|
|
Post by sps1000 on Oct 19, 2005 1:43:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 19, 2005 2:13:54 GMT
It's just a joke, I think, judging from context  They aren't really going to give anything away yet, I'm sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Gray Lensman on Oct 19, 2005 2:35:16 GMT
Scott and Logan are the last mutants I expect to lose their powers. If Logan loses his powers, he dies of adamantium poisoning. If Scott loses his powers, you lose the whole point of the character. While it seems Marvel keeps hitting new lows every day, I don't see this happening.
Anyway, the term is "explosive mutant", which is rather vague. It could be any of a number of them. Could be Cannonball, Gambit, or anyone with explosive-related abilities.
However, I will go on the record on one thing. I think Decimation is a bad idea that doesn't address the real problems with the X-titles. While I grant that the perception of mutants as a minority is a valid issue, this is the wrong way to fix it, considering that...
1) Mutants were a sizable minority pre-HoM, especially in a world population that is in the billions. It's possible to have mutant characters in the millions or more and portray them as a minority. Not only that, by eliminating mutants to a drastic degree, you lose the storytelling possibilities of a growing mutant culture and the resulting societal/political impact on the MU.
2) Marvel is cutting down on mutants, while increasing the number of X-titles. This is the huge problem that I have. If the perception of mutants as a majority is so bothersome to Quesada, the best solution is to reduce the number of books. I realize that sales reality is that the X-books are profitable, but they are oversaturating the market and contributing to any perceived numerical problem with mutants in X-titles. As it is, it's just ridiculous.
3) Related to this, cutting down on mutants means cutting down on mutant villains for the X-groups to oppose. We have more X-titles than ever, yet there are fewer powered mutants who are available to be used. And even assuming that said ex-mutants gain new powers from non-mutant sources, you lose the ideological point of the conflict.
4) I would argue that, rather than contributing to lessening of danger, having more mutants actually contributes to heightening danger. How do you control thousands of super-powered mutants? How can anyone guarantee that someone might not develop great power and be a threat? Who's to say that someone like Magneto, Sinister, or whoever might not raise a mutant army as the X-Men have and become a threat? Those storytelling possibilities are eliminated with Decimation.
5) The potential damaging of characters by depowering them. The character concept, in large measure, depends on what a character is designed to be able to do. If a character's power is a drawback, for instance, it's the mutation that might make the character more interesting. (Such as with Cyclops, Rogue, Chamber, Nightcrawler, etc.) Depowering the vast majority of mutant characters would likely damage at least some of the characters in this case.
6) This is backwards storytelling. Quesada is essentially trying to roll back the clock to Marvel as it once was. This isn't about finding a new idea with the X-Men and exploring it, but more an attempt to recapture the past. Marvel at present lacks any kind of coherent creative vision for their books right now (especially in contrast to DC).
7) Who thinks this is going to last years from now anyway? How many things have Marvel done that have been supposedly shocking and permanent have been reversed inside of months? Marvel has a poor track record in this area of late.
Decimation to me is an idea that is meant to sound good, and perhaps there is some appeal to the idea of a concrete minority. However, so far this appears to be poorly thought out, and even potentially damaging to the franchise. Much as I'd love to be wrong on this, Decimation is conceptually and fatally flawed, IMO.
|
|
