Why not X-Tinction Agenda II?

Gerard wrote:
> You don't read Cable/Deadpool at all, do you?
> Where the ^&*( do you get the idea that Providence and the racist-run
> Genosha are the same thing?!

He reads the US guvmint propoganda.

Really, Providence isn't really any more of a threat to the US or other nations
than Wakanda is. It's is extremely non-interventionist and insular.

If anything, Old Genosha is still good to be the New Genosha that is still
anti-flatscan.

--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the
end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
 >> Stay informed about: Why not X-Tinction Agenda II? 

X-Stinktion agenda could be the exact point in time where it all began
to go wrong for the xbooks.
 >> Stay informed about: Why not X-Tinction Agenda II? 

jphamlore DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote in
news:1168493074.533018.137410@o58g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> Since so many things at Marvel seem to be going back to the 1990s, why
> not redo a crossover considered one of the best storylines of the
> decade, X-Tinction Agenda?
>
> Marvel has positioned everything to repeat X-Tinction Agenda:
> fragmented X-teams, Cable, and the X-Men alienated from the rest of
> the superhero community. And Marvel's current storylines offer a
> candidate for the new Genosha: Providence.

Genosha = Paradise built on the bones of mutant slaves; Providence =
Paradise based on high tech and open society. I perceive just a *tiny*
difference here. Plus, I don't think the X-teams are as alienated from
the superhero community as you seem to be suggesting.

> This time Marvel can fix a few things that in retrospect went wrong
> with X-Tinction Agenda's aftermath.

It was poorly written and executed. I guess that could fall under
things that "went wrong".

This time the X-Men can lose the
> battle and gain an enemy that can fuel stories for the next five years
> at least.

They could have just brought in Claremont to have one of his subplots
that lasts for five years. Heck, he told us that Nightcrawler and
Mystique were connected in UXM #141 (or 142, I forget). We found the
truth in the 400's from a different writer.

> The X-Men's natural enemy isn't one character, the X-Men's natural
> enemy is a government that can hide behind its laws. I also argue
> that the last few years' attempts to position either S.H.I.E.L.D. or
> corrupt elements of the United States government have been less than a
> success because they are a poor substitute for the real thing, a
> government that openly commits atrocities against mutants such as
> mutate slaves.

I disagree on all counts. "The government" has never been anti-mutant
as a whole. It does seem to take its cue from society in reacting to
them, but I've never seen anything across the board against mutants.
SHIELD, in particular, has known all about the X-Men for years, yet
they've never chosen to raid Xavier's. Why? Because there was no
policy in place. Robert Kelly ran on a platform that he would outlaw
mutants, clearly suggesting no such policy existed. Any anti-mutant
government policies were certainly black ops programs, not law.

> X-Tinction Agenda succeeded while it was being first published because
> a country plus a totally ruthless supervillain presented an actual
> challenge to all of the X-Men, and the story succeeded in portraying
> all of the X-Men being in danger, even though they only killed off the
> alien Warlock.

Cameron Hodge was pretty lame. The only interesting thing I can see
that came out of it was the Wolfsbane developed into a more well-rounded
character.

> Ironically in today's world the original ending of X-Tinction Agenda
> would be seen as unbelievable, but an alternate ending where the X-Men
> lost and the world decided to permit New Genosha to continue its
> atrocities would be more believable.

Something which could never come out of Providence. Cable would destroy
it before that could happen.

--
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain
occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive." --Thomas Jefferson

"How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying
to defend from without?" --Dwight D. Eisenhower
 >> Stay informed about: Why not X-Tinction Agenda II? 

~consul <consul.RemoveThis@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in
news:eo5u8u$l8t$1@gist.usc.edu:

> Gerard wrote:
>> You don't read Cable/Deadpool at all, do you?
>> Where the ^&*( do you get the idea that Providence and the racist-run
>> Genosha are the same thing?!
>
> He reads the US guvmint propoganda.
>
> Really, Providence isn't really any more of a threat to the US or
> other nations than Wakanda is. It's is extremely non-interventionist
> and insular.

Ah, but that's the problem. Cable offers a world that directly
conflicts with the US way of life. People are free to come and go as
they please and contribute to society as needed. If Providence works,
people start getting funny ideas that they might what such a society
*everywhere*. Very threatening to those in power when something comes
along that could not only take their power, but the very things that
give them power. Resources stop being owned, and instead are shared. I
think Providence is very different than any version of Genosha. Wakanda
has potential but for unknown reasons chooses to be very insular and
won't allow people to live in warm, comfortable homes.

--
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain
occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive." --Thomas Jefferson

"How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying
to defend from without?" --Dwight D. Eisenhower
 >> Stay informed about: Why not X-Tinction Agenda II? 

Dan McEwen wrote:
> ~consul <consul.TakeThisOut@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in
>> Really, Providence isn't really any more of a threat to the US or
>> other nations than Wakanda is. It's is extremely non-interventionist
>> and insular.
> Ah, but that's the problem. Cable offers a world that directly
> conflicts with the US way of life. People are free to come and go as
> they please and contribute to society as needed. If Providence works,
> people start getting funny ideas that they might what such a society
> *everywhere*. Very threatening to those in power when something comes
> along that could not only take their power, but the very things that
> give them power. Resources stop being owned, and instead are shared. I
> think Providence is very different than any version of Genosha. Wakanda
> has potential but for unknown reasons chooses to be very insular and
> won't allow people to live in warm, comfortable homes.

But I don't like Providence when you describe it like Star Trek.

--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the
end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
 >> Stay informed about: Why not X-Tinction Agenda II? 

On 11 Jan 2007 19:23:52 GMT, Dan McEwen <ferroboy RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>jphamlore@yahoo.com wrote in
>news:1168493074.533018.137410@o58g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Since so many things at Marvel seem to be going back to the 1990s, why
>> not redo a crossover considered one of the best storylines of the
>> decade, X-Tinction Agenda?
>>
>> Marvel has positioned everything to repeat X-Tinction Agenda:
>> fragmented X-teams, Cable, and the X-Men alienated from the rest of
>> the superhero community. And Marvel's current storylines offer a
>> candidate for the new Genosha: Providence.
>
>Genosha = Paradise built on the bones of mutant slaves; Providence =
>Paradise based on high tech and open society. I perceive just a *tiny*
>difference here. Plus, I don't think the X-teams are as alienated from
>the superhero community as you seem to be suggesting.

No argument here.

>
>> This time Marvel can fix a few things that in retrospect went wrong
>> with X-Tinction Agenda's aftermath.
>
>It was poorly written and executed. I guess that could fall under
>things that "went wrong".

I enjoyed it...it had it's problems but it was better written and
executed than Civil War...of course, that's not saying much.

>
> This time the X-Men can lose the
>> battle and gain an enemy that can fuel stories for the next five years
>> at least.
>
>They could have just brought in Claremont to have one of his subplots
>that lasts for five years. Heck, he told us that Nightcrawler and
>Mystique were connected in UXM #141 (or 142, I forget). We found the
>truth in the 400's from a different writer.

That still shows a level of continuity that hasn't existed in the
X-titles, or Marvel in general, for some time...and the truth about
Mystique and Nightcrawler was revealed back in X-Men Unlimited
#3...which, I believe, came before even Uncanny #300...but I will
admit that it is still a ridiculously long time.

>
>> The X-Men's natural enemy isn't one character, the X-Men's natural
>> enemy is a government that can hide behind its laws. I also argue
>> that the last few years' attempts to position either S.H.I.E.L.D. or
>> corrupt elements of the United States government have been less than a
>> success because they are a poor substitute for the real thing, a
>> government that openly commits atrocities against mutants such as
>> mutate slaves.
>
>I disagree on all counts. "The government" has never been anti-mutant
>as a whole. It does seem to take its cue from society in reacting to
>them, but I've never seen anything across the board against mutants.
>SHIELD, in particular, has known all about the X-Men for years, yet
>they've never chosen to raid Xavier's. Why? Because there was no
>policy in place. Robert Kelly ran on a platform that he would outlaw
>mutants, clearly suggesting no such policy existed. Any anti-mutant
>government policies were certainly black ops programs, not law.

I think that is kind of ambiguous...especially since we've seen
several possible futures where those "black ops programs" took over
the country.

>
>> X-Tinction Agenda succeeded while it was being first published because
>> a country plus a totally ruthless supervillain presented an actual
>> challenge to all of the X-Men, and the story succeeded in portraying
>> all of the X-Men being in danger, even though they only killed off the
>> alien Warlock.
>
>Cameron Hodge was pretty lame. The only interesting thing I can see
>that came out of it was the Wolfsbane developed into a more well-rounded
>character.

He was lame...and they could have come up with a better central
villain for the storyline...but I still liked the overall plot...and
how it combined elements introduced in the various X-titles years
before as well as having a considerable impact on future stories.

>
>> Ironically in today's world the original ending of X-Tinction Agenda
>> would be seen as unbelievable, but an alternate ending where the X-Men
>> lost and the world decided to permit New Genosha to continue its
>> atrocities would be more believable.
>
>Something which could never come out of Providence. Cable would destroy
>it before that could happen.

Agreed.
 >> Stay informed about: Why not X-Tinction Agenda II? 

Dan McEwen wrote:
> ~consul <consul.DeleteThis@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in
> news:eo6527$mk7$1@gist.usc.edu:

> But that's why it is. It's meant to be a paradise, and the name isn't a
> coincidence. Cable is clearly capable of doing what he intends to do,
> even when governments and friends turn against him. Imagine if they
> actually worked with him.

Since this is medium of mainstream comics, Providence is not meant to
be a paradise in the long term plan--it is clearly meant to either be
blasted into oblivion or degrade into a fascist state. That's as
predictable as a supervillain rising from the dead. It would be far
better for generating stories if it were to go the route of degrading
into a fascist state after the world finds a way to reduce its people
to poverty and the formerly well-off people deciding to take some
shortcuts to try and get back to their former wealth. That would be a
realistic and true portrayal of human nature.

Even if it were initially one writer's plan, expecting Providence to
remain a paradise is about as realistic as thinking that Scott Summers
and Madeline Pryor would be allowed in the long term to stay together
as a couple, or hoping that Madeline Pryor's character wouldn't
eventually be trashed.
 >> Stay informed about: Why not X-Tinction Agenda II? 

~consul <consul DeleteThis @INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in
news:eo6527$mk7$1@gist.usc.edu:

> Dan McEwen wrote:
>> ~consul <consul DeleteThis @INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in
>>> Really, Providence isn't really any more of a threat to the US or
>>> other nations than Wakanda is. It's is extremely non-interventionist
>>> and insular.
>> Ah, but that's the problem. Cable offers a world that directly
>> conflicts with the US way of life. People are free to come and go as
>> they please and contribute to society as needed. If Providence
>> works, people start getting funny ideas that they might what such a
>> society *everywhere*. Very threatening to those in power when
>> something comes along that could not only take their power, but the
>> very things that give them power. Resources stop being owned, and
>> instead are shared. I think Providence is very different than any
>> version of Genosha. Wakanda has potential but for unknown reasons
>> chooses to be very insular and won't allow people to live in warm,
>> comfortable homes.
>
> But I don't like Providence when you describe it like Star Trek.

But that's why it is. It's meant to be a paradise, and the name isn't a
coincidence. Cable is clearly capable of doing what he intends to do,
even when governments and friends turn against him. Imagine if they
actually worked with him.

--
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain
occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive." --Thomas Jefferson

"How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying
to defend from without?" --Dwight D. Eisenhower
 >> Stay informed about: Why not X-Tinction Agenda II? 

grinningdemon <grinningdemon.TakeThisOut@austin.rr.com> wrote in
news:pv2eq2lan322f1kafmq7dqkaq2ou91tnve@4ax.com:

> On 11 Jan 2007 19:23:52 GMT, Dan McEwen <ferroboy.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

>> This time the X-Men can lose the
>>> battle and gain an enemy that can fuel stories for the next five
>>> years at least.
>>
>>They could have just brought in Claremont to have one of his subplots
>>that lasts for five years. Heck, he told us that Nightcrawler and
>>Mystique were connected in UXM #141 (or 142, I forget). We found the
>>truth in the 400's from a different writer.
>
> That still shows a level of continuity that hasn't existed in the
> X-titles, or Marvel in general, for some time...and the truth about
> Mystique and Nightcrawler was revealed back in X-Men Unlimited
> #3...which, I believe, came before even Uncanny #300...but I will
> admit that it is still a ridiculously long time.

XMU #4, I think. I'd blocked that "wonderful" story out, with it's
waterfalls in Mississippi and all.

>>I disagree on all counts. "The government" has never been anti-mutant
>>as a whole. It does seem to take its cue from society in reacting to
>>them, but I've never seen anything across the board against mutants.
>>SHIELD, in particular, has known all about the X-Men for years, yet
>>they've never chosen to raid Xavier's. Why? Because there was no
>>policy in place. Robert Kelly ran on a platform that he would outlaw
>>mutants, clearly suggesting no such policy existed. Any anti-mutant
>>government policies were certainly black ops programs, not law.
>
> I think that is kind of ambiguous...especially since we've seen
> several possible futures where those "black ops programs" took over
> the country.

Yes, but the main one - DoFP - came directly out of Senator Kelly
becoming president back in UXM #141 or so. Most similar futures are
based on DoFP.

>>Cameron Hodge was pretty lame. The only interesting thing I can see
>>that came out of it was the Wolfsbane developed into a more
>>well-rounded character.
>
> He was lame...and they could have come up with a better central
> villain for the storyline...but I still liked the overall plot...and
> how it combined elements introduced in the various X-titles years
> before as well as having a considerable impact on future stories.

I think my problem was that we were seeing so many gigantic crossovers
with weak plots that I just wrote them all off as worthless.

--
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain
occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive." --Thomas Jefferson

"How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying
to defend from without?" --Dwight D. Eisenhower
 >> Stay informed about: Why not X-Tinction Agenda II? 

jphamlore.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1168595340.813138.79860@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Dan McEwen wrote:
>> ~consul <consul.TakeThisOut@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com> wrote in
>> news:eo6527$mk7$1@gist.usc.edu:
>
>> But that's why it is. It's meant to be a paradise, and the name
>> isn't a coincidence. Cable is clearly capable of doing what he
>> intends to do, even when governments and friends turn against him.
>> Imagine if they actually worked with him.
>
> Since this is medium of mainstream comics, Providence is not meant to
> be a paradise in the long term plan--it is clearly meant to either be
> blasted into oblivion or degrade into a fascist state.

You're speaking from outside the story when you say this. It *is* meant
to be a paradise within the context of the story.

--
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain
occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive." --Thomas Jefferson

"How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying
to defend from without?" --Dwight D. Eisenhower
 >> Stay informed about: Why not X-Tinction Agenda II? 

On 12 Jan 2007 17:28:36 GMT, Dan McEwen <ferroboy.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

>grinningdemon <grinningdemon.DeleteThis@austin.rr.com> wrote in
>news:pv2eq2lan322f1kafmq7dqkaq2ou91tnve@4ax.com:
>
>> On 11 Jan 2007 19:23:52 GMT, Dan McEwen <ferroboy.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> This time the X-Men can lose the
>>>> battle and gain an enemy that can fuel stories for the next five
>>>> years at least.
>>>
>>>They could have just brought in Claremont to have one of his subplots
>>>that lasts for five years. Heck, he told us that Nightcrawler and
>>>Mystique were connected in UXM #141 (or 142, I forget). We found the
>>>truth in the 400's from a different writer.
>>
>> That still shows a level of continuity that hasn't existed in the
>> X-titles, or Marvel in general, for some time...and the truth about
>> Mystique and Nightcrawler was revealed back in X-Men Unlimited
>> #3...which, I believe, came before even Uncanny #300...but I will
>> admit that it is still a ridiculously long time.
>
>XMU #4, I think. I'd blocked that "wonderful" story out, with it's
>waterfalls in Mississippi and all.

My bad...I was close though.

>
>>>I disagree on all counts. "The government" has never been anti-mutant
>>>as a whole. It does seem to take its cue from society in reacting to
>>>them, but I've never seen anything across the board against mutants.
>>>SHIELD, in particular, has known all about the X-Men for years, yet
>>>they've never chosen to raid Xavier's. Why? Because there was no
>>>policy in place. Robert Kelly ran on a platform that he would outlaw
>>>mutants, clearly suggesting no such policy existed. Any anti-mutant
>>>government policies were certainly black ops programs, not law.
>>
>> I think that is kind of ambiguous...especially since we've seen
>> several possible futures where those "black ops programs" took over
>> the country.
>
>Yes, but the main one - DoFP - came directly out of Senator Kelly
>becoming president back in UXM #141 or so. Most similar futures are
>based on DoFP.

Yes, but they continued popping up even after Senator Kelly jumped off
the anti-mutant bandwagon so it's not limited to him...and, even if it
were all the same, those futures have been a big part of too many
storylines to count.

>
>>>Cameron Hodge was pretty lame. The only interesting thing I can see
>>>that came out of it was the Wolfsbane developed into a more
>>>well-rounded character.
>>
>> He was lame...and they could have come up with a better central
>> villain for the storyline...but I still liked the overall plot...and
>> how it combined elements introduced in the various X-titles years
>> before as well as having a considerable impact on future stories.
>
>I think my problem was that we were seeing so many gigantic crossovers
>with weak plots that I just wrote them all off as worthless.

I thought most of the Marvel-wide crossovers were terrible but I loved
the big X-Men crossovers of the late '80s and early '90s...each had
its good and bad points but I thought they were pretty entertaining.
 >> Stay informed about: Why not X-Tinction Agenda II? 

In article <pv2eq2lan322f1kafmq7dqkaq2ou91tnve.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
grinningdemon <grinningdemon.DeleteThis@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>They could have just brought in Claremont to have one of his subplots
>>that lasts for five years. Heck, he told us that Nightcrawler and
>>Mystique were connected in UXM #141 (or 142, I forget). We found the
>>truth in the 400's from a different writer.
>That still shows a level of continuity that hasn't existed in the
>X-titles, or Marvel in general, for some time...and the truth about
>Mystique and Nightcrawler was revealed back in X-Men Unlimited
>#3...which, I believe, came before even Uncanny #300...but I will
>admit that it is still a ridiculously long time.

Nightcrawler's connection to Mystique is a very bad example of this.

The connection wasn't revealed not because Claremont was taking forever,
but because Marvel wouldn't let him do it. (And the connection we later
got was different.)
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee

"You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk
on water." --Samantha Carter, Stargate SG-1
 >> Stay informed about: Why not X-Tinction Agenda II? 

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:26:52 +0000, Ken Arromdee wrote:

> In article <pv2eq2lan322f1kafmq7dqkaq2ou91tnve.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, grinningdemon
> <grinningdemon.TakeThisOut@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>>They could have just brought in Claremont to have one of his subplots
>>>that lasts for five years. Heck, he told us that Nightcrawler and
>>>Mystique were connected in UXM #141 (or 142, I forget). We found the
>>>truth in the 400's from a different writer.
>>That still shows a level of continuity that hasn't existed in the
>>X-titles, or Marvel in general, for some time...and the truth about
>>Mystique and Nightcrawler was revealed back in X-Men Unlimited
>>#3...which, I believe, came before even Uncanny #300...but I will admit
>>that it is still a ridiculously long time.
>
> Nightcrawler's connection to Mystique is a very bad example of this.
>
> The connection wasn't revealed not because Claremont was taking forever,
> but because Marvel wouldn't let him do it. (And the connection we later
> got was different.)

What was the original one?
 >> Stay informed about: Why not X-Tinction Agenda II?