New Wolverine Look

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:03:57 -0700, Aaron Forever
<foreveraaron012177 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

>Does anyone else get the impression that this new X-Force was just
>something that an artist submitted and they're going to come up with a
>book to fit it? New costumes, blads/claws theme, etc. No writer
>announced. Seems very 90's to me.
>
>>From the interview I read, the new status quo will be either the MOST
>or LEAST interesting thing to ever happen to the X-Men franchise.
>Judging from the news of Cable going solo again and this X-Force
>image, I'm going to go with least. I'm getting queasy just thinking
>about where they're going with this. Ug.
>
>I'd like to see them cut back the number of X-books. Keep Exiles off
>doing its own thing, that's fine. Re-position New Excalibur as a
>British Avengers.
>
>But let's cut back to one core X-Men book (Uncanny X-Men) with about
>10 to 12 characters available to it, and put it out 3 times a month
>with rotating creative teams, like they're going to do with Spider-
>Man. And each writer can pick and choose from those 12 or so
>characters involved in each arc. Keep X-Factor, but bulk up its cast
>a little. And I suppose the jr. team book is a worthwhile endeavor,
>as long as they quit killing off half the cast every 2 months.
>
>This seems like the best time to do it. Streamline and re-focus the
>line.

The thing I don't get about this "streamlining" is that, while you are
doing away with the seperate titles, you're still putting out the same
number of books so it's pretty much a wash...at least this way, with a
single creative team for each book, we only have to deal with
inconsistency between books rather than between story arcs in the same
book...and it also offers people different options for the line-up and
direction they're looking for in an x-book (or spider-book).
 >> Stay informed about: New Wolverine Look 

mimf <mimf.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote in
news:pan.2007.09.13.04.32.31.819871@nospam.com:

> Is Franklin still a mutant?

Yes. He's listed as one of the 198. I'd wager Valeria is also likely
to be a mutant.
 >> Stay informed about: New Wolverine Look 

"Dan McEwen" <ferroSPAMboy.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99AC8861204BMcEwen@130.133.1.4...
> mimf <mimf.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2007.09.13.04.32.31.819871@nospam.com:
>
>> Is Franklin still a mutant?
>
> Yes. He's listed as one of the 198. I'd wager Valeria is also likely
> to be a mutant.
>
Did 198 stated that there will never be any more new mutants? If Valeria
hasn't developed her power (and won't until she starts using Maxi-Pad), then
she can't manifest her latent abilities until Marvel changes the status quo,
right?
 >> Stay informed about: New Wolverine Look 

"Kenneth M. Lin" <kenneth_m_lin.TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:R_bHi.50453$Um6.30326@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:

>
> "Dan McEwen" <ferroSPAMboy.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns99AC8861204BMcEwen@130.133.1.4...
>> mimf <mimf.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote in
>> news:pan.2007.09.13.04.32.31.819871@nospam.com:
>>
>>> Is Franklin still a mutant?
>>
>> Yes. He's listed as one of the 198. I'd wager Valeria is also
>> likely to be a mutant.
>>
> Did 198 stated that there will never be any more new mutants? If
> Valeria hasn't developed her power (and won't until she starts using
> Maxi-Pad), then she can't manifest her latent abilities until Marvel
> changes the status quo, right?

It didn't state anything. It just listed most of the known mutants.
 >> Stay informed about: New Wolverine Look 

"Kenneth M. Lin" <kenneth_m_lin DeleteThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:R_bHi.50453$Um6.30326@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Dan McEwen" <ferroSPAMboy DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns99AC8861204BMcEwen@130.133.1.4...
>> mimf <mimf DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote in
>> news:pan.2007.09.13.04.32.31.819871@nospam.com:
>>
>>> Is Franklin still a mutant?
>>
>> Yes. He's listed as one of the 198. I'd wager Valeria is also likely
>> to be a mutant.
>>
> Did 198 stated that there will never be any more new mutants? If Valeria
> hasn't developed her power (and won't until she starts using Maxi-Pad),
> then she can't manifest her latent abilities until Marvel changes the
> status quo, right?
Seeing as the whole upcoming crossover is about the birth of a new mutant...

D.
 >> Stay informed about: New Wolverine Look 

"Kenneth M. Lin" <kenneth_m_lin DeleteThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:R_bHi.50453$Um6.30326@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:

>
> "Dan McEwen" <ferroSPAMboy DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns99AC8861204BMcEwen@130.133.1.4...
>> mimf <mimf DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote in
>> news:pan.2007.09.13.04.32.31.819871@nospam.com:
>>
>>> Is Franklin still a mutant?
>>
>> Yes. He's listed as one of the 198. I'd wager Valeria is also
>> likely to be a mutant.
>>
> Did 198 stated that there will never be any more new mutants? If
> Valeria hasn't developed her power (and won't until she starts using
> Maxi-Pad), then she can't manifest her latent abilities until Marvel
> changes the status quo, right?

X-Men Annual said no more mutants were being born. A few bits of
information were dropped in some other books. Some of the info was
contradictory, suggesting Marvel as a whole didn't really know what
was going on with Decimation.

Endangered Species has said:

Mutants went from millions before M-Day to a couple hundred after.
(Others have claimed 198 was just the early government estimate, but
Endangered Species sets it as a real figure.)

No new mutants are being born. (Confirming X-Men Annual.)

The X-Gene is either gone from depowered mutants, or has been
rendered invisible to any methods so far used to search for it.
(This was a bit vague in Chapter 1, but was restated in later
chapters.)

The X-Gene was erased not just from living mutants, but from dead
mutants and genetic samples taken from mutants.


As for Valeria, I wouldn't expect her to start manifesting her
power any time soon, but I doubt Decimation would stop any writer
from doing so. For one thing, she could have retained her X-Gene
even if her powers had not manifested yet.

For another, Marvel might as well have ignored its own
restrictions when you consider how many mutants have been appearing
since Decimation. Some may be counted as part of the 198, but there
have been plenty of possible skirtings and just people popping out
of nowhere. Even if there is a planned complete list (which I found
increasingly unlikely as time passed,) the end result is that from
the reader side it looks like it has been made up as the books
went along (which is what I believe. Particularly since people
disagreed as to whether there even were only around 200 mutants.)

And for the maxi-pad comment, some mutants manifest before puberty
(and some even before birth.)
 >> Stay informed about: New Wolverine Look 

Billy Bissette <baines.DeleteThis@coastalnet.com> wrote in
news:Xns99AD9D98B7C6Awhatcholookinat@216.168.3.70:

> X-Men Annual said no more mutants were being born. A few bits of
> information were dropped in some other books. Some of the info was
> contradictory, suggesting Marvel as a whole didn't really know what
> was going on with Decimation.

This actually works out because, in-story, no one would know what was
really going on.

> Endangered Species has said:
>
> Mutants went from millions before M-Day to a couple hundred after.
> (Others have claimed 198 was just the early government estimate, but
> Endangered Species sets it as a real figure.)

Avengers: The Initiatve says it's actually 199. None of these numbers
include a) Xavier's powers being restored and b) the numerous deaths.
Despite both of these things, people still quote "198" as the current
number. Is it that whenever one dies another manifests? If nothing
else, it would help with the supposed problem of a too small gene pool.

All of that aside, how do they know that there aren't mutant lurking in
Tibet, Siberia, the Congo, or the Canadian wilderness?

> No new mutants are being born. (Confirming X-Men Annual.)

I'm still unsure how this can be verified. What if some woman in a
remote part of the Amazon gives birth to a mutant? Who would know.

> And for the maxi-pad comment, some mutants manifest before puberty
> (and some even before birth.)

Franklin, Valeria's writer, is an excellent example of a mutant who
manifested before puberty.
 >> Stay informed about: New Wolverine Look 

Billy Bissette wrote:
> Kenneth M. Lin wrote:
>> Dan McEwen wrote:
>>> mimf wrote:
>>>> Is Franklin still a mutant?
>>>
>>> Yes. He's listed as one of the 198. I'd wager Valeria is also
>>> likely to be a mutant.
>>
>> Did 198 stated that there will never be any more new mutants? If
>> Valeria hasn't developed her power (and won't until she starts
>> using Maxi-Pad), then she can't manifest her latent abilities
>> until Marvel changes the status quo, right?
>
> X-Men Annual said no more mutants were being born. A few bits of
> information were dropped in some other books. Some of the info was
> contradictory, suggesting Marvel as a whole didn't really know what
> was going on with Decimation.
>
> Endangered Species has said:
>
> Mutants went from millions before M-Day to a couple hundred after.
> (Others have claimed 198 was just the early government estimate,
> but Endangered Species sets it as a real figure.)

Even in "Endangered Species," it's not set as a real figure.

> The X-Gene was erased not just from living mutants, but from dead
> mutants and genetic samples taken from mutants.

The X-Gene was never said to have been erased from living mutants or
dead mutants, just depowered mutants and samples. However, Pandemic
seemed to have samples that were intact (they were destroyed in his
battle with the X-Men).
 >> Stay informed about: New Wolverine Look 

Dan McEwen <ferroSPAMboy.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns99ADB49722209McEwen@130.133.1.4:

> Billy Bissette <baines.DeleteThis@coastalnet.com> wrote in
> news:Xns99AD9D98B7C6Awhatcholookinat@216.168.3.70:
>
>> X-Men Annual said no more mutants were being born. A few bits of
>> information were dropped in some other books. Some of the info was
>> contradictory, suggesting Marvel as a whole didn't really know what
>> was going on with Decimation.
>
> This actually works out because, in-story, no one would know what was
> really going on.

The problem is that there should be one in-story answer, while we've
gotten contradictory information both inside and outside the stories.

Okay, perhaps there is confusion over the number of remaining
mutants. But books used the figures 90% depowered and 1% remained,
already conflicting. And both figures are high by several orders of
magnitude compared to the "real" numbers.

Remember the arguments on this group that said 198 was only supposed
to be an initial inaccurate count that became a rallying point? Now
it has been established as effectively an accurate count.


It is just like the confusion of mutant status during Civil War.
The X-Men saw themselves as separate, and already covered by O*N*E.
Stark and Ms. Marvel tried to get them to join the pro-reg side.
Then supposedly an issue of Wolverine said that mutants are
ultimately under Stark's authority? Why would he and Ms. Marvel try
to get them to join the pro-reg side if they were already under his
command? And why would mutants say Civil War didn't affect them,
if it indeed would put them under a new authority?

Or the apparent confusion between writers over how House of M
actually worked. It leads to a mess as stories have conflicts on
a base explanation level.

>> Endangered Species has said:
>>
>> Mutants went from millions before M-Day to a couple hundred after.
>> (Others have claimed 198 was just the early government estimate, but
>> Endangered Species sets it as a real figure.)
>
> Avengers: The Initiatve says it's actually 199. None of these numbers
> include a) Xavier's powers being restored and b) the numerous deaths.
> Despite both of these things, people still quote "198" as the current
> number. Is it that whenever one dies another manifests? If nothing
> else, it would help with the supposed problem of a too small gene
> pool.
>
> All of that aside, how do they know that there aren't mutant lurking
> in Tibet, Siberia, the Congo, or the Canadian wilderness?

Avengers: The Initiative says mutants were removed as a factor
worldwide. It was the ulterior motive for why that training program
was put into place, as America had the largest percentage of "normal"
super-powered people, and could re-establish its powerbase in a
no-mutant world.

>> No new mutants are being born. (Confirming X-Men Annual.)
>
> I'm still unsure how this can be verified. What if some woman in a
> remote part of the Amazon gives birth to a mutant? Who would know.

Well, the X-Men Annual apparently had Exodus find out from SHIELD's
helicarrier?

Presumably, it is some worldwide mutant scanning program. It would
make sense if you are supposed to believe in the X-verse's paranoia
of mutants. It doesn't have to be as accurate as Cerebro/a, it just
has to be accurate enough for statistical purposes. (Note: This
excuse would actually allow for future mutant births. Mutants might
still be born, but they have been reduced to so insanely infrequent
that they don't show up on general scans.)
 >> Stay informed about: New Wolverine Look 

And remember 198 is only the number of registered mutants. In the latest
issue of Intiative S.H.I.E.L.D. reveals that there are at least 300
known mutants. A hundred more than most figures, and there is always the
possibility of latents and underaged like Victoria. There has always
been 10 latents for every known mutant. And Franklin will be Pheonix
level someday so I don't think we'll run out of mutants any time soon.
 >> Stay informed about: New Wolverine Look 

Billy Bissette <baines.RemoveThis@coastalnet.com> wrote in
news:Xns99ADD1CCB50D4whatcholookinat@216.168.3.70:

> Dan McEwen <ferroSPAMboy.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns99ADB49722209McEwen@130.133.1.4:
>
>> Billy Bissette <baines.RemoveThis@coastalnet.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns99AD9D98B7C6Awhatcholookinat@216.168.3.70:
>>
>>> X-Men Annual said no more mutants were being born. A few bits of
>>> information were dropped in some other books. Some of the info was
>>> contradictory, suggesting Marvel as a whole didn't really know what
>>> was going on with Decimation.
>>
>> This actually works out because, in-story, no one would know what was
>> really going on.
>
> The problem is that there should be one in-story answer, while we've
> gotten contradictory information both inside and outside the stories.
>
> Okay, perhaps there is confusion over the number of remaining
> mutants. But books used the figures 90% depowered and 1% remained,
> already conflicting. And both figures are high by several orders of
> magnitude compared to the "real" numbers.

I think the real number must be closer to .001%, but I'm too tired and
lazy to figure it out right now.

> Remember the arguments on this group that said 198 was only supposed
> to be an initial inaccurate count that became a rallying point? Now
> it has been established as effectively an accurate count.

I still don't buy it. They maintain the number despite deaths.
Besides, does anyone really think they knew a bunch of Marauders still
had their powers? They only know about those they can track.

> It is just like the confusion of mutant status during Civil War.
> The X-Men saw themselves as separate, and already covered by O*N*E.
> Stark and Ms. Marvel tried to get them to join the pro-reg side.
> Then supposedly an issue of Wolverine said that mutants are
> ultimately under Stark's authority? Why would he and Ms. Marvel try
> to get them to join the pro-reg side if they were already under his
> command? And why would mutants say Civil War didn't affect them,
> if it indeed would put them under a new authority?

I guess it doesn't really matter since they routinely ignore absolutely
anything that annoys them. Plus, their effectiveness is zero. Face it,
Anole and Pixie are better than them at the job.

> Or the apparent confusion between writers over how House of M
> actually worked. It leads to a mess as stories have conflicts on
> a base explanation level.

>> All of that aside, how do they know that there aren't mutant lurking
>> in Tibet, Siberia, the Congo, or the Canadian wilderness?
>
> Avengers: The Initiative says mutants were removed as a factor
> worldwide. It was the ulterior motive for why that training program
> was put into place, as America had the largest percentage of "normal"
> super-powered people, and could re-establish its powerbase in a
> no-mutant world.

I know what they said, but how do they knopw?

>>> No new mutants are being born. (Confirming X-Men Annual.)
>>
>> I'm still unsure how this can be verified. What if some woman in a
>> remote part of the Amazon gives birth to a mutant? Who would know.
>
> Well, the X-Men Annual apparently had Exodus find out from SHIELD's
> helicarrier?

SHIELD's hellicarrier knows about what happens in the middle of the
Amazon? I have serious doubts.

> Presumably, it is some worldwide mutant scanning program.

Better than Xavier? If you look at one of the X-Men issues immediately
post-HoM, Emma finds blips in multiple places around the globe.

It would
> make sense if you are supposed to believe in the X-verse's paranoia
> of mutants. It doesn't have to be as accurate as Cerebro/a, it just
> has to be accurate enough for statistical purposes. (Note: This
> excuse would actually allow for future mutant births. Mutants might
> still be born, but they have been reduced to so insanely infrequent
> that they don't show up on general scans.)

That's what I was getting at.
 >> Stay informed about: New Wolverine Look 

Tyval DeleteThis @webtv.net wrote in
news:642-46EDEF99-654@storefull-3137.bay.webtv.net:

> And remember 198 is only the number of registered mutants. In the
> latest issue of Intiative S.H.I.E.L.D. reveals that there are at least
> 300 known mutants.

Not true. It says that they have the 199th mutant.

A hundred more than most figures, and there is always the
> possibility of latents and underaged like Victoria. There has always
> been 10 latents for every known mutant. And Franklin will be Pheonix
> level someday so I don't think we'll run out of mutants any time soon.

Will be Phoenix level? When was the last time you saw Phoenix create an
entire planet and populate it? Franklin outstrips Phoenix.
 >> Stay informed about: New Wolverine Look 

Tyval.TakeThisOut@webtv.net wrote in news:642-46EDEF99-654@storefull-
3137.bay.webtv.net:

> And remember 198 is only the number of registered mutants. In the latest
> issue of Intiative S.H.I.E.L.D. reveals that there are at least 300
> known mutants. A hundred more than most figures, and there is always the
> possibility of latents and underaged like Victoria. There has always
> been 10 latents for every known mutant.

If so, it contradicts chapter 1 of Endangered Species, where Beast
says "two hundred" remained of the millions.

Beast also doesn't mention latents or pre-pubescent in his research,
which implies they aren't a factor. Expecting a pretty good number of
latents and not-yet-manifested mutants would undermine the point of
Endangered Species. That Beast would say there isn't enough of a base
to sustain future generations is already shaky. If you jump up the
number of known mutants, it becomes shakier. And 200 to 300 is a
relatively large jump, and implies there may be many more yet to be
found. If you include much greater numbers of latents and children,
then it effectively skyrockets, and Beast would have no reason to even
begin his Endangered Species journey. (And Endangered Species shows
he worked with the heroes before turning to the villains, and exhausted
every path he saw.)

The comments about no new mutants being born is vague, and could
mean either no one is manifesting powers, or it could mean that no one
is even being born with an X-gene, or at least an enabled X-gene.
(Endangered Species would imply that people aren't even being born
with an X-gene anymore, considering it cannot be found in subjects
and has even been removed from lab samples and corpses.)
 >> Stay informed about: New Wolverine Look