X-Men #3 [Hordeculture] - Review/Spoilers

[JKtheMac]

Hey, I quoted just what was there when I was; I deleted nothing. If you went back and edited it in after the fact, sorry mate but not my fault.

I didn’t accuse you of that. I have a habit of adding to my posts, and as such I wanted to draw your attention to what I had added to better clarify my points.

And I wasn't calling for a return to Claremont style comic artistry/writing; I was praising it for what it achieved and comparing it to what there appears to be a lack of currently. I would hope the stronger aspects of Claremont's style (i.e, strong characterisation worked alongside a coherent plot) wouldn't be something to go 'out of fashion,' but like you said, this is just taste.

They can’t be compared in this way just because they are both comics.

Additionally, I argue that you don't have to sacrifice good characterisation for the sake of plot, as I've noticed from your edited response. Hickman has good ideas; the execution, however, seems to be lacking from the POV that's supposed to matter, i.e, the characters.

This is absolutely nothing to do with sacrificing anything. This is to do with coherent storytelling. If you want incoherent story go read something else, or watch 90s TV.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

This is absolutely nothing to do with sacrificing anything. This is to do with coherent storytelling. If you want incoherent story go read something else, or watch 90s TV.

And yet you miss my point; coherent storytelling can implement both strong characterisation that is informed by or does directly inform the plot. Plot does not have to over-shadow the characters or reduce them to mouth-pieces for it as is happening here.

[Su_Whisterfield]

X Men 3 variant cover.
0AD3E193-8009-4792-AAEA-68C55752835A.jpg

Via Reddit user u/dispatchdcu

[JKtheMac]

And yet you miss my point; coherent storytelling can implement both strong characterisation that is informed by or does directly inform the plot. Plot does not have to over-shadow the characters or reduce them to mouth-pieces for it as is happening here.

I think I have made the point pretty clear already, that there is strong characterisation in this issue and the preceding ones. That what you seem to be asking for is not characterisation but instead evidence of character arcs. You won’t get that with Hickman. He starts his stories with character stances and broadly maintains them. His approach is to change the character beforehand, based on external factors and use a process of character revelation over his run to better illuminate the change that occurred.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

I think I have made the point pretty clear already, that there is strong characterisation in this issue and the preceding ones. That what you seem to be asking for is not characterisation but instead evidence of character arcs. You won’t get that with Hickman. He starts his stories with character stances and broadly maintains them. His approach is to change the character beforehand, based on external factors and use a process of character revelation over his run to better illuminate the change that occurred.

A character arc is different from characterisation, which I'm asking for. I'm asking for a distinct voice between each character, something more that defines that character than on a superficial level plus, meaningful interaction and/or chemistry between said characters.

[JKtheMac]

A character arc is different from characterisation, which I'm asking for. I'm asking for a distinct voice between each character, something more that defines that character than on a superficial level plus, meaningful interaction and/or chemistry between said characters.

Again you define things narrowly so you can accuse this book of being bad somehow. This is not objective despite your protests that it is.

We saw plenty of character beats that only fit individual characters, or are you saying Cyclops is just the same as Shaw and Emma in this book? Or even that Emma and Jean are portrayed the same. Your criticism is doctrine. You are mearly spouting received wisdom that Hickman can’t write convincing character and ignoring the fact that he just did it right there on the page.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

Again you define things narrowly so you can accuse this book of being bad somehow. This is not objective despite your protests that it is.

We saw plenty of character beats that only fit individual characters, or are you saying Cyclops is just the same as Shaw and Emma in this book? Or even that Emma and Jean are portrayed the same. Your criticism is doctrine. You are mearly spouting received wisdom that Hickman can’t write convincing character and ignoring the fact that he just did it right there on the page.

In terms of voice, yes, I'm finding it hard to see a difference. Their actions might be different, but they don't seem to have individual voices in my opinion; while the plot-points might come to an interesting fruition, the characters seem very one-note and indistinguishable.

[JKtheMac]

In terms of voice, yes, I'm finding it hard to see a difference. Their actions might be different, but they don't seem to have individual voices in my opinion; while the plot-points might come to an interesting fruition, the characters seem very one-note and indistinguishable.

If you want to claim that with more than lip service you need to point to it on the page, because that’s my point. So far you have shifted your definition of characterisation three times from my perspective. You may think you are being consistent but it’s all very vague from where I am sitting. How exactly is Hickman not using character voice? I see it throughout. Shaw’s character is illuminated wonderfully, Cyclops is shown to be his normal self, shining a spotlight on how he acts when strategic planning fails. Emma’s voice is quintessentially hers.

[Domino_Dare-Doll]

If you want to claim that with more than lip service you need to point to it on the page, because that’s my point. So far you have shifted your definition of characterisation three times from my perspective. You may think you are being consistent but it’s all very vague from where I am sitting. How exactly is Hickman not using character voice? I see it throughout. Shaw’s character is illuminated wonderfully, Cyclops is shown to be his normal self, shining a spotlight on how he acts when strategic planning fails. Emma’s voice is quintessentially hers.

If you say so, but basically:

Everyone seems stiff, like cardboard cutouts. There's no chemistry between the characters, they just seem to say things that leave an impression of "Ok?" at best; attempts at humour are tedious and driven out. Scott adheres to his 'boyscout' character trait, yes, but that's it; there's little variation in how that reaction plays out from panel to panel, there's no discernable emotion in his lines even when he's supposed to be angry, happy, ect, exactly the same with Emma and Shaw. Emma has exactly one note; snarky and apathetic. Shaw is just there.

How I define characterisation: how those personality traits bounce off of one another as well as how they relate to the situation on a meaningful level.

If you see it, good for you, I don't and until I see otherwise I'll keep saying it.

[Triniking1234]

Some of the characters are older than the people posting here. They've had plenty of character arcs. I don't know how long you're gonna drag out this "character development" excuse to justify why you don't like the story.

[jpmst17]

0/10 unreadable garbage

Completely disagree. I thought this was a good character building issue for Scott and Emma, and to some extent shaw. The point that the villain isn't some young hip 30 year old mad man with a plan is a turn too. Older people can be just as coniving. I really liked this issue

[Striderblack01]

If you see it, good for you, I don't and until I see otherwise I'll keep saying it.

But why though.

Are you still buying this book?
Your opinion has been noted, so why keep repeating it?

Because at a certain point it stops being about voicing a valid critique or preference, and more like trying to argue people out of enjoying something.
Which, given how hard life is, is a dick move.

[jpmst17]

If you say so, but basically:

Everyone seems stiff, like cardboard cutouts. There's no chemistry between the characters, they just seem to say things that leave an impression of "Ok?" at best; attempts at humour are tedious and driven out. Scott adheres to his 'boyscout' character trait, yes, but that's it; there's little variation in how that reaction plays out from panel to panel, there's no discernable emotion in his lines even when he's supposed to be angry, happy, ect, exactly the same with Emma and Shaw. Emma has exactly one note; snarky and apathetic. Shaw is just there.

How I define characterisation: how those personality traits bounce off of one another as well as how they relate to the situation on a meaningful level.

If you see it, good for you, I don't and until I see otherwise I'll keep saying it.

You don't think the page where Scott blasts an old woman and she cries about her hip, so then he stops to help her and she hits him had any importance or character building? because i think it does. I think that's an important panel

[Devaishwarya]

I totally disagree. Soap opera is not character development. That is just melodrama. It is often called ‘situation driven’ or ‘arena driven’ but I call it unfocused writing.

Hallelujah!
How many times has Lord Claremont-the Gawd of Character Development, washed rinsed recycled his "Days of Our Lives" relationship dramas only to have the characters right back where they started...neither better, stronger, wiser for having gone through the mess?
Edit...
@JKtheMac...I appreciate your knowledge and understanding.

[tuck frump]

Hallelujah!
How many times has Lord Claremont-the Gawd of Character Development, washed rinsed recycled his "Days of Our Lives" relationship dramas only to have the characters right back where they started...neither better, stronger, wiser for having gone through the mess?

Never??????