The status quo. Why so important?

[LoneWolf21]

I was wondering why the status quo seems so important some people. Often times when a new writer comes on board they hit the reset button or wipe away something to clean the ol' slate, or fans will grumble about something needing to be a certain way. One example off the top of my head, Emma breaks up a marriage, and more importantly, disrupts the status quo, everyone hates her. fans, writers, characters. Jean breaks up a marriage, thereby restoring the status quo, everyone's happy, and the writers just turn the other woman unsympathetically evil and crazy, and kill her off to avoid any messiness. Another easy one, back in 2000 Claremont teases a possible Rogue/Colossus romance, Rogue/Gambit fans raise holy hell, and the plot is dropped like a hot potato. Or look at Pryde and Wisdom, they're split asap when Excaliber ends, and who is Kitty making goo goo eyes at? Colosuss. Heck even in Astonishing they've been teasing the wil they/won't they thing with Kitty and Peter.

So really, is the status quo that important?

[iGotKittyPryde]

So really, is the status quo that important?

I think the thing is, some people hate change and some people can accept it. In both cases, however, people would prefer things stay the same if someone cannot improve upon them. If something works and people want to see more of it then they aren't going to like seeing something taking it's place unless it's better.

For example, Gambit and Rogue. There are probably plenty of 90's holdover fans who still really really like the idea of them together. They read the comics because they want to see where those two characters are headed and what direction they will go in. These people, probably, won't react to something new too positively HOWEVER if something really really works they will eventually deal with it.

Also, status quo is becoming more important due to the movie (and other pop-culture like cartoon series) versions of the characters becoming more well known than the comic version were, in some cases.

Again, with Rogue and Gambit, people remember them from the cartoon. They expect Rogue and Gambit to be flirtatious and always be "this close" to being really a couple. If the reader who likes that takes a break from the title for a few years and comes back they still expect that to be the case.

Also, it reflects a lot of other pop culture. If you watch a TV show for a few seasons, often times not TOO much changes. Sure, a lot HAPPENS but not many big changes are made. And any changes that are made are made a big deal of, much like in the comics.

On the other hand, unlike comics, things like TV shows are designed to be short-term stories. They can build up to one big event and then just end. With most comics things need to be kept open, even if a book is cancelled you want to probably keep the possibility of that character appearing elsewhere alive.

Plus, who's to say that characters in comics don't change? Look at Rogue for example(and yes, I am using the same basic example everytime, on purpose). Sure, she's been written for a while now as Gambit's girlfriend but in her lifetime as a comic character she's went from being a villian, to a really powerful mutant unsure how to use her newfound powers, to an X-Man who was untrustworthy, she gained their trust, she's flirted around with Colossus and Magneto, she's had a gazillion different powers (sure almost none of them held, but that's the nature of her character) and now she's without her Ms. Marvel powers, which is a huge change.

There has been MUCH that has changed in her character since she was introduced. Compare that to most characters in pop culture and you're bound to notice that she changed more than your average character, her character has went through more than you average character who's had a series of novels written on them.

Also (and this is my last point, I assure you), if everything is always changing, it's much less exciting when something big happens. Why is Emma and Scott being together so big a deal? Because Jean and Scott were together so long. Why will the next arc in X-Men about Gambit and Rogue be important? Because they've been together so long and thus the reader has an investment in seeing them stay together and someone threatening that doesn't just threaten a fictional relationship, it threatens that investment.

Holy crap, that was longer than I was intending...

[fishtaco]

Do you know what status quo is? The status quo must be changed for a plot or multiple plots to progress.

There are good changes in the status quo, and there are bad ones. In other words, there is good writing, and there is bad writing.

Here is a good example of status quo change. In the recent Chasing Hellfire Club arc, Chris Claremont has changed the status quo of the Hellfire Club into something that has created a subplot with (IMO) enough potential for its own book (unfortunately, Marvel is too stupid these days to realize that). Claremont has created a new era for the Hellfire Club. The Hellfire Club has been commandeered by Sage, who dethroned Sebastion Shaw from his title of Lord Imperial, and has replaced him with Roberto DaCosta (Sunspot), who (with the help of Sage), will be able to use his new power as Lord Imperial to make the Hellfire Club a force for good, and an asset to those who fight for Xavier's Dream. That is outstanding. Sooner or later, the status quo will change again, therefore altering this subplot into something else, either good or bad for the X-men.

[HarrisonJohn]

Jean breaks up a marriage, thereby restoring the status quo, everyone's happy, and the writers just turn the other woman unsympathetically evil and crazy, and kill her off to avoid any messiness.


That didn't slip by so easily. There's an issue of X-Factor with a letters page full of complaints.

[LoneWolf21]

That didn't slip by so easily. There's an issue of X-Factor with a letters page full of complaints.

Oh really? Interesting. Didn't know that.

[The Shadow]

Also, status quo is becoming more important due to the movie (and other pop-culture like cartoon series) versions of the characters becoming more well known than the comic version were, in some cases.

Again, with Rogue and Gambit, people remember them from the cartoon. They expect Rogue and Gambit to be flirtatious and always be "this close" to being really a couple. If the reader who likes that takes a break from the title for a few years and comes back they still expect that to be the case.
Great post!

My only disagreement with it is the above quote... because despite how good the cartoons and movies are, they aren't bringing in new readers.

Joss Whedon writing AXM is a great seller, but it's being bought by people already collecting X-Men books and the Whedon fans that weren't getting X books. Buffy/Angel/Fire Fly fans didn't show up in droves when he came on board. Sure some may have, but why isn't the book selling 300,000 copies then? Joss' shows (especially Buffy) were watched by MILLIONS each week... yet his comic is only selling 165,000 (roughly) and by todays standards that's not too bad!

Another point is that when the X-Men movie came out the comic put everyone in suits similar to the movie costumes... but even that is being undone in favor of the traditional costumes. The non-comic fans that saw the movies aren't showing up in droves to buy the books either, hence the return to the old duds. I'm interested to see if the comics will mirror the movies with the costumes again or if the movie will mirror the comics or the final possibility is the movie will keep the same style despite whats in the comic.

[The Shadow]

Emma breaks up a marriage, and more importantly, disrupts the status quo, everyone hates her. fans, writers, characters.
I'm glad Emma and Scott are together... he's such a bore with Jean and she's a bore with him. Emma adds spice!

[iGotKittyPryde]

Joss Whedon writing AXM is a great seller, but it's being bought by people already collecting X-Men books and the Whedon fans that weren't getting X books. Buffy/Angel/Fire Fly fans didn't show up in droves when he came on board. Sure some may have, but why isn't the book selling 300,000 copies then? Joss' shows (especially Buffy) were watched by MILLIONS each week... yet his comic is only selling 165,000 (roughly) and by todays standards that's not too bad!
.

First off, thank you for compliment. But secondly, I feel the need to point out that I hadn't bought an X-book in some five years or so before Joss came on Astonishing (and the only reason I point out "X-book" is because I did buy 3 issues in that time... the still unfinished Kevin Smith Spiderman mini)... so hey: here's *one* X-fan that can be chalked up to Joss (well I was reading them for years as a kid too but I came back for him, anyway!)

[Ant-Man]

For example, Gambit and Rogue. There are probably plenty of 90's holdover fans who still really really like the idea of them together. They read the comics because they want to see where those two characters are headed and what direction they will go in. These people, probably, won't react to something new too positively HOWEVER if something really really works they will eventually deal with it.


What about readers like me, who were reading about Rogue in Uncanny, years before Gambit was created by Claremont, who remember how "much better" she was as a character before she and Gambit became an item. And also, Gambit was a much better character as well, before the Rogue relationship. I am a proponent of "change" for the betterment of a character, but the Gambit and Rogue relationship ruined both characters for good.

[streator]

Do you know what status quo is? The status quo must be changed for a plot or multiple plots to progress.

There are good changes in the status quo, and there are bad ones. In other words, there is good writing, and there is bad writing.

Here is a good example of status quo change. In the recent Chasing Hellfire Club arc, Chris Claremont has changed the status quo of the Hellfire Club into something that has created a subplot with (IMO) enough potential for its own book (unfortunately, Marvel is too stupid these days to realize that). Claremont has created a new era for the Hellfire Club. The Hellfire Club has been commandeered by Sage, who dethroned Sebastion Shaw from his title of Lord Imperial, and has replaced him with Roberto DaCosta (Sunspot), who (with the help of Sage), will be able to use his new power as Lord Imperial to make the Hellfire Club a force for good, and an asset to those who fight for Xavier's Dream. That is outstanding. Sooner or later, the status quo will change again, therefore altering this subplot into something else, either good or bad for the X-men.
its been changed before, and eventually reverted back to sebastion shaw.
lobdell had shinobi supposedly kill sebastion, which was retconned
a bunch of things happened with it in xman
moore had blackheart as an integral member in x force
morrison had it become a gentlemen's club of sorts

status quo sells books because the majority of readers want to read about those same characters. jean will eventually come back and will eventually get back with cyclops. beast will go back to his ape form. jubilee will never really age. when marvel makes changes, they lose readers after a while. when they keep producing the same product, the market is there.

[The Shadow]

jean will eventually come back and will eventually get back with cyclops.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooo oooo

Scott is INFINITLY more interesting with "bad girl" Emma than "the BIG BORE" Jean!

[UncannyAsianGirl]

You brought up some very good points IGotKittyPryde. ^_^


What about readers like me, who were reading about Rogue in Uncanny, years before Gambit was created by Claremont, who remember how "much better" she was as a character before she and Gambit became an item. And also, Gambit was a much better character as well, before the Rogue relationship. I am a proponent of "change" for the betterment of a character, but the Gambit and Rogue relationship ruined both characters for good.

There's only one thing that can be said about that, and I know it's a bit harsh, but... the writers can't satisfy every fan's desires. It's just not possible. All they can do is see what the majority of the fans like, go with it, and hope that they don't lose too many readers in the process.

[newscott]

The status quo is created by writers inorder to return the univers to a state where they are comfortable to begin to write stories that take place in it.

I feel that my big problem with the X-Men writers is that very rarely is respect shown to what came before them. Even Whedon, whom I like, has done more of an homage than really respected previous storylines (though I did like the Scott/Logan fight early in the series).

If more respect was shown to what came before (And in Claremont's case, what came between) then I'd read far fewer things that upset me in their stories.

[The Mirrorball Man]

There's only one thing that can be said about that, and I know it's a bit harsh, but... the writers can't satisfy every fan's desires. It's just not possible. All they can do is see what the majority of the fans like, go with it, and hope that they don't lose too many readers in the process.
No, that's not all they can do! Hopefully, talented writers can come up with new ideas, things that fans cannot expect, and present them in such ways that they become important part of the whole X-Men mythos. If all they can do is guessing what the majority wants, the franchise is doomed to become more and more insular and uneventful.

[Sheldon]

We like the status quo because It makes us feel all tingly inside....we pretend that was want change when in reality it makes us wake up at night in cold sweats!

[The Shadow]

Hopefully, talented writers can come up with new ideas, things that fans cannot expect, and present them in such ways that they become important part of the whole X-Men mythos. If all they can do is guessing what the majority wants, the franchise is doomed to become more and more insular and uneventful.
But Morrison changed the X-Men... made the bigger, badder and fought on JLA scale terms... but when he left they just reverted it to what it was.

[DDM]

But Morrison changed the X-Men... made the bigger, badder and fought on JLA scale terms... but when he left they just reverted it to what it was.

Morrison rewrote Claremont's earlier X-Men scripts from Uncanny X-Men #94-142. The X-Men have been big since Claremont first stint as writer.

[Erik Lehnsherr]

What exactly did Morrison do that was so unique, so different than a Claremont? Never got a clear answer on that one.

[Sheldon]

ARGH! .....the experiment has failed!

[iGotKittyPryde]

ARGH! .....the experiment has failed!

WELL, at least it's not Whedon v. Claremont!

It's the slightly older version, making an unexpected (and by unexpected, I mean, completely predicatable and still annoying) comeback!

[atoningunifex]

ARGH! .....the experiment has failed!

And what's worse is that the people who caused the experiment to fail probably have no idea what you're talking about.

[Ryan K]

Bump.
101010

[Blackcat]

I think the Marvel sometimes listens to their fans to much, because just a small part are always complaining about every step a writer takes. For example all the nagging about T-Bird III, Lifeguard and Slipstream in X-Treme, made the writers put them into Limbo, the break-up between Pete and Kitty, the not happened romance between Rogue and Peter etc etc.

In the ' old days' they wrote the stories and we bought them, nowadays if fans complain enough about something, the writers will adjust, not good, not good!

[spoon_jenkins]

I think people have to look at why fans dislike certain changes. One of the best thing about X-Men is the characters. They are intriguing personalties. They're not just powers with names attached who can be filled in with random personas and acts.

For me (and it seems for many others who oppose certain changes), it's because those changes seem sharply out of character. When you've replace the personality of the character with a new character, it's sort of like that character is gone.

The fan schism over Scott and Emma may, in part, reflect a schism over what is "in character." I notice that many fans of the relationship think it's consistent with Scott's personality. But for me and for many others, it's not in character, so it's sort of like this guy isn't Scott.

The Hellfire Club have been compelling enemies of the X-Men to me because they're dramatic counterpoints. The Club is about the Old Guard - the powerful who step on the backs of weaker folks and manipulate and destroy them. They cold, calculating figures of the establishment.

The X-Men are about standing up for the powerless. They're about youth and change. Cyclops grew up in an orphanage, so he has an affinity for the powerless. Emma basically isn't his type. In contrast, someone like Lee Forrester, a fishing trawler operator, is more his type.


There's only one thing that can be said about that, and I know it's a bit harsh, but... the writers can't satisfy every fan's desires. It's just not possible. All they can do is see what the majority of the fans like, go with it, and hope that they don't lose too many readers in the process.

Opposition to the Rogue-Gambit relationship isn't a really small minority position. It may actually be the majority.

[DDM]

The Hellfire Club have been compelling enemies of the X-Men to me because they're dramatic counterpoints. The Club is about the Old Guard - the powerful who step on the backs of weaker folks and manipulate and destroy them. They cold, calculating figures of the establishment.

The X-Men are about standing up for the powerless. They're about youth and change. Cyclops grew up in an orphanage, so he has an affinity for the powerless. Emma basically isn't his type. In contrast, someone like Lee Forrester, a fishing trawler operator, is more his type.





In other words, the Hellfire Club is a foil to the X-Men. I agree with everything you said. Outside of Chris Claremont, most other writers completely miss the point of the Lords Cardinal.

[Nachturne]

Opposition to the Rogue-Gambit relationship isn't a really small minority position. It may actually be the majority.

Agreed. I've heard more against than in favor of the relationship, and many who were once proponents of it are now against because of how much it's held back both characters (especially Gambit). Look how much cooler Rogue has become without it, and God please let Gambit be as cool!! I miss him :(

[Omega Alpha]

I think the Marvel sometimes listens to their fans to much, because just a small part are always complaining about every step a writer takes. For example all the nagging about T-Bird III, Lifeguard and Slipstream in X-Treme, made the writers put them into Limbo, the break-up between Pete and Kitty, the not happened romance between Rogue and Peter etc etc.

In the ' old days' they wrote the stories and we bought them, nowadays if fans complain enough about something, the writers will adjust, not good, not good!

I don't think that's the case. See Civil War, for example, when the most popular side lost and the less popular got away with a lot of things.



I think people have to look at why fans dislike certain changes. One of the best thing about X-Men is the characters. They are intriguing personalties. They're not just powers with names attached who can be filled in with random personas and acts.

For me (and it seems for many others who oppose certain changes), it's because those changes seem sharply out of character. When you've replace the personality of the character with a new character, it's sort of like that character is gone.

The fan schism over Scott and Emma may, in part, reflect a schism over what is "in character." I notice that many fans of the relationship think it's consistent with Scott's personality. But for me and for many others, it's not in character, so it's sort of like this guy isn't Scott.

The Hellfire Club have been compelling enemies of the X-Men to me because they're dramatic counterpoints. The Club is about the Old Guard - the powerful who step on the backs of weaker folks and manipulate and destroy them. They cold, calculating figures of the establishment.

The X-Men are about standing up for the powerless. They're about youth and change. Cyclops grew up in an orphanage, so he has an affinity for the powerless. Emma basically isn't his type. In contrast, someone like Lee Forrester, a fishing trawler operator, is more his type.

Not wanting to turn this into another Scott/Emma thread, Emma is not a member of the Hellfire Club for 15 years, and, well, you know that as much as everyone else. In fact, the number of issues in which she was a member is by far inferior to the number of issues in which she wasn't. And if she wasn't for standing up for the powerless, she wouldn't be in the X-men, none of them would be. As for her not being his type, there isn't absolutely anything in her that indicates so; in fact, she is the 4rd telepath, 2nd blonde, 3rd X-woman, 4th superhero, and 2nd very rich and high-class origin woman he's interested in, it's out of character for him to be interested in her because...?

But what you're saying is a good example of one of the things that makes fans complain the most when it changes: romanitc relationships. Many fans have a couple or a few couples they love, usually since they begun to read comic, and doesn't matter what happens, they HAVE to be together no matter what, and no matter how organical was the change or not, or how realistic it was under that conditions, or whether the relationship was stagnated or not, they have to be together, period, and no matter what happened, they have to be brought back together, no matter how unrealistic or OOC it would be. There's a guy in comixfan, you can ask anyone there who i'm talking about and they will know, that is simply obsessed with some couples he likes and has to mention them in every single conversation and thinks writers have to change everything just to put his favorites again, like Warpath joining X-factor just to be with Siryn or Archangel and Psylocke coming back together and kicking Scott and Emma out of the mansion and running things themselves, etc.



Opposition to the Rogue-Gambit relationship isn't a really small minority position. It may actually be the majority.

I doubt that. On this forum, sure, but not necessarily among most fans.

[spoon_jenkins]

Not wanting to turn this into another Scott/Emma thread, Emma is not a member of the Hellfire Club for 15 years, and, well, you know that as much as everyone else. In fact, the number of issues in which she was a member is by far inferior to the number of issues in which she wasn't. And if she wasn't for standing up for the powerless, she wouldn't be in the X-men, none of them would be.
I know Emma hasn't been in the Hellfire Club in years. But her membership is still reflective of her character. For example, it takes a certain type of person to commit premeditated murder. Just because a murderer has been re-offended and has behaved well in prison, that doesn't the fact that the prisoner had something in himself that is very different than the rest of us (that gave them the capacity to do such a horrendous act). Emma's past acts reflect aspects of her personality/character.

And her acts weren't some youthful indiscretion. She was a mature, capable businesswoman. She's isn't as likely to change her attitude as much as a juvenile offender for instance. Plus, her bad acts weren't just done "on camera." She was the White Queen prior to her first appearance. Even after she reformed, she's behaves certain ways.

There's a vast spectrum of human behavior. Just because she left the Club for the X-Men doesn't mean that she has the moral code that other X-Men may have.


As for her not being his type, there isn't absolutely anything in her that indicates so; in fact, she is the 4rd telepath, 2nd blonde, 3rd X-woman, 4th superhero, and 2nd very rich and high-class origin woman he's interested in, it's out of character for him to be interested in her because...?
To me, this isn't very persuasive. I think the interpersonal characteristics would be more telling. For instance, having a previous blond gf (Lee) seems minor when contrasted to their sharp differences in personality and background. And the X-Woman/Superhero thing just reflects a tendency to pair folks on superhero teams with characters who are on the cast. If it was as simple as that, he should be get involved with Rogue, Storm, Polaris, etc.

[Omega Alpha]

I know Emma hasn't been in the Hellfire Club in years. But her membership is still reflective of her character. For example, it takes a certain type of person to commit premeditated murder. Just because a murderer has been re-offended and has behaved well in prison, that doesn't the fact that the prisoner had something in himself that is very different than the rest of us (that gave them the capacity to do such a horrendous act). Emma's past acts reflect aspects of her personality/character.

And her acts weren't some youthful indiscretion. She was a mature, capable businesswoman. She's isn't as likely to change her attitude as much as a juvenile offender for instance. Plus, her bad acts weren't just done "on camera." She was the White Queen prior to her first appearance. Even after she reformed, she's behaves certain ways.

There's a vast spectrum of human behavior. Just because she left the Club for the X-Men doesn't mean that she has the moral code that other X-Men may have.

She has been shown to have much more ethics than Xavier, and more standards about killing than Wolverine, for example, and is as dedicated to the cause as anyone, and cares about the students more than anyone, even him.
Besides, he proposed to Jean after she blew up an entire galaxy.



To me, this isn't very persuasive. I think the interpersonal characteristics would be more telling. For instance, having a previous blond gf (Lee) seems minor when contrasted to their sharp differences in personality and background. And the X-Woman/Superhero thing just reflects a tendency to pair folks on superhero teams with characters who are on the cast. If it was as simple as that, he should be get involved with Rogue, Storm, Polaris, etc.

Every woman Scott ever dated or was interested was either a superhero or a woman in a man dominated business (like superheroics is), meaning they had to be strong to survive in a not very favorable enviroment. Tony Stark sleeping with 2 or 3 Avengers when he banged 700 other women doesn't shown a patter, in Scott's case it does. And he said himself that he couldn't talk the darker feelings he had with Jean, so he did it with a former villain. Who, unlike Jean, is an often insecure and deeply screwed up person, like he is. She matches his type both physically and emotionally as much if not more than any woman, and certainly more than a fish woman. Your problem i suppose is because her name isn't Jean Grey.

[spoon_jenkins]

Your problem i suppose is because her name isn't Jean Grey.
Dude, this is a discussion about comic books. There no need to imply that I'm lying about my reasoning (i.e. that I don't think what I say I think and my real "problem" is something else), be combative about it, or take personal potshots. We disagree about whether a fictional character's behavior is "in character."

[Citizen V]

I was wondering why the status quo seems so important some people. Often times when a new writer comes on board they hit the reset button or wipe away something to clean the ol' slate, or fans will grumble about something needing to be a certain way.

So really, is the status quo that important?

To a point,fans are spoiled.Some things have been done the same for so long,when its changed..some people will not like it.Even if its something that might be good.How to handle such a thing now,i dont know.

[EnDwiGast]

I'm sure if anyone notices what I choose to comment on, I'd probably be labelled a status quo guy, but I don't consider myself to be one.

I'm very glad to see writers take character from point "A" to point "B." That is if they show that character growth or change.

But what we often get is character at point "A" is suddenly at point "B." If there isn't a good enough explanation - then I start thinking of them as being two separate characters. Since people skipping from point "A" to point "B" are usually poor writers (even though they may be very popular) - I'd just as soon see what they did erased as soon as they are gone from the title.

I think a lot of seemingly "status quo" people don't mind change so much as they have expectations writers will competently move the story forward in an organic way. But whether its a flaw in the ability of the writer -- or a cheap gimmick to boost sales -- so much status quo changing stories are so inferior to the original that you want to see the changes undone, or better yet, not happen at all.

[EnDwiGast]

I also wanted to add that a part of healthy comic book storytelling is experimenting and taking chances. If those changes do not improve the situation, then it seems perfectly natural to undo those changes and try a new direction.

[Novaya Havoc]

I'm sure if anyone notices what I choose to comment on, I'd probably be labelled a status quo guy, but I don't consider myself to be one.

I'm very glad to see writers take character from point "A" to point "B." That is if they show that character growth or change.

But what we often get is character at point "A" is suddenly at point "B." If there isn't a good enough explanation - then I start thinking of them as being two separate characters. Since people skipping from point "A" to point "B" are usually poor writers (even though they may be very popular) - I'd just as soon see what they did erased as soon as they are gone from the title.

I think a lot of seemingly "status quo" people don't mind change so much as they have expectations writers will competently move the story forward in an organic way. But whether its a flaw in the ability of the writer -- or a cheap gimmick to boost sales -- so much status quo changing stories are so inferior to the original that you want to see the changes undone, or better yet, not happen at all.

I agree with this sentiment.

Characters grow. Reboots, retcons, drastic redesigns, etc reek of ways to either shoehorn a character into a role. Which, IMO, demonstrates weak writing.

I don't want Nocturne living in 2001, nor do I want Dazzler back in 1981. But I do want to see NOCTURNE and DAZZLER shining through the page, and not some random character with the same name.