Cyclops vs Magneto: a Comparative Character Study

Posted by Squares (6444 posts) - - Show Bio

 In a recent piece of promo art for the upcoming event Fear Itself, Cyclops was depicted in Magneto's armor, holding the helmet at his hip. The message therein is so blatantly obvious that to state it would almost be insulting, but can one honestly say that it is accurate? Sure, the two men are arguably both born leaders; however, one is the very model of a general, whereas the other is a zealous radical. While both are said (on multiple occasions) to be at least decently nice people, well, actions speak louder than words.

Cyclops went from being the leader of the X-men to being the leader of (most of) mutantkind, shortly after the Decimation. Actually, I'd like to point out that 'decimation' is NOT an accurate term to describe of the events of M-day. To decimate something is to destroy exactly ten percent of it, and I'm pretty sure a good 70-80% of all mutants were depowered at M-day. Back to the point: Cyclops is a leader, a tactician, and a man of strategy. That being said, he is also an Alpha-level mutant, one that Sinister believes/believed held the key to ultimate power (in his genetics, when combined with that of Jean Grey). I forget how that ended...if it ended. Scott is depicted as attractive, having caught the eye of many powerful women, such as Jean Grey, the Scarlet Witch, and Emma Frost. Disciplined, strong-willed and loyal, you could almost call him the ideal soldier, if not the ideal general. He would fight with everything he had to protect those he loves, and though he tends to be somewhat emotionally remote, he deeply values his friends. Also, the man is pretty good at giving speeches. One of his biggest regrets is not being able to raise his son, Nathan, and instead sending him into the future (where he needed to be for a reason that totally escapes me right now). This caused strife between the two for a number of years (Cable is a time traveler, don't ask), and was eventually reconciled (before the latter's death). Over the years, we've witnessed Cyclops' transformation from the token emo kid into a powerful, capable leader.

Magneto, however, is a terrorist. Brutal, proud, and zealous, he has shown himself capable of cold-blooded murder, among many other violent acts. In his mind, there is nothing more important than mutant supremacy. He is willing to lie, cheat, steal, kill, even die in order to further his ideals. However, it is also true that Magneto can be gentle, forgiving, an intellectual, someone you'd think of as a fantastic teacher of some difficult sort of mathematics, or even ancient history. He's shown to be loving, passionate, and loyal, as well. This is, by no means, odd; nearly everyone has at least a few personality traits that more or less contradict one another- violent and loving, forgiving and vindictive. One can be brutal and gentle, it depends mostly on the situation. If you look at the series closely enough, it's pretty clear that Magneto merely has little opportunity to display his softer side. That being said, Magneto is a terrible father and role model. His children hate him, and with good reason; he has never proven himself as someone they could trust, or rely on. This is displayed very clearly in his past with Quicksilver, who genuinely wished for his father's love and acceptance. He was beaten horribly by his father after the House of M, mere seconds before the Scarlet Witch cast her 'No More Mutants' spell. And while Cyclops may not be father of the year, it's not like we see him trying to kill his own progeny.

In conclusion, to prove a point about Magneto I'll leave you with the testimony of Professor Xavier, from New X-men:

#1 Posted by xerox_kitty (15762 posts) - - Show Bio

An impressive first blog since the resurrection of Comic Vine :)  I think that Magneto comes off a little brutal here.  There have many occasions where he's worked alongside & even helped to lead the X-Men in the past.  As his duration as headmaster, he cared deeply for the New Mutants, but that passion for his students helped to twist him around to his old ways.  All in all, I'd say that Magneto suffers from changes in creative teams.  Yet somehow his flip-flopping between the roles of villain & hero have somehow deepened his character.


Cyclops on the other hand.  I've no love for him, especially the way he's been portrayed as the golden uber X-Man whom every mutant has to consult on how to wipe their arse.  He' managed to chieve all of Magneto's goals without any of the criticism.  It's absolutely crazy that no-one sees him as a villain, yet he's done everything the same as their greatest Nemesis.
Moderator
#2 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@xerox-kitty said:
" An impressive first blog since the resurrection of Comic Vine :)  I think that Magneto comes off a little brutal here.  There have many occasions where he's worked alongside & even helped to lead the X-Men in the past.  As his duration as headmaster, he cared deeply for the New Mutants, but that passion for his students helped to twist him around to his old ways.  All in all, I'd say that Magneto suffers from changes in creative teams.  Yet somehow his flip-flopping between the roles of villain & hero have somehow deepened his character.

Cyclops on the other hand.  I've no love for him, especially the way he's been portrayed as the golden uber X-Man whom every mutant has to consult on how to wipe their arse.  He' managed to chieve all of Magneto's goals without any of the criticism.  It's absolutely crazy that no-one sees him as a villain, yet he's done everything the same as their greatest Nemesis.
"
He never marched humans into furnaces, though. That's a few points in Cyke's column. (Yes, that happened, death to pointless retconning >_>)

@Squares:
Brilliant. I agree with all of it ^_^
#3 Posted by SC (13092 posts) - - Show Bio

Magneto just suffers like X-K said from multiple writers with contradicting views on the character. Cyclops hasn't really as much. I mean, imagine if you had about 5 writers who wrote Cyclops the same way as Fraction (is tricked into having psychic sex with a psychic ghost he thinks is Emma, and getting a bunch of mutants killed by the wait for it... bus load. So I agree a lot with many of your observations, some times the perspective seems to jump around in context, Magneto has a lot more material to draw out a lot to (as in contradictory and dramatically so) (I know many hardcore Magneto things for entire sites which paint him in the opposite light than here, with substantial back up as well without actually contradicting much here either). It is sort of funny too that the Xavier quote scan, comes from a writer who made no secret of his dislike of the Magneto character (As in in-story) he wanted to write him after all and wanted to reveal to people how his projection is what he really is. 


Mike Carey I find writes a better Xavier and Magneto thats also drawing off the best of what best typifies and characterizes those two. Morrison didn't draw for and from a lot of CC's work and he liked to to characterize Magneto as from his first 10 appearances. Thats okay and Morrison can make a good story out of that, but its fairly oversimplified take. 
Moderator
#4 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:
" Magneto just suffers like X-K said from multiple writers with contradicting views on the character. Cyclops hasn't really as much. I mean, imagine if you had about 5 writers who wrote Cyclops the same way as Fraction (is tricked into having psychic sex with a psychic ghost he thinks is Emma, and getting a bunch of mutants killed by the wait for it... bus load. So I agree a lot with many of your observations, some times the perspective seems to jump around in context, Magneto has a lot more material to draw out a lot to (as in contradictory and dramatically so) (I know many hardcore Magneto things for entire sites which paint him in the opposite light than here, with substantial back up as well without actually contradicting much here either). It is sort of funny too that the Xavier quote scan, comes from a writer who made no secret of his dislike of the Magneto character (As in in-story) he wanted to write him after all and wanted to reveal to people how his projection is what he really is. 

Mike Carey I find writes a better Xavier and Magneto thats also drawing off the best of what best typifies and characterizes those two. Morrison didn't draw for and from a lot of CC's work and he liked to to characterize Magneto as from his first 10 appearances. Thats okay and Morrison can make a good story out of that, but its fairly oversimplified take. 
"
Morrison's Magneto was writtent to illustrate a point; he was a psychotic, warmongering terrorist. No matter how much other writers have dressed it up, how you try to justify his actions; he's still just a "mad old terrorist twat" (Morrison). Making him out to be a good guy or sympathetic villain is just insulting.

As usual, Morrison makes every other writer in the business look like a moron.
#5 Posted by SC (13092 posts) - - Show Bio
@FadeToBlackBolt said:
" @SC said:
" Magneto just suffers like X-K said from multiple writers with contradicting views on the character. Cyclops hasn't really as much. I mean, imagine if you had about 5 writers who wrote Cyclops the same way as Fraction (is tricked into having psychic sex with a psychic ghost he thinks is Emma, and getting a bunch of mutants killed by the wait for it... bus load. So I agree a lot with many of your observations, some times the perspective seems to jump around in context, Magneto has a lot more material to draw out a lot to (as in contradictory and dramatically so) (I know many hardcore Magneto things for entire sites which paint him in the opposite light than here, with substantial back up as well without actually contradicting much here either). It is sort of funny too that the Xavier quote scan, comes from a writer who made no secret of his dislike of the Magneto character (As in in-story) he wanted to write him after all and wanted to reveal to people how his projection is what he really is. 

Mike Carey I find writes a better Xavier and Magneto thats also drawing off the best of what best typifies and characterizes those two. Morrison didn't draw for and from a lot of CC's work and he liked to to characterize Magneto as from his first 10 appearances. Thats okay and Morrison can make a good story out of that, but its fairly oversimplified take. 
"
Morrison's Magneto was writtent to illustrate a point; he was a psychotic, warmongering terrorist. No matter how much other writers have dressed it up, how you try to justify his actions; he's still just a "mad old terrorist twat" (Morrison). Making him out to be a good guy or sympathetic villain is just insulting. As usual, Morrison makes every other writer in the business look like a moron. "

Sure, any writer can do that with any character to make a point. Morrison could write Hank Pym to being prone to snapping, work obsessed, misogynistic wife beater. The material is there to draw in. Many writers in thankfully not as negative ways went there, thankfully it wasn't because any of them had a thing against Pym, most were just going for easy drama. Its not for writers or posters to try and justify his actions. Its subjective. 

As usual, Morrison thinks his stance on a character is best and projects it. I am a fan of most of them, his consistency though? Even he admits its not there, but thats okay. Why be consistent when you can be good, when you can define/redefine. Of course if a writer has a negative view of a character and seeks to redefine them... well lets say he turned his eye on your ten favorite characters, but his stance on them was very, wholly negative? 
Moderator
#6 Edited by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:

" @FadeToBlackBolt said:

" @SC said:

" Magneto just suffers like X-K said from multiple writers with contradicting views on the character. Cyclops hasn't really as much. I mean, imagine if you had about 5 writers who wrote Cyclops the same way as Fraction (is tricked into having psychic sex with a psychic ghost he thinks is Emma, and getting a bunch of mutants killed by the wait for it... bus load. So I agree a lot with many of your observations, some times the perspective seems to jump around in context, Magneto has a lot more material to draw out a lot to (as in contradictory and dramatically so) (I know many hardcore Magneto things for entire sites which paint him in the opposite light than here, with substantial back up as well without actually contradicting much here either). It is sort of funny too that the Xavier quote scan, comes from a writer who made no secret of his dislike of the Magneto character (As in in-story) he wanted to write him after all and wanted to reveal to people how his projection is what he really is. 
Mike Carey I find writes a better Xavier and Magneto thats also drawing off the best of what best typifies and characterizes those two. Morrison didn't draw for and from a lot of CC's work and he liked to to characterize Magneto as from his first 10 appearances. Thats okay and Morrison can make a good story out of that, but its fairly oversimplified take. 
"
Morrison's Magneto was writtent to illustrate a point; he was a psychotic, warmongering terrorist. No matter how much other writers have dressed it up, how you try to justify his actions; he's still just a "mad old terrorist twat" (Morrison). Making him out to be a good guy or sympathetic villain is just insulting. As usual, Morrison makes every other writer in the business look like a moron. "

Sure, any writer can do that with any character to make a point. Morrison could write Hank Pym to being prone to snapping, work obsessed, misogynistic wife beater. The material is there to draw in. Many writers in thankfully not as negative ways went there, thankfully it wasn't because any of them had a thing against Pym, most were just going for easy drama. Its not for writers or posters to try and justify his actions. Its subjective. 
As usual, Morrison thinks his stance on a character is best and projects it. I am a fan of most of them, his consistency though? Even he admits its not there, but thats okay. Why be consistent when you can be good, when you can define/redefine. Of course if a writer has a negative view of a character and seeks to redefine them... well lets say he turned his eye on your ten favorite characters, but his stance on them was very, wholly negative? 
"
None of that is part of Hank's character innately though. The wife-beating instant being the fault of moronic artist in the first place, and not the intention of the writer, but that's not the issue.

Morrison's stance on most characters is best. He's the greatest comic writer of all time, and amongst the greatest literary minds in History. I don't necessarily agree with/like Batman Inc, but it makes perfect sense and it suits the character.

Magneto has always been a warmongering terrorist. Every writer writes him that way, but Marvel still tries to paint him as a sympathetic figure. Does anyone defends the actions of the Joker, Darkseid or Doom? No. You can agree with what they're doing, heck I do, but I'm an absurdist misanthrope. Nevertheless, I still maintain that it's evil.

Magneto is a villain, he always has been, Morrison was the only person to come out and say "idiots, listen up, you can love this character, we all do, but do not try to defend his actions as reasonable and good". And he's right, inciting a war to exterminate another race to preserve the culture of your own is something another man did, and he's (thankfully) not looked upon with so much reverence.

EDIT: It sounds like I'm getting flustered and agro, contrary to my normal demeanour, I'm OK. I like Mags as a character though. Sorry if you were offended by anything I've written.
#7 Posted by SC (13092 posts) - - Show Bio
@FadeToBlackBolt said:
"  None of that is part of Hank's character innately though. The wife-beating instant being the fault of moronic artist in the first place, and not the intention of the writer, but that's not the issue. Morrison's stance on most characters is best. He's the greatest comic writer of all time, and amongst the greatest minds in History. I don't necessarily agree with/like Batman Inc, but it makes perfect sense and it suits the character. Magneto has always been a warmongering terrorist. Every writer writes him that way, but Marvel still tries to paint him as a sympathetic figure. Does anyone defends the actions of the Joker, Darkseid or Doom? No. You can agree with what they're doing, heck I do, but I'm an absurdist misanthrope. Nevertheless, I still maintain that it's evil.Magneto is a villain, he always has been, Morrison was the only person to come out and say "idiots, listen up, you can love this character, we all do, but do not try to defend his actions as reasonable and good". And he's right, inciting a war to exterminate another race to preserve the culture of your own is something another man did, and he's (thankfully) not looked upon with so much reverence.  "

If Morrison wanted it to be he could. Thats the point. We can forget the intent of the writer. Look at how Stan Lee who created Magneto wanted the direction of the character to go? As a sympathetic villain. The guy who created Magneto and by your standard thats insulting? 

So you mean, this is not an actual objective discussion for you? if thats your view on Morrison lol its just your views line up with Morrison and he is always right and so you are by extension? 

Just answer this question, its easy enough, and its of course hypothetical, if Morrison came out and said and wrote this as it relates to Hank Pym - "idiots, listen up, you can love this character, we all do, but do not try to defend his actions as reasonable and good" and then he proceeded to write Hank Pym as a easy to anger, whine, wife-beating misogynist. Would that still make perfect sense, would his stance on that character be best? Or can you disagree with him on that? Then if you did agree with him, and he did that to your other top ten favorite characters? Would you fold your opinions, and discretionary understanding of those characters, granted that he is supposedly amongst the greatest minds in history? 
Moderator
#8 Posted by xerox_kitty (15762 posts) - - Show Bio
@FadeToBlackBolt said:
"He never marched humans into furnaces, though."
Not yet.
Moderator
#9 Posted by SC (13092 posts) - - Show Bio
@FadeToBlackBolt said:
"EDIT: It sounds like I'm getting flustered and agro, contrary to my normal demeanour, I'm OK. I like Mags as a character though. Sorry if you were offended by anything I've written. "

I am too jittery tonight after getting CV back, I am replying like wildfire =p

Its okay, I don't think you are, I know you are a big Morrison and Cyclops fan, and so bring the passion with these subjects. I understand completely. I perceive nothing offensive or anger *smile*

I am a fan of Morrison, Cyclops, Magneto. I do prefer say like I said before, Carey's and Chris Claremont's take on Magneto. Also I recognize Morrison's biggest weakness, well, one of his areas he readily does not care for, is consistency with characterization. Characterization of characters. Not to say thats a bad thing. Like we both know as fans of his, often his take on a character is the best. His Emma for example. For many though, I think its justifiable that they criticize his consistency with his characters. I know tons of Magneto, and Beast fans who went off those characters (whilst Morrison was writing). Its why I draw my example of Hank Pym. Would life time fans of that character have some reason to dislike if Morrisons take on their favorite was negative or such in a way which oppose how they saw the character supported by 10 years of other writers writing. 

I am not offended. I like discussing these things especially with people i know, who know there stuff *smile* 
Moderator
#10 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:

" @FadeToBlackBolt said:

"  None of that is part of Hank's character innately though. The wife-beating instant being the fault of moronic artist in the first place, and not the intention of the writer, but that's not the issue. Morrison's stance on most characters is best. He's the greatest comic writer of all time, and amongst the greatest minds in History. I don't necessarily agree with/like Batman Inc, but it makes perfect sense and it suits the character. Magneto has always been a warmongering terrorist. Every writer writes him that way, but Marvel still tries to paint him as a sympathetic figure. Does anyone defends the actions of the Joker, Darkseid or Doom? No. You can agree with what they're doing, heck I do, but I'm an absurdist misanthrope. Nevertheless, I still maintain that it's evil.Magneto is a villain, he always has been, Morrison was the only person to come out and say "idiots, listen up, you can love this character, we all do, but do not try to defend his actions as reasonable and good". And he's right, inciting a war to exterminate another race to preserve the culture of your own is something another man did, and he's (thankfully) not looked upon with so much reverence.  "

If Morrison wanted it to be he could. Thats the point. We can forget the intent of the writer. Look at how Stan Lee who created Magneto wanted the direction of the character to go? As a sympathetic villain. The guy who created Magneto and by your standard thats insulting? 

So you mean, this is not an actual objective discussion for you? if thats your view on Morrison lol its just your views line up with Morrison and he is always right and so you are by extension? 

Just answer this question, its easy enough, and its of course hypothetical, if Morrison came out and said and wrote this as it relates to Hank Pym - "idiots, listen up, you can love this character, we all do, but do not try to defend his actions as reasonable and good" and then he proceeded to write Hank Pym as a easy to anger, whine, wife-beating misogynist. Would that still make perfect sense, would his stance on that character be best? Or can you disagree with him on that? Then if you did agree with him, and he did that to your other top ten favorite characters? Would you fold your opinions, and discretionary understanding of those characters, granted that he is supposedly amongst the greatest minds in history? 
"
Stan Lee created Magneto to be a sympathetic villain, which he is, but he's still a damn villain. And Stan's Mags was much less of a war criminal than the latter Magneto. He tore Wolverine's skeleton out for crying out loud (which made the Logan-hater in me so happy). The guy has always been evil. He's always been a war-mongering, genocidal terrorist. That's the basis of his character. He's not someone Rogue should be attracted to, and he's not someone who should kneel before Zo---Cyclops.

Fraction's characterisation of Cyclops and Emma has been awful, and contrary to the rest of the Vine, I still quite like Fraction. I do not like his Cyclops/Emma, because they are not written well. I love Joss Whedon's Wolverine, I hate normal Wolverine.
If Morrison were to turn Hank into an abusive mysoginist (which he wouldn't do, but it's a hypothetical, so I'll go with it), I'd be pissed off. If it was written well though, I would still enjoy the story. I don't like Wolverine, as said above, but Enemy of the State is written in such a ridiculously fun way that it's impossible not to enjoy. The way Logan was characterised may annoy me, but the story is too fun to dislike. Batman is my favourite character ever, and he was written well in Dark Victory; but I hate the story. It's just a rehash of the Long Halloween. Hush is a poorly characterised Bruce in many instances, but it's still fun as heck. Infinite Crisis has a poorly written Batman, but I still love the story.

Morrison's Magneto is not a simplified interpretation; which it's not. It's a pure representation. He stripped away, and deconstructed (which was the entire point of his X-Men run) all the useless fluff that other (lesser) writers had added on, and reinvigorated the character's to their purest form. He didn't take anything away that was important or worthwhile, he just got rid of the garbage. Why did Jean die? Because she'd been dead since the 80s. Her character had run its course; she added nothing new, she was a cancer to the X-Men. So he killed her. Why was Logan a supporting character? BECAUSE HE'S A SUPPORTING CHARACTER. Why was Cyclops caught in a state of entropic neurosis? Because Cyclops is the X-Men. He's what they are, what they represent and he's their symbol. He was caught in a state of confusion because the X-Men franchise as a whole was.

Marvel asked Morrison to revitalise the series in a more edgy and realistic way; he did that, and they retconned all his work because they didn't like the direction he took. Effectively, Marvel were the evolutionary dead end; Marvel was Sublime.

As for the Morrison is right, I agree with Morrison, I'm always right comment, come on, mate. I may be an obnoxious and overly aggressive a**hole at times, but I'm not that egotistical =P
#11 Edited by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@xerox-kitty said:

" @FadeToBlackBolt said:

"He never marched humans into furnaces, though."
Not yet. "
True, let's give Fraction time (rolls eyes)
#12 Posted by JoseDRiveraTCR7 (1008 posts) - - Show Bio

 People complain about Cyclops being like Magneto, but I see him more as a realist, someone between Magneto and Prof X. The fact is that mutants are near extinct and they have to deal with so many lethal threats from people with powers.Magneto wanted to kill all homo sapiens. All Cyclops is trying to do is save his people. Sure, some of his methods are questionable, but that's real life. One has to perform questionable acts when one has Sentinels on one's ass.

#13 Posted by Squares (6444 posts) - - Show Bio
@xerox-kitty: I actually wrote most of it yesterday, was waiting for the site to be back up to post it.
Come on, everything the same? When did Cyclops start preaching about humankind's inferiority? I agree with you entirely in that he has been, in the past, a depressingly flat character, but for once he's actually starting to flesh out a little and it's nice to see. On another note, I'd like to see Magneto undergo some serious psychotherapy. The results would be fascinating.
@FadeToBlackBolt:  A very, very good point! I was reluctant to bring it up because of that whole last-minute 'it was Xorn all along' thing. And thank you! :3
@SC said:
"It is sort of funny too that the Xavier quote scan, comes from a writer who made no secret of his dislike of the Magneto character (As in in-story) he wanted to write him after all and wanted to reveal to people how his projection is what he really is. "
Okay, I'll admit, I'm no fan of Morrison's. Not after reading New X-men, at any rate. But I really, really doubt that he's secretly a genocidal psychopath.
@FadeToBlackBolt: You're joking, right? Morrison's writing was sub-par at best! His metaphors were heavy-handed and infantile, his dialogue was unconvincing, and he completely failed to adequately depict the character of Quentin Quire!
@SC said:
Sure, any writer can do that with any character to make a point. Morrison could write Hank Pym to being prone to snapping, work obsessed, misogynistic wife beater. The material is there to draw in. Many writers in thankfully not as negative ways went there, thankfully it wasn't because any of them had a thing against Pym, most were just going for easy drama. Its not for writers or posters to try and justify his actions. Its subjective. 
Very true. A well-written character possesses both negative and positive personality traits, which makes them very easy to depict in a bad light.
@FadeToBlackBolt said:
None of that is part of Hank's character innately though. The wife-beating instant being the fault of moronic artist in the first place, and not the intention of the writer, but that's not the issue. Morrison's stance on most characters is best. He's the greatest comic writer of all time, and amongst the greatest minds in History. I don't necessarily agree with/like Batman Inc, but it makes perfect sense and it suits the character. Magneto has always been a warmongering terrorist. Every writer writes him that way, but Marvel still tries to paint him as a sympathetic figure. Does anyone defends the actions of the Joker, Darkseid or Doom? No. You can agree with what they're doing, heck I do, but I'm an absurdist misanthrope. Nevertheless, I still maintain that it's evil.Magneto is a villain, he always has been, Morrison was the only person to come out and say "idiots, listen up, you can love this character, we all do, but do not try to defend his actions as reasonable and good". And he's right, inciting a war to exterminate another race to preserve the culture of your own is something another man did, and he's (thankfully) not looked upon with so much reverence. EDIT: It sounds like I'm getting flustered and agro, contrary to my normal demeanour, I'm OK. I like Mags as a character though. Sorry if you were offended by anything I've written. "
Though I cannot honestly argue your claim as to Morrison's literary prowess, being both new to comics and having read virtually nothing but X-men titles, it seems unlikely that he's the absolute best that the comic book world has to offer in terms of writers. And history has had a lot of great minds.
Magneto has not always been a villain. Refer, in particular, to the period in time during which he was the headmaster of the Xavier Institute and pretty much acted like Professor X would have, except with holocaust references. Morrison was not the only person to state that Magneto wasn't an admirable character, I strongly suggest that you do some additional research into this matter.
Also, Magneto's fight has never been to preserve 'mutant culture'. I don't know that there is such thing as 'mutant culture'. He fights for MUTANT SUPREMACY.
@SC said:
If Morrison wanted it to be he could. Thats the point. We can forget the intent of the writer. Look at how Stan Lee who created Magneto wanted the direction of the character to go? As a sympathetic villain. The guy who created Magneto and by your standard thats insulting? 

So you mean, this is not an actual objective discussion for you? if thats your view on Morrison lol its just your views line up with Morrison and he is always right and so you are by extension? 

Just answer this question, its easy enough, and its of course hypothetical, if Morrison came out and said and wrote this as it relates to Hank Pym - "idiots, listen up, you can love this character, we all do, but do not try to defend his actions as reasonable and good" and then he proceeded to write Hank Pym as a easy to anger, whine, wife-beating misogynist. Would that still make perfect sense, would his stance on that character be best? Or can you disagree with him on that? Then if you did agree with him, and he did that to your other top ten favorite characters? Would you fold your opinions, and discretionary understanding of those characters, granted that he is supposedly amongst the greatest minds in history? 

Well said! It's not uncommon for people to get overly fond of one specific writer, especially when the writer in question has produced as much work as Morrison. Hell, look at the following Alan Moore has these days.
#14 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@Squares said:
" @xerox-kitty: I actually wrote most of it yesterday, was waiting for the site to be back up to post it.
Come on, everything the same? When did Cyclops start preaching about humankind's inferiority? I agree with you entirely in that he has been, in the past, a depressingly flat character, but for once he's actually starting to flesh out a little and it's nice to see. On another note, I'd like to see Magneto undergo some serious psychotherapy. The results would be fascinating.
@FadeToBlackBolt:  A very, very good point! I was reluctant to bring it up because of that whole last-minute 'it was Xorn all along' thing. And thank you! :3
@SC said:
"It is sort of funny too that the Xavier quote scan, comes from a writer who made no secret of his dislike of the Magneto character (As in in-story) he wanted to write him after all and wanted to reveal to people how his projection is what he really is. "
Okay, I'll admit, I'm no fan of Morrison's. Not after reading New X-men, at any rate. But I really, really doubt that he's secretly a genocidal psychopath.
@FadeToBlackBolt: You're joking, right? Morrison's writing was sub-par at best! His metaphors were heavy-handed and infantile, his dialogue was unconvincing, and he completely failed to adequately depict the character of Quentin Quire!
@SC said:
Sure, any writer can do that with any character to make a point. Morrison could write Hank Pym to being prone to snapping, work obsessed, misogynistic wife beater. The material is there to draw in. Many writers in thankfully not as negative ways went there, thankfully it wasn't because any of them had a thing against Pym, most were just going for easy drama. Its not for writers or posters to try and justify his actions. Its subjective. 
Very true. A well-written character possesses both negative and positive personality traits, which makes them very easy to depict in a bad light.
@FadeToBlackBolt said:
None of that is part of Hank's character innately though. The wife-beating instant being the fault of moronic artist in the first place, and not the intention of the writer, but that's not the issue. Morrison's stance on most characters is best. He's the greatest comic writer of all time, and amongst the greatest minds in History. I don't necessarily agree with/like Batman Inc, but it makes perfect sense and it suits the character. Magneto has always been a warmongering terrorist. Every writer writes him that way, but Marvel still tries to paint him as a sympathetic figure. Does anyone defends the actions of the Joker, Darkseid or Doom? No. You can agree with what they're doing, heck I do, but I'm an absurdist misanthrope. Nevertheless, I still maintain that it's evil.Magneto is a villain, he always has been, Morrison was the only person to come out and say "idiots, listen up, you can love this character, we all do, but do not try to defend his actions as reasonable and good". And he's right, inciting a war to exterminate another race to preserve the culture of your own is something another man did, and he's (thankfully) not looked upon with so much reverence. EDIT: It sounds like I'm getting flustered and agro, contrary to my normal demeanour, I'm OK. I like Mags as a character though. Sorry if you were offended by anything I've written. "
Though I cannot honestly argue your claim as to Morrison's literary prowess, being both new to comics and having read virtually nothing but X-men titles, it seems unlikely that he's the absolute best that the comic book world has to offer in terms of writers. And history has had a lot of great minds.
Magneto has not always been a villain. Refer, in particular, to the period in time during which he was the headmaster of the Xavier Institute and pretty much acted like Professor X would have, except with holocaust references. Morrison was not the only person to state that Magneto wasn't an admirable character, I strongly suggest that you do some additional research into this matter.
Also, Magneto's fight has never been to preserve 'mutant culture'. I don't know that there is such thing as 'mutant culture'. He fights for MUTANT SUPREMACY.
@SC said:
If Morrison wanted it to be he could. Thats the point. We can forget the intent of the writer. Look at how Stan Lee who created Magneto wanted the direction of the character to go? As a sympathetic villain. The guy who created Magneto and by your standard thats insulting? 

So you mean, this is not an actual objective discussion for you? if thats your view on Morrison lol its just your views line up with Morrison and he is always right and so you are by extension? 

Just answer this question, its easy enough, and its of course hypothetical, if Morrison came out and said and wrote this as it relates to Hank Pym - "idiots, listen up, you can love this character, we all do, but do not try to defend his actions as reasonable and good" and then he proceeded to write Hank Pym as a easy to anger, whine, wife-beating misogynist. Would that still make perfect sense, would his stance on that character be best? Or can you disagree with him on that? Then if you did agree with him, and he did that to your other top ten favorite characters? Would you fold your opinions, and discretionary understanding of those characters, granted that he is supposedly amongst the greatest minds in history? 

Well said! It's not uncommon for people to get overly fond of one specific writer, especially when the writer in question has produced as much work as Morrison. Hell, look at the following Alan Moore has these days. "
Just wow. Mate, just wow. Morrison's run was sub-par? I'm curious to hear what your favourite stories are.

By mind, I meant literary mind. I should have edited that.

Soren Kierkegaard
Lenin
Robespierre
Rousseau
Machiavelli
^They're the greatest minds of all time.
#15 Posted by SC (13092 posts) - - Show Bio
@FadeToBlackBolt said:
"Stan Lee created Magneto to be a sympathetic villain, which he is, but he's still a damn villain. And Stan's Mags was much less of a war criminal than the latter Magneto. He tore Wolverine's skeleton out for crying out loud (which made the Logan-hater in me so happy). The guy has always been evil. He's always been a war-mongering, genocidal terrorist. That's the basis of his character. He's not someone Rogue should be attracted to, and he's not someone who should kneel before Zo---Cyclops.

Fraction's characterisation of Cyclops and Emma has been awful, and contrary to the rest of the Vine, I still quite like Fraction. I do not like his Cyclops/Emma, because they are not written well. I love Joss Whedon's Wolverine, I hate normal Wolverine.
If Morrison were to turn Hank into an abusive mysoginist (which he wouldn't do, but it's a hypothetical, so I'll go with it), I'd be pissed off. If it was written well though, I would still enjoy the story. I don't like Wolverine, as said above, but Enemy of the State is written in such a ridiculously fun way that it's impossible not to enjoy. The way Logan was characterised may annoy me, but the story is too fun to dislike. Batman is my favourite character ever, and he was written well in Dark Victory; but I hate the story. It's just a rehash of the Long Halloween. Hush is a poorly characterised Bruce in many instances, but it's still fun as heck. Infinite Crisis has a poorly written Batman, but I still love the story.

Morrison's Magneto is not a simplified interpretation; which it's not. It's a pure representation. He stripped away, and deconstructed (which was the entire point of his X-Men run) all the useless fluff that other (lesser) writers had added on, and reinvigorated the character's to their purest form. He didn't take anything away that was important or worthwhile, he just got rid of the garbage. Why did Jean die? Because she'd been dead since the 80s. Her character had run its course; she added nothing new, she was a cancer to the X-Men. So he killed her. Why was Logan a supporting character? BECAUSE HE'S A SUPPORTING CHARACTER. Why was Cyclops caught in a state of entropic neurosis? Because Cyclops is the X-Men. He's what they are, what they represent and he's their symbol. He was caught in a state of confusion because the X-Men franchise as a whole was. Marvel asked Morrison to revitalise the series in a more edgy and realistic way; he did that, and they retconned all his work because they didn't like the direction he took. Effectively, Marvel were the evolutionary dead end; Marvel was Sublime. As for the Morrison is right, I agree with Morrison, I'm always right comment, come on, mate. I may be an obnoxious and overly aggressive a**hole at times, but I'm not that egotistical =P "

No one is disputing his intent to be a villain. Just that in a greater expanded universe, how and why characters are villains and heroes, VS villainous actions and heroic actions. Magneo did do that to Wolverine, and how many times, had Wolverine stabbed him before that and wanted to kill Magneto? That in itself doesn't actually make Magneto evil. He effectively acted in self defense. You hold a fairly black and white notion of good and evil right? If a writer disagrees though? 

Rogue being attracted to him was a 90's thing. 

Okay, you know how you say you would be pissed off but enjoy the story if it was well written? Thats what I am saying many Magneto and Beast fans are at. Actually Morrison wanted to kill off Rogue because he though she made no sense, he actually wanted to I think bring her in, sort of as a new character (I can't recall if it would be mind switch or something) essentially Rogue was going to because a Haitian Voodoo Princess *shrugs* 

Batman has been written poorly and you can look past that to enjoy the story, I imply that for many people, sometimes a writer no matter the quality of the story, can push them past their limits, and I nod my head and say thats okay and a good reason to not like a writer. Marvel and DC are in the business of selling characters. Thats why Disney brought Marvel. Its why we have more books, and ongoing's where its a characters name and not Detective Comics or Journey Into Mystery. Having a writer take it upon himself to knowingly characterize a character thats ignoring large portions of their history because it better fits with their idea of a character and works their story better? I don't think there is anything inherently wrong there. Personally for me it depends. I'll go back to Emma again. I found Beast. I am glad his Rogue was rejected though and I wasn't negative to all his Magneto stuff being retconned. 

Morrison's Magneto, can be perceived as being simple, because Morrison wanted a silver age villain he could update into, a mad old terrorist twat, and psychotic, warmongering terrorist, full stop, and cut out all the various things that could also apply to that character by about 10 other writers, some of who wrote the character longer, more consistently, and presented a grayer interpretation of the character. This could also be considered a more complex action, given how much Morrison tries to infuse into his stories, but like I said earlier, anyone can do this with any character and story. Many people are just pro character over plot. Morrison is just lucky that unlike Fraction, his work hits a higher sweeter note. Morrison can add fluff to. He did with the Beast character. He did with Emma. He deconstructed plots, not characters. Its why if you look at many of his fans, especially the ones in the comic industry, you can see which ones are trained or naturally appreciate strong plots and which ones appreciate strong characterization. (preference between the two) 

Morrison is just the start of both companies take on creators over titles. If you make a superstar writer you can get more money. Morrison is the same side of the coin as Bendis you realize? One you like, the other you... dislike? If Morrison is right, Bendis by automatic extension is right. Comic sales go down. but, hot, popular edgy writers with easy to identify styles start to have sales follow them, and clump around them? They get to throw characterization and continuity out the door. Again, not a bad thing. I myself would have preferred like Morrison doing a non continuity X-Mini. Casual fans don't care about continuity to much, then Morrison would have been able to have Voodoo Rogue, and Colossus, and probably go even more high concept. Like he was with All Star Supes. I mean, if that was written into continuity, Morrison would have to have ended Supes and Lois's marriage. BND the Sequel? Now if that did happen, you can see how tons of DC fans might have a legitimate gripe, even if the story was awesome, which it was. 

Tough times for fans that value characterization and continuity. They have to adapt. I feel I have. Still, I can understand the ones that are still pissed off (and lots of Magneto fans were, it didn't help that the writer didn't like the character. I am trying to think of an example of a writer hating another character and then going out of his way to present them as they project them... usually its a writer liking the character (Fraction, JMS)
Moderator
#16 Posted by Squares (6444 posts) - - Show Bio
@FadeToBlackBolt: You do know that Machiavelli's The Prince was a satire, right? Mind you, that makes it especially wonderful, but I digress.
Oh, wow. I can't say I've ever been much for political writing, and I'm ashamed to say I've read very little of the individuals you've mentioned. But for the record, I'd probably have to add Nabokov, Vonnegut, Huxley, Orwell, Jung, Burgess and Le Vey; as you can see, I have a predisposition towards the dramatic.
As for my favourite stories, I quite enjoyed Seven Soldiers of Victory (possibly only because of Zatanna and Klarion the Witch-Boy), Promethea and Kingdom Come. Especially Kingdom Come, the prose was fantastic.
#17 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:
" @FadeToBlackBolt said:
"Stan Lee created Magneto to be a sympathetic villain, which he is, but he's still a damn villain. And Stan's Mags was much less of a war criminal than the latter Magneto. He tore Wolverine's skeleton out for crying out loud (which made the Logan-hater in me so happy). The guy has always been evil. He's always been a war-mongering, genocidal terrorist. That's the basis of his character. He's not someone Rogue should be attracted to, and he's not someone who should kneel before Zo---Cyclops.

Fraction's characterisation of Cyclops and Emma has been awful, and contrary to the rest of the Vine, I still quite like Fraction. I do not like his Cyclops/Emma, because they are not written well. I love Joss Whedon's Wolverine, I hate normal Wolverine.
If Morrison were to turn Hank into an abusive mysoginist (which he wouldn't do, but it's a hypothetical, so I'll go with it), I'd be pissed off. If it was written well though, I would still enjoy the story. I don't like Wolverine, as said above, but Enemy of the State is written in such a ridiculously fun way that it's impossible not to enjoy. The way Logan was characterised may annoy me, but the story is too fun to dislike. Batman is my favourite character ever, and he was written well in Dark Victory; but I hate the story. It's just a rehash of the Long Halloween. Hush is a poorly characterised Bruce in many instances, but it's still fun as heck. Infinite Crisis has a poorly written Batman, but I still love the story.

Morrison's Magneto is not a simplified interpretation; which it's not. It's a pure representation. He stripped away, and deconstructed (which was the entire point of his X-Men run) all the useless fluff that other (lesser) writers had added on, and reinvigorated the character's to their purest form. He didn't take anything away that was important or worthwhile, he just got rid of the garbage. Why did Jean die? Because she'd been dead since the 80s. Her character had run its course; she added nothing new, she was a cancer to the X-Men. So he killed her. Why was Logan a supporting character? BECAUSE HE'S A SUPPORTING CHARACTER. Why was Cyclops caught in a state of entropic neurosis? Because Cyclops is the X-Men. He's what they are, what they represent and he's their symbol. He was caught in a state of confusion because the X-Men franchise as a whole was. Marvel asked Morrison to revitalise the series in a more edgy and realistic way; he did that, and they retconned all his work because they didn't like the direction he took. Effectively, Marvel were the evolutionary dead end; Marvel was Sublime. As for the Morrison is right, I agree with Morrison, I'm always right comment, come on, mate. I may be an obnoxious and overly aggressive a**hole at times, but I'm not that egotistical =P "

No one is disputing his intent to be a villain. Just that in a greater expanded universe, how and why characters are villains and heroes, VS villainous actions and heroic actions. Magneo did do that to Wolverine, and how many times, had Wolverine stabbed him before that and wanted to kill Magneto? That in itself doesn't actually make Magneto evil. He effectively acted in self defense. You hold a fairly black and white notion of good and evil right? If a writer disagrees though? 

Rogue being attracted to him was a 90's thing. 

Okay, you know how you say you would be pissed off but enjoy the story if it was well written? Thats what I am saying many Magneto and Beast fans are at. Actually Morrison wanted to kill off Rogue because he though she made no sense, he actually wanted to I think bring her in, sort of as a new character (I can't recall if it would be mind switch or something) essentially Rogue was going to because a Haitian Voodoo Princess *shrugs* 

Batman has been written poorly and you can look past that to enjoy the story, I imply that for many people, sometimes a writer no matter the quality of the story, can push them past their limits, and I nod my head and say thats okay and a good reason to not like a writer. Marvel and DC are in the business of selling characters. Thats why Disney brought Marvel. Its why we have more books, and ongoing's where its a characters name and not Detective Comics or Journey Into Mystery. Having a writer take it upon himself to knowingly characterize a character thats ignoring large portions of their history because it better fits with their idea of a character and works their story better? I don't think there is anything inherently wrong there. Personally for me it depends. I'll go back to Emma again. I found Beast. I am glad his Rogue was rejected though and I wasn't negative to all his Magneto stuff being retconned. 

Morrison's Magneto, can be perceived as being simple, because Morrison wanted a silver age villain he could update into, a mad old terrorist twat, and psychotic, warmongering terrorist, full stop, and cut out all the various things that could also apply to that character by about 10 other writers, some of who wrote the character longer, more consistently, and presented a grayer interpretation of the character. This could also be considered a more complex action, given how much Morrison tries to infuse into his stories, but like I said earlier, anyone can do this with any character and story. Many people are just pro character over plot. Morrison is just lucky that unlike Fraction, his work hits a higher sweeter note. Morrison can add fluff to. He did with the Beast character. He did with Emma. He deconstructed plots, not characters. Its why if you look at many of his fans, especially the ones in the comic industry, you can see which ones are trained or naturally appreciate strong plots and which ones appreciate strong characterization. (preference between the two) 

Morrison is just the start of both companies take on creators over titles. If you make a superstar writer you can get more money. Morrison is the same side of the coin as Bendis you realize? One you like, the other you... dislike? If Morrison is right, Bendis by automatic extension is right. Comic sales go down. but, hot, popular edgy writers with easy to identify styles start to have sales follow them, and clump around them? They get to throw characterization and continuity out the door. Again, not a bad thing. I myself would have preferred like Morrison doing a non continuity X-Mini. Casual fans don't care about continuity to much, then Morrison would have been able to have Voodoo Rogue, and Colossus, and probably go even more high concept. Like he was with All Star Supes. I mean, if that was written into continuity, Morrison would have to have ended Supes and Lois's marriage. BND the Sequel? Now if that did happen, you can see how tons of DC fans might have a legitimate gripe, even if the story was awesome, which it was. 

Tough times for fans that value characterization and continuity. They have to adapt. I feel I have. Still, I can understand the ones that are still pissed off (and lots of Magneto fans were, it didn't help that the writer didn't like the character. I am trying to think of an example of a writer hating another character and then going out of his way to present them as they project them... usually its a writer liking the character (Fraction, JMS)
"
Rogue being attracted to him is happening at the moment, in Legacy. So so stupid.

Also for the record, the characters were greatly deconstructed.

I actually think we've made a bigger issue out of this that it is. In a nutshell, I DON'T think Mags was written out of character during New X-Men. You do. You see it as simple, I see it as pure. The glory of interpretation and all that :P

As for the rest, I love characterisation and consistency and of course it's important, but as I said, I don't think Erik was out of character. What I was saying is that Morrison took characters that were stale, gave them new life, but kept them true to their roots. I can certainly see the point you're making, that he just swept a bunch of continuity under a rug, but I don't really think he did. He more manipulated continuity, which I can certainly see why that would tick people off. 
Regarding the Wolverine stabbing Magneto point, Logan has stabbed Mags multiple times in order to save lives. Magneto tore his skeleton out because he was ticked off. It was a glorified temper tantrum.

I've never heard of all that Rogue stuff, but that does sound awful. 

I can understand everything that you've said, save one thing. Bendis being like Morrison. Bendis is a hack who writes with a sledgehammer, Morrison, for all his faults and disregard for continuity, does respect the characters he writes. He may write them in an evil way, but he still respects the characters themselves. He is appointed to books in order gain a more adult audience, as well as increase sales. Bendis is given books because the majority of his readers are imbeciles with more money than brains.

Bendis is a cancer of the industry and needs to die.
#18 Edited by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@Squares said:

" @FadeToBlackBolt: You do know that Machiavelli's The Prince was a satire, right? Mind you, that makes it especially wonderful, but I digress.
Oh, wow. I can't say I've ever been much for political writing, and I'm ashamed to say I've read very little of the individuals you've mentioned. But for the record, I'd probably have to add Nabokov, Vonnegut, Huxley, Orwell, Jung, Burgess and Le Vey; as you can see, I have a predisposition towards the dramatic.
As for my favourite stories, I quite enjoyed Seven Soldiers of Victory (possibly only because of Zatanna and Klarion the Witch-Boy), Promethea and Kingdom Come. Especially Kingdom Come, the prose was fantastic. "

Ok, that's a good list lol.

Kierkegaard was the father of Existentialism, he wasn't a political writer. Still brilliant though. And Robespierre was a dictator, but an intelligent and pragmatic one, rather than the psychos like Stalin and Hitler. (More than likely, you know who these people are, please don't take this as an indictment of your intelligence, just if anyone else was reading and thought they were all political writers, I felt the need to clear that up).

Damn, that's a solid list. I was hoping you'd post crap so I could tear it apart. They are great books. Orwell is my favourite author of all time; you have good taste =]

I still think you're certainly overlooking much of Morrison's X-Men though. You're clearly a clever individual, so I urge you to try it again, but put your deconstructing cap on ;)

Even if you don't like the characterisation, that's fine, (something that has taken me a few thousand words to say to SC), the story and themes are still good enough to warrant a second reading.

To me, though, the series only really hits its stride after the Nova stuff is over. And it has nothing on his other works (Doom Patrol, Batman, Final Crisis, etc..)
#19 Posted by Squares (6444 posts) - - Show Bio
@FadeToBlackBolt: That's true, I can't believe I forgot Kierkegaard. From what I've heard, Hitler's writing was rather manic and incoherent, and I'm not really too curious about Stalin.
Thank you! I'd have to say that Vonnegut is my favourite at the moment, but I've always had a soft spot for Orwell.
Whenever someone mentions Doom Patrol, all I can think of is Dogwelder. Is he still around?
#20 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@Squares: I don't think so. The Doom Patrol is a little more mainstream now (sadly).

Alas, I've not read any of Vonnegut's works. So I'm shamefully ignorant on the subject.

I've never found Stalin to be that interesting myself, he has some good quotes, but, really, he's just a standard violent totalitarian.
#21 Posted by SC (13092 posts) - - Show Bio
@FadeToBlackBolt said:
" Rogue being attracted to him is happening at the moment, in Legacy. So so stupid. Also for the record, the characters were greatly deconstructed. I actually think we've made a bigger issue out of this that it is. In a nutshell, I DON'T think Mags was written out of character during New X-Men. You do. You see it as simple, I see it as pure. The glory of interpretation and all that :P As for the rest, I love characterisation and consistency and of course it's important, but as I said, I don't think Erik was out of character. What I was saying is that Morrison took characters that were stale, gave them new life, but kept them true to their roots. I can certainly see the point you're making, that he just swept a bunch of continuity under a rug, but I don't really think he did. He more manipulated continuity, which I can certainly see why that would tick people off.  Regarding the Wolverine stabbing Magneto point, Logan has stabbed Mags multiple times in order to save lives. Magneto tore his skeleton out because he was ticked off. It was a glorified temper tantrum. I've never heard of all that Rogue stuff, but that does sound awful.  I can understand everything that you've said, save one thing. Bendis being like Morrison. Bendis is a hack who writes with a sledgehammer, Morrison, for all his faults and disregard for continuity, does respect the characters he writes. He may write them in an evil way, but he still respects the characters themselves. He is appointed to books in order gain a more adult audience, as well as increase sales. Bendis is given books because the majority of his readers are imbeciles with more money than brains. Bendis is a cancer of the industry and needs to die. "

I would go that far, its still really hinting. Right now in legacy Rogue is more mixing it up with Remy. She has flirted with Sam more substantially in the last 5 years. Thats currently though anyway. I rant about how thats stupid in another thread too lol It is stupid..

Oh, its even more simple, since I don't think Magneto was written out of character in New X-Men. My take is that Magneto has had such wild and erratic writing in the past, writers can do a lot with him, and have it be in "character" I am just not fond of writers being fully aware that their take on a character will be polarizing but taking that character that direction anyway, for the purpose of the plot. Bendis did it with Sentry in Siege. Bendis knew that taken a polarizing character and using him the way he did would annoy a percentage of fans of that character, but he did it for his plots. Bendis probably actually liked the Sentry too. Imagine if he hated the Sentry? I think Morrison wrote an amazing story, as a Magneto fan, I think I would have enjoyed seeing what Morrison could do if he liked the character. Chose to try and modernize CC's Magneto who was and had been a lot more popular as a character. I mean, Magneto was probably the star really of the biggest selling comic of all time. Morrison did amazing work with Cyclops and Emma. Morrison with his deconstruction allowed some characters to grow in that sense but others to wither. I think Magneto's age, Morrisons could have had some real fun. (he had fun with Cassandra Nova for example) So yes, I don't think he was written out of character either, i see how others do, my personal wishes here have more to do with positive vs negative writing. 

I agree with your assertion Morrison took stale characters and tried to breathe them new life and for the most part succeeded. 

Oh, no Wolverine has stabbed heaps of people plenty of time's just because he is Wolverine. Selene has killed more people than Magneto and Wolverine stabbed Rach for trying to kill Selene. Magneto tore out Wolverine Peter David made a joke and X-Writers wanted to see it happen lol and it would be characterized as a glorified temper tantrum, thats how he and Wolverine and half of the 90's was characterized as. 

Oh, one day if you can be okay with buying comics you already own, I think Morrison talks about it in a New X-Men TPB. I think there might be an online copy. I will check. He talks about other characters too a bit. How he wanted Colossus, but couldn't which lead to Emma's second mutation. Some other things, worth looking out for if you like his work. 

I agree about the differences you outline between the two writers. Good analysis. lol ^_^
Moderator
#22 Posted by SC (13092 posts) - - Show Bio
@Squares said:
" Okay, I'll admit, I'm no fan of Morrison's. Not after reading New X-men, at any rate. But I really, really doubt that he's secretly a genocidal psychopath.
Hell, look at the following Alan Moore has these days. "

lol, I mean, his projected image of what and who he thinks Magneto is. Not his own projection. lol Sorry. ^_^

Want to be even more freaked out, look at Alan Moore's Neonomicon. Actually don't... I know its just a drawing, but i feel bad for the lady in it. 
Moderator
#23 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:
" @FadeToBlackBolt said:
" Rogue being attracted to him is happening at the moment, in Legacy. So so stupid. Also for the record, the characters were greatly deconstructed. I actually think we've made a bigger issue out of this that it is. In a nutshell, I DON'T think Mags was written out of character during New X-Men. You do. You see it as simple, I see it as pure. The glory of interpretation and all that :P As for the rest, I love characterisation and consistency and of course it's important, but as I said, I don't think Erik was out of character. What I was saying is that Morrison took characters that were stale, gave them new life, but kept them true to their roots. I can certainly see the point you're making, that he just swept a bunch of continuity under a rug, but I don't really think he did. He more manipulated continuity, which I can certainly see why that would tick people off.  Regarding the Wolverine stabbing Magneto point, Logan has stabbed Mags multiple times in order to save lives. Magneto tore his skeleton out because he was ticked off. It was a glorified temper tantrum. I've never heard of all that Rogue stuff, but that does sound awful.  I can understand everything that you've said, save one thing. Bendis being like Morrison. Bendis is a hack who writes with a sledgehammer, Morrison, for all his faults and disregard for continuity, does respect the characters he writes. He may write them in an evil way, but he still respects the characters themselves. He is appointed to books in order gain a more adult audience, as well as increase sales. Bendis is given books because the majority of his readers are imbeciles with more money than brains. Bendis is a cancer of the industry and needs to die. "

I would go that far, its still really hinting. Right now in legacy Rogue is more mixing it up with Remy. She has flirted with Sam more substantially in the last 5 years. Thats currently though anyway. I rant about how thats stupid in another thread too lol It is stupid..

Oh, its even more simple, since I don't think Magneto was written out of character in New X-Men. My take is that Magneto has had such wild and erratic writing in the past, writers can do a lot with him, and have it be in "character" I am just not fond of writers being fully aware that their take on a character will be polarizing but taking that character that direction anyway, for the purpose of the plot. Bendis did it with Sentry in Siege. Bendis knew that taken a polarizing character and using him the way he did would annoy a percentage of fans of that character, but he did it for his plots. Bendis probably actually liked the Sentry too. Imagine if he hated the Sentry? I think Morrison wrote an amazing story, as a Magneto fan, I think I would have enjoyed seeing what Morrison could do if he liked the character. Chose to try and modernize CC's Magneto who was and had been a lot more popular as a character. I mean, Magneto was probably the star really of the biggest selling comic of all time. Morrison did amazing work with Cyclops and Emma. Morrison with his deconstruction allowed some characters to grow in that sense but others to wither. I think Magneto's age, Morrisons could have had some real fun. (he had fun with Cassandra Nova for example) So yes, I don't think he was written out of character either, i see how others do, my personal wishes here have more to do with positive vs negative writing. 

I agree with your assertion Morrison took stale characters and tried to breathe them new life and for the most part succeeded. 

Oh, no Wolverine has stabbed heaps of people plenty of time's just because he is Wolverine. Selene has killed more people than Magneto and Wolverine stabbed Rach for trying to kill Selene. Magneto tore out Wolverine Peter David made a joke and X-Writers wanted to see it happen lol and it would be characterized as a glorified temper tantrum, thats how he and Wolverine and half of the 90's was characterized as. 

Oh, one day if you can be okay with buying comics you already own, I think Morrison talks about it in a New X-Men TPB. I think there might be an online copy. I will check. He talks about other characters too a bit. How he wanted Colossus, but couldn't which lead to Emma's second mutation. Some other things, worth looking out for if you like his work. 

I agree about the differences you outline between the two writers. Good analysis. lol ^_^
"
Mate, if you said that from the start, I'd have shut up instantly lol. I now 100% completely get where you're coming from, and shall not argue with you any more. You are completely correct, Morrison did take the easy way out with Mags in many respects. I apologise, I simply misunderstood what you were saying. I still enjoyed Morrison's take, but you are totally right; he could have done better, and he could have done it in a less polarising fashion.

You don't want to get me started on Bendis and Siege lol, I've written a 2000 word piece on why that story was the worst comic ever; something I only stopped writing because my RSI started acting up.

I knew about the Colossus/Emma/Secondary Mutation thing, but that Rogue stuff was just entirely new to me.

I'm trying to dim my Wolverine-hate as of late, since I keep getting into fights with his fans, but he is far too stab-happy, a hypocrite and not a real hero. Magneto tearing his adamantium out is one of the true joys of my comic-reading life =P
#24 Posted by SC (13092 posts) - - Show Bio
@FadeToBlackBolt: S'all good *smile* 

You might like picking Children's Crusade in TPB. Wolverine gets his fair share of licks in that one, from various characters *grins* Wonder Man throws him though a wall. *bigger grin* 

I actually like Wolverine. I mean, he is flawed in so many ways. Some days he is so supposedly badass that all the vampires retreat at his sight or something. Oh, if you dislike Namor... then Wolverine #7 will probably... be the weirdest comic you ever read.Oh then other days he is beaten up and talked down too, plus those great Astonishing moments he has had with Cyke. He is a useful character to have in stories. 

I am a fan of Rogue as she is, but his take on her sounded interesting. Like something out of his The Invisibles work.

lol thats awesome. I mean, Siege sucking, but I mean, as far as rants go. I can respect that! ^_^

I am off to read all my books now I didn't read cause CV was down.*smile*
Moderator
#25 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:
" @FadeToBlackBolt: S'all good *smile* 

You might like picking Children's Crusade in TPB. Wolverine gets his fair share of licks in that one, from various characters *grins* Wonder Man throws him though a wall. *bigger grin* 

I actually like Wolverine. I mean, he is flawed in so many ways. Some days he is so supposedly badass that all the vampires retreat at his sight or something. Oh, if you dislike Namor... then Wolverine #7 will probably... be the weirdest comic you ever read.Oh then other days he is beaten up and talked down too, plus those great Astonishing moments he has had with Cyke. He is a useful character to have in stories. 

I am a fan of Rogue as she is, but his take on her sounded interesting. Like something out of his The Invisibles work.

lol thats awesome. I mean, Siege sucking, but I mean, as far as rants go. I can respect that! ^_^

I am off to read all my books now I didn't read cause CV was down.*smile*
"
That's what I see him as too. He's a great supporting character, but a shoddy lead. Meh, that's just me though.
Did you read Avengers #2 by Bendis? Wonder Man attacks the Avengers for unknowable reasons, and Logan says "I'll handle this". WTF? lol. Logan may not be Reed Richards, but he's not that dumb. Seems like Heinberg read that if he had Wonder Man own him in CC (which I plan to get in trade =]). 
#26 Posted by BlackArmor (6141 posts) - - Show Bio

Great Article I couldnt agree more

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.