How do you feel, when popular couples and friendships are ruined

  • 90 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by time (5198 posts) - - Show Bio

It's a simple fact, that marvel keep on destroying popular couples and friendships.

Couples destroy :

Jean and Scott

Emma and Scott

Rogue and Gambit

Kitty and Colossus

Storm and Black Panther

Psylocke and Archangel

Friendships destroy

Beast and Cyclops

Charles and Cyclops

Jean and Charles

Jean and Storm

Storm and Bishop

Bishop and Sage

Kurt, Colossus and Wolverine

Emma and Beast

Wolverine and Cyclops

How do you feel when marvel destroys these couples and friendships ?

Are you happy with it or does it annoy you

Do you think it makes writing in comics better or worse

Share your views please.

#2 Posted by MrPsycho (13 posts) - - Show Bio

@time: Well if they didn't there wouldn't be anything to read, thats not to say that the way that they destroy relationships is always good but you can't expect relationships to be constants lasting for ever

Online
#3 Posted by The Myth (546 posts) - - Show Bio

It's more often then not upsetting to see the descent of character relations, but on rare occasions it can be forgiven if it leads to decent character development.

#4 Posted by slimlim (266 posts) - - Show Bio

Surprisingl, the "break up" i felt the most disappointed by was

Cyclops and Wolverine

From rivals, to frenemies, to mutual respect. it took them DECADES to build, and TWO years to destroy (Schism & AVX)

what a shame.

#5 Posted by time (5198 posts) - - Show Bio

@slimlim said:

Surprisingl, the "break up" i felt the most disappointed by was

Cyclops and Wolverine

From rivals, to frenemies, to mutual respect. it took them DECADES to build, and TWO years to destroy (Schism & AVX)

what a shame.

I forgot Scott and Logan. It was pretty good for a while. Cyclops trusted Wolverine more than anyone, then marvel destroy it.

#6 Posted by chocobojam (288 posts) - - Show Bio

I dont want relationships to be broken but i can see why it is needed. and i was wondering if there is any chance that the relationship between cable and hope would be broken. or maybe cable and cyclops.

#7 Posted by Avenger85 (2017 posts) - - Show Bio

Just because they destroyed the relationships once, doesn't mean that they can't build them back up again. I'm hoping for Scott/Jean, Kitty/Collossus & Psylocke/Archangel to get built back.

I think Marvel will once they get their fill of the Drama from the breakup & wanna go back to the classics...

#8 Posted by dangallant984 (1282 posts) - - Show Bio

Relationships ending, like Jean and Scott, or Gambit and Rogue,rarely ever bother me, because generally it stems from/leads to actual character growth, which, for me, is the most interesting thing about the characters. It keeps them from getting stagnant.

Friendships dissolving, like Cyclops and Beast, tend to frustrate me more, although it usually stems from the same thing, characters developing in ideological opposition, or growing as individuals but in different directions. But really, that's at the foundation of all X-men stories, ie, Xavier and Magneto. Friends make for more bitter enemies, because you see a little of yourself in them.

#9 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23238 posts) - - Show Bio

If it's organic, I'm OK with it. Cyclops and Jean falling apart because they were poison for each other was something that made sense and was evident since well before they were married.

Things like Scott and Emma being destroyed because Bendis is a cretin frustrate the Hell out of me.

#10 Posted by chasereis (794 posts) - - Show Bio

Some things are better left untouched. Scott and Jean is the best and biggest example. After so much s*** Scott like any other man in his situation needs a stable constant in life to keep himself balanced. Everyone settles down at some point even in comics to break something like that apart is base stupidity. Tossing female after female at cyclops is by and large tiresome. It was exhausting in the 80's and was even worse in 2K. To top that off Scott becomes best friends with Logan, what the hell was that. Clearly Logan is either far more underhanded for consoling the cheating enemy and to secretly pursuing Jean on his own or maybe he never loved Jean after all and she was just a piece of a** in the end. Were I in Logan position, with Logan's temperament Schism should have happen the moment Logan thought Scott betrayed Jean in New X-Men, but that never happened. Very poor X-Men plots indeed.

However I think enemies becoming friends upsets me the most. Scott and Logan? Yes let's disregard 30 years of history. Scott and Magneto? Oh, you look just like the man who killed my wife and true love of my wife but hey no biggie, I'm only prejudice against humans now. I could go on a while but let me cap at Xavier and Magnus, seriously HOW many times do you need to get burned Charles? Maggie-neeto is a sociopath with a hard -on for killin' him some flatscans like new Magneto Jr, 616 Cyclops.

#11 Posted by Imperius_Rex (452 posts) - - Show Bio

That's one I really was bummed about. Scott an Logan. Their chemistry was so great for a while. Never besties but almost brothers. Certainly a better relationship than Scott actual brothers. The break ups reall don't bother me. Plenty of mutated fish in the sea especially after Phoenix.

#12 Posted by IllyanaRasputin (1095 posts) - - Show Bio

I get over it.

#13 Posted by DarkxSeraph (672 posts) - - Show Bio

*notes X-23 and Hellion should be on that list. Shakes fist at Liu. Then again... shakes fist at people who lay the foundation by screwing Hellion over*

#14 Posted by PhoenixoftheTides (3632 posts) - - Show Bio

It really depends. There is no problem with showing characters grow out of a particular relationship dynamic, but I roll my eyes when it is tied into a major crossover event or story. When Kitty and Peter first broke up or when Storm changed her image and freaked Kitty out, the impact on the relationships felt real because they weren't wearing their costumes and were interacting as emotional beings.

#15 Posted by akbogert (3227 posts) - - Show Bio

I think the key is that things happen organically. If a relationship just tends towards, and eventually reaches, a break, then it happens. Just like in real life. You have to deal. But so many breaks seem to be forced, many to the point where you can directly pin it on whoever happened to be writing at the time. Frankly, I find it personally offensive, as it's a direct contradiction of my own worldview, to suggest that long-term commitment (like marriage) stagnates the people in that relationship or makes them less interesting. I believe having a tie like that makes a person stronger. So the idea that heroes need to be "liberated" in order for their stories to be interesting again is pure hogwash. I know it's not an X-Men thing, but the whole Peter Parker/MJ situation is a prime example of a ruination that felt forced and was seemingly done in the name of benefiting Spider-Man. It's why years later people still complain about it.

I guess most of that deals specifically with couples. Friendship, I think, is more malleable anyway, and is likely to go through phases. The idea of out-and-out reversals, however, is again subject to the organic/forced scrutiny. If a writer can, over time, make a very compelling argument, then fine, because again it's not unheard of for best friends to end up hating each other or for enemies to lay down their arms. But often it's done for convenience's sake, and it just shouldn't be happening.

#16 Posted by Avenger85 (2017 posts) - - Show Bio

@chasereis: "After so much s*** Scott like any other man in his situation needs a stable constant in life to keep himself balanced"

This.

Scott snapping & going off the reservation should be no surprise to anyone, given all the shit he's been through. So what if you can shoot lasers from your eyes ? That does not exclude you from being able to marry and live life like a normal family man till you're dead.

Typical Marvel forced soap opera crap.

#17 Posted by chasereis (794 posts) - - Show Bio

@PhoenixoftheTides: You mean in Secret Wars Piotr x Kitty breakup?

#18 Edited by chasereis (794 posts) - - Show Bio

@Avenger85: It really does feel like Days of Our X-Men or Melrose X-Force sometimes doesn't it?

@akbogert said:

... so many breaks seem to be forced, many to the point where you can directly pin it on whoever happened to be writing at the time. Frankly, I find it personally offensive, as it's a direct contradiction of my own worldview, to suggest that long-term commitment (like marriage) stagnates the people in that relationship or makes them less interesting. I believe having a tie like that makes a person stronger. So the idea that heroes need to be "liberated" in order for their stories to be interesting again is pure hogwash.

You sir are a refreshing break from the doldrums of socially ineptness, self imposed loneliness and the general bitter emotional trauma that plague the comics community. I salute you sir. This is PRECISELY what I've been saying of late.

#19 Posted by Avenger85 (2017 posts) - - Show Bio

@chasereis: lol yeah

#20 Posted by dangallant984 (1282 posts) - - Show Bio

@chasereis said:

Some things are better left untouched. Scott and Jean is the best and biggest example. After so much s*** Scott like any other man in his situation needs a stable constant in life to keep himself balanced. Everyone settles down at some point even in comics to break something like that apart is base stupidity. Tossing female after female at cyclops is by and large tiresome. It was exhausting in the 80's and was even worse in 2K. To top that off Scott becomes best friends with Logan, what the hell was that. Clearly Logan is either far more underhanded for consoling the cheating enemy and to secretly pursuing Jean on his own or maybe he never loved Jean after all and she was just a piece of a** in the end. Were I in Logan position, with Logan's temperament Schism should have happen the moment Logan thought Scott betrayed Jean in New X-Men, but that never happened. Very poor X-Men plots indeed.

whoa. I had no idea you were so passionate about this.

To be fair to Logan, he never thought Scott and Jean were good for each other; he may have respected them enough to butt out of it and be happy for them, it was none of his business, after all, but he definitely made his feelings known about Scott's betrayal in Whedon's run.

Let's just look at Cyclops and Wolverine's relationship, briefly: Wolverine quits his job leading Alpha Flight to be put under the command of a bossy kid with a fraction of his life experience, and then he falls for that kid's girlfriend, who, by his estimation, is way too mature to be wasting her time with Cyclops. But he respects her, and thus respects her decision.

Skip ahead to when Logan finds out that Jean is still alive: yeah, he goes for her again, but by this time Cyclops has already gotten married and had a kid, and then ditched them; Logan, at this point, has every reason to think Jean would be better off with him. But, again, that's not her decision, and he respects that.

Eventually, Cyclops and Wolverine are on the same team again and actually learn to respect each other. With this mutual respect established, Wolverine chooses to be happy for his two friends when they get married. (This, I'm assuming, is where you would leave the relationship between these three characters, back in the early 90's)

And that is a nice happy ending and all, but it's also where Jean and Scott's characters started to stagnate. Turns out Wolverine was right, they were holding each other back. Maybe they could've worked it out after Scott cheated on her, and maybe they would've if Jean hadn't died, but she did. So was Scott wrong to have an affair with Emma? yes, sure, that was wrong, but still very human and understandable. These things are never as black and white as we want to see them.

And, why would Logan pass judgement on Cyclops at this point? if anything, this only proved what he already thought about Scott and Jean, that they were ultimately not right for each other, and, as Scott's friend (because he was also that) he probably had some sympathy for him, at least equal to his disappointment that he had been right.

But was he wrong to be with Emma after Jean died? I don't think so. And I think they were a great couple.

And, yeah, Wolverine, obviously still grieving Jean's death, took issue with this, which is also understandable, but also not really any of his business. So, without Jean to be an issue between them, they eventually moved past their old rivalry to regard each other with a renewed sense of respect and finally see each other as equals, and eventually friends.

And I think it's the perceived betrayal of that friendship, from both of them, that has made them such bitter enemies.

#21 Posted by akbogert (3227 posts) - - Show Bio

@chasereis: Much obliged ^_^

@dangallant984: I think it's true that there are destructive relationships that do need to be dealt with. For example, while in general I'm quite opposed to the concept of divorce (what God has brought together, let no man separate, etc. etc.), people (often, but not always, women) in physically or emotionally abusive relationships should absolutely be able to get out of that endangering situation. I don't really think that was the case with Jean & Scott (because neither of them has ever struck me as being actually cruel/evil), but as my experience in old X-Men stories is slim-to-none, I'll defer to others on that debate. The point is that marriage is not to be taken lightly, and "it's just not working out" or "we just don't see each other like we used to" is a crap excuse for terminating one.

Comics are free to reflect all different walks of life, of course, but it just rubs me the wrong way that most marriages in comics seem to be doomed to an eventual end. Why isn't marital bliss considered an ideal along with the other ways in which these characters are idolized?

#22 Posted by Crash_Recovery (850 posts) - - Show Bio

@time: It's all part of the drama of reading comics (or any form of entertainment). We read comics for drama ultimately. If relationships were rock solid, that's not a terribly interesting read.

#23 Posted by JohnnyGat (1580 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm still recovering from the Kitty and Colossus break up

#24 Posted by dangallant984 (1282 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert said:

@dangallant984: I think it's true that there are destructive relationships that do need to be dealt with. For example, while in general I'm quite opposed to the concept of divorce (what God has brought together, let no man separate, etc. etc.), people (often, but not always, women) in physically or emotionally abusive relationships should absolutely be able to get out of that endangering situation. I don't really think that was the case with Jean & Scott (because neither of them has ever struck me as being actually cruel/evil), but as my experience in old X-Men stories is slim-to-none, I'll defer to others on that debate. The point is that marriage is not to be taken lightly, and "it's just not working out" or "we just don't see each other like we used to" is a crap excuse for terminating one.

Comics are free to reflect all different walks of life, of course, but it just rubs me the wrong way that most marriages in comics seem to be doomed to an eventual end. Why isn't marital bliss considered an ideal along with the other ways in which these characters are idolized?

No offence meant by this, but bringing your religious beliefs into this won't score any points with me.

I don't think there's any reason whatsoever that two people should remain together if they are not happy together. Someone shouldn't have to justify why they don't want to be with someone, that they no longer want to be should be enough.

That said, I do think that a lasting relationship with another person you care about should be considered ideal, but things change, people change, and if someone isn't happy doing what they're doing, or being with who they're with, then I think they owe it to themselves to change.

#25 Posted by akbogert (3227 posts) - - Show Bio

@dangallant984: None taken -- simply explaining my personal reason for disliking divorce, and besides marriage is historically a religious institution. But that's the last from me on that subject, because there's no possible benefit to pursuing it further.

On a broader note, fighting through hard times, disagreements, and the loss of "honeymoon stage" feelings for one another to keep a marriage together is actually one of the hardest things a person can do. Committing to an oath or vow -- for that's what is exchanged at a wedding, a vow -- is a big deal, and upholding that commitment regardless of how hard or uncomfortable it may be makes for a far stronger and more interesting character than one who bails because of inconvenience. Just from a narrative perspective, I think divorce is a weak way to progress a character's story; it lets him/her cop out on one of the most difficult challenges real life has to offer.

#26 Posted by DarkxSeraph (672 posts) - - Show Bio
Thinks Akbogert needs to back him up on Hellion/Laura on this thread. Stares
#27 Posted by Avenger85 (2017 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert: Yeah man. Marriage is not just a business deal that can be made or broken anytime you want some "change". it's a vow, but everyone has his own values, so no point in debating something like this TBH.

#28 Posted by akbogert (3227 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarkxSeraph: Haha. To be honest, I have not read enough of their relationship. The brief bit of her and Foley I've seen kind of has me behind them, but I'll agree that Hellion's character was outright assassinated. In terms of a friendship ruining (nevermind romance), that pair absolutely belongs here.

@Avenger85: Agreed. I hope this isn't going to turn into a debate; I've said my piece and I don't plan to continue it. I'm all for recognizing various cultural interpretations of marriage and divorce, but when you have a wedding with a priest and everything, there are certain things said -- like "'til death do us part" -- which I don't think should be treated in so cavalier a way.

#29 Posted by DarkxSeraph (672 posts) - - Show Bio
" The brief bit of her and Foley I've seen kind of has me behind them, but I'll agree that Hellion's character was outright assassinated"

FOLEY????

Foley???

I'm not talking to you anymore.

For the next few seconds.
#30 Posted by akbogert (3227 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarkxSeraph: Yes. Foley. But this discussion has already taken place in another thread (about Laura's relationships in particular) has it not? :P

#31 Posted by DarkxSeraph (672 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm not talking to you now. Remember?

Heh. Yeah. And I posted on that thread, too. :P

#32 Posted by chasereis (794 posts) - - Show Bio

@dangallant984: I really try to not become attached to things in the realm of comics but this one...I have empirically experienced as a true lasting relationship. Not every character in any book can or even should be permanently attached to another character. Often times the base personality doesn't allow for it to happen like Logan and Mariko as an example in which it plays to an advantage. However in Scott and Jean it just works and the part that REALLY bothers me is the fact that these aren't real people that live dynamically charged lives where random permutations occur. Each and every line is purposefully scripted by a writer essentially playing God arbitrarily based on their desires and in some cases based on fan opinion centered marketing. If a character or couple becomes over-exposed as in the case of Scott and Jean, they are sacrificed to quicken the character or to create controversy which translates to unit sales. Scott and Jean never had time to stagnate from all the bad plots they were involved in since the twelve arc, real people don't act like this at all. It is reasonable but in no way actually realistic to the emotional or relationship dynamic of the original characters or their multi-decade relationship. They should have gracefully retired out of the spotlight until such time in which Marvel felt that they would be of impact to a story line or profitable in some other form. It is not much of an effort to show a modicum of respect to one's predecessors and not treat long term characters solely as political statements, satire or even only as intellectual property to be trampled on a whim.

On to Logan. With much respect my friend, we are talking about good ole Berseker Barrage here. I would NEVER expect something Logan felt SO emotionally charged over be something he would show a borderline clinical objectivity. I mean really, is this the guy who cuts s*** off people every year in revenge for the death of his true love? Is this the guy flies into a feral rage wanting to roll young (and thus innocent) Scott Summers head down Graymalkin Lane? I can give far more examples...but the point is while these were "good" stories that "changed" things that people were "tired" of, it actually lead to far more problems from a character and continuity point than it ever fixed by momentarily recapturing the attention of people who had moved on from X-Men anyway after tirade was over anyway. From my point of view I collect solely on a case by case basis from a sense of loyalty stemming from stories that are classic and timeless in some hopes that we would see (at least minor) return to form as real X-Men and not the X-Invisibles, Cyclops the changing man or whatever...

#33 Posted by dangallant984 (1282 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert said:

@dangallant984: None taken -- simply explaining my personal reason for disliking divorce, and besides marriage is historically a religious institution. But that's the last from me on that subject, because there's no possible benefit to pursuing it further.

On a broader note, fighting through hard times, disagreements, and the loss of "honeymoon stage" feelings for one another to keep a marriage together is actually one of the hardest things a person can do. Committing to an oath or vow -- for that's what is exchanged at a wedding, a vow -- is a big deal, and upholding that commitment regardless of how hard or uncomfortable it may be makes for a far stronger and more interesting character than one who bails because of inconvenience. Just from a narrative perspective, I think divorce is a weak way to progress a character's story; it lets him/her cop out on one of the most difficult challenges real life has to offer.

Sorry, when I read "disliking divorce", I hear "thinking I'm entitled to an opinion about other people's right to choose how to be happy with their own lives", and I guess I find that offensive.

From a writing stand point, you may have a point. But I believe in people's right to change their mind, and live their own life, and I don't think it's anyone's place to tell someone they should be with someone if they don't want to be.

#34 Posted by akbogert (3227 posts) - - Show Bio

@dangallant984: Right. I just think people need to remember that oaths and vows are supposed to be binding contracts, and when you say "in sickness or in health...'til death do us part" you are saying "no matter how bad it gets or how unhappy we get, we are not going to go back on what we're doing right now." If people who get divorces cut that part out of their vows, then by all means do as they please. I just think -- in comics and in real life -- that the institution has been made a mockery of. It strikes me as grimly amusing how hard homosexuals have to fight for the chance to publicly exchange those promises when heterosexuals have been driving their meaning into the ground for generations. The nature of a vow is that it has no respect for changed opinions or circumstances, so just don't vow something you would ever be willing to go back on :P

Again, people can and will live as they please. We quite agree on that. I just think people who are open to divorce need to be careful about the words they use when getting married. And I'm sure many are careful.

As far as comics go, it's writers breaking the characters' vows, and that will bother me more than any other relationship change that can be written. As pointed out, most comic divorces are more the result of the industry than conscious and reasonable decisions that the characters would have made based on the way their character had developed over the course of many years.

#35 Edited by Avenger85 (2017 posts) - - Show Bio

@chasereis: I really dont wanna start a firestorm for stating this point, but just look at it this way : Comics are read by kids, and in a way they do learn a bit about values & morals from it, especially from comics like X-Men, where morals & values is what it's all about, not just ass kicking & laser beams etc. I don't mean to start a Political Correctness argument here, but sometimes its nice to encourage the values of things like Marriage etc. It's a vow for life, and you don't just waltz away from it just because you need a bit of change.. If you want realistic, then, well, look at all the couples that have been married for decades together and still have a healthy relationship. What's wrong with that ? Why can't Marvel let things like this be ? Character development is a lazy excuse for making 2 people bail out of a relationship, just because it was "boring". I'm not a religious person AT ALL, but I still hold some values & principles.

But enough of that, I just hope Bendis makes the Young Scott/Jean make up & do it right this time, although from the last panel in #7, it looks more like a break up than the beginning of a make-up lol

And Pete-MJ ? What the hell was that all about ? The break up was completely nonsense IMHO.

#36 Edited by chasereis (794 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert said:

...most comic divorces are more the result of the industry than conscious and reasonable decisions that the characters would have made based on the way their character had developed over the course of many years.

Sir I will grace you with my first internet true meme on comicvine..

THIS.

@dangallant984: Hey DG, I dont think that was what he was saying. In my own words, I would take it as with so many characters is it not reasonable for a high profile coupling to be able to shake off the "hollywood effect" of doomed marriages? Even statistically this reasonable and sustainable. One makes money by creating wider customer bases not by shrinking it. Don't worry I dont think anyone is thumping books just yet, lol.

EDIT:

@Avenger85 said:

Character development is a lazy excuse for making 2 people bail out of a relationship, just because it was "boring".

That is not character development, that is controversy in a sad attempt to quicken a book or character. There are other reasons too.

#37 Posted by Avenger85 (2017 posts) - - Show Bio

@chasereis: What other reasons ? please elaborate, if you don't mind.

#38 Posted by DarkxSeraph (672 posts) - - Show Bio

"Kids" aren't really the target audience for Comics anymore. Save the 'Adventures' series or the like.

I mean, really... do you think X-Force: Sex and Violence was a kid's book?

#39 Posted by dangallant984 (1282 posts) - - Show Bio

@chasereis: the stories you're talking about, I think, are timeless and classic, and very much do still exist. Does that mean that the status quo from one great age should remain immutable forever? that new stories shouldn't happen? that characters shouldn't change and grow over time?

I think I'm starting to see your issue with Morrison, here.

And yet, in some ways, you are very right. Not all creators are going to be respectful of the histories of the characters, and sometimes that's a shame, it makes for bad stories, and so on, and then sometimes that's the ripple that makes the whole tapestry more colourful. Take a character like She-Hulk; she revels in how inconsistently her world is written, and she's one of my favourite characters for it.

Nobody wants to see characters they like do something that they never thought they would, it can seem out of character, inconsistent, and, yes, as often as not, is the product of careless writing. But once it's happened, it's happened; it's part of the story, and you move on from there.

And why not? that's what actual people do. Most real people, in my experience, are terribly inconsistent; they do things out of character all the time, they regret doing some things, and not doing others, and they don't have time travel or super science or coming back from the dead to do anything about it. So, I guess for me, it doesn't seem that crazy.

And sometimes a really good story will find it's impetus in a really bad one, also, just like real life.

I guess, ultimately, to me, it's just really not worth making myself unhappy about.

#40 Posted by Avenger85 (2017 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarkxSeraph: Even Videogames rated ESRB M are played by kids now. Movies, Comics, everything gets into the hands of those that are not their target audience. Lets not kid ourselves here. Nothing anyone can do about it.

But anyways, that's your opinion, and this is mine. I don't wanna get into one of those debates lol.

#41 Posted by akbogert (3227 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarkxSeraph: To be fair, Sex & Violence was a Parental Advisory book; plenty of others, however, are rated All Ages or Teen.

#42 Posted by DarkxSeraph (672 posts) - - Show Bio

Right... you're talking about who can pick them up. I'm talking about target audience. We're talking apples and oranges.

There is no doubt that kids will get into things that they are not the target audience for, but you're suggesting that books should be written to cater to those who they are not really written for. That's like asking that Black Ops 2 be made with elementary school students in mind, just in case they pick it up.

*small shrug*

#43 Posted by DarkxSeraph (672 posts) - - Show Bio

@Akbogert : @DarkxSeraph: To be fair, Sex & Violence was a Parental Advisory book; plenty of others, however, are rated All Ages or Teen."

True, but even the base X-Force book was rough on the violence side. Furthermore, the themes explored even in Spidey's books aren't kid friendly (e.g. the controversial 'is it rape if SpOck has sex with MJ' debate prodded by it).

#44 Posted by dangallant984 (1282 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert: you seem as if you feel pretty entitled to your opinion of what other people should and shouldn't do, so I'm only going to ask, for whose benefit is the sanctity of marriage?

#45 Posted by akbogert (3227 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarkxSeraph: Oh, the matter of other books is of course a valid point. But I just checked X-Force: Angels & Demons (the first trade of that run) and it, too, is PA.

@dangallant984 said:

@akbogert: you seem as if you feel pretty entitled to your opinion of what other people should and shouldn't do, so I'm only going to ask, for whose benefit is the sanctity of marriage?

@akbogert said:

Comics are free to reflect all different walks of life

@akbogert said:

Again, people can and will live as they please. We quite agree on that.

Someone isn't reading.

#46 Posted by dangallant984 (1282 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert said:

@dangallant984 said:

@akbogert: you seem as if you feel pretty entitled to your opinion of what other people should and shouldn't do, so I'm only going to ask, for whose benefit is the sanctity of marriage?

@akbogert said:

Comics are free to reflect all different walks of life

@akbogert said:

Again, people can and will live as they please. We quite agree on that.

Someone isn't reading.

No, I read all that. Thrice, now.

Do you have an answer for my question?

#47 Posted by evilvegeta74 (4530 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm angry about Colossus and Kitty now, they shouldn't be seperated at all. To try and incorporate a romance from a movie( Xmen 3) Iceman and Kitty into comics is backwards and a bad idea. The comics stories should be incorporated into the movies, it's been Colossus and Kitty for as long as I can remember.

#48 Edited by Avenger85 (2017 posts) - - Show Bio

@evilvegeta74: It should always be Comics to Movies, not movies to comics, but w/e, if people wanna pay money to buy turd, they WILL be sold turd.

#49 Posted by akbogert (3227 posts) - - Show Bio

@dangallant984: If you read clear statements that I understand other people do not share my perspective, and still say I seem to "feel pretty entitled to [my] opinion of what other people should and shouldn't do," then nothing more I say will be of any benefit. As it turns out, having a non-relativistic worldview does mean I believe some things are categorically right and categorically wrong. Intrinsic to that belief is an understanding that yes, there are things people do that I believe they absolutely should not do. All I've said here is that people who do not share my belief ought to phrase their own ceremonies in a way which reflects those alternate beliefs. If you truly feel that I am out of line for denouncing blatant hypocrisy, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to recant anything I've said. As it stands, I believe this particular exchange has outlived its usefulness, and is contributing nothing positive to the overall thread. If you'd like to pursue it further, feel free to PM me, though again I get a sense that there's little to be gained. The subject of this thread is a lot broader than just marriages, or even romance, and it's certainly not about philosophy or religion.

#50 Posted by dangallant984 (1282 posts) - - Show Bio

@evilvegeta74: I don't need for Kitty and Colossus to always be together, hey, they're still young, but I do agree that the whole thing with Iceman seemed unnecessarily contrived. It was probably just to show Kitty trying to move on.

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.