Claremont Reflects On Jean Grey, Muses On New Wolverine, X-Men Films

**CBR News** · 03-20-2013, 01:58 PM

Legendary X-writer Chris Claremont explains why he believes Marvel's X-Men have lost their uniqueness, why he's focusing on his prose career and what he expects from the "The Wolverine" and "Days of Future Past" films.

Full article here.

**NewMutant** · 03-20-2013, 02:12 PM

Great interview.

"Now, unfortunately for me as a reader, you have a situation where the X-Men are totally public, where they're now merging with all the other teams. The series, the concept, has lost its uniqueness. That which made it fundamentally different from the Fantastic Four, from the Avengers, from even the Defenders -- it's now just another group of committed superheroes. Some of them work with the Avengers, some of them work with the Fantastic Four, some of the Fantastic Four work with them. It's all one big, homogeneous agglomeration, which, for me as a reader, is not that interesting, sadly."

"And as anyone who's read comic books the last twenty years has noticed, that has become an unfortunate defining element of the whole X-canon. It's like Scott has been damaged goods ever since, and for all I know that could be the rationale for why he's now, as I understand it, a villain."

These points are huge.

**JoseDRivera7** · 03-20-2013, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by NewMutant

These points are huge.

Not really seeing as he hasn't read much of the current comics.

**JoseDRivera7** · 03-20-2013, 02:18 PM

Double post

**Foon4000** · 03-20-2013, 02:25 PM

The pitch I made to Jim Shooter was that we utilize her older sister, Sarah. For me, as a writer, that was a far more intriguing reality, because we'd introduce a Grey back into the team, but we would introduce a Grey who was a mutant, who hated the idea of being a mutant, who hated the idea of being an X-Man, yet accepted the responsibility. More importantly, she was uninvolved with any of the four guys.

I mean, on one level, I was looking at it and thinking, "If you bring back Jean and Scott dumps his wife and his newborn baby, to go back and embrace his old girlfriend... ew, icky, disaster for the boy."

And as anyone who's read comic books the last twenty years has noticed, that has become an unfortunate defining element of the whole X-canon. It's like Scott has been damaged goods ever since, and for all I know that could be the rationale for why he's now, as I understand it, a villain.

That's the best summary of 'The Problem with Cyclops' that I've read in a while.

**Optic Rage** · 03-20-2013, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Foon4000

That's the best summary of 'The Problem with Cyclops' that I've read in a while.

lol yeah, a story that happened 25 years ago is totally a relevant problem.

**Phoenix Egg** · 03-20-2013, 02:28 PM

Personally glad that Jean wasn't permanently fridged. He's spot on with everything else. I'm tired of the damned Avengers being in 9 out of every 10 issues of every single X-Men comic as well.

**Statham** · 03-20-2013, 02:29 PM

His approach to the films sounds utterly stupid. Why would we want a 'direct adaptation' of stories involving these characters? Would fans really want to see just plain old straight-up adaptations of stories they've known and read for years with no real imagination or effort put into adapting them? Who's to say that the person directing the material doesn't have a vision that's just as viable as Claremont's? With Claremont's approach, we'd have no Tim Burton Batman. No Richard Donner Superman. No Singer X-Men. No Whedon Avengers. Because all of those take elements of the characters as they are in the comics, and they're filtered to match a director's ideas. Claremont's idea sounds absolutely terrible, and just shows, to me, that he needs to have some kind of disconnect from these characters, at times. As it is, though, I'm not surprised he isn't finding comics work, any more. Just as he once succeeded the likes of Stan with his developed writing style, the writing style expected in most comics these days is above and beyond the purple-prosish stuff he was putting out across his best time on the X-Titles.

**JoseDRivera7** · 03-20-2013, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Statham

His approach to the films sounds utterly stupid. Why would we want a 'direct adaptation' of stories involving these characters? Would fans really want to see just plain old straight-up adaptations of stories they've known and read for years with no real imagination or effort put into adapting them? Who's to say that the person directing the material doesn't have a vision that's just as viable as Claremont's? With Claremont's approach, we'd have no Tim Burton Batman. No Richard Donner Superman. No Singer X-Men. No Whedon Avengers. Because all of those take elements of the characters as they are in the comics, and they're filtered to match a director's ideas. Claremont's idea sounds absolutely terrible, and just shows, to me, that he needs to have some kind of disconnect from these characters, at times. As it is, though, I'm not surprised he isn't finding comics work, any more. Just as he once succeeded the likes of Stan with his developed writing style, the writing style expected in most comics these days is above and beyond the purple-prosish stuff he was putting out across his best time on the X-Titles.

Damn, you killed him. I wonder how his disciples on this board are going to react.

**airdreams** · 03-20-2013, 02:42 PM

I know some will find it ridiculous but basically I begin to consider Cyclops as Batman's counterpart in Marvel.

Really enjoy the interview though.

**Kaiolino** · 03-20-2013, 02:42 PM

I don't think you can do a proper minority allegory with only a couple hundred mutants. I prefer Morrison's mutant boom and culture.

**Optic Rage** · 03-20-2013, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Phoenix Egg

Personally glad that Jean wasn't permanently fridged. He's spot on with everything else. I'm tired of the damned Avengers being in 9 out of every 10 issues of every single X-Men comic as well.

They've been in 2 issues of Bendis' 12 issues so far. I don't think they've been in W&TXM since AvX? Slight exaggeration.

**stussyjones** · 03-20-2013, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Kaiolino

I don't think you can do a proper minority allegory with only a couple hundred mutants. I prefer Morrison's mutant boom and culture.

Yeah me 2.

**jollygoldfish** · 03-20-2013, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Statham

His approach to the films sounds utterly stupid. Why would we want a 'direct adaptation' of stories involving these characters? Would fans really want to see just plain old straight-up adaptations of stories they've known and read for years with no real imagination or effort put into adapting them? Who's to say that the person directing the material doesn't have a vision that's just as viable as Claremont's? With Claremont's approach, we'd have no Tim Burton Batman. No Richard Donner Superman. No Singer X-Men. No Whedon Avengers. Because all of those take elements of the characters as they are in the comics, and they're filtered to match a director's ideas. Claremont's idea sounds absolutely terrible, and just shows, to me, that he needs to have some kind of disconnect from these characters, at times.

They got Darren Aronofsky on board. DARREN ARONOFSKY. That's enough for me to know it must have been good.