X-Men: Regenesis - October 12, 2011 - A Simulblog

The following is a simulblog with Arthur of Arthur the Lesser. You ought to be forewarned: there will be spoilers.

I will link to Arthur's article when it is made available.

When Arthur agreed to simulblog the X-Men: Regenesis comics, he referred to himself as the "resident xologist," and I would have to agree. But when it comes to the X-Men, I'm no slouch myself. I may not know everything that has happened between "Operation: Zero Tolerance" and "X-Men: Schism." I may have asked a lot of questions about how Hope is now a teenager and who exactly this Dr. Nemesis guy is. But I've read every comic between 1963 and late 1988, and I'd like to believe that I know what is at the heart of the X-Men.

After the new 52 presented me with a chance to get into a lot of DC comics without having to have hundreds of issues of experience, I began to feel guilty that I had left my first love, the X-Men behind. I've spent so much time getting caught up on Green Lantern and Batman in the last year or so that I've completely stopped getting caught up on my X-comics - I should be at least to 1991 or 1992 by now, after all. At the same time, my entire twitter feed was dominated by silhouettes of who would be on which X-team after the events of X-Men: Schism, silhouettes that were slowly filled in. At work, one night, I asked my buddy Zac if X-Men: Regenesis would be a good place to start following the X-books again. He said yes, and when the fifty-two issue month of September was over I got caught up on X-Men: Schism.

In many ways, the one-shot titled X-Men: Regenesis is either an epilogue to the events of X-Men: Schism #5 or a prologue to the events of Uncanny X-Men #1 and Wolverine and the X-Men #1. The story itself is a little bit underwhelming: Wolverine and Cyclops campaign among their (former) friends and allies in order to make sure that they have the right team at their sides. In the process, we begin to understand the various motives that push characters either to stay on Utopia and join Cyclops' army or to fly to Westchester and start over with a new variation on the old theme of Xavier's dream. While the campaign trail is expressed in rational and peaceful terms, there is an underlying current of mortal combat between Wolverine and Cyclops as exemplified by a gritty primordial representation of what is happening. Are Wolverine and Cyclops campaigning? Or are they fighting to the death beside a fire wearing tribal garb? Is the tribal motif an attempt at exploring the depth psychology of the Schism aftermath, or an excuse to show our favorite X-characters in little to no clothing? I'm sure you can make that decision for yourself.

X-Men: Regenesis speaks strongly to the fact that there are plenty of reasons for choosing one side or the other, and that few of them have anything to do with what Wolverine and Cyclops are fighting about. Everyone has particular needs and motives, and many people are forced to make huge sacrifices. I'd like to take a moment to look into some of the driving forces that bring characters to one side or the other. Psylocke was one of the first characters who stood out. She agrees that she will be on Wolverine's X-Force team, but the school is not her way. She says to Wolverine, "We have to go forward. The school's the opposite of that." But when Cyclops offers a head-of-security position, there is an ambiguous discussion regarding her being a spy/counter-spy. Is Cyclops trying to get information from Wolverine's mission and block him from getting information regarding Cyclops' own mission? Gambit's motives were entirely suspect to me. He nonchalantly says, "Found all the trouble there is to find here. May as well head East." But hasn't he also found all the trouble there is to find in the East. He lived at Xavier's school for many more years than he did in Utopia. If you ask me, Gambit has three motives that he is covering up: 1. he finds a kind of kinship with Wolverine, 2. he is secretly an idealist devoted to the dream of Xavier's school, and 3. he believes that Rogue will end up there and he can rekindle his relationship with her.

But the case of Storm is where I think we need to focus. Storm believes that a lot of Scott's militaristic ventures are horrible, citing X-Force as "an abomination." She feels used by Cyclops because of her great power, and her inclination is to go to Wolverine's side. But Cyclops plays Storm and gets her on his side, making her believe that she is the good individual who will keep all of the former baddies on Cyclops' side from creating further abominations. Of course, there's already solicitations for a book called Magneto: Not a Hero, so Storm might have her work cut out for her. Of course, my reason for looking so closely at the case of Storm is that, near the end of X-Men: Regenesis she represents a case of great instability. I could see her jumping ship if she feels that Scott's mission is irredeemable. Reflecting back on the book, there are many cases of instability. Kitty and Colossus could switch sides in order to be together. The same is the case with Magneto and Rogue. The Guthries could switch sides simply because they feel cured of whatever curses them. And Emma Frost could switch sides on a whim simply because she's not getting enough attention from Scott.

At the end of the issue, we are told that Cyclops' side - Colossus, Namor, Storm, Emma Frost, Magneto, Psylocke, Hope Summers, Dazzler, Domino, Warpath, Dr. Nemesis, Cypher, Madison Jeffries, Magik, Magma, Sunspot, X-Man and Dani Moonstar - will be featured in Uncanny X-Men #1 (on sale November 2nd) while Wolverine's side - Gambit, Iceman, Kitty Pryde, Beast, Rachel Summers, Toad, Cannonball, Chamber, Husk, and Dust - will be featured in Wolverine and the X-Men #1 (on sale October 26). But there are a lot of characters who aren't on either of those lists. And some of the teams don't seem as heavily affiliated as others. X-Force seems to be at the whim of both Cyclops and Wolverine. Dazzler's X-kids team doesn't seem heavily involved with Cyclops' militaristic methodology. And X-Factor investigations seems like it may exist outside of the battle lines. And let's not forget the myriad factors that could make parties switch teams or decide to abandon the methodology of either side. While Marvel has presented Regenesis as being pretty black and white with its marketing campaign, it seems like everything is still pretty grey. Oh, and what of the fate of Professor Xavier? Where's he going? And Archangel? Has he just gone completely to the dark side? Will Cable's rebirth and X-Sanction tie in heavily?

But, finally, the most difficult question, the question at the bottom of the last page of X-Men: Regenesis: Whose side are YOU on? This has eaten away at me for some time. After all, Cyclops is probably my favorite Marvel character, and I understand that in many ways he has had to bear the weight of Xavier's dream even more heavily than Xavier himself. But the truth of the matter is that Wolverine is right. If a young mutant believes that killing all those who oppose her is what it means to be an X-Men, then Xavier's dream has failed. In other words, I'm with Wolverine. While the split is promoted as the new Blue and Gold teams that were established when (Uncanny) X-Men split off into both Uncanny X-Men and X-Men, volume two, it is also just as comparable to the X-Men and the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants, two teams who have battled on and off since X-Men #2 in 1963. And Cyclops' side is the none with all the villains on it, villains who are always switching sides, and why stop now? In many ways, Wolverine's decision is a step backwards, and the events that are unfolding make it irresponsible to presume that simply opening a school is enough, but Wolverine's decision is the right decision.

Next week's Regenesis title is Uncanny X-Men #544, the final issue of Marvel's longest running comic book series. It should be awfully sad, especially since I've read a few hundred of those issues myself. Until then, read Arthur's article, once it is up. And don't forget to weigh in on whose side you are on.

My Favorite Marvel: Magneto

In a previous post regarding Green Lantern Hal Jordan, I mentioned that the dream of Professor Charles Xavier was a strong motivating force in my life. Next thing you know, I'm writing not about how Xavier is one of my favorite Marvel characters, but about how his arch nemesis Magneto is one of my favorite Marvel characters. On the surface, this seems like a strange contradiction, but there are a lot of reasons it makes sense for me to like Magneto over Charles Xavier.

Charles Xavier is a rich boy who just happens to become interested in the rights of mutants because he is a mutant himself. He has every resource in the world at his command because of his wealth and his ability to read minds. I can count the amount of people who can relate to such a character on one hand, and that's only if you count Bradley Cooper's character in Limitless as a real human being in the real world. While Xavier is creeping around his parents' mansion trying to steal an expensive cookie from an expensive cookie jar, Eric Lehnsherr (or Max Eisenhardt), the boy who would one day become Magneto, was a Jew in Nazi-controlled Germany (and later Poland). The recent story called X-Men: Magneto Testament tells Max's story of great loss and suffering during the Holocaust. One of the best moments in the first X-Men film surrounded the first manifestation of Magneto's powers as being the moment when his family was dragged off to a concentration camp. And most of the best parts in X-Men: First Class similarly surrounded Magneto and his Holocaust suffering. Because we also suffer, we can connect with the troubles of Magneto.

As a result of his suffering, Magneto's intentions are more clear. Xavier has always dreamed of a world where humans and mutants can live in harmony. He was able to devote his life to dreaming as a result of the fact that he never had to fear for his life and hide from any authority. Xavier was born a wealthy white male in the United States of America. But because of the things that Magneto has witnessed in his life, he has a strong motivation for protecting the mutant population at any cost. He has seen what happened to the Jews and other "undesirables" during the Holocaust, and as a result he wishes to do everything in his power in order to prevent that from happening to the second group of people that he ever identified with, the mutant populace. Whereas the Jews prayed to God to deliver them from their trials, Magneto was blessed with the powers of a god, and surely he, if nobody else, would hear the cries of his people and respond.

So, why is Magneto considered one of the greatest villains of all time rather than one of the greatest heroes of all time? The beginning of Magneto's departure from heroics was his decision that his goal was to be accomplished by any means necessary. In the Ultimate Universe, Magneto conducts himself much the same as a terrorist would, destroying certain targets in order that his words can be heard. He takes over television broadcasts in order that regular humans should fear him. But most of all, Magneto has no trouble killing innocents in order to accomplish his end. The thing that we can relate to the most about Xavier's dream is that he intends to protect his people, but only through the right methods, and peacefully if possible. But Magneto's utilitarianism leads to destruction and corruption. Add in the fact that with Magneto's godlike powers, he puts himself above the rest of the population. Humans to him are like insects to a god. And instead of exercising great responsibility with his great power, he brings great pain and suffering to the world. Some might say that he had no choice. One like Magneto, who survived the fuhrer and gained considerable power himself, would have little recourse but to become another fuhrer. We would hope that he could overcome these feelings, that he could choose a path of peace and respect, and at times Magneto has done exactly that, but it does sometimes seem like fate that a terrorized Jew named Max would become a tyrant named Magneto.

I've mentioned a couple of times now that Magneto has put aside his hatred and become a hero here and there. As a matter of fact, I remember somewhere in the 200s of Uncanny X-Men, Magneto and Kitty Pryde, both Jews, attended temple together in memory of Holocaust survivors. And there was something incredibly touching about that. Furthermore, in nearly every alternate reality, Magneto is the one who is leading the heroes to victory, not Xavier. And let's not forget that in the recent events of X-Men: Schism, Scott Summers chose both Xavier and Magneto to provide expert suggestions for how to proceed in difficult times. There is a reason that Charles Xavier and Eric Lehnsherr are first and foremost friends. They both believe in the same cause. And they both want to do the right thing for their people.

Though Magneto has some of the most fantastic powers, he happens to be one of the most real characters that Marvel has ever created. Whether he's villain or hero, both or neither, I think that I will always love him. He could mourn Xavier's death and unite all mutants in Xavier's dream (Age of Apocalypse) or he could kill Xavier himself (Ultimate Marvel). Either way, he's a fantastic character, and we have a lot to learn from him.

My Favorite Marvel: Kitty Pryde

Like Jean Grey before her, Kitty Pryde has suffered her way through a bunch of code names. When she joined the X-Men she was originally called Sprite. Professor Charles Xavier, however, would have named her Ariel. Later, the name Shadowcat would stick for quite a few years, but whereas Storm was often called Storm in the field, Shadowcat was still usually called Kitty Pryde in the field. But none of those names needed to stick. It was the person of Kitty Pryde who has resonated with readers throughout the years. Of all of the young side-kicks of Wolverine that have been tried out - Rogue, Jubilee, etc. - Kitty is easily the best. As a matter of fact, I kind of wish that the X-Men films had developed their stories from her point of view rather than Wolverine's. And I'm not the only one who loves Kitty Pryde - Joss Whedon claims that his quintessential female power character Buffy the Vampire Slayer is largely based on Kitty Pryde. As you probably know, Whedon would go on to write Astonishing X-Men, a series which spent a great deal of time developing Kitty Pryde.

In many ways, I think that Kitty Pryde is Chris Clairmont's re-casting of Stan Lee's Jean Grey. Stan Lee wanted a gorgeous Ginger-type, status quo, all-American, WASPy, all-the-pretty-ones-are-redheads kind of girl, Clairmont gave us a girl-next-door, Mary Ann, a Jew who is not over-sexed (which is uncommon in the comic book industry) and who looks as young as she actually is. Whereas Jean Grey has always been fully-developed, both in terms of her adult body and her incredible powers, Kitty Pryde is a scrawny child when we meet her and she doesn't really know how to put her powers to use effectively. I do have to give Stan Lee some credit here. Giving Jean Grey the kind of power that could overwhelm anyone else on the team was really a fantastic way of literally empowering women, but she was often submissive to the leadership of the boys. Kitty Pryde has always had more on the ball than those around her. She's young and inquisitive, and without having any kind of mind-enhancement abilities, she's highly intelligent. What she lacks in great power, she makes up for in thinking outside of the box. This makes her accessible and it makes her the model of what every girl in the nation could become.

I think the real reason Kitty was important in the early days was because, with the combination of the first-wave X-Men and the second-wave (retconned to third-wave in the 2000s) X-Men, there was bound to be a lot of disagreements between the adults regarding leadership, personal issues, and how to proceed as a team. The only thing that could cut through what amounted to a great deal of political tension was the tender heart of Kitty Pryde. As a matter of fact, I remember reading a lot of issues where some really insane and difficult stuff is going on only to read, in the next issue, a Kitty's fairy tale story-line where she recast her team members as fantasy characters in a dream. Even though X-Men #1 began by teasing the love between Jean Grey and Cyclops and developed a strong fatherly relationship between Xavier and his X-Men, the entrance of Kitty Pryde was the moment when the X-Men really felt like a family, when the X-Men were bound not by a dream or a duty, but by love.

I think that Kitty Pryde did for the X-Men what Peter Parker / Spider-man has done for the rest of the Marvel universe. With Kitty, we began to realize that there was more to life than saving the world. You had to get good grades. You had to worry about boys. As a mutant who is also a child you deal with both mutant problems and the problems of coming of age. This is another way in which the character of Kitty Pryde became universal. When neither the X-Men nor the New Mutants felt they could relate to Kitty, she felt alone and hurt. We've all felt that at some point. I think that Brian Michael Bendis emphasizes this side of Kitty Pryde the best when he includes her in his Ultimate Spider-man books. After Kitty leaves the X-Men, she begins to go to school with Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson and Gwen Stacy. She becomes involved in the love triangles with Peter Parker (because Colossus is gay in the Ultimate Marvel universe).

Though Cyclops and Storm are leaders and many of the characters are good looking and Wolverine is a badass, I really think that Kitty Pryde is the reason that the X-Men have remained good over the years. While I relate the most to Cyclops and feel that he is more of "my" character, I think Kitty Pryde might be the best export Marvel has ever given us. I also think she is the invisible hand behind the success of the X-Men from the Clairmont years until now. Kitty Pryde reminds us that we can all do extraordinary things for the good of those around us, and that's a message that we all need to hear.

Cosplay Gallery: X-Women

Most of these cosplayers unveiled their fantastic female X-Men costumes at Dragon Con 2011. It ought to be noted, however, that Storm's costume was unveiled at Anime Expo 2011. While I do enjoy anime, I love it when my good old fashioned comic book characters can make a showing even more. Here are the costumes.

Emma Frost and Phoenix

Psylocke



Rogue



Storm

Reboot City: X-Men

Everything is either a reboot or a sequel. Sequels for franchises that are still making money and still have remotely fresh ideas. Reboots for failing franchises who are losing viewers. This discussion is a discussion you've heard from every angle. But I'm not going to take what I would call the hard party line on this issue. I believe that reboots are a great idea. In much the same way that Marvel and DC comics have to start from scratch every so often in order to invite new readers to read their books, movies need to reboot every so often. Whereas Sam Raimi's Spider-man films were my Spider-man films, the upcoming Spider-man reboot will belong to the next group of viewers. They'll fill a row at the movie theater like we did and make Spider-jokes (Spider-ouch!) like we did.

While each artistic take has value, I sometimes wish that the films made by Marvel or DC would get it right. I've seen too many not-good superhero movies. "Reboot City" is my attempt to give my own two cents on how the next reboot ought to be done. And since I've been an X-Men fan for longer than I've been a fan of anything else, I think we ought to discuss the future of the X-Men franchise.

When it comes to rebooting comic book characters, I think that there are three names that always come to mind as champions: (1) Brian Michael Bendis (Ultimate Spider-man, other Ultimate Marvel books), (2) Geoff Johns (Green Lantern, Aquaman, Justice League, Hawkman), and (3) Grant Morrison (Batman, Superman). What these three individuals have in common is that they innovate the characters while being incredibly reverent to the past. Geoff Johns, for example, took non-sensical elements of Green Lantern such as his entire history as Parallax and the Specter and Green Lantern, not to mention the weakness to the yellow element, and he wrote some of the most fantastic stories I've read to make sense of these things. I think that something like this has to happen with the X-Men films. (I think I ought to note right now that both Grant Morrison and Joss Whedon have worked toward tying these threads together for the X-Men in the past.)

One of the most central elements about the X-Men is their historical significance. In the 1960s, alongside the civil rights movement, the labor movement and the women's rights movement, there was also the mutants' rights movement. Professor Charles Xavier and Eric Magnus Lehnsherr were the two champions of mutant rights, Xavier a "dreamy" type like Martin Luther King, Jr., who believed in peaceful methodology (while training a militaristic group of teenagers, an issue that would have to be addressed), and Magnus a militant supporter of mutant rights by any means necessary who recalls, in many ways, Malcolm X. Furthermore, Eric's transformation into Magneto could not have happened without the horrors he witnessed during World War II.

If you've seen X-Men: First Class then you must believe that I'm preaching to the choir. The prequel was set in the 1960s and it dealt with many of these issues, and yet it didn't make any sense. The timeline with the other movies was confusing, and people knew one another in the past who didn't seem to know one another in the present. But I think the real problem is that we didn't have enough recognizable mutants in this film. Why should Cyclops and Jean Grey and Storm be so important in the original trilogy and yet not exist in the past? The answer is easy: While comics are expected to exist in a universe where aging is slowed, movies cannot. Cyclops is not sixty years old in X-Men. I wish that X-Men: First Class had the balls to declare itself a separate entity, to say loud and clear that it is a reboot instead of a prequel. I wish that it had divorced itself from the continuity so that it could present us a new view on some of our favorite mutants.

Who would I have on the original X-Men team in the 1960s? My first thought is to include the entire original team, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Angel, Beast and Iceman, with possible additions of Havok and Polaris. (Of course, if we go that way, there would have to be some discussion about how a civil rights leader could construct a team of white kids. That was one of the biggest problems with the original batch of X-Men.) Or we could go the route of Ultimate X-Men, which featured Wolverine, Storm and Colossus of the second wave of X-Men in its original team. But here's the kicker: We do not see the events of the movie from Wolverine's perspective. When you're telling a story you want to see an established team from the perspective of a new-comer. That much was right in the original X-Men films. But I have seen way too many movies and television programs told from the perspective of someone who has no memory of their past. It has become a cheap way of introducing a character to a new story. There was a time when our conduit into a story was a young individual who didn't understand what was going on, and we even had a little of that in the original X-Men trilogy with Rogue. For me, I'd choose Kitty Pryde. She's one of the best characters ever, and I think audiences would relate to her. She's one of the biggest influences on Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and probably Veronica Mars, too), and most people know who she is.

Of course, there is the fact that Wolverine is what sells a movie. My friend Zac mentioned that X-Men: First Class, despite being one of the best X-Men movies to date, underperformed in the box office precisely because it did not feature Hugh Jackman as Wolverine as a primary character. It may not have done as well as it did (despite the best portrayal of Magneto that I can imagine) if it weren't for Jackman's cameo in the film. But I'm not talking about booting Wolverine from the film. In fact, I think that you have to have Wolverine in the reboot. One of the reasons that I think it would be interesting to see things from Kitty Pryde's perspective is because it gives us Wolverine as an established character, a brick wall of toughness and gristle. It makes us, the viewers, want to know more about this guy. This is how Wolverine was introduced in X-Men: The Animated Series (with Jubilee as the person through whom we see the team) and it worked fantastically.

And honestly, I think we need to see the Sentinels as the first enemy, or at least the Sentinels as the soldiers of the United States government, an entity that cannot be directly assaulted (unless you're Magneto). This would prove to be a perfect wedge between Xavier and Magneto. And who doesn't want to see the look on their faces when the humans realize that they've sent a big metal robot up against the Master of Magnetism.

As for sequels, there is a lot to deal with in the 1960s. Perhaps the first trilogy could revolve around Magneto the way the original X-Men movies did. Except that this one would have a concise story to tell from beginning to end and it would be delivered well. And after that trilogy, if things are going well, then let's see what the X-Men look like in the 1970s or even the 1980s. Jump forward a decade every movie, and if Cyclops appears in a cameo in the 1990s, he'll be in his fifties. Wolverine's healing power can justify his appearance in every single movie, so we don't have to worry about losing viewers. Or maybe we could see multiple time periods at once. Maybe we could have side-by-side stories, one from the 1960s and another from the present. There is a lot of room for story development. The X-Men probably have the most room for story development of any single hero or team that has ever been created.

So, what do you think? Is this how the next X-Men films should be done? How would you do the X-Men franchise if you were in control of the reboot?

My Favorite Marvel: Cyclops

In the last few years, the only thing I ever hear people say about Cyclops / Scott Summers is how much they hate him. It's almost become a refrain to say, "I think his superpower is whining." And believe me, I think Cyclops has made some iffy decisions in the past: cheating on Madelyne Pryor with the newly resurrected Jean Grey, abandoning his child, cheating on Jean Grey telepathically with Emma Frost. The list could probably go on and on. I've started this post - the first of my new column called "My Favorite Marvel" - with all the reasons you shouldn't like Cyclops so that we can just get them off of our chests. And feel free to add more reasons in the comments section. But the fact of the matter is that I think Cyclops is possibly one of the absolute best characters ever created by Marvel comics.

I can understand why there's a climate of hatred for Cyclops right now. Most of the comic book critics of today were children when the X-Men cartoon was on air on Saturday mornings from 1992 to 1997. Cyclops was always goofy-looking and uncool, sometimes a dick, sometimes a whiny little boy. The X-Men film franchise did nothing to alleviate this image. Instead they presented Cyclops as a jealous little man who feared that the main character Wolverine might take away the one good thing in his life, Jean Grey. I think a lot of people are going to respond that these are accurate depictions of the Cyclops that was created in X-Men #1 by Stan Lee, and to some degree they are right. But there is depth to that Cyclops. If he's a dick, if he whines, it is connected to other things. I think that the television program and movies have taken Cyclops out of the context of his struggles. And any of us taken out of the context of our struggles is going to be at best a flat character and at worst a hated character.

I think that Cyclops, if you follow his story from X-Men #1 until the current day, is one of the characters that people can relate to the most. Whereas Superman and Green Lantern are nearly omnipotent and full of courage and all of the best of impulses, Cyclops is first and foremost a broken man, both literally and figuratively. When young Scott Summers had to parachute from a plane that his father was piloting before it crashed, he hit his head on a rock. For years Cyclops experienced a lack of control of his mutant ability (force beams shot from his eyes) as a result of the resulting concussion. Of course, Emma Frost suggests in Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-Men that the lack of control is psychological, but I'm not certain if that explanation has remained canon. This accident is what I mean when I say that Cyclops is literally broken. As for figuratively broken, Cyclops has no lack of psychological disorders. He certainly has abandonment issues and trust issues that just continue to compound as his family members disappear, his loved ones die, and his heroes betray him. In the end, Cyclops can be summed up in the way we imagine Professor Charles Xavier first found him, as an orphan who can't stop a deadly force from erupting from his face (let's not ignore the pregnant metaphor here about ugliness in teenager culture). He doesn't trust his own worth and he fears his true self. Everyone abandons him, and perhaps rightly so: he might kill them with his mutant powers otherwise, and who could deal with that kind of guilt.

Though I've just mentioned that Cyclops was an orphan, one of the best things about Scott Summers is that he has one of the most developed families in both the Marvel and DC universes. His father is a man named Christopher Summers. An air force major, Christopher piloted a plane with his wife Katherine Ann and two children Scott and Alex which came under attack by a then unknown alien race called the Shi'Ar. Christopher was able to get his children out of the craft before he and his wife were abducted. Scott and Alex are a couple of the most important mutants, both solar powered. While we know Scott became Cyclops and lead several X-groups, his little brother Alex became Havok, one of the first mutants to join the X-Men after the formation of the original group. Alex has the power to funnel cosmic energy into force beams that emanate mostly from his fists, and he took command of X-Factor after his brother left the team. Later it was revealed that Major Christopher Summers survived the plane crash and became a space pirate named Corsair. He surrounded himself with a completely different kind of family after the death of Katherine Ann called the Starjammers. In a really troubling storyline called X-Men: Deadly Genesis it is revealed that Katherine Ann was pregnant with a third child when she was killed, that the Shi'Ar removed the child from her dead body, and turned the resulting child into a slave. This child, named Gabriel Summers, would return to Earth, where Xavier sent him on a mission that should have killed him. Awakening from his near-death, Gabriel became the murderous villain Vulcan, and honestly I think that he's one of the best X-Men villains in recent history.

Of course, we know even more about Scott than his immediate family. In the 1980s, we meet Scott's grandparents. They own a shipping company in Alaska. In the limited series The Further Adventures of Cyclops and Phoenix, Scott and Jean travel to 19th century England and meet Scott's first American ancestor, a boy named Daniel who adopts the surname Summers at Ellis Island. Furthermore, various children of Scott Summers and Jean Grey, Nathan Christopher Charles Summers (Cable), Nate Grey (X-Man), Rachel Anne Summers (Phoenix), appear from various different timelines. In the X-Men cartoon we even see that Cable has a son named Tyler. Scott's family populates a great deal of space and time in the Marvel Universe.

There is another family, however, that Scott Summers claims a close affinity with, the X-Men, with Professor Charles Xavier as his surrogate father. When Scott was an orphan in desperate need of help controlling his abilities, Xavier appeared to him, offered him a home, and offered him a way to become something other than a devastating weapon. I cried when I watched the series finale of the X-Men animated series because Xavier, on his deathbed, claimed Scott as his son in a really emotional way. And Scott, for years, has played the dutiful son. He's taken on the X-Men as his responsibility through some terrible times and done everything in his power to keep Xavier's dream alive even in the most intolerable times. It's been suggested in the Ultimate universe that Xavier may have been mentally influencing his students to stay in the X-Men, and in the regular Marvel universe that Xavier manipulated Scott through his love for Jean Grey. Furthermore, after it was revealed that Xavier sent Scott's brother Gabe on a suicide mission and then wiped Scott's memory of the event, the connection between Xavier and Scott was essentially severed.

This brings into focus perhaps one of the most important characteristics of Cyclops that makes him such a fantastic character, the balance of leadership and loneliness. Regardless of his reasons for becoming the leader of the X-Men, I believe that he has done a great job, showing care and dedication. The reason we might think he's a dick is because he is committed not to being everybody's best friend, but to making sure that these mutants who are feared and hated by society have what it takes to survive. And not only to survive, to battle those who stand in the way of peace, who would enslave the human race. In some ways Cyclops is the Batman of the group, the one who will always sacrifice happiness for the good of his X-family. I relate to Cyclops in much the same way I relate to Jack Shephard from LOST. Both characters find themselves thrown into positions of leadership. That leadership alone is enough to alienate them from fellow mutants, let alone the fact that Scott's father was kind of a deadbeat, his mother and wife Jean were killed, all of his loves were occasionally evil, his mentor committed a heinous crime against his mind, and his children all tell stories of a horrific future that he cannot stop from happening.

Cyclops is rough around the edges. He is occasionally crazy. Everything in his life turns from hopeful to terrible. But he takes up responsibility not only for his family or his team, nor only for Homo sapiens superior. He takes responsibility for all life on this planet and often on others. Cyclops carries Xaviers banner of peace between humans and mutants with a vehemence that will never be seen by another. He might not be the guy that you want to sit and have a beer with, but he's probably one of the most important individuals in the universe, one of the best developed characters, and one of the most realistic examples of how these powers can change a person. He is a leader, regardless of what stands in his way. He's one of my favorite Marvel characters, possibly the first in my heart.

X-Men: First Class Timeline Mix-Ups

X-Men: First Class is not supposed to be a reboot. It has been said that X-Men: First Class was meant to form a trilogy with X-Men and X2 (possibly meaning that X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine are no longer considered canon). This video points out how First Class doesn't fit with the other X-Men films, and makes a good case for why it ought to be considered a reboot if it is to make any sense at all.

X-Muppets

If you know me then you know that I am a huge fan of the X-Men, and it will come as no surprise that this picture of the X-Muppets really tickled me.

This picture originated as "X-Muppets" on Rahzahh's page on Deviant Art. I found it in an article titled "X-Muppets: First Class Seventh Period" on Geekologie, who found it via an article titled "Sweet Muppets/X-Men Mashup" on Albotas.

DIY Homemade Superpowers

A do it yourself guide to having mutant abilities similar to Marvel Comics heroes and villains such as Cyclops, Magneto and Wolverine. I found these via "Pretty F'in Iffy: DIY Homemade Superpowers" on Geekologie. These tutorials were originally made available via Vó Maria's Flickr and the articles "DIY Wolverine of the Day," "DIY Magneto Helmet of the Day," and "DIY Cyclops of the Day" on The Daily What Geeks.

Marvel Television

As a follow up to his post titled "DC TV," Josh Toulouse at Fat Train wrote a post titled "Marvel TV" which describes his hopes and dreams for the future of television programs based on Marvel comics characters and stories. In his post, Josh describes his support for Marvel Universe, Spider-man, and his personal favorite idea, Heroes for Hire. I'm behind all of these ideas, and I'd like to raise Josh seven more ideas.

AGE OF APOCALYPSE

Since True Blood already deals with all of the important issues of civil rights and oppression that the original Uncanny X-Men covered so brilliantly, the point of making an X-Men live action television program has been made moot. The Age of Apocalypse, a storyline from the 1990s in which Legion creates an alternate universe by traveling into the past and accidentally killing Charles Xavier, might still work. As a matter of fact, the cartoon Wolverine and the X-Men would have covered this storyline in its second season if it weren't prematurely canceled. You'd get that post-apocalyptic vibe that Dollhouse was aiming for, potentially some really great flashbacks from the displaced Bishop, and an X-Men storyline that hasn't been done to death.

ALPHA FLIGHT

 

Alpha Flight is a quirky group of individuals with powers resulting from a variety of sources, science, magic, mutation, etc., and here's the kicker: They're not even American. They're Canadian. This is exactly the kind of group that fits into the modus operandi of Joss Whedon. If you think he's a good fit for Avengers, then you should know that he's an even better fit for Alpha Flight, a much odder group of individuals with values that might be different from ours and, heaven forbid, free health care.

EXCALIBUR

My reasoning for Excalibur is almost exactly the same as my reasoning for Alpha Flight, with a couple of exceptions: 1. Excalibur takes place in Great Britain, 2. Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer was partially inspired by Kitty Pryde, one of the original members of Excalibur, and it could probably be argued that the Buffy's Scooby crew is, in many ways, based on Excalibur, and 3. the benefit of doing Excalibur is that we would be incredibly close to Dr. Moira McTaggert's Muir Island institute which is used for studying and rehabilitating mutants and other super-powered individuals. If I had to choose one of the two, I would choose Excalibur. It involves a couple of the most interesting X-Men and could possibly incorporate some of the brilliant stories from Captain Britain's past (including, possibly, a reference to Alan Moore's groundbreaking Captain Britain story).

MAN-THING

Not to be confused with Swamp Thing, Man-Thing is the man! ...thing. Maybe his name would have to change a little bit, but I think a lot of people could get behind the idea of this monster/hero who guards the Nexus of All Realities (located in the Florida Everglades) from those who would use it for evil purposes. He once was a man, but now much of that humanity is lost. I imagine a Man-Thing series would probably have to be from another individual's perspective in order to make it work, a child perhaps, in a Amblin Entertainment sort of tale of wonder and friendship. With shows like Fringe and movies like Source Code gaining a great deal of support from audiences, the other-world implications of Man-Thing fit into what audiences already find appealing.

MARVEL ZOMBIES

At times the Marvel Zombies comics got a little bit dry, but I don't think there's any reason that a Marvel Zombies television program couldn't work. People love zombies. People love superheroes. People love the heroic fight of zombies against superheroes. People love zombie complications like fast zombies (28 Days Later), and smart zombies (Day of the Dead, Land of the Dead). How about superhero zombies? Whereas the comic book series skipped over most of the first few days of the Marvel Zombies invasion, I think we would do well to spend a lot of time in the early days. I really think this could sell, and I really think it could be cool with the right team behind it.

MOON KNIGHT

One thing that the Marvel Universe is kind of missing compared to the DC Universe is an army of lesser-known solo characters who could be built up for the sake of a television program. This is why a lot of my ideas are just straight up X-Men spin-offs. Josh's idea for Heroes for Hire with Luke Cage just about spent the really great Marvel solo characters. But there are a couple left, and one of them is Moon Knight. Moon Knight is a messed-up hero with multiple personality disorder who is undermining his heroism almost as much as he is making good on it. Like my suggestion for the Harvey DC television program, I think Moon Knight casts an interesting light on lunacy (luna = moon). Unlike Harvey Dent/Two Face, however, Moon Knight is understood to be a hero. An insane hero.

STARJAMMERS

I hope you weren't tired of X-Men spin-offs with a rag tag crew of characters that would be awesome in the hands of Joss Whedon because - check it out - I thought of another one. I actually heard a rumor about a Starjammers TV series a little while back and I thought it would be fantastic. While the Starjammers are, without argument, based on the characters of popular science fiction like Star Wars and Star Trek, they have developed into their own over the years and could make for a really fun and entertaining series.

WORLD WAR 2

 

This final piece is where I want to place all of my chips. I'm not talking World War Hulk. I'm talking Marvel's perspective on World War II. While Chad suggested that a similar television program regarding DC's World War II might be interesting, I kind of think that it could be better accomplished in something like a Starman television program, which I think our friend Chad would agree about. But in light of the upcoming film Captain America: The First Avenger, I think that seeing the Marvel Universe during the World War II era could be a really cool television program. Other than Captain America, we could work in Wolverine, a young Magneto, Hydra, and the Red Skull. In Ultimate Comics: Thor, we see Loki besieging Asgard with frost giants wearing Nazi uniforms in the 1940s, so we could certainly see Thor here. Furthermore, in the Ultimate universe, Nick Fury is a predecessor to Captain America because the U.S.A. wanted to test the dangerous super soldier serum on African Americans first before endangering the lives of whites like Steve Rogers. And these are just the Marvel characters we know of now. What about Namor, the original Human Torch, and all of the other pre-X-Men/Fantastic Four/Avengers/Spider-man Marvel characters? I sure as heck would want to see this TV program, and the way I see it, it would be a hard TV show to screw up.

Postcard 2010: (7th Gen) Console Gaming

A couple of years ago, I went to the New York Comic Con and witnessed, at the Marvel booth, the unveiling of a mission-based Iron Man video game and a sandbox Incredible Hulk game, both for the X-Box 360. The high-definition three-dimensional environments astounded me and the game play looked fantastic. I gazed in awe at these two video game wonders before promptly forcing myself to turn away and never look back. The temptation to play seventh generation console (Nintendo Wii, Playstation 3, X-Box 360) games combined with my meager earnings could only bring about suffering.

The last console games I remember playing were Xenosaga and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic on Playstation 2 and X-Box respectively, archaic, outdated systems. I'd played Wii at bars and large get-togethers with friends, but it wasn't until finding that Amy owned a Playstation 3 that I actually got into the new wave of console gaming. We played Lego Harry Potter Years 1-4, Brutal Legend, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: The Game, and X-Men (a port of the original arcade game). It was quite the console renaissance, and perfectly timed, considering the fact that many believe the next (eighth) generation of consoles to be overdue. I even found myself the proud owner of an X-Box 360 game and controller by the end of the year (but sadly, no X-Box 360).

I may be behind the times, but at least I'm still trying.

Role Models, Part One

I was in middle school when reports came in of a child who burned down his family's barn. At face value, this doesn't seem like a story appropriate for national news. But this barn burning was political. It wasn't terrorism. It wasn't the Ku Klux Klan or Al-Qaeda. It wasn't even the Michigan Militia. This crime was much more insidious than all of that. It was committed be a child under the influence of cartoons.

The cartoon in question was Beavis and Butt-head. The story we were fed convinced us that since the teenagers on this show were depicted playing with matches and laughing while saying, "fire, fire, fire," children watching this show had no choice but to become arsonists. By this time in my life, I had already been on my fair share of campouts with my Boy Scout troop in which boys my age were expected to start camp fires. I only had to see two or three of my compatriots melt their windbreakers painfully to their skin only to run back and do it again before I realized that teenage boys have been obsessed with fire since time immemorial. Beavis and Butt-head didn't prescribe our delinquency. They reflected our delinquency.

However enlightened I may have been regarding human nature as a teenager, I was not free from the veritable witch hunt that followed in the 90s under the names of "censorship" and "political correctness." I remember that my brother and I were at a church youth group get-together after school and that we, accompanied by a kid we know named Jake, were trying to do our best impressions of the Beavis and Butt-head laughs. I know that I had never seen Beavis and Butt-head before. I think my brother saw it once or twice at his friend Pat's house. But everyone knew about Beavis and Butt-head back then, even if they had never once seen the show. It was part of the zeitgeist. It was a result of that same magic that granted me knowledge of songs by Backstreet Boys and Spice Girls. We always did impressions of cartoon characters. There was the Bart Simpson: "Don't have a cow, man," the Wolverine growl with the word, "bub" at the end, the Tick's ridiculous exclamations like, "Honk if you love justice!" We never got in trouble for those impressions, but if you were referencing Beavis and Butthead back then you could get in some serious trouble. I remember on this particular occasion I was reprimanded verbally and the guilt was laid on so heavily that I felt like I had just burned down my parents' house with both my parents still inside, and that I had done so with only the power of my words.

It was through the media hype and government focus on my childhood cartoons that I first encountered the discussion of the responsibility of public figures as role models for the children of America. It was also during this conflict that I felt some of my earliest stirrings of authority issues. I had a serious problem with some Senator or Representative telling my parents that I shouldn't watch my favorite television programs. I felt the earliest pangs of righteous indignation with the idea that someone might stand between me and my Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

A few years later in 1999, former Mickey Mouse Club child star Britney Spears got a record deal and released the album ...Baby One More Time. As Spears transformed from a girl into a woman she also transformed from the influence of Mickey to Madonna. She was dealing with her awakening sexuality just like any other girl, but unlike any other girl every moment of Spears ascent into adulthood was documented by either MTV, VH1 or the paparazzi. By the time Oops!... I Did It Again came out in 2000, Spears was defined by the lyric, "I'm not that innocent." (If it were up to me, I would define the girl by her overuse of the ellipsis in album titles, but it's not up to me.) Her interviews before this time usually centered around her sudden rise to fame and how grateful Spears was to those who helped her along the way, people like her mom or her friend Justin Timberlake and his band N'Sync. Now her interviews centered around the fact that she was acting as a bad role model for young girls and accusations flew that Britney Spears was responsible for over-sexualizing the day's youth.

I used to try to imagine what it would feel like to take Britney's place. Physiologically and emotionally she was changing into an adult, and sexuality is part of adulthood. (Why else would we put pornographic films in the adult film section?) She was also growing as an artist and doing whatever she could do to keep her dream of singing and dancing alive. In her place I think I would probably feel like there was nothing I could do right. I don't mean to say, "Leave Britney alone!" I'm not trying to excuse anything she's done in the public eye. I mean to say that even with all of the money and recognition Britney Spears racked up during this short period, I would prefer my overweight, zit-faced life with no money and no girlfriend to the life of Britney Spears, because at least I had the option to be myself without the media turning me into the scapegoat for a world full of sins.

Returning to the story of the boy who burned down the barn, I can say that I don't feel any connection with this boy. The two of us liked our cartoons and we liked our MTV, but this kid was known to the nation as the poster child of a poorly spent youth while I was emerging as an example of a well-raised son. I was a Boy Scout. I was engaged in community service. I stayed in school. I respected my parents and credited their teaching for any kindness anyone said to me. I went to college. I went to church. Most importantly, I was never caught burning down any buildings. I sometimes wondered if there weren't more similarities between me and the barn burner. To paraphrase the Joker in Batman: The Killing Joke, perhaps the difference between me and him was as insignificant as one bad day.

Maybe it's just the philosopher in me, but I cannot think about these events without stumbling into a difficult string of questions. Who are the role models that our children look up to? Who ought our children look up to? Who gets to make the choice? What is a role model? How ought a role model to act? How do we understand responsibility in light of the influence of role models in people's lives? How should we respond when we believe that role models are not acting properly? Should we respond at all? Should our government representatives intervene in these matters? What should they do? I know that if I am to listen to the testimony of someone pointing a finger and placing blame on cartoons and pop singers for the corruption of our youth, I'd like them to be able to answer all of these questions for me. I'd really like to be able to answer these questions for myself.

Role Models, Part One can be viewed here.

Requiem: Spectacular Spider-Man and Wolverine and the X-Men

Spectacular Spider-Man premiered on The CW on March 8, 2008. Two full seasons have aired since then. Every episode was entertaining and smart, capturing the classic and iconic struggle of Peter Parker in a much more modern fashion. (For example, Peter, like many modern New Yorkers, sports a messenger bag wherever he goes.) There has been talk for some time about a third season, and it has been hard waiting for it to air.

Wolverine and the X-Men is a bold cartoon undertaking. After an event that kills or scatters the X-Men, Wolverine is called by a vision of the future to regather the team in order to prevent a terrifying future where the Sentinels have gotten out of control and all mankind suffers. The first season delivered great story and character development, ending in a new vision of the future reminiscent of the Age of Apocalypse story-line from X-Men comics in the '90s. The last episode sets the viewer up perfectly for the promised second season.

Neither Spectacular Spider-Man nor Wolverine and the X-Men were renewed.

Let us have a moment of silence for these two brilliant, prematurely canceled television programs. If you haven't ever seen an episode I strongly recommend you do so, child and adult alike. You'll be happy you did.

Adventures in Very Recent Evolution

I recently came across an interesting article in The New York Times telling the story of recent changes in human DNA. No matter how stubborn we think our genes may be, human beings are still a species under construction, a species aiming toward something better, perhaps? Here is a snippet from the article:

Ten thousand years ago, people in southern China began to cultivate rice and quickly made an all-too-tempting discovery - the cereal could be fermented into alcoholic liquors. Carousing and drunkenness must have started to pose a serious threat to survival because a variant gene that protects against alcohol became almost universal among southern Chinese and spread throughout the rest of China in the wake of rice cultivation.

The variant gene rapidly degrades alcohol to a chemical that is not intoxicating but makes people flush, leaving many people of Asian descent a legacy of turning red in the face when they drink alcohol.

The spread of the new gene, desceibed in January by Bing Su of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, is just one instance of recent human evolution and in particular of a specific population's changing genetically in response to local conditions.

Scientists from the Beijing Genomics Institute last month discovered another striking instance of human genetic change. Among Tibetans, they found, a set of genes evolved to cope with low oxygen levels as recently as 3,000 years ago. This, if confirmed, would be the most recent known instance of human evolution.

Many have assumed that humans ceased to evolve in the distant past, perhaps when people first learned to protect themselves against cold, famine, and other harsh agents of natural selection. But in the last few years, biologists peering into the human genome sequences now available from around the world have found increasing evidence of natural selection at work in the last few thousand years, leading many to assume that human evolution is still in progress.

"I don't think there is any reason to suppose that the rate has slowed down or decreased," says Mark Stoneking, a population geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

The full article, "Adventures in Very Recent Evolution," by Nicholas Wade can be found here.