@ec2277:

Well, I'll be around ;)

well, that Cyclops' team were actually fighting against law enforcement agencies to rescue mutants persecuted by the law, while publicly decrying legal policy as being anti-mutant, and that they interpreted that as an act of war, is itself a revolutionary act.

They aren't just working outside the system, they're working against the system; their actions have been by definition revolutionary, since day one. I'm not sure what people think revolutionaries do, but that's exactly what Cyclops team have been doing.

Yeah, they've spent some time running from the law, but it seems like that's what revolutionaries (especially ones who are already wanted criminals) would do.. and training and dealing with other threats, but that's what X-men do.. so I'm just not understanding what part of the plot is undefined..

I more meant I don't understand what makes a plot valid or not, in a general sense..

But the mission and statement seem like they were pretty well laid out in the first few arcs, to me. Cyclops is rescuing mutants persecuted by the law, offering them asylum and training them, and telling the media and governments of the world that mutant persecution under the law will not be tolerated.

That he hasn't yet stormed the capital with his untrained child army (or whatever people are expecting him to do) hardly makes what they have been doing any less revolutionary, even if his specific political goals remain explicitly vague even to his own team (which has been specifically questioned within the story, thus, to my mind, seeding the plot).

What makes it prominent to the franchise as a whole is two-fold:

1. Because Cyclops is working specifically against the law (as apposed to simply outside of it, as other teams have), it is actually a new direction for the X-men, and one that has given reason to question what the actual purpose of the X-men should be.
2. Because of this, even the X-men who aren't part of Cyclops' revolution can be seen in a new light: are they right to maintain the moderate status quo to avoid the conflict that challenging the governments would cause, or are they wrong for not supporting Cyclops' position while innocent mutants were being legally persecuted? Right or wrong, at this point, Cyclops' team defines what the other X-men are and do. He's made himself the public and polarizing face of the X-men; whatever the rest of them do, it will be in his shadow.

What Cyclops' team has done is politically a more moderate/justifiable version of what the Brotherhood or other terrorist organization have done. And if he had called his team the Brotherhood or X-force or whatever else, his team could simply be seen as an extremist fringe group; but that he's publicly called himself and his team the X-men, cashing in on all the good he's done with the X-men, means that the other X-men are defined as much by not doing what he's doing as by doing what they've always done.

It's also the most consistently written X-men book of the last 5 or 6 years, so in that way it actually has been the (X-men) series with the most defined direction. At least, that's how it seems to me.

@oldnightcrawler:

well, that Cyclops' team were actually fighting against law enforcement agencies to rescue mutants persecuted by the law, while publicly decrying legal policy as being anti-mutant, and that they interpreted that as an act of war, is itself a revolutionary act.

Some even call it "terroristic", still semantics don't change the factual action, which in itself is nothing deviant from what regular X-men DID (they are too politcorrect these days) in the past. Just because Cyclops finally has the guts to declare the fact of oppression in the US of A, a very mutant unfriendly regime from what we're consistently shown, didn't make him a revolutionary, extremist for some, again, but not a revolutionary, the term means change, what did he change exactly?

But the mission and statement seem like they were pretty well laid out in the first few arcs, to me. Cyclops is rescuing mutants persecuted by the law, offering them asylum and training them, and telling the media and governments of the world that mutant persecution under the law will not be tolerated.

Except the vulgarism, you just mentioned the very reason why X-men exist. Until now I guess.

That he hasn't yet stormed the capital with his untrained child army (or whatever people are expecting him to do) hardly makes what they have been doing any less revolutionary, even if his specific political goals remain explicitly vague even to his own team (which has been specifically questioned within the story, thus, to my mind, seeding the plot).

Now we're reaching for my favorites! His untrained child army is exactly one of the main stupors within Uncanny's amorphia. How in the world within a so-called declaration of war would Cyclops really consider of having horrified children for his own matters? And if he does acknowledge their unavailability, not as just soldiers at training, it turns out he deliberately postpones the very war he has sworn to wage recently? If he doesn't, how responsible would it make him to endanger these kids with his own war-declaring presence? Let's not pretend, in universe there would be a lot of pre currently repowered mutants who would potentially join him, especially with Magneto there, and I'm not even talking about just X-men (Acolytes, Brotherhood, etc). So, if the revolution isn't as essential as it might seem to be, what is?

Bendis interacts with fans constantly, he knows well what we're criticizing hence Beast's quote "Yeah, tell me when this revolution begins". So the plot also says the revolution hasn't even started maybe? What shall I choose? :p

Storming the capital would be silly, but what about something as simple as knowing your enemy? Let's just ask the billion dollar question that's also defines many real world conflicts - who profits from (mutant) marginalization? Because showing only bigots with their rabid blind hate is really tiresome in 2015 (almost!), plus they aren't the majority of population, it's so boring to have regular folks being portrayed this way constantly.

What makes it prominent to the franchise as a whole is two-fold:

1. Because Cyclops is working specifically against the law (as apposed to simply outside of it, as other teams have), it is actually a new direction for the X-men, and one that has given reason to question what the actual purpose of the X-men should be.

2. Because of this, even the X-men who aren't part of Cyclops' revolution can be seen in a new light: are they right to maintain the moderate status quo to avoid the conflict that challenging the governments would cause, or are they wrong for not supporting Cyclops' position while innocent mutants were being legally persecuted? Right or wrong, at this point, Cyclops' team defines what the other X-men are and do. He's made himself the public and polarizing face of the X-men; whatever the rest of them do, it will be in his shadow.

1. Weren't X-men considered terrorists in 90s?

2. There's another more prominent question, why should other X-men revolve around Cyclops and what he does? There's a flawed logic behind that, and it basically enslaved the franchise with this repetitive circle of Schism and Cyclops was right. Yes, he was right, ok. Let's move on dam (and that's coming from sb whose favoritism of post-Decimation Summers is unmatched)! Why weren't we shown anything about the regular X-men besides their angst of Cyclops? Do we even know what X-men of Hogwarts are even about? What they represent? What alternative to Cyclops they have? What happened to this franchise if folks' main argument for almost two years still revolves around the end of AvX and the question "was Cyclops right or not".

EDIT:

What Cyclops' team has done is politically a more moderate/justifiable version of what the Brotherhood or other terrorist organization have done. And if he had called his team the Brotherhood or X-force or whatever else, his team could simply be seen as an extremist fringe group; but that he's publicly called himself and his team the X-men, cashing in on all the good he's done with the X-men, means that the other X-men are defined as much by not doing what he's doing as by doing what they've always done.

It's also the most consistently written X-men book of the last 5 or 6 years, so in that way it actually has been the (X-men) series with the most defined direction. At least, that's how it seems to me.

I wouldn't argue about consistency, that's something this book doesn't lack. The argument though is still about the same questions I've asked before.

Never before were the X-men fighting against law enforcement on t.v. to make their point, and never before has that been their point.

The closest example would be when the X-men originally went up against the Genoshan government, but even then they had a legal president to challenge the government because it had kidnapped mutants illegally outside of it's own borders; they left it to Genosha's own mutant slave-class to revolt for themselves.

If Cyclops had stayed in jail and the JGS X-men were the only X-men, all of Cyclops' new recruits would most likely also be in jail, despite being innocent of any actual crime. This must have been an acceptable compromise for Xavier and even Wolverine and Storm, because to present the X-men as heroes they traditionally worked in a more clandestine way that only showed how they were heroes and never really put them in direct conflict with law enforcement agencies, all of which is the opposite of what Cyclops has been doing.

Yes, the X-men have always rescued, sheltered, and trained mutants, but they weren't breaking them out of jail or fighting with the police on t.v.. They just weren't, and for the public perception of both mutants and the X-men that distinction is thematically pretty major.

Again, I don't know what you think revolutionaries actually do, but as far as I've seen that's what Cyclops has been doing, and it is actually an active position that the X-men have never officially engaged in before, therefore it is -at the very least- a change in what it means to be an X-man.

The plot doesn't say that, Beast says that.

And, yeah, Bendis does use Beast and Iceman as in-universe mouthpieces for the fans who don't seem to understand what constitutes a revolutionary act (ahem..), but Beast and Iceman are also among the first to recognize Cyclops' actions as deviant from the X-men's traditional mission (All-New X-Men #1), otherwise, why would they (and the other X-men) have a problem with it?

Maybe you're right that Cyclops could have amassed a more formidable army by now, but let's consider how well that worked for him last time.. I mean, if he couldn't even keep the X-men under his leadership on Utopia, how's he going to fare with members of the Brotherhood or the MLF? And this is Cyclops, he's challenged whole worlds with smaller groups than he has now. What he wants is a team he can control, and even among his small controlled group, he's already had decent from at least 3 members -why throw more random terrorists into that mix? Maybe this is just my perspective, but from here all of his decisions with how his team has been formed has had a method to it.

Really? because, to me, showing law enforcement agencies as bigots who abuse their power is as timely now as it ever was; it's not that all cops are bigots, it's that every cop has the practical authority to be a bigot. That they don't speak for the majority changes nothing for the victims of their bigotry. The tools of any oppression are law enforcement and public perception (media), both of which Cyclops is attacking (again, in ways the X-men never have before).

I do think it would be cool to see more of who benefits from this oppression, but I personally don't really feel the message is any weaker that we haven't.

1. were they? I don't remember that. Maybe they were called terrorists by someone, but what did they actually do that could be considered an act of terrorism? Or are you referring to the semantics of Operation: Zero Tolerance?

2. Because, in-universe, Cyclops is and virtually always has been the public face of the X-men.

1. That none of the other X-men books have been especially good is hardly a criticism of Uncanny'
2. From what we've been shown, they're doing what the X-men have always done, just not written as well. It's Cyclops who's leading an alternative to that.
3. It's only the main argument, in my mind, because the other books have had so little to offer by comparison. I'm not trying to argue that that is a good thing for the franchise, but it's not specifically the fault of Uncanny', which, as a book primarily about Cyclops' alternative, should leave that question open.

And, while one can still question "was Cyclops right?", to me, what he is or isn't right about has changed in that time. Was he right? during Schism isn't really the same question as was he right? during AvsX, and is he right? right now is a different question still; it's simply become the function of his character. While the other X-men have basically returned to a status quo, Cyclops' position continues to evolve and challenge that.

It would be better if the rest of the classic X-men had something more significant to their story than look how many background characters we've sort of kept safe while you were running from SHIELD making us look like criminals, but, again, that's not really the fault of Uncanny'.

@oldnightcrawler:

And, yeah, Bendis does use Beast and Iceman as in-universe mouthpieces for the fans who don't seem to understand what constitutes a revolutionary act (ahem..), but Beast and Iceman are also among the first to recognize Cyclops' actions as deviant from the X-men's traditional mission (All-New X-Men #1), otherwise, why would they (and the other X-men) have a problem with it?

Because maybe they're the ones who lost their way? Generally speaking, they are all part of the same problematic plot and like you said Bandis uses them for the angst for the sake of such. Where are the alternatives that regular X-men represent?

Maybe you're right that Cyclops could have amassed a more formidable army by now, but let's consider how well that worked for him last time.. I mean, if he couldn't even keep the X-men under his leadership on Utopia, how's he going to fare with members of the Brotherhood or the MLF? And this is Cyclops, he's challenged whole worlds with smaller groups than he has now. What he wants is a team he can control, and even among his small controlled group, he's already had decent from at least 3 members -why throw more random terrorists into that mix? Maybe this is just my perspective, but from here all of his decisions with how his team has been formed has had a method to it.

Are we really calling out his leadership skills? Schism idiotic character behavior (including Wolverine's followers) and plot holes aside, after all Cyclops' successes there should be a lot of reasonable people who'd gladly follow him. Of course AVX damaged his image, but there was nothing to suggest he lost any of his admirable leading gift to call him even slightly unfit.

Utopia was a near independent community with various groups of mutants, all under his supervision pretty much, and it actually worked acknowledging it was under a constant martial law.

My main problem is, he knows he's walking a dangerous path, there's no dispute about that, like you said, he does challenge the world, so how could he be so criminally arrogant to have children near him, and how effective can he really be with said children at his side, for all his big, challenging speeches? Something just isn't right, something is too dissonant about the whole concept.

Really? because, to me, showing law enforcement agencies as bigots who abuse their power is as timely now as it ever was; it's not that all cops are bigots, it's that every cop has the practical authority to be a bigot. That they don't speak for the majority changes nothing for the victims of their bigotry. The tools of any oppression are law enforcement and public perception (media), both of which Cyclops is attacking (again, in ways the X-men never have before).

I do think it would be cool to see more of who benefits from this oppression, but I personally don't really feel the message is any weaker that we haven't.

Yeah, maybe in some militaristic or totalitarian states that would be fine, but USA? They house Asgardia, a Celestial, NY is pretty much the world capital of super powers, and the most adequate reaction still should be an unreasonable power abuse?

Also, as a democratic state, USA law agencies and its law enforcers are the subject to the same very law they... hm... protect. Power abuse has a very significant supervision these days, of course I'm not talking about the elites, they will always be untouchable, no matter how progressive the regime is, but regular cops? Not really. Then again, IF they were given such an authority over mutant situations, THEN the questions I asked before are more relevant than ever. If not, they're just criminals in uniform, who is, you know, supposed to be persecuted by the law.

The majority changed the aspect of the whole struggle, since it's him challenging the whole world or just the ones who stand behind said aspects.

So, it's just you agreeing with that portrayal of their world, well, me, not so much.

1. were they? I don't remember that. Maybe they were called terrorists by someone, but what did they actually do that could be considered an act of terrorism? Or are you referring to the semantics of Operation: Zero Tolerance?

2. Because, in-universe, Cyclops is and virtually always has been the public face of the X-men.

1. That none of the other X-men books have been especially good is hardly a criticism of Uncanny'
2. From what we've been shown, they're doing what the X-men have always done, just not written as well. It's Cyclops who's leading an alternative to that.
3. It's only the main argument, in my mind, because the other books have had so little to offer by comparison. I'm not trying to argue that that is a good thing for the franchise, but it's not specifically the fault of Uncanny', which, as a book primarily about Cyclops' alternative, should leave that question open.

1. They were always considered the outlaws, I can't give a specific comic, but I do recall some law enforcement unit even called them terrorists. There was something about saving kids. Also, let's not forget the whole deal with Osbourne, just because he's a supervillain didn't change the fact he acted from a very administrative position against pretty much all mutants. X-men reacted, and that act ended with a very similar speech btw.

2. Yes, but he's not the X-men.

• Actually it does, I'm pretty sure if K/Y would be given the authority to do whatever they wanted to, we'd already see significant changes, but they are not, and nobody else is currently. Bendis runs the show.
• Which is somehow also up to Bendis since no other writer even dares to touch that issue?
• That's not what it looks like for reasons I gave you right now.

And, while one can still question "was Cyclops right?", to me, what he is or isn't right about has changed in that time. Was he right? during Schism isn't really the same question as was he right? during AvsX, and is he right? right now is a different question still; it's simply become the function of his character. While the other X-men have basically returned to a status quo, Cyclops' position continues to evolve and challenge that.

It would be better if the rest of the classic X-men had something more significant to their story than look how many background characters we've sort of kept safe while you were running from SHIELD making us look like criminals, but, again, that's not really the fault of Uncanny'.

I couldn't argue with how good Cyclops is post-M-day, I constantly repeat myself about that, one of my favorite character developments in all fiction, but he shouldn't be holding the whole franchise on his gravitas. Let's DARE with some other characters because we know now it can be successful.

@sophia89

I like both X-Men and Avengers.
But Avengers is Hall Of Flame.
Wait... o_O

Who ?

you must be joking, right?

Bendis doesn't write the JGS books. If they don't have good stories in them, I don't see how that can be his fault.

@oldnightcrawler:

you must be joking, right?

Funnily enough, I actually bothered to explain myself with about two paragraphs.

Bendis doesn't write the JGS books. If they don't have good stories in them, I don't see how that can be his fault.

I guess that's why one of K/Y answers in an interview for Amazing was "we were asked to to retain the tone of the book".

@oldnightcrawler: I don't know where you find the will and the time to write all that you have written, but I agree with you.

@ec2277: thanks.

is that their excuse for not writing a good story?

Okay, I haven't read a full issue of Amazing' since they've been on it, but if you think that's a good excuse for writing a substandard story, I have to respectfully disagree. Firstly, Amazing' would have already have it's own fan base established by Aaron, and it would most likely be that tone that they were trying to maintain on the book; and secondly, even if Bendis did have something to do with that, I don't see what that has to do with what the actual story they write.

I can agree that it may be an unfortunate restriction to put on them, because I personally wasn't a big fan of Aaron's stuff, or the idea of putting such restrictions on writers, but saying that Uncanny's bad because Amazing' hasn't been good still doesn't make sense.

@oldnightcrawler: I have to agree; again. :-)

@oldnightcrawler:

Who is talking about excuses? You won't pretend like editorial mandates don't exist I hope. They wouldn't tell us of course, but with lines like the one I quoted, it's free for your interpretation to take out of it whatever you think it is. Well to me it felt like one, which once again leads us to Bendis and Uncanny.

Writing a good story and having authority over the course of the franchise are two different subjects, I have no idea what brought you to the former.

Avengers

...is what you said, then I said:

That none of the other X-men books have been especially good is hardly a criticism of Uncanny'

There have been lots of issues of X-men (and Amazing' and WatX-men) that don't mention Cyclops at all (they just haven't been very good). When Aaron was still writing, he seemed to be playing up the rivalry as much as Bendis, but since he left, the only time we've really seen any of the X-men expressing their "angst of Cyclops" has been in Bendis' books.

So if the only book you're reading is Uncanny' (or All-new'), you only see that side of what the other X-men do. I've dropped most of the JGS books (because they weren't very good), but I've kept up with X-Men, and y'know what? outside of the two issues of BotA, I don't think Cyclops has even been mentioned. At all. Which means virtually everything we've seen in that book has been "besides their angst of Cyclops".

I mean, if the question was "why weren't we shown anything about the regular X-men besides their angst of Cyclops in Uncanny'?, I could see your point more, but even there the answer would be because Uncanny is about Cyclops' exile from the other X-men, so of course that's the side we'd be shown.

AND even in Uncanny', it's not that all of the others treat him the same. Wolverine hated him the most at first, but now seems to have come to a kind of understanding where he forgives him but won't let him forget (sort of like Storm's been doing all along)(and which is kind of the status quo for Wolverine anyway); Iceman and Beast are still bitter and feeling betrayed, but most of the characters don't even get in his face about it or act like he owes them anything. Which, in it's own way is kind of telling.

Anyway, there have been lots of X-men comics in the last few years that didn't have Cyclops, just most of them weren't very good. I do think that has to do with the writers being under a lot of restraint (Wood's runs seem like good examples), but that Uncanny' has been good -even if it was under less creative scrutiny- doesn't make it the fault of Uncanny' that the other books had more mediocre issues.

Even if the story you're paid to write has to meet x many requirements under x many restrictions, you've still got like 20 pages and a huge cast of characters to use to make that story compelling. That other writers either failed to do that or chose to not bother isn't the fault of anyone else but them, and it certainly wasn't the fault of just one book set off away from the others.

I prefer the X-Men.

I will always say X-Men when having t choose between the two. That being said the Avengers are clearly the favorite child at Marvel right now.

An Avengers bashing thread on an X-men forum why am I not surprised by the predictability and the laziness of the X-fans bias. Its almost disappointing the Marvel fans have to be associated with the X-Fans.

@oldnightcrawler:

There have been lots of issues of X-men (and Amazing' and WatX-men) that don't mention Cyclops at all (they just haven't been very good). When Aaron was still writing, he seemed to be playing up the rivalry as much as Bendis, but since he left, the only time we've really seen any of the X-men expressing their "angst of Cyclops" has been in Bendis' books.

Yeah the only book that deal with politics you're saying? That's my point exactly.

So if the only book you're reading is Uncanny' (or All-new'), you only see that side of what the other X-men do. I've dropped most of the JGS books (because they weren't very good), but I've kept up with X-Men, and y'know what? outside of the two issues of BotA, I don't think Cyclops has even been mentioned. At all. Which means virtually everything we've seen in that book has been "besides their angst of Cyclops".

I don't buy them, but I keep up to know what is going on.

I think you misunderstood my point about Cyclops' and dominance.

I mean, if the question was "why weren't we shown anything about the regular X-men besides their angst of Cyclops in Uncanny'?, I could see your point more, but even there the answer would be because Uncanny is about Cyclops' exile from the other X-men, so of course that's the side we'd be shown.

No, if Uncanny exists as a revision of the X-concepts, or maybe even an addition to it, I was asking who exactly represents the classic X-beliefs? What's they problem with Cyclops and what actions are needed to be taken as opposed to his? To hell with opposed, just their own course of action. And their comics don't really deal with it anyway. Two years of new mutants popping up and no action... at all. Don't tell me you don't see a flaw right here, when the only political statements they represent are "oh this damn Cyclops, it's his fault!".

And yes, the only book that deals with it somehow is Uncanny. And you don't think that it's fully Bendis' authority to choose direction for the franchise. I understand correctly?

AND even in Uncanny', it's not that all of the others treat him the same. Wolverine hated him the most at first, but now seems to have come to a kind of understanding where he forgives him but won't let him forget (sort of like Storm's been doing all along)(and which is kind of the status quo for Wolverine anyway); Iceman and Beast are still bitter and feeling betrayed, but most of the characters don't even get in his face about it or act like he owes them anything. Which, in it's own way is kind of telling.

Wolverine is dead, and was almost non existent since the announcement of his death. Of course they are the only characters, they are the current A-listers, the main team. It's Uncanny seniors with JGC seniors, and we all know who they are. And the driving force behind their characters these days, is their hate for Cyclops. If you feel differently, I'd like to know what else are they about today.

Anyway, there have been lots of X-men comics in the last few years that didn't have Cyclops, just most of them weren't very good. I do think that has to do with the writers being under a lot of restraint (Wood's runs seem like good examples), but that Uncanny' has been good -even if it was under less creative scrutiny- doesn't make it the fault of Uncanny' that the other books had more mediocre issues.

Like I said, you misunderstood, I wasn't talking about appearances, only about importance, which is 100% non existent for JGC. And what I'm trying to say to you is that it is exactly the blame of Uncanny since that book dictates what even JGC books will be about, globally speaking. All hints tell us this exact message, and if you disagree feel free to educate me with details and hints of the opposite.

Even if the story you're paid to write has to meet x many requirements under x many restrictions, you've still got like 20 pages and a huge cast of characters to use to make that story compelling. That other writers either failed to do that or chose to not bother isn't the fault of anyone else but them, and it certainly wasn't the fault of just one book set off away from the others.

Again, it's not about quality, it's about importance with ability to move further.

I'll meet you half-way, Uncanny is important, franchise-wise, but is also mediocre at best creatively, then we have X-force or X-factor, those are absolutely not important (shame), but they don't lack quality. And I've never mentioned them, I'm talking about in-universe importance only, who have the right sanction to choose what X-verse will be looking like?

thats cause marvel owns the rights to the characters

I'm not sure I really understand what you're criticizing. But I'll try to address it anyway

1. Right now (not counting what's going on in Axis), that would be the X-men, Storm's team. They're running the school and being superheroes basically just like the X-men virtually always have. I don't see how that in itself is problematic. Do they need to go in a new direction just because Cyclops is?
2. They see what Cyclops is doing as making mutants, and specifically X-men, look like outlaws, terrorists. This makes the other X-men's goal of trying to be accepted by the rest of humanity harder in obvious ways. Should they be trying to stop him? well, he is still rescuing mutants in trouble, so there's that, but even if they thought he should be stopped, is the X-men fighting each other over what's the best way to be X-men really a story you want to read? I feel like there's been enough of that.
3. Yeah, their course of action has been a lot more passive, more about dealing with threats as they arise. But considering that their goal is still peaceful coexistence, it makes sense that they don't view all of humanity as a threat the way Cyclops now seems to. That doesn't mean they haven't been doing anything, they just haven't been doing much that's especially interesting. I still don't see how that's anyone's fault but the writers of those other books.
4. You keep bringing this back to being about Cyclops, but it doesn't all have to be about him and, like I already said, it hasn't. Just because most of the X-men's political stance hasn't changed doesn't mean they don't have one.

I don't know what you're asking. Are you asking what the X-men are about? because for most of them it seems like they're about the same thing they've always been about.

Storm leads the X-men and is in charge of the school, so as far as I can see, her team is the main team. If you only read Uncanny' it probably seems like Storm, Rachel, Beast, Iceman, and maybe Nightcrawler are the main team because they are the most senior members and the ones who have the most history with Cyclops. But X-Men, the other main book, is about Storm's team, and nobody ever talks about Cyclops. Beast is only a supporting character most of the time, Iceman isn't even on the main team as far as I can tell. Storm and Rachel are main characters, and neither of them ever complains about Cyclops, even in Uncanny'. It doesn't even seem like an issue for most of the X-men, and it's certainly not the "driving force" behind any of the characters, let alone all of them.

As far as I can tell, the only X-man motivated by hate at all is Magneto, and he's supposed to be the exception that proves the rule.

I have no idea what you mean by importance. Importance to who? to what?

Why does what happens in Uncanny' matter to what happens in X-men? it hasn't so far. There's like half a dozen characters who aren't in X-men because they're in Uncanny' -besides that, I can't see how Uncanny' effects the other books at all.

@oldnightcrawler:

Let's start over. With the end of AvX we witnessed the end Decimation era X-men, the time when X-men were not about what they always were in terms of politics, but more about survival as a species. It was then, and they survived. Some criticize the how and at what cost, but essentially there's no other way to look at this period.

Now, Phoenix revived the X-gene and mutants popped up again. Basically, it meant a new era for the X-men and mutants in general. Cyclops saw that regular X-men approach was not enough, and he adapted to the new world order the way he understands it. That's basically what Uncanny is about, that we understand. I say that this book fails at delivering that perspective, you disagree, and that's ok. Now, as for the other X-men, they got back to what X-men were always about, teaching new mutants the ways of peaceful coexistence and being superheroes, classically. But the only way they somehow show us their POV is by criticizing Cyclops and only by that, and there's nothing else we were shown about them adapting the new world. It's like nothing has changed, and that's where I come and say something feels off because this world where new mutants pop up daily and with that the classic mutant struggle isn't being dealt by them, like at all. What we were shown, and JGC was pretty much all amorphous about it, is that government lets its law enforcers deal with mutants by persecutions from all kinds and shapes, that SHIELD now has Sentinels because they're afraid mutants will go ballistic, and all JGC is doing revolves only around b!tching what Scott Summers has to offer, of course it's when they ARE actually shown their world perceptions.

Avengers/New Avengers, just two books that offered a lot more direction, and did for the whole Marvel Universe pretty much. Of course we won't argue the fact of how the title Avengers bears much more importance and authority these days, in universe and in office, and it maybe even the main reason why X-universe is so segregated from the rest of the world, but it still doesn't explain how X-titles themselves just deal with unimportant plots when they were supposed to maintain the new status quo, as well as new perception of what does it mean to be a mutant in a Marvel world in 2014. And just as with the Avengers titles which Hickman directs, in X-comics so does Bendis, if not - who else? So, while Hickman warped the whole definition of what Avengers were and where they're going, Bendis keeps up with those tiresome feuds again and again, oh, and o5. Wow.

Maybe I'm not getting into details too much, but you've been around, you know what X-books are being criticized for and I really don't understand how you don't feel even slightly the same.

yeah, okay.

well, classically, the X-men have done lots of stuff besides the political mutant stuff, so that the team is doing other things doesn't seem that weird to me. They're still running a school, and they've actually even recruited as many new mutants as Cyclops has, so it's not like they're not doing X-men stuff, they're just doing other stuff too.

I guess I see your point about how this seems a bit incongruous with the threats that Cyclops' team are dealing with, but why should their story have to be about the same stuff his is? I mean, the X-men can (and arguably should) be about more than just one thing.

I mean, from an in-universe perspective, the reason the X-men aren't doing what Cyclops is doing is that it's bad PR for both mutants and X-men, so it makes sense that they would stick to doing the more superhero-y and traditional school stuff. Yeah, things are still bad for a lot of mutants, but they aren't all on a reservation anymore; new mutants are popping up again, and the school and the whole world needs saving just as much as the kids that Cyclops has saved. While it's easy to see Cyclops' as the more political team, from another perspective, the rest of the X-men are still dealing with the big picture stuff that effects mutants and everyone else.

Besides that, even without doing what Cyclops is doing, they know that fight's being fought. I don't think anyone has a problem with Cyclops saving mutants from persecution, but it's that he's doing it publicly to make people fear mutants. In the old days, Xavier could have just used his connections or telepathy to spring these kids out of jail after they'd been arrested; saves the mutant, but without making it look like mutants will fight law enforcement. Cyclops could even skip the part where they get arrested because he's got a time traveling teleporter on his team, but he wants the world to see (and the new mutants themselves) how mutants are treated and why they should be feared. That's a fight the other X-men can't engage in without losing all they've fought for, but they know it's being fought, by one of their best, so why should they stop fighting for what they've always been fighting for?

From our perspective, some people want to see the X-men going in new directions, and we have that option with Uncanny' and stuff like X-factor or what have you, but other people just want to read about the X-men being a school of mutant superheroes like they did when they were a kid, and not have to care about edgy new directions or perpetual persecution; and if you're a fan of the former, you don't need an explanation of what the X-men are to their world because you already know. Personally, I enjoy both and I think there's room for both without them all having to be on the same page.

I'll argue that actually. I don't think Hickman's books are important at all. The only thing that makes one comic book more important than another is how much I enjoy it, and I don't read Hickman's Avengers books because they're boring. I read Mighty Avengers and Uncanny Avengers because they're fun, so those are the only Avengers comics that are important to me. Hickman's books may as well be set in another universe for all I care.

It depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, Uncanny' is giving us "a new perception of what it means to be a mutant in a marvel world in 2014" and X-men is maintaining the status quo; it's just maintaining the status quo from what the X-men were before the Decimation era, which, frankly, a lot of people would rather see. For fans of the 80's and 90's comics, the cartoons, etc, after Whedon left, the X-men kind of just stopped being fun.

This idea that some plots are important and others trivial just doesn't make sense to me, because the only thing that makes a comic important to me is if I enjoy it. This trumped up idea that some stories are more relevant than others is just marketing, it has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the content.

Hickman may have "warped the whole definition of what Avengers were" for those that kept reading his books, but for me he just didn't seem to get what Avengers were in the first place. Ewing and Remender get what Avengers are, and Hickman hasn't warped that at all. And, as I said of the X-men books, I think there's room for both. But the thing for me is, I shouldn't need to know what's going on in every X-men or Avengers book to enjoy any one of them, I should just be able to read the ones that actually appeal to me.

Besides Hickman being boring, after I dropped Avengers, New Avengers just got more confusing and pointless so I dropped it too. I got no time for comics that don't entertain me, I don't care how important or relevant they're supposed to be. To contrast, after I dropped All-new X-men, Uncanny' still remained one of my favorites and I didn't feel like I was missing anything.

I know what the X-books are being criticized for, yeah. Some criticisms I agree with, others I don't. That most of the X-men books have been not very good in the last several years, I agree with. I've dropped 4 or 5 just in the past year. There have been a lot of weak and not very interesting stories being cranked out. To me, Uncanny's been the most solid, X-men goes back and forth but I still enjoy it, and the rest just weren't worth my time. But the books I thought were not good I'll put on the creators that actually made them, rather than put all the blame on Uncanny' for something Bendis didn't do.

@oldnightcrawler:

well, classically, the X-men have done lots of stuff besides the political mutant stuff, so that the team is doing other things doesn't seem that weird to me. They're still running a school, and they've actually even recruited as many new mutants as Cyclops has, so it's not like they're not doing X-men stuff, they're just doing other stuff too.

Would you agree that before doing lots of stuff we need to assess how the X-men perceive this new world and what their actions would mean for it? What's for the new mutants? What for the old ones? What dangers they can expect? How to overcome them? Just ask the question and it's there unanswered. That's the comics we're dealing with.

Just remembered this week where in three different titles JGC was attacked. I mean, seriously....

I guess I see your point about how this seems a bit incongruous with the threats that Cyclops' team are dealing with, but why should their story have to be about the same stuff his is? I mean, the X-men can (and arguably should) be about more than just one thing.

This is the right question, but being reactive the way they are shown means they are already in this mess. They chose to deal with the new world order their own non-Cyclops way? Show us how, is that so much to ask? I think Wood was working on something, but for too many reasons his book was a failure no matter what POV you're taking at it. Btw, this is a great example of how more "dominant" writers were constantly in a way of his book and what he meant to do with it, I think I don't have to explain myself here.

I mean, from an in-universe perspective, the reason the X-men aren't doing what Cyclops is doing is that it's bad PR for both mutants and X-men, so it makes sense that they would stick to doing the more superhero-y and traditional school stuff. Yeah, things are still bad for a lot of mutants, but they aren't all on a reservation anymore; new mutants are popping up again, and the school and the whole world needs saving just as much as the kids that Cyclops has saved. While it's easy to see Cyclops' as the more political team, from another perspective, the rest of the X-men are still dealing with the big picture stuff that effects mutants and everyone else.

No denial, but what they are doing to improve the mutant image would be the right counter-argument. Like I said, totally reactive and amorphous force. This is just petty.

Lol the last time world needed saving and JGC was attacked, again. Afterwards? No retaliation, no proper counter plan. Even in Infinity they were nobodies... And that's when they were shown at all. That's, when CA commanded Galactic Fleet (lol from all millions years old wardog species out there, the one who insured the win was of course no other but universal level born leader Steve Rogers... one of the biggest Hickman's messups), X-men took their petty feuds on a time-traveling level!!! You could argue this is even more important than another alien attack, you know who the hell are Builders and Thanos when you have a teen Jean Grey around. yay!........

Besides that, even without doing what Cyclops is doing, they know that fight's being fought. I don't think anyone has a problem with Cyclops saving mutants from persecution, but it's that he's doing it publicly to make people fear mutants. In the old days, Xavier could have just used his connections or telepathy to spring these kids out of jail after they'd been arrested; saves the mutant, but without making it look like mutants will fight law enforcement. Cyclops could even skip the part where they get arrested because he's got a time traveling teleporter on his team, but he wants the world to see (and the new mutants themselves) how mutants are treated and why they should be feared. That's a fight the other X-men can't engage in without losing all they've fought for, but they know it's being fought, by one of their best, so why should they stop fighting for what they've always been fighting for?

And how do regular X-men react to it, besides bitching about him? What is their alternative, again?

From our perspective, some people want to see the X-men going in new directions, and we have that option with Uncanny' and stuff like X-factor or what have you, but other people just want to read about the X-men being a school of mutant superheroes like they did when they were a kid, and not have to care about edgy new directions or perpetual persecution; and if you're a fan of the former, you don't need an explanation of what the X-men are to their world because you already know. Personally, I enjoy both and I think there's room for both without them all having to be on the same page.

And poor sales say that this people are a minority. Anyway, if we would have a book per specified script, titles each with their own course, how do you think would the franchise benefit from it? I say, it could be its revival. Not necessarily a success, but at least a defined direction that makes you or a new reader understand what they're reading and why. Wasn't that the reason of the last relaunch?

I'll argue that actually. I don't think Hickman's books are important at all. The only thing that makes one comic book more important than another is how much I enjoy it, and I don't read Hickman's Avengers books because they're boring. I read Mighty Avengers and Uncanny Avengers because they're fun, so those are the only Avengers comics that are important to me. Hickman's books may as well be set in another universe for all I care.

So you don't think that books that are reshaping the whole universe are important? That's interesting, but you cannot really expect that your personal decision to look at it those titles this way, doesn't make them ones? Even if youre not enjoying them, won't change the fact that the whole MU is slowly walking towards its final destination. I'm not saying I expect the same for X-titles, but at least a simple cohesion could be a good start.

It depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, Uncanny' is giving us "a new perception of what it means to be a mutant in a marvel world in 2014" and X-men is maintaining the status quo; it's just maintaining the status quo from what the X-men were before the Decimation era, which, frankly, a lot of people would rather see. For fans of the 80's and 90's comics, the cartoons, etc, after Whedon left, the X-men kind of just stopped being fun.

Oh really? So it means being the same as in 1975 basically? What a progress. We had this conversation, the so called revolutionary image, semantics and big speeches aside, Cyclops just does the classic X-men stuff as for me, it's the regular X-men who aren't doing sh!te.

I can understand that Decimation wasn't everybody's cup of tea, but how just jumping off that direction makes anything better? Where's the explanations of how the world has changed and the adaptation to how it is still changing? Where is the chemistry of the X-men that is nowhere to be found?!

Hickman may have "warped the whole definition of what Avengers were" for those that kept reading his books, but for me he just didn't seem to get what Avengers were in the first place. Ewing and Remender get what Avengers are, and Hickman hasn't warped that at all. And, as I said of the X-men books, I think there's room for both. But the thing for me is, I shouldn't need to know what's going on in every X-men or Avengers book to enjoy any one of them, I should just be able to read the ones that actually appeal to me.

Yeah but I enjoy seeing Avengers deconstructed because of how terrible their image was left in my mind post AVX, Hickman's story does work for me now, even though it wasn't in the beginning. Eventually, the Avengers will overcome their struggles per usual, but at least I'm enjoying it now. You see, this is the cause and effect I'm talking about, how one in universe event leads to another and from the buildup you can see its flow and realize that it does fit the coherence of what's going on and where it came from.

With X-men though, not really...

Besides Hickman being boring, after I dropped Avengers, New Avengers just got more confusing and pointless so I dropped it too. I got no time for comics that don't entertain me, I don't care how important or relevant they're supposed to be. To contrast, after I dropped All-new X-men, Uncanny' still remained one of my favorites and I didn't feel like I was missing anything.

I think you misuse my point of bringing up Hickman's books, I was talking about consistency and buildups, cohesion of the ideas and where they lead. You can dislike his books, that won't change that at least there's a direction within the plot. What's about X-men? Why do they even exist? I can't really answer both questions...

I know what the X-books are being criticized for, yeah. Some criticisms I agree with, others I don't. That most of the X-men books have been not very good in the last several years, I agree with. I've dropped 4 or 5 just in the past year. There have been a lot of weak and not very interesting stories being cranked out. To me, Uncanny's been the most solid, X-men goes back and forth but I still enjoy it, and the rest just weren't worth my time. But the books I thought were not good I'll put on the creators that actually made them, rather than put all the blame on Uncanny' for something Bendis didn't do.

So you don't believe that one writer has more authority than the other?

I will vote for both, but my vote went to the X-men. I don't think there aren't any comparison. I believe they're both good IMO.

@adamtrmm: I agree with you on the Hickman books. Those are my favorite books Marvel are publishing right now. How can someone say they aren't important when two line wide events have spun out of it.

Hahahaha true!

@grenadeflow:

Well let's not overhype them. They're ok and even then much better then X-men flagships, that was my point :)

The only avengers i like are spidey, thor and the mutants with them(Q.S and wolverine), hate wanda.

I will choose the xmen over avengers any time.

1. not really. To me their world isn't especially different than it ever was; I already know what the X-men are about, I'd rather just see them do that than read a bunch of superfluous exposition about how and why they do it.

2. new mutants as a general premise isn't a new premise for the X-men, what happened to the de-or-re-powered mutants only matters as those characters are part of the story, and the X-men have been facing -and overcoming- several dangers besides those that pertain specifically to mutants.

3. yeah, that was a bit whack.

Why would I care if the X-men were nobodies in an Avengers story I wasn't interested in reading anyway?

The only measure of the X-men's significance to me is what they do in their own book.

And the last two times the school was attacked it was by a villain who died at the end of the story (Dark Beast and The Future), so I don't know what kind of retaliation should be expected after that anyway..

I don't think sales accurately show this demographic, honestly, since

1. Readers looking for a book that does what the X-men used to do have at least 3 to choose from, compared to the one book that's trying to go in a new direction (Uncanny'), and
2. none of those books have been especially good.

Like I say, I would be just as interested in reading a more classic version of the X-men, but fans who want something with a more classic feel have had three kind of substandard books to wade through, so they're all competing with each other while Uncanny' stands singular in it's direction. That none of the writers who've written the JGS books have been able to make the X-men fun again doesn't mean there aren't lots of people who would be interested in that.

1. I know that they aren't important.

2. If you think what happens in one comic book is more important than what happens in another, I won't try to dissuade you, but I can't think of one good reason why I should care about stories that happen in comics I'm not interested in. Like I say, I shouldn't have to know what happens in every comic to enjoy just one.

3. most everything walks towards it's final destination. The MU, though? probably not so much. It's a machine that prints money, why would they ever turn it off? The hype machine works to give some stories the illusion of relevance, but that doesn't make it so. At most they may make some superficial change, like a reboot or saying that everything is suddenly taking place for the first time in a new world, but that doesn't make anything they do final.

4. Cohesion as you seem to see it implies that every story should fit within a rigid framework of every other story. There's nothing about that that sounds appealing to me. Again, I shouldn't have to know what happens in every comic to enjoy just one.

The X-men exist to entertain me. As it stands, most of their books have been doing a not so great job at that.

But, in-universe, they exist for the same reason they always have. They exist for the same reason they did in the 70's. As a long-time X-men fan, that's not something I feel needs to be explained to me.

Yes, most of the books would benefit from having more voice and direction to them, but that none of the other writers have provided that just doesn't seem like Bendis' fault to me.

I'll use Hickman as an example again: you say his books have a direction and cohesion and stuff, and I wouldn't know, but his books having that hasn't stopped the other Avengers books from each having their own direction and voice. If Remender and Ewing and Kot can all provide great Avengers stories that I don't need to read Hickman's books to appreciate, why is it Bendis' fault that the other X-men writers can't do the same?

oh, in the internal politics of who gets to do what with what characters, I'm sure that some writers are given favor over others. I just don't think those restrictions in themselves provide bad work. Less restrictions would probably be better for everyone, but one writer having more editorial sway than the others isn't what produces good or bad stories; that still falls on the actual creators themselves.

@oldnightcrawler:

Why would I care if the X-men were nobodies in an Avengers story I wasn't interested in reading anyway?

The only measure of the X-men's significance to me is what they do in their own book.

And the last two times the school was attacked it was by a villain who died at the end of the story (Dark Beast and The Future), so I don't know what kind of retaliation should be expected after that anyway..

Because is about to affect the team/characters you like? I hate Axis, can I call it unimportant now with half of my X-reading being dragged there?

Yeah, and even there nothing significant can be found.

I was talking about Infinity, but even if so, it still doesn't change the regressive story-wise fact, this school exist to be attacked.

I don't think sales accurately show this demographic, honestly, since

1. Readers looking for a book that does what the X-men used to do have at least 3 to choose from, compared to the one book that's trying to go in a new direction (Uncanny'), and
2. none of those books have been especially good.

Like I say, I would be just as interested in reading a more classic version of the X-men, but fans who want something with a more classic feel have had three kind of substandard books to wade through, so they're all competing with each other while Uncanny' stands singular in it's direction. That none of the writers who've written the JGS books have been able to make the X-men fun again doesn't mean there aren't lots of people who would be interested in that.

Well yeah, WaXM vol1 sold about 40k per issue, so I agree.

Not more classic, revisioned. It's 2015 almost, recent relevancies, up-to-date metaphors, the hardships of humanism and philanthropy in this new world. And I don't believe the writers are just not creative enough, simply something restrains them. Like with Wood. I didn't like his stories, but it was obvious he wasn't creatively free.

1. I know that they aren't important.

2. If you think what happens in one comic book is more important than what happens in another, I won't try to dissuade you, but I can't think of one good reason why I should care about stories that happen in comics I'm not interested in. Like I say, I shouldn't have to know what happens in every comic to enjoy just one.

3. most everything walks towards it's final destination. The MU, though? probably not so much. It's a machine that prints money, why would they ever turn it off? The hype machine works to give some stories the illusion of relevance, but that doesn't make it so. At most they may make some superficial change, like a reboot or saying that everything is suddenly taking place for the first time in a new world, but that doesn't make anything they do final.

4. Cohesion as you seem to see it implies that every story should fit within a rigid framework of every other story. There's nothing about that that sounds appealing to me. Again, I shouldn't have to know what happens in every comic to enjoy just one.

1. Same Axis question I asked before?

2. Because this is a shared, eventually they all interact. The question is, what role will your favorites play, or will the play at all.

3. A summer of the events? Maybe not the FINAL (and that's not what I meant), but I'm certain it will consume all titles for this period. Let's see how it plays out.

4. Not really, just with titles' designated courses, that explore the mythos with a certain POV instead of pushing it back with none.

1.The X-men exist to entertain me. As it stands, most of their books have been doing a not so great job at that.

2.But, in-universe, they exist for the same reason they always have. They exist for the same reason they did in the 70's. As a long-time X-men fan, that's not something I feel needs to be explained to me.

3.Yes, most of the books would benefit from having more voice and direction to them, but that none of the other writers have provided that just doesn't seem like Bendis' fault to me.

4.I'll use Hickman as an example again: you say his books have a direction and cohesion and stuff, and I wouldn't know, but his books having that hasn't stopped the other Avengers books from each having their own direction and voice. If Remender and Ewing and Kot can all provide great Avengers stories that I don't need to read Hickman's books to appreciate, why is it Bendis' fault that the other X-men writers can't do the same?

1.Just a shallow entertainment? Why do you spend so much time on it then? :)

2.Even if so, they are fail at what they do. JGC characters are laughable, can't help myself having an image of 616 marginals brainwashing mutants into a suicide attacks around the world. So much fire power potential shouldn't be wasted on a normal life. Relevancies, like I said.

3.From what I keep reading, I have to disagree.

4. Uncanny Avengers for Hickman's book is exactly the same what it is for the X-titles. See what I mean? It has to be it's own book, criticism aside. Evwing and Kot are basically X-factor and X-force, the satellite books. And then we have Avengers/New A./Avengers World that derived from the singular direction, in comparison, for the X-titles Uncanny/Adjectiveless/Amazing - what can I say here? I better not to at all.

oh, in the internal politics of who gets to do what with what characters, I'm sure that some writers are given favor over others. I just don't think those restrictions in themselves provide bad work. Less restrictions would probably be better for everyone, but one writer having more editorial sway than the others isn't what produces good or bad stories; that still falls on the actual creators themselves.

Again, Wood, the very recent X-example :)

1. i think you mean effect, but it's the same. A story about the Avengers, or anything, is really only ever going to effect the X-men so much. One can stop reading about these characters at any time and come back later to pretty much the same thing. I stopped reading Axis after the 5th issue because it became apparent that it wasn't what interested me about the characters. Eventually the characters will get their own personalities back and then I'll check them out again, but, because they aren't being themselves anyway, whatever they do now really is not important.
2. significance isn't found, it's placed.
3. yeah, the school exists to be attacked. As long as there are X-men, that will be part of their story. it's hard for me to see that in itself as regressive when it's always been a natural extension of the premise.

So that makes it not his fault that he failed to be entertaining? I disagree.

1. like I say, significance isn't found, it's placed.

2. the idea that it's a shared universe or continuity only matters to crossovers and events, which themselves rarely matter. If I'm interested in a crossover or event, it's because it's a fun story in itself, regardless of how it effects anything. House of M was a story I liked; very few of the X-men mattered to that story (really only Wolverine, Xavier, Magneto, and maybe Emma), but it was still a good story. People can act like it was relevant because of the "decimation", but that's just in-story hype, really. Very few of the X-men lost their powers, all of them got them back, and for most of the X-men's history there were less than 200 mutants anyway. The effects only mattered if you enjoyed the story. Otherwise, it really changed nothing.

3. a summer of events is no more important than any other story I'm not going to bother reading. But go ahead and keep supporting them if you think events make better stories; personally I think they'd be better off giving it a rest.

4. a story's point of view can be just as strong or stronger without having to fit into a larger context or continuity.

1. something needn't be shallow to be entertaining. For me, something less shallow is just as often more entertaining, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking we're talking about anything other than a superhero story. It is fantasy, and while it has the potential to incorporate provocative moral and ethical questions, those are not really it's primary function.

2. nine times out of ten, laughable is the best a superhero can be. If they were more laughable more often, I would probably read more of their stories. It's that they're dull that's the problem.

3. okay

4. I disagree. Uncanny Avengers and Mighty Avengers are actual Avengers books. Maybe you can argue that Secret Avengers is a spin-off, but still. UA and MA are about and do exactly what Avengers have always been about. If you were going to call any of the Avengers books spin-offs, New Avengers would be more likely, since it's actually a slightly different premise; UA and MA are not.

Yeah, Wood obviously got screwed by editorial, that much is plain.

Does that mean he didn't write a bunch of mediocre, sub-standard issues? because from where I'm sitting he still did.

X men r more organized

Not at all

@grenadeflow: Read old x force comics cable said that they xmen are the most organized team and that they were also threat the X force being that there are more organized

@oldnightcrawler:

i think you mean effect, but it's the same. A story about the Avengers, or anything, is really only ever going to effect the X-men so much. One can stop reading about these characters at any time and come back later to pretty much the same thing. I stopped reading Axis after the 5th issue because it became apparent that it wasn't what interested me about the characters. Eventually the characters will get their own personalities back and then I'll check them out again, but, because they aren't being themselves anyway, whatever they do now really is not important.

And characters will still deal with the consequences of this event, some maybe even permanently change. How it is unimportant I still fail to see.

yeah, the school exists to be attacked. As long as there are X-men, that will be part of their story. it's hard for me to see that in itself as regressive when it's always been a natural extension of the premise.

If you truly think so, there's nothing I want to add.

So that makes it not his fault that he failed to be entertaining? I disagree.

You cannot really blame him because we don't know how would his rushed and twitching plots would be resolved WITHOUT the mandates. "Hey mister editor, I want..." "No, a sh!tty event is about to begin I need you" "Oh ok" "HME, I want..." "Not now, I need these characters out of your book, so just rewrite your already written material to accord with new characters, and fans are complaining, they want the resolution, so I'll cut your arc down, finish it in two instead of four as was planned before"

I was just throwing assumptions, but it's hard to fully judge a creative process that most likely resembled this.

like I say, significance isn't found, it's placed.

Whatever. It's just not there.

the idea that it's a shared universe or continuity only matters to crossovers and events, which themselves rarely matter. If I'm interested in a crossover or event, it's because it's a fun story in itself, regardless of how it effects anything. House of M was a story I liked; very few of the X-men mattered to that story (really only Wolverine, Xavier, Magneto, and maybe Emma), but it was still a good story. People can act like it was relevant because of the "decimation", but that's just in-story hype, really. Very few of the X-men lost their powers, all of them got them back, and for most of the X-men's history there were less than 200 mutants anyway. The effects only mattered if you enjoyed the story. Otherwise, it really changed nothing.

Don't you see how good your own example is? That's exactly where continuity mattered. A simple event that changed the course of all books, made them interact, work together and slowly walked towards the same resolution.

Even without losing their powers, writers made the world and characters react properly, made them adapt and showed us why they needed to.

a summer of events is no more important than any other story I'm not going to bother reading. But go ahead and keep supporting them if you think events make better stories; personally I think they'd be better off giving it a rest.

Never said I'm supportive of it, but I accept whatever happens during that time. Didn't you accept Scott killing Xavier? Or your head-canon says that's never happened? Sorry, but I lost you here.

something needn't be shallow to be entertaining. For me, something less shallow is just as often more entertaining, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking we're talking about anything other than a superhero story. It is fantasy, and while it has the potential to incorporate provocative moral and ethical questions, those are not really it's primary function.

That's just low standards, sorry. Its primary function is to sell. Right now, they struggle in this area. And maybe one of the reasons is that people expect more than they're given? Just maybe.

nine times out of ten, laughable is the best a superhero can be. If they were more laughable more often, I would probably read more of their stories. It's that they're dull that's the problem.

Watchmen isn't laughable, Supreme Power isn't as well. Non were best X-men arcs. Seems like it's me and you who won't agree here.

Dull is indeed another problem, JGC is just laughable.

I disagree. Uncanny Avengers and Mighty Avengers are actual Avengers books. Maybe you can argue that Secret Avengers is a spin-off, but still. UA and MA are about and do exactly what Avengers have always been about. If you were going to call any of the Avengers books spin-offs, New Avengers would be more likely, since it's actually a slightly different premise; UA and MA are not.

Yeah, X-factor and X-force also do what X-men always do, that hasn't made them less satellite. Teams that do the same thing the franchise is about, but their own way, differently if you wish. This what MA and UA are.

@grenadeflow: avengers do it for the job money n duty ..x men do it bc they r a family a team n trained in their teens ..see difference?

When avengers fougth mags they had no big guns n ant man n hawk eye were goin to fite bc ant man gave up his giant powers

That kind of is my point: that little change that all the X-books followed after that? The Decimation? -that has almost nothing to do with HoM. HoM wasn't about all the mutants losing their powers, that was just something they threw in at the end. It was a decent enough premise to shake up the X-books at the time, but it's not like reading HoM actually explains that premise or makes it make any more sense.

I read all of the X-books from Whedon's run to when Brubaker moved them to SF before I read HoM, and it didn't matter at all. (If anything, it kind of just made X-factor kind of even more awesome to not know what happened). What caused the decimation is almost inconsequential; the same premise could have been established in a single issue of the regular series. What made HoM a good story worth reading and what made it "relevant" to the books that came after it weren't even the same thing.

But my point was that, while the decimation era was a decent time for a lot of the X-men books, it wasn't the Decimation that really made it so; X-factor and New X-men both used it as a good jumping on point, but Uncanny' and Astonishing' both had their own directions and hardly dealt with it at all. In fact a lot of the stuff that was eventually a direct result of the Decimation (X-Men: The 198, the Messiah trilogy, the SF/Utopia era) wasn't even that good. The books that were doing their own thing were good, and the effects of the decimation had little impact on what was good about them.

"Never said I'm supportive of it, but I accept whatever happens during that time. Didn't you accept Scott killing Xavier? Or your head-canon says that's never happened? Sorry, but I lost you here."

Sure, I acknowledge that that was a relevant part of the story. But I would have known the relevant parts of that story without reading it anyway. Cyclops also killed Xavier in Uncanny X-Men that same week. Colossus cut his ties to Magik in the same book and had his falling out with Kitty in WatX-men. Storm was going to switch sides anyway because of the events in Wood's book. The only really lasting effect that happened in AvsX was undoing the decimation with the same kind of magic, tagged on afterthought they started it with.

"Watchmen isn't laughable, Supreme Power isn't as well. Non were best X-men arcs. Seems like it's me and you who won't agree here.

Dull is indeed another problem, JGC is just laughable."

Watchmen is laughable, I think, but you're right that that's not the best thing about it. That's why I said "9 times out of 10, laughable is the best a superhero can be", because stuff like Watchmen or God Loves, Man Kills are exceptional examples of what can be done with superheroes, and not what I expect of them.

They're awesome, but if stuff like that was all I liked about superhero comics, I probably wouldn't read them at all. I appreciate it when stories are that good, but what I expect is for them to be fun. If a comic can actually make me laugh -or cry, or care- that's more important to me than how "relevant" it is to the next big crossover event or "direction" of a franchise.

I mean, GLMK doesn't even need to be in continuity (and arguably, it originally wasn't). It didn't define the X-men comics of it's time or set them in a new direction; it was just a good story in itself. Was it a better story than He'll never make me cry? or the Excalibur Special Edition? or Unstoppable? I would posit that they're too different to compare, and, while I love all of those stories, it's what the latter do that has kept me coming back to X-men and superheroes in general.

If the JGS books could make me laugh, I wouldn't care about their "relevance" or "direction". Uncanny' may be the most "relevant" in the current landscape, but it's that it actually makes me laugh that makes me like it.

"Yeah, X-factor and X-force also do what X-men always do, that hasn't made them less satellite. Teams that do the same thing the franchise is about, but their own way, differently if you wish. This what MA and UA are."

The X-men have two main premises:

1. that they are a school for superheroes, and
2. that they are about what it is to be a mutant

Neither X-force nor X-factor are really about either of these things.

Avengers is about superheroes teaming up, despite their differences, to save the world; which is exactly what both MA and UA are about.

@oldnightcrawler:

Hmm, my notifications don't work properly..

That kind of is my point: that little change that all the X-books followed after that? The Decimation? -that has almost nothing to do with HoM. HoM wasn't about all the mutants losing their powers, that was just something they threw in at the end. It was a decent enough premise to shake up the X-books at the time, but it's not like reading HoM actually explains that premise or makes it make any more sense.

I read all of the X-books from Whedon's run to when Brubaker moved them to SF before I read HoM, and it didn't matter at all. (If anything, it kind of just made X-factor kind of even more awesome to not know what happened). What caused the decimation is almost inconsequential; the same premise could have been established in a single issue of the regular series. What made HoM a good story worth reading and what made it "relevant" to the books that came after it weren't even the same thing.

But my point was that, while the decimation era was a decent time for a lot of the X-men books, it wasn't the Decimation that really made it so; X-factor and New X-men both used it as a good jumping on point, but Uncanny' and Astonishing' both had their own directions and hardly dealt with it at all. In fact a lot of the stuff that was eventually a direct result of the Decimation (X-Men: The 198, the Messiah trilogy, the SF/Utopia era) wasn't even that good. The books that were doing their own thing were good, and the effects of the decimation had little impact on what was good about them.

I don't follow, HoM had its climax, and we got Decimation as the result, pretty simple showing of cause and effect I am talking about. Again, your own explanations. Maybe you hadn't have to read both, still it was consequential and consistent writing, from mutant utopia to mutant extinction. Every detail was dealt with. And even if a story has a more slow narration/publication, that doesn't mean it had out of nowhere starting point, talking about Whedon. And if it does, then you know it has less to do with current world relevancies that this title will have to deal with. Again, this is not the proper answer the way I see it.

I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry. Almost every single issue of Decimation era was a direct consequence of M-day. From O*n*e blockade, right to the point they declared Utopia, and let's not forget all those events. Hell, even Curse of the Mutants was explained with their low numbers IIRC.

We're talking about books that shape the X-mythos, not the satellite books that juts expand it.

Sure, I acknowledge that that was a relevant part of the story. But I would have known the relevant parts of that story without reading it anyway. Cyclops also killed Xavier in Uncanny X-Men that same week. Colossus cut his ties to Magik in the same book and had his falling out with Kitty in WatX-men. Storm was going to switch sides anyway because of the events in Wood's book. The only really lasting effect that happened in AvsX was undoing the decimation with the same kind of magic, tagged on afterthought they started it with.

Seems like a very consistent, well-executed and professional work. Like it does exist! Where can I find the same quality today?

Watchmen is laughable, I think, but you're right that that's not the best thing about it. That's why I said "9 times out of 10, laughable is the best a superhero can be", because stuff like Watchmen or God Loves, Man Kills are exceptional examples of what can be done with superheroes, and not what I expect of them.

And this my friend, is where we defer. The quality model was raised, why drop it back? Instead of demanding standards, you say they're exceptions...

They're awesome, but if stuff like that was all I liked about superhero comics, I probably wouldn't read them at all. I appreciate it when stories are that good, but what I expect is for them to be fun. If a comic can actually make me laugh -or cry, or care- that's more important to me than how "relevant" it is to the next big crossover event or "direction" of a franchise.

I don't think low quality comic can make you smile, care or cry. If a comic does that to you, this is a damn good one. Irrelevance is just a small part of this bad writing we're talking about.

I mean, GLMK doesn't even need to be in continuity (and arguably, it originally wasn't). It didn't define the X-men comics of it's time or set them in a new direction; it was just a good story in itself. Was it a better story than He'll never make me cry? or the Excalibur Special Edition? or Unstoppable? I would posit that they're too different to compare, and, while I love all of those stories, it's what the latter do that has kept me coming back to X-men and superheroes in general.

It actually did define the new era for an angle to look at the mutant metaphor. It accentuated, outlined the comparison between comic book and real world. And that's how mutants are viewed to this very day. Tell me how this comic is less significant, or even in par with those you've listed? The novel is not what our dispute is about, but hell, it is a good indication to how the consecutive, professional writing looks like.

If the JGS books could make me laugh, I wouldn't care about their "relevance" or "direction". Uncanny' may be the most "relevant" in the current landscape, but it's that it actually makes me laugh that makes me like it.

Well, I won't argue what makes the comic for you, but I also won't agree with that it is the only ultimate.

@adamtrmm:

"I don't follow, HoM had its climax, and we got Decimation as the result, pretty simple showing of cause and effect I am talking about. Again, your own explanations. Maybe you hadn't have to read both, still it was consequential and consistent writing, from mutant utopia to mutant extinction. Every detail was dealt with. And even if a story has a more slow narration/publication, that doesn't mean it had out of nowhere starting point, talking about Whedon. And if it does, then you know it has less to do with current world relevancies that this title will have to deal with. Again, this is not the proper answer the way I see it."

My point with HoM/Decimation is that, while the Decimation is the result of HoM, it's not what HoM was about -it's not the logical next step of that story. The logical ending would be that Scarlet Witch would simply use her powers to make herself not a mutant, that would have been a logical story ending. Decimation is what happened at the end of HoM, it's the thing that makes it relevant to what came after it, but it's not really consistent with the story itself; it's the kind of ending that only makes sense because we don't want stories to have endings, we want them to have relevant effects.

That's not meant as a criticism of either story, I'm just saying what made one story relevant to the next in that case was actually kind of flimsy from the perspective of either. Decimation was a great premise and an interesting direction that opened up possibilities for lots of stories, but the actual cause of it seemed to have more to do with making HoM relevant than being especially congruous or interesting to either story.

My point with Whedon was that he was doing one of the best books at the time (or since) and his stories weren't really effected by HoM or the Decimation at all. So, that it wasn't following or overtly effected by the direction of the rest of the franchise didn't make it any less interesting or relevant to the story as a whole because it still had relevant effects on lots of the main characters.

My point with all of that is that it isn't because they aren't dealing with the effects of AvsX or the themes driving Uncanny' that make the JGS books less relevant, it's that they just aren't that good. If they were good, if we were seeing some interesting stories or character development, how they fit into the direction of the franchise wouldn't matter.

"I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry. Almost every single issue of Decimation era was a direct consequence of M-day. From O*n*e blockade, right to the point they declared Utopia, and let's not forget all those events"

Like I say, Astonishing X-Men wasn't effected by it. Neither was Rise and Fall of the Shi'ar Empire. And those were two of the best runs of the Decimation era. When Whedon left, Astonishing really kind of stopped being one of the main books, and the Decimation stuff eventually did become really relevant in the direction of Uncanny', but both of those runs still stand as examples of how stories that don't follow the direction of the big events can still be just as relevant by virtue of simply being good stories.

This idea that stories have to fit into the direction of the franchise, or be relevant to the big event stories, or have some in-universe significance to what happens in other books, to be relevant or good is the idea I disagree with.

The JGS books are less relevant in all of those ways, but that's not what's wrong with them.

I prefer the X-Men.

I've always liked the X-Men more.

@oldnightcrawler:

Decimation is what happened at the end of HoM, it's the thing that makes it relevant to what came after it, but it's not really consistent with the story itself; it's the kind of ending that only makes sense because we don't want stories to have endings, we want them to have relevant effects.

HoM was a road to Decimation, no matter how you look at it. The whole alternate reality was forced by a crazy mutant, and when another raging conflict came off as the result, she decides that it wasn't her fault, but mutankind's itself. And that what the climax of HoM is, no one really cared for this reality because everybody knew it won't stick. When we're talking about HoM only thing that matters is Decimation.

That's not meant as a criticism of either story, I'm just saying what made one story relevant to the next in that case was actually kind of flimsy from the perspective of either. Decimation was a great premise and an interesting direction that opened up possibilities for lots of stories, but the actual cause of it seemed to have more to do with making HoM relevant than being especially congruous or interesting to either story.

We're talking about consecutive writing, and this was a good showing of it. That's the only thing that matters, since HoM (main Bendis story) wasn't some great story in itself.

My point with Whedon was that he was doing one of the best books at the time (or since) and his stories weren't really effected by HoM or the Decimation at all. So, that it wasn't following or overtly effected by the direction of the rest of the franchise didn't make it any less interesting or relevant to the story as a whole because it still had relevant effects on lots of the main characters.

Whedon's run was subsequent to Morrison's, that's what its premise is. And because of its slow publications it wasn't dragged into Decimation. Everybody knows that it as a Decimation prequel story. Everything is fine here.

My point with all of that is that it isn't because they aren't dealing with the effects of AvsX or the themes driving Uncanny' that make the JGS books less relevant, it's that they just aren't that good. If they were good, if we were seeing some interesting stories or character development, how they fit into the direction of the franchise wouldn't matter.

That's your opinion, that wouldn't matter to you maybe. Me and many other X-readers disagree. And this is a legit criticism even if you don't want to accept it as such.

Neither was Rise and Fall of the Shi'ar Empire. And those were two of the best runs of the Decimation era. When Whedon left, Astonishing really kind of stopped being one of the main books, and the Decimation stuff eventually did become really relevant in the direction of Uncanny', but both of those runs still stand as examples of how stories that don't follow the direction of the big events can still be just as relevant by virtue of simply being good stories.

Funny, wasn't Vulcan revived as the result of Decimation? Wasn't Xavier depowered by it?

So one story was caused by it, the direct result of it, and another was just too slow to get to the point.

But who cares? Stories can spin off, no denial here. Just no need to pretend like cause and effect doesn't matter.

This idea that stories have to fit into the direction of the franchise, or be relevant to the big event stories, or have some in-universe significance to what happens in other books, to be relevant or good is the idea I disagree with.

That's not exactly what I said either, not "every book" but flagships. Defining books.

Both of these statements kind of just prove my point.

except for the people who read it.

Firstly, if it happens before Decimation, that means it happens before HoM, which means HoM need never have happened, since the plot of Gifted was all about how there is a cure for mutation, meaning the last case scenario to stop Scarlet Witch shouldn't have been to kill her, as implied by the beginning of the story, but to take away her mutation.

Secondly, HoM also couldn't take place after Whedon's run because if it had, Kitty wouldn't have been in it. So the beginning of HoM can't be after the end of Whedon's run, and it doesn't even make sense that it's after the first arc because of the cure. But before the first arc, Kitty and Colossus are not on the team, which means HoM/Decimation don't actually make sense in the same continuity as Astonishing', despite ostensibly being an event featuring that team.

@oldnightcrawler:

Both of these statements kind of just prove my point.

How? Your point was "previous story doesn't matter".

Firstly, if it happens before Decimation, that means it happens before HoM, which means HoM need never have happened, since the plot of Gifted was all about how there is a cure for mutation, meaning the last case scenario to stop Scarlet Witch shouldn't have been to kill her, as implied by the beginning of the story, but to take away her mutation.

So bad writing cooperation did happen, and look how flawed it can be when titles don't co-exist.

Secondly, HoM also couldn't take place after Whedon's run because if it had, Kitty wouldn't have been in it. So the beginning of HoM can't be after the end of Whedon's run, and it doesn't even make sense that it's after the first arc because of the cure. But before the first arc, Kitty and Colossus are not on the team, which means HoM/Decimation don't actually make sense in the same continuity as Astonishing', despite ostensibly being an event featuring that team.

Good catch, completely forgot that before reality warp, Astonishing team dealt with the issue. It can still be seen as pre-Unstoppable arc though.

That's what I'm saying.

the only story that matters is the one I'm reading.

how is it bad? Whedon's run is still good, HoM is still good; the fact that they don't make perfect sense as part of one big story doesn't keep either of them from being a good story on it's own.

Continuity is just a tool for telling stories, it's not the measure of one.

Technically, but not really. Because really HoM doesn't make sense before or after Gifted; before it, that team of X-men didn't exist, and after it, the mutant cure did. Nothing about the beginning of HoM needs to happen if the X-men know there's a cure for mutations, (and they found out because it was on t.v.); there's no reason to think Beast would have not brought up the cure before considering that they might have to kill the Scarlet Witch, but assuming these stories share continuity he and the other X-men must have known it existed.

@oldnightcrawler:

Damn! For some reason my answer wasn't posted.

how is it bad? Whedon's run is still good, HoM is still good; the fact that they don't make perfect sense as part of one big story doesn't keep either of them from being a good story on it's own.

Using your own words, it is bad because now its poor synchronization does bother me.

Continuity is just a tool for telling stories, it's not the measure of one.

Sometimes continuity is the story. Retcon Twisting of a Soul and Magneto dies for me as a character. Retcon Decimation and I'm back bashing Lame-clops. "History makes us who we are." lol

Technically, but not really. Because really HoM doesn't make sense before or after Gifted; before it, that team of X-men didn't exist, and after it, the mutant cure did. Nothing about the beginning of HoM needs to happen if the X-men know there's a cure for mutations, (and they found out because it was on t.v.); there's no reason to think Beast would have not brought up the cure before considering that they might have to kill the Scarlet Witch, but assuming these stories share continuity he and the other X-men must have known it existed.

It's still free for interpretation how immediate was Unstoppable in its sub-sequence to Gifted. I say it can be fitted in a very close post-HoM chain of events. It is a flaw that while tolerable, once again to me shows how bad can be uncooperativeness of the writing staff.

As for the cure reasoning, I say it is pretty in-character for X-men to refuse acknowledgement and especially usage of it, that could be against their beliefs if they hadn't actually.

that sounds more like a personal problem than a problem with either story.

I'm not talking about retconning anything. Just because two stories don't make sense to each other doesn't mean they don't both equally make sense in themselves.

Claremont's Magneto is incongruous with Stan Lee's in lots of ways, but both are Magneto. In Whedon's run Magneto is referenced twice, despite having nothing to do with the story; Xavier makes reference to him as a friend, Beast makes reference to him as a threat, and neither of these references are incongruous with any version of Magneto.

I'm not suggesting disregarding any character developments or events, drawing on that continuity can offer a story possibilities; I'm just saying that if every story in a vast shared universe has to be a slave to one rigid continuity, that really just limits what stories can be told. That HoM can't happen before or after Gifted doesn't make either story less of a good story, and I'd rather have read both than not read either one of them because they didn't fit.

Sure, but if anyone seemed to understand the need for there to be cure, according to Whedon's run, it was the Beast; would he refuse that information from a mutant who had lost control of their life because of their mutation? someone for whom the only other humane option is euthanasia? let alone someone he considers a friend? Even if he had (which seems unlikely based on Whedon's version), the X-men themselves found out about the cure because it was on t.v.; especially given the situation they were facing, how likely is it that none of the other Avengers had heard about it?

The only real explanation is that the two stories are incongruous with each other, but I don't think that makes either story any less good, so to me it's not really a criticism of either. One still happened just as much as the other one did.