Welcome to unstablemolecules.com, the discussion home for mightyavengers.net, uncanon.com and uncannyxmen.net!

New Mutants #7

Here you can express your opinions about released issues of the current X-Titles
User avatar
InsipidLust
Posts: 875
Joined: 02 Mar 2008, 01:21

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by InsipidLust » 21 Feb 2020, 19:27

Since I read the text explainer about Synch and Skin's resurrection in X-Men #5, I've been operating (perhaps too generously) on the premise that some of the characters who were resurrected were brought back at a younger point in their lives (this, I think, to free them of psychological traumas that might have otherwise made navigating their present circumstances difficult or compounding of trauma). This may be the case for Rahne and Sunspot, although this remains to be seen and, personally, as I've followed the New Mutants the least out of all of the young people groups despite their comparably denser publication history following their initial runs, I could be less sensitive to changes in the characters than others.

I enjoyed this for what it was. It's not really my favorite book but I quite like the art and it's a generally light enough read that I can say, "This has been nice" and move on. The meat of DOX is not really in this book for me.
Unity Squad Draft: Monet St. Croix. Mr. Fantastic. Professor Xavier. Doctor Voodoo. Tempus.

User avatar
Lavettye
Posts: 785
Joined: 22 Feb 2016, 18:33
Location: Germany

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Lavettye » 21 Feb 2020, 22:02

It's an intresting take on it. My understanding of that text page was that - in Synch's case - the trauma was caused by the duration of time that had passed since his death. Imagine waking up one day only to learn that you were killed in a bomb blast several years back and everyone you knew is suddenly five years older and has moved on with their lives. He might still be in love with Monet, who has fully grieved him and had several relationships since. I guess by regressing a resurectee to a time even earlier than their original death, that effect would only increase.

The text page also said that the Five are (possibly subconsciously) correcting the "minor imperfections" of each mutant they ressurect. Maybe this is what's been going on here. It might depend on what the Five would consider to be an "imperfection", but it could explain why 'berto was set back to a time before he overtaxed himself and got the white streak and later needed to wear the headband. And Rahne could have been set back to before she had to bury Hrimhari and her son, or before she underwent the Mutate Bonding process.

Either way, none of this explains why the other characters don't seem to notice their friends being somewhat off.... unless they do and don't show for reasons yet to be revealed. Or they are being made not to notice. *shrug*
[PL_2.0]

User avatar
Aeon
Posts: 802
Joined: 30 Apr 2019, 12:05

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Aeon » 21 Feb 2020, 22:15

Isn’t this a big risk, setting their lives back to a more innocent age and erasing the memories of multiple years?

Wolfsbane for example: ripped of Archangel‘s wings, ate her father, buried her and Hrmrhmr‘s child. Now she is mere a teenager. What if someone tells her about what she did? She isn’t the most stable person...

User avatar
Blackcyclops
Posts: 20221
Joined: 12 Apr 2007, 21:03

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Blackcyclops » 21 Feb 2020, 23:03

That’s assuming it’s something like that (which never ends well ask Sue Dibny or Wanda) and not just bad characterization...
Morrison Era 2001-2005, Decimation Era from 2005-2012, Bendis Era 2012-2016, M-Pox era 2016-2017, and Resurrxion 2017-2019, Hickman Era 2019-?

User avatar
Aeon
Posts: 802
Joined: 30 Apr 2019, 12:05

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Aeon » 21 Feb 2020, 23:05

Or both of it

User avatar
_Rick_
Posts: 757
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 18:56

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by _Rick_ » 21 Feb 2020, 23:39

Blackcyclops wrote:
21 Feb 2020, 19:07
See that would ride if every title had maybe somebody who did that but so far it feels like (to me anyway) that only the Hickman penned books depict characters who feel regressive.

Everybody in X-Force, Marauders, and Excalibur all feel like a continuation of characters we’ve seen before. And the non-OG NM story feels very much a continuation of things (Glob, the twins and Armor all clicked perfectly)...
To be fair, how many of the characters in those books are confirmed resurrections?
X-Force - Jean
Marauders - Pyro, Shinobi Shaw
Jean has been a source of debate on whether she's off or not and Pyro and Shinobi are hard to tell since they haven't had enough focus.

I think most of the current casts were shown alive in the end of Rosenberg's run. In fact, I went to look at the last issue of that run and most of the current characters featured in those titles are in the final fight: Glob, Armor, Beast, Wolverine, Colossus, Kitty, Bishop, Storm, Emma and Psylocke (Betsy). Were any of the other characters dead?
Lavettye wrote:
21 Feb 2020, 22:02
The text page also said that the Five are (possibly subconsciously) correcting the "minor imperfections" of each mutant they ressurect. Maybe this is what's been going on here. It might depend on what the Five would consider to be an "imperfection", but it could explain why 'berto was set back to a time before he overtaxed himself and got the white streak and later needed to wear the headband. And Rahne could have been set back to before she had to bury Hrimhari and her son, or before she underwent the Mutate Bonding process.
Another interesting case would be Magik. She wasn't dead exactly (though Dani seemed to count her as such) but, after having her mutant part "cease to exist" (whatever that means) she reverted to a demon form. So who is this Magik? The Illyana 2.0 (shards of the original darkchild imbued with the memories and soul of the original) or is it a new Illyana that is fully human but has the experiences of the previous incarnation as well? Does she count as a resurrection?
Lavettye wrote:
21 Feb 2020, 22:02
Either way, none of this explains why the other characters don't seem to notice their friends being somewhat off.... unless they do and don't show for reasons yet to be revealed. Or they are being made not to notice. *shrug*
The most we got was Karma asking if Rahne wanted to talk but I agree that we should be seeing more.

User avatar
Anna Raven
Posts: 4625
Joined: 28 Jun 2007, 22:53

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Anna Raven » 21 Feb 2020, 23:47

_Rick_ wrote:
21 Feb 2020, 23:39
Blackcyclops wrote:
21 Feb 2020, 19:07
See that would ride if every title had maybe somebody who did that but so far it feels like (to me anyway) that only the Hickman penned books depict characters who feel regressive.

Everybody in X-Force, Marauders, and Excalibur all feel like a continuation of characters we’ve seen before. And the non-OG NM story feels very much a continuation of things (Glob, the twins and Armor all clicked perfectly)...
To be fair, how many of the characters in those books are confirmed resurrections?
X-Force - Jean
Marauders - Pyro, Shinobi Shaw
Jean has been a source of debate on whether she's off or not and Pyro and Shinobi are hard to tell since they haven't had enough focus.

I think most of the current casts were shown alive in the end of Rosenberg's run. In fact, I went to look at the last issue of that run and most of the current characters featured in those titles are in the final fight: Glob, Armor, Beast, Wolverine, Colossus, Kitty, Bishop, Storm, Emma and Psylocke (Betsy). Were any of the other characters dead?
Lavettye wrote:
21 Feb 2020, 22:02
The text page also said that the Five are (possibly subconsciously) correcting the "minor imperfections" of each mutant they ressurect. Maybe this is what's been going on here. It might depend on what the Five would consider to be an "imperfection", but it could explain why 'berto was set back to a time before he overtaxed himself and got the white streak and later needed to wear the headband. And Rahne could have been set back to before she had to bury Hrimhari and her son, or before she underwent the Mutate Bonding process.
Another interesting case would be Magik. She wasn't dead exactly (though Dani seemed to count her as such) but, after having her mutant part "cease to exist" (whatever that means) she reverted to a demon form. So who is this Magik? The Illyana 2.0 (shards of the original darkchild imbued with the memories and soul of the original) or is it a new Illyana that is fully human but has the experiences of the previous incarnation as well? Does she count as a resurrection?
Lavettye wrote:
21 Feb 2020, 22:02
Either way, none of this explains why the other characters don't seem to notice their friends being somewhat off.... unless they do and don't show for reasons yet to be revealed. Or they are being made not to notice. *shrug*
The most we got was Karma asking if Rahne wanted to talk but I agree that we should be seeing more.
Jean's not a pod resurrection though. She was brought back by the Phoenix Force. Did you just mean resurrections in general?
Avengers Editorial Draft: Goliath | Ares | Prowler | Lady Mastermind | Iron Lad | Moonstone | Loki
X-Men Editorial Draft 2: Wolverine | Shadowcat | Beast | Deadpool | Sabretooth | Puck | Pixie | Toad | Prodigy | Eques | Vange Whedon |Snowbird | Wolfsbane

User avatar
_Rick_
Posts: 757
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 18:56

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by _Rick_ » 21 Feb 2020, 23:55

Anna Raven wrote:
21 Feb 2020, 23:47
Jean's not a pod resurrection though. She was brought back by the Phoenix Force. Did you just mean resurrections in general?
She died and was brought back by The Five during HOX/POX at the very least. That was what I meant. Granted she was acting strange even before though.

User avatar
Blackcyclops
Posts: 20221
Joined: 12 Apr 2007, 21:03

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Blackcyclops » 22 Feb 2020, 00:29

Jean’s is the most ambiguous but I do see your point though Rick
Morrison Era 2001-2005, Decimation Era from 2005-2012, Bendis Era 2012-2016, M-Pox era 2016-2017, and Resurrxion 2017-2019, Hickman Era 2019-?

User avatar
Magnus
Posts: 1483
Joined: 14 Nov 2013, 00:54

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Magnus » 22 Feb 2020, 01:33

_Rick_ wrote:
21 Feb 2020, 23:55
Granted she was acting strange even before though.
Yeah, the problem with Jean as an example is that she was already doing acting different before she died in the assault on Orchis. I suppose you could say she got killed again and resurrected off-panel between the end of Age of X-Man/Uncanny and HOX, but that's kinda stretching credibility there.

User avatar
Lavettye
Posts: 785
Joined: 22 Feb 2016, 18:33
Location: Germany

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Lavettye » 22 Feb 2020, 02:19

_Rick_ wrote:
21 Feb 2020, 23:39
To be fair, how many of the characters in those books are confirmed resurrections?
X-Force - Jean
Marauders - Pyro, Shinobi Shaw
Jean has been a source of debate on whether she's off or not and Pyro and Shinobi are hard to tell since they haven't had enough focus.

I think most of the current casts were shown alive in the end of Rosenberg's run. In fact, I went to look at the last issue of that run and most of the current characters featured in those titles are in the final fight: Glob, Armor, Beast, Wolverine, Colossus, Kitty, Bishop, Storm, Emma and Psylocke (Betsy). Were any of the other characters dead?
Vulcan also fits the pattern of a confirmed ressurrected character seeming way off.
Jamie Braddock, on the other hand, is as mad as he used to… but I don't think he could be written "weird" in any way to indicate something being off. Now if he suddenly came across as sane…
[PL_2.0]

User avatar
tokenBG1009
Posts: 5905
Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 20:34

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by tokenBG1009 » 22 Feb 2020, 02:47

Cyclops, Archangel, Husk, Wolverine, Mystique, Nightcrawler, M, Quire, and Jean are all confirmed Krakoan resurrections.

Wolverine, Cyclops, Mystique, Quire, and Nightcrawler all seem completely normal. We've only had Husk in 2 issues and she SEEMED fine. I don't think we've really seen M or Archangel since their return.
"Sometimes I do feel like I'm a failure. Like there's no hope for me. But even so, I'm not gonna give up. Ever!" -Izuku Midoriya

User avatar
Cable
Posts: 4403
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 18:31
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Cable » 22 Feb 2020, 03:34

I would like to think her regression is somehow related to the trauma of being so distraught that she allowed her own murder, but I don't think that is the case. I thought the panel of her sitting in the flowers of Krakoa and saying she is ok in issue 1 was an effort to sweep all that under the rug. I honestly think Hickman might just be wanting to write her as a happy and more carefree person, which is jarring to those of us who are used to the anxiety-filled Rahne of pre-Krakoa.

Overall I think Hickman might actually be writing this book about young mutants for young people. Is there anyone here who is an actual teenager that can give their opinion? lol
Best Comics Week 13 of 52

X-title: X-Men/Fantastic Four #3 by Chip Zdarsky (3) and Terry Dodson (3)
Non-X title: Amazing Spider-Man #42 by Nick Spencer (1) and Ryan Ottley (1)

User avatar
tokenBG1009
Posts: 5905
Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 20:34

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by tokenBG1009 » 22 Feb 2020, 08:44

Or...

Hickman just does not have a grasp on some characters and changes them to fit the story he wants to tell. I know "Hickman has said that Sam and Roberto are two of his favorite characters" is a thing, but he's only written Roberto in...3 or 4 issues prior to Dawn of X right? Granted, Roberto has changed pretty drastically since Hickman last wrote him as well so it could be Hickman preferred him at a certain point.

(Seriously, imperfect resurrections would clear this up entirely.)
"Sometimes I do feel like I'm a failure. Like there's no hope for me. But even so, I'm not gonna give up. Ever!" -Izuku Midoriya

User avatar
Lavettye
Posts: 785
Joined: 22 Feb 2016, 18:33
Location: Germany

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Lavettye » 22 Feb 2020, 09:11

Aeon wrote:
21 Feb 2020, 22:15
Isn’t this a big risk, setting their lives back to a more innocent age and erasing the memories of multiple years?
It would depend on how this "fixing of minor imperfections" works. Maybe there memories aren't erased, and the characters aren't completely set back to a specific point in time. Their physical condition, their memories, their emotional state… they all might be from different points in time.

Of course, though, this would be for a very convenient excuse for any mischaracterisation on the writers parts.
Cable wrote:
22 Feb 2020, 03:34
Overall I think Hickman might actually be writing this book about young mutants for young people. Is there anyone here who is an actual teenager that can give their opinion? lol
If it's really just that, then I'd be really disappointed. There's been at least three new generations of X-characters since the New Mutants (Gen X, Morrison era, Hope's Five Lights, the Jean Grey school), and they could have used any of those instead of de-aging these early to mid-twenty characters who have accomplished a lot since they grew up.
[PL_2.0]

User avatar
Aeon
Posts: 802
Joined: 30 Apr 2019, 12:05

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Aeon » 22 Feb 2020, 09:28

Cable wrote:
22 Feb 2020, 03:34

Is there anyone here who is an actual teenager that can give their opinion? lol
I still feel like a teenager,


I am 39 going on 40,
Born under the Virgin sign,
Fellow young lads and sexy black cats
will offer me food and wine

User avatar
Wings
Posts: 1431
Joined: 12 Sep 2013, 14:42

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Wings » 22 Feb 2020, 10:31

Cable wrote:
22 Feb 2020, 03:34
I would like to think her regression is somehow related to the trauma of being so distraught that she allowed her own murder, but I don't think that is the case. I thought the panel of her sitting in the flowers of Krakoa and saying she is ok in issue 1 was an effort to sweep all that under the rug. I honestly think Hickman might just be wanting to write her as a happy and more carefree person, which is jarring to those of us who are used to the anxiety-filled Rahne of pre-Krakoa.

Overall I think Hickman might actually be writing this book about young mutants for young people. Is there anyone here who is an actual teenager that can give their opinion? lol
No longer a teen but as an early-twenties reader, there's a very clear divide between the mid-20's vibe of the OG New Mutants story and the Brisson story focusing on actual teens (and Boom-Boom).

On the note of Rahne and Berto, with Rahne I think it's more that with having been put through so much trauma, and then being resurrected from such a harrowing life and death to a mutant "paradise" that she feels free now. Her old hangups no longer seem to matter, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a reveal down the line that Rahne might actually believe that this is Heaven.

With Roberto, I think it's more a straightforward case of ignoring everything that came after Hickman's time with the character.
Sign-ups for Betrayal Game 76: Murder in Manhattan now open! Help Jessica Jones solve the unexplained murder of a group of super-villains! Link to the thread here:
viewtopic.php?f=24&p=169031#p169031

User avatar
_Rick_
Posts: 757
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 18:56

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by _Rick_ » 22 Feb 2020, 18:59

tokenBG1009 wrote:
22 Feb 2020, 02:47
Cyclops, Archangel, Husk, Wolverine, Mystique, Nightcrawler, M, Quire, and Jean are all confirmed Krakoan resurrections.

Wolverine, Cyclops, Mystique, Quire, and Nightcrawler all seem completely normal. We've only had Husk in 2 issues and she SEEMED fine. I don't think we've really seen M or Archangel since their return.
I forgot about Wolverine. He does seem normal, you're right. However the others I'd group either with Jean in the sense it's very debatable (Cyclops) or with Pyro and Shinobi, meaning we having seen enough to make a full determination (Quire, M, Husk, Archangel, etc)

User avatar
Blackcyclops
Posts: 20221
Joined: 12 Apr 2007, 21:03

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Blackcyclops » 22 Feb 2020, 20:34

There is really only one character imo that stands out as having to be fundamentally changed, Vulcan. The others? Well I’d say we got three groups:

100% changed: Vulcan
Could be changed or just bad writing: Jean, Rahne, and Sunspot
Not changed: Wolverine, Quire, Nightcrawler, Mystique, Apoccy, Pyro, Jamie, and Cyclops

Unknown: Husk
Morrison Era 2001-2005, Decimation Era from 2005-2012, Bendis Era 2012-2016, M-Pox era 2016-2017, and Resurrxion 2017-2019, Hickman Era 2019-?

User avatar
Aeon
Posts: 802
Joined: 30 Apr 2019, 12:05

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Aeon » 22 Feb 2020, 20:42

I am not sure anymore, but hasn’t had Rahne this puppy behavior already in her past? Got the feeling it must have been sometime during the 90s in X-Factor.

User avatar
Lavettye
Posts: 785
Joined: 22 Feb 2016, 18:33
Location: Germany

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Lavettye » 22 Feb 2020, 21:46

It wasn't puppy behaviour…. more like a mad dog on rabies. It was when they discovered the full effects of the Genoshan Mutate Bonding Process. Part of her conditioning was that Rahne was emotionally bound to a Magistrate, the amnesiac Havok.

She followed him and joined X-Factor, even though she wasn't invited, she would sneak into his bedrom at night, growl at Lorna, go mad when she was physically separated from him, etc. Eventually she was cured by Haven in X-Factor #100, and then she had a few issues, in which she was as care-free as we see her now, but not acting like a child.
Blackcyclops wrote:
22 Feb 2020, 20:34
Could be changed or just bad writing: Jean, Rahne, and Sunspot
I'd say Jean is a different case than Wolfsbane and Sunspot. The two New Mutants have been acting somewhat different ever since their (off-panel) ressurections. Jean was already acting different (HoX #1 onwards) before her resurrection in HoX #5. So in her case, the ressurection can't be the cause of it, unless she already died and got ressurected earlier, prior HoX #1.
[PL_2.0]

User avatar
Aeon
Posts: 802
Joined: 30 Apr 2019, 12:05

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Aeon » 22 Feb 2020, 21:55

:roll:

User avatar
Cable
Posts: 4403
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 18:31
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by Cable » 22 Feb 2020, 22:07

In the same issue that Vulcan was acting weird people tbought Kid Cable was acting weird too, and he was not resurrected. He has acted normal elsewhere, it was just how Hickman was writing him in that weird family dynamic.
Best Comics Week 13 of 52

X-title: X-Men/Fantastic Four #3 by Chip Zdarsky (3) and Terry Dodson (3)
Non-X title: Amazing Spider-Man #42 by Nick Spencer (1) and Ryan Ottley (1)

User avatar
tokenBG1009
Posts: 5905
Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 20:34

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by tokenBG1009 » 23 Feb 2020, 00:10

I'm gonna admit, I haven't really noticed Jean acting all that different. Yes, there's the Marvel Girl outfit, but she's seemed pretty normal to me. Welcome to have someone point out her weirdness though and is it more "Hickman writes her weird" or has she been weird in X-Force as well?
"Sometimes I do feel like I'm a failure. Like there's no hope for me. But even so, I'm not gonna give up. Ever!" -Izuku Midoriya

User avatar
_Rick_
Posts: 757
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 18:56

Re: New Mutants #7

Post by _Rick_ » 23 Feb 2020, 00:54

Blackcyclops wrote:
22 Feb 2020, 20:34
There is really only one character imo that stands out as having to be fundamentally changed, Vulcan. The others? Well I’d say we got three groups:

100% changed: Vulcan
Could be changed or just bad writing: Jean, Rahne, and Sunspot
Not changed: Wolverine, Quire, Nightcrawler, Mystique, Apoccy, Pyro, Jamie, and Cyclops

Unknown: Husk
It's all subjective of course, but from my view, I think some of those assessments are a bit rushed. Quire, for instance, hasn't said a word since he was resurrected. How do you know he hasn't changed? Because he went through a mission, completely focused, without joking or being insubordinate at all and just obeyed his teammates directions? If anything that would seem out of character to me but to be frank I think we haven't had enough to determine. Domino also didn't talk in that mission but she hasn't died (and seemed in character in the last issue that focused on her).
Then there are the ones like Nightcrawler. Again, we haven't seen all that much but the little I've seen is dubious in terms of writing. I think it was out of character for him to not stand up for Creed or at least not to try to offer the possibility of redemption even if he fully expected it to fail. We're talking about a deeply religious good natured catholic (who even studied to become a priest). Penance is one of the 7 sacraments in Catholicism and the willingness to offer forgiveness/mercy is one of the highest esteemed conducts. And this is not even getting into the violations of human rights in course which I'd think a modern day German with Kurt's personality would be disgusted by. It could be Hickman not grasping the nuances of the character, it could be that he just wanted an unanimous decision so decided to ignore it (he did have Kurt say he was ashamed to agree with the punishment) or it could have been purposely done to show that something was off.
Then again, it was also weird of him to refer to Karima as just an omega sentinel and he did that before he died... so who knows.
Cable wrote:
22 Feb 2020, 22:07
In the same issue that Vulcan was acting weird people tbought Kid Cable was acting weird too, and he was not resurrected. He has acted normal elsewhere, it was just how Hickman was writing him in that weird family dynamic.
I think the problem there is that writers rarely mention that the bulk of Jean and Scott's marriage happened off panel, in the future, raising Cable. From these characters' perspectives, it was just a couple years ago that they were separated. Jean and Scott raised Cable from a baby to teenage years as a tight-knit family unit. Considering how young Kable is, that's most of his life's experience. Yet we saw very little of that and initially were even led to believe they hadn't raised him. We aren't used to seeing that dynamic so it becomes jarring but, when you think about it, they should be that familiar with each other.

Post Reply