cattlebattle's forum posts

#1 Posted by cattlebattle (12579 posts) - - Show Bio

@koays said:

@lordofallhumans said:

@djainess: not resurrecting somebody called Phoenix does not make any sense. She is part of a universal force of life death and rebirth. Her being able to come back is the only resurrection that makes sense out of all of them.

This

Initially, calling Jean Grey the Phoenix wasn't meant to be taken literally. She rose out of Jamaica Bay like a Phoenix from the ashes, it was the rebirth of the character of Jean Grey into a cosmic level character. It was just a codename, similar to how Cyclops, also named after a character of greek myth isn't really a cyclops. Years of retcons and wanting to bring the character back despite whatever previous writers did lead to her being the literal avatar of some cosmic nonsense.

#2 Posted by cattlebattle (12579 posts) - - Show Bio

@djainess said:

Okay yeah, but the other times it's just because of some retcon or something like that. I know that wasn't always the case of course, the point I just was trying to make is that in most cases I think it is better to not resurrect dead characters especially when they already died, in whatever way, more than once.

I get ya. It is pretty sad its what Jean Grey is most known for......dying, lol.

#3 Posted by cattlebattle (12579 posts) - - Show Bio

@cattlebattle Ah so you mean the ugly lame annoying Submariner/Aquaman type

Be nice, some people might have that type of mermen as family members or friends

#4 Posted by cattlebattle (12579 posts) - - Show Bio

@djainess said:

We've seen her die, we've seen her being alive again, repeat repeat... Just let be, I don't think she's going to make comics more interesting

She has only really died once in the main continuity.

#5 Edited by cattlebattle (12579 posts) - - Show Bio

@cattlebattle: Well that isn't disturbing at all. Also how does a Merman or for that matter a Mermaid ride an animal?

Some mermen have legs.....so its not too different from how you would ride a horse I guess.

#6 Edited by cattlebattle (12579 posts) - - Show Bio

If I were a mer-man, I would ride that thing into battle.

#7 Edited by cattlebattle (12579 posts) - - Show Bio

1. see, for me that's a product of the late 80's more than the early 90's. I see what you mean if you're thinking about the Silvestri/Lee/Liefeld crowd, but by '93 the regular artists on the main books were John Romita Jr. and Andy Kubert, both of whom are pretty top-shelf artists in my books, and were both doing great work at the time. I tend to clump Joe Madureira in with those styley image guys, but even he did some of his best work in this period.

2. Again, to me that has much more to do with Jim Lee's influence; he's the one who did all those awful costume designs. Maybe it's that I don't think of the last few years of CC's run to be especially good, but while they did briefly get worse after he left, by '93 they were definitely on the upswing and better than they had been in years.

3. Yeah, but the issue you're talking about The Uncanny X-Men #281 - Fresh Upstart, again, was written by Jim Lee, not Lobdell. Lobdell and Nicieza tried to run with some of the last cool stuff that Claremont brought in. They kept the Acolytes as major villains, as well as Fitzroy and the Upstarts, Sinister, Sabertooth; they kept Gambit, Rogue, Psylocke, and Jubilee as the main characters, and developed Emma into a hero the way Claremont did with Magneto. If anything, they were trying to stay more true to what Claremont had done than he did himself near the end. Definitely more than when he was working with Jim Lee.

4. Sure, it had to follow Claremont, but it also was following Claremont's weakest period. Personally I think it got better after he left (just not right away) and, though I do think their era petered out, I think it got worse again after Lobdell and Nicieza left.

Yes, I am specifically talking about the Lee, Liefield and Portacio crowd. Their presence was very much the architecture for the early 90s. The X-Men cartoon that became so ever popular and the way people usually picture the X-Men is due to Lees designs. Not to mention the look they had and the giant guns characters seemed to carry. All that stuff came from the eventual Image founders.

I disagree. There is nothing to write home about from the X-Men titles in the mid 90s really either. Its all opinion

You are incorrect. Jim Lee never wrote anything, he plotted it. John Byrne actually wrote the script to that, but, as I said, it was all under Bob Harras suggestion anyways. I also disagree with you saying "they stayed true to Claremont" it's more like they couldn't develop anything on their own so they just used pre-existing characters. They also totally admonished ideas like Gambit being a traitor and Mr Sinister not being what he was originally intended to be because they were trying to dumb down the series for new readers that would result of the cartoon. There is actually interviews of Bob Harras admitting that.

Yeah, after Harras and Lee forced Claremont out the door they basically cribbed a bunch of his ideas he had for the next 6 or 7 years. Which is actually kind of hilarious.

Again. For the 30th time, the late 80s being weak X-books is your opinion. I thought it was just as good as anything else he did. Good interaction between the characters, good development of characters that had been around for a while but nobody cared about like Havok and Dazzler (not any writer can do stuff like that), new concepts and directions, new twists on old villains and new villains, new characters, new directions for old characters.....notice how many times the word "new" popped up there. It just seems like that for a lot of people that if the X-Men don't have whatever characters they grew up liking on the team while living at a school and fighting Magneto and Sentinels it isn't the X-Men.....I wonder if those same people have a heart attack when a TV series they watch changes from season 1 to season 5. Things change, lie goes on.

#8 Posted by cattlebattle (12579 posts) - - Show Bio


I have to agree that X-cutioner's Song was pretty nothing. So I guess there was a dip in quality there..

But I think the X-men had a good couple of years following that; from Uncanny' #297 - X-Cutioner's Song Epilogue Songs End to at least issue #319 - Untapped Potential were a pretty solid few years, and X-men was quite good around the same period, from like issue #17 - A Skinning of Souls to at least #38 - Smoke and Mirrors were mostly good. It had a few more dud issues than Uncanny' had in the same period, but between the two of them it's still probably a high point for the 90's. '93-'94 were probably the best the X-men had been since like '86.

Its not the worse thing ever, it was just a chaotic time.The multitude of spin offs had begun and they all just folded into one another and characters were reworked for the benefit of artists who had little respect or understanding of what came before

My point is that it is a period of contention from many X-fans due to lack of Claremont leaving and dips in characters building, in a way, its almost like the X-Men were rebooted at the time, the changes in the teams dynamic, the changes in outfits, character that had been previously pretty relevant, like Forge for instance being relegated to almost nothing. There also just seemed to be a precedent to eliminate anything interesting Claremont did....one single issue of Uncanny X-Men eliminates the Reavers and the Hellions, probably because the writers and Harras weren't creative enough to know what do with them.....but alas, they did create the infamous, super well known, timeless villlains such as "Hazard" and "Siena Blaze" and lets not forget "Adam X", the greatest X character ever :D

If you go back and read the stuff from the Blue and Gold team stuff you will find some characters written very poorly. An example would be Beast, he just primarily functions as the Blue teams "smart guy" for years and doesn't even have any noteworthy story arcs. Where if you compare it to what Claremont was doing right up until he left....everyone was fleshed out and the team had a great balance between all its members. The main reason the early 90s suffer is because of what it had to follow.

#9 Edited by cattlebattle (12579 posts) - - Show Bio

@time said:

@oldnightcrawler I have to disagree with you, when you said 'Personally I think the X-men eventually returned to greatness in the 00'

I consider the 2000's as the worst X-Men period, it's when Marvel destroy the X-Men franchise. They destroy a lot of good X-Men characters, they destroy all the popular relationships. The X-Men stop being a family, they stop living like normal people. When was the last the time we saw the X-Men go shopping or go on date. How often do we see the X-Men in casual clothes, hardly ever.

I guess you weren't reading stuff like reading X-Treme X-Men.....
@time said: I do find it strange when the 90's get criticize a lot, the late 90's wasn't that good, the early 90's was. The early 90's was a good period for X-Men comics. I mean back than, we had good writers like Fabian Nicieza and Scott Lobdell. In the 2000's we had Matt Fraction and Jason Aaron. Worst X-Men writers ever.
The reason why the early 90s often get criticized is because Fabian Nicieza and Bob Harras weren't very good at handling the X-Men. If you like it, thats fine, its your opinion...it doesn't mean anybody had bad taste or whatever insult you hurl around for people not agreeing with your opinion. People enjoy different things
Nicieza and Lobdell had to write the book in the wake of Chris Claremonts legendary, character defining run. Go back and read it....stories like X-Cutioners song is just people fighting, no real character stuff of any kind, in fact Bob Harras (editor at the time) has admitted the X-Men were dumbed down from their complex story telling to appeal to the generation of readers who would be jumping on due to the success of the cartoon. A lot of fans were disappointed with the drop in quality in X-books of the early 90s.
#10 Posted by cattlebattle (12579 posts) - - Show Bio

Why the hell does it matter? What? Reboot bad, Sequel good? Geez people are fickle.

Eh, there is differences. A reboot might try to change things as reboots do....like the look of the Predator or what they do or why they hunt who they usually hunt. A sequel, done by Shane Black of all people will definitely be akin to what has happened in the previous films.