User blog comment:Spencerz/Out of Touch?/@comment-3127363-20110217214235

Oh, this one stirs up things for me a lot.

Actually, the 90's themselves were a big change for the status quo of the Marvel Universe. After Wolverine became mega popular at the end of the 80’s early 90’s, everything related to mutants gained prominence and all books were being called "X... something", which, IMO, was getting old.

During the late 2000's, Marvel decided to bring the spotlight back (or at least, even it a bit) to the Avengers and the rest of the Marvel universe.

During the 90's and early 00's, the big Marvel events included Onslaught, Apocalypse and Magneto (all mutants); after that, the main events involved Skrulls (from the cosmic adventures section of the Marvel Universe), Norman Osborn (from the Spider-man and NYC section of the Marvel Universe), the Hulk, Asgard (from the Thor section of the Marvel Universe), and a Civil War between avengers.

Things got much more diversified, and for the best.

That explains the choice of decimating mutants, and in a certain way, it was a return to how things were before the 90's when Wolverine hadn’t become Marvel’s #2, causing the mutant fad to blow out of proportion.

So, in general, what I say is it’s OK to make the big changes for a while, leave the changes that work, and throw away the ones that don’t. Then go back to the status quo, but incorporating the former, in order to create a new status quo that lasts for a while, before revolutionizing everything once again.

Plus, Sabretooth is dead as he has been replaced by Daken as Wolverine’s nemesis, which, to my opinion, is a change that works and needs to stay because Sabretooth sucks. Carnage is already back, and soon, so will be most of the supposedly dead characters. I agree with the Venom bit, Brock needs to be back.

My two cents.