|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Sept 10, 2020 13:18:14 GMT -5
The more the merrier. It's not as if they all have to be used. It's just funnybooks.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2020 14:22:06 GMT -5
It also feels like the characters are constantly evolving/changing much more frequently than most comics characters. And nothing is ever forgotten. It's the crossover/event craze of DC and Marvel turned up to eleven. I can take a break from comics featuring Superman, Spider-Man, Batman and others - and when I return, in most cases, I can get up to speed quickly. I can’t do that with the X-Men. When I last read an X-Men comic, Cyclops was a teenager again, and part of the Champions, while the X-Men from the 60s were in our time period. And Magneto may have been a good guy or a quasi-good guy. And, well, off to Wikipedia I went. I’m not saying that has ever been any different. In the late 80s, someone bought me a Marvel annual that had an X-Factor storyline (the one where they battle Spidey). I had no idea how or why the original X-Men were now called X-Factor. There was no Wikipedia back then. I was confused. Of course, I’m not saying they had to cater to my ignorance. Far from it! I’m not hostile to the X-Men. I did post a while back about how Age of Apocalypse is a story that I enjoyed. I am a Wolverine fan. I have enjoyed some X-Men books, but it seems a short break away from them results in confusion that I don’t necessarily experience when taking a break from other characters.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Sept 10, 2020 14:25:01 GMT -5
A proliferation of and variety of mutants is fine. Only thing I ask is that there be a mixture of mutations as NOT ALL these mutants should have A list powers. Should be a mix of lesser powers as well as more physical mutations. Next would be is why does dang near every mutant that catches reader attention need to be on an X-Men team? Yes, I know cuz it sells. But it has gone the route of writers cherry picking to create teams that really have little rhyme or reason for being together. They look at the power matchups or which mutant is the hot property of the moment? Third is writers of today changing characters to suit whatever they want or need them to be/do. Truthfully I can say I just don't recognize ANY of the characters as those I grew up reading.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2020 14:57:15 GMT -5
Truthfully I can say I just don't recognize ANY of the characters as those I grew up reading. Any specific examples? I’d love to know.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 10, 2020 15:10:39 GMT -5
I'm not up on the current MU but I thought I heard a few years ago that there was a trend to start saying that a lot of characters that weren't previously mutants were now mutants. That sounds like a really bad idea to me.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 10, 2020 15:20:22 GMT -5
I'm not up on the current MU but I thought I heard a few years ago that there was a trend to start saying that a lot of characters that weren't previously mutants were now mutants. That sounds like a really bad idea to me. Sub-Mariner, "the first mutant"... ugh...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2020 15:36:53 GMT -5
I'm not up on the current MU but I thought I heard a few years ago that there was a trend to start saying that a lot of characters that weren't previously mutants were now mutants. That sounds like a really bad idea to me. Sub-Mariner, "the first mutant"... ugh... I have a topic planned about Subby at some point. Not too soon (I don’t like to “hog” the forum), but soon. I hope my thoughts make some sort of sense.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Sept 10, 2020 16:15:36 GMT -5
Truthfully I can say I just don't recognize ANY of the characters as those I grew up reading. Any specific examples? I’d love to know. Without it turning into I'm an old grump and a loooong diatribe I shall endeavor to provide short reasonings. Cyclops who was always portrayed as nearly equal or 2nd in leadership tactics to Captain America with a positive attitude and desire to protect mutants became a cold, must do whatever it takes for the cause, willing to infect Skrulls, create a secret op's team, killer of Xavier and various other "bad" attributes as a leader. He changed from being an inspiration motivating leader to a big company CEO who doesn't lead by doing but instead demands you follow his orders without question. Beast who has been shown as well adjusted emotionally and mentally continously experiments upon himself. He is flopping back and forth from smart to stupid in his desires and decisions. Making stupid choices like giving research to a known villain (Mr. Sinister) which brings about death or in isolating himself due to his failures in pity. Angel who was a heroic, enthusiastic want to do do good help everyone after a change to Archangel becomes a tortured soul intent on his darker aspects, becomes literally a "real" Angel it seems, then has a healing genetic cure in his blood even greater than Wolverine? Iceman goes from coating his body in ice to actually converting his human organs into ice? And can have his chest exploded while in that form & then eventually recreate all the lost internal organs & return to being human? Is made homosexual just because. Jean Grey is killed and resurrected and the once wasn't enough so let's repeat because writers don't understand her or know what to with her? Xavier goes from creating a school to help mutant children learn how to utilize their abilities in society and becomes a militant mutant army leader. He cruelly and very casually turns away from working with governmental leaders to mind washing and controlling others. And that is just my quick take upon the originals.
|
|
|
Post by coinilius on Sept 10, 2020 20:04:53 GMT -5
Not saying that bad writing isn’t a culprit for some of that, Brutalis, because there has definitely been plenty of bad writing in the X books over the years (and good writing, don’t get me wrong), but how many of those changes have also been because of legitimate character growth and development over the years?
Considering it has been almost 60 years in the real world and who knows many years in-universe since the X-Men debuted as teenagers (it might be around 14 years or so by now?), then it’s not that surprising that they are very different characters now to when they first started out. Whether those changes are always organic and/or make sense is another issue...
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Sept 10, 2020 20:37:56 GMT -5
I'm not up on the current MU but I thought I heard a few years ago that there was a trend to start saying that a lot of characters that weren't previously mutants were now mutants. That sounds like a really bad idea to me. Sub-Mariner, "the first mutant"... ugh... That Namor is a mutant (specifically because of his ankle wings) was established by Lee and Kirby way back in X-Men #7, so that's never bothered me. That he is somehow the first mutant is simply nonsensical. The Celestials implanted the potential for extreme benevolent mutation in the human race during the Paleolithic Era. Are we to believe *nothing* triggered that potential prior to 1920? And anyway, I thought Apocalypse was supposed to be the first mutant?
Cei-U! I summon the confusion!
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Sept 10, 2020 21:27:32 GMT -5
I think the problem isn't so much that there are too many mutants, but it's that 'Marvel Time' is so screwy. The original team started as teens, that stopped at an eternal 30ish... the New Mutants did the same.. then the next... it really points out the nonsensical-ness of the shared universe when we can SEE Kitty Pryde and Illyana catch up to the others.
|
|
|
Post by coinilius on Sept 10, 2020 21:58:09 GMT -5
Sub-Mariner, "the first mutant"... ugh... That Namor is a mutant (specifically because of his ankle wings) was established by Lee and Kirby way back in X-Men #7, so that's never bothered me. That he is somehow the first mutant is simply nonsensical. The Celestials implanted the potential for extreme benevolent mutation in the human race during the Paleolithic Era. Are we to believe *nothing* triggered that potential prior to 1920? And anyway, I thought Apocalypse was supposed to be the first mutant?
Cei-U! I summon the confusion!
Wait is he meant to be the ‘first’ first mutant now? Like the actual first? I always thought that was just a marketing thing/hyperbole - in universe there have been plenty of canonical mutants who were born before him - Apocalypse, Selene, probably most of the X-Ternals - he’s just retroactively Marvels first Mutant superhero, not the actual first mutant...
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 10, 2020 22:06:17 GMT -5
Sub-Mariner, "the first mutant"... ugh... That Namor is a mutant (specifically because of his ankle wings) was established by Lee and Kirby way back in X-Men #7, so that's never bothered me. That he is somehow the first mutant is simply nonsensical. The Celestials implanted the potential for extreme benevolent mutation in the human race during the Paleolithic Era. Are we to believe *nothing* triggered that potential prior to 1920? And anyway, I thought Apocalypse was supposed to be the first mutant?
Cei-U! I summon the confusion!
What, they're dragging the Celestials into it now? Another idea I don't like, since it messes up the original scenario even more.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 11, 2020 5:32:19 GMT -5
Sub-Mariner, "the first mutant"... ugh... That Namor is a mutant (specifically because of his ankle wings) was established by Lee and Kirby way back in X-Men #7, so that's never bothered me. That he is somehow the first mutant is simply nonsensical. The Celestials implanted the potential for extreme benevolent mutation in the human race during the Paleolithic Era. Are we to believe *nothing* triggered that potential prior to 1920? And anyway, I thought Apocalypse was supposed to be the first mutant?
Cei-U! I summon the confusion!
Was he really a mutant, though, or did Xavier and Magneto just mistake him for one? (I haven't read X-Men #7, alas). Namor's powers would have warranted a lot of interest from both, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Sept 11, 2020 6:09:02 GMT -5
That Namor is a mutant (specifically because of his ankle wings) was established by Lee and Kirby way back in X-Men #7, so that's never bothered me. That he is somehow the first mutant is simply nonsensical. The Celestials implanted the potential for extreme benevolent mutation in the human race during the Paleolithic Era. Are we to believe *nothing* triggered that potential prior to 1920? And anyway, I thought Apocalypse was supposed to be the first mutant?
Cei-U! I summon the confusion!
Was he really a mutant, though, or did Xavier and Magneto just mistake him for one? (I haven't read X-Men #7, alas). Namor's powers would have warranted a lot of interest from both, that's for sure. Namor is indeed a mutant. His hybrid human/Atlantean heritage gives him the ability to live in or out of water, but it's a mutation that allows him to fly.
|
|