|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 18:48:00 GMT -5
yeah. . really just one. . LOL
I haven't read Marvel floppies in a long, long time (I pick up cheap trades at shows, so I have a bunch of Marvel stuff to get around to reading, but I simply won't support a $3.99 a month line wide price. . even tho they seem to have gotten much better on the LGBTQ stuff).
anyways, I *DO* still look at the solicits, and in the last Previews Marvel solicits, it notes:
"With the X-Men lost in space, EMMA FROST, HAVOK, BASTION, and MISS SINISTER hatch their devious plans"
Ok, I remember Bastion as a 90's bad guy, and I assume Miss Sinister is just a genderswapped version of Mister Sinister (or his child).
but since when is Emma back to being a bad guy?
and i guess same question about Havok?
|
|
|
Post by Cheswick on Jan 23, 2018 21:34:57 GMT -5
They decided to make Emma a villain again during the Inhumans Vs. X-men series. I did not read that series, but have read issues featuring her since it ended. There is a few frustrating things about her being a villain again. First, they didn't just make her a villain. They made her an over-the-top cartoony villain, completely ignoring any complexities of the character. And, secondly, they have completely undone more than 20 years of character development. And, lastly, the motivation for her villain-turn is pretty insulting: Basically, emotional woman loses her man and goes crazy. To me, comics-wise, there is not much worse than a great character written poorly. The fact that she is one of my favorite characters makes it even more annoying.
Havok was made a villain during the forgettable AXIS series a few years ago, where he was "inverted".
|
|
|
Post by String on Jan 23, 2018 21:44:08 GMT -5
Emma Frost was recently revealed as the prime reason behind the mutant/Inhuman war. In her despair and grief over what happened to Scott, she carried on the mental illusion of what she believed he (and thus they) would do in order to protect his people from the Terrigen mist. If it meant destroying the mist and sentencing the Inhumans to their own form of extinction, oh well. When the depth of her manipulation (and subsequent mental break over what happened to Scott) was revealed, she escaped and has since become hunted by the various X-teams.
Havok was a victim of the Scarlet Witch's moral inversion spell back during the AXIS event. Wanda,along with Strange, had cast this spell in an attempt to stop Red Skull (who still possessed Xavier's brain) who had then become Red Onslaught. Before this, Alex was a part of the Avengers' Unity Squad and under Remender, had actually married Wasp and the couple had a child named Katie. But after suffering the spell, Alex's morals changed, fearing what the Avengers would do with the now subdued Red Skull. He quit the Unity Squad over these differences and reconciled with his brother Scott, with whom Alex now shared his beliefs about mutant endangerment and possible extinction. (And also apparently abandoned Janet as well. The fate of Katie is another tale).
Later, Havok never believed that Black Bolt killed Scott. When confronting Emma about it, she eventually confessed to him her grand deceptions concerning Scott and fostering war with the Inhumans. When her deception was revealed, Alex helped Emma to escape out of respect of his brother's memory (apparently). So to date, Alex has been working with Emma.
For some odd reason that I can't quite recall, Havok and Sabretooth are the only inverted characters still active since AXIS.
As for Miss Sinister, she is the current reincarnation of the Essex personality.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 23:41:31 GMT -5
thanks guys.
can't say it doesn't sound awful. . because it does.. but thanks for the info!
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 24, 2018 8:24:10 GMT -5
One way to measure the success of a new creative team: What new elements do they bring to the mythos? Do they just churn existing characters and concepts? Or do they add something that future writers can build upon?
The description above sounds like a lot of churn.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2018 13:57:48 GMT -5
One way to measure the success of a new creative team: What new elements do they bring to the mythos? Do they just churn existing characters and concepts? Or do they add something that future writers can build upon? The description above sounds like a lot of churn. Churn is the norm in big 2 books these days because new doesn't sell to the hardcore fanbase. Churn doesn't sell to new readers, but the big 2 are caught in a vicious circle catering the the remaining niche hardcore audience because of their business model, so as I say all the time, fans get the comics their buying patterns deserve. -M
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 24, 2018 16:29:07 GMT -5
One way to measure the success of a new creative team: What new elements do they bring to the mythos? Do they just churn existing characters and concepts? Or do they add something that future writers can build upon? The description above sounds like a lot of churn. Churn is the norm in big 2 books these days because new doesn't sell tot he hardcore fanbase. Churn doesn't sell to new readers, but the big 2 are caught in a vicious circle catering the the remaining niche hardcore audience because of their business model, so as I say all the time, fans get the comics their buying patterns deserve. Yep! Contrast with what X-Men were doing as recently as 2001-2006 (which is over a decade ago, I know) with Grant Morrison and Joss Whedon, who introduced: Cassandra Nova Emma's diamond mutation John Sublime and The U-Men Quentin Quire Kick Beak The Stepford Cuckoos Negasonic Teenage Warhead Fantomex and E.V.A. Weapon XI and higher Dust Xorn (which... I know...) Kavita Rao and the mutant cure Ord The Breakworld S.W.O.R.D. Agent Brand Danger Armor Blindfold
|
|
|
Post by String on Jan 27, 2018 12:23:09 GMT -5
One way to measure the success of a new creative team: What new elements do they bring to the mythos? Do they just churn existing characters and concepts? Or do they add something that future writers can build upon? The description above sounds like a lot of churn. Churn is the norm in big 2 books these days because new doesn't sell tot he hardcore fanbase. Churn doesn't sell to new readers, but the big 2 are caught in a vicious circle catering the the remaining niche hardcore audience because of their business model, so as I say all the time, fans get the comics their buying patterns deserve. -M Hm, funny, I don't ever recall wanting a war between mutants and Inhumans. I don't recall wanting the X-franchise to be put on the back-burner for over a decade. Marvel's early business dealings in Hollywood helped coerce this model upon the books themselves (for better or worse) and they adjusted accordingly. And unless you have read the issues and arcs in question, I really don't see how you can call it 'churn'. Lemire, Hopeless, Bunn all did excellent character work during this period of strife between mutants and Inhumans (and yes, Bunn was even brazen enough to tackle Xorn again). AXIS was a result of editorial interference in Rick Remender's story plans. Up to that point, his first run on Uncanny Avengers remains one of the best Marvel stories that I've read in the past decade. He did the most thought-provoking exploration of the friction and dynamic of mutant/human relations since Claremont, wrote the characters of Cap and Wasp far better than Hickman was over in his Avengers magnum opus and helped evolve one of the best new romantic pairings in recent memory between Alex and Janet which resulted in their having a child. But editorial thought Remender's plans for the conclusion of his Red Skull arc warranted being an event instead. And so we got that inconsistent mess with fallout that we're still dealing with though lord knows why we still are. ( And this wouldn't be the first time re: Shadowland) But to dismiss all these events and actions outright, especially if you haven't read the whole story, is folly.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 27, 2018 14:06:55 GMT -5
Churn is the norm in big 2 books these days because new doesn't sell tot he hardcore fanbase. Churn doesn't sell to new readers, but the big 2 are caught in a vicious circle catering the the remaining niche hardcore audience because of their business model, so as I say all the time, fans get the comics their buying patterns deserve. Yep! Contrast with what X-Men were doing as recently as 2001-2006 (which is over a decade ago, I know) with Grant Morrison and Joss Whedon, who introduced: Cassandra Nova Emma's diamond mutation John Sublime and The U-Men Quentin Quire Kick Beak The Stepford Cuckoos Negasonic Teenage Warhead Fantomex and E.V.A. Weapon XI and higher Dust Xorn (which... I know...) Kavita Rao and the mutant cure Ord The Breakworld S.W.O.R.D. Agent Brand Danger Armor Blindfold ...Cyclops as a bad ass!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 14:24:02 GMT -5
Churn is the norm in big 2 books these days because new doesn't sell tot he hardcore fanbase. Churn doesn't sell to new readers, but the big 2 are caught in a vicious circle catering the the remaining niche hardcore audience because of their business model, so as I say all the time, fans get the comics their buying patterns deserve. -M Hm, funny, I don't ever recall wanting a war between mutants and Inhumans. I don't recall wanting the X-franchise to be put on the back-burner for over a decade. Marvel's early business dealings in Hollywood helped coerce this model upon the books themselves (for better or worse) and they adjusted accordingly. And unless you have read the issues and arcs in question, I really don't see how you can call it 'churn'. Lemire, Hopeless, Bunn all did excellent character work during this period of strife between mutants and Inhumans (and yes, Bunn was even brazen enough to tackle Xorn again). AXIS was a result of editorial interference in Rick Remender's story plans. Up to that point, his first run on Uncanny Avengers remains one of the best Marvel stories that I've read in the past decade. He did the most thought-provoking exploration of the friction and dynamic of mutant/human relations since Claremont, wrote the characters of Cap and Wasp far better than Hickman was over in his Avengers magnum opus and helped evolve one of the best new romantic pairings in recent memory between Alex and Janet which resulted in their having a child. But editorial thought Remender's plans for the conclusion of his Red Skull arc warranted being an event instead. And so we got that inconsistent mess with fallout that we're still dealing with though lord knows why we still are. ( And this wouldn't be the first time re: Shadowland) But to dismiss all these events and actions outright, especially if you haven't read the whole story, is folly. Take off the labels-of X-Men and Inhumans, and it is a war between one group of super-powered outsiders and another group of super-powered outsiders. X-Men vs. Brotherhood is the same thing, so churn. X-Men vs. Hellfire Club same thing, churn. Reform those folks, so they are the white hats instead of the black hats so you create new outsiders with super-powers to be the black hats or you create a schism among the white hats to keep the was between groups of super-powered outsiders going, churn. The same story churned over and over again, just using different groups but it's nothing new. The Inhumans are just the latest group of super-powered outsiders to be drafted into that war paradigm that has been churned through the X-books for years and years. The minutiae details may change, the story remains the same. That's churn. Make the good guys bad guys, and the bad guys good, bring in the Avengers, the Inhumans Apocalypse and his horseman, whomever, it;s the same story churned over and over again until it's all just butter, homogeneous bland sameness that feels familiar because it is. That's churn, and it's characterized mainstream super-hero comics for a long time. -M
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 27, 2018 19:10:37 GMT -5
First of all, I will immediately plead guilty to not having read all the X-Men from any of the last three decades. I have read the Hope Summers origin stuff (including Bishop chasing Cable around through time) and the series where a zillion Nimrod sentinels attack the X-Men island. Not a lot else in the last decade.
When I said "churn," I was thinking of soap operas, where what passes for plot development is everyone trading romantic partners, then starting the whole sequence of temptation and infidelity again. The Hellfire Club could be churn if it was just "another group of evil Mutants attack the X-Men" But it was really just the circumstances of the real story, which was Jean Grey's loss of innocence, addiction to power and passion, and eventual self-destruction, which is very much character driven rather than churn.
"Xavier's School has an extremist student who develops a worrisome cult of personality among his peers" was a non-churn Morrison story. "An alien race is convinced that Colossus is going to blow up their planet and decides to blow us up first" was a non-churn Whedon story. The fact that these stories could be described as "Mutants vs Mutants" and "Mutants vs aliens" does not really tell the tale of either the plot details, the themes unfolding, the new plot elements, or the characterization.
Marvel has always gotten mileage out of having its dysfunctional heroes fight each other, then reconcile and fight a common foe. Early FF/ Avengers/ X-Men crossovers saw this. Contest of Champions, Secret Wars, Civil War, etc. Easier than coming up with a new character, right? But it gets old if all that we see is new combinations of the same heroes taking sides against each other. Having not read the stories: "The X-Men split into two rival factions who fight" sounds like churn on the surface. "Mutants and Inhumans fight" sounds like churn. Maybe there's a great character driven X-Men 129-137 lurking in there too; I don't know. Are there new characters and concepts?
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 27, 2018 22:09:21 GMT -5
Bishop chasing Cable and Hope through time was awesome, IMO... Second Coming got be back into the X-books, then scraping Hope and not letting Bishop stay evil got be to go back out.. I hate when they do that stuff.
Marvel seems to have pretty much forgotten how to create villains... it's all hero v. hero these days.
|
|
|
Post by String on Jan 31, 2018 18:23:33 GMT -5
Part of the problem, as I see it, with the X-franchise at the moment is the lack of focus on new characters. Morrison and Whedon did introduce new mutants who were the focus later on in such titles like Kyle & Yost's New X-Men/Academy X-Men. But since their departure, these new characters quickly fell off the radar. The biggest request/complaint that I've heard from other X-fans is for Marvel to give proper attention and new focus to these under-used mutants.
Even when Marvel juggles the line, their natural inclination is bring back the original New Mutants (Sam, Bobby, Dani, Illyana, and such). Characters who by all rights, should be full-fledged X-Men already. So there's room for focusing on these new kids as new students. Then, there's the writers to consider too. I don't know how accurate these site interviews are with them when they take over a new title, but they often say that editorial gives them an option of which characters they want to use and more often than not, it's older characters they tend towards because they are the ones of whom they'd follow in their youth as well.
Even Bendis fell into this motif when he took the reigns of the franchise. Instead of using the previous new kids, he created his own new characters instead. It's a self-destructive cycle that revolves around the popularity and clout of the classic characters, even the 'kids' of the New Mutants. That's why I love Claremont's underlying belief that these characters should be allowed to grow, age, retire, or even die so as to make room for new characters and new drama.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 28, 2018 10:40:13 GMT -5
X-question : can Rogue touch people, now? Her wikipedia page mentions numerous alterations to her powers since the early 90s. Last I knew, she had Ms. Marvel’s powers and memories on a permanent basis, and couldn’t touch anyone without stealing theirs temporarily.
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Oct 31, 2018 8:15:05 GMT -5
X-question : can Rogue touch people, now? Her wikipedia page mentions numerous alterations to her powers since the early 90s. Last I knew, she had Ms. Marvel’s powers and memories on a permanent basis, and couldn’t touch anyone without stealing theirs temporarily.
She could control it for a while, but not anymore.
During Carey's run, Xavier finally managed to help her control her powers. She also lost the Ms. Marvel powers around that time.
She recently* lost the control again in Uncanny Avengers and ended up merged with Wonder Man. Wonder Man was later freed from Rogue's body, but as far as I know, she still has his powers.
She currently is married to Gambit and she uses a power dampener whenever the two want to get intimate.
*= recently is already 5-6 years ago...
|
|