X-Universe >> View Post
Post By
Menshevik

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 3,327
In Reply To
Reverend Meteor

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 6,393
Subj: Re: Poppycock.
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 at 05:34:08 pm EDT (Viewed 54 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Poppycock.
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 at 09:12:57 am EDT (Viewed 63 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:
      She was a stereotypical Stan Lee-type "good girl", and like pre-motherhood Sue Storm, original Wanda, and of course Betty Brant, Gwen Stacey, Victoria Bentley (remember her?), original Jane Foster etc. that made her nice, sensible and pretty bland (as well as pretty, but bland). She did not have the streak of bad girl that characterised Stan Lee's more successful female creations (Black Widow, the Wasp, and of course Mary Jane Watson). In an interview conducted ca. 1981 in The X-Men Companion I, Dave Cockrum ("in the '60s, all the girl characters [Stan Lee] created were simps--the housewife heroes.") goes on about how he and Chris Claremont struggled to make her interesting. (Not knowing that that work would be largely undone when it was determined that Jean wasn't the Phoenix)



    Quote:
    Well maybe if they found ways to use the character without brutalizing her then maybe she wouldn't have been such a problem. Jean didn't do things. Things just always happened to Jean. She's always the victim.



    Quote:
    It's 2017...hopefully a writer can learn to use Jean without making her the doormat she was in the 60's or the perpetual victim she's been since the late 70's.



    Quote:
    I don't think Jean sucks. Sucky things just happen to Jean. Both of her love interests stink and make her out to be this holy madonna when she's not.


I'm reminded of fans I've encountered who went on to great length about how Bishop or Maggot should be the greatest X-Man of them all if only writers would write them according to how they (these fans) viewed them. Yes, a good writer should be able to make any character interesting, but that applies to all characters equally. There is nothing about Jean that makes her so special that she's entitled to this type of preferential treatment (in my considered opinion).


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I wouldn't complain if Grant Morrison's entire run had never happened, but the thing now is not to cry over spilt milk but to ask what would be the point of bringing Jean back other than to reunite her with Scott (not in itself that attractive a prospect given the complaints about the "JeanScott entity" from some quarters during the 1990s) and to prove once more that death is not very meaningful in the X-books? As far as I can see the main reason would still be a nostalgia not warranted by Jean's actual in-story form.



    Quote:
    It's a comic book...who cares if death is meaningful? Aunt May got a meaningful well written death in ASM #400 and it was undone a few years later. To me not bringing her back because it would cheapen her death is silly. It wasn't that great a death. She's a classic character. We have 3 ripoff versions of her running around already. There's no reason to keep her dead.


I did not say that bringing her back would cheapen her death (even though, as a matter of interest, that is very much what happened the first time she was brought back ca. X-Factor #1), let alone that Morrison's stupid story was more deserving of being kept intact than the Dark Phoenix Saga. I just see no positive reason to bring her back to life, no stories that could be done with her that could not be done just as well or better with other characters. Especially if, as you apparently want, Jean is written as a character built anew from scratch and with as little of her established emotional ties and past history left as possible. Then one might as well use another character or create an entirely new one.


    Quote:
    And the real Scott, the real Logan and Charles are all off the board at the moment. This is the perfect time to bring her back without those dinks and to see who Jean is on her own. (I thought that approach worked great in Scarlet Witch's new series).


Didn't read that, but last I've seen Wanda's back together with her brother in Uncanny Avengers.

If you want to see who Jean is on her own teen Jean may actually be the more useful character because she comes with less emotional baggage than older Jean. Just because "real" Scott and Logan aren't around presently around (and how many fans honestly expect that state to last for long?) does not mean that she would not be comparing whoever her new love interest might be to them. (If/when she is brought back now she would presumably be Scott's widow (and incidentally Cable's stepmother) in the eyes of the law).


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Way to miss the point. What I said was that the motivation of the creators involved was in effect the same. But the two events are comparable in that both cases the negative effects far outweighed the "good" they were supposed to do.



    Quote:
    No it's that I thought your point about nostalgia is dumb and had no merit to it so I dismissed it out of hand. Jean is one of the original X-Men. She shouldn't be put on a shelf. She definitely shouldn't be put on a shelf while her time lost teenage self, teenage reincarnation and her time traveling daughter pick at her bones.


You say my point about nostalgia is dumb and had no merit, and the you go on to prove my point. The only reason you give why Jean is entitled to preferential treatment is because she is older. Nostalgia about a character you developed into an idealized version that bears little resemblance to Jean as she actually appeared in her comicbook appearances.

Here's a funny thought: You could make a very similar case to Jean's for bringing back John Proudstar. He was one of the originals from GSXM #1, his death sucked, and the fact that his younger brother, that ripoff character, is still running around as Warpath just proves that he needs to be resurrected pronto. And since he has been dead longer than Jean he clearly needs to be brought back to the living and the X-Men team before she is. And surely it isn't too much to ask that James Proudstar be retroactively removed from continuity! \:\-D


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Oh please. This is just wanting to reconstruct the X-universe to suit your favourites and the dogmas you set up. As it was, the fact that little Nathan turned out to be Cable, that Jean and Scott spent several years in the future raising him, was the only thing that at least partially salvaged Scott's character. (It also showed that Grant Morrison's rationale for breaking Jean and Scott up because Scott's love for Jean was somehow immature is complete codswallop, but that is by the by).



    Quote:
    Who would be my favorites in this situation?


Jean Grey for one, obviously.


    Quote:
    No it is me wanting to reconstruct the x-universe to not suit my least favorites. Cable is one of the worst things to ever happen to the X-verse IMO.


That's just the complementary negative aspect of the same thing. In any case, the return of Jean Grey by itself would hardly discomfit Cable. The two coexisted before, they can easily do so again.


    Quote:
    Yes I would retcon the past 20 years of crap if I could. Heck I would go so far back and retcon it so that Madelyne was the good guy if I could.


And thereby you rather resemble the people resonsible for "One More Day". The big difference is that Joe Quesada and co. had the wherewithal of actually going through with retconning 20 years' worth of continuity to suit their vision of removing crap.