Are we as X-Fans resistant to new ideas?

[JackalsIII]

I'm resistant to decades of unnecessary or poor changes. Good and exciting changes? I'll be all for them!

[Rivka]

Idk

I abhor Uncanny X-Men right now but I'm loving Uncanny Avengers.
It depends on the storyline and the execution of it. As a longtime X-Men fan I would like to say no, I'm not resistant to new ideas.

I enjoyed Grant Morrison's New X-Men run, which was fairly innovative. And I think Kyle & Yost are amazing X-Men writers.
You have to respect X-history and incorporate the past into the present/future.

However calling a book "All-New" and having it star characters literally from the 1960s seems ironic to me.

Except the concept of a book starring the original 5 X-Men time-traveling to the present IS a completely new, original idea! To me, this demonstrates a fundamental truth of X-Men fandom; when something is truly original, fans complain. Morrison was regressive, not original. He rehashed old ideas, and took complex plots, characters, and ideas backwards. Matt Fraction did a lot of new, original, exciting things; he took the X-Men to the West coast. He set up Utopia. He brought Magneto into the fold. He set Scott Summers up to be a mature leader; no longer the boy-scout. Some fans think this is change for the better (like me), and some think it's change for the worse.

So, we don't need change for the sake of change, do we? Regression, shocking deaths, gross mis-characterizations, aren't positive change. You can make Peter Parker into a mass-murderer, that's change. You can put Emma Frost back into the Hellfire Club and make her the most evil villain in comics; that would be "change." Regressive, dumb-ass change.

I think we X-Fans are resistant to stupid ideas, not "new" ideas. The question isn't whether something is new or original, but does it work as a story. Are the characters and their histories being respected. Are years of emotional investment by fans being considered, or thrown out like dirty dishwater.

Writers and artists of serial graphic fiction can always shock us with something "new" and "different." In fact, it's the easiest way to create a comic book. Look at DC. "New ideas" in my opinion aren't often "good ideas." Sometimes retelling an old story in a new way is the most original idea of all. I think X-Men fans are activist fans, and we resist change for the sake of change, we resist stupid ideas that some editor or writer tries to convince us are "great."

A shout-out to Kieron Gillen who managed to write the X-Men in a refreshing, challenging way that did not alienate fans, and did not massacre characters. We weren't resistant to his X-Men at all; in fact, I've never seen X-Fans so united in their praise of an X-Men run.

I think Bendis' X-Men are confounding to fans, precisely because he is ignoring so many old tropes and taking the characters down new, interesting, unusual paths. At the same time, the X-Men he writes are still Claremont's X-Men. He is successfully spiraling forward, in my opinion.

[DDD]

Mystique is now practically a cheap cartoon villain to blame for evetything. Like Lex Luthor.

[skullfire]

Except the concept of a book starring the original 5 X-Men time-traveling to the present IS a completely new, original idea! To me, this demonstrates a fundamental truth of X-Men fandom; when something is truly original, fans complain. Morrison was regressive, not original. He rehashed old ideas, and took complex plots, characters, and ideas backwards. Matt Fraction did a lot of new, original, exciting things; he took the X-Men to the West coast. He set up Utopia. He brought Magneto into the fold. He set Scott Summers up to be a mature leader; no longer the boy-scout. Some fans think this is change for the better (like me), and some think it's change for the worse.

So, we don't need change for the sake of change, do we? Regression, shocking deaths, gross mis-characterizations, aren't positive change. You can make Peter Parker into a mass-murderer, that's change. You can put Emma Frost back into the Hellfire Club and make her the most evil villain in comics; that would be "change." Regressive, dumb-ass change.

I think we X-Fans are resistant to stupid ideas, not "new" ideas. The question isn't whether something is new or original, but does it work as a story. Are the characters and their histories being respected. Are years of emotional investment by fans being considered, or thrown out like dirty dishwater.

Writers and artists of serial graphic fiction can always shock us with something "new" and "different." In fact, it's the easiest way to create a comic book. Look at DC. "New ideas" in my opinion aren't often "good ideas." Sometimes retelling an old story in a new way is the most original idea of all. I think X-Men fans are activist fans, and we resist change for the sake of change, we resist stupid ideas that some editor or writer tries to convince us are "great."

A shout-out to Kieron Gillen who managed to write the X-Men in a refreshing, challenging way that did not alienate fans, and did not massacre characters. We weren't resistant to his X-Men at all; in fact, I've never seen X-Fans so united in their praise of an X-Men run.

I think Bendis' X-Men are confounding to fans, precisely because he is ignoring so many old tropes and taking the characters down new, interesting, unusual paths. At the same time, the X-Men he writes are still Claremont's X-Men. He is successfully spiraling forward, in my opinion.

I am glad someone is enjoying it, but to me X-Men were believable characters in spite of the tropes but the 90s ruined that illusion. Whedon at least wrote the X-Men as recognizable characters. (I love Morrison's run but not necessarily because I think his characterizations were spot on.) To me, Bendis is a ten year old playing with action figures. I can't wait until he leaves. I wish they would 1) age characters in some fashion, maybe 1:3 or 1:2.5, 2) seperate X-Men from the rest of the MU, and 3) make it a rule that each character only appears in one book at a time, and 4) require each book to have a specific story to tell, a balance of long and short arcs and subplots. Claremont's legacy should have been that every ending is a beginning. Marvel, please give us at least one book that fits this criteria. I would love to see a writer do one of those stories that recaps what counts and go forward from there. Please the people who want OOC characters fistfighting the same five people over and over, but give me a good story and you can have my money.

[elgrey]

Except the concept of a book starring the original 5 X-Men time-traveling to the present IS a completely new, original idea! To me, this demonstrates a fundamental truth of X-Men fandom; when something is truly original, fans complain. Morrison was regressive, not original. He rehashed old ideas, and took complex plots, characters, and ideas backwards. Matt Fraction did a lot of new, original, exciting things; he took the X-Men to the West coast. He set up Utopia. He brought Magneto into the fold. He set Scott Summers up to be a mature leader; no longer the boy-scout. Some fans think this is change for the better (like me), and some think it's change for the worse.

So, we don't need change for the sake of change, do we? Regression, shocking deaths, gross mis-characterizations, aren't positive change. You can make Peter Parker into a mass-murderer, that's change. You can put Emma Frost back into the Hellfire Club and make her the most evil villain in comics; that would be "change." Regressive, dumb-ass change.

I think we X-Fans are resistant to stupid ideas, not "new" ideas. The question isn't whether something is new or original, but does it work as a story. Are the characters and their histories being respected. Are years of emotional investment by fans being considered, or thrown out like dirty dishwater.

Writers and artists of serial graphic fiction can always shock us with something "new" and "different." In fact, it's the easiest way to create a comic book. Look at DC. "New ideas" in my opinion aren't often "good ideas." Sometimes retelling an old story in a new way is the most original idea of all. I think X-Men fans are activist fans, and we resist change for the sake of change, we resist stupid ideas that some editor or writer tries to convince us are "great."

A shout-out to Kieron Gillen who managed to write the X-Men in a refreshing, challenging way that did not alienate fans, and did not massacre characters. We weren't resistant to his X-Men at all; in fact, I've never seen X-Fans so united in their praise of an X-Men run.

I think Bendis' X-Men are confounding to fans, precisely because he is ignoring so many old tropes and taking the characters down new, interesting, unusual paths. At the same time, the X-Men he writes are still Claremont's X-Men. He is successfully spiraling forward, in my opinion.

What a great post. This was so well-expressed and I agree with every word.

[Omegastorm]

Except the concept of a book starring the original 5 X-Men time-traveling to the present IS a completely new, original idea! To me, this demonstrates a fundamental truth of X-Men fandom; when something is truly original, fans complain. Morrison was regressive, not original. He rehashed old ideas, and took complex plots, characters, and ideas backwards. Matt Fraction did a lot of new, original, exciting things; he took the X-Men to the West coast. He set up Utopia. He brought Magneto into the fold. He set Scott Summers up to be a mature leader; no longer the boy-scout. Some fans think this is change for the better (like me), and some think it's change for the worse.

So, we don't need change for the sake of change, do we? Regression, shocking deaths, gross mis-characterizations, aren't positive change. You can make Peter Parker into a mass-murderer, that's change. You can put Emma Frost back into the Hellfire Club and make her the most evil villain in comics; that would be "change." Regressive, dumb-ass change.

I think we X-Fans are resistant to stupid ideas, not "new" ideas. The question isn't whether something is new or original, but does it work as a story. Are the characters and their histories being respected. Are years of emotional investment by fans being considered, or thrown out like dirty dishwater.

Writers and artists of serial graphic fiction can always shock us with something "new" and "different." In fact, it's the easiest way to create a comic book. Look at DC. "New ideas" in my opinion aren't often "good ideas." Sometimes retelling an old story in a new way is the most original idea of all. I think X-Men fans are activist fans, and we resist change for the sake of change, we resist stupid ideas that some editor or writer tries to convince us are "great."

A shout-out to Kieron Gillen who managed to write the X-Men in a refreshing, challenging way that did not alienate fans, and did not massacre characters. We weren't resistant to his X-Men at all; in fact, I've never seen X-Fans so united in their praise of an X-Men run.

I think Bendis' X-Men are confounding to fans, precisely because he is ignoring so many old tropes and taking the characters down new, interesting, unusual paths. At the same time, the X-Men he writes are still Claremont's X-Men. He is successfully spiraling forward, in my opinion.

I can't agree with this post. Bringing the 05 into the future isn't something new. It's boring and a cheap way to bring in a Jeen while ignoring Jean. It's just another way to tell the story of the Phoenix over and over and over again. [sarcasm]Did we really need another trial of the Phoenix? how many have their been anyway? . [/end sarcasm] Seriously his story is derivative of something the X-men and those five characters have done repeatedly. Their entire mission is to learn to use their powers in the here and now and then forget it because we know and Bendis knows that if they remember it that will change everything else. That's not new or refreshing or different.

It's not original. The themes and exposition do nothing to create a cohesive plot, create goals for the characters to achieve or do anything except serve as fanwank. To each their own but this title is completely pointless and does nothing to advance the franchise.

o

[keeper444]

The comics are an industry that want to make money, one should never forget this. My biggest problem with bendis was that I was a fan of ultimate spiderman and when the mini of death of spider come out I din't think he was going to kill him, but he did. That was new, peter fight the good fight but he couldn't survived it, he introduced a new character, motivation etc, instead of reviving peter and the comic is still moving, but me and lot of readers didn't come back because we followed peter not miles. Some times new things can make your comic loose a lot of fans that's why is hard for editors and writers take the risk, because new directions can alienate your fan base.

[Mari]

Most fans would be resistant to change. They like something for a reason or reasons, and if you take those away or change those reasons them then it is difficult to remain a fan of it.

But change also results in new fans, who like the change. I was a new fan, liked the change and story result from Grant Morrison's New X-Men, my curiosity caused me to buy the books and start reading from that point.

Change is good for everyone especially to bring new fans, but probably at a smaller rate to keep the existing fans.

[Emerald_616]

What you've just listed is exactly what is wrong with the X-Universe. That is not change. That is just having old and new characters repackaged to give an illusion of change. For as much as people praise Aaron for trying something different, well he really didn't. Yes his style of storytelling was different it was juvenile BUT his actual stories had new characters in rehashed storylines. His little twists of using Krakoa as a guard dog or the Siege Perilous villian weren't storytelling they were just gimmicks.

Same goes for the current WATXM Quentin/Phoenix storyline which is just the same old shit again.
We could actually say the same for the X-Force franchise which now just there for the sake of having an X-Force title.

Spot on about W&TX! The praise was lauding how different it was, but that was only in tone, not ideas or substance.

Except the concept of a book starring the original 5 X-Men time-traveling to the present IS a completely new, original idea! To me, this demonstrates a fundamental truth of X-Men fandom; when something is truly original, fans complain. Morrison was regressive, not original. He rehashed old ideas, and took complex plots, characters, and ideas backwards. Matt Fraction did a lot of new, original, exciting things; he took the X-Men to the West coast. He set up Utopia. He brought Magneto into the fold. He set Scott Summers up to be a mature leader; no longer the boy-scout. Some fans think this is change for the better (like me), and some think it's change for the worse.

So, we don't need change for the sake of change, do we? Regression, shocking deaths, gross mis-characterizations, aren't positive change. You can make Peter Parker into a mass-murderer, that's change. You can put Emma Frost back into the Hellfire Club and make her the most evil villain in comics; that would be "change." Regressive, dumb-ass change.

I think we X-Fans are resistant to stupid ideas, not "new" ideas. The question isn't whether something is new or original, but does it work as a story. Are the characters and their histories being respected. Are years of emotional investment by fans being considered, or thrown out like dirty dishwater.

Writers and artists of serial graphic fiction can always shock us with something "new" and "different." In fact, it's the easiest way to create a comic book. Look at DC. "New ideas" in my opinion aren't often "good ideas." Sometimes retelling an old story in a new way is the most original idea of all. I think X-Men fans are activist fans, and we resist change for the sake of change, we resist stupid ideas that some editor or writer tries to convince us are "great."

A shout-out to Kieron Gillen who managed to write the X-Men in a refreshing, challenging way that did not alienate fans, and did not massacre characters. We weren't resistant to his X-Men at all; in fact, I've never seen X-Fans so united in their praise of an X-Men run.

I think Bendis' X-Men are confounding to fans, precisely because he is ignoring so many old tropes and taking the characters down new, interesting, unusual paths. At the same time, the X-Men he writes are still Claremont's X-Men. He is successfully spiraling forward, in my opinion.

I agree with you about everything except All-New X-Men. I loved the move to San Francisco and thought it harkened back to the city's warm reception to the X-Men in the mid-80s Claremont run. However, Fraction's execution was not always on, as he had his pick of literally any X-Character sans X-Factor Investigations and used 3-4 in the forefront of his book. A on ideas, D on execution, IMO, but I still enjoy it because it was refreshing overall. I cannot say I feel the same way about All-New currently.

[From The Shadows]

Ill argue that Morrison did not completely rehash old ideas as he made mutants less hated and hidden and opened up the school to the public which I thought was an interesting change. And he introduced some truly different looking murants like Beak. Ok, Nightcrawler... but lets face it Kurt looks like a blue model at the end of the day.

I agree Bendis tried to do something different with the 05 and I liked it in the beginning but I felt a retread when he brought back the Pheonix trial and tried to do another triangle like the Cyclops/Wolverine/ Jean one with Laura. And some of the different seems for the sake of shocking.

[Pharozonk]

I haven't cared for the X-Men since Morrison ruined Beast and killed Jean Grey off. The characters haven't felt the same to me since then.