X-Universe >> View Thread

Author
Comicguy1


Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 557


I'm talking about the original incarnation of the Marauders. Scalphunter, Vertigo, Prism, Harpoon, Riptide, Scrambler, Blockbuster, Harpoon and, was Vertigo a Marauder? She was with the group, but she certainly wasn't one of Mr. Sinister's. The original group was very ruthless and sadistic, they were thrilling. I know that there have been new incarnations of the group since, but it seems that the original ones are defunct. The incarnation that we got in Messiah Complex was good. Out of the group, it seems that the only one that really got a background and or origin was Scalphunter. Do we really know anything about the other characters background? When did we learn that Harpoon was Inuit? Or that Scrambler was Korean? Arclight being a war veteran, and so on? Heck, when did Riptide get the name Jonas? Scalphunter seems to really be the only one that has become a recurring character. Thanks.


Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 3,343



    Quote:
    I'm talking about the original incarnation of the Marauders. Scalphunter, Vertigo, Prism, Harpoon, Riptide, Scrambler, Blockbuster, Harpoon and, was Vertigo a Marauder? She was with the group, but she certainly wasn't one of Mr. Sinister's. The original group was very ruthless and sadistic, they were thrilling. I know that there have been new incarnations of the group since, but it seems that the original ones are defunct. The incarnation that we got in Messiah Complex was good. Out of the group, it seems that the only one that really got a background and or origin was Scalphunter. Do we really know anything about the other characters background? When did we learn that Harpoon was Inuit? Or that Scrambler was Korean? Arclight being a war veteran, and so on? Heck, when did Riptide get the name Jonas? Scalphunter seems to really be the only one that has become a recurring character. Thanks.


Vertigo was one of the original Marauders who were working for Mr. Sinister in the Mutant Massacre, but like her teammate Sabretooth she had existed before the Marauders' and Sinister's introduction. Obviously Sabretooth is the Marauder about whom we know most, and let's not forget Malice, who possessed Polaris at that time. Several years later Gambit was retconned in as the guy who assembled the team for Sinister.

Don't know when Arclight was revealed to be a Vietnam war veteran, but her codename is taken from that war (Operation Arc Light was the name for the use of B-52s from Guam in support of US ground operations, Claremont referenced it before in Forge's origin). Harpoon's and Scrambler's ethnicities were revealed when they were first named, in UXM #211.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
UName


Member Since: Tue Mar 10, 2015
Posts: 290




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
The Black Guardian 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 20,573



    Quote:
    I'm talking about the original incarnation of the Marauders. Scalphunter, Vertigo, Prism, Harpoon, Riptide, Scrambler, Blockbuster, Harpoon and, was Vertigo a Marauder? She was with the group, but she certainly wasn't one of Mr. Sinister's. The original group was very ruthless and sadistic, they were thrilling. I know that there have been new incarnations of the group since, but it seems that the original ones are defunct. The incarnation that we got in Messiah Complex was good. Out of the group, it seems that the only one that really got a background and or origin was Scalphunter. Do we really know anything about the other characters background? When did we learn that Harpoon was Inuit?

At a guess, we learned he was Inuit when he first appeared and looked like an Inuit. But seriously, in Uncanny #221, he's called an "Eskimo."


    Quote:
    Or that Scrambler was Korean?

Uncanny #240, Blockbuster calls him a Korean.


    Quote:
    Arclight being a war veteran, and so on?

I suspect a Handbook.


    Quote:
    Heck, when did Riptide get the name Jonas?

Not Jonas, Janos. Again I suspect a Handbook.

I suspect most of what we know about them, other than Sabes, Scalphunter, Vertigo, and Malice, comes from Handbooks. None of their pasts have truly been delved into. They're pretty much ciphers. I think this fact actually served them well for their debut. They could mostly be seen as the monsters they were portrayed as, rather than real characters, but in the long run, it hurt them.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 10
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 3,343



    Quote:

      Quote:
      When did we learn that Harpoon was Inuit?

    At a guess, we learned he was Inuit when he first appeared and looked like an Inuit. But seriously, in Uncanny #221, he's called an "Eskimo."

UXM #211 p. 5: "The harpoon is metal in the Inuit's hand, transmuted to raw energy the instant he throws it."


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Or that Scrambler was Korean?


UXM #211 p. 20: "Unfortunately, the Korean youth touches Rogue first."


    Quote:
    I suspect most of what we know about them, other than Sabes, Scalphunter, Vertigo, and Malice, comes from Handbooks. None of their pasts have truly been delved into. They're pretty much ciphers. I think this fact actually served them well for their debut. They could mostly be seen as the monsters they were portrayed as, rather than real characters, but in the long run, it hurt them.


On the other hand, would it really have been that interesting to delve into their pasts and backgrounds? They were/are heartless mass-murderers for hire, most readers probably would have seen that at worst as a feeble attempt to make excuses for the inexcusable, at best as irrelevant...




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
The Black Guardian 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 20,573



    Quote:

      Quote:
      I suspect most of what we know about them, other than Sabes, Scalphunter, Vertigo, and Malice, comes from Handbooks. None of their pasts have truly been delved into. They're pretty much ciphers. I think this fact actually served them well for their debut. They could mostly be seen as the monsters they were portrayed as, rather than real characters, but in the long run, it hurt them.



    Quote:
    On the other hand, would it really have been that interesting to delve into their pasts and backgrounds? They were/are heartless mass-murderers for hire, most readers probably would have seen that at worst as a feeble attempt to make excuses for the inexcusable, at best as irrelevant...

I'm not interested in making excuses for them. Indeed, there are none. Just make them more embellished villains capable of standing on their own.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 10
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 3,343



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I suspect most of what we know about them, other than Sabes, Scalphunter, Vertigo, and Malice, comes from Handbooks. None of their pasts have truly been delved into. They're pretty much ciphers. I think this fact actually served them well for their debut. They could mostly be seen as the monsters they were portrayed as, rather than real characters, but in the long run, it hurt them.

      On the other hand, would it really have been that interesting to delve into their pasts and backgrounds? They were/are heartless mass-murderers for hire, most readers probably would have seen that at worst as a feeble attempt to make excuses for the inexcusable, at best as irrelevant...

    I'm not interested in making excuses for them. Indeed, there are none. Just make them more embellished villains capable of standing on their own.


I did not say you were wanting to make excuses for them. I was trying to explain how readers were likely to react to adding "depth" to characters like the Marauders. The main thing is that they are in effect monsters, their life story does not really make them interesting. To use another example, I find Cassandra Nova an extremely dull character for all the mumbo-jumbo about her prenatal fight against Xavier and the bleeding mummudrai. IMO the Marauders are defined by their limited role and essentially embellishing their background would be a waste of time and effort. This is something you have to expect with the kind of characters who are bigger villains' largely disposable henchmen, thugs and goons. Not that such characters - like most of the Marauders, Reavers, Acolytes etc. - have no reason to continue existing - they are clearly needed for many types of storyline. But look at the Brotherhood, which has a lot more continuity and "seniority" on its side, even there you have people like the Blob, Avalanche and Pyro, who really have very little by way of background and characterization (I'm disregarding the movies here, where Pyro has a very different and much more developed individual character).


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
The Black Guardian 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 20,573



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          I suspect most of what we know about them, other than Sabes, Scalphunter, Vertigo, and Malice, comes from Handbooks. None of their pasts have truly been delved into. They're pretty much ciphers. I think this fact actually served them well for their debut. They could mostly be seen as the monsters they were portrayed as, rather than real characters, but in the long run, it hurt them.

        On the other hand, would it really have been that interesting to delve into their pasts and backgrounds? They were/are heartless mass-murderers for hire, most readers probably would have seen that at worst as a feeble attempt to make excuses for the inexcusable, at best as irrelevant...

      I'm not interested in making excuses for them. Indeed, there are none. Just make them more embellished villains capable of standing on their own.



    Quote:
    I did not say you were wanting to make excuses for them. I was trying to explain how readers were likely to react to adding "depth" to characters like the Marauders. The main thing is that they are in effect monsters, their life story does not really make them interesting. To use another example, I find Cassandra Nova an extremely dull character for all the mumbo-jumbo about her prenatal fight against Xavier and the bleeding mummudrai. IMO the Marauders are defined by their limited role and essentially embellishing their background would be a waste of time and effort. This is something you have to expect with the kind of characters who are bigger villains' largely disposable henchmen, thugs and goons. Not that such characters - like most of the Marauders, Reavers, Acolytes etc. - have no reason to continue existing - they are clearly needed for many types of storyline. But look at the Brotherhood, which has a lot more continuity and "seniority" on its side, even there you have people like the Blob, Avalanche and Pyro, who really have very little by way of background and characterization (I'm disregarding the movies here, where Pyro has a very different and much more developed individual character).

I see a huge difference between the two. Cassandra, imo, wasn't even created to be human. She literally is a monster. That's why she sucks. The Marauders, on the other hand, are not monsters, but they're treated as such, and that's why they suck.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 10
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 6,444




    Quote:
    I'm talking about the original incarnation of the Marauders. Scalphunter, Vertigo, Prism, Harpoon, Riptide, Scrambler, Blockbuster, Harpoon and, was Vertigo a Marauder? She was with the group, but she certainly wasn't one of Mr. Sinister's. The original group was very ruthless and sadistic, they were thrilling. I know that there have been new incarnations of the group since, but it seems that the original ones are defunct. The incarnation that we got in Messiah Complex was good. Out of the group, it seems that the only one that really got a background and or origin was Scalphunter. Do we really know anything about the other characters background? When did we learn that Harpoon was Inuit? Or that Scrambler was Korean? Arclight being a war veteran, and so on? Heck, when did Riptide get the name Jonas? Scalphunter seems to really be the only one that has become a recurring character. Thanks.


I've always disliked them. I kind of see them as the bottom feeders of the X-Men's rogue gallery. Cyborgs aren't that compelling to me.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 6,444






    Quote:
    On the other hand, would it really have been that interesting to delve into their pasts and backgrounds? They were/are heartless mass-murderers for hire, most readers probably would have seen that at worst as a feeble attempt to make excuses for the inexcusable, at best as irrelevant...


I think the Marauders are awful characters. But I wouldn't necessarily mind reading the origin stories of other heartless murderers for hire if done well.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
The Black Guardian 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 20,573


Marauders aren't cyborgs. Are you confusing them with Reavers?


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 10
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 6,444




    Quote:
    Marauders aren't cyborgs. Are you confusing them with Reavers?


Yep I did. The Marauders are my SECOND least favorite X-Men villains. The Reavers are the worst.







Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 3,343



    Quote:

      Quote:
      I did not say you were wanting to make excuses for them. I was trying to explain how readers were likely to react to adding "depth" to characters like the Marauders. The main thing is that they are in effect monsters, their life story does not really make them interesting. To use another example, I find Cassandra Nova an extremely dull character for all the mumbo-jumbo about her prenatal fight against Xavier and the bleeding mummudrai. IMO the Marauders are defined by their limited role and essentially embellishing their background would be a waste of time and effort. This is something you have to expect with the kind of characters who are bigger villains' largely disposable henchmen, thugs and goons. Not that such characters - like most of the Marauders, Reavers, Acolytes etc. - have no reason to continue existing - they are clearly needed for many types of storyline. But look at the Brotherhood, which has a lot more continuity and "seniority" on its side, even there you have people like the Blob, Avalanche and Pyro, who really have very little by way of background and characterization (I'm disregarding the movies here, where Pyro has a very different and much more developed individual character).

    I see a huge difference between the two. Cassandra, imo, wasn't even created to be human. She literally is a monster. That's why she sucks. The Marauders, on the other hand, are not monsters, but they're treated as such, and that's why they suck.


Semantics. I do not agree with what appears to be your contentions, that by definition human beings can't be monsters or that non-human beings must be monsters. Also, how much of a human being is Malice the Marauder when compared to Cassandra Nova? He/she/it functions very much like a discorporate demon.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 6,444



Are you two even disagreeing at this point? I think both of you agree that the Marauders and Cassandra Nova suck.







Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
The Black Guardian 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 20,573


At least the original Reavers had distinct personalities, which is more than can be said for most Marauders.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 10
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 6,444




    Quote:
    At least the original Reavers had distinct personalities, which is more than can be said for most Marauders.


I really disliked the Reavers. I moderately dislike the Marauders.

Not too fond of the Nasty Boys or the Acolytes either. I'm not fond of the disposable henchmen teams. (but the MLF and Savage Land mutates oddly enough don't really bother me)



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 3,343



    Quote:

    Are you two even disagreeing at this point? I think both of you agree that the Marauders and Cassandra Nova suck.


Well, if I understand The Black Guardian correctly, we both agree that Cassandra Nova sucks. As for the Marauders, I think they are good as what they are meant to be - ruthles, inhuman, heartless mass-murderers who do the big bad's dirty work and behave in a way that makes a reader viscerally hate and despise them. (I must confess to feeling a degree of satisfaction when a few of them ended up being killed during the Massacre.) The Black Guardian thinks they would have been more compelling characters had they been given more of a background, I think that would have been largely superfluous. I think the underlying difference between us two is that in general I care less about a villain's underlying motivations and biography than he does. Except in a few rare cases these fall in the category of "yeah, but that's no excuse" for me. For instance I do not see Sabretooth - who has a very elaborate history involving both Wolverine and Gambit - as fundamentally different from the other Marauders.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2017 Powermad Software