It's Not Easy Being Blue: Nightcrawler Appreciation

[Blue_Collar_Nerd]

Steven Sanders is apearently doing the artwork for W&TXM #19 and is looking for cameos ideas. I had a humble suggestion...

[Drelion]

Steven Sanders is apearently doing the artwork for W&TXM #19 and is looking for cameos ideas. I had a humble suggestion...

Hahahahaha! YES!

[IndigoLady8]

Yeah, it's as if they expect us to believe Cyclops' actions weren't enough already to make him look bad. On a different note, I don't think it's gender or sexual orientation that makes Nightcrawler an "other," though the theory of marginalizing or pigeonholing characters based on that is noteworthy. Rather, I think Kurt has been so marginalized because of religion. Of course, a character who is openly religious without being a fanatical villain or a wimpy, Flanderized stereotype would interfere with this constant push of anti-heroes as good guys.

Well said. I think that is one of the reasons Joey Q did not like Kurt. Pop culture seems to be into Christian bashing these days. It was a really stupid move on Marvel's part not to realize that some of the characters having religion, such as Kitty Pryde or Kurt make them more three dimensional. People can relate to them. That and Kurt's nobility and romantic nature was what drew me to the character in the first place. That's why having Kurt mercilessly stereotyped then uselessly martyred. Then having Darkholme shoved down my throat as a replacement was painful enough for me to start boycotting Marvel. I enjoy the character for his personality, not his powers. Why that seems to threaten the fanboys that run Marvel I will never understand except what you mentioned Valerie. When you're trying to promote a bunch of anti-heroes, you can't have a real hero around for comparison. Yet they continue to do so even as comic sales decrease. If we are lucky, maybe Disney will step in and weave their magic before the Marvel comics division goes under.

[DevilishRogue]

Well said. I think that is one of the reasons Joey Q did not like Kurt. Pop culture seems to be into Christian bashing these days. It was a really stupid move on Marvel's part not to realize that some of the characters having religion, such as Kitty Pryde or Kurt make them more three dimensional. People can relate to them. That and Kurt's nobility and romantic nature was what drew me to the character in the first place. That's why having Kurt mercilessly stereotyped then uselessly martyred. Then having Darkholme shoved down my throat as a replacement was painful enough for me to start boycotting Marvel. I enjoy the character for his personality, not his powers. Why that seems to threaten the fanboys that run Marvel I will never understand except what you mentioned Valerie. When you're trying to promote a bunch of anti-heroes, you can't have a real hero around for comparison. Yet they continue to do so even as comic sales decrease. If we are lucky, maybe Disney will step in and weave their magic before the Marvel comics division goes under.

Im not sure I agree that Joe Quesada hates NC or anything to do with his religion, I never really heard him mention him. Besides, Joe Q was EIC when Kurt was being pushed in Uncanny and had his own series. I think he's pretty indifferent to those who arent his pets. Beast and other athiest characters are being treated pretty poorly too. I think any character that thinks too much about anything wether through religion or Science is getting the shaft. All the characters are now about their primal "instincts" and that seems to be the theme. Science and religion has failed now we must turn to our animal instincts! They are trying to appeal to a certain demographic and they think they are giving them what they want. As if even avid video game players cant enjoy a story without shock or some substance.

[Sundowhn]

It seems more and more that they just don't know what they're doing full-stop.

One problem is that by trying to appeal to potential new readers, they lose old readers, conversely, they claim that if they appeal to long-time readers, it is a turn-off for new ones (continuity, etc). It didn't seem to be much of a problem in the Marvel comic hey-day, but then again they weren't such an expansive industry then that included so many different versions of the character. Way back when, the only real representations of characters were found in comics. Now that imagery conflicts with the movie-verse, the evo-verse, the tv-verse, the game-verse, etc. If new readers happen to stumble into comics, they (I think) probably come in with no idea what the real story of the characters are, unless they've bothered to research. Nightcrawler was partially a victim of this, and partially a victim of not fitting into the easy-to-write stereotype pushed by the main office. He was a character you had to know the story of, and think about how to depict. His morals also conflicted with the Big Exciting Idea of the Summers saga leading into AvX.

Marvel's attempt to cater to the latter group has led to shock story-telling, plot-centred comics rather than character themed (barring the most popular of course) and a disregard for continuity. They are hiring writers who buy into this, it seems, if you follow interviews.

This whole new design that came in with Joey Q has held sway for over a decade. In that time, the message has been sent over and over that it just isn't "safe" to get attached to characters or even team line-ups. They have a total disregard for long-term fans, and even seem to make fun of them for getting so emotional over characters. What else keeps people consistently purchasing comics if not the characters and a psychological investment in them? Makes no sense.

It seems to me that there are only the main four X-Men that are in no real danger of being killed off for a plot or disappearing into comic limbo. They get consistent development at the expense of other characters. They'll also show up in multiple titles.
Wolverine -- no way he's going anywhere. The best way to sell a title is to have him in it. The movies just cemented this.
Cyclops -- the representative of the X-Men and a huge editorial favourite. The Summers family with Scott as the head has been the focus of Marvel for ages. Though it seems that they might be grooming Havok to replace him on the short-term. We'll see.
Storm -- the only non-white character to make the big-time. She's not going anywhere and will be used in multiple titles. Regardless of how writers use her, she keeps the X-Men politically correct.
Rogue -- sexy (insert snort of laughter), ass-kicking southern belle with a recognizable character image. Both an editorial favourite and a fanboy fantasy. Like a cockroach, she always turns up.

Marvel is undermining themselves by only putting value on these four. How many stories can you tell just with these guys before they grow utterly stale?

[M.Hammerman]

Much as I prefer to avoid discussing religion, I can't help suggesting the conflict might be broader than that, that it might be about morals in general rather than a specific doctrine or set of beliefs. I have to admit I'm a bit uncomfortable with the argument that the mistreatment of Kurt is specifically about Christian-bashing in that from my perspective, Christianity seems pretty dominant across the Western world... Bottom line, I agree with D-Rogue that atheist characters with brains and morals (like Beast) have it just as bad.

[M.Hammerman]

More Kurt being awesome.

Does teleporting off the Red Skull's arm count? Because that's what happens here, in the 1999 X-Men Annual.

This is the issue I was trying to figure out whether I'd just dreamed up a few days ago, where Fury tricks Kurt into teleporting away a body part, which started me to thinking about how freaking scary teleporting is... Also, getting back to morals, this issue was actually pretty interesting in general for highlighting the conflict between a Fury/SHIELD way of doing things versus a Kurt/good kind of X-Men way of doing things. It's a conflict I'd like to see exploited more often these days.

[Karl-5]

Remember when we were discussing that red mark over Darkholme's left eye? A friend of mine suggested that it was related to the Crimson Dawn, so I looked that up. Dunno if the artist intended that, but it sure fits. However, that just brings up the question of what happened and what is his connection to the Crimson Dawn.

[Sundowhn]

Remember when we were discussing that red mark over Darkholme's left eye? A friend of mine suggested that it was related to the Crimson Dawn, so I looked that up. Dunno if the artist intended that, but it sure fits. However, that just brings up the question of what happened and what is his connection to the Crimson Dawn.

That came up before, but I think it was on the main board, when they first brought him in.

When I had added something about the tattoo in a story, I did some AoA research and found references where people who had been taken prisoner by Apocalypse or put in the breeding pens were marked. Then again AoA Jean has the mark, and hers apparently came from Sinister. Be nice if it was explained, though.

[Sundowhn]

Does teleporting off the Red Skull's arm count? Because that's what happens here, in the 1999 X-Men Annual.

This is the issue I was trying to figure out whether I'd just dreamed up a few days ago, where Fury tricks Kurt into teleporting away a body part, which started me to thinking about how freaking scary teleporting is... Also, getting back to morals, this issue was actually pretty interesting in general for highlighting the conflict between a Fury/SHIELD way of doing things versus a Kurt/good kind of X-Men way of doing things. It's a conflict I'd like to see exploited more often these days.

Interesting issue. It's not one I've ever read. I can see where teleporting would be pretty scary. Kurt W was written with having a near phobia of teleporting blind, or materializing into something -- understandably so. It makes you wonder how many near misses he had in his life, especially when he was still learning to understand his powers.

I think Schism, as a general rule, was intended to highlight conflicts in the way you mentioned. It just didn't necessarily work as intended because Logan was on the Gold side, who were suppose to be more of the good guy thing. Scott and the Utopia bunch were intended to be the militant extremists, from what I gathered.

[DevilishRogue]

Much as I prefer to avoid discussing religion, I can't help suggesting the conflict might be broader than that, that it might be about morals in general rather than a specific doctrine or set of beliefs. I have to admit I'm a bit uncomfortable with the argument that the mistreatment of Kurt is specifically about Christian-bashing in that from my perspective, Christianity seems pretty dominant across the Western world... Bottom line, I agree with D-Rogue that atheist characters with brains and morals (like Beast) have it just as bad.

I agree. Kurt used his faith for the good of others while Henry used Science, now Hank is either mocked as a charcter or shown as imoral and wanting Logans, the manliest X-Man of alls, approval. Lol. Can it get any more eyeroll inducing? Lets face it, scientists or spiritual people have very rarely been portrayed as badass ultimate hero everyone looks up to, similar things are happening to Peter Parker as well. He uses science (and compassion) less now and more brute force. Geeks and science nerds, many who are athiest, get mocked a lot as well.

I DO LOVE those scans you posted Marg. I love that annual to pieces! :-D

[M.Hammerman]

I agree. Kurt used his faith for the good of others while Henry used Science, now Hank is either mocked as a charcter or shown as imoral and wanting Logans, the manliest X-Man of alls, approval. Lol. Can it get any more eyeroll inducing? Lets face it, scientists or spiritual people have very rarely been portrayed as badass ultimate hero everyone looks up to, similar things are happening to Peter Parker as well. He uses science (and compassion) less now and more brute force. Geeks and science nerds, many who are athiest, get mocked a lot as well.

I DO LOVE those scans you posted Marg. I love that annual to pieces! :-D

Maybe we could just call it an all-encompassing war on sensitivity and leave it at that...? And yeah, I love than annual too (now that I remembered about it and re-read it). Fury calls Kurt, Kitty, and Peter a bunch of "bozos" (to which Kurt takes incredulous offense). I do so love when Fury shows up and makes with the old-timey insults. LOL

[M.Hammerman]

I think Schism, as a general rule, was intended to highlight conflicts in the way you mentioned. It just didn't necessarily work as intended because Logan was on the Gold side, who were suppose to be more of the good guy thing. Scott and the Utopia bunch were intended to be the militant extremists, from what I gathered.

I did actually like Schism a lot for what it was. I thought having the six different artists or whatever was particularly effective for showing different shades of the "argument" (in the sense that Cyke comes off really differently depending on who's drawing him etc.). I still do like to think that Logan going against Scott had at least something to do with Logan's missing and feeling guilty about Kurt; even if it wasn't explicitly written as that, you could read a parallel into Idie's being convinced she's a monster and Scott's "community" not doing much to help her. Also, I know, as D-Rogue says, that it might not be warranted given everything he's done lately (or in the last couple decades, even) but I have to hold out hope that old Logan is in there somewhere--somehow, someway, capable of redeeming himself...

[DevilishRogue]

Maybe we could just call it an all-encompassing war on sensitivity and leave it at that...? And yeah, I love than annual too (now that I remembered about it and re-read it). Fury calls Kurt, Kitty, and Peter a bunch of "bozos" (to which Kurt takes incredulous offense). I do so love when Fury shows up and makes with the old-timey insults. LOL

I think I can agree with that. And I miss Fury. The only character around that still talks like that is Thing. :-D

Here's Kurt being... er, acrobatic.

[Sundowhn]

I did actually like Schism a lot for what it was. I thought having the six different artists or whatever was particularly effective for showing different shades of the "argument" (in the sense that Cyke comes off really differently depending on who's drawing him etc.). I still do like to think that Logan going against Scott had at least something to do with Logan's missing and feeling guilty about Kurt; even if it wasn't explicitly written as that, you could read a parallel into Idie's being convinced she's a monster and Scott's "community" not doing much to help her. Also, I know, as D-Rogue says, that it might not be warranted given everything he's done lately (or in the last couple decades, even) but I have to hold out hope that old Logan is in there somewhere--somehow, someway, capable of redeeming himself...

See, as over-exposed as Logan is, I do still find him a compelling character. I don't hate him at all; far from it. So much of my frustration stems from him being over-used, written by so many different writers and present in so many titles that he now has a completely conflicting nature with a resulting lack of consistency. It keeps him from being believable any longer.

It is also the matter of other characters -- most notably Kurt -- being used as a way to advance Logan's character development, rather than their own. I have a major problem with that, but then it isn't just Wolverine either, you see the same thing with Namor and Emma for Scott and actually both Magneto and Gambit for Rogue. The supporting characters are expendable to highlight the editor's choice of a main character.

Saying that, I agree that Logan's actions in Schism were probably a result of a type of loyalty to Kurt's memory and Kurt's belief in Xavier's dream. He has to know how horrified Kurt would be with Scott's increased militaristic tone against humanity.