Why not X-Tinction Agenda II?
jpha...@yahoo.com
not redo a crossover considered one of the best storylines of the
decade, X-Tinction Agenda?
Marvel has positioned everything to repeat X-Tinction Agenda:
fragmented X-teams, Cable, and the X-Men alienated from the rest of the
superhero community. And Marvel's current storylines offer a candidate
for the new Genosha: Providence.
This time Marvel can fix a few things that in retrospect went wrong
with X-Tinction Agenda's aftermath. This time the X-Men can lose the
battle and gain an enemy that can fuel stories for the next five years
at least.
The X-Men's natural enemy isn't one character, the X-Men's natural
enemy is a government that can hide behind its laws. I also argue that
the last few years' attempts to position either S.H.I.E.L.D. or corrupt
elements of the United States government have been less than a success
because they are a poor substitute for the real thing, a government
that openly commits atrocities against mutants such as mutate slaves.
X-Tinction Agenda succeeded while it was being first published because
a country plus a totally ruthless supervillain presented an actual
challenge to all of the X-Men, and the story succeeded in portraying
all of the X-Men being in danger, even though they only killed off the
alien Warlock.
Ironically in today's world the original ending of X-Tinction Agenda
would be seen as unbelievable, but an alternate ending where the X-Men
lost and the world decided to permit New Genosha to continue its
atrocities would be more believable.
Gerard
Where the ^&*( do you get the idea that Providence and the racist-run
Genosha are the same thing?!
Dan McEwen
news:1168493074.5...@o58g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> Since so many things at Marvel seem to be going back to the 1990s, why
> not redo a crossover considered one of the best storylines of the
> decade, X-Tinction Agenda?
>
> Marvel has positioned everything to repeat X-Tinction Agenda:
> fragmented X-teams, Cable, and the X-Men alienated from the rest of
> the superhero community. And Marvel's current storylines offer a
> candidate for the new Genosha: Providence.
Genosha = Paradise built on the bones of mutant slaves; Providence =
Paradise based on high tech and open society. I perceive just a *tiny*
difference here. Plus, I don't think the X-teams are as alienated from
the superhero community as you seem to be suggesting.
> This time Marvel can fix a few things that in retrospect went wrong
> with X-Tinction Agenda's aftermath.
It was poorly written and executed. I guess that could fall under
things that "went wrong".
This time the X-Men can lose the
> battle and gain an enemy that can fuel stories for the next five years
> at least.
They could have just brought in Claremont to have one of his subplots
that lasts for five years. Heck, he told us that Nightcrawler and
Mystique were connected in UXM #141 (or 142, I forget). We found the
truth in the 400's from a different writer.
> The X-Men's natural enemy isn't one character, the X-Men's natural
> enemy is a government that can hide behind its laws. I also argue
> that the last few years' attempts to position either S.H.I.E.L.D. or
> corrupt elements of the United States government have been less than a
> success because they are a poor substitute for the real thing, a
> government that openly commits atrocities against mutants such as
> mutate slaves.
I disagree on all counts. "The government" has never been anti-mutant
as a whole. It does seem to take its cue from society in reacting to
them, but I've never seen anything across the board against mutants.
SHIELD, in particular, has known all about the X-Men for years, yet
they've never chosen to raid Xavier's. Why? Because there was no
policy in place. Robert Kelly ran on a platform that he would outlaw
mutants, clearly suggesting no such policy existed. Any anti-mutant
government policies were certainly black ops programs, not law.
> X-Tinction Agenda succeeded while it was being first published because
> a country plus a totally ruthless supervillain presented an actual
> challenge to all of the X-Men, and the story succeeded in portraying
> all of the X-Men being in danger, even though they only killed off the
> alien Warlock.
Cameron Hodge was pretty lame. The only interesting thing I can see
that came out of it was the Wolfsbane developed into a more well-rounded
character.
> Ironically in today's world the original ending of X-Tinction Agenda
> would be seen as unbelievable, but an alternate ending where the X-Men
> lost and the world decided to permit New Genosha to continue its
> atrocities would be more believable.
Something which could never come out of Providence. Cable would destroy
it before that could happen.
--
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain
occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive." --Thomas Jefferson
"How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying
to defend from without?" --Dwight D. Eisenhower
us...@example.net
to go wrong for the xbooks.
grinningdemon
>jpha...@yahoo.com wrote in
>news:1168493074.5...@o58g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Since so many things at Marvel seem to be going back to the 1990s, why
>> not redo a crossover considered one of the best storylines of the
>> decade, X-Tinction Agenda?
>>
>> Marvel has positioned everything to repeat X-Tinction Agenda:
>> fragmented X-teams, Cable, and the X-Men alienated from the rest of
>> the superhero community. And Marvel's current storylines offer a
>> candidate for the new Genosha: Providence.
>
>Genosha = Paradise built on the bones of mutant slaves; Providence =
>Paradise based on high tech and open society. I perceive just a *tiny*
>difference here. Plus, I don't think the X-teams are as alienated from
>the superhero community as you seem to be suggesting.
No argument here.
>
>> This time Marvel can fix a few things that in retrospect went wrong
>> with X-Tinction Agenda's aftermath.
>
>It was poorly written and executed. I guess that could fall under
>things that "went wrong".
I enjoyed it...it had it's problems but it was better written and
executed than Civil War...of course, that's not saying much.
>
> This time the X-Men can lose the
>> battle and gain an enemy that can fuel stories for the next five years
>> at least.
>
>They could have just brought in Claremont to have one of his subplots
>that lasts for five years. Heck, he told us that Nightcrawler and
>Mystique were connected in UXM #141 (or 142, I forget). We found the
>truth in the 400's from a different writer.
That still shows a level of continuity that hasn't existed in the
X-titles, or Marvel in general, for some time...and the truth about
Mystique and Nightcrawler was revealed back in X-Men Unlimited
#3...which, I believe, came before even Uncanny #300...but I will
admit that it is still a ridiculously long time.
>
>> The X-Men's natural enemy isn't one character, the X-Men's natural
>> enemy is a government that can hide behind its laws. I also argue
>> that the last few years' attempts to position either S.H.I.E.L.D. or
>> corrupt elements of the United States government have been less than a
>> success because they are a poor substitute for the real thing, a
>> government that openly commits atrocities against mutants such as
>> mutate slaves.
>
>I disagree on all counts. "The government" has never been anti-mutant
>as a whole. It does seem to take its cue from society in reacting to
>them, but I've never seen anything across the board against mutants.
>SHIELD, in particular, has known all about the X-Men for years, yet
>they've never chosen to raid Xavier's. Why? Because there was no
>policy in place. Robert Kelly ran on a platform that he would outlaw
>mutants, clearly suggesting no such policy existed. Any anti-mutant
>government policies were certainly black ops programs, not law.
I think that is kind of ambiguous...especially since we've seen
several possible futures where those "black ops programs" took over
the country.
>
>> X-Tinction Agenda succeeded while it was being first published because
>> a country plus a totally ruthless supervillain presented an actual
>> challenge to all of the X-Men, and the story succeeded in portraying
>> all of the X-Men being in danger, even though they only killed off the
>> alien Warlock.
>
>Cameron Hodge was pretty lame. The only interesting thing I can see
>that came out of it was the Wolfsbane developed into a more well-rounded
>character.
He was lame...and they could have come up with a better central
villain for the storyline...but I still liked the overall plot...and
how it combined elements introduced in the various X-titles years
before as well as having a considerable impact on future stories.
>
>> Ironically in today's world the original ending of X-Tinction Agenda
>> would be seen as unbelievable, but an alternate ending where the X-Men
>> lost and the world decided to permit New Genosha to continue its
>> atrocities would be more believable.
>
>Something which could never come out of Providence. Cable would destroy
>it before that could happen.
Agreed.
Dan McEwen
news:pv2eq2lan322f1kaf...@4ax.com:
> On 11 Jan 2007 19:23:52 GMT, Dan McEwen <ferr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This time the X-Men can lose the
>>> battle and gain an enemy that can fuel stories for the next five
>>> years at least.
>>
>>They could have just brought in Claremont to have one of his subplots
>>that lasts for five years. Heck, he told us that Nightcrawler and
>>Mystique were connected in UXM #141 (or 142, I forget). We found the
>>truth in the 400's from a different writer.
>
> That still shows a level of continuity that hasn't existed in the
> X-titles, or Marvel in general, for some time...and the truth about
> Mystique and Nightcrawler was revealed back in X-Men Unlimited
> #3...which, I believe, came before even Uncanny #300...but I will
> admit that it is still a ridiculously long time.
XMU #4, I think. I'd blocked that "wonderful" story out, with it's
waterfalls in Mississippi and all.
>>I disagree on all counts. "The government" has never been anti-mutant
>>as a whole. It does seem to take its cue from society in reacting to
>>them, but I've never seen anything across the board against mutants.
>>SHIELD, in particular, has known all about the X-Men for years, yet
>>they've never chosen to raid Xavier's. Why? Because there was no
>>policy in place. Robert Kelly ran on a platform that he would outlaw
>>mutants, clearly suggesting no such policy existed. Any anti-mutant
>>government policies were certainly black ops programs, not law.
>
> I think that is kind of ambiguous...especially since we've seen
> several possible futures where those "black ops programs" took over
> the country.
Yes, but the main one - DoFP - came directly out of Senator Kelly
becoming president back in UXM #141 or so. Most similar futures are
based on DoFP.
>>Cameron Hodge was pretty lame. The only interesting thing I can see
>>that came out of it was the Wolfsbane developed into a more
>>well-rounded character.
>
> He was lame...and they could have come up with a better central
> villain for the storyline...but I still liked the overall plot...and
> how it combined elements introduced in the various X-titles years
> before as well as having a considerable impact on future stories.
I think my problem was that we were seeing so many gigantic crossovers
with weak plots that I just wrote them all off as worthless.
Ken Arromdee
grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>They could have just brought in Claremont to have one of his subplots
>>that lasts for five years. Heck, he told us that Nightcrawler and
>>Mystique were connected in UXM #141 (or 142, I forget). We found the
>>truth in the 400's from a different writer.
>That still shows a level of continuity that hasn't existed in the
>X-titles, or Marvel in general, for some time...and the truth about
>Mystique and Nightcrawler was revealed back in X-Men Unlimited
>#3...which, I believe, came before even Uncanny #300...but I will
>admit that it is still a ridiculously long time.
Nightcrawler's connection to Mystique is a very bad example of this.
The connection wasn't revealed not because Claremont was taking forever,
but because Marvel wouldn't let him do it. (And the connection we later
got was different.)
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"You know, you blow up one sun and suddenly everyone expects you to walk
on water." --Samantha Carter, Stargate SG-1
mimf
> In article <pv2eq2lan322f1kaf...@4ax.com>, grinningdemon
> <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>>They could have just brought in Claremont to have one of his subplots
>>>that lasts for five years. Heck, he told us that Nightcrawler and
>>>Mystique were connected in UXM #141 (or 142, I forget). We found the
>>>truth in the 400's from a different writer.
>>That still shows a level of continuity that hasn't existed in the
>>X-titles, or Marvel in general, for some time...and the truth about
>>Mystique and Nightcrawler was revealed back in X-Men Unlimited
>>#3...which, I believe, came before even Uncanny #300...but I will admit
>>that it is still a ridiculously long time.
>
> Nightcrawler's connection to Mystique is a very bad example of this.
>
> The connection wasn't revealed not because Claremont was taking forever,
> but because Marvel wouldn't let him do it. (And the connection we later
> got was different.)
What was the original one?
grinningdemon
>grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote in
>news:pv2eq2lan322f1kaf...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 11 Jan 2007 19:23:52 GMT, Dan McEwen <ferr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> This time the X-Men can lose the
>>>> battle and gain an enemy that can fuel stories for the next five
>>>> years at least.
>>>
>>>They could have just brought in Claremont to have one of his subplots
>>>that lasts for five years. Heck, he told us that Nightcrawler and
>>>Mystique were connected in UXM #141 (or 142, I forget). We found the
>>>truth in the 400's from a different writer.
>>
>> That still shows a level of continuity that hasn't existed in the
>> X-titles, or Marvel in general, for some time...and the truth about
>> Mystique and Nightcrawler was revealed back in X-Men Unlimited
>> #3...which, I believe, came before even Uncanny #300...but I will
>> admit that it is still a ridiculously long time.
>
>XMU #4, I think. I'd blocked that "wonderful" story out, with it's
>waterfalls in Mississippi and all.
My bad...I was close though.
>
>>>I disagree on all counts. "The government" has never been anti-mutant
>>>as a whole. It does seem to take its cue from society in reacting to
>>>them, but I've never seen anything across the board against mutants.
>>>SHIELD, in particular, has known all about the X-Men for years, yet
>>>they've never chosen to raid Xavier's. Why? Because there was no
>>>policy in place. Robert Kelly ran on a platform that he would outlaw
>>>mutants, clearly suggesting no such policy existed. Any anti-mutant
>>>government policies were certainly black ops programs, not law.
>>
>> I think that is kind of ambiguous...especially since we've seen
>> several possible futures where those "black ops programs" took over
>> the country.
>
>Yes, but the main one - DoFP - came directly out of Senator Kelly
>becoming president back in UXM #141 or so. Most similar futures are
>based on DoFP.
Yes, but they continued popping up even after Senator Kelly jumped off
the anti-mutant bandwagon so it's not limited to him...and, even if it
were all the same, those futures have been a big part of too many
storylines to count.
>
>>>Cameron Hodge was pretty lame. The only interesting thing I can see
>>>that came out of it was the Wolfsbane developed into a more
>>>well-rounded character.
>>
>> He was lame...and they could have come up with a better central
>> villain for the storyline...but I still liked the overall plot...and
>> how it combined elements introduced in the various X-titles years
>> before as well as having a considerable impact on future stories.
>
>I think my problem was that we were seeing so many gigantic crossovers
>with weak plots that I just wrote them all off as worthless.
I thought most of the Marvel-wide crossovers were terrible but I loved
the big X-Men crossovers of the late '80s and early '90s...each had
its good and bad points but I thought they were pretty entertaining.
sgtbilko
"me...@memememe.com" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:45a6bbb0$0$18847$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Nathan P. Mahney
"sgtbilko" <sgt_ern...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:evaqh.52705$MO2....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
I believe it was called "X-Factor vol. 1 #1"
- Nathan P. Mahney -
http://www.thecomicnerd.com
Daniel McEwen
news:45aa3406$0$9770$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:
>
> "sgtbilko" <sgt_ern...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:evaqh.52705$MO2....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> "me...@memememe.com" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
>> news:45a6bbb0$0$18847$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> > X-Stinktion agenda could be the exact point in time where it all
>> > began
> to
>> > go wrong for the xbooks.
>> >
>> Wasn't it called M Day
>
> I believe it was called "X-Factor vol. 1 #1"
Not Fantastic Four #286? Or Avengers #something or other where Jean's
cocoon was recovered from the bottom of Jamaica Bay?
Nathan P. Mahney
"Daniel McEwen" <ferr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98CDE1F1D2FCD...@130.133.1.4...
Well, they could qualify, but I always go with X-Factor #1 for the
double-whammy of Cyclops running out on his wife and kid.
Dan McEwen
True enough, though the seeds already existed somewhere around UXM #200.
Nathan P. Mahney
"Dan McEwen" <ferr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98CF8B14577EB...@130.133.1.4...
But was that Claremont's idea, or just him trying to write around events in
X-Factor? It doesn't seem to fit with the way Claremont had written Cyclops
before that at all.
Dan McEwen
> "Dan McEwen" <ferr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98CF8B14577EB...@130.133.1.4...
>> > Well, they could qualify, but I always go with X-Factor #1 for the
>> > double-whammy of Cyclops running out on his wife and kid.
>>
>> True enough, though the seeds already existed somewhere around UXM
>> #200.
>
> But was that Claremont's idea, or just him trying to write around
> events in X-Factor? It doesn't seem to fit with the way Claremont had
> written Cyclops before that at all.
I'm sure you're right, except that he does have that "strong women in
leather" fetish that allowed Storm to take him out fairly easily. But
you're right. He also portrayed Cyclops as strong and capable - even
more mentally strong than Wolverine at times.
grinningdemon
I miss the way Claremont used to write Cyclops...back before he
obviously hated the character anyway...that said, I'm glad he didn't
get his way with Cyclops back then or he would have gone off and had
his happy ending with Maddie and we would have hardly ever seen him
again...I'm not particularly fond of the way they kept him around
(early X-Factor was barely readable despite staring several of my
favorites) but I'm glad he's been a mainstay since then.
Personally, I always thought X-Factor would have been a much better
book if they had left Jean dead and let Rachel fill her role like she
has recently...then they could have had Cyclops around without making
him a total dick for abandoning his family...and we wouldn't have had
to suffer through a never-ending parade of Phoenix retreads and every
male character falling madly in love with Jean.
Billy Bissette
news:ftals25l12jiphl7k...@4ax.com:
> I miss the way Claremont used to write Cyclops...back before he
> obviously hated the character anyway...that said, I'm glad he didn't
> get his way with Cyclops back then or he would have gone off and had
> his happy ending with Maddie and we would have hardly ever seen him
> again...I'm not particularly fond of the way they kept him around
> (early X-Factor was barely readable despite staring several of my
> favorites) but I'm glad he's been a mainstay since then.
>
> Personally, I always thought X-Factor would have been a much better
> book if they had left Jean dead and let Rachel fill her role like she
> has recently...then they could have had Cyclops around without making
> him a total dick for abandoning his family...and we wouldn't have had
> to suffer through a never-ending parade of Phoenix retreads and every
> male character falling madly in love with Jean.
So, you are glad Cyclops didn't stay written out of the books, but
are upset that Jean didn't stay written out of the books? :)
I wish Claremont had gotten his way with Cyclops. I don't really
like Cyclops, but even if I did in retrospect it would have been
better.
Christian Henriksson
<bai...@coastalnet.com> sayeth thus:
And after all, it was twenty years ago. During that time, someone
would have come up with the idea to reintroduce Cyclops again.
Dan McEwen
news:Xns98D1174883B0...@207.217.125.201:
> grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote in
> news:ftals25l12jiphl7k...@4ax.com:
>> I miss the way Claremont used to write Cyclops...back before he
>> obviously hated the character anyway...that said, I'm glad he didn't
>> get his way with Cyclops back then or he would have gone off and had
>> his happy ending with Maddie and we would have hardly ever seen him
>> again...I'm not particularly fond of the way they kept him around
>> (early X-Factor was barely readable despite staring several of my
>> favorites) but I'm glad he's been a mainstay since then.
>>
>> Personally, I always thought X-Factor would have been a much better
>> book if they had left Jean dead and let Rachel fill her role like she
>> has recently...then they could have had Cyclops around without making
>> him a total dick for abandoning his family...and we wouldn't have had
>> to suffer through a never-ending parade of Phoenix retreads and every
>> male character falling madly in love with Jean.
>
> So, you are glad Cyclops didn't stay written out of the books, but
> are upset that Jean didn't stay written out of the books? :)
It's not the problem with Jean he has in and of herself. The problem
was how Jean's return made Cyclops act.
> I wish Claremont had gotten his way with Cyclops. I don't really
> like Cyclops, but even if I did in retrospect it would have been
> better.
I do like Cyclops. Since the days of Claremont/Byrne, the best version
of him I remember is during the Seagle/Kelly era.
Billy Bissette
news:h0qms2pp486nhhnjr...@4ax.com:
> Lo and behold, on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:17:16 GMT Billy Bissette
> <bai...@coastalnet.com> sayeth thus:
>> I wish Claremont had gotten his way with Cyclops. I don't really
>>like Cyclops, but even if I did in retrospect it would have been
>>better.
>
> And after all, it was twenty years ago. During that time, someone
> would have come up with the idea to reintroduce Cyclops again.
Exactly. With enough extra time passing to make it look like Scott
and Maddie had an okay off-screen relationship in the bargain.
Returning Scott wouldn't stink of Marvel wanting to restart the
Scott/Jean dynamic regardless of circumstance, even if that was exactly
the purpose. Scott and Maddie would have had their run, and raised a
kid. The marriage could fall apart without Scott looking so bad (as
it wasn't entirely Claremont's fault that Scott *did* look bad,) or
after time something could happen to Maddie that wasn't so obviously
Jean-storyline related. Or maybe they'd actually get to be accepted
as a couple, postponing a Scott/Jean reunion even further.
And with some more time, Claremont himself might not have been so
upset.
grinningdemon
<bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote:
>grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote in
>news:ftals25l12jiphl7k...@4ax.com:
>> I miss the way Claremont used to write Cyclops...back before he
>> obviously hated the character anyway...that said, I'm glad he didn't
>> get his way with Cyclops back then or he would have gone off and had
>> his happy ending with Maddie and we would have hardly ever seen him
>> again...I'm not particularly fond of the way they kept him around
>> (early X-Factor was barely readable despite staring several of my
>> favorites) but I'm glad he's been a mainstay since then.
>>
>> Personally, I always thought X-Factor would have been a much better
>> book if they had left Jean dead and let Rachel fill her role like she
>> has recently...then they could have had Cyclops around without making
>> him a total dick for abandoning his family...and we wouldn't have had
>> to suffer through a never-ending parade of Phoenix retreads and every
>> male character falling madly in love with Jean.
>
> So, you are glad Cyclops didn't stay written out of the books, but
>are upset that Jean didn't stay written out of the books? :)
Jean's story had run it's course...and it had a powerful ending that
they could never top...and they never did...I love the character but I
think she was better off dead.
>
> I wish Claremont had gotten his way with Cyclops. I don't really
>like Cyclops, but even if I did in retrospect it would have been
>better.
Cyclops is my favorite X-Man so I would have hated that...so I have to
disagree.
grinningdemon
Well, since Claremont continued writing the X-Men into the 90s...it
might have been years...and Cyclops is my favorite X-Man so that
wouldn't have worked for me.
grinningdemon
>Billy Bissette <bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote in
>news:Xns98D1174883B0...@207.217.125.201:
>
>> grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote in
>> news:ftals25l12jiphl7k...@4ax.com:
>>> I miss the way Claremont used to write Cyclops...back before he
>>> obviously hated the character anyway...that said, I'm glad he didn't
>>> get his way with Cyclops back then or he would have gone off and had
>>> his happy ending with Maddie and we would have hardly ever seen him
>>> again...I'm not particularly fond of the way they kept him around
>>> (early X-Factor was barely readable despite staring several of my
>>> favorites) but I'm glad he's been a mainstay since then.
>>>
>>> Personally, I always thought X-Factor would have been a much better
>>> book if they had left Jean dead and let Rachel fill her role like she
>>> has recently...then they could have had Cyclops around without making
>>> him a total dick for abandoning his family...and we wouldn't have had
>>> to suffer through a never-ending parade of Phoenix retreads and every
>>> male character falling madly in love with Jean.
>>
>> So, you are glad Cyclops didn't stay written out of the books, but
>> are upset that Jean didn't stay written out of the books? :)
>
>It's not the problem with Jean he has in and of herself. The problem
>was how Jean's return made Cyclops act.
It's a little bit of both actually...the Dark Phoenix Saga is my all
time favorite X-Men story and Jean's return (and subsequent deaths and
returns) only cheapen that story...and it made Cyclops act like an ass
so...
>
>> I wish Claremont had gotten his way with Cyclops. I don't really
>> like Cyclops, but even if I did in retrospect it would have been
>> better.
>
>I do like Cyclops. Since the days of Claremont/Byrne, the best version
>of him I remember is during the Seagle/Kelly era.
I like Whedon's take on him...even if he is kind of an ass again...at
least he's a well written ass.
Christian Henriksson
<grinni...@austin.rr.com> sayeth thus:
>On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:12:59 +0100, Christian Henriksson
><ora...@passagen.se> wrote:
>
>>Lo and behold, on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:17:16 GMT Billy Bissette
>><bai...@coastalnet.com> sayeth thus:
>>> I wish Claremont had gotten his way with Cyclops. I don't really
>>>like Cyclops, but even if I did in retrospect it would have been
>>>better.
>>
>>And after all, it was twenty years ago. During that time, someone
>>would have come up with the idea to reintroduce Cyclops again.
>
>Well, since Claremont continued writing the X-Men into the 90s...it
>might have been years...and Cyclops is my favorite X-Man so that
>wouldn't have worked for me.
You really don't think that Claremont during those 75 issues or so
might have wanted to bring Cyclops back?
And there were always the chance of seeing him in some other X-book -
there would at least have been New Mutants. And who knows what else.
grinningdemon
<ora...@passagen.se> wrote:
>Lo and behold, on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:50:11 -0600 grinningdemon
><grinni...@austin.rr.com> sayeth thus:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:12:59 +0100, Christian Henriksson
>><ora...@passagen.se> wrote:
>>
>>>Lo and behold, on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:17:16 GMT Billy Bissette
>>><bai...@coastalnet.com> sayeth thus:
>
>>>> I wish Claremont had gotten his way with Cyclops. I don't really
>>>>like Cyclops, but even if I did in retrospect it would have been
>>>>better.
>>>
>>>And after all, it was twenty years ago. During that time, someone
>>>would have come up with the idea to reintroduce Cyclops again.
>>
>>Well, since Claremont continued writing the X-Men into the 90s...it
>>might have been years...and Cyclops is my favorite X-Man so that
>>wouldn't have worked for me.
>
>You really don't think that Claremont during those 75 issues or so
>might have wanted to bring Cyclops back?
Considering he barely used Cyclops in the 30 or 40 issues leading up
to that...I don't think he would have been around much after Uncanny
#201.
>
>And there were always the chance of seeing him in some other X-book -
>there would at least have been New Mutants. And who knows what else.
Wasn't Claremont also writing New Mutants? The other X-books (aside
from X-Factor) didn't show up until the 90s.
Christian Henriksson
<grinni...@austin.rr.com> sayeth thus:
Claremont wrote NM up to around #55. And you're forgetting at least
Excalibur. It came just a few years after UXM #201.
Wolverine appeared quite early too, but I'd agree with you if you'd
say that Cyclops would have been pretty unlikely to appear there. :)
grinningdemon
<ora...@passagen.se> wrote:
>Lo and behold, on Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:27:42 -0600 grinningdemon
><grinni...@austin.rr.com> sayeth thus:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:26:18 +0100, Christian Henriksson
>><ora...@passagen.se> wrote:
>>
>>>Lo and behold, on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:50:11 -0600 grinningdemon
>>><grinni...@austin.rr.com> sayeth thus:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:12:59 +0100, Christian Henriksson
>>>><ora...@passagen.se> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Well, since Claremont continued writing the X-Men into the 90s...it
>>>>might have been years...and Cyclops is my favorite X-Man so that
>>>>wouldn't have worked for me.
>>>
>>>You really don't think that Claremont during those 75 issues or so
>>>might have wanted to bring Cyclops back?
>>
>>Considering he barely used Cyclops in the 30 or 40 issues leading up
>>to that...I don't think he would have been around much after Uncanny
>>#201.
>>
>>>
>>>And there were always the chance of seeing him in some other X-book -
>>>there would at least have been New Mutants. And who knows what else.
>>
>>Wasn't Claremont also writing New Mutants? The other X-books (aside
>>from X-Factor) didn't show up until the 90s.
>
>Claremont wrote NM up to around #55. And you're forgetting at least
>Excalibur. It came just a few years after UXM #201.
I did forget Excalibur but, guess what, Claremont wrote that one too.
>
>Wolverine appeared quite early too, but I'd agree with you if you'd
>say that Cyclops would have been pretty unlikely to appear there. :)
I always wondered why they don't pair these two up more...their
interaction back in the Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne days was classic but
they just kind of dropped all the animosity between them until just
recently with the movies and Whedon on Astonishing...for me, at least,
the only interesting part of the Scott/Jean/Logan love triangle that
they beat to death is Cyclops and Wolverine at odds and, for some
reason, they usually just drop that part and make Cyclops look like a
wuss for ignoring him hitting on Jean all the damn time.
Billy Bissette
news:lg6ts2h46qd3kc8mt...@4ax.com:
> ...for me, at least,
> the only interesting part of the Scott/Jean/Logan love triangle that
> they beat to death is Cyclops and Wolverine at odds and, for some
> reason, they usually just drop that part and make Cyclops look like a
> wuss for ignoring him hitting on Jean all the damn time.
One could argue it shows Scott has absolute faith that Jean has no
interest in Logan, and that Jean is strong enough that neither feel the
need for Scott to defend her. Scott ignoring Logan is probably to
show he is above such behavior and knows it isn't necessary.
The problem is that Jean has shown interest in the past. And Scott
is a bit random on when Logan ruffles him. And Scott for some reason
sometimes looks like a wuss no matter what he does. And Scott hasn't
always been the best guy when it comes to relationships. And some
people just don't like him.
grinningdemon
Frankly, I could do without the whole damn love triangle plot...it's
annoying and it makes all the characters involved look bad...if they
had just used it for a while and then moved on that would be one
thing, but they keep coming back to it over and over and over...just
like the Reed/Sue/Namor triangle in FF...but at least that one wasn't
a retcon to begin with.