The X-Men are a superhero team of mutants founded by Professor Charles Xavier. They are dedicated to helping fellow mutants and sworn to protect a world that fears and hates them.
Hated and feared more than ever, the world is a dangerous place for mutants. As the few remaining X-MEN retreat into seclusion, a handful of mutant teenagers refuse to allow their destiny to be decided for them. CYCLOPS. BEAST. ICEMAN. ANGEL. THE ALL-NEW WOLVERINE. KID APOCALYPSE. OYA. Stepping out of the shadows of their predecessors, the ALL-NEW X-MEN are striking out on their own, determined to write their own futures!
ALL-NEW WOLVERINE #1& 2
TOM TAYLOR (w) • DAVID LOPEZ & DAVID NAVARROT (a)
CoverS by BENGAL
ISSUE #1 - Variant Cover by DAVID LOPEZ
HIP-HOP VARIANT COVER BY KERON GRANT
BLANK COVER VARIANT ALSO AVAILABLE
VARIANT COVER BY DAVID MARQUEZ
DESIGN VARIANT COVER BY DAVID LOPEZ
ACTION FIGURE VARIANT BY JOHN TYLER CHRISTOPHER
VARIANT COVER BY ART ADAMS
ISSUE #2 - VARIANT COVER BY DAVID LOPEZ
VARIANT COVER BY TBA
LAURA KINNEY EMBRACES HER DESTINY. HERE! COMES! WOLVERINE!
X-23 was created to be a weapon and for a time, that’s all she was. But with the help of her mentor, LOGAN—the original WOLVERINE—she escaped that dark past. Tragically, Logan has fallen, but Laura will continue in his footsteps as a hero. Recent events have her doing everything in her power to keep those around her alive, as violent forces are hell-bent on mutual destruction. If anyone can stop them, it’s Laura. She is the best there is at what she does. She is THE ALL-NEW WOLVERINE.
EXTRAORDINARY X-MEN #3
JEFF LEMIRE (W) • HUMBERTO RAMOS (A/ C)
VARIANT COVER BY CLAY MANN
• Mutantkind is teetering on the brink of extinction and the X-MEN are in dire straits!
• STORM and ICEMAN defend the last remaining mutants from a demonic attack!
• The world’s newest mutant discovers she has a terrifying power!
• And OLD MAN LOGAN and JEAN GREY meet for the first time…
@sprior93: Pretty much that same thought was going through my mind from the moment we first heard rumors about mutant kind being in danger. I mean I can already tell that it's going to be a good story arc (at least to begin with) as a lot of the ideas that have been discussed and suggested since the Bendis Era started are being used but.....well to be honest I still feel like we just did this storyline. And unlike the M-Day/Decimation/Utopia Era, there isn't some obvious Mutant Messiah that we know will come and restore the status quo. It seems good....but it's gonna need to prove that the redundancy isn't as blatant as it feels.
That's it i'm calling a meeting of the X-Board leadership, were gonna need to black list the Beast from future discussions.
The Beast is his way to his final form lmao
I dunno buddy, I feel he's been black listed for quite a time and his, let's just say, changeable behavior, has long since been established.
Lol so true.
When the chips are down and everythings on the line you can count on Beast to act in his own interest and call it self sacrifice. WHY IS THIS GUY NOT A VILLAIN ALREADY??? (Like seriously, it would actually be more interesting if he was Sublime Beast)
Here's hoping that in the 8 month gap Beast was tried and convicted by the Watchers and joined the Inhumans to escape his punishment and now the X-Men are being punished for it.
When the chips are down and everythings on the line you can count on Beast to act in his own interest and call it self sacrifice. WHY IS THIS GUY NOT A VILLAIN ALREADY??? (Like seriously, it would actually be more interesting if he was Sublime Beast)
Joking aside, when push comes to shove, I want his final monologue reveal it's actually BEAST, Hank McCoy! It's his own infectious self-loathing and the tragic showdown! lmao
When the chips are down and everythings on the line you can count on Beast to act in his own interest and call it self sacrifice. WHY IS THIS GUY NOT A VILLAIN ALREADY??? (Like seriously, it would actually be more interesting if he was Sublime Beast)
Joking aside, when push comes to shove, I want his final monologue reveal it's actually BEAST, Hank McCoy! It's his own infectious self-loathing and the tragic showdown! lmao
Lol that or they think he's being controlled and just when they think maybe they've freed him he starts admitting that he's been crazy ever since Morrison's run and the Decimation, AvX, Vulcan and even Wolverines death have all been him just trolling everyone.
Seriously hate the new solicits, just as we were getting a handful of actually interesting, fun new mutants I cared about (Tempus, Hijak, GOLDBALLS!!!!!) it's back again to being on the brink of extinction again.
Uncanny X-men 35 is where I want the mutant race to be right now, rebuilding with some hope, but still with the hated and feared angle. This brink of extinction malarkey has pervaded the comics for too damn long now.
I think HE'S going to find out that mutants are offshoot of Inhumans......................................................................................... <-< >->
Will get All New X-Men and All New Wolverine because of Laura of course. Will have to check out if the others are good first before getting into any of them.
That's it i'm calling a meeting of the X-Board leadership, were gonna need to black list the Beast from future discussions.
The Beast is his way to his final form lmao
I dunno buddy, I feel he's been black listed for quite a time and his, let's just say, changeable behavior, has long since been established.
Lol so true.
When the chips are down and everythings on the line you can count on Beast to act in his own interest and call it self sacrifice. WHY IS THIS GUY NOT A VILLAIN ALREADY??? (Like seriously, it would actually be more interesting if he was Sublime Beast)
What has Beast actually done that should warrant him being a villain?
I'm not saying he hasn't done some questionable things based mostly on his own arrogance, but lots of superheroes do that (Superman, Batman, Mr.Fantastic, Namor, Iron Man, etc) -what has he actually done that's strait-up villainous?
I just can't picture him as a villain without it being crazy out of character. (Plus there's already Dark Beast, so why would they bother?)
Here's hoping that in the 8 month gap Beast was tried and convicted by the Watchers and joined the Inhumans to escape his punishment and now the X-Men are being punished for it.
What has Beast actually done that should warrant him being a villain?
I'm not saying he hasn't done some questionable things based mostly on his own arrogance, but lots of superheroes do that (Superman, Batman, Mr.Fantastic, Namor, Iron Man, etc) -what has he actually done that's strait-up villainous?
I just can't picture him as a villain without it being crazy out of character. (Plus there's already Dark Beast, so why would they bother?)
That's the point, he's been shady for so long we're just calculating the possible outcomes of his very long hm existential crisis let's say.
Oh and Dark Beast was already sacrificed, besides he's not the one working with Inhumans after a very huge conflict with mutants. Like I said, there's a certain consistent tendency with that character, we just try to predict the most logical outcome. ;)
That's it i'm calling a meeting of the X-Board leadership, were gonna need to black list the Beast from future discussions.
The Beast is his way to his final form lmao
I dunno buddy, I feel he's been black listed for quite a time and his, let's just say, changeable behavior, has long since been established.
Lol so true.
When the chips are down and everythings on the line you can count on Beast to act in his own interest and call it self sacrifice. WHY IS THIS GUY NOT A VILLAIN ALREADY??? (Like seriously, it would actually be more interesting if he was Sublime Beast)
What has Beast actually done that should warrant him being a villain?
I'm not saying he hasn't done some questionable things based mostly on his own arrogance, but lots of superheroes do that (Superman, Batman, Mr.Fantastic, Namor, Iron Man, etc) -what has he actually done that's strait-up villainous?
I just can't picture him as a villain without it being crazy out of character. (Plus there's already Dark Beast, so why would they bother?)
Here's hoping that in the 8 month gap Beast was tried and convicted by the Watchers and joined the Inhumans to escape his punishment and now the X-Men are being punished for it.
Is that a thing Watchers do?
Lol mostly telling Hope (fresh off the boat from the future and only a few days removed from her dad "dying" in front of her) to run away from Utopia because Scott can't be trusted and bringing the O5 to the future and telling them that rescuing mutants + making hand gestures leads to genocides. But honestly the guy just gets no consequences despite his actions really shaping the X-Men and has very little in the way of motivation most times....and that's not including his abnormally high body body count in Avenger's books. I just sort of think his villainy lies in how he doesn't acknowledge that he's done morally questionable things and in a way that makes him crazy and me suspect that he's manipulating things whenever everyone else forgets to acknowledge it.
And Dark Beast illogical and unexplained actions pre-death are suspect as well, when everything about his reveal was based on the legitimacy of the Beast as a suspect for random over the top acts of vengeance for things he's deems crimes.
Although Reed Richards has him beat on all accounts...sometimes i think that guy just spins a wheel and picks a deadly sin to exploit for a story.
Idk what the Watchers do besides play universal voyouer, but Uatu is the only guy anywhere close to cosmic importance to show some displeasure with the Beast.
That's the point, he's been shady for so long we're just calculating the possible outcomes of his very long hm existential crisis let's say.
Oh and Dark Beast was already sacrificed,
besides he's not the one working with Inhumans after a very huge conflict with mutants.
Like I said, there's a certain consistent tendency with that character, we just try to predict the most logical outcome. ;)
1. I just don't see what you mean by "shady"; to me that implies that there's something selfish or duplicitous about his motivations, and I honestly haven't seen any evidence of that.
2. yeah, but he was a sinister dude, I don't have any reason to think there aren't lots of clones of him out there somewhere.
3. how does working with the Inhumans make him a villain?
4. Yeah, he's a conflicted character, but when a character's defining characteristic is that they hold themselves to a high ethical standard (see Batman, Superman), the natural story place to take that is to push them into scenarios where their ideals are challenged. I just don't see the logic behind him being a villain.
Lol mostly telling Hope (fresh off the boat from the future and only a few days removed from her dad "dying" in front of her) to run away from Utopia because Scott can't be trusted and bringing the O5 to the future and telling them that rescuing mutants + making hand gestures leads to genocides. But honestly the guy just gets no consequences despite his actions really shaping the X-Men and has very little in the way of motivation most times....and that's not including his abnormally high body body count in Avenger's books. I just sort of think his villainy lies in how he doesn't acknowledge that he's done morally questionable things and in a way that makes him crazy and me suspect that he's manipulating things whenever everyone else forgets to acknowledge it.
Gallery
I dunno, it looks like he's acknowledging what he's done in this example...
And him telling Hope to run away from Utopia was because he knew that Cyclops would use her for his own ends, which he did. So, even if you see Cyclops' actions as justified, that still doesn't really make Beast the villain.
and saying that he gets no consequences for his actions still doesn't make him special among X-men or any other marvel hero. He's a flawed hero, sure, but still nothing like a villain.
@oldnightcrawler: It's that flawed hero part that really sticks me. Because Cyclops is the flawed hero. He has given orders that have led to the deaths of his teammates and others. Xavier is the flawed hero because he has done that, and blatantly lied to his subordinates on top of that because it might impact his leadership. Wolverine is a flawed hero because he wants to be a kinder gentler hero and yet his skills, abilities and life experiences have left him more suited to play the "go to guy" for tough decisions. But while everyone else regrets, hesitates or is shunned as a consequence of their actions Beast just does morally questionable things, completely forgets about it afterwards and walks around with his nose up at other people. He just doesn't show any humanizing traits despite constantly pushing more and more into the ambiguity between write and wrong. He asks himself "SHOULD we do this shady thing?" "No! But we will do it anyway!!!" and doesn't even have to consider or reflect on the potential consequences.
@oldnightcrawler: It's that flawed hero part that really sticks me. Because Cyclops is the flawed hero. He has given orders that have led to the deaths of his teammates and others. Xavier is the flawed hero because he has done that, and blatantly lied to his subordinates on top of that because it might impact his leadership. Wolverine is a flawed hero because he wants to be a kinder gentler hero and yet his skills, abilities and life experiences have left him more suited to play the "go to guy" for tough decisions. But while everyone else regrets, hesitates or is shunned as a consequence of their actions Beast just does morally questionable things, completely forgets about it afterwards and walks around with his nose up at other people. He just doesn't show any humanizing traits despite constantly pushing more and more into the ambiguity between write and wrong. He asks himself "SHOULD we do this shady thing?" "No! But we will do it anyway!!!" and doesn't even have to consider or reflect on the potential consequences.
well, I guess I just don't see it that way. I'm not saying I don't see what you mean, I just don't feel like I have any reason to think Beast is any less haunted by his transgressions and mistakes than Cyclops, Wolverine, Xavier, etc..
Maybe it's just a personal preference thing, but I guess I never think of him as a character that's in need of "humanizing traits" because to me he's already one of the most human and relatable characters. Part of that is because of his flaws, but a bigger part of it's that his motivation seems generally rooted in a pretty humanistc idealism. His go-to role is of someone desperately trying to fix something, as if he's the one who has to .(.like if Spider-man had to face actual ethical situations.. or if Mr.Fantastic noticed that he did). That combined with his arrogance may be the source of his hypocrisy and poor decisions, but it still makes it seem like even if he's doing the wrong thing, he's trying to do it for the right reason.
I'm not saying that should make him anymore likable to anyone else, I do see why you and others don't like him; I'm just saying, despite his flaws, he never seems like an actual villain to me, so to me it would seem out of character to write him that way.
@oldnightcrawler: Well I think I've said before that I can't picture him as an out an out cape and cackle villain. But definitely one who takes actions believing himself to be 100% correct and even growing more desperate as a result. Again its his lack of consequence or acknowledgement (by himself or others) that really makes him unlikeable, but even him just acting in character but being put in a position where he's in opposition to the others (just them telling him not to do something and him doing it anyway and the cast being upset with him over it for more then a panel) would be enough to at least acknowledge all the antagonistic traits he hads and really save his character from being appearing so nonplussed by his own actions
1. I just don't see what you mean by "shady"; to me that implies that there's something selfish or duplicitous about his motivations, and I honestly haven't seen any evidence of that.
2. yeah, but he was a sinister dude, I don't have any reason to think there aren't lots of clones of him out there somewhere.
3. how does working with the Inhumans make him a villain?
4. Yeah, he's a conflicted character, but when a character's defining characteristic is that they hold themselves to a high ethical standard (see Batman, Superman), the natural story place to take that is to push them into scenarios where their ideals are challenged. I just don't see the logic behind him being a villain.
1. It's the tendency to work against his own makes exposes the potential for him becoming, let's not use the term evil, but at least a passive antagonist.
2. lol nice, but it'll only make his reappearance just as pointless as was his final showdown.
3. Same as one, if there's a conflict between muts and inhs, and then you see Beast working with inhs... how can it be possibly interpreted otherwise?
4. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and all. And you know what's funny? There are no good intentions can think of when we're talking about the modern Beast. All were replaced with a non-existent moral high ground, self-righteousness and unhealthy angst towards himself and his own.
How is this not a perfect potential for a tragic anti-villain?
1. I just don't see what you mean by "shady"; to me that implies that there's something selfish or duplicitous about his motivations, and I honestly haven't seen any evidence of that.
2. yeah, but he was a sinister dude, I don't have any reason to think there aren't lots of clones of him out there somewhere.
3. how does working with the Inhumans make him a villain?
4. Yeah, he's a conflicted character, but when a character's defining characteristic is that they hold themselves to a high ethical standard (see Batman, Superman), the natural story place to take that is to push them into scenarios where their ideals are challenged. I just don't see the logic behind him being a villain.
1. It's the tendency to work against his own makes exposes the potential for him becoming, let's not use the term evil, but at least a passive antagonist.
2. lol nice, but it'll only make his reappearance just as pointless as was his final showdown.
3. Same as one, if there's a conflict between muts and inhs, and then you see Beast working with inhs... how can it be possibly interpreted otherwise?
4. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and all. And you know what's funny? There are no good intentions can think of when we're talking about the modern Beast. All were replaced with a non-existent moral high ground, self-righteousness and unhealthy angst towards himself and his own.
How is this not a perfect potential for a tragic anti-villain?
1. "his own"? do you mean X-men? or mutants? or humans? Beast is all of these. I've seen him work against viruses that threatened to wipe out mutants, threats to all life from humans and alien worlds, but the only X-men I've seen him work against are Cyclops and Magneto.
2. depends on the story. any story's only as significant as it is good.
3. again this us vs. them mentality.. it makes me wonder: are you an X-men fan.. or a Brotherhood fan? Beast working with the Inhumans needn't mean he's working against humans, mutants, or X-men. He could be working for what he sees as the greater good of all of them.
4. Really? so Beast feeling responsible for dealing with the potential political fallout of one of his oldest friends going mad with power isn't well intentioned? Beast could have left Cyclops to be dealt with by SHIELD or the Avengers, he could have let his revolution succeed or fail of it's own accord, he could have turned Cyclops over to either faction, but he didn't. And not only didn't he, he still pulled Cyclops' fat out of the fryer when it counted. Instead he did the only desperate thing he could think of to get Cyclops to see how far he'd fallen -and not out of spite, but out of genuine concern, both for his friend and his impact on the world. What he did do was reckless, and arguably even selfish, considering, but it's hard for me to not see it as based on both his own disappointment in Cyclops and his duty to what they both once believed in. To me, Beast's actions, reckless though they may have been, are based on a responsibility to and for a friend he couldn't think of any other way to help.
"his own"? do you mean X-men? or mutants? or humans? Beast is all of these. I've seen him work against viruses that threatened to wipe out mutants, threats to all life from humans and alien worlds, but the only X-men I've seen him work against are Cyclops and Magneto.
Yeah you could also continue with the labels "blue skinned/furred? mammal? living being?" and it wouldn't change the picture, in fact the point that "his own" appears to be so obscure to you in regard of Beast tells me much more than all of the labels combined.
That's fine, it's not like he does much besides that.
again this us vs. them mentality.. it makes me wonder: are you an X-men fan.. or a Brotherhood fan? Beast working with the Inhumans needn't mean he's working against humans, mutants, or X-men. He could be working for what he sees as the greater good of all of them.
Let's say the X-men have nice, compelling comics to satisfy the story need for many, differently thinking people. Or it's only "my way or the highway"? And I thought X-men are about seeing beyond the differences...
Maybe he does, or maybe he's collaborating with the adversary? We're talking about the possibilities right?
Really? so Beast feeling responsible for dealing with the potential political fallout of one of his oldest friends going mad with power isn't well intentioned? Beast could have left Cyclops to be dealt with by SHIELD or the Avengers, he could have let his revolution succeed or fail of it's own accord, he could have turned Cyclops over to either faction, but he didn't. And not only didn't he, he still pulled Cyclops' fat out of the fryer when it counted. Instead he did the only desperate thing he could think of to get Cyclops to see how far he'd fallen -and not out of spite, but out of genuine concern, both for his friend and his impact on the world. What he did do was reckless, and arguably even selfish, considering, but it's hard for me to not see it as based on both his own disappointment in Cyclops and his duty to what they both once believed in. To me, Beast's actions, reckless though they may have been, are based on a responsibility to and for a friend he couldn't think of any other way to help.
Beast isn't an authority, and isn't a mentor to enforce his ehm responsibility upon anyone thinking differently. He proved himself to be as flawed and partial as it takes to enforce his vision upon those who disagree or if certain scenario isn't walking the path he deems to be right.
What he did was even worse, "not out of spite?" - ONLY out of spite, we all know "mutant genocide" was a lie to draw the o5 to their future. Beast is an intelligent fella (I would like to argue that too, but there are too many confirmations for that) so he knew exactly what dangers bringing 05 to the present could mean yet he doesn't stop. Changing history and killing himself (if his young self dies) and everybody else in the precess wasn't truly a compelling argument to think himself out of this crappy idea. I know that "space time paradox" has turned into a running gag, thanks to Bendis, but in universe it is a significant happening and we've seen what happened to adult Cyclops when his younger self was endangered. Maybe, that's what Beast wanted all along? And he hated himself so much he wouldn't even care to die as well? Maybe he considered 05 era the time when he suffering has begun and subconsciously sabotages this very period with a hidden death wish? Or maybe his angst towards Cyclops overwhelmed the reason and was purely against him, he just wasn't brave enough to pull the trigger himself?
In any form, with friends like this, who needs enemies?
(besides, Beast is already THE villain to all readers who despise the 05 in the present lol)
"his own"? do you mean X-men? or mutants? or humans? Beast is all of these. I've seen him work against viruses that threatened to wipe out mutants, threats to all life from humans and alien worlds, but the only X-men I've seen him work against are Cyclops and Magneto.
Yeah you could also continue with the labels "blue skinned/furred? mammal? living being?" and it wouldn't change the picture, in fact the point that "his own" appears to be so obscure to you in regard of Beast tells me much more than all of the labels combined.
That's fine, it's not like he does much besides that.
so, what did you actually mean, then? you didn't answer the question.
again this us vs. them mentality.. it makes me wonder: are you an X-men fan.. or a Brotherhood fan? Beast working with the Inhumans needn't mean he's working against humans, mutants, or X-men. He could be working for what he sees as the greater good of all of them.
Let's say the X-men have nice, compelling comics to satisfy the story need for many, differently thinking people. Or it's only "my way or the highway"? And I thought X-men are about seeing beyond the differences...
X-men may be many things to many people (which is great), but the X-men themselves have always been about peaceful coexistence. If Beast working with the Inhumans is in itself enough to make him the enemy of the X-men, to me that would imply that the X-men had lost sight of their own purpose.
Really? so Beast feeling responsible for dealing with the potential political fallout of one of his oldest friends going mad with power isn't well intentioned? Beast could have left Cyclops to be dealt with by SHIELD or the Avengers, he could have let his revolution succeed or fail of it's own accord, he could have turned Cyclops over to either faction, but he didn't. And not only didn't he, he still pulled Cyclops' fat out of the fryer when it counted. Instead he did the only desperate thing he could think of to get Cyclops to see how far he'd fallen -and not out of spite, but out of genuine concern, both for his friend and his impact on the world. What he did do was reckless, and arguably even selfish, considering, but it's hard for me to not see it as based on both his own disappointment in Cyclops and his duty to what they both once believed in. To me, Beast's actions, reckless though they may have been, are based on a responsibility to and for a friend he couldn't think of any other way to help.
Beast isn't an authority,
and isn't a mentor
to enforce his ehm responsibility upon anyone thinking differently.
He proved himself to be as flawed and partial as it takes to enforce his vision upon those who disagree or if certain scenario isn't walking the path he deems to be right.
He's an authority in several ways, actually.
his day job is literally mentoring children.
he's also an X-man, so..
I'm not saying he isn't flawed, I'm saying he isn't a villain. Can you give me an example of him "enforcing his vision upon" someone who wasn't a dangerous criminal?
What he did was even worse, "not out of spite?" - ONLY out of spite, we all know "mutant genocide" was a lie to draw the o5 to their future. Beast is an intelligent fella (I would like to argue that too, but there are too many confirmations for that) so he knew exactly what dangers bringing 05 to the present could mean yet he doesn't stop. Changing history and killing himself (if his young self dies) and everybody else in the precess wasn't truly a compelling argument to think himself out of this crappy idea.
All of that's true, yeah. But how was that any different than the ridiculous chance Cyclops took by trying to control the Phoenix?
I can think of at least three ways:
he had a working time machine, so he had every reason to think he could take the O5 back.
he was dealing with kids he'd known most of his life, rather than a cosmic entity that destroys planets.
oh yeah, and no one got killed because of it.
Beast knew Cyclops couldn't be caged, not by SHIELD or the Avengers, not by the X-men. He knew Cyclops wouldn't be stopped. Did he need to be? that's another discussion; but knowing how dangerous Cyclops was, both as an individual and as a public face for mutants, how was Beast really the villain for trying to influence this desperate, dangerous man? a man who had been his friend, a man who had stopped listening, even to his friends? His plan was stupidly reckless, but his motivation was neither stupid nor evil.
(besides, Beast is already THE villain to all readers who despise the 05 in the present lol)
Those people need to get over themselves. If there weren't people who do like reading about the O5, they wouldn't be around.
so, what did you actually mean, then? you didn't answer the question.
If I say that on X-forum X-fans arguing about an (supposedly I guess) X-man one found your question rhetorical, would you believe?
X-men may be many things to many people (which is great), but the X-men themselves have always been about peaceful coexistence. If Beast working with the Inhumans is in itself enough to make him the enemy of the X-men, to me that would imply that the X-men had lost sight of their own purpose.
Yeah and the reason why its still relevant and was such a success initially wasn't their end-goal, but the very real hardships they endured on their way to utopia. Some broke, some changed beyond recognition, some completely lost their way, and some turned into their own enemies.
So if I tell you an X-man works for Children of the Vault right after an existential conflict with them, you should be picking what of these options I listed fits better for his situation, or maybe even look for one much worse.
He's an authority in several ways, actually.
his day job is literally mentoring children.
he's also an X-man, so..
I'm not saying he isn't flawed, I'm saying he isn't a villain. Can you give me an example of him "enforcing his vision upon" someone who wasn't a dangerous criminal?
I should've specified:
1. He isn't an ultimate authority. (and even there humans tend to defy)
2. I pity these children if he goes anywhere beyond science with them
3. And once again, X-men are about thinking differently
4. And I'm saying he can be, unconsciously, indirectly, but factually. I was talking about his specific, paranoiac angst towards Cyclops and the course of action he chose ehm to fight with him.
All of that's true, yeah. But how was that any different than the ridiculous chance Cyclops took by trying to control the Phoenix?
Are we really going there again? I'm ready, are you? :)
1. Cyclops didn't invite Phoenix Force, not only it hasn't asked anybody, it's so well beyond human authority it isn't even arguable.
2. He didn't choose to become a host, it was enforced upon him (by Beast's world-killing colleague and all in all best bud, Tony Stark)
3. The real question is, had Scott not stood there to oppose Avengers wouldn't that have been any worse?
Scott lost it in the end, I never try to argue that, but let's not pretend there was no one to provoke him many, many times even when they knew how explosive it can be. And well, it exploded, congrats, Earth's Mightiest! Beast, are you there? I know you are.
I can think of at least three ways:
he had a working time machine, so he had every reason to think he could take the O5 back.
he was dealing with kids he'd known most of his life, rather than a cosmic entity that destroys planets.
oh yeah, and no one got killed because of it.
Just two scans to address it all:
Gallery
Beast knew Cyclops couldn't be caged, not by SHIELD or the Avengers, not by the X-men. He knew Cyclops wouldn't be stopped. Did he need to be? that's another discussion; but knowing how dangerous Cyclops was, both as an individual and as a public face for mutants, how was Beast really the villain for trying to influence this desperate, dangerous man? a man who had been his friend, a man who had stopped listening, even to his friends? His plan was stupidly reckless, but his motivation was neither stupid nor evil.
We're running in circles, no one said Beast's evil, but his failures, his inability to accept that his way isn't the one working with a lot of other, "little" points in his resume that unambiguously point out how, let's say, ambivalent and changeable he can be, all indicate that he can become, maybe even unwilling or indirect sleeping adversary.
Those people need to get over themselves. If there weren't people who do like reading about the O5, they wouldn't be around.
Let's see how they fare without Bendis fans, desperate Jean fans as well and headlining "flagship" over it to draw more and more readership as possible, and I'll be right here to discuss it again.
Besides, those of us who hated it weren't given any worthy alternative, so those ultimatums completely misplaced.
Beast knew Cyclops couldn't be caged, not by SHIELD or the Avengers, not by the X-men. He knew Cyclops wouldn't be stopped. Did he need to be? that's another discussion; but knowing how dangerous Cyclops was, both as an individual and as a public face for mutants, how was Beast really the villain for trying to influence this desperate, dangerous man? a man who had been his friend, a man who had stopped listening, even to his friends? His plan was stupidly reckless, but his motivation was neither stupid nor evil.
We're running in circles, no one said Beast's evil, but his failures, his inability to accept that his way isn't the one working with a lot of other, "little" points in his resume that unambiguously point out how, let's say, ambivalent and changeable he can be, all indicate that he can become, maybe even unwilling or indirect sleeping adversary.
That I could see, I guess. I just equate villainy with evil, so without evil intent, I can't really see someone as a true villain, I suppose.
Those people need to get over themselves. If there weren't people who do like reading about the O5, they wouldn't be around.
Let's see how they fare without Bendis fans, desperate Jean fans as well and headlining "flagship" over it to draw more and more readership as possible, and I'll be right here to discuss it again.
Besides, those of us who hated it weren't given any worthy alternative, so those ultimatums completely misplaced.
1. I bet there were lots of people who were interested just to read stories with those characters. That was really what brought me in, that and the art. And I'm pretty hot and cold with Bendis overall, so that wasn't such a factor, but I also had no interest in Jean returning and ended up liking his take on her. For me, and probably others, there's just something about the dynamic of those characters being together again, being the world's strangest teens, that just feels like the X-men.
I'm not saying I'm interested in the new volume (Mark Bagley doesn't do anything for me, plus they split up the set, which was at least part of the appeal), but I just don't see how it's a bad thing to have those characters around.
2. I thought the actual flagships (X-men and Uncanny') were mostly decent. But, even if I didn't, doing just about anything would be a better alternative to reading a comic I didn't enjoy, so.. I don't think they are.
That I could see, I guess. I just equate villainy with evil, so without evil intent, I can't really see someone as a true villain, I suppose.
To me it's "main point of view (which might turn out to be imperfect)" vs. "a different, maybe conflicting PoV (which can be, but not necessarily evil)". So "villainy" was just a flexible term to apply on eternal "versus" struggle. Someone has to be the enemy, indirectly or manipulated, and thus he becomes a villain to that specific faction.
1. I bet there were lots of people who were interested just to read stories with those characters. That was really what brought me in, that and the art. And I'm pretty hot and cold with Bendis overall, so that wasn't such a factor, but I also had no interest in Jean returning and ended up liking his take on her. For me, and probably others, there's just something about the dynamic of those characters being together again, being the world's strangest teens, that just feels like the X-men.
I'm not saying I'm interested in the new volume (Mark Bagley doesn't do anything for me, plus they split up the set, which was at least part of the appeal), but I just don't see how it's a bad thing to have those characters around.
2. I thought the actual flagships (X-men and Uncanny') were mostly decent. But, even if I didn't, doing just about anything would be a better alternative to reading a comic I didn't enjoy, so.. I don't think they are.
1. Yeah, and you said you dropped that book right? And in 2010s calling them "world's strangest teens" is such a stretch, I think you appointed the whole problem with that "development" of them being here. They just bring nothing to the table, once strangest superheroes of all, now just a bunch of dull teenies with barely anything worthy to tell about unless we're talking about their PRESENT and well-developed (or messed up) selves.
I don't know how to regress back to 1963 is any definition good, moreover why being apologetic for this trollfest. "Ah.... Colossus, injected Legacy Virus, but that's OK we'll go back in time and bring him here.... just a second before he injects himself!" Only unimaginative, creative impotents come up with stories like these. I mean, if only the trolling would've been exquisite and unambiguous, but even the trollfest was low quality and ostentatious.
2. Yeah Bendis himself said that AN was the flagship I've heard. Which makes sense since post-AvX we mostly had AN focusing on the whole franchise.
I stopped reading, that doesn't justify the wasted potential and how it dragged the whole franchise down for me. It simply doesn't.
1. I bet there were lots of people who were interested just to read stories with those characters. That was really what brought me in, that and the art. And I'm pretty hot and cold with Bendis overall, so that wasn't such a factor, but I also had no interest in Jean returning and ended up liking his take on her. For me, and probably others, there's just something about the dynamic of those characters being together again, being the world's strangest teens, that just feels like the X-men.
I'm not saying I'm interested in the new volume (Mark Bagley doesn't do anything for me, plus they split up the set, which was at least part of the appeal), but I just don't see how it's a bad thing to have those characters around.
2. I thought the actual flagships (X-men and Uncanny') were mostly decent. But, even if I didn't, doing just about anything would be a better alternative to reading a comic I didn't enjoy, so.. I don't think they are.
1. Yeah, and you said you dropped that book right? And in 2010s calling them "world's strangest teens" is such a stretch, I think you appointed the whole problem with that "development" of them being here. They just bring nothing to the table, once strangest superheroes of all, now just a bunch of dull teenies with barely anything worthy to tell about unless we're talking about their PRESENT and well-developed (or messed up) selves.
I don't know how to regress back to 1963 is any definition good, moreover why being apologetic for this trollfest. "Ah.... Colossus, injected Legacy Virus, but that's OK we'll go back in time and bring him here.... just a second before he injects himself!" Only unimaginative, creative impotents come up with stories like these. I mean, if only the trolling would've been exquisite and unambiguous, but even the trollfest was low quality and ostentatious.
2. Yeah Bendis himself said that AN was the flagship I've heard. Which makes sense since post-AvX we mostly had AN focusing on the whole franchise.
I stopped reading, that doesn't justify the wasted potential and how it dragged the whole franchise down for me. It simply doesn't.
1. yeah, I dropped the book because I stopped being interested in what Bendis was doing with the characters, but that doesn't mean I think it's bad to have the characters around. Other people have done fun stories with them; Mike Costa's The Arms of The Octopus story was good, as was Greg Rucka's Cyclops series.
I mean, I do basically agree that the way that the characters came to be in the present is pretty sloppy and ridiculous; I'm not disputing that. I just also like how the characters are as teens. It's like Archie comics, or reading about Dick Grayson as Robin on the Titans; those characters were designed to be teenagers, and there's a great dynamic between them when they are.
Sure, I mostly like how the characters have been developed as adult characters with their own rich mythos, but not every story about them needs to be about the adult versions. Is it weird to have two versions of most of them in the same continuity? yeah, but I don't care about continuity, I only care about how fun the stories are.
2. Bendis can call it the flagship if he wants, but I don't see it that way. When I jumped off AN, I never felt like I was missing anything important or central; it was only when I stopped reading Uncanny' that I felt like I was missing the main direction, so, yeah.
1. yeah, I dropped the book because I stopped being interested in what Bendis was doing with the characters, but that doesn't mean I think it's bad to have the characters around. Other people have done fun stories with them; Mike Costa's The Arms of The Octopus story was good, as was Greg Rucka's Cyclops series.
And none of this is as worthy and promising as having the unconstitutional team of significant mutants like Mags, Magik and Scott the way Gillen reconstructed their portrayal, go wild as it was basically promised to us.
All this "tacked on" storytelling... Corsair brought back to life just to hang out with his time displaced son... I mean, common! It is embarrassing.
I mean, I do basically agree that the way that the characters came to be in the present is pretty sloppy and ridiculous; I'm not disputing that. I just also like how the characters are as teens. It's like Archie comics, or reading about Dick Grayson as Robin on the Titans; those characters were designed to be teenagers, and there's a great dynamic between them when they are.
I guess that's the main problem for many of us, the appeal of X-comics, in outgrowing the prime design, that had has been disrupted in a ridiculing and mocking way, that what makes some feel... double-crossed shall I say.
Sure, I mostly like how the characters have been developed as adult characters with their own rich mythos, but not every story about them needs to be about the adult versions. Is it weird to have two versions of most of them in the same continuity? yeah, but I don't care about continuity, I only care about how fun the stories are.
So you say, it's better having two versions of the same characters, one of which you already saw for like 50+ years of development, with them basically replacing the appearances of self-contained and already existing OTHER teen characters with the faux brand "All-new"?
2. Bendis can call it the flagship if he wants, but I don't see it that way. When I jumped off AN, I never felt like I was missing anything important or central; it was only when I stopped reading Uncanny' that I felt like I was missing the main direction, so, yeah.
Oh really, so why all the X-events of this era (besides Axis) revolved around AN? And why me jumping off Uncanny never really felt like I'm missing anything important since this book was so, shall I say, unimportant? Will of Xavier took so long the book started with Wolverine appearing, and ended several months after he was dead they had to avoid his inclusion in any contextual form it was so amusing. The pacing was ridiculous even by Bendis low standards and you know what's funny? All was shamelessly undone! Talking about "flagship" and it's significance.
1. yeah, I dropped the book because I stopped being interested in what Bendis was doing with the characters, but that doesn't mean I think it's bad to have the characters around. Other people have done fun stories with them; Mike Costa's The Arms of The Octopus story was good, as was Greg Rucka's Cyclops series.
And none of this is as worthy and promising as having the unconstitutional team of significant mutants like Mags, Magik and Scott the way Gillen reconstructed their portrayal, go wild as it was basically promised to us.
I thought Gillen's run seemed promising, but ultimately it was hardly special. It's noteworthy for Sinister, not really so much for any of the X-men. kinda funny in retrospect, since it seemed like they were trying to have the X-men be more like the Inhumans..
but, anyway, I don't see what that has to do with anything. I don't even see why you're making this comparison.
"All this "tacked on" storytelling... Corsair brought back to life just to hang out with his time displaced son... I mean, common! It is embarrassing."
I think you mean c'mon, actually..
but, again, not any more contrived than how any X-men character (re:virtually all of them) have come back from the dead. If you applied this line of criticism across the board, I don't see how you'd think any X-men stories were good. Even by the time X-men comics actually got good in the first place (in the 80's), both Xavier and Magneto had been brought back from the dead by equally ridiculous reasoning.
"I guess that's the main problem for many of us, the appeal of X-comics, in outgrowing the prime design, that had has been disrupted in a ridiculing and mocking way, that what makes some feel... double-crossed shall I say."
arbitrarily so, I say.
"So you say, it's better having two versions of the same characters, one of which you already saw for like 50+ years of development, with them basically replacing the appearances of self-contained and already existing OTHER teen characters with the faux brand "All-new"?"
I didn't say it was better, I just don't have any problem with it. I haven't been reading X-men for 50 years, so I've already been reading "50+ years of development" all at the same time all along. In the 90's alone I read the 90's X-men, and the 80's, and the 60's. They all have their own merits, and I liked being able to read them all. Does anyone actually start in the 60's and read all the way through? I did it eventually, but it's not like it makes the individual stories any better.
and I dunno what you mean by "replacing". You could just as easily argue that the Academy X kids were replacing the real X-men with their faux branding of "X-men"..
"Oh really, so why all the X-events of this era (besides Axis) revolved around AN? And why me jumping off Uncanny never really felt like I'm missing anything important since this book was so, shall I say, unimportant? Will of Xavier took so long the book started with Wolverine appearing, and ended several months after he was dead they had to avoid his inclusion in any contextual form it was so amusing. The pacing was ridiculous even by Bendis low standards and you know what's funny? All was shamelessly undone! Talking about "flagship" and it's significance."
were any of the X-events of recent years (or ever) actually significant?
To my mind X-men started to lose significance the same time as they started having crossovers and events, and almost all of the X-men comics I like were ones that weren't parts of either. Even your criticism of the Will of Xavier story is mostly based on how it fits into continuity, not how effective or entertaining the story was in itself.
If I like a story, I don't care how or where it fits into continuity. Why would I let something happening in other stories ruin my enjoyment of the one I'm reading? it just doesn't make sense to me.
I thought Gillen's run seemed promising, but ultimately it was hardly special. It's noteworthy for Sinister, not really so much for any of the X-men. kinda funny in retrospect, since it seemed like they were trying to have the X-men be more like the Inhumans..
but, anyway, I don't see what that has to do with anything. I don't even see why you're making this comparison.
Sure, and his run had like ten issues to do with his own story and just as much with being an AvX tie in. The untapped potential of his run has been discussed on many occasions, but I was referring to AvX:Consequences and where he left Cyclops' faction exactly.
Point was, X-men world needed to be rebuild, not thrown into an additional convolution randomly.
I think you mean c'mon, actually..
but, again, not any more contrived than how any X-men character (re:virtually all of them) have come back from the dead. If you applied this line of criticism across the board, I don't see how you'd think any X-men stories were good. Even by the time X-men comics actually got good in the first place (in the 80's), both Xavier and Magneto had been brought back from the dead by equally ridiculous reasoning.
lol yeah sorry.
You're concentrating on the effect, not the cause I was trying to appoint.
arbitrarily so, I say.
Right because embracing the 05 in the present is the definition of constructive.
I didn't say it was better, I just don't have any problem with it. I haven't been reading X-men for 50 years, so I've already been reading "50+ years of development" all at the same time all along. In the 90's alone I read the 90's X-men, and the 80's, and the 60's. They all have their own merits, and I liked being able to read them all. Does anyone actually start in the 60's and read all the way through? I did it eventually, but it's not like it makes the individual stories any better.
and I dunno what you mean by "replacing". You could just as easily argue that the Academy X kids were replacing the real X-men with their faux branding of "X-men"..
What do you mean exactly? That a person cannot get behind the already well-developed and rich character if he didn't read his story right from the beginning? Then you're saying that this person cannot also get behind the cohesive, ongoing nature of what comics (Marvel at least) are I guess.
Right, because the concept of this book wasn't in the title, NEW X-men, indicating it's about new mutants who WILL one day become (or not) the new generation of X-men, that being faux, as opposed to ALL-NEW who are actually the oldest character to already exist within the brand itself? Not arbitrary at all.
were any of the X-events of recent years (or ever) actually significant?
To my mind X-men started to lose significance the same time as they started having crossovers and events, and almost all of the X-men comics I like were ones that weren't parts of either. Even your criticism of the Will of Xavier story is mostly based on how it fits into continuity, not how effective or entertaining the story was in itself.
If I like a story, I don't care how or where it fits into continuity. Why would I let something happening in other stories ruin my enjoyment of the one I'm reading? it just doesn't make sense to me.
For the franchise? Yes. And is long as it shapes the franchise it is important.
And what was that development that affected the franchise during Uncanny X-men? My point was for the Will to be a pointless waste of time, that added little to what I consider a big picture and good developments.
We were talking about the flagship, not how much the story was enjoyable I think.
Point was, X-men world needed to be rebuild, not thrown into an additional convolution randomly.
I'll agree that random, convoluted ways of moving the story forward are always unfortunate, and the way in which the O5 were brought into the present certainly falls into that category.
Did the X-men's world need to be rebuilt? I mean, the premise of the X-men is simple enough, and yet particular enough that if you veer too far from it then it stops really being the X-men. Between the SF/Utopia era and the Extinction team, it seemed the premise was flexed and stretched quite a bit, to the point where Cyclops' Revolution team was a natural next step, having a bit of it's own thing without sacrificing the elements which still made it the X-men (I suppose that's the main reason I consider Uncanny' to have been the true flagship of the period).
The problem, I think, was by the time you get to Cyclops' outlaw team, you sort of need to know years worth of continuity just to really understand the basic premise. Specific as the premise is, the X-men really shouldn't be that hard to explain. All-new', convoluted though it was, was obviously meant to be a counterpoint to this: bring back the original characters, which are both recognized by new fans and missed by old, as the POV. Make the story about them again, show how ridiculous and frustrating the years of continuity are through their eyes. Give the X-men a fresh start.
Yeah, it's contrived and convoluted, but really no more so than X-factor or X-men '91 -arguably less so. Yeah, as a long-time fan, I lost interest after a while, but I can still appreciate how well the first year or so of All-new' holds up as a pretty fun primer for either new or returning fans.
But it sort of comes down to what you mean by "rebuild" -are the X-men their premise? or are they their specific characters? or is it maybe that it can be a bit of both?
"You're concentrating on the effect, not the cause I was trying to appoint."
which was?
"Right because embracing the 05 in the present is the definition of constructive."
Right, because rejecting the concept outright is especially constructive..
"What do you mean exactly? That a person cannot get behind the already well-developed and rich character if he didn't read his story right from the beginning? Then you're saying that this person cannot also get behind the cohesive, ongoing nature of what comics (Marvel at least) are I guess."
I thought I was saying the opposite of that, but whatever.
"Right, because the concept of this book wasn't in the title, NEW X-men, indicating it's about new mutants who WILL one day become (or not) the new generation of X-men, that being faux, as opposed to ALL-NEW who are actually the oldest character to already exist within the brand itself? Not arbitrary at all."
Right, so from my perspective, the New X-Men were never really the X-men at all; they were the new New Mutants. Calling them the X-men was just a brand-recognition thing.
All-new X-men were actually The X-Men, in NEW stories. Whether you liked the book or not, there's nothing inappropriate about that title.
were any of the X-events of recent years (or ever) actually significant?
To my mind X-men started to lose significance the same time as they started having crossovers and events, and almost all of the X-men comics I like were ones that weren't parts of either. Even your criticism of the Will of Xavier story is mostly based on how it fits into continuity, not how effective or entertaining the story was in itself.
If I like a story, I don't care how or where it fits into continuity. Why would I let something happening in other stories ruin my enjoyment of the one I'm reading? it just doesn't make sense to me.
For the franchise? Yes. And is long as it shapes the franchise it is important.
And what was that development that affected the franchise during Uncanny X-men? My point was for the Will to be a pointless waste of time, that added little to what I consider a big picture and good developments.
We were talking about the flagship, not how much the story was enjoyable I think.
To me the franchise, any franchise, is only as significant as it is well executed. The X-men is a great premise with great characters (my personal favorites among their kind), but it's true significance for me is in how it's used those things as a vehicle to move the medium (of comics and film) and the genre (of sci-fi and superheroes) into interesting and entertaining places.
At the very least it should challenge it's own characters, premise, or genre; if it isn't doing at least one of those things, it isn't really significant (even if it is fun).
Whether the characters themselves are aware of it, the Will story does change the status quo. At the very least, it resolves with Cyclops finally handing control over to someone else, which is a resolution that's been decades in the making. It brings Cyclops' story to a definitive point (something that actually hasn't happened in years), it introduces a potential new threat, and it finally reestablishes Storm as the actual head of the X-men. While it could be argued that these are really only developments for Cyclops and Tempus, Cyclops having been the central character for more than a decade makes it seem like more than enough for me.
If nothing else, when people look back at which X-men stories stand out from the 2013/2014 era, it will most likely be the only one of any real note, which, to my mind, is more than enough for Uncanny' to be considered the main flagship book of it's era.
Did the X-men's world need to be rebuilt? I mean, the premise of the X-men is simple enough, and yet particular enough that if you veer too far from it then it stops really being the X-men. Between the SF/Utopia era and the Extinction team, it seemed the premise was flexed and stretched quite a bit, to the point where Cyclops' Revolution team was a natural next step, having a bit of it's own thing without sacrificing the elements which still made it the X-men (I suppose that's the main reason I consider Uncanny' to have been the true flagship of the period).
The problem, I think, was by the time you get to Cyclops' outlaw team, you sort of need to know years worth of continuity just to really understand the basic premise. Specific as the premise is, the X-men really shouldn't be that hard to explain. All-new', convoluted though it was, was obviously meant to be a counterpoint to this: bring back the original characters, which are both recognized by new fans and missed by old, as the POV. Make the story about them again, show how ridiculous and frustrating the years of continuity are through their eyes. Give the X-men a fresh start.
X-men were thrown under the bus as the result of AvX and had (fandom torn) team split with Schism. And the reason to all of this was Decimation. That's EVERYTHING a new reader needed to know to move forward. Is that so much for their gentle natures to handle? Again, a point about people who should read comics or not. So you're saying that since X-men have become a parody of themselves all you need now is that an in universe acknowledgement of that as well? "Look how ridiculous and frustrating the years of continuity are by showing how ridiculous and frustrating everything is!"? This is not a counterpoint, more like additional point of deconstruction, and the only reason for it is... characters evolve, change and, God forbid, die? Look at how low we've fallen if that needs a counterpoint.
A fresh start was already promised with or without Same Old X-men, I guess that a world building was too much to for somebody like Bendis to handle. Or worse, he didn't find the franchise worthy of that.
But it sort of comes down to what you mean by "rebuild" -are the X-men their premise? or are they their specific characters? or is it maybe that it can be a bit of both?
Status quo, modus operandi, call it as you wish. There were two already established factions, Cyclops' outlaw and typical school based. Mutants pop up again. What shall all factions of X-men do and how they would achieve that? What new unexplored dimensions can be added (I know! 05!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)? What did the Decimation change in the eyes of humanity? And in the eyes of mutants? Honestly, it's just the most shallow questions that at least for me bring so much more inspiration and hunger for a story than Same Old will ever do.
which was?
Just because something questionable was done in the past doesn't justify it done in the present, I gave you an example of lazy storytelling, you gave me examples of the same (?) from the past, how is that a counterargument?
Right, because rejecting the concept outright is especially constructive..
Of course, the only possible reason could be "arbitrary".
I thought I was saying the opposite of that, but whatever.
Then I don't understand what is your point regarding that context...
Right, so from my perspective, the New X-Men were never really the X-men at all; they were the new New Mutants. Calling them the X-men was just a brand-recognition thing.
All-new X-men were actually The X-Men, in NEW stories. Whether you liked the book or not, there's nothing inappropriate about that title.
They were not, but it doesn't take away what the title meant - they may be the new X-men. The title was indicative and relevant, even beyond the branding. While All-New are the X-men, yet remain same old. Clearly you can twist the wording again, but to me there's not much to argue about "all new" with 60 years old characters...
To me the franchise, any franchise, is only as significant as it is well executed. The X-men is a great premise with great characters (my personal favorites among their kind), but it's true significance for me is in how it's used those things as a vehicle to move the medium (of comics and film) and the genre (of sci-fi and superheroes) into interesting and entertaining places. At the very least it should challenge it's own characters, premise, or genre; if it isn't doing at least one of those things, it isn't really significant (even if it is fun).
Whether the characters themselves are aware of it, the Will story does change the status quo. At the very least, it resolves with Cyclops finally handing control over to someone else, which is a resolution that's been decades in the making. It brings Cyclops' story to a definitive point (something that actually hasn't happened in years), it introduces a potential new threat, and it finally reestablishes Storm as the actual head of the X-men. While it could be argued that these are really only developments for Cyclops and Tempus, Cyclops having been the central character for more than a decade makes it seem like more than enough for me.
If nothing else, when people look back at which X-men stories stand out from the 2013/2014 era, it will most likely be the only one of any real note, which, to my mind, is more than enough for Uncanny' to be considered the main flagship book of it's era.
Alright.
Are you serious? Cyclops handling control over the faction that he wasn't in control of to begin with? I don't want to ruin it for you, but seemingly the status quo you're talking about has changed with Schism and was such for a couple of years. And Storm's "promotion" resulted with Wolverine's death and had little to do with Cyclops, unless of course you consider that deed to be an AvX/Schism level in status quo smasher, de jure over de facto. And again you're trying to give Uncanny and Cyclops importance they barely even possessed. Cyclops was a center (and even then arguably THE center) of just one book that was so isolated and actionless its plots were barely relevant, even just for the X-men.
Funny, to me it would be the short lived X-factor and maybe Magneto. And you know what's funny? Aside from Same Old, they all pretty much equal in its actual story worth. The only relevant X title of that era. Terrible times to be an X-fan indeed.
"X-men were thrown under the bus as the result of AvX and had (fandom torn) team split with Schism. And the reason to all of this was Decimation. That's EVERYTHING a new reader needed to know to move forward. Is that so much for their gentle natures to handle? Again, a point about people who should read comics or not. So you're saying that since X-men have become a parody of themselves all you need now is that an in universe acknowledgement of that as well? "Look how ridiculous and frustrating the years of continuity are by showing how ridiculous and frustrating everything is!"? This is not a counterpoint, more like additional point of deconstruction, and the only reason for it is... characters evolve, change and, God forbid, die? Look at how low we've fallen if that needs a counterpoint."
I would argue that there's a lot more a new reader would question than what you've glossed over here. Either way, I don't disagree with your point here, and I'm not trying to argue that this was handled well, I was just saying I feel like I understand why they took the approach they did.
"Status quo, modus operandi, call it as you wish. There were two already established factions, Cyclops' outlaw and typical school based. Mutants pop up again. What shall all factions of X-men do and how they would achieve that? What new unexplored dimensions can be added (I know! 05!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)? What did the Decimation change in the eyes of humanity? And in the eyes of mutants?"
yeah, any of that could have been more interesting, I agree.
..did.. did you even read my question?
"Just because something questionable was done in the past doesn't justify it done in the present, I gave you an example of lazy storytelling, you gave me examples of the same (?) from the past, how is that a counterargument?"
just pointing out the nature of the beast, m'friend. Maybe I'm jaded, or maybe I just don't care too much, but criticizing X-men for being convoluted is like criticizing a fish for not being able to walk. As you say, there's 50 years of stories to work from; surely you've noticed the patterns.
"They were not, but it doesn't take away what the title meant - they may be the new X-men. The title was indicative and relevant, even beyond the branding. While All-New are the X-men, yet remain same old. Clearly you can twist the wording again, but to me there's not much to argue about "all new" with 60 years old characters..."
I didn't see anything especially new about New X-men or All-new X-men, but at least with All-new' I saw the X-men.
if I sent my lad out with the instructions "pick me up the new X-men comic" and he returned with a copy of New X-Men, my response would be somewhere between mumbling that they don't make 'em like they used to and just throwing it back in his face for not knowing who the X-men are.
"Are you serious? Cyclops handling control over the faction that he wasn't in control of to begin with? I don't want to ruin it for you, butseemingly the status quo you're talking about has changed with Schism and was such for a couple of years. And Storm's "promotion" resulted with Wolverine's death and had little to do with Cyclops, unless of course you consider that deed to be an AvX/Schism level in status quo smasher, de jure over de facto. And again you're trying to give Uncanny and Cyclops importance they barely even possessed. Cyclops was a center (and even then arguably THE center) of just one book that was so isolated and actionless its plots were barely relevant, even just for the X-men."
I guess I see what you're saying, but I don't see it that way.
"Funny, to me it would be the short lived X-factor and maybe Magneto. And you know what's funny? Aside from Same Old, they all pretty much equal in its actual story worth. The only relevant X title of that era. Terrible times to be an X-fan indeed."
I didn't say relevant, I said "of note". And I didn't say X-factor, I said X-men.
I would argue that there's a lot more a new reader would question than what you've glossed over here. Either way, I don't disagree with your point here, and I'm not trying to argue that this was handled well, I was just saying I feel like I understand why they took the approach they did.
Well, did that story have potential? I admit, yes. Was it handled, conceptually and progressively, decently? Obviously not. But more importantly, was that a good time for said story? Again, the obvious answer. And I think the receptions agree with me.
yeah, any of that could have been more interesting, I agree.
..did.. did you even read my question?
Ehm, I thought I answered exactly what you were asking... Or maybe I didn't. Can you be more specific, I feel that I missed something here.
just pointing out the nature of the beast, m'friend. Maybe I'm jaded, or maybe I just don't care too much, but criticizing X-men for being convoluted is like criticizing a fish for not being able to walk. As you say, there's 50 years of stories to work from; surely you've noticed the patterns.
And that's man, is exactly the thinking I refuse to accept. I love the X-men for a not-so-much-but-still misguided Holocaust Survivor, for a strongly traditional and also proud mutant Native American, for the best depiction of Russian Soul in American entertainment, for a young woman whose conflicting nature that binds self-hatred and pride paradoxically, for a boy-scout who has to sacrifice a dream becoming the man to face reality, and in the most convoluted, for a girl whose soul was raped as a showing of love and who's yet to make sense out of this twisted surreality incorporated, who's to say she's still capable to overcome this abuse? We shall see.
THIS IS the X-men I love, not all these idiotic time travel/alternate reality/whatever-it-was trollfest overloads that shallow writers like Bendis and Aaron try to feed us without even trying to give the franchise the proper respect it deserves, without even looking into what exactly makes the X-men a stand out brand it has become and why.
Everything can be explained and dealt with, we were just not given the writer who actually wanted to achieve such goal. Why bother? Seems like people like me are dinosaurs. Maybe that's exactly what the fandom deserves, cause they support it.
I didn't see anything especially new about New X-men or All-new X-men, but at least with All-new' I saw the X-men.
if I sent my lad out with the instructions "pick me up the new X-men comic" and he returned with a copy of New X-Men, my response would be somewhere between mumbling that they don't make 'em like they used to and just throwing it back in his face for not knowing who the X-men are.
What can I say, I guess all those hundreds of people were just as disappointed as you would've been after they read NEW Avengers, you know, with NEW characters added, that were never Avengers before? :p
I guess I see what you're saying, but I don't see it that way.
I don't know what other way could there be...
I didn't say relevant, I said "of note". And I didn't say X-factor, I said X-men.
but yeah, X-factor was great.
Don't be too formal, X-factor, as an X-book, X---------book derived from the X--------------men. I mean, seriously. ;)
This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment