Previous Post > > > > And you know, that would be fine if the story in Illuminati #3 > > > > were doing anything especially interesting...but it's not. It's > > > > a clumsy effort to use some rather strained Marvel technobabble > > > > -- what, pray tell, is a "mutant Inhuman" anyway? -- to make > > > > sure that one member of the hastily-retconned in Illuminati is > > > > responsible in some way for every major Marvel event. > > > > > > I agree that it's clumsy, but a "mutant Inhuman" is hardly a new > > > concept or one that needs much explanation. > > Yes...and no. There are Inhumans born with powers, and Inhumans > mutated by Terrigenation to gain powers, but the idea in Illuminati #3 > seems to be that the Beyonder is some kind of oddity with the x-gene > or an analogue of it that caused Terrigenation to make him omnipotent > instead of merely powerful. > > And frankly, that's a bit strained in that the "mutant" part of the > deisgnation is only there so that Xavier can make the deduction, and > so that the Beyonder is "really" within the purview of Xavier and > Black Bolt rather than being something...well, beyond those > designations. > > That's what I meant when I called it "strained Marvel technobabble." > It sounds silly -- we've rarely seen Inhumans born with powers called > "mutants" before, because "Inhuman" is infinitely simpler -- and the > reason for the double technobabble of "mutant" AND "Inhuman" is pretty > obviously not for clarity's sake, but for the (rather clumsy, as we > agree) purpose of the story. > > Luckily for all of us, though, it's just the Beyonder, and so likely > to remain just a footnote. It's not as if there's a huge clamor by > fans or creators for more of Shooter's folly, is there? > > > Well, the Inhumans are already pretty much the same as mutants, > > especially as some of them are born with their powers not needing > > the Terrigen treatment. So the confusion is understandable. > > Yeah, my objection was stated poorly; it's more about the sheer > weakness of the conceit than some sort of grave "misunderstanding" of > Marvel technobabble on the story's part. > > Can we all agree that the story is kind of dumb and move on? Yeah. It's best to move on. Just pointing out that we have seen mutant Inhumans in the past, so this shouldn't be a shock on that level. I really just don't see the point in revisiting Beyonder (at all). At this point, I preferred him being some kind of Eternity-type being from another universe. ____________________

The powerful Avenger villain Maelstrom... might probably fit in as an example for the arguements in this interesting thread:

http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/m/maelstrom.htm
http://www.marvel.com/universe/Maelstrom

> > > > > And you know, that would be fine if the story in Illuminati #3
> > > > > were doing anything especially interesting...but it's not. It's
> > > > > a clumsy effort to use some rather strained Marvel technobabble
> > > > > -- what, pray tell, is a "mutant Inhuman" anyway? -- to make
> > > > > sure that one member of the hastily-retconned in Illuminati is
> > > > > responsible in some way for every major Marvel event.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that it's clumsy, but a "mutant Inhuman" is hardly a new
> > > > concept or one that needs much explanation.
> >
> > Yes...and no. There are Inhumans born with powers, and Inhumans
> > mutated by Terrigenation to gain powers, but the idea in Illuminati #3
> > seems to be that the Beyonder is some kind of oddity with the x-gene
> > or an analogue of it that caused Terrigenation to make him omnipotent
> > instead of merely powerful.
> >
> > And frankly, that's a bit strained in that the "mutant" part of the
> > deisgnation is only there so that Xavier can make the deduction, and
> > so that the Beyonder is "really" within the purview of Xavier and
> > Black Bolt rather than being something...well, beyond those
> > designations.
> >
> > That's what I meant when I called it "strained Marvel technobabble."
> > It sounds silly -- we've rarely seen Inhumans born with powers called
> > "mutants" before, because "Inhuman" is infinitely simpler -- and the
> > reason for the double technobabble of "mutant" AND "Inhuman" is pretty
> > obviously not for clarity's sake, but for the (rather clumsy, as we
> > agree) purpose of the story.
> >
> > Luckily for all of us, though, it's just the Beyonder, and so likely
> > to remain just a footnote. It's not as if there's a huge clamor by
> > fans or creators for more of Shooter's folly, is there?
> >
> > > Well, the Inhumans are already pretty much the same as mutants,
> > > especially as some of them are born with their powers not needing
> > > the Terrigen treatment. So the confusion is understandable.
> >
> > Yeah, my objection was stated poorly; it's more about the sheer
> > weakness of the conceit than some sort of grave "misunderstanding" of
> > Marvel technobabble on the story's part.
> >
> > Can we all agree that the story is kind of dumb and move on?
>
> Yeah. It's best to move on. Just pointing out that we have seen mutant Inhumans in the past, so this shouldn't be a shock on that level. I really just don't see the point in revisiting Beyonder (at all). At this point, I preferred him being some kind of Eternity-type being from another universe.
> ____________________
>
>