Not a lot of success with the latest villains

Billy Bissette <baines.DeleteThis@coastalnet.com> wrote in
news:Xns994620E764E89whatcholookinat@207.217.125.201:

> mimf <mimf.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2007.06.05.04.26.09.300656@nospam.com:

>>>>> >> Spoilers for Marauders line-up
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .
>>>>> >> .

> We don't know how the end of House of M effected Decimation.
> Was
> the x-gene erased from only the living? Was it erased or was it
> actually made impossible to create? (The latter seems like the
> best way to justify that the x-gene can't even occur in future
> births.) Etc...

I think Wanda removed the x-gene. The reason no one recreated it is
because there's only one (okay, two) master geneticist who is
capable and willing - Sinister. The High Evolutionary has been
suspiciously absent.
 >> Stay informed about: Not a lot of success with the latest villains 

mimf <mimf.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote in
news:pan.2007.06.05.19.05.30.246553@nospam.com:

> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:13:57 +0000, Billy Bissette wrote:

>>>>>> >> Spoilers for Marauders line-up
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .
>>>>>> >> .

>> Considering the x-gene was removed from almost the entirety of
>> mutant kind, and the potential for children to be born with the
>> x-gene was also erased, it would seem sloppy to leave it present
>> in blood samples.
>
> Wanda did a sloppy job for creating House of M world too. But
> Sinister probably wouldn't even need actual blood samples if he'd
> already mapped the X-gene. As long as he could recreate the gene
> using recombinant DNA or something, he could probably insert it
> into an ex-mutant. He could probably even devise a "gene-bomb" to
> introduce it into the general population using a virus. Even if
> the actual infection rate was only 0.00001% it could "remutantize"
> enough individuals so that mutants weren't a dead end anymore.

"Jean Bomb"? They had that back in the Australian days of UXM. It
was a parody of DC's Invasion!

>> We don't know how the end of House of M effected Decimation.
>> Was
>> the x-gene erased from only the living? Was it erased or was it
>> actually made impossible to create? (The latter seems like the
>> best way to justify that the x-gene can't even occur in future
>> births.) Etc...
>
> Do we know that the X-gene can't occur in future births? It
> probably won't occur if it isn't present in the parents. But how
> many powered mutants have produced offspring since Decimation? I
> don't think that's been tested yet.

Zero, and that makes zero sense. At the very least, Scott and Emma
should be working on this. Also, there's no reason why the x-gene
can pass down when only one parent has the gene.

>> Not that Decimation isn't already seemingly being sidestepped
>> in
>> nearly every way possible...
>
> They're going to have to negate it somehow -- at least part of it.
> There wasn't really any explanation for the change in Wanda's
> powers. At first I thought they had some larger story in mind that
> would explain how and why her powers changed, as well as explain
> the increase in the number of mutants that occurred during
> Morrison's time. But apparently they didn't have anything in mind
> after all. They were just trying to "shock" us and turn over the
> internet or something.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Not a lot of success with the latest villains 

mimf <mimf DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote in
news:pan.2007.06.05.04.47.59.896639@nospam.com:

> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:32:25 +0000, Dan McEwen wrote:
>
>> Billy Bissette <baines DeleteThis @coastalnet.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns9945D9426C688whatcholookinat@207.217.125.201:
>>
>>>> Nova was an Onslaught fragment who created her backstory based
>>>> on a Shi'ar boogeyman story Xavier had heard
>>>
>>> You call her real origin "ridiculous," compared to phantom
>>> boogeyman?
>>
>> Cassandra's origin doesn't even have to be that off. Jean
>> herself said Cassandra was Xavier's twin who he murdered in the
>> womb. The mummadrai thing could have something to do with her
>> ability to survive, and why she's so powerful, but she could
>> still ultimately be his twin.
>
> So are you saying that the mummadrai was joined with Cassandra
> Nova the same way the more recent mummadrai joined with Cable?

Sounds plausible to me. It must have bonded from the start since
she was already evil before birth.

>> True, and I'd just kill him off. He has yet to do anything even
>> remotely interesting. If he had completely trashed the Shi'ar
>> Empire, I'd have applauded, but I still wouldn't have liked him.
>> A being who is nothing more than hate just isn't that
>> interesting.
>
> Deathbird likes him. I wonder if she'll end up killing him though.

I'm not sure she could. Where's Phoenix when you need her? Or
Galactus?

>> The simple solution is to just kill him off for good. I'd be
>> happy, the X-Men would be happy, and what else matters?
>
> What is this "for good" thing you speak of?

Unless someone had a good story for him, he could stay dead. Or we
hold all future x-writers at gunpoint and tell them we'll be back if
they even think of using Vulcan. I'm moving to NYX at the end of
August so I'll be close enough.

>> True. However, it should be noted that Cassandra Nova was not
>> actually in AXM. Did she appear elsewhere?
>
> No idea. Is Ernst around?

Someone said they saw her somewhere recently. Does that help?

>> Let's put that aside for a moment. Magneto stole nuclear
>> missiles in his very first appearance. What would anyone suggest
>> was his goal? Happy dances for all? Or, perhaps, the beginning
>> of genocide. You decide.
>
> Just standard bargaining power, same as any other supervillain who
> wants to take over the world would want. Things were so
> uncomplicated back in those days (in comic books anyway).

From the first I read that story (in the early 80's, I think), I
always thought Magneto meant to use them. And I was a fairly naive
young teenager back then.
 >> Stay informed about: Not a lot of success with the latest villains 

JLB <barnett DeleteThis @shentel.net> wrote in
news:1181014055.539303.186460@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

>
>>
>> Ooh, good catch. Malice is supposed to return in a different
>> manner.
>
> Maybe she'll be somebodies mummadrai.

I think it more supposed to be that her method of possession is
different. No more easily torn off neck band.
 >> Stay informed about: Not a lot of success with the latest villains 

mimf <mimf.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote in
news:pan.2007.06.05.19.05.30.246553@nospam.com:

> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:13:57 +0000, Billy Bissette wrote:
>

>>> "No more mutants" not "no more mutant blood samples." Besides,
>>> Sinister probably did all kinds of electron microscopy and stuff on
>>> the X-gene and has the info in his computers. He could probably
>>> recreate the X-gene from scratch, and maybe insert it into living
>>> ex-mutants who had lost their X-gene.
>>
>> Considering the x-gene was removed from almost the entirety of
>> mutant kind, and the potential for children to be born with the
>> x-gene was also erased, it would seem sloppy to leave it present in
>> blood samples.
>
> Wanda did a sloppy job for creating House of M world too. But Sinister
> probably wouldn't even need actual blood samples if he'd already
> mapped the X-gene. As long as he could recreate the gene using
> recombinant DNA or something, he could probably insert it into an
> ex-mutant.

We don't know that it is possible anymore to even artificially
reproduce the X-gene. That would probably be the most sensical way to
implement Wanda's mass change, that she rewrote reality in a way that
the X-gene just can't be created or recreated (while simultaneously
removing it from almost everyone.)

We also don't know how much knowledge of the X-gene survived the
change. Presumably it did survive though, because guys like Beast
weren't scratching their head over at least that mystery.

>> We don't know how the end of House of M effected Decimation. Was
>> the x-gene erased from only the living? Was it erased or was it
>> actually made impossible to create? (The latter seems like the best
>> way to justify that the x-gene can't even occur in future births.)
>> Etc...
>
> Do we know that the X-gene can't occur in future births? It probably
> won't occur if it isn't present in the parents. But how many powered
> mutants have produced offspring since Decimation? I don't think that's
> been tested yet.

According to the X-Men annual, no new mutants are being born. The
x-gene is just gone. Not deactivated, just gone. Seemingly without
any potential for it to occur even in new births.

That is why Exodus went to Sinister in the first place. His original
plan was to knock down the humans and let the mutant population regrow.
But then he found out what apparently everyone else already knew, that
there are no new mutants being born. Nor presumably even the believed
potential of new mutants being born.

No, it doesn't really make sense that they know that with such
certainty. It was probably just some of the brushing under the rug,
which kept guys like Beast from devoting the next years of their
lives trying to find reversals for the change.
 >> Stay informed about: Not a lot of success with the latest villains 

Dan McEwen <ferroboy RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9946AA8232A71ferroboygmailcom@130.133.1.4:
> Billy Bissette <baines RemoveThis @coastalnet.com> wrote in
> news:Xns99461CA3AB145whatcholookinat@207.217.125.201:

>>> True. However, it should be noted that Cassandra Nova was not
>>> actually in AXM. Did she appear elsewhere?
>>
>> The continual mentions are enough. Like Austin in the New X-Men
>> endcap right after Morrison left, where Cyclops and Beast go to
>> check Cassandra's cell/drawer, only to find her missing, then get
>> distracted by some killer robot, and then just completely forget
>> about the whole thing?
>
> It was Austen. That's actually good for him.

Going back a bit, wasn't Cassandra not only in AXM, but in a fashion
that contradicts Morrison and arguably contradicts Austin as well?

Emma was being influenced by a piece Cassandra left in her mind, okay.
You can argue that isn't really Cassandra.

But what about the container in the basement? The whole thing that
Cassandra-Emma was after? The one that contained the slug-like body of
Stuff which Cassandra had been sealed?


For Morrison, Cassandra-in-Stuff presumably had become Ernst
phsyically as well as mentally. For Morrison, that Stuff was a
shape-shifter probably had more meaning than just how he was beaten
and used as a cell, but also meant an easy means to justify reforming
Cassadra a new body.

For Austin, Cyclops and Beast went looking to check on Cassandra-in-
Stuff, with Cyclops worried that she had escaped. At the time, the
Austin story could be justified by saying that Xavier had kept secret
that he had released Cassandra-in-Stuff as Ernst, though at the time
while not impossible, that kind of behavior would at least be
questionable. It would be much safer after all to tell at least key
X-Men, even if they might object.


Okay, you could argue that what Whedon had Kitty take from the
vault was just an empty shell. That would require obtaining a new
body for Cassandra-Ernst though. It would also involve making a
massively complicated and defended container just to trick the X-Men
themselves? For what? On the off chance that Cassandra Nova planted
a small fragment of herself into someone to try to enact her escape?
 >> Stay informed about: Not a lot of success with the latest villains 

Dan McEwen <ferroboy.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9946A9BB3508Aferroboygmailcom@130.133.1.4:

>>> True. However, it should be noted that Cassandra Nova was not
>>> actually in AXM. Did she appear elsewhere?
>>
>> No idea. Is Ernst around?
>
> Someone said they saw her somewhere recently. Does that help?

I think she was mentioned or shown in New X-Men (the current kid
team book) sometime last year?
 >> Stay informed about: Not a lot of success with the latest villains 

JLB <barnett.DeleteThis@shentel.net> wrote in
news:1181082300.527036.199880@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

>> >> Cassandra's origin doesn't even have to be that off. Jean
>> >> herself said Cassandra was Xavier's twin who he murdered in
>> >> the womb. The mummadrai thing could have something to do with
>> >> her ability to survive, and why she's so powerful, but she
>> >> could still ultimately be his twin.
>
> According to the myth though Cassandra should also have a
> mummadrai. Everyone should. If she is the mummadrai she can't
> also be his twin sister/

Xavier would be hers, so to speak. He's her opposite. In any case,
that was just an idea thrown out. As others have said, just because
the Shi'ar believed her to be mummadrai doesn't mean it's so. Jean
seemed to believe she was Xavier's twin and she was inside of his
mind.

>> I'm not sure she could. Where's Phoenix when you need her? Or
>> Galactus?
>>
> Has he lost the need to sleep?

Ah, so anyone will do.

>> >> True. However, it should be noted that Cassandra Nova was not
>> >> actually in AXM. Did she appear elsewhere?
>
> Are you sure. I thought she was there, that she was the reason
> Emma had her little lapse.

That's debatable. Even so, the idea presented in the story was that
Cassandra have affected her when she was still in Genosha and
manipulated her during the time when she was the major villain in
NXM. For whatever reason, something triggered one of Cassandra's
failsafes and made Emma delusions. Emma was the only one of that
Hellfire Club who was actually there.

> I'm not saying he wouldn't kill, but why steal them and keep them
> in orbit? If he's going to commit genocide, just use them as soon
> as he has them.

Didn't the X-Men stop him?
 >> Stay informed about: Not a lot of success with the latest villains 

Billy Bissette <baines.RemoveThis@coastalnet.com> wrote in
news:Xns9946BFD238F96whatcholookinat@207.217.125.201:

> Dan McEwen <ferroboy.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9946A9BB3508Aferroboygmailcom@130.133.1.4:
>
>>>> True. However, it should be noted that Cassandra Nova was not
>>>> actually in AXM. Did she appear elsewhere?
>>>
>>> No idea. Is Ernst around?
>>
>> Someone said they saw her somewhere recently. Does that help?
>
> I think she was mentioned or shown in New X-Men (the current kid
> team book) sometime last year?

Sounds right but I wasn't reading New X-Men at that time.
 >> Stay informed about: Not a lot of success with the latest villains 

JLB <barnett.TakeThisOut@shentel.net> wrote in
news:1181082501.844606.291190@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> Dan McEwen wrote:

>> > What JLB may be forgetting is that there was never any proof
>> > that
>> > Cassandra was a Mummudrai.
>>
>> True. She was his twin and evil, which closely describes the
>> myth.
>
> Wasn't she supposed to be an identical twin, though?

Obviously not. Then again, the body was created by Cassandra so it
could be whatever she wanted it to be.

>> Magneto-as-Xorn was fine. The retcons weren't. Who liked any
>> story featuring either of the retcon Xorns?
>
> I disagree. Magneto using the methods of Nazis is not fine. And
> I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Kick explains a lot.
 >> Stay informed about: Not a lot of success with the latest villains 

Billy Bissette <baines DeleteThis @coastalnet.com> wrote in
news:Xns9946BE21481D6whatcholookinat@207.217.125.201:

>> It was Austen. That's actually good for him.
>
> Going back a bit, wasn't Cassandra not only in AXM, but in a
> fashion
> that contradicts Morrison and arguably contradicts Austin as well?
>
> Emma was being influenced by a piece Cassandra left in her mind,
> okay.
> You can argue that isn't really Cassandra.

More like an image left on a monitor (well, old-style, the reason we
ended up with screensavers).

> But what about the container in the basement? The whole thing
> that
> Cassandra-Emma was after? The one that contained the slug-like
> body of Stuff which Cassandra had been sealed?

> For Morrison, Cassandra-in-Stuff presumably had become Ernst
> phsyically as well as mentally. For Morrison, that Stuff was a
> shape-shifter probably had more meaning than just how he was
> beaten and used as a cell, but also meant an easy means to justify
> reforming Cassadra a new body.

True.

> For Austin, Cyclops and Beast went looking to check on
> Cassandra-in-
> Stuff, with Cyclops worried that she had escaped. At the time,
> the Austin story could be justified by saying that Xavier had kept
> secret that he had released Cassandra-in-Stuff as Ernst, though at
> the time while not impossible, that kind of behavior would at
> least be questionable. It would be much safer after all to tell
> at least key X-Men, even if they might object.

My only thought here is that it must have been that only Xavier and
Jean knew the truth about Ernst.

> Okay, you could argue that what Whedon had Kitty take from the
> vault was just an empty shell. That would require obtaining a new
> body for Cassandra-Ernst though. It would also involve making a
> massively complicated and defended container just to trick the
> X-Men themselves? For what? On the off chance that Cassandra
> Nova planted a small fragment of herself into someone to try to
> enact her escape?

Overall, I think AXM doesn't fit anywhere. Until we know otherwise,
I can't fully explain this. It was a contradictory story that
didn't really further Cassandra. It almost seems like the entire
point was to make Scott and Emma, and Peter and Kitty into solid
couples.
 >> Stay informed about: Not a lot of success with the latest villains 

JLB <barnett DeleteThis @shentel.net> wrote in
news:1181082551.406095.81490@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

>
> Dan McEwen wrote:
>> JLB <barnett DeleteThis @shentel.net> wrote in
>> news:1181014055.539303.186460@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Ooh, good catch. Malice is supposed to return in a different
>> >> manner.
>> >
>> > Maybe she'll be somebodies mummadrai.
>>
>> I think it more supposed to be that her method of possession is
>> different. No more easily torn off neck band.
>
> It was sarcasm.

I know. I'm well aware of your feelings for the mummadrai.
 >> Stay informed about: Not a lot of success with the latest villains 

Billy Bissette <baines RemoveThis @coastalnet.com> wrote in
news:Xns9946BB87FF6ABwhatcholookinat@207.217.125.201:

> mimf <mimf RemoveThis @nospam.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2007.06.05.19.05.30.246553@nospam.com:
>
>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:13:57 +0000, Billy Bissette wrote:

>> Wanda did a sloppy job for creating House of M world too. But
>> Sinister probably wouldn't even need actual blood samples if he'd
>> already mapped the X-gene. As long as he could recreate the gene
>> using recombinant DNA or something, he could probably insert it
>> into an ex-mutant.
>
> We don't know that it is possible anymore to even artificially
> reproduce the X-gene. That would probably be the most sensical
> way to implement Wanda's mass change, that she rewrote reality in
> a way that the X-gene just can't be created or recreated (while
> simultaneously removing it from almost everyone.)

If she had done so, there wouldn't be any mutants left. If reality
says the x-gene doesn't and can't exist, then it doesn't and can't.
That's obviously not what she did.

>> Do we know that the X-gene can't occur in future births? It
>> probably won't occur if it isn't present in the parents. But how
>> many powered mutants have produced offspring since Decimation? I
>> don't think that's been tested yet.
>
> According to the X-Men annual, no new mutants are being born.
> The
> x-gene is just gone. Not deactivated, just gone. Seemingly
> without any potential for it to occur even in new births.

How many existing mutants are reproducing? It think that's
relevant.

> That is why Exodus went to Sinister in the first place. His
> original
> plan was to knock down the humans and let the mutant population
> regrow. But then he found out what apparently everyone else
> already knew, that there are no new mutants being born. Nor
> presumably even the believed potential of new mutants being born.

Except Sinister and Exodus are both under the impression that this
can change.
 >> Stay informed about: Not a lot of success with the latest villains