REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007

On Nov 16, 1:25 am, Tony <TonyJ1....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 12:02�pm, Billy Bissette <bai....RemoveThis@coastalnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > TonyJ1....RemoveThis@aol.com wrote in news:5a4a636d-89a4-4b29-96b5-a2065b817935
> > @f80g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > --I disagree. �All of Xavier's actions now have to come into scrutiny
> > > and the reassessment is that Xavier is a man who is many shades of
> > > grey. �For the most part Charles Xavier is a heroic character. He
> > > founded the X-Men on the simple notion of equality. �He's fought
> > > against evil mutants. �He's fought to ensure a brighter future for
> > > both mutants and humans. Yet at the same time, he's done things that
> > > aren't terribly heroic. �He's erased memories. �He's manipulated
> > > people. �He's done some things that others would see as villainous.
> > > The key difference to me is that all of Charles' actions stem from an
> > > awareness of right and wrong, and he strives to do what's right. �He
> > > may not always succeed, but there's no denying that his heart is in
> > > the right place. Contrast that with more traditional villains, who
> > > seek to do things that are clearly wrong. �They may rationalize their
> > > actions, but when one constantly believes that the end justifies the
> > > means and that what they're doing isn't wrong (and by extension, they
> > > feel no guilt...Charles clearly does), that's the road that leads to
> > > villainy. �Yes Charles was wrong to treat Danger as a non sentient
> > > program to be manipulated as he saw fit in training the X-Men. Yes, he
> > > was wrong in altering Scott's memories. �But his manipulations and
> > > deceit weren't borne from a desire to control the world around him and
> > > shape it to his desires. �He was genuinely acting in what he thought
> > > was the best interests of those around him.
> > > I think most of us have done things we're not proud of. I think many
> > > of us have acted in a way that's completely self serving, yet we
> > > rationalized our actions as being good or for the benefit of others.
> > > I don't see Charles' actions as being any different.
> > > Simply put, I feel that Brubaker has allowed chinks to appear in
> > > Charles' saintly armor and the end result is a Professor X that is
> > > more rounded...and more human.
>
> > � You just described a more rounded villain.
>
> --I fail to see how, when the vast majority of Charles' actions are
> selfless and heroic.  He's not portrayed as a villain.  He's been
> shown as a good guy most of the time who occasionally has lapses in
> judgement and personal ethics.
>
>
>
> > � Your only separation from guys like Dr. Doom and Magneto is that
> > you made the distinction that Xavier knew his actions were wrong and
> > felt guilt for them.
>
> --AND the fact that Charles Xavier--over the past 40 years--has been,
> by and large a heroic figure.  That's the key difference between him
> and Dr. Doom or Magneto.
>
> Tony- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not to mention that what makes Doom and Magneto more interesting than
your average villain is that throughout their histories they've shown
heroic qualities, and most of the time, they've been shown to actually
have a justifiable reason or a point to what they're doing instead of
your standard terrorism or robbery or megalomaniacal "I'm going to
rule/destroy the Earth" riff that most villains get.

As for Charles, what makes it tricky is that until the last couple of
years, and really only in a couple of stories that are ret-cons
anyway, almost ALL of his actions have been portrayed as heroic.
That's the problem with character assassination via retcon. One
writer inserts something into his history that calls everything into
question, and suddenly he's just a villain.

The character was rehabilitated after he went into hiding and
Changeling took his place in order to repel an alien invasion. And
after everyone was pissed off at him for creating the Xavier protocols
(or whatever it was they found out in the 90's). And those were
retcons. I really don't think that the retconned actions of recent
books is going to really stick with the character 10 years from now.

Besides, that's part of being a hero. Making the hard decisions, and
doing what you believe is the right thing, whether everyone else
believes with it or not. Real life history is filled with such
instances.
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007 

mimf wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:21:42 -0800, badbad wrote:
>
>>
>> Due to an injection of retroactive history the premise of Xavier has
>> changed. By inference Xavier's prior "good deeds" written by other writers
>> are also changed.
>
>
> I see what you're saying, and I'm certainly no fan of this retcon. Nothing
> about any Vulcan-related storyline was worth tearing down Xavier's
> character like this. I can kind of see where Xavier might alter memories
> in the short term until the crisis was over. But the Xavier I remember
> would certainly not create a long-term coverup like this. Nor would he
> have tampered with the memories of so many people even short term. Nor
> would he have continued to use Danger when he discovered it was sentient.
> It is one thing to try to make Xavier more human and fallible. It is
> another to have him make decisions that are clearly wrong. I've always had
> the impression that Xavier had done some things he later regretted when he
> was young, after his powers manifested but long before he first gathered
> the X-Men. A story about that would have been more believable, and not
> really conflicted with established continuity. But that's not what we have
> here with this Vulcan stuff.
>
> But we got the Vulcan stuff. So now if you're a fan of the X-Men, you can
> either choose to believe that Xavier was never the heroic person in
> continuity, that he was a flawed hero at best, or you can just ignore the
> Vulcan story as described in the comics and make up your own story about
> the resurfacing of Vulcan -- like maybe he never existed before the
> Scarlet Witch reset reality, and is really from some alternate reality.
>
>


You know what? That last sentence you wrote would be a very sensible
undoing of the bad continuity. This is an option I hadn't considered
and is quite workable. I must applaud your suggestion. Let us hope the
Marvel powers that be are listening.

[golf clap]


badbad
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007 

On Nov 19, 5:21�pm, badbad <u... DeleteThis @example.net> wrote:

> If people can excuse Xavier (in his current form) because of his past
> misdeeds and past good deeds then I also think that Tony Stark can be
> excused for all the Civil War stuff because of his past deeds and the
> fact that his heart is in the right place.
>
> Yeah.
>
> badbad


--the thing is though, I'm *not* trying to excuse Charles' actions.
I'm simply saying it's more complicated than him just being a
villain. He's been presented as a hero for much of the X-Men
publishing history. A few stories here and there reveal darker sides
to him. To me, those stories don't outweigh all the other ones where
he's a hero. They just add depth to him and make him more tragic, and
give him a darker side. Not a villain, but not quite as heroic as he
was once thought.
The same holds true for Stark. For the vast majority of Iron Man's
history, he's been a hero. Now, all of a sudden he's presented in a
different light during Civil War. His actions seem to be somewhat
villainous. I'm not in the camp that thinks Tony Stark is a villain.
He's a dick.
But then so is Charles Xavier.
I don't like what's been done to Iron Man, but I can certainly see why
some would think his characterization makes sense.
Like Charles Xavier, I think what's been done to Stark has deepened
his character (I just don't like the way it was done), and added
darker layers to him. But in the end, they're both still heroes.
Maybe not clean cut heroes like Superman or Spider-Man, but they're
still not the villains many readers insist on (as I said, Xavier--and
Stark--are not trying to conquer the world, commit genocide, etc).


Tony
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007 

"badbad" <user.RemoveThis@example.net> wrote in message
news:fUo0j.356$Vq.146@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Let us say that someone wrote a retroactive history story of Frank Castle
> and showed that Castle killed some mafia kingpin's son while he was 'Nam.
> When Frank Castle comes back to the States the gangster finds out the
> Castle has returned. When the Castle family is at a picnic the gangster
> tries to kill him but only kills his family. The Punisher is born but he
> is not a innocent wronged. This kind of kills his entire premise for
> existence.
>
>>
> badbad
>

Sounds like the last Punisher movie.... (which was my big problem with it).

--
Rev. Aaron *Brother Head* Moss
http://brotherhead.com
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if
you win, you're still a retard"
 >> Stay informed about: REVIEWS: The X-Axis - 11 November 2007