Originally Posted by
whitecrown
Wow, I did not expect to hear this from you. Didn't you say you love classic Scott but now you're repudiating him? Don't tell me you drank the koolaid? I've never felt he was badly written before. I thought he was definitely badly written with Morrison, Whedon, Fraction, etc.
I don't know how anyone could read 40 years of X-Men publication and think Scott was only there and had no presence or personality. That's just so absurd to me. You don't get popularity from just being there for 40 years. Ask Lorna fans, they know. If you had kids playing Wolverine on the playground in the 90s, there were always kids playing Cyclops as well. That doesn't come from being a colorless character. He very much had a personality and yeah, it's not to everyone's taste, but Wolverine isn't to everyone's taste either.
I don't get the competitive rivalry with Wolverine that seems to come up but characters like Luke Skywalker and Steve Rogers have always been popular for being the traditional, boy scout heroes. Yes, Han Solo and Tony Stark were more popular because they're wild and they break the rules but they can only exist because of the Lukes and Steves. And their popularity did not mean that Luke and Steve were lesser or not popular themselves. However, I have noticed in the Luke fandom what I've seeing with Scott now which is that there was a lot of resentment from Luke fans towards Han Solo and how the general public preferred Han. Which once more, doesn't mean Luke wasn't liked or not the main hero, but the public has always gone for the slightly more exciting character.
To say Scott had no personality under Claremont or Simonson is crazy to me. Even in the O5 days, Scott was considered the best written of the original team and the one with the most emotional resonance with readers. Fans didn't ship Jean with Warren just because he was rich and attractive. They picked Scott because he's the one they felt for and rooted for, much like Peter Parker who also always carried his neverending angst with him. That is part of the charm of these characters and why audiences always root for underdogs. If Scott is the underdog to Wolverine, that is in his favor.
Discount Leonardo and Mutant Batman are both two terms that I would never associate with Scott. I have never seen anyone say Scott is like Batman. There are comparisons to Wolverine, Tony Stark, and even Angel, but not Scott. And I don't get the discount Leonardo even more since Leo became famous in the late 90s, especially with female fans. There was Leo mania which was a very real thing. Scott was around for decades before that and even if he was somehow like Leo, that would only be a point in his favor. There's really no connection there for me so I hope you can explain what you mean by that.