The creation of X-Factor was not a re-branding of the Xmen. That's just a dishonest claim. Or it's one made without understanding of the source material.
At most, you could say X-factor was a response to the rebranding of the Xmen as a criminal group under Magneto - of course, that would also be a silly claim to make, since X-factor (and Magneto's leadership of the X-men, for that matter) was clearly originally intended to be temporary and it had the in-story justification of giving the original Xmen purpose and bringing them back together after Marvel's writing had left them scattered across other super hero teams (or just outright dead). It didn't come about as a result of real-world socio-political motivations.
X-Factor was actually not unlike the Joe Fixit personality of the grey Hulk. An exploration of the original character's concept through a different lens. So, not only did it meet an in-universe purpose (set up by in-universe circumstances), but it was actually an effective storytelling device.
X-Factor itself could be said to have been rebranded when it was relaunched in the 90s - but that claim's a bit of a stretch, because X-factor is much like X-force in that it became a codename of sorts for an X-team that fills a specific role in response to particular (again, in-story) circumstances. In general, X-force is/was the sort of covert team used for extra-legal activities that the X-men don't want to be implicated in (hence it often leans on characters like Deadpool, Cable, Domino and Wolverine - darker, more disturbed mutants); whereas X-factor was either a sort of B-league training team, a government-funded mutant operation, or a combination of the two (hence it tended to employ more "boy scout" kinda team members, like Strong Guy, Cannonball, etc).
Sometimes, in-universe, the team would be presented as a successor to the X-men; generally to fool the bad guys. So, unless you're one of the bad guys who was fooled, I assume you're not calling back to situations like that.
Neither was/is a rebranding of the X-men. They're expansions of the original universe, and storytelling vehicles for characters who don't get enough panel-time in the flagship franchise. And, because the mutants have long been some of Marvel's best-selling properties, the additional x-groups allow Marvel to spread those characters out with crossovers into other titles without committing all of the members of the flagship title, and without rendering their storytelling completely logically incoherent with regard to the timelines of disparate titles (or necessitating the kinds of constant universe-wide reboots that have made DC damn-near inaccessible to newer readers).
Beast's and Angel's changes again have in-story relevance that you're completely ignoring in order to pretend that your comparisons hold any water (pro tip: if it depends on you ignoring the story and all surrounding context, then your point's probably not worth making).
Beast's mutation is such that he is undergoing constant changes - he will never stop mutating, and the fear of becoming a literal feral beast (juxtaposed against the highly civilised mind that lives within him) is a core characteristic of the good doctor. Many fans have complained as his appearance has become more cat-like over the years, but those complaints have tended to be muted, because the change is a
consistent part of the character, and it allows writers to contrast man/beast, technology/nature, etc; it has also always made for a great relationship between himself and Wolverine, who's a physical/psychological inversion of him.
You're taking a core, unchanging part of the character, and pretending that it's evidence of... what? Rebranding? Lol.
As for the Angel to Archangel transition, we all know that that was an in-story result of Apocalypse choosing him as a horseman. It enhanced the character, making him a tragic figure with a greater depth of story-telling potential and character development. It wasn't some higher-up complaining that the X-men lacked representation of purple-skinned people.
This sounds like:
Knowing that the 70s/80s X-men were inspired by strong political themes isn't special anymore. These characters have been on-screen mainstays for over a decade - modern fans' mothers probably tell them that.
But, once upon a time, the comics leaned on social and political messages that actually meant something, and those themes were included with a touch of artistry, a bit of nuance, and (gasp!) some storytelling consistency. In part, because those messages weren't exactly in keeping with the status quo (or the comic book authority) of the time - so a little bit of cleverness had to be employed in their delivery.
The X-men weren't created to clumsily pander to whichever identity group the mainstream was currently trying to fleece; they came to serve as a vehicle for messages that pertained to marginalised groups. There's a difference. Which is why the Xmen in the 80s brought fans together, and modern Marvel attempts at sociopolitical themes have done nothing to stop their hemorrhaging of market share.
Again, I understand that you don't appreciate the medium. But then, maybe keep your views to yourself.
You've also chosen to ignore that my primary complaint is not of woke messaging, but of the underlying decline in quality (as evidenced by a declining share of the market) that's accompanied and probably necessitated it.
Your opening point seemed to be that "if the quality's not going down, who cares?"
But the quality is going down. And empty, desperate, creatively bankrupt ideas like this are a symptom of that. That you're unaware of that, and so quickly moved on from speaking about it reveals that you're the one who's jumped into a topic you know little about and don't really care about, probably because someone told you what to think.
This creative bankruptcy is indicative of a deeper problem. The comic book industry is huge, and these companies are not hiring nobodies from off the street to do the work - they're hiring qualified, top-quality products at the end of an expensive academic funnel. That the work is so poorly being done implies that the system's ability to identify talent is failing to identify talent, or that the industry itself has been undermined at the decision-making level.
Either way, stories are important for the development of children - it's not great if their stories are written by idiots.
