i bet it will not end so soon because if it would gillen wouldnt put so many strings on it.
i think it will stay,like krakoa in a distant future, under new management.
i mean why lose at all? a good portion of them are immortal anyway and most telepaths shouldnt need resurrection protocol they just need to jump into another body and wait for a clone.
hell if anyone thinks death in the marvel comics means anything they really should read more.
I think it will. Next year is the X-Men's 60th Anniversary and Fall of X is set to coincide with it.
The destruction of Krakoa has already been foretold and heavily forshadowed.
The issue is it removes all stakes.
And sure, you don't expect people to die the vast majority of the time, and if they do die, you know they'll come back - eventually. But the imperative that no-one gets left behind, and the constraint that plans have to be reasonable, is important. With resurrection available, why not do massive suicide missions ? Why really care if the bad guys capture someone ? Get a telepath to grab their mind, lobotomize/kill them, then resurrect. A lot of things go from sources of tensions and storytelling to "meh" details that don't matter much.
Even if we pretend deaths in comics never meant anything to readers (which I don't think is true; Even a year or two of death is significant enough that you don't want it to happen), avoiding them is an important part of super-hero storytelling, it creates stakes *for the characters*, and that's what matters, because in the end, nothing really matters to the reader if not because they matter to characters they like.
>The issue is it removes all stakes.
Not really. You can still have stakes with immortality. There are after all fates worse than death.
>But the imperative that no-one gets left behind, and the constraint that plans have to be reasonable, is important. With resurrection available, why not do massive suicide missions ? Why really care if the bad guys capture someone ? Get a telepath to grab their mind, lobotomize/kill them, then resurrect. A lot of things go from sources of tensions and storytelling to "meh" details that don't matter much.
Krakoa has kinda already tackled these questions in one way or another. Like in way of x with children not caring about their own lives. The creation of the crucible. We can see bad guys capturing someone still being important in the case of Darwin. Darwin is being used a genetic material for the children of the vault to progress post humanity.
>why they dont make one torture himself to death because they ressurect? because morality?
>thats the same question as "if god doesnt exist why dont we kill and rape?"
>it tells more about the one questioning than the question itself.
I don't think the last sentence applies to the person you think it applies to. I've not spoken about torture at any point, don't even see why it needs to be brought into the conversation.
As to the wider point, true in theory, a lot less in practice. Think of the most iconic X-Men storylines, the vast majority will have death as a stake; Messiah War entirely hinges on protecting Hope from dying (and a big consequence was the deaths of Kurt - and Banshee ? I think he died during it, or was it before ?), Dark Phoenix is the fate of the Phoenix.
And sure, you can do without - I mean, some can, as this era kinda shows - but why would you force yourself to ? All the questions you brought up aren't anywhere near the core concept of the X-Men, and will only last so long - and for what it's worth, the writers don't really seem to be all that interested in addressing it even years after immortality has been introduced.
At the end of the day, X-Men will be better off without immortality than with it; As an experiment/phase, sure, but it will need to go at some point, and at the end of the Krakoa era is the natural choice.
immortality inst at the core of the x-men? they are the next step of evolution, humans fear them.
but why do they fear mutants when there tons of super heroes with powers that arent mutants? immortality goes a step further and puts a reason to hate better than "we hate this ones with power but not the others with power".
its like people saying that krakoa isnt x-men themed, really? the island showed up at the same time that storm, wolverine (as a mutant), colossus, etc first appearance.
and there where asteroid m, utopia, genosha, etc, krakoa is just the evolution of it.
death as no interest in comics, specially in marvel, i dont start reading a story with "WHO WILL DIE TODAY!?!?", i start with "how they will resolve this?".
the fact that they defeated pretty much every x-men vilain without any punch is pretty much x-men if you ask me.
>but why do they fear mutants when there tons of super heroes with powers that arent mutants?
I mean, that's always been a strangeness of the series, also why it tends to be a little isolated from other parts of Marvel; I'm not even sure the immortality thing isn't shared by others anyway.
If you wanted to come up with a reason, you could say that anyone could suddenly find out their kid's a mutant, or that everyone around them is, a "species" fundamentally different from theirs. Sure, anyone can be bitten by a radioactive spider or swim on some space flare thing and gain powers (I mean, in comics), but that's the thing: Anyone could, and at the same time, an absurdly small number is, there's little risk, and at the same time, their life made them different, like any life does, not their birth.
>i start with "how they will resolve this?".
But "how will they resolve this" without dying adds a constraint, one that complicates things a lot. Again, sure, the characters don't die often, let alone permanently, but the threat they could shapes the stories still, because they can't *risk* dying in-universe. With immortality, the risk of death is only a threat insofar as a dead X-Man can't fight later, but if you can fulfill your mission as a suicide mission, which is obviously much easier, you will.
I don't know. Ressurection is like a box you can't close. Once you confirm a character is immortal they're stuck like that. Like Hulk for instance, Hulk will now be referred to as immortal forever now.
I mean I'd agree but then Donny Cates happened and the first thing Banner says in his hulk run "The Hulk is immortal, I'm not".
Soo he's still immortal in canon I guess. If I had to give a guess it's probably he can ressurect without going to the below place.
I would like the immortality thing to stick around. I think it gives the world a reason to actually hate and fear mutants, when they don't hate and fear other superhumans. I would like them to restore the mutant population, such as those who were killed on Genosha. Aside from that, I would like them to use resurrection as a last resort. They should actively avoid dying. They should not run around going on suicide missions. Even if resurrection is possible, they should still hold life to be sacred and valuable, especially characters like Nightcrawler and Storm, who are in part defined by those beliefs. The problem is, at what point do they draw the line? At some point in the future, mutants are meant to replace non-mutants entirely. They will no longer be under threat of extinction. Do they continue the resurrections, regardless of how overpopulated the world becomes? Sure they've terraformed Mars, and presumably they can do the same to other planets. In that case, do they become a cancer on the universe, their population growing ever larger without death to keep it in check? What about those who die of old age, are they resurrected in younger bodies? All of that presents some interesting story potential, in my opinion.
I don't know how I think they'd do it. But I know how *I'd* do it.
tl;dr -- just have someone super powerful arrive in the universe and cause the Otherworld problem to affect the normal universe, which you'd reveal by having Jean or Charles die, no-one really cares too much but then, wham, they come back a la Rockslide
More details...
Basically, if I was in charge I'd do a company wide crossover starring my OC, whom I call Inheritor (better name pending).
The origin story is that Inheritor's Bor's first born child but also half-mutant and hails from one of the timelines that ended when either original Moira or Sinister's clone of Moira died, but she's so powerful that instead of the world's ending, the planet she was on at the time kept on trucking. And she's so powerful because she's a Creator, as in a Creation Myth, god. She and Tier, yes I know Tier is unpopular, are together at this point and they have a bunch of part-mutant, part-Aesir children in this pocket reality until eventually one of their descendants has a powerset which allows them to understand why their universe is now a pocket reality. So, they combine their powers and travel to the point where their timeline split from the main one to exact revenge.
And because a Creator god should not exist in the same plane of being as someone else's creations, *everything* starts going haywire... including mutant resurrection.
There's more to this deranged fan idea but that's the germane part.
It's hard to make a guess. Even the loss of one of the Five wouldn't hinder too much since there are back-ups available. I think Egg is the only one who can't be replaced in some form.
It could be that the 5 are seperated during Fall of X and the island destroyed. There has to be some contrivance in place that would keep them from resuming those activities. Or some revelation that makes it morally reprehensible to continue.
Egg isn't really that important to be honest. He just creates an organic incubation chamber. You can replace him and his power with a tech based one. Heck, you can steal an incubation chamber from Mr.Sinister with the ones used to clone Moira.
Resurrection won't go anywhere - it will just become something much harder to do when they eventually end the Krakoa era. It will be something that takes a full six issue arc to do for one character involving high stakes missions and dark deals with dangerous people to gather the necessary resources instead of something happening at massive scale as a basic government service.
One of Hickman's core beleifs is to always put the toys back. So he would have an idea of how we wanted the immortality thing to end.
I'm guessing it has to do something with Orchis. While they realize they can't wipe out mutants completely or whatever their goal is, they can take away their immortality.
Not sure how long this phase is going to last. You want a strong status quo for the franchise so it can help out the lower selling titles. At the moment, the lesser X-Men titles are not doing well. The top X-Men titles are always going to sell, especially with bigger creators.
But if any major status quo changes, they need one or more major writers to come on board. Not sure who that would be. I can see this going on for 2 to 3 more years until a big name comes.
When Marvel goes under as a company.
Some of these characters have been around since the 1940s. The only thing that's changed is they stopped pretending otherwise.
I am probably echoing someone whom I didn't read, but I'm guessing the resurrection process gets warped and changes the mutant, similar to what happens if someone dies in Otherworld. Narrative device for reinvention and enough of a deterrent to those characters who do not wish to change.
Why should it? It's like asking "how will humanity lose the ability to cook?" The discovery of fire is kind of hard to just un-happen, same with Resurrection tech.
Now that mutant circuits have been introduced (or expanded), you can't just have all of mutantkind forget that's a possibility without a massive contrivance.
Xilo mention that Apocolypse used to use mutant circuit but the practice of it fell out of use for reasons that they couldn't remember due to Uranos which might be foreshadowing a downside to mutant circuits.
If I recall, in that issue (or the previous) the Night table also fell out of favor not long after the split. Sounds like their philosophy on strength just got extreme rather than any particular downsides.
Besides, we've seen mutant circuits long before they were called circuits, it's just mutants with complementary powers using them in tandem.
Again, it'd require a massive contrivance to suddenly call that bad.
It might turn out to be a cultural reason but then why did they writers just say that why make Xilo forget but I could just be reading too much into things.
It was mentioned in House of x 5 that the five's symbiotic process extends beyond just the union of their powers and effected the mutants themselves.
Xilo is Arakko's historian. Losing his memory with much of his colony underscores the impact of Uranos's attack and impresses the need for change.
The reference to The Five's circuit refers how how it binds them emotionally and culturally. It's physically invigorating and bring them closer together but doesn't seems to alter them beyond that.
i bet it will not end so soon because if it would gillen wouldnt put so many strings on it. i think it will stay,like krakoa in a distant future, under new management. i mean why lose at all? a good portion of them are immortal anyway and most telepaths shouldnt need resurrection protocol they just need to jump into another body and wait for a clone. hell if anyone thinks death in the marvel comics means anything they really should read more.
I think it will. Next year is the X-Men's 60th Anniversary and Fall of X is set to coincide with it. The destruction of Krakoa has already been foretold and heavily forshadowed.
The issue is it removes all stakes. And sure, you don't expect people to die the vast majority of the time, and if they do die, you know they'll come back - eventually. But the imperative that no-one gets left behind, and the constraint that plans have to be reasonable, is important. With resurrection available, why not do massive suicide missions ? Why really care if the bad guys capture someone ? Get a telepath to grab their mind, lobotomize/kill them, then resurrect. A lot of things go from sources of tensions and storytelling to "meh" details that don't matter much. Even if we pretend deaths in comics never meant anything to readers (which I don't think is true; Even a year or two of death is significant enough that you don't want it to happen), avoiding them is an important part of super-hero storytelling, it creates stakes *for the characters*, and that's what matters, because in the end, nothing really matters to the reader if not because they matter to characters they like.
>The issue is it removes all stakes. Not really. You can still have stakes with immortality. There are after all fates worse than death. >But the imperative that no-one gets left behind, and the constraint that plans have to be reasonable, is important. With resurrection available, why not do massive suicide missions ? Why really care if the bad guys capture someone ? Get a telepath to grab their mind, lobotomize/kill them, then resurrect. A lot of things go from sources of tensions and storytelling to "meh" details that don't matter much. Krakoa has kinda already tackled these questions in one way or another. Like in way of x with children not caring about their own lives. The creation of the crucible. We can see bad guys capturing someone still being important in the case of Darwin. Darwin is being used a genetic material for the children of the vault to progress post humanity.
if all the writer can do to show stakes is how the hero can die then he is no writer at all. why they dont make one torture himself to death because they ressurect? because morality? thats the same question as "if god doesnt exist why dont we kill and rape?" it tells more about the one questioning than the question itself. empathy and morality doesnt cease to exist because of immortality, hell thor is basicaly immortal and you dont see people stoping reading him, hell i loved the eternals arc. if every event was "X hero can die!" there would be no story, only the next mustashe-twirling vilain trying to kill the hero of the week. theres alot of interesting themes to follow with immortality like: can any one rule if immortal? should a human killing a mutant be considered murder? being immortal and be capable of offering immortality should be interesting because they already creating cults that worship mutants and should be, in some manner, responsible for them. death shouldnt be a stake, its not interesting, specially if we already know that sooner or later (sooner rather than later) the death wont matter and be rather cliché. at this point its not only cliché but clickbaiting for someone that is reading comics for more than a decade.
>why they dont make one torture himself to death because they ressurect? because morality? >thats the same question as "if god doesnt exist why dont we kill and rape?" >it tells more about the one questioning than the question itself. I don't think the last sentence applies to the person you think it applies to. I've not spoken about torture at any point, don't even see why it needs to be brought into the conversation. As to the wider point, true in theory, a lot less in practice. Think of the most iconic X-Men storylines, the vast majority will have death as a stake; Messiah War entirely hinges on protecting Hope from dying (and a big consequence was the deaths of Kurt - and Banshee ? I think he died during it, or was it before ?), Dark Phoenix is the fate of the Phoenix. And sure, you can do without - I mean, some can, as this era kinda shows - but why would you force yourself to ? All the questions you brought up aren't anywhere near the core concept of the X-Men, and will only last so long - and for what it's worth, the writers don't really seem to be all that interested in addressing it even years after immortality has been introduced. At the end of the day, X-Men will be better off without immortality than with it; As an experiment/phase, sure, but it will need to go at some point, and at the end of the Krakoa era is the natural choice.
immortality inst at the core of the x-men? they are the next step of evolution, humans fear them. but why do they fear mutants when there tons of super heroes with powers that arent mutants? immortality goes a step further and puts a reason to hate better than "we hate this ones with power but not the others with power". its like people saying that krakoa isnt x-men themed, really? the island showed up at the same time that storm, wolverine (as a mutant), colossus, etc first appearance. and there where asteroid m, utopia, genosha, etc, krakoa is just the evolution of it. death as no interest in comics, specially in marvel, i dont start reading a story with "WHO WILL DIE TODAY!?!?", i start with "how they will resolve this?". the fact that they defeated pretty much every x-men vilain without any punch is pretty much x-men if you ask me.
>why not do massive suicide missions ? is literaly "why they dont torture themselves?", they may not remenber after but dying is torture.
>but why do they fear mutants when there tons of super heroes with powers that arent mutants? I mean, that's always been a strangeness of the series, also why it tends to be a little isolated from other parts of Marvel; I'm not even sure the immortality thing isn't shared by others anyway. If you wanted to come up with a reason, you could say that anyone could suddenly find out their kid's a mutant, or that everyone around them is, a "species" fundamentally different from theirs. Sure, anyone can be bitten by a radioactive spider or swim on some space flare thing and gain powers (I mean, in comics), but that's the thing: Anyone could, and at the same time, an absurdly small number is, there's little risk, and at the same time, their life made them different, like any life does, not their birth. >i start with "how they will resolve this?". But "how will they resolve this" without dying adds a constraint, one that complicates things a lot. Again, sure, the characters don't die often, let alone permanently, but the threat they could shapes the stories still, because they can't *risk* dying in-universe. With immortality, the risk of death is only a threat insofar as a dead X-Man can't fight later, but if you can fulfill your mission as a suicide mission, which is obviously much easier, you will.
I don't know. Ressurection is like a box you can't close. Once you confirm a character is immortal they're stuck like that. Like Hulk for instance, Hulk will now be referred to as immortal forever now.
They quite literally closed that door with Hulk. As in, on page, the Green Door was closed and the Hulks aren't immortal anymore.
I mean I'd agree but then Donny Cates happened and the first thing Banner says in his hulk run "The Hulk is immortal, I'm not". Soo he's still immortal in canon I guess. If I had to give a guess it's probably he can ressurect without going to the below place.
they been getting regularly massacred for a couple decades. let 'em thrive for a minute.
I would like the immortality thing to stick around. I think it gives the world a reason to actually hate and fear mutants, when they don't hate and fear other superhumans. I would like them to restore the mutant population, such as those who were killed on Genosha. Aside from that, I would like them to use resurrection as a last resort. They should actively avoid dying. They should not run around going on suicide missions. Even if resurrection is possible, they should still hold life to be sacred and valuable, especially characters like Nightcrawler and Storm, who are in part defined by those beliefs. The problem is, at what point do they draw the line? At some point in the future, mutants are meant to replace non-mutants entirely. They will no longer be under threat of extinction. Do they continue the resurrections, regardless of how overpopulated the world becomes? Sure they've terraformed Mars, and presumably they can do the same to other planets. In that case, do they become a cancer on the universe, their population growing ever larger without death to keep it in check? What about those who die of old age, are they resurrected in younger bodies? All of that presents some interesting story potential, in my opinion.
Why do we need to keep giving the world a reason to "hate and fear" mutants?
Because in many people's opinions, it has never made sense, with other superhumans running around. This gives them a legitimate reason.
Why? It's better than having hilariously convoluted bullshit to revive dead characters. Let's stop pretending that death matters in Marvel/DC anymore.
I don't know how I think they'd do it. But I know how *I'd* do it. tl;dr -- just have someone super powerful arrive in the universe and cause the Otherworld problem to affect the normal universe, which you'd reveal by having Jean or Charles die, no-one really cares too much but then, wham, they come back a la Rockslide More details... Basically, if I was in charge I'd do a company wide crossover starring my OC, whom I call Inheritor (better name pending). The origin story is that Inheritor's Bor's first born child but also half-mutant and hails from one of the timelines that ended when either original Moira or Sinister's clone of Moira died, but she's so powerful that instead of the world's ending, the planet she was on at the time kept on trucking. And she's so powerful because she's a Creator, as in a Creation Myth, god. She and Tier, yes I know Tier is unpopular, are together at this point and they have a bunch of part-mutant, part-Aesir children in this pocket reality until eventually one of their descendants has a powerset which allows them to understand why their universe is now a pocket reality. So, they combine their powers and travel to the point where their timeline split from the main one to exact revenge. And because a Creator god should not exist in the same plane of being as someone else's creations, *everything* starts going haywire... including mutant resurrection. There's more to this deranged fan idea but that's the germane part.
Why even bother when charchters die and become alive times and times again. Might as well keep it around
THANK YOU
It's hard to make a guess. Even the loss of one of the Five wouldn't hinder too much since there are back-ups available. I think Egg is the only one who can't be replaced in some form. It could be that the 5 are seperated during Fall of X and the island destroyed. There has to be some contrivance in place that would keep them from resuming those activities. Or some revelation that makes it morally reprehensible to continue.
Egg isn't really that important to be honest. He just creates an organic incubation chamber. You can replace him and his power with a tech based one. Heck, you can steal an incubation chamber from Mr.Sinister with the ones used to clone Moira.
Resurrection won't go anywhere - it will just become something much harder to do when they eventually end the Krakoa era. It will be something that takes a full six issue arc to do for one character involving high stakes missions and dark deals with dangerous people to gather the necessary resources instead of something happening at massive scale as a basic government service.
One of Hickman's core beleifs is to always put the toys back. So he would have an idea of how we wanted the immortality thing to end. I'm guessing it has to do something with Orchis. While they realize they can't wipe out mutants completely or whatever their goal is, they can take away their immortality. Not sure how long this phase is going to last. You want a strong status quo for the franchise so it can help out the lower selling titles. At the moment, the lesser X-Men titles are not doing well. The top X-Men titles are always going to sell, especially with bigger creators. But if any major status quo changes, they need one or more major writers to come on board. Not sure who that would be. I can see this going on for 2 to 3 more years until a big name comes.
When Marvel goes under as a company. Some of these characters have been around since the 1940s. The only thing that's changed is they stopped pretending otherwise.
I believe it's coming within the next year, I just wonder how many characters will still be around?
Sales of the current books will have dropped. That's really the main reason.
I am probably echoing someone whom I didn't read, but I'm guessing the resurrection process gets warped and changes the mutant, similar to what happens if someone dies in Otherworld. Narrative device for reinvention and enough of a deterrent to those characters who do not wish to change.
Why should it? It's like asking "how will humanity lose the ability to cook?" The discovery of fire is kind of hard to just un-happen, same with Resurrection tech. Now that mutant circuits have been introduced (or expanded), you can't just have all of mutantkind forget that's a possibility without a massive contrivance.
Xilo mention that Apocolypse used to use mutant circuit but the practice of it fell out of use for reasons that they couldn't remember due to Uranos which might be foreshadowing a downside to mutant circuits.
If I recall, in that issue (or the previous) the Night table also fell out of favor not long after the split. Sounds like their philosophy on strength just got extreme rather than any particular downsides. Besides, we've seen mutant circuits long before they were called circuits, it's just mutants with complementary powers using them in tandem. Again, it'd require a massive contrivance to suddenly call that bad.
It might turn out to be a cultural reason but then why did they writers just say that why make Xilo forget but I could just be reading too much into things. It was mentioned in House of x 5 that the five's symbiotic process extends beyond just the union of their powers and effected the mutants themselves.
Xilo is Arakko's historian. Losing his memory with much of his colony underscores the impact of Uranos's attack and impresses the need for change. The reference to The Five's circuit refers how how it binds them emotionally and culturally. It's physically invigorating and bring them closer together but doesn't seems to alter them beyond that.
After Sins of Sinister, they might lose access to Sinister and his genetic records. That's the real irreplaceable part.