The trouble with evaluating characters in fiction is that they're often scripted as doing something contrary to your otherwise general impression of their character, and you have to decide whether to gloss over it or not. Hence you get inconsistent interpretations.
For instance, in a repeating fiction, the main hero and villain often show a level of stupidity with regard to letting each other escape which is plausible if seeing an episode in isolation, but ridiculous when it happens EVERY TIME. Do you describe the character in terms of how the show intends you to take them (pretending each incident happened in isolation and was an unlucky consequence of a good decision) or how the facts reflect on them (they're a total idiot who ought to have learned better)? I try to show both...
Magneto
Magneto is wrong to see the situation as humans vs mutants. Despite the human/mutant terminology used in X-Men, X-Men mutants are human by any reasonable morality definition of the term. At first I thought this was just a mistake by a majority of the characters, but in fact, it is quite realistic. A civil war often involves exactly this sort of sudden realisation that everyone who previously thought of themselves as Americans, suddenly start thinking of themselves as two groups. But it's still not good.
On the other hand, he's right to see the mutant registration act as the beginning of the apocalypse. In principle it's reasonable -- yes, many mutants are dangerous through no fault of their own, and some sort of survey is in fact useful to prevent future abuse, but we know no government can do that without fucking it up, losing the data, and making everyone on the list a target for all sorts of horrific civil rights abuses.
Finally, we don't really see the moment when Magneto crosses the moral event horizon. His plan to turn world leaders into mutants is actually reasonable -- extremely ruthless and illegal and probably unwise, but not disproportionate. But before this he is casual about killing innocent people. He has Senator Kelly's aide killed, and there's no time spend justifying it. His minions attack lots of innocent people without any regard for their will-being. He his happy for Rogue to die in his place to complete his plan. These are not dwelled on during the film, but clearly justify his super-villain designation.
Of course, in film 2, he's happy to kill all non-mutants in the world, making himself as bad as Stryker, and by film three he's happy to abandon Mystique who he cares for personally (which is unbelievably unwise as well as awful). I'm not sure to what extent these are plot contrivances.
Senator Kelly
Senator Kelly calls for the mutant registration act, with no regard for the people it will harm or kill. Which is evil, although the sort of evil most people, if they happen to be in politics, end up countenancing. To his credit, when he is turned into a mutant, he does genuinely seem to reconsider his position.
For instance, in a repeating fiction, the main hero and villain often show a level of stupidity with regard to letting each other escape which is plausible if seeing an episode in isolation, but ridiculous when it happens EVERY TIME. Do you describe the character in terms of how the show intends you to take them (pretending each incident happened in isolation and was an unlucky consequence of a good decision) or how the facts reflect on them (they're a total idiot who ought to have learned better)? I try to show both...
Magneto
Magneto is wrong to see the situation as humans vs mutants. Despite the human/mutant terminology used in X-Men, X-Men mutants are human by any reasonable morality definition of the term. At first I thought this was just a mistake by a majority of the characters, but in fact, it is quite realistic. A civil war often involves exactly this sort of sudden realisation that everyone who previously thought of themselves as Americans, suddenly start thinking of themselves as two groups. But it's still not good.
On the other hand, he's right to see the mutant registration act as the beginning of the apocalypse. In principle it's reasonable -- yes, many mutants are dangerous through no fault of their own, and some sort of survey is in fact useful to prevent future abuse, but we know no government can do that without fucking it up, losing the data, and making everyone on the list a target for all sorts of horrific civil rights abuses.
Finally, we don't really see the moment when Magneto crosses the moral event horizon. His plan to turn world leaders into mutants is actually reasonable -- extremely ruthless and illegal and probably unwise, but not disproportionate. But before this he is casual about killing innocent people. He has Senator Kelly's aide killed, and there's no time spend justifying it. His minions attack lots of innocent people without any regard for their will-being. He his happy for Rogue to die in his place to complete his plan. These are not dwelled on during the film, but clearly justify his super-villain designation.
Of course, in film 2, he's happy to kill all non-mutants in the world, making himself as bad as Stryker, and by film three he's happy to abandon Mystique who he cares for personally (which is unbelievably unwise as well as awful). I'm not sure to what extent these are plot contrivances.
Senator Kelly
Senator Kelly calls for the mutant registration act, with no regard for the people it will harm or kill. Which is evil, although the sort of evil most people, if they happen to be in politics, end up countenancing. To his credit, when he is turned into a mutant, he does genuinely seem to reconsider his position.