aren't more of them X-men now? Only Magik is, and let's not even get started on how she's aged. 50 years from now, should the original X-men even still be active? if they started now, they could have 3 or 4 generations grow up with Ruby as a character before she's old enough to be an X-man herself. And, by then, her joining the team would be epic.

#42 Posted by TheGreyOutcastX (2051 posts) - - Show Bio

@thegreyoutcastx said:
@oldnightcrawler said:

But, other than Franklin and a few others, most characters in the MU do age, just at a reduced rate. So it would take little Ruby 55 years of our time to reach adulthood; by then, surely many of the current characters would be played out (many of them having been active for up to 30 years, their time). I know some characters are essentially immortal, like Wolverine or Iceman, but some things can't change. When Magneto was in a concentration camp, what, 60 years ago now? 115 by the time little Ruby should be an adult? maybe it's time to start moving forward..

Agreed, but like I said, Minimal aging is one thing, natural aging is a continuity buster. Minimal aging can be managed. Magneto has been de-aged several times now. There are questions as to how old he is giving the de-aging he got throughout his live. I do agree that we should age some characters a tad more, but it has to be manageable so to keep the quality of the title and the characters. Solid debate, friend. : )

Think of it this way, the New Mutants became X-force more than twenty years ago, and they've all been on the X-men now, so why aren't more of them X-men now? Only Magik is, and let's not even get started on how she's aged. 50 years from now, should the original X-men even still be active? if they started now, they could have 3 or 4 generations grow up with Ruby as a character before she's old enough to be an X-man herself. And, by then, her joining the team would be epic.

Cause they are also a ton of older characters that have more fan appeal than someone who is younger. While I agree that more younger mutants should be in the X-Men, they still lack the popularity that the older generation has. It's why there is no Young X-Men title out now cause they think it won't sell. So it comes down to popularity and demand over what a natural character progression should be. Frankly, Cyclops and the Original/Giant Size X-Men teams should have gone the X-Factor route like in the late 80s to allow other characters to develop. Still fight for the dream, but do it without Xavier's guiding hand.

#43 Posted by oldnightcrawler (4246 posts) - - Show Bio

@oldnightcrawler said:

Think of it this way, the New Mutants became X-force more than twenty years ago, and they've all been on the X-men now, so why aren't more of them X-men now? Only Magik is, and let's not even get started on how she's aged. 50 years from now, should the original X-men even still be active? if they started now, they could have 3 or 4 generations grow up with Ruby as a character before she's old enough to be an X-man herself. And, by then, her joining the team would be epic.

Cause they are also a ton of older characters that have more fan appeal than someone who is younger. While I agree that more younger mutants should be in the X-Men, they still lack the popularity that the older generation has. It's why there is no Young X-Men title out now cause they think it won't sell. So it comes down to popularity and demand over what a natural character progression should be. Frankly, Cyclops and the Original/Giant Size X-Men teams should have gone the X-Factor route like in the late 80s to allow other characters to develop. Still fight for the dream, but do it without Xavier's guiding hand.

because the longer a character can stay around, the more recognized and popular they become. People are always going to recognize older characters more. But even now, while the first and second class of X-men are the most recognized, people still recognize Gambit and Jubilee more than the New Mutants, who were around first; why?

I do think they want to move things forward: other than Cyclops, Storm, and Wolverine, most of the first two generations are either dead (Xavier, Jean, Nightcrawler,Banshee,Moira), semiretired (Beast, Iceman, Angel, Kitty), or have moved on from the X-men (Havoc, Colossus, Rogue, etc..); I really don't think they've maintained as much of the "classic" X-men as much as people act like they have, they just haven't done a very good job of replacing them..

#44 Posted by TheGreyOutcastX (2051 posts) - - Show Bio

@thegreyoutcastx said:
@oldnightcrawler said:

Think of it this way, the New Mutants became X-force more than twenty years ago, and they've all been on the X-men now, so why aren't more of them X-men now? Only Magik is, and let's not even get started on how she's aged. 50 years from now, should the original X-men even still be active? if they started now, they could have 3 or 4 generations grow up with Ruby as a character before she's old enough to be an X-man herself. And, by then, her joining the team would be epic.

Cause they are also a ton of older characters that have more fan appeal than someone who is younger. While I agree that more younger mutants should be in the X-Men, they still lack the popularity that the older generation has. It's why there is no Young X-Men title out now cause they think it won't sell. So it comes down to popularity and demand over what a natural character progression should be. Frankly, Cyclops and the Original/Giant Size X-Men teams should have gone the X-Factor route like in the late 80s to allow other characters to develop. Still fight for the dream, but do it without Xavier's guiding hand.

because the longer a character can stay around, the more recognized and popular they become. People are always going to recognize older characters more. But even now, while the first and second class of X-men are the most recognized, people still recognize Gambit and Jubilee more than the New Mutants, who were around first; why?

I do think they want to move things forward: other than Cyclops, Storm, and Wolverine, most of the first two generations are either dead (Xavier, Jean, Nightcrawler,Banshee,Moira), semiretired (Beast, Iceman, Angel, Kitty), or have moved on from the X-men (Havoc, Colossus, Rogue, etc..); I really don't think they've maintained as much of the "classic" X-men as much as people act like they have, they just haven't done a very good job of replacing them..

The answer to the first question is the X-Men TAS. That is the reason they are far more known than others.

And I agree with the last part.

#45 Edited by oldnightcrawler (4246 posts) - - Show Bio

@oldnightcrawler said:

because the longer a character can stay around, the more recognized and popular they become. People are always going to recognize older characters more. But even now, while the first and second class of X-men are the most recognized, people still recognize Gambit and Jubilee more than the New Mutants, who were around first; why?

I do think they want to move things forward: other than Cyclops, Storm, and Wolverine, most of the first two generations are either dead (Xavier, Jean, Nightcrawler,Banshee,Moira), semiretired (Beast, Iceman, Angel, Kitty), or have moved on from the X-men (Havoc, Colossus, Rogue, etc..); I really don't think they've maintained as much of the "classic" X-men as much as people act like they have, they just haven't done a very good job of replacing them..

The answer to the first question is the X-Men TAS. That is the reason they are far more known than others.

And I agree with the last part.

right, TAS is a perfect example! the X-men were getting a second chance at a cartoon series, so, despite including more classic characters and stories, they still made a point to include two of their newest characters in the main cast. It's not that Gambit and Jubilee were their most popular characters, it's that they made a point to favor them over proven fan favorites, meaning that they were the X-men to a whole new generation who'd never heard of the New Mutants. The new Mutants (/Generation X/ the New X-men/ etc..) were never given that chance. Even if they did join the team, they were just junior members, relegated to the background before eventually just disappearing; they rarely got lead roles alongside the classic characters.

Thing is, people always resent new characters at first, distracting from the stories of the main characters, watering down the team, and then they miss them when they prove to be unpopular and slip off into the background. But if they are established as X-men first (like Gambit, Jubilee, Kitty, the first two classes), people will think of them as main characters and want to bring them back.

or, that's something I've noticed. Either way, the X-men has always carried itself into the next generation off the backs of previously new and even unpopular characters (even Wolverine was unpopular at first), so Cyclops and Emma having a kid would create a character that would not only grow up with a few generations of new fans, but would also justify keeping a couple of old classics in rotation to raise her (and thus, developing them). It would be kinda win/win for Marvel.

#46 Posted by TheGreyOutcastX (2051 posts) - - Show Bio

@thegreyoutcastx said:
@oldnightcrawler said:

because the longer a character can stay around, the more recognized and popular they become. People are always going to recognize older characters more. But even now, while the first and second class of X-men are the most recognized, people still recognize Gambit and Jubilee more than the New Mutants, who were around first; why?

I do think they want to move things forward: other than Cyclops, Storm, and Wolverine, most of the first two generations are either dead (Xavier, Jean, Nightcrawler,Banshee,Moira), semiretired (Beast, Iceman, Angel, Kitty), or have moved on from the X-men (Havoc, Colossus, Rogue, etc..); I really don't think they've maintained as much of the "classic" X-men as much as people act like they have, they just haven't done a very good job of replacing them..

The answer to the first question is the X-Men TAS. That is the reason they are far more known than others.

And I agree with the last part.

right, TAS is a perfect example! the X-men were getting a second chance at a cartoon series, so, despite including more classic characters and stories, they still made a point to include two of their newest characters in the main cast. It's not that Gambit and Jubilee were their most popular characters, it's that they made a point to favor them over proven fan favorites, meaning that they were the X-men to a whole new generation who'd never heard of the New Mutants. The new Mutants (/Generation X/ the New X-men/ etc..) were never given that chance. Even if they did join the team, they were just junior members, relegated to the background before eventually just disappearing; they rarely got lead roles alongside the classic characters.

Thing is, people always resent new characters at first, distracting from the stories of the main characters, watering down the team, and then they miss them when they prove to be unpopular and slip off into the background. But if they are established as X-men first (like Gambit, Jubilee, Kitty, the first two classes), people will think of them as main characters and want to bring them back.

or, that's something I've noticed. Either way, the X-men has always carried itself into the next generation off the backs of previously new and even unpopular characters (even Wolverine was unpopular at first), so Cyclops and Emma having a kid would create a character that would not only grow up with a few generations of new fans, but would also justify keeping a couple of old classics in rotation to raise her (and thus, developing them). It would be kinda win/win for Marvel.

You are under the assumption that Marvel knows what to do with all its characters. That's why House of M was allowed. To remove a ton of characters off the board to consolidate the X-Franchise. It's sad, but understandable given that you could literally have the X-Men in their own little world and it could self-sustain itself. Back to the point at hand, Emma and Scott just aren't likely to have a child, even if it would make for an interesting story line.

#47 Edited by oldnightcrawler (4246 posts) - - Show Bio

You are under the assumption that Marvel knows what to do with all its characters. That's why House of M was allowed. To remove a ton of characters off the board to consolidate the X-Franchise. It's sad, but understandable given that you could literally have the X-Men in their own little world and it could self-sustain itself. Back to the point at hand, Emma and Scott just aren't likely to have a child, even if it would make for an interesting story line.

yeah, you're probably right.

but, given that the title of this thread was

Should Emma and Scott have a child and raise the child in Uncanny X-Men?

my answer is still, "yes, because that would make for a cool story".

#48 Posted by evilvegeta74 (4521 posts) - - Show Bio

Emma should go back to being the villain she was, along with Magneto, it's time to clear the air.

#49 Posted by oldnightcrawler (4246 posts) - - Show Bio

Emma should go back to being the villain she was, along with Magneto, it's time to clear the air.

yes, let's do take two of the most interesting and well rounded characters and turn them back into the shallow, two dimensional characters they were thirty years ago! that'll make anything better!

#50 Posted by lorex (945 posts) - - Show Bio

I just think about all the time they were together and all the chances the various writers had to introduce this very story line and did not. I know its because the characters don't age much and you cannot have a character remain a baby forever, look at how long Franklin Richards has been a kid. I still think this would have be a great idea and would be a whole lot better than powers not working properly as a plot point.

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.