-
[QUOTE=Agent Grayson;5537375]I'm just over halfway through [I]X of Swords[/I] and man...it's a mess. It's really draining the goodwill I had towards this run.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=johnnysv75;5537384]X of Swords is horrible. And the X-Men issues leading up to it, where they talk and talk and talk in order to explain the Arrako mythology we have to know to get X of Swords, is just as bad.[/QUOTE]
Finally, my people have arrived.
Wasn't there also an art reprint scandal? I swear two separate issues of the event reused complete pages from one another or something.
-
For some reason I started thinking about Chuck Austen’s X-Men today, and that made me sober up a bit. His run was so bad that it often made me angry. I often wondered why the editors didn’t stop him.
The X-books are for the most part in good form today. Hickman has built an incredible world, and he has planned the entire story well in advance. You can feel that most of the things happen for a reason.
It is just that after the first mini series, nothing much has been as interesting and thought provoking. There hasn’t really been any interesting developments since those first issues (besides Mystique’s story that I can’t wait to get back to). And that is why I don’t think Hickman’s X-Men is as entertaining as it used to be.
-
Nah. I dropped it all a while back. But, if I'm being honest, I'm not reading many American comics at all these days. It just doesn't feel like you get much return for your investment.
-
[QUOTE=Agent Grayson;5537375]I'm just over halfway through [I]X of Swords[/I] and man...it's a mess. It's really draining the goodwill I had towards this run.[/QUOTE]
I honestly feel like that event could have been the three one-shots and then some other books as tie-ins as opposed to the 22 "chapters" that we got. Won't see me defending that event.
[B]Hizashi [/B] there was definitely an issue of X-Men in the middle that was a bunch of reused art. I was honestly pretty annoyed but I think the event was moving so fast that I kinda just moved on + we had been deprived of comics for so long that I just took it [SIZE=1](big mistake lol).[/SIZE]
-
[QUOTE=johnnysv75;5537477]For some reason I started thinking about Chuck Austen’s X-Men today, and that made me sober up a bit. His run was so bad that it often made me angry. I often wondered why the editors didn’t stop him.
The X-books are for the most part in good form today. Hickman has built an incredible world, and he has planned the entire story well in advance. You can feel that most of the things happen for a reason.
It is just that after the first mini series, nothing much has been as interesting and thought provoking. There hasn’t really been any interesting developments since those first issues (besides Mystique’s story that I can’t wait to get back to). And that is why I don’t think Hickman’s X-Men is as entertaining as it used to be.[/QUOTE]
There's definitely plenty of good ideas here, just a couple of stinkers too and lackluster writing. I've said before this run isn't outright bad, but it's not [I]that[/I] amazing either. Hickman ending it at No 21, taking everything that it is, his X-Men is pretty underwhelming. It doesn't work as well on its own, and that's not good.
-
[QUOTE=Kingdom X;5537852]I honestly feel like that event could have been the three one-shots and then some other books as tie-ins as opposed to the 22 "chapters" that we got. Won't see me defending that event.
[B]Hizashi [/B] there was definitely an issue of X-Men in the middle that was a bunch of reused art. I was honestly pretty annoyed but I think the event was moving so fast that I kinda just moved on + we had been deprived of comics for so long that I just took it [SIZE=1](big mistake lol).[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
Marvel will get a bigger ROI if they would just cut the number of books down a bit, both overall and per storyline/event. And cut down the events too, they've beaten the dead horse into glue already.
I only picked up those issues of X-Men because it was the only X-Book I was picking up at that point.
-
[QUOTE=AdamFTF;5537762]Nah. I dropped it all a while back. But, if I'm being honest, I'm not reading many American comics at all these days. It just doesn't feel like you get much return for your investment.[/QUOTE]
Manga and independent stuff definitely has more of my attention.
As far as cape comics, more of my money is going to DC at the moment, but that could change.
-
I think one thing that's really sapping my enjoyment of the last 6-9 months of Hickman's X-Man is the lack of genuine, entertaining threats to our heroes. It's not unreasonable to expect interesting and challenging fights for the heroes to overcome, but we've gotten pretty much zilch. The new brands of villains they've introduced in this error are brushed off in an issue or two. The corporate/institutional opponents roll over without resistance. Just this week we had it revealed that Xavier is just buying out and hollowing out human competitors, and there's just... no response to this from a world that celebrated the complete absence of mutants. I have to seek characters like Kurt in Way of X asking difficult questions of the whole setup to get any type of stimulating friction for our beloved characters.
Is that it? Is the pathos in this era going to come from mutant-caused societal problems in their nation rather than traditional enemies? Or are we still in the plot seeding stage for a massive conflict? I ask because I absolutely love how this all started, but man has it lost tons of steam at this point.
-
[QUOTE=Grinning Soul;5537339]Before Jean's death, characters would die and come back. The writers would just pull a "oh, you thought this character had died? No, it turns out they were just pretending or a shapeshifter had taken their form" or some other BS like that.
No matter how you choose to see that character who died on the Moon - if it was the Phoenix copying Jean's body/mind/personality/memories or actually Jean (which you could infer from what happens in Inferno and it makes more sense when consider everything that happpened in DPS) - that character decided to die because Jean would have decided the same. So it's her choice.
I mean, if you buy the resurection protocols, why is it so hard to see Jean in the cocoon as an earlier backup and the Jean who died in the Moon as Jean?[/QUOTE]
Should a death of a comic book character mean something?
For me, it's not about "who" died on the moon but the fact the retcon happened in such a iconic story. If a character can't stay dead in a story like this then no character will ever stay dead in the world of comics. Marvel really messed with your feels in DPS and then proved once and for all that the death of a comic book character is irrelevant really and should have no emotional impact on the reader. Over the years, Marvel have really pushed that creative retcon button to the max, right to the point where it starts to insult the reader too.
The resurrection protocols should of put an end to the BS but I am now finding it's creating a new problem.
-
[QUOTE=johnnysv75;5537384]X of Swords is horrible. And the X-Men issues leading up to it, where they talk and talk and talk in order to explain the Arrako mythology we have to know to get X of Swords, is just as bad.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Hizashi;5537463]Finally, my people have arrived.
Wasn't there also an art reprint scandal? I swear two separate issues of the event reused complete pages from one another or something.[/QUOTE]
I noticed some reused art. I feel like Arakko's origin got retold almost every issue. There was so much unnecessary exposition about the different realms too. The only things I really liked were the [I]Hellions[/I] issues, which sold me on the team dynamic and persuaded me to continue reading, and Scott and Jean's decision to restart the X-Men and step away from the Quiet Council. Otherwise, I was very unimpressed with the whole event.
So much work (albeit clumsy work, in my opinion) went into trying to establish the Arakko mutants as credible villains and then they were thrust into catwalk contests and arm wrestles. I appreciated that it was more than just simple swordfights, but most of the match-ups had such poor premises that it's no wonder that they were often limited to single panels or text pages. Even the points were mishandled. Why have Krakoa be so far behind the whole way, only to have Gorgon even the playing field in a single battle? It seemed like a really lazy way to bring some tension at the very end.
Overall, it felt more like a collection of ideas jotted down on a notepad than a thought-out, structured crossover. Even if Hickman's run is 'redeemed' down the line with a clear explanation of what's been going on, I don't think [I]X of Swords[/I] can be recovered for me.
[QUOTE=johnnysv75;5537477]For some reason I started thinking about Chuck Austen’s X-Men today, and that made me sober up a bit. His run was so bad that it often made me angry. I often wondered why the editors didn’t stop him.
The X-books are for the most part in good form today. Hickman has built an incredible world, and he has planned the entire story well in advance. You can feel that most of the things happen for a reason.
It is just that after the first mini series, nothing much has been as interesting and thought provoking. There hasn’t really been any interesting developments since those first issues (besides Mystique’s story that I can’t wait to get back to). And that is why I don’t think Hickman’s X-Men is as entertaining as it used to be.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, even if you're not enjoying the X-books today, you can be thankful that we're not back in that era!
-
[QUOTE=Houseofhick;5538159]Should a death of a comic book character mean something?[/QUOTE]
That's a great question. I think the obvious answer is "yes". But as I'm considering it, I'm asking myself: "does death need to be final for it to mean something?" And, to me, the answer to that one isn't so obvious anymore. If someone you loved died and you knew they'd come back eventually, would their death have no meaning to you? I suppose you'd certainly relate differently to their loss, but you'd still miss them and not having them in your life would still affect you, no? What do you think?
[QUOTE=Houseofhick;5538159]For me, it's not about "who" died on the moon but the fact the retcon happened in such a iconic story. If a character can't stay dead in a story like this then no character will ever stay dead in the world of comics.[/QUOTE]
I understand your point and I'm also conflicted about it. But the way I try to be okay with it is by asking myself "in an universe like Marvel's, why would death need to be final"?
I guess it's always going to bug you if you don't try to be okay with the fact that our reality is very different than Marvel's universe. And I think it might be a matter of feeling you can't relate as much to an universe that is so fantastic that death has a different meaning... But, by definition (and not preference), why should it behave in the same way as ours when it's so different?
[QUOTE=Houseofhick;5538159]Marvel really messed with your feels in DPS and then proved once and for all that the death of a comic book character is irrelevant really and should have no emotional impact on the reader. Over the years, Marvel have really pushed that creative retcon button to the max, right to the point where it starts to insult the reader too.[/QUOTE]
Well... 15 years without Jean Grey in the comics had an emotional impact on her fans! :D
But being serious, I get what you mean. I wish death wasn't banalised as much. But, you know, there are lots of fans who feel that a story has "no stake" unless a character dies... So, it's complicated, right?
-
[QUOTE=Grinning Soul;5538174]That's a great question. I think the obvious answer is "yes". But as I'm considering it, I'm asking myself: "does death need to be final for it to mean something?" And, to me, the answer to that one isn't so obvious anymore. If someone you loved died and you knew they'd come back eventually, would their death have no meaning to you? I suppose you'd certainly relate differently to their loss, but you'd still miss them and not having them in your life would still affect you, no? What do you think?
I understand your point and I'm also conflicted about it. But the way I try to be okay with it is by asking myself "in an universe like Marvel's, why would death need to be final"?
I guess it's always going to bug you if you don't try to be okay with the fact that our reality is very different than Marvel's universe. And I think it might be a matter of feeling you can't relate as much to an universe that is so fantastic that death has a different meaning... But, by definition (and not preference), why should it behave in the same way as ours when it's so different?
Well... 15 years without Jean Grey in the comics had an emotional impact on her fans! :D
But being serious, I get what you mean. I wish death wasn't banalised as much. But, you know, there are lots of fans who feel that a story has "no stake" unless a character dies... So, it's complicated, right?[/QUOTE]
I think the resurrection protocols address the questions you ask about the death of comic book characters and for me they are the ideal solution. Let's face it, none of us want to see or read about favourite characters dying, even if that story is great or iconic. We also want these characters to have that sense of danger in their lives where they really don't want to be cloned or resurrected again. Would remembering each and every death help with this?
I don't want to see the same character killed off issue after issue in new and creative ways and I certainly don't want that to become the running joke.
In this new era I would love to see the original story Claremont had planned after Jean died on the moon because no matter how good or bad it is we will still always have that iconic run.
-
[QUOTE=Houseofhick;5538209]I think the resurrection protocols address the questions you ask about the death of comic book characters and for me they are the ideal solution. Let's face it, none of us want to see or read about favourite characters dying, even if that story is great or iconic. We also want these characters to have that sense of danger in their lives where they really don't want to be cloned or resurrected again. Would remembering each and every death help with this?
I don't want to see the same character killed off issue after issue in new and creative ways and I certainly don't want that to become the running joke.
In this new era I would love to see the original story Claremont had planned after Jean died on the moon because no matter how good or bad it is we will still always have that iconic run.[/QUOTE]
For me, the retcon of the DPS was the "but it wasn't really her who died" case. And they had used it before even in the X-Men comics, when it was revealved that Changeling had taken the place of Professor X. Now, if they hadn't come up with a way make it so that it was really Jean or, at least, a part of her, who sacrificed herself, I would have felt much more annoyed about it. But I understand you see it differently.
The resurrection protocols for me are... I'm still processing, I guess? While I find the idea interesting, I think it's a step too far. Because, you see, before, the characters didn't know for sure if their loved ones would come back. It was a possibility, but it wasn't garanteed. And now... well, there are some exceptions, but the person will likely be brought back. And, sure, a lot can be lost in the process as we saw recently. So, there is certainly some possibility for interesting stories there.
But, like I said, I'm conflicted about the matter of death and ressurections.
-
[QUOTE=Grinning Soul;5538245]For me, the retcon of the DPS was the "but it wasn't really her who died" case. And they had used it before even in the X-Men comics, when it was revealved that Changeling had taken the place of Professor X. Now, if they hadn't come up with a way make it so that it was really Jean or, at least, a part of her, who sacrificed herself, I would have felt much more annoyed about it. But I understand you see it differently.
The resurrection protocols for me are... I'm still processing, I guess? While I find the idea interesting, I think it's a step too far. Because, you see, before, the characters didn't know for sure if their loved ones would come back. It was a possibility, but it wasn't garanteed. And now... well, there are some exceptions, but the person will likely be brought back. And, sure, a lot can be lost in the process as we saw recently. So, there is certainly some possibility for interesting stories there.
But, like I said, I'm conflicted about the matter of death and ressurections.[/QUOTE]
The DPS story is that catch 22 situation for me because without the retcon we wouldn't of got that iconic run in the way that we got it. On the other hand it became the turning point on how I see death of comic book characters.
The final straw was the way they tried to explain how Magneto didn't have his head cut off by Wolverine.
Now when comic book characters die I just think there is no spoon
-
[QUOTE=Houseofhick;5538159]Should a death of a comic book character mean something?
For me, it's not about "who" died on the moon but the fact the retcon happened in such a iconic story. If a character can't stay dead in a story like this then no character will ever stay dead in the world of comics. Marvel really messed with your feels in DPS and then proved once and for all that the death of a comic book character is irrelevant really and should have no emotional impact on the reader. Over the years, Marvel have really pushed that creative retcon button to the max, right to the point where it starts to insult the reader too.
The resurrection protocols should of put an end to the BS but I am now finding it's creating a new problem.[/QUOTE]
Consider that the character who died in that story was named [I]Phoenix[/I].
For me, it was the execution of the resurrection and the aftermath and not the resurrection itself that hurt so much. Seems to me that Jean was guaranteed at least one return.
