|X-Universe >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Poppycock.
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 at 04:50:02 am EDT (Viewed 383 times)
Reply Subj: Poppycock.
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 at 11:26:51 am EDT (Viewed 448 times)
Quote:The power of undeserved nostalgia strikes again.
Quote:Nonsense. She was an original Stan Lee character. Rachel, Hope, Maddie and all these other Jean knock offs aren't.
She was a stereotypical Stan Lee-type "good girl", and like pre-motherhood Sue Storm, original Wanda, and of course Betty Brant, Gwen Stacey, Victoria Bentley (remember her?), original Jane Foster etc. that made her nice, sensible and pretty bland (as well as pretty, but bland). She did not have the streak of bad girl that characterised Stan Lee's more successful female creations (Black Widow, the Wasp, and of course Mary Jane Watson). In an interview conducted ca. 1981 in The X-Men Companion I, Dave Cockrum ("in the '60s, all the girl characters [Stan Lee] created were simps--the housewife heroes.") goes on about how he and Chris Claremont struggled to make her interesting. (Not knowing that that work would be largely undone when it was determined that Jean wasn't the Phoenix)
Quote:What was the point of killing her off in the first place? So we could get years of Cyclops romping with Emma. Whatever the plan it never turned into anything interesting. (Emma's sassy comments got old quick)
I wouldn't complain if Grant Morrison's entire run had never happened, but the thing now is not to cry over spilt milk but to ask what would be the point of bringing Jean back other than to reunite her with Scott (not in itself that attractive a prospect given the complaints about the "JeanScott entity" from some quarters during the 1990s) and to prove once more that death is not very meaningful in the X-books? As far as I can see the main reason would still be a nostalgia not warranted by Jean's actual in-story form.
Quote:I for one am very much against it. The first time they did it, at the launch of the original X-Factor, is the event I have always considered the one where the rot set in within the X-franchise. Among other things it destroyed Cyclops as a character, and to his recent death I would say he still hasn't recovered. And the very negative effects of the revival of the O5 then were IMO purely due to the nostalgia of a bunch of fans-turned-creators, i. e. to the same kind of forces that destroyed the Spider-franchise in 2007 with "One More Day" etc.
Quote:It is so not the same thing. Bringing back a long standing character is not the same as the devil warping reality and robbing a franchise of 20 years of history.
Way to miss the point. What I said was that the motivation of the creators involved was in effect the same. But the two events are comparable in that both cases the negative effects far outweighed the "good" they were supposed to do.
Quote:The second time they did it, with the time-displaced O5 (we've been given to understand by Marvel that they really are the original five X-Men, not people from an alternate timeline) was, as far as I can see, despised by a large part of X-fandom. So teen Jean is the "one true Jean", just younger, and remembering the blandness of adult Jean, I am very skeptic about the likely effects of replacing Jeen with Jean, and I consider the argument that the existence of teen Jean somehow proves that adult Jean must return nonsensical.
Quote:Complete nonsense. If Jean was useless then why have teen Jean?
Quote:Jean matters or she doesn't. If she doesn't then don't use teen Jean.
Quote:If she does then use the original. This idiotic idea Marvel is doing where they are using teen Jean and Old Man Logan instead of deciding to let the characters rest or using the originals is what is nonsensical. Use the originals or let the originals stay dead. Don't let the originals stay dead and use their idiot past and future selves. It's f*cking retarded. These derivative characters are the rot killing the X-Men franchise. No one's an original anymore...they've been replaced with their alternate timeline knock off or clone or long lost child.
I disagree with this.
Quote:Cable (and by extension Stryfe) may be a crappy character, but that's how he was created before it was decided to make him Scott and Madelyne's son. The fact that this was retconned in later was merely one of the many consequences of the disastrous first revival of Jean Grey (ca. X-Factor #1).
Quote:Cable was crappy before he became Scott and Madelyne's son. He became crappier still with the revelation. I'm all for revealing it isn't true and that Cable is NOT Scott and Madelyne's son. Scott and Jean would both be better off not being connected to that trash character.
Oh please. This is just wanting to reconstruct the X-universe to suit your favourites and the dogmas you set up. As it was, the fact that little Nathan turned out to be Cable, that Jean and Scott spent several years in the future raising him, was the only thing that at least partially salvaged Scott's character. (It also showed that Grant Morrison's rationale for breaking Jean and Scott up because Scott's love for Jean was somehow immature is complete codswallop, but that is by the by).
Quote:Hope is someone I consider more a plot device than a character. Had Jean still lived at the time, Hope would probably still have appeared in the same storyline, only in that case she might not have resembled Jean as much. At least IMO.
Quote:She is a plot device. I'm all for retconning her existence away next time the timeline burps and readjusts.
And once again a fan wants continuity changed to suit the dogma they proclaim. Stopping to use her, if need be killing her off would be perfectly sufficient.
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software|