Page 17 of 33 FirstFirst ... 713141516171819202127 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 494
  1. #241
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    4,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jpmst17 View Post
    so, if it always goes back, what is the point? if one guy is widely recognized as captain america, what difference does it make?
    Forces writers to get creative, and easer to try new things. Because there less know characters they have a greater freedom to be experimenter with and are easer to get more unconventional storylines approved. Ex having Sam as cap forces the creative team to take risk and be creative. It sucks to admit but the classics are for lack of a better term restricted to how much you can expermant with compared to the lesser know ones. The changes are neccessary to try new things, balme how marvel developed there character, if they dont want to to change the classical, they have to sub them out to tell the storys that they want. Basically this is neccery because marvel dosent want classical changed too much or to have dramatic development. Either be ok with writers giving wider changes to the classic character or let new ones take over for a bit to see new thing and at worst give new characters a boost in popularity.

  2. #242
    Mighty Member jpmst17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dthirds3 View Post
    Forces writers to get creative, and easer to try new things. Because there less know characters they have a greater freedom to be experimenter with and are easer to get more unconventional storylines approved. Ex having Sam as cap forces the creative team to take risk and be creative. It sucks to admit but the classics are for lack of a better term restricted to how much you can expermant with compared to the lesser know ones. The changes are neccessary to try new things, balme how marvel developed there character, if they dont want to to change the classical, they have to sub them out to tell the storys that they want. Basically this is neccery because marvel dosent want classical changed too much or to have dramatic development. Either be ok with writers giving wider changes to the classic character or let new ones take over for a bit to see new thing and at worst give new characters a boost in popularity.
    I don't have a problem with changes happening, cyclops lost and eye, at least for now, and is an actual cyclops. but like i said above, most things always revert back to how they are.

  3. #243
    Extraordinary Member BroHomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Da Souf
    Posts
    6,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jpmst17 View Post
    I don't have a problem with changes happening, cyclops lost and eye, at least for now, and is an actual cyclops. but like i said above, most things always revert back to how they are.
    Eye-Boy could lend him one

  4. #244
    Queen of Disaster Magik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Limbo
    Posts
    472

    Default

    What about "X-Mansion"? Ha, it sounds like a name of a porn movie lol

  5. #245
    Mighty Member jpmst17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BroHomo View Post
    Eye-Boy could lend him one
    That's true. He does have some eyes to spare

  6. #246
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myownlittleusername View Post
    If "X-Men" were created today, what is the likelihood the same name would be used?
    Who's to say the characters would be as popular without this catchy name?
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  7. #247
    Spectacular Member Nimrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Joe View Post
    They might just use House of X going forward I suppose, I'm less than convinced by it though. I wouldn't mind though. I also wouldn't mind if they were called X-Men either if I'm honest. It is just the conventions of the day, and there are a lot of younger people reading these comics, and today's convention is different from 1963 (which is when I was born as well as the X-Men, so I'm pretty outdated too, I guess).
    I noticed on thor no. 5 page 2 he calls logan Logan from House of X. So I think they may change the name from House of X and Hickman will usher in this new age - an Age of no more X Men.
    “I am the ultimate hunter, come from the future to destroy you.”

  8. #248
    Extraordinary Member Master of Sound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    9,504

    Default

    X-Men is not just a title, it is a concept.

    Why on earth change a concept that works for decades?

    Just keep the title.
    "COURAGE, DON'T YOU DARE LET ME DOWN"
    ==================================================
    ==================================================

  9. #249
    Moo-tant? Ultimate Rogue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    681

    Default

    IS X-MEN NAME OUTDATED? = No, imo


    Now that the sexy talk has died down, or was it sex politics talk? RIP, please, for love of love, please, RIP

    Sexy talk = interesting, Sex Politics = Yawn

    But, In-universe, IF Marvel keep on demonising Xavier, (HOX/POX could be a turning point) why would the X-Men keep using the X.

    This could've been the trigger for the schism, or still could be. Characters for and against Xavier.


    Do the X-office have an obligation to salvage Xaviers name, for the sake of the X-Men in-universe name?
    House of X wouldn't solve the name issue.


    If they do try to shine a more positive light on Xavier in HOXPOX, or vilify him further then I as a Rogue fan simply demand dammit, that she gets given a voice, a role, agency. We've been the only fanbase to have had to sit through a character arc of a reaction towards Xaviers death (no other character comes to mind as having given two hoots about him, at all). I'm not saying that Rogue should be a devout acolyte to him, she could of just been more intensively manipulated by him (given her latent telepathic 'resistance') but she should be given more of a central role in anything concerning Xavier that the X-office has given her for years.


    I can go either way on Xavier, I'm not massively attached to him (he only just manages to enter my top 10 psychics within marvel), but this teeny petulance of "Professor Xavier is a jerk" is a bit weird considering that these characters are willing to still fight under his name, the X-Men.

    Also I think a certain respect and tolerance to what/who has come before isn't such a bad thing for these books to acknowledge (sure, don't dwell in the past for to long but have enough maturity to acknowledge the path having had to be taken to get you to where you are)

  10. #250
    Comic maker Evil Means's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Stan's explanation of how the title came to pass is, "humans with extra powers". He wanted to call the book "The Mutants", but his editor didn't like it because his editor said no one would know what a mutant is. So he took an "X" and slapped it on "Humans". The "Man" portion of human does not mean male. In fact, though we say "hue-man", the root of the word would be better divided as "hume-an". No part of Human means male, just as no part of X-Men means male.

    Stan sat down, took the word Human, added an X, removed the "Hu" (perhaps unadvisedly considering the etymology) and was left with "X-Mans". I'm assuming at that point the linguistic part of his brain felt the term sounded clunky and so went with "X-Men".


    This is something, by the way, that Professor X should have been able to very simply articulate to Mystique in the film, but the screenwriter wanted his "zinger" instead of exhibiting something more intellectual.

    To that end...the title has been X-Men for like 7 decades. Innumerable X-Men writers, many of whom are probably smarter than the writer for Dark Phoenix, all considered this same "zinger" and they quickly dismissed it because they understood the etymology of the title X-Men. The screenwriter of Dark Phoenix, apparently, did not.

  11. #251
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,411

    Default

    It is but I'd rather keep it X-Men.

  12. #252
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    7,144

    Default X-"men"

    So what's this about Marvel promoting someone who suggested they change the name of the X-Men team so it’s “more inclusive.”...


    https://twitter.com/MoeiZer/status/1441359112650911750

    ^^^Oh and remember this

  13. #253
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,865

    Default

    That line is always funny, no worries there. Also, one person can shoot for as many gold stickers from the usual crowd all they want but when marketing and testing and licensing and everyone else gets the final says, when they realize they probably cannot come up with a better title then X-Men and everyone will just call it X-Men, it won't matter what one person was saying.

  14. #254
    Julian Keller Supremacy Rift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Location
    Hellionsville, Canada
    Posts
    3,362

    Default

    They should change the franchise name to Hellions, and center is around Hellion. He's the powerful, cool bad-boy everyone would love and admire. Anyone can be a Hellion, and anyone can love Hellion.

  15. #255
    Astonishing Member Frobisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    4,270

    Default

    This just sounds like something invented to drum up outrage on all the usual troglodyte sites. We'll be back around to the fake "War on Christmas" next.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •