I got nothing. Today's issue was not good.
Printable View
I got nothing. Today's issue was not good.
[QUOTE=AJpyro;4716768]I got nothing. Today's issue was not good.[/QUOTE]
X-men seems all about world building.
But it's just 3 issue. Hickman most probably stay for longer than 12 issues, we have plenty time to get to the good stuff.
[QUOTE=AJpyro;4716768]I got nothing. Today's issue was not good.[/QUOTE]
"Not good" as in "Scott Summers is a jerk!" way or as in "not too much happened and Cyke is still a happy dad"?
Finally read the issue and it was... alright. Not good, not bad, not great. Just, alright.
I miss Determinator Cyclops :( And I dunno whether I should apply the 3-episode rule to this book and drop it because hardly anything exciting seems to be happening with these one-and-dones.
X-Men is just a set up to the other titles. Issue 1 for New Mutants, issue 2 for Excalibur and 3 for Marauders.
I really liked Scott in this. He is badass, he looks cool but he doesn't want to hurt anyone.
[QUOTE=Ra-El;4717079]X-Men is just a set up to the other titles. Issue 1 for New Mutants, issue 2 for Excalibur and 3 for Marauders.[/QUOTE]
This really should have been an X-men Unlimited ongoing and not the flagship X-men title
[QUOTE=Havok83;4717178]This really should have been an X-men Unlimited ongoing and not the flagship X-men title[/QUOTE]
I thought Marauders was the flagship title? At least I remember Hickman saying it.
[QUOTE=loke13;4717511]I thought Marauders was the flagship title? At least I remember Hickman saying it.[/QUOTE]
It certianly doesnt feel like it. If there was no title on the cover, I would have guessed that were X-Force in terms of its importants and impact on the other titles
Scott was poorly written. Although at least Hickman all but spelled he and Emma were doing it before they arrived, although the haters are still going to deny it, of course.
[QUOTE=Omega Alpha;4717750]Scott was poorly written. Although at least Hickman all but spelled he and Emma were doing it before they arrived, although the haters are still going to deny it, of course.[/QUOTE]
Even blatant subtext is often ignored by the next writer. I asked elsewhere, but does anyone remember how heavy Claremont was implying Kitty was bi? And she has never had an on-panel relationship other than a straight one in all this time, despite the fact that being lesbian or bi havn't been taboo for a while.
[QUOTE=Gray Lensman;4717800]Even blatant subtext is often ignored by the next writer. I asked elsewhere, but does anyone remember how heavy Claremont was implying Kitty was bi? And she has never had an on-panel relationship other than a straight one in all this time, despite the fact that being lesbian or bi havn't been taboo for a while.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but Claremont is a special case because he gave lesbian or bi subtext to literally every teenage female- some of those would just have to be ignored. And Hickman made it even more clear, I think. There hasn't technically even been a confirmation that Scott and Jean are together.
[QUOTE=Omega Alpha;4717810]Yeah, but Claremont is a special case because he gave lesbian or bi subtext to literally every teenage female- some of those would just have to be ignored. And Hickman made it even more clear, I think. There hasn't technically even been a confirmation that Scott and Jean are together.[/QUOTE]
There wasn't anything clear on the issue. And Claremont didn't made every woman Bi. it is very specific
[QUOTE=Omega Alpha;4717750]Scott was poorly written. Although at least Hickman all but spelled he and Emma were doing it before they arrived, although the haters are still going to deny it, of course.[/QUOTE]
...which is meaningless since these versions of Scott and Jean are polyamorous.
[QUOTE=Glio;4717117]I really liked Scott in this. He is badass, he looks cool but he doesn't want to hurt anyone.[/QUOTE]
His dialogue was definitely an improvement over last issue, that's for sure.