"God Loves, Man Kills"...starting point for an AvX about-face?

[Sundowhn]

If it is true that Wolverine is to be the new Charles Xavier analogue, and that Xavier had to die, why, if Cyclops is to be the new Magneto, is the old Magneto still alive and now more or less a villain again? Can there be room for two such egos on the same side...?

Oh, on a less serious note, Ireland...excellent stuff! Typed the Irishman...

That horrible image of Magneto bending his knee to Cyclops remains etched in my memory....

Really, Mags has largely been supporting cast since he joined the X-Men. We'll see if he takes a larger role now. Maybe he will finally fulfil a mentor role to Cyke or maybe not. To be honest, I think Marvel knew they would go too far to kill both Xavier and Magneto at the same time. Besides, Magneto sells.
Ireland ftw...:P

Except this is extreme oversimplification to the point of ignorance. Logan is not Xavier, and Scott isn't Magneto. They're rivals, but the dynamics between Chuck/Mags and Scott/Logan are nothing alike.

No, they aren't the same characters, but Marvel has been going with the trend of rehashing Claremont themes for years, now. The dynamics aren't exact, but they may be close enough to provide a correlation or at least follow a formula that people like. Scott and Logan are frenemies, just like Charles and Eric have been shown to be. They -- loosely -- work for the same goals, but have a different philosophy on how to obtain them. Scott has been set up to be a sympathetic villain, much like Mags of old, and the rumour mill turns with Wolverine and his upcoming change of heart. /shrug We'll see.

[DexterSinister]

He wasn't "possessed." He was jacked up on himself. He was more himself.

They even messed up on making him more himself. When he first gets the phoenix he starts to become colder and more cynical, he's worried that he soon won't care. By the end they abandon this and go for the Phoenix=mad approach, if they had done it properly they would have had him kill Xavier in a cold uncaring fashion simply because he was a bother.

[The Observer]

That horrible image of Magneto bending his knee to Cyclops remains etched in my memory....


Really, Mags has largely been supporting cast since he joined the X-Men. We'll see if he takes a larger role now. Maybe he will finally fulfil a mentor role to Cyke or maybe not. To be honest, I think Marvel knew they would go too far to kill both Xavier and Magneto at the same time. Besides, Magneto sells.

So God loves, man kills, but Magneto sells?

Seriously, and I may be wrong here as I haven't read the modern comics, but the main difference between Magneto's two terms as part of the X-Men seems to be that, first time round, he was genuinely trying to reform, and gave his old friend Xavier's dream a chance (which predated Xavier's near-fatal injuries and rescue by the Starjammers, there was that famous issue where he talked Rachel out of seeking vengeance on some anti-mutant bigots), whereas, from what I see, he joined Scott's crew because their point of view had moved closer to his...

Ireland ftw...:P

Always...although it didn't help our soccer team in the summer!

No, they aren't the same characters, but Marvel has been going with the trend of rehashing Claremont themes for years, now. The dynamics aren't exact, but they may be close enough to provide a correlation or at least follow a formula that people like. Scott and Logan are frenemies, just like Charles and Eric have been shown to be. They -- loosely -- work for the same goals, but have a different philosophy on how to obtain them. Scott has been set up to be a sympathetic villain, much like Mags of old, and the rumour mill turns with Wolverine and his upcoming change of heart. /shrug We'll see.

If the intent is to revisit the Charles/Erik dynamic with Logan/Scott, they have already made it such that Scott is a sympathetic villain. They would need Logan to become less of a violent killing machine, or, if he does kill, it would have to be with extreme reluctance.

[remydat]

Hello all,
First up, I stress that I am someone whose comic-reading days were largely during the 1980s, and I acknowledge that developments in many characters may have taken place over the last 22 years, gradually. However, on reading "God Loves, Man Kills" recently, I was struck by just how often it seems that the character of Cyclops was decided by basically taking his position in this graphic novel and inverting it.
After reviving Storm and Cyclops, Magneto points out that he and they are not enemies, and asks why the X-Men continue to risk themselves for an ungrateful populace. Cyclops' reaction? 'Is your way any better? A mutant dictatorship?'. Later in the same conversation, Scott states that 'Anyone can create a utopia (interesting choice of word here) for a single generation...Who preserves your dream after you're gone?'
At the conclusion of the tale, when even Xavier is tempted to try Magneto's way, it is Scott who speaks up, at first pointing out that 'Such a fundamental shift in attitude can't be imposed - to have any meaning, it must grow from within'. He also states that 'The means are as important as the end - we have to do this right or not at all. Anything less negates every belief we've ever had, every sacrifice we've ever made'.
Later, after Xavier has come to his senses, and remained true to the dream, Ororo goes outside to speak with Scott, and, in his response, he says (of Xavier) 'He was in need. I helped him. As he would me.'.
Is the real Scott Summers in a pod underneath the water in Jamaica Bay...?

Cyke's story is basically America pre and post 9-11. The general idea being when things are relatively good, it's ok to have morals and be idealistic. However, when shit hits the fan those morals and ideals go out the window. So the inevitable question it raises is when ones morals and ideals are only worthwhile during good times then are they really your morals and ideals? Or rather are they just the disguise you wear when revealing your true character would be problematic ie during good times?

[yanapryde]

Remember when Nightcrawler got an inferiority complex....because of PIXIE?

[darknessatnoon]

They even messed up on making him more himself. When he first gets the phoenix he starts to become colder and more cynical, he's worried that he soon won't care. By the end they abandon this and go for the Phoenix=mad approach, if they had done it properly they would have had him kill Xavier in a cold uncaring fashion simply because he was a bother.

That's a good point, though Gillen stayed consistent by having him eat his dinner of human meatloaf while it was happening.

[Valerie]

Cyke's story is basically America pre and post 9-11. The general idea being when things are relatively good, it's ok to have morals and be idealistic. However, when shit hits the fan those morals and ideals go out the window. So the inevitable question it raises is when ones morals and ideals are only worthwhile during good times then are they really your morals and ideals? Or rather are they just the disguise you wear when revealing your true character would be problematic ie during good times?

It's a good question. It's when the you-know-what hits the fan that people's true colors come out.

[motherofpearl1]

The funny thing is a lot of characters change not because it 'fits the story' but because they change the writer and the new writer decides to write the character as they want them to be. Chuck Austen turned the Juggernaut into a reformed character; Mike Carey then changed him back apparently because he preferred him as a bad guy. At the end of Siege Loki redeemed himself with an amazing act of self sacrifice, then in Journey Into Mystery Kieron Gillen revealed it was all a ploy by Loki to ensure his own survival. Which I found disappointing because I rather liked them both as good guys!
Seriously writers always write what appeals to them,which is understandable, the problem is when what they like isn't what the fans like!

[The Observer]

The funny thing is a lot of characters change not because it 'fits the story' but because they change the writer and the new writer decides to write the character as they want them to be. Chuck Austen turned the Juggernaut into a reformed character; Mike Carey then changed him back apparently because he preferred him as a bad guy. At the end of Siege Loki redeemed himself with an amazing act of self sacrifice, then in Journey Into Mystery Kieron Gillen revealed it was all a ploy by Loki to ensure his own survival. Which I found disappointing because I rather liked them both as good guys!
Seriously writers always write what appeals to them,which is understandable, the problem is when what they like isn't what the fans like!

Reformed villains are never allowed stay reformed, it seems, unless they reformed in the 1960s (like Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, Hawkeye etc). See also: Sandman, Magneto (the 1980s Institute headmaster era), Storm Shadow (in G.I. Joe, so not 616, but still).
Wonder if the same is true for heroes turned villain? If so, expect some loophole to exonerate Scott in a year or two, or a genuine change of heart and redemption in spite of past crimes.

[motherofpearl1]

Reformed villains are never allowed stay reformed, it seems, unless they reformed in the 1960s (like Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, Hawkeye etc). See also: Sandman, Magneto (the 1980s Institute headmaster era), Storm Shadow (in G.I. Joe, so not 616, but still).
Wonder if the same is true for heroes turned villain? If so, expect some loophole to exonerate Scott in a year or two, or a genuine change of heart and redemption in spite of past crimes.

Yes that's an interesting point.......but Rogue and Emma Frost were redeemed later than that. And stayed 'good guys' - at least until the Phoenix returned. I've always liked Magneto as a good guy - but they have really demeaned him these last few years. I think he would have made a good leader of UXF.

[imperial90]

I dont see how the dynamic between Scott and Logan are anything like Eric and Xavier. Scott fully agrees with what Logan is doing, he just thinks there is an angle Logan isn't covering so he's going to cover it. Eric on the other hand thought Xavier was being a naive fool. The only one in this new dynamic that feels any enmity towards the other is Logan towards Scott where as with the old guard it was mutual.

[Meehl]

Yes that's an interesting point.......but Rogue and Emma Frost were redeemed later than that. And stayed 'good guys' - at least until the Phoenix returned. I've always liked Magneto as a good guy - but they have really demeaned him these last few years. I think he would have made a good leader of UXF.

Since CC took over, Magneto was above petty battles to save the world or clean up various low hanging fruit villains. He fought for mutant rights and survival. There's nothing about what X-Force does that fits with Magneto. That being said, they could just shift X-Force back to fighting Puritans or some other anti-mutant threat and then yes it would make sense to add Magneto.

Although, to be honest, Magneto leading Avenging X-men against Red Skull makes the most sense of all.

[The Observer]

Yes that's an interesting point.......but Rogue and Emma Frost were redeemed later than that. And stayed 'good guys' - at least until the Phoenix returned.

I'll grant you Rogue, but how long was she a villain prior to her redemption, and wasn't she kind of reluctant in many ways? Was it always the plan to redeem her (as distinct from someone like Sandman or Magneto, say, who were created as out-and-out villains)?

Emma? She's Bonnie to Scott's Clyde now, surely...

I've always liked Magneto as a good guy - but they have really demeaned him these last few years. I think he would have made a good leader of UXF.

I remember reading somewhere that Chris Claremont intended for Magneto's redemption to last at least until UXM #300, and perhaps beyond. He did seem to fall away remarkably fast from his noble struggle once Claremont left the New Mutants (due to pressure from above to preserve a 'brand icon' as a villain??). Best moment as a 'hero'? UXM #196. Nuff said...