Avengers >> View Post
·
Post By
BlakGard

In Reply To
emerick man

Subj: Re: The powerful Avenger villain: Maelstrom...
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:24:21 pm EDT (Viewed 1 times)
Reply Subj: The powerful Avenger villain: Maelstrom...
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:39:47 am EDT (Viewed 1 times)

Previous Post

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.
> ____________________
>
>

> 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

Possibly. Though he was half Deviant, which might explain it.

Other examples: several members of the Dark Riders were exiled members of the Inhuman Royal Family, yet also referred to as mutants.
____________________




Posted with Netscape Navigator 8.1.3 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software