Lorrie's forum posts

  • 24 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

@VeganDiet said:

One thing that worries me. Slott has said that Mary Jane is going to be with Spider-man. There are two ways I see this happening: 1. She is aware that the body change happened, so she knows that Ock is in Peter's body, but decides to be with him anyway, which is insane, and terrible. 2.Or she doesn't know, and Ock-Peter is taking advantage of her thinking he's Peter to be with, which is not okay. I really don't want the Protagonist of my Spider-man book to be, essentially, well raping Mary Jane.

It is a big worry because, yes, it would basically be rape if M.J.didn't know. I really hope Slott and the Spidey office thought about that, unless they're planning a crossover with the Law & Order: SVU characters.

#2 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

@SuperStarKirby said:

It's been spoiled. It's some bullshit that someone guessed. Wow.

If you're talking about the same thing I saw, I choose to believe those few images (not even full pages) do not tell the whole story and that the synopsis someone posted was inaccurate. I'm not saying more than that, people can look up stuff for themselves if they want.

All I know for sure is that if anyone ends up in Peter's body long-term who isn't really Peter, he'd better not have sex with M.J. without her knowing he's not really Peter. Because then we'd be getting into Law & Order: SVU territory. Dan Slott wrote those She-Hulk comics in which Starfox was accused of misusing his powers to rape women (it turned out his powers had been sabotaged so he was basically innocent, but it was still icky), so surely he considered the unfortunate implications here, right? Right?

#3 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm guessing if anyone has "doomed" anyone, it was Beast messing with the time-stream to pretty much just troll Scott. That man is insanely bitter. He straight up lied to the O5 about that "mutant genocide" stuff to get them to come with him. That said, I don't think there will be any permanent changes to the X-Men timeline (after all, when he left the Avengers books, Bendis pretty much put all of the toys back in the sandbox where he found them), but I guess we'll see.

I don't get what the X-Men (or mutants in general) would have against Scott. He was right about the Phoenix. He doesn't oppose Wolverine's school. He's not going around murdering innocent people. He broke out of prison, but arguably he didn't belong there anyway, and people were trying to kill him in there. He's still protecting mutants, pretty much what he's been doing since he was a teenager. He's sending a message that the persecution of mutants will not be tolerated. The fact that his former friends would hold against him what he did while possessed by the Phoenix doesn't say much about them. If characters start having to pay for crimes they commit when possessed or brainwashed, half the Marvel canvas should be in prison. The idea that most of the heroic mutants would be against what Scott's doing seems contrived, so I hope Bendis doesn't go in that direction.

#4 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

I can't get into a DC where the original Teen Titans didn't exist as a team (or just plain didn't exist at all, as is the case for some of the characters). Same goes for some of the other great DC comic series and characters. A lot of those characters may still exist, but they're not really the same characters they were pre-New 52. Their histories were a big part of their appeal to me, and those histories are pretty much gone. If other people like it, that's great, but it's just not for me.

#5 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

There is sometimes a difference between what a company intends its audience to think and what they end up actually thinking. Iron Man honestly was intended by Marvel to be the hero of Civil War. That did not turn out to be the general consensus of its readership (nor a number of the writers of the tie-ins, to be fair). No doubt Marvel intended Cyclops to be the villain of the piece, but since he did turn out to be right (and Captain America acted like such a self-righteous jerk) that no wonder there are people are on Scott's side. Not that a whole lot of bad stuff didn't go down, but in the end he was the tragic hero who sacrificed everything for his people.

Scott didn't ask for the PF (we can thank the Avengers and their Phoenix gun for that), and from the moment he was possessed by it I'd say he wasn't fully himself. It's fair to hold Scott responsible for whatever happened up the the creation of the P5, but after that how much blame he should shoulder is debatable, IMO. Even if he wasn't Dark Phoenix yet, a power like that inside someone who wasn't meant to have it had to have affected his mind. Still, he and the other P5 tried to make the world a better place before slipping into inevitable madness. The usual status quo is that characters possessed or brainwashed are generally absolved of wrongdoing, but apparently they've decided to make an exception this time. Doesn't seem particularly fair. Still Scott said he'd take full responsibility for his actions, and the actions of the other P5 if they'd let him, like the true leader that he is.

Besides, this whole mess started because Cap showed up in Utopia in issue #1 and said the Avengers were taking Hope, no negotiation:

Captain America: "You do understand I wasn't asking." Yeah, Steve pretty much threw down the gauntlet there.

Cyclops: "I understood that completely." Scott might have struck the first blow, but as I said, it was Steve who threw down the gauntlet.

It's hardly unexpected that Scott wouldn't respond positively to an ultimatum (after all, Cap didn't respond well to the Registration ultimatum in the Civil War event, did he?). Seriously, Captain America's characterization was just horrible in this story. His attempt to shame and berate an imprisoned Scott was just pathetic.

#6 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

Teen snuff comics. Marvel is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

#7 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

To address the actual article instead of the weirdness of many of the comments, I thought the number one rule for a superhero was "protect the innocent." I got over the infantile notion that heroes never kill by the time I was 8 years old. There is a difference between killing and murder. Many Avengers members have killed (including Steve Rogers), but few commit outright murder. I suppose the difference may be too subtle for people who prefer a more black and white morality.

#8 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

New readers. That's so adorable.

Parallel worlds are easy. Way less confusing than the reboot itself.

#9 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

No. Rebooting would not necessarily lead to new stories. It would just lead to retelling the same stories that were already told, but in a sleazier fashion (if Marvel used DC's relaunch as a template), and eventually confusing things further when old continuity got brought back, as it inevitably would.

#10 Posted by Lorrie (27 posts) - - Show Bio

@NHC said:

What I would like to know is if this is set in mainstream 616 continuity and really is a very soft reboot. Otherwise, for a reader like myself who is already invested in these characters, it would be a little silly of me to buy a story about an alternate Fantastic Four's origins.

"Everything you know about them, everything that's existed for the last 50 years still exists and is still there," Brevoort told USA Today. "These are individually new stories, even though they've got bits and pieces of old and formative origin stuff in and around them, as well."

My feeling is that while the original stories for these characters have their charms, they are terribly dated at times. I don't see the harm in modernizing the stories, and it might be a good introduction to the characters for younger readers. I'm interested in reading them myself.

  • 24 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3