More of the Obvious

A reader writing to steve Sailer makes the obvious comment on the new X-Men movie.

It is generally assumed that the mutant gene suppressor (referred to by everyone as "the cure." I can't help but wonder why no one comes up with a neutral name for it). Why, he asks, doesn't anyone in the movie say "some mutations are wonderful, some are a nuisance. Why don't those with good mutations keep them anbd those with destructive ones get rid of them?

It's a good point. Beast (aka Frasier Crane) sort of makes it when he comments on how his mutation has more drawbacks than Storm's (shedding on the furniture), but there is no real attempt to distinguish between good and bad mutations.

This point bothered me a lot in the first movie, when no one at all seemed concerned with the fact that Rogue's mutation made life difficult for her. They almost went out of their way to say: "You're a selfish bitch for not accepting that you will never be able to touch anyone. Just give up any hope of a physical relationship in order to help our political cause."

Actually, the biggest point bothering me in the first movie was MAgneto's plan to turn normal humans into mutants. I thought that according to the X-Men rules, if you weren't born a mutant (although the power would usually be latent), you aren't considered a mutant. Certainly neither Spider-Man nor the Fantatic Four have have been considered mutants, which would make no sense if those Magneto transforemd were considered mutants.

Okay, I'm beginning to lose my train of thought now, so I'll sign off.

That is all.