Latest Posts(5)
See AllI'm Sorry, But Marvel's Defense of Rogue's Skimpiest Costume Makes No Sense
SRMember I'm a boomer, but a Millennial .
Tell your master on Instagram that you follow that we're not here to cater to your rhetoric.
The Savage Land comic will thrive. You don't have to like it, but understand that you and the writer of this article are grasping at straws.
I'm Sorry, But Marvel's Defense of Rogue's Skimpiest Costume Makes No Sense
Agreed. It's unfortunate.
What happened was X-Men '97 aired last March, bringing in new X-men fans. Most of them young and impressionable. A lot of them had little to no background in the comics and they got outraged when X-men '97 briefly showed Rogue and Magneto in a dalliance. It really was not a big deal at all, but they made it one and became insufferable.
And it doesn't matter how many times you tell them: this was in the comics - they keep raging and won't shut up about it. They're a mole on the backside of the X-men fandom at this point and they're spreading negativity everywhere they go.
As others here have said - we liked Savage Land. There was no abuse, but people keep pushing this story of Magneto being a dirty old sexpot and Gambit is the knight in shining armor.
Neither of course, are true - but you can't tell these kids.
I'm seriously worried for Gen Z and their mental state.
I'm Sorry, But Marvel's Defense of Rogue's Skimpiest Costume Makes No Sense
SRMember Hate to burst your bubble - but people ARE talking about it.
Maybe you're just not in the right forums.
I'm Sorry, But Marvel's Defense of Rogue's Skimpiest Costume Makes No Sense
SRMember As I said before - read Storm issue #4 before using the hilarious "example" of "this never happens to other characters like Storm". Classic example of "tell me you don't read comics without telling me you don't read comics."
I'm Sorry, But Marvel's Defense of Rogue's Skimpiest Costume Makes No Sense
SRMember This "narrative" as you put it, never existed.
It's in your own mind.
You and the writer of this article are creating an issue where there isn't one. Sorry.