Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 298
  1. #196
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    3,730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    Event books have always been a part of comics. I think they have simply been done better. As for UXM, I don't read it and that is because everyone in it is pretty much unlikable to me. They are very heroic but everyone in it has a personality that in real life would essentially make them anti-social assholes. Well at least the main guys. I don't really know how the kids are.

    I think a comic needs its heroes to be both heroic and at least some of them to be likable. Flaws are fine as well but the flaws of Emma, Cyke, Magik, and Mags just make them wholly unlikable to me especially when they rarely have to pay for those flaws and when those flaws are accompanied by an arrogance in which the characters seem to lack any ability to be critical of themselves regarding those flaws.
    Couldn't put it better myself.

    If I can't like a character I find it impossible to care about what happens to them. And Marvel have made too many of the X Men unlikeable. It's childish.

  2. #197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by motherofpearl1 View Post
    Couldn't put it better myself.

    If I can't like a character I find it impossible to care about what happens to them. And Marvel have made too many of the X Men unlikeable. It's childish.
    To me is more about the new recruits really. I find them completely unlikeable...couldn't care less about them.

    Whedon made me like Armor and Blindfold and Aaron makes me like Broo and Warbird and Idie (I still throughly dislike Quentin Quire though but I think that's the idea).

    Maybe creating new mutants is not one of Bendis' strenght.

  3. #198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock69 View Post
    Whedon made me like Armor and Blindfold and Aaron makes me like Broo and Warbird and Idie
    Well this tells me all I need to know.

  4. #199
    Senior Member MichaelChen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilishRogue View Post
    Yeah, I never minded Logan killing because I felt he did it as a last resort and he used his brain to find other solutions when he had the luxury. His being an asshole all the time has also been blown out of proportion. I also remember issues upon issues where classic Logan wasn't rude or insulting so its not like old Logan lacked the ability to control himself both physically and verbally in the past. I really guess it comes about to when the person started reading when they mention "old Logan" or they viewed the classic issues differently from the way I have. People take certain traits of a character and that's all they see. To me that is really boring.

    I agree on the all over the map portrayal of Logan. Its when he always contradicts his less violent side that's the problem for me. Not that he has one. To me Logan should be a guy who will go there only when he feels he must but try to use his brain, patience and compassion when he can, that's always been his struggle. Of course that doesn't mean Logan wont have moments of jerkiness like most humans do even without an animal struggle. He's always been a bit moody. Even under Claremont. Obviously for some writers being moody means all around asshole.




    I agree if it isn't too over the top like Logan going from bloodthirsty to tender several times within an issue or storyline because it makes him look insane and incompetent but I do agree the X-men response to him is too unrealistic. Not to mention it doesn't completely gel with the X-Men's past responses to him when he's in feral mode. They always tried to reign him in if they felt he would go over a line and he was even less unstable then.
    I think the worst change to Logan is that at some point his berzerker rage stopped being a weakness in a character who was basically a samurai, and became the power of a small Hulk type.

    Initially, Logan losing control made him stupid. It was why he lost that first fight with Shingen, for example. However, it was a weakness he defeated most of the time. That he usually defeated his inner-beast was a big part of what made Logan cool, made him the ultimate Samurai.

    At some point writers decided that the inner-beast was his power, not his weakness, and everything went to Hell. Wolverine became the guy you watched to see him go nuts and become invincible because he was nuts. It ruined him as a character.

  5. #200
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    I have no problem with him being a living contradiction and having both a savage and tender side. I have a problem with there really not being any consequences when his savage side came out. Given the dynamic the X-men had going on, I think someone with Wolverine's nature should have had more detractors within the X-men. And if you read my earlier posts there is a difference between being likable and heroic. A soldier is heroic. It doesn't mean he has a likable personality. Like trying to save a little girl? Well duh, that is what a hero should do.
    We're obviously not going to agree on this. It is not just that Logan saved Katie Power, but how he saved heri UXM #205, but also how he wanted to protect her emotionally etc., so that instead of letting her help him by disintegrating some of his enemies (which she could have done with her powers) he asked her to sit aside with her eyes closed while he finished the fight. He asked her to trust him and showed he deserved that trust.

    I not only read your earlier post, I already pointed out that IMO the 1980s Wolverine was both heroic AND likeable, and though you are clearly think that the X-Men should hate and dislike him as much as you as a reader (or Angel as a character) did at the time, that is not how the dynamics in the team worked. Wolverine had a personality that enabled him to make friends easily (as a character at the time he resembled John Wayne's onscreen personality a lot, which also included genuinely scary, but not totally unsympathetic and unredeemable characters like Ethan Edwards in "The Searchers"). For the most part, the X-Men understood that Logan had a savage side (which often enough enabled them to survive in a fight), but they saw that he was aware of his failings (this awareness was a main reason at the time for refusing to accept leadership positions) and that he was doing his best to keep it in check. And there you can perhaps argue that even without his Christian ethics (forgiveness), Kurt may have thought that he was helping Logan to become a better person more by being his friend than by distancing himself from him.

    And weary can also be used to describe when you are tired or annoyed with someone. My use of it was not to say the X-men were cautious of Gambit although it is true they were. My use of weary was to say they expressed annoyance or lack of patience with him because Gambit had an uncanny ability to get under people's skin and annoy them. Wolverine was not merely cautious of him, he also seemed annoyed with him. As was Jubilee, Iceman, Cyke after the Jeanbot thing, etc. So the X-men were both wary and weary of him.

    The point is I think both Gambit and Wolverine are characters with personalities that should annoy people and get under people's skin regardless of whatever heroic deeds they do. Wolverine far too often never had that depicted while Gambit always had his detractors and rightfully so.
    I'm not sure if you're not being a little disingenuous, as you also used "weary" with reference to Logan (a character who throughout the 1970s and 1980s got closer and closer to many of his fellow X-Men), while the distrust against Gambit was an almost immediate reaction and "weary" would imply that the X-Men at first trusted him and after being with him for a considerable time they they changed their original (more positive) impression. And the word "weary" is clearly inappropriate to Angel leaving the X-Men because of Wolverine after serving together with him for a handful of issues. Also, I think that while Gambit had a way of annoying lots of people, possibly deliberately, Logan really only did that with Cyclops and to a lesser extent Charles Xavier, and those two did not become "weary" of Logan, but gradually realized that beneath his brusque exterior he genuinely respected them and maybe even a little more.

  6. #201
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    Event books have always been a part of comics. I think they have simply been done better.
    As someone who started reading superhero comics in the 1960s and 1970s I have to disagree. Event books have not always been part of comics, unless you define "event" as "any comic story that contains more than one part".

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    Again the bold is really my beef with Wolverine. I love the fact he has contradictions and can be blood thristy one minute and tender the next. It makes for a compelling character. However, only if the people around him respond to that contradiction in an appropriate manner.
    And by "appropriate manner" you clearly mean "the way I react to him as a reader". As a reader you obviously have no reason e. g. to feel grateful and indebted to him for saving your life on multiple occasions, for being there as a friend when you needed one etc...

    (Please note that in my comments I am talking about Logan as he was up until the 1990s, I would say that his more recent characterization and that the way his teammates react to him have become quite different, although that is in part due to too many cooks, i. e. Wolverine's overexposure).

  7. #202
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,107

    Default

    I don't know, is this just my impression or have fans of various characters become more vicious to each other over the past decade or two? There used to be a time when it was perfectly possible to like both Cyclops and Wolverine (I know I did up until X-Factor #1), yet these days it seems to be mutually exclusive, that if you like Cyclops you must consider Logan the antichrist and so on. And are we getting into a self-reinforcing loop here, with fans becoming creators and gaining opportunities to live out their dislike of certain characters?

  8. #203
    BUY LOKI: AGENT OF ASGARD Kieran_Frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    London/NEW YORK
    Posts
    11,982

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rock69 View Post
    How old are you? Not trying to be a jerk, just genuinely curious.
    28 years old. Been reading comics since 1997 (Thunderbolts #1 was my first ever comic). Been an X-fan even longer, thanks to X-men: the Animated Series.

    Quote Originally Posted by Menshevik View Post
    I don't know, is this just my impression or have fans of various characters become more vicious to each other over the past decade or two? There used to be a time when it was perfectly possible to like both Cyclops and Wolverine (I know I did up until X-Factor #1), yet these days it seems to be mutually exclusive, that if you like Cyclops you must consider Logan the antichrist and so on. And are we getting into a self-reinforcing loop here, with fans becoming creators and gaining opportunities to live out their dislike of certain characters?
    It's partly because they are on opposite sides of a debate (you inevitably think one side is 'more just' in their philosophy than another, and it spirals from there). Very few are "utterly dead middle" when it comes to who they think is right (SEE: Civil War, AvX, the Ororo/BP marriage, Scarlet Witch, Kitty/Havok speeches, Namor vs. T'Challa fans).
    Last edited by Kieran_Frost; 12-02-2013 at 03:09 AM.
    "I don't know how to please you Lord, but I think the fact I try to please you, pleases you."

  9. #204
    BUY LOKI: AGENT OF ASGARD Kieran_Frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    London/NEW YORK
    Posts
    11,982

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    I will preface this by saying I only read review threads to keep in the loop so maybe I missed things. Cyke hasn't dealt with anything related to Xavier's death. He was confronted by the one guy who as he said was in no position to judge him (Wolverine) precisely so he could avoid having to deal with his role in Xavier's death in any meaningful way.
    I like your posts remy, but this is not true. Kieron Gillen's post AvX mini-series, his Uncanny X-men end, Bendis' Uncanny X-men... ALL deal with how Cyclops feels about Xavier's death, how it effects him. Even in All New X-men it came up.

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    Emma and Cyke haven't dealt with the Namor thing or her choking out except to just be mad at each other. Mags seems to have been undermining things for a while now with no one giving a shit.
    SEE: Uncanny X-men. It's all been discussed.

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    Furthermore, the UXM are right in a way that doesn't require them to ever be confronted with their missteps. If I contrast that with say Legion, Legion had good intentions and Legion helped a lot of people. However, he went about it in a way that led to mistrust in others and it ended up costing him when Cyke employed the Pyrrhic against him and Golden Xavier escaped. The UXM have alienated a lot of people but so far I can't see where it has cost them anything.
    Again, SEE: Uncanny X-men. They are constantly questioning their choices, wondering if they are right, and saying they have to be better, and have to make sure the other's done over-step. They aren't drowning in self-pity, but nor are they acting like every decision they make "must needs be right, for I is making it"
    "I don't know how to please you Lord, but I think the fact I try to please you, pleases you."

  10. #205
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    23

    Default

    I have to admit that I like most of the x-men books right now.

    All New X-Men/Uncanny X-Men: I realy like what Bendis is doing. But when he was writing the Avengers I was also the only one who always liked his writing.

    X-Men: I liked the first arc, but it's to early to say more, because, Brian Wood has to find his way when the story progresses.

    Wolverine & The X-Men: I liked this series from the start, it was a good thing after all this dark war-kind-of stuff going on with Utopia. It's just a fun read, and I will miss it when it ends in february.

    X-Men Legacy: It started strong but sometimes I just don't realy get into the story (second story-arc for example), and sometimes the art is not doing it for me.

    Cable & X-Force: It started strong and I still like it, even though the current story arc (starting with issue 15) doesn't do it for me.

    Uncanny X-Force: Okay, this one I don't like. Most of it is realy boring and wtf did Sam Humphries with Cassandra Nova? She was such an interessting character under Morrison and I liked how Whedon brought her back. But this? I don't even understand why she is there? It's like there is a new character and Humprhries just gave this character the name of Cassandra Nova. But he already did some very bad stuff with the Ultimates, so what was I expecting...

    Uncanny Avengers: I like how Remender went on with some stuff from his X-Force arc, even though I have to say I liked X-Force better than Uncanny Avengers. But all in all, it's realy fun.

    Astonishing X-Men: Just one issue so far, but this was realy good. It had some kind of old school vibe for me.


    I'm also reading through the whole Claremont era right now with the help of the Essential Line, and this I also like a lot. It's different, sure, but I realy doubt that today's comics are as bad as some people say here...

  11. #206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    Wolverine has always been a character with solo books. Cyke has always been a character defined by his being a team leader. So whether they have solo books or not is irrelevant. The only reason Wolverine gets solo books is because it is proven that he sells. That doesn't mean he is Marvel's golden boy. That means he is Marvel's cash cow.
    I would think that's why they made Logan leader of the X-men and Charles' heir.
    How are you not seeing this?

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    You act like Marvel doesn't plan these things out years in advance. You keep harping on Cyke being viewed as a mutant terrorist as if that is a bad thing when it comes to the X-books. The X-men were about protecting a world that hates and fears them and that concept seemed to run it's course after 50 years. So the writers crafted a narrative all so Cyke and his band of revolutionaries could best represent that ideal. The UXM are right were they should be given the concept of the X-men. The status quo has never been a good thing from an X-book perspective so the X-men who are most hated by the status quo are by definition then the true representatives of the X-men ideal.

    The story is and has always been about Cyke dude. Again, you don't put Brian Michael Bendis on UXM to write Cyke if Wolverine is the golden boy.
    No, I think they definitely planned to 'vilify' Scott while passing the X-torch to Logan.
    Now the 'legit' X-men is all about Wolverine and friends.

    Also, terrorism is generally viewed as a bad thing, so...
    Xavier's tactics were all about being reactionary symbols of good to allay humanity's fear about mutants (reminiscent of Superman).
    Scott tactics, while logical and justified, operate in a morally grey area, are more forcible, more political, and have a much greater potential for blowback than Charles'.
    Just give it time to get started.
    It would be a really boring book if Scott's revolution succeeded without a hitch.

    And if you're Marvel, you put Bendis on everything because the guy can sell.
    Again, if Aaron makes Wolverine look stupid...
    Last edited by Striderblack01; 12-02-2013 at 05:50 AM.

  12. #207
    The Professional marvell2100's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Where Giants Live.
    Posts
    21,463

    Default

    The problem is that there isn't much of a shade of gray when it comes to the black and white views between Scott and Logan. You'd think that mutants would be trying to become more unified but instead they're a lot more polarized. You're either pro-Scott or pro-Logan with very little in between. The fans have pretty much followed suit and formed their own camps. Other mutant leaders should be stepping forward and calling them both out for this nonsense but they've all of a sudden become sheepish. And we get one event after another that's steadily dividing both camps. I guess next tears event will be the one that brings both of them back together(following someone's death of course).
    We Want You! Join Us At CBR:Age of Marvels!

    CBB. We March Thru Your Thread With A Million MoFos.

  13. #208
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,107

    Default

    Some more thoughts on the "heroic vs. likeable" thing:

    Being likeable (which for simplicity's sake I define as "possessing qualities that make other persons like you") is not a function of possessing a stainless character or being a nice person, it may in fact be largely unrelated to these. Certainly in all kinds of fiction it is a bit of a cliché that unless it's the story's protagonist, the more popular a character is among the other characters, the more likely this person is intended to be the readers/consumers are supposed to root against. (Example: Flash Thompson in early Spider-Man; perhaps the most popular student at Midtown High, but also Peter Parker's antagonist and portrayed as a bit of a bully and a lout). So while you may feel that it is unfair and undeserved that a certain character is portrayed as popular despite their negative qualities, it is not necessarily unrealistic.

    Wolverine (and again I'm talking about his 1980s incarnation) possessed a number of qualities that made it easier to like him. He was an extrovert, easy-going in his manners, very sociable, he made you feel he was being sincere and that he truly cared for his friends as persons and not just as persons. He also seems to have something which is not always possible to convey in dry words and pictures, call it charisma or animal magnetism. In contrast, Cyclops, due to his traumatic childhood and upbringing, was very inhibited and repressed his emotions, which meant that outside the close coterie of the original five X-Men he was socially inept and, for the longest time, proved himself incapable of entering into a close friendship with anyone (even his own brother). You sometimes even got the feeling that he thought of his fellow X-Men primarily as subordinates, and he certainly often enough came over as a bit of a cold fish, emotionally.

    Another thing specifically about Wolverine: His feral side is something that he was shown to be unable to control completely, even though he always tried. So the question is whether he can be held completely responsible for what happens when his control slips, or whether his responsibility is diminished in the way a mentally handicapped person is. And I don't think it entirely implausible that a great number of his friends feel they can't hold him to the same standards as a fully competent person - you may see this as unfair, but at least in some cases that seems to have been how they were written (the X-Men also did not suddenly start hating Jean when the Phoenix made her destroy a planet). Chris Claremont, interviewed in "The X-Men Companion I" (1982) for instance said this re. Storm:

    CC: "I cannot really understand some critics' assessment of her as a hypocritical prig."

    Peter Sanderson: "Is that because she says she has sworn an oath against killing but nevertheless tolerates Wolverine's presence?"

    CC: "I can see where they might think that, but that was why I specifically threw in the line in the Savage Land scene (#116) about the lions on the veldt: she does not or did not view him as a man, as a being like herself. She thought of him as a lion who walked on two feet. You do not criticize a lion for going out and killing a wildebeest.
    That's what it does. By the same token, I was evolving a characterization of Wolverine, which is essentially stated in #140, where he essentially tells Nightcrawler, "If a man comes at me with fists, I'll meet him with fists. But if they draw a gun or threaten someone I'm protecting, they've crossed the line." "

    (Chris Claremont then went on to liken Wolverine's character to that of John Wayne's character in "The Shootist".)

  14. #209
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mimmic View Post
    Agree. The xbooks rate a D- with an F for effort. A few thoughts:

    When families grow they spread out. Holiday get-togethers would be impossible if they didn't. Xbooks need to feature "immediate families." Characters with the closest ties and the same goals should live/work together. Putting the toys back in the box is one thing; not every property, I mean character, needs to be on hand 24/7 and still wrapped in plastic.

    Writers and artists need to be thoughtfully paired and given crossover-free time to tell stories. Including done-in-ones. I think the current mindset is "content, content, content," quantity over quality, flash over substance, so until a seismic shift comes I don't see this happening.

    Character, not content and not concept, should be king. Show don't tell, show us what makes these characters tick, etc. Writers: read a book about writing fictional characters if this confuses you because it's not rocket science.

    Editors. The Xbooks need to hire some, period. I don't know what the current crop of "editors" actually do, besides overhype awful to okay books and pat their own fannies and suck up to the "talent," but they certainly don't edit. (This seems like a touchy subject. I got banned from Alvaro's Comic Boards for bringing this up.)

    Sadly, and most d. bag-sounding, the audience is part of the problem and fails to realize it. This one boggles my mind. How can somebody appreciate DPS and DoFP and Watchmen and not want to burn their Battle of the Atom issues? No matter which decade you started reading or what your favorite status quo is, you can still recognize a good story. Keep buying crap, that's all you'll get. Forget what we may want or need, I think they're putting out the lowest quality they think they can get away with. (By all means, anyone may feel free to misunderstand this and call me a nostalgia queen if it makes them feel better. While I do want characters to remember their own personal histories and relationships I don't want them to repeat them: I'm all for re-reading, not re-writing. I'd like to see characters moving forward.)

    Too much awful stuff has come out of the X-office (and many or most of all the Big 2 superhero franchises) not to sound alarms and it warms my cold heart to see "rants" like these. I hope in the future we get more of Remender's style of work and less of the Bendis/Aaron stuff (although I think they both have it in them to do good work, and good X-Men work, but they simply don't.)

    Someday we're going to be treated to a lengthy, literate, complex run on X-Men. Who will write, draw, edit it, and what year will this be? Who knows. Certainly nobody at Marvel.
    1. Characters have been moving forward.
    2. Quality (for the most part) is subjective.
    3. Remeder shouldn't be allowed to write any X-book that actually has something to so with the X-men.
    4. They have been showing and telling pretty well, actually.
    Wonder Man > Wonder Woman

    All of entertainment can be boiled down to either Sex or Death

    No amount of modern revisionism by the vocal internet minority can change the good work Bendis has done.

  15. #210
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mimmic View Post
    Agree. The xbooks rate a D- with an F for effort. A few thoughts:

    When families grow they spread out. Holiday get-togethers would be impossible if they didn't. Xbooks need to feature "immediate families." Characters with the closest ties and the same goals should live/work together. Putting the toys back in the box is one thing; not every property, I mean character, needs to be on hand 24/7 and still wrapped in plastic.

    Writers and artists need to be thoughtfully paired and given crossover-free time to tell stories. Including done-in-ones. I think the current mindset is "content, content, content," quantity over quality, flash over substance, so until a seismic shift comes I don't see this happening.

    Character, not content and not concept, should be king. Show don't tell, show us what makes these characters tick, etc. Writers: read a book about writing fictional characters if this confuses you because it's not rocket science.

    Editors. The Xbooks need to hire some, period. I don't know what the current crop of "editors" actually do, besides overhype awful to okay books and pat their own fannies and suck up to the "talent," but they certainly don't edit. (This seems like a touchy subject. I got banned from Alvaro's Comic Boards for bringing this up.)

    Sadly, and most d. bag-sounding, the audience is part of the problem and fails to realize it. This one boggles my mind. How can somebody appreciate DPS and DoFP and Watchmen and not want to burn their Battle of the Atom issues? No matter which decade you started reading or what your favorite status quo is, you can still recognize a good story. Keep buying crap, that's all you'll get. Forget what we may want or need, I think they're putting out the lowest quality they think they can get away with. (By all means, anyone may feel free to misunderstand this and call me a nostalgia queen if it makes them feel better. While I do want characters to remember their own personal histories and relationships I don't want them to repeat them: I'm all for re-reading, not re-writing. I'd like to see characters moving forward.)

    Too much awful stuff has come out of the X-office (and many or most of all the Big 2 superhero franchises) not to sound alarms and it warms my cold heart to see "rants" like these. I hope in the future we get more of Remender's style of work and less of the Bendis/Aaron stuff (although I think they both have it in them to do good work, and good X-Men work, but they simply don't.)

    Someday we're going to be treated to a lengthy, literate, complex run on X-Men. Who will write, draw, edit it, and what year will this be? Who knows. Certainly nobody at Marvel.
    Also, saying that the audience is the problem is incredibly elitist.
    Last edited by Dragonage2ftw; 12-02-2013 at 07:27 AM. Reason: Double post (kind of.)
    Wonder Man > Wonder Woman

    All of entertainment can be boiled down to either Sex or Death

    No amount of modern revisionism by the vocal internet minority can change the good work Bendis has done.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •