X-Universe >> View Thread

Author
Comicguy1




And a few more.

First- Longhot's origin. What exactly is his origin anyway? I heard/read that this is a whole convoluted mess. I read the Wiki entry on it, and I STILL don't get it. What's his connection to Spiral? Were they lovers? What's his connection to Shatterstar?

#When did X-Factor (The original incarnation, which would be Cyclops, Warren the boring Angel, Iceman, Jean Grey, and Beast.) reveal themselves, or when was it revealed that they were in fact the original X-Men, and that they were not mutant hunters. The original premise had them operating under the pretense that they were mutant hunters, didn't it? I don't think that anyone knew the truth about them. Did the public ever find out? I'm trying to read/get as many of the Louise Simonson issues as I can (Not a popular run, I hear. I read a lot of it when I was growing up, and I enjoyed it.), and in one issue (I think that it was #17 or #18.), they were going to reveal themselves to the press, but Cameron Hodge stopped them by ordering a sneak attack. So did the public ever find out? And if so, when and how? And was Hodge ALWAYS intended to be an evil villain? He's pretty much pure evil, isn't he? That deal with that demon guy that he made during Inferno when he gave him the location of a bunch of mutant babies was really low, and pushed him into monster territory. Would he ever kill any innocent people? How was he in the X-Factor Forever series (Is that still going on?)?

#When did they mess up Apocalypse? During the Simonson X-Factor run, he was a social Darwinist, and he believed that only the strong and worthy should survive. In a way, he was like Magneto. But then, he got really screwed up later down the line, and what kind of origin did they give him? They've done a lot of weird things to the character, and he's really convoluted now. He USED to be cool, but he's just a little bit too convoluted now.

Thanks for the help, and any and all answers.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
The Black Guardian 

Moderator

Location: Paragon City, RI
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 25,857



    Quote:
    And a few more.



    Quote:
    First- Longhot's origin. What exactly is his origin anyway? I heard/read that this is a whole convoluted mess. I read the Wiki entry on it, and I STILL don't get it. What's his connection to Spiral? Were they lovers? What's his connection to Shatterstar?

His family tree is a circle: Longshot -> Shatterstar -> Longshot.

Spiral is his ex-girlfriend, "Ricochet" Rita Wayword. She's a stuntwoman he met when he traveled to Earth.


    Quote:
    #When did X-Factor (The original incarnation, which would be Cyclops, Warren the boring Angel, Iceman, Jean Grey, and Beast.) reveal themselves, or when was it revealed that they were in fact the original X-Men, and that they were not mutant hunters. The original premise had them operating under the pretense that they were mutant hunters, didn't it? I don't think that anyone knew the truth about them. Did the public ever find out? I'm trying to read/get as many of the Louise Simonson issues as I can (Not a popular run, I hear. I read a lot of it when I was growing up, and I enjoyed it.), and in one issue (I think that it was #17 or #18.), they were going to reveal themselves to the press, but Cameron Hodge stopped them by ordering a sneak attack. So did the public ever find out? And if so, when and how? And was Hodge ALWAYS intended to be an evil villain? He's pretty much pure evil, isn't he? That deal with that demon guy that he made during Inferno when he gave him the location of a bunch of mutant babies was really low, and pushed him into monster territory. Would he ever kill any innocent people? How was he in the X-Factor Forever series (Is that still going on?)?

X-Factor revealed themselves at the end of "Fall of the Mutants" with a big press conference.

Yes, they don't come much more evil than him, but I don't think Bob Layton intended for him to be this way. Just as well since Layton's plan for X-Factor was not good. Candy Southern was pretty innocent, so yeah, he'd kill anyone (twice, even).

In the X-Factor Forever alt universe, Hodge's head is collected by Caliban. Apocalypse turns him into Master Meld. He was used as a distraction so Taco-Lips could sneak onto Ship and serves no other purpose.


    Quote:
    #When did they mess up Apocalypse? During the Simonson X-Factor run, he was a social Darwinist, and he believed that only the strong and worthy should survive. In a way, he was like Magneto. But then, he got really screwed up later down the line, and what kind of origin did they give him? They've done a lot of weird things to the character, and he's really convoluted now. He USED to be cool, but he's just a little bit too convoluted now.

Magneto doesn't believe only the strong survive. He believes that mutants should rule, when he's not simply protecting mutants from evil flatscans.

Apocalypse has not changed from this mode, really. He's still just a much of a Darwinist as ever. I don't really care for the "Life Seed"/"Death Seed" stuff being written right now (which, imo, just ties into my whole opinion that they've really destroyed the concept of Celestials), but I love his origin. It does not make him convoluted at all.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 28.0 on Windows 8
Unstable Molecule


Location: Calgary, AB Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,887



    Quote:
    And a few more.



    Quote:
    First- Longhot's origin. What exactly is his origin anyway? I heard/read that this is a whole convoluted mess. I read the Wiki entry on it, and I STILL don't get it. What's his connection to Spiral? Were they lovers? What's his connection to Shatterstar?


I read the issues and I was always confused as well. As for his connection to Shatterstar - in Peter David's recent X-Factor, it was revealed that due to a time paradox, Shatterstar and Longshot are each others fathers and each others sons. Does that clear it up for you? Didn't think so.


    Quote:
    #When did X-Factor (The original incarnation, which would be Cyclops, Warren the boring Angel, Iceman, Jean Grey, and Beast.) reveal themselves, or when was it revealed that they were in fact the original X-Men, and that they were not mutant hunters. The original premise had them operating under the pretense that they were mutant hunters, didn't it? I don't think that anyone knew the truth about them. Did the public ever find out? I'm trying to read/get as many of the Louise Simonson issues as I can (Not a popular run, I hear. I read a lot of it when I was growing up, and I enjoyed it.), and in one issue (I think that it was #17 or #18.), they were going to reveal themselves to the press, but Cameron Hodge stopped them by ordering a sneak attack. So did the public ever find out? And if so, when and how? And was Hodge ALWAYS intended to be an evil villain? He's pretty much pure evil, isn't he? That deal with that demon guy that he made during Inferno when he gave him the location of a bunch of mutant babies was really low, and pushed him into monster territory. Would he ever kill any innocent people? How was he in the X-Factor Forever series (Is that still going on?)?


When Hodge was first introduced, I read him as a guy who had a hopeless crush on the magnetic Warren Worthington, and felt spurned. I thought he was really interesting this way - but then they went overboard with him and made him a baby killer. By the way, the mutant babies subplot was FINALLY resolved in the latest New Mutants series. It's also really complicated, but you can google it if you're interested.


    Quote:
    #When did they mess up Apocalypse? During the Simonson X-Factor run, he was a social Darwinist, and he believed that only the strong and worthy should survive. In a way, he was like Magneto. But then, he got really screwed up later down the line, and what kind of origin did they give him? They've done a lot of weird things to the character, and he's really convoluted now. He USED to be cool, but he's just a little bit too convoluted now.


Never liked Apocalypse. Not in his first appearance, nor in any subsequent appearance. At first I thought he was a Plastic Man ripoff who should have been easily dispatched by X-Factor. Then they loaded him up with Celestial tech (and at that point, I'd never heard of Celestials). It seems every attempt to make him look more formidable just made him more lame. Ultimately I started avoiding his appearances, so I'm definitely not an expert.




And a lean, silent figure slowly fades into the gathering darkness, aware at last that in this world, with great power there must also come -- great responsibility!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 28.0 on Windows 7
Michael






    Quote:
    When Hodge was first introduced, I read him as a guy who had a hopeless crush on the magnetic Warren Worthington, and felt spurned. I thought he was really interesting this way - but then they went overboard with him and made him a baby killer. By the way, the mutant babies subplot was FINALLY resolved in the latest New Mutants series. It's also really complicated, but you can google it if you're interested.


The first issue that revealed he was evil had him torturing Rictor into causing an earthquake that would have killed thousands of men, women and CHILDREN. Torturing someone else into killing children is even worse than doing it yourself.

Michael


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Comicguy1




I thought that he sent in his Right troopers (Or whoever.) to do that. He killed Candy (Rather disturbingly.) because she found out the truth about him, AND she was in love with Warren. He wanted to hurt Warren. So yes, she was an innocent, but he did that to strike at Warren. Hodge hates mutants, and wants to protect humanity from them. Kind of like Donald Pierce. They seem to want to protect innocent people.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
The Black Guardian 

Moderator

Location: Paragon City, RI
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 25,857



    Quote:
    I thought that he sent in his Right troopers (Or whoever.) to do that.

Hodge was right there with them.


    Quote:
    They seem to want to protect innocent people.

And they don't care how many innocents die as they do.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 28.0 on Windows 8
Evil G:DR




> > #When did they mess up Apocalypse? During the Simonson X-Factor run, he was a social Darwinist, and he believed that only the strong and worthy should survive. In a way, he was like Magneto. But then, he got really screwed up later down the line, and what kind of origin did they give him? They've done a lot of weird things to the character, and he's really convoluted now. He USED to be cool, but he's just a little bit too convoluted now.

> Magneto doesn't believe only the strong survive. He believes that mutants should rule, when he's not simply protecting mutants from evil flatscans.

> Apocalypse has not changed from this mode, really. He's still just a much of a Darwinist as ever. I don't really care for the "Life Seed"/"Death Seed" stuff being written right now (which, imo, just ties into my whole opinion that they've really destroyed the concept of Celestials), but I love his origin. It does not make him convoluted at all.

I think that things like the introduction of Cable's possible-future timeline, where Apocalypse ruled, and then the Age of Apocalypse, had an effect on the regular, present-day Apocalypse, in that people started writing him like his goal was "take over the world", rather than "manipulate the course of evolution, and have totally intense debates with Wolverine to challenge his creationist views". Milligan's post-M-Day revival of Apocalypse started to get him back on the right track, and despite the whole "Apocalypse without Actual Apocalypse" debacle we've been living through since Uncanny X-Force first started, they at least seem to be focusing on Apocalypse's original goals, and the notion that he serves an important role in the world and in the Celestials' Big Cosmic Plan.

Still, during this "he wants to conquer the world" time period, Apocalypse was mostly just lurking in the background, up until 1999, and there's where we got something truly ruinous that really hurt Apocalypse. Back in 1994, the 'Adventures of Cyclops & Phoenix' miniseries depicted Cable's timeline, where a far-future Apocalypse had abandoned his "survival of the fittest" code and instead chose his own survival above all else, jumping into host-bodies so he can live forever, and the host-bodies burn out quickly. But this was just a possible-future, so it didn't matter. And then in the Big Apocalypse Crossover event of 1999, suddenly his armour gets ripped open and there's a withered old guy inside and we're getting the host-body stuff right here in the present. I can remember reading about people literally throwing the comic down in disgust when that happened.

And then Apocalypse was one of the guys who was killed by editorial-demand, with the end of the "Search for Cyclops" miniseries being changed to kill him off, because that's how the Jemas/Quesada regime rolled. When he came back in 2006, they took the time to try and explain the host-bodies stuff away and be kind of like "yes, he can do that, but he's not doing that anymore."

But no, Apocalypse's origin itself has nothing to do with any of the problems he's faced. The problems have all come from trying to mess with the basic concept, either in terms of his goals, or who/what he is. No-one wants to see Apocalypse as an old guy in an Apocalypse-suit, and no-one wants to see some kind of Apocalypse-substitute.



Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Comicguy1




His Siminson written appearances, and the X-Men cartoon seem to have been his heyday, and the best interpretations of the character.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
askani




That ending was altered? Never read that before. What I read was that Cyclops was brought back earlier than he might have been. That Jemas thought it was wrong that, with a movie out, Cyclops was out of the books and ordered him brought back. Never read that the actual story was altered, though. What was the original ending?


Posted with Google Chrome 11.0.696.77 on Linux
Evil G:DR




> That ending was altered? Never read that before. What I read was that Cyclops was brought back earlier than he might have been. That Jemas thought it was wrong that, with a movie out, Cyclops was out of the books and ordered him brought back. Never read that the actual story was altered, though. What was the original ending?

I can't remember the exact month in '00 that Search for Cyclops started, or the month when Jemas started throwing his weight around, and Harras was replaced with Quesada as editor-in-chief, but I'm sure that the time between the two events is waaaaay too small for Search for Cyclops to have been "ordered by Jemas", as opposed to happening exactly when it was planned to (although Jemas was having a stopped-clock moment in terms of Cyclops being 'killed off' not long before the movie).

And on the subject of the movie, apparently it was moved forward from it's original release date, and that's why Marvel published an X-Men vs Brotherhood storyline in November 2000, and in the month the movie was out, they were publishing that thing with the Crimson Pirates and The Goth, which was nigh-impenetrable to any hypothetical newcomers (and not much more accessible to regulars). But the thing to remember is that no-one had any idea if it would be any good, or do very well, so you can kind of see how Marvel would be reluctant to impose drastic movie-inspired changes onto the comics, especially given previous years of reluctance to change the books very much, for fear of losing readers.

But anyway, getting back to the point, of Apocalypse's 'death', what I can remember is the news that the guy who wrote that miniseries saying how it was originally going to end with Apocalypse surviving and escaping somehow, but the end was changed to kill him in a way that reads like it was meant to be Real, Permanent And Forever. See also; the deaths of X-Man and Stryfe at around the same time, and Tieri not being allowed to use Sinister or Hazard in his Wolverine run because they were "too complicated". Or how Bishop's being from the future was largely avoided.

Cripes, that era really ballsed up the X-Men beyond all repair, didn't it?

Nice to see this brought you out of lurking, though.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Comicguy1




And yes, the 90's pretty much was the nadir for the X-Books (And I actually grew up on, read and enjoyed those books. I still think the SL and FN runs are very good on the whole.). It really took the arrival of Grant Morrison to make the books accessible again.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
askani




Well, this happened a long time ago. Perhaps I'm not remembering all the details/quotes correctly. I thought I remembered reading that Jemas wanted him back. I thought he and Quesada took over summeriah 2000 and SEARCH came out at the end of 2000. Issue 4 might have come out in early 2001? Lobdell's interim run was, I'm pretty sure, all in 2001. May, was it, that Morrison and Casey started?

Joseph Harris wrote SEARCH. He also wrote that Bishop series in that era. He had a website back then. Never saw him mention the ending being changed. I remember he called Scott and Jean Marvel's greatest couple. I'm guessing he probably didn't have in mind what wound up happening with them. Anyway, on his site, he answered a bunch of questions on the mini. Nothing about editorial changing things, though.
Not arguing he didn't say it. Hell, I have no recollection of Tieri saying what you say he said either.

Not sure what this accomplished with a character like Apocalypse. I mean given the nature of his powers. I know I didn't read SEARCH and think, this guy is definitively dead. We saw him escape or we saw what we saw. Either way I thought we'd be back. But the characters believe what the plot calls for them t5o believe. We saw Cyclops merge with Apocalypse and escape, not die. But the other X Men spent 9 months acting like he was dead.

Regarding villains and rest. Couple years before this I would read how Sinister and Apocalypse were supposedly overused and needed a rest. And I never got it. Never thought either ever was. I always thought that Sabretooth was the X villain that applied to back then, if it applied to any of them.

I do remember all the cancelled books. Every book had to have it's own message, a distinct purpose. Something like that, anyway. And that they were way too complicated. Morrison and Casey talked about that a bunch in the WIZARD special leading into their runs. Then, a decade later, weren't there more X books then ever?

I don't remember anything about Quesada ordering deaths. More like dead means dead. That he stopped letting creators bring characters back. wasn't that what happened with psylocke in XTREME? Later on, it was amended to unless some has a good story to bring them back.

And they did wind up doing stuff that tried to make the books more like the movies. Just took awhile. Toad and Mystique's appearances changing in FOREVER. those miniseries that came out. The Rogue one reads like movie Rogue. I think Jean was a doctor in it. Not that it ever gets them more readers longterm. The movies would spike the sales short term. Then they'd slowly drop down again.

While I'm no huge fan of this era, I can't say it drove me off the books. Nor am I going to blame SEARCH for what Morrison did. I think he still would have turned Jean Phoenix and still broken up Scott and Jean. With ot without Apocalypse. He would have just gone about it a different way. Provided he'd used the characters. If they had kept Cyclops "dead" he would have used someone else like he didn't use colossus.

Been a very long time now. Morrison is ancient history. The characters are what they've become. They are not going back to the Cyclops that I liked. Or the X Men. Doesn't mean I won't go see the movies, but reading the books? No way. That would require the mother of all retcons.

Believe me, I'm not doing a lot of lurking here at this point. But when I am, and I see you posting, I take a look.


Posted with Google Chrome 11.0.696.77 on Linux
Evil G:DR




> Well, this happened a long time ago. Perhaps I'm not remembering all the details/quotes correctly. I thought I remembered reading that Jemas wanted him back. I thought he and Quesada took over summeriah 2000 and SEARCH came out at the end of 2000. Issue 4 might have come out in early 2001? Lobdell's interim run was, I'm pretty sure, all in 2001. May, was it, that Morrison and Casey started?

I've taken a look through the archives, and #1 of Search for Cyclops was out in October 2000, but was announced at least as early as June, #3 was out in January 2001, and #4 in March (we don't seem to have talked about #2 back in the day, so I'm not entirely sure what month it was out in), and #4 was so far behind schedule that the miniseries finished after Scott's 'return' in UXM #391 came out in February (Lobdell's interim run was from January to April 2001, then the Dark Age began in May, and continues to this day).

And Harras to Jemas/Quesada regime-change seems to have been in late August 2000, so Search for Cyclops was already planned by then.

> Joseph Harris wrote SEARCH. He also wrote that Bishop series in that era. He had a website back then. Never saw him mention the ending being changed. I remember he called Scott and Jean Marvel's greatest couple. I'm guessing he probably didn't have in mind what wound up happening with them. Anyway, on his site, he answered a bunch of questions on the mini. Nothing about editorial changing things, though. Not arguing he didn't say it. Hell, I have no recollection of Tieri saying what you say he said either.

I can't remember where Tieri talked about not being allowed to use those characters, but chances are it would've been on the message board he had on the X-Fan forums (I have no idea if that site even still exists). But I can clearly remember that this news about Apocalypse's 'death' wasn't something that came out at the time, but years later, possibly closer to the time when Apocalypse came back.

> Not sure what this accomplished with a character like Apocalypse. I mean given the nature of his powers. I know I didn't read SEARCH and think, this guy is definitively dead. We saw him escape or we saw what we saw. Either way I thought we'd be back. But the characters believe what the plot calls for them t5o believe.

Well, what we saw was "Jean forcibly remove Apocalypse from Cyclops' body, then Cable stab his disembodied spirit to death", it really read like that was supposed to be The End for Apocalypse. I didn't _want_ to believe he'd stay dead, but it wasn't one of those "ambiguous supervillain deaths where he'll clearly be back".

It took over 4 years before he just showed up out of nowhere. But that seems to be how Apocalypse rolls, when he's been gone so long you're starting to think he's really dead and never coming back, just when all hope is lost, he just walks back in like he was never dead at all.

> We saw Cyclops merge with Apocalypse and escape, not die. But the other X Men spent 9 months acting like he was dead.

While I could just about suspend disbelief and accept that Xavier would immediately write Scott off as dead after the merge with Apocalypse, and not even question it, because the plot required them to think he was dead, that story ended with Apocalypse teleporting away right in front of everyone, yet after that, everyone talks as if Apocalypse and Cyclops were both dead, and I suspect there was some kind of mis-communication between writers and/or editors as to what had happened, or 'Ages of Apocalypse' was just one of those stories which didn't actually end in the way that the long-term-plan called for it to end, but the books somehow managed to pretend it did end with them dying.

> Regarding villains and rest. Couple years before this I would read how Sinister and Apocalypse were supposedly overused and needed a rest. And I never got it. Never thought either ever was. I always thought that Sabretooth was the X villain that applied to back then, if it applied to any of them.

I can't remember who said it, but it was one of the guys working on and/or writing for Doctor Who, about how some older viewers complain about the Daleks being over-used, and he justified it in terms of "if you're a kid, waiting to see them again, that year-long wait between episodes with them in seems like an eternity, and you're super-excited to see them again". And to this day, I still feel like that when we get to see guys like Magneto, Apocalypse, Sinister, Stryfe, Exodus, Bastion and Onslaught in their proper versions.

I'd suspect Sabretooth felt particularly over-used in the 1990s due to the long-running, misguided attempt to turn him into some kind of anti-hero. The whole thing with him being locked up in the X-Men's basement seems to have been born out of a thankfully-aborted plan for him to actually join the team, but after it twice ending in him getting out of his cell and the X-Men having to take him down, he moved over to become a regular on X-Factor. It was total Sabretooth overkill for anyone not wild about Victor Creed.

> I do remember all the cancelled books. Every book had to have it's own message, a distinct purpose. Something like that, anyway. And that they were way too complicated. Morrison and Casey talked about that a bunch in the WIZARD special leading into their runs. Then, a decade later, weren't there more X books then ever?

It didn't even take that long. Even in periods where there were less ongoing books than before, the ever-increasing numbers of miniseries tended to make it look like there were still more X-books than ever, and few of them lived up to that "distinct purpose" mandate. Somehow, even after the X-Men haven't been Marvel's 'top franchise' in many a year, they still insist on publishing far more X-books than it makes any sense to be publishing, when they really do need to cut the line down to a handful of books and get back to basics.

Generally, I tend to dismiss the "too complicated" gripe as the whining of people who'd be better off reading something more aimed at their comprehension-level, like 'See Spot Run',. For most of the time, the books fed you most of the information you needed to know. But the Claremont books in '00? That's a time when that gripe did have some merit.

> I don't remember anything about Quesada ordering deaths. More like dead means dead. That he stopped letting creators bring characters back. wasn't that what happened with psylocke in XTREME? Later on, it was amended to unless some has a good story to bring them back.

The 'dead means dead' thing was something that did mess up Claremont's plans, he'd 'killed' Psylocke, intended to quickly bring her back (in her original body?) only to be told that they weren't allowing any resurrections. They completely backtracked on this 'rule' within a year or so, and I think they eventually admitted it was done purely so that a planned death-and-return would seem like a shock (this may have been Magneto's return in that Xorn debacle that was so awful they revealed it wasn't really him barely 6 months later).

But I can remember writers on various X-books talking about how they'd been told to kill off guys like Stryfe and X-Man because of Jemas' dislike of characters from the future, alternate timelines, etc. This means it's hardly a surprise if he'd demanded the big blue guy from the ancient past be killed off too.

> And they did wind up doing stuff that tried to make the books more like the movies. Just took awhile. Toad and Mystique's appearances changing in FOREVER. those miniseries that came out. The Rogue one reads like movie Rogue. I think Jean was a doctor in it. Not that it ever gets them more readers longterm. The movies would spike the sales short term. Then they'd slowly drop down again.

Historically, comic-movies have seldom had any noticeable effect on comic sales, no matter whether they go out of their way to make everything resemble the movie, to be more accessible to that audience, or not.

And that Rogue miniseries, yeah, that was a weird thing that seemed to be set after she just joined the team, but no-one knew if it was meant to be in-continuity or not, then Jean showed up alive and well near the end to prove it wasn't.

As for the comics making themselves like the movies, in November of 2000, the Cerebro chamber was re-designed into the movie-style "big round room", but by May 2001, it was redesigned again, and renamed 'Cerebra', in one of the many, many, random, pointless and arbitrary changes of the Dark Age. I don't think it's ever been changed back to 'Cerebro' either, and that still bothers me.

> While I'm no huge fan of this era, I can't say it drove me off the books. Nor am I going to blame SEARCH for what Morrison did. I think he still would have turned Jean Phoenix and still broken up Scott and Jean. With ot without Apocalypse. He would have just gone about it a different way. Provided he'd used the characters. If they had kept Cyclops "dead" he would have used someone else like he didn't use colossus.

Oh, I'm not blaming 'Search for Cyclops' for any of the inexcusable crap that followed. Aside from Apocalypse's 'death', I did enjoy that miniseries, and considered it, and Lobdell's brief return to the core books, to be two of the few enjoyable moments of the '00s.

> Been a very long time now. Morrison is ancient history. The characters are what they've become. They are not going back to the Cyclops that I liked. Or the X Men. Doesn't mean I won't go see the movies, but reading the books? No way. That would require the mother of all retcons.

I'm almost 3 full years behind on my comics reading, and I'm honestly not sure why I'm still bothering the X-books, the characters aren't who they were anymore, and it's not even about what it used to be about anymore, it increasingly feels like it's celebrating the kind of division that the X-Men used to be against, and there's clearly an audience for that, but more and more it feels like at some point they just threw in the towel, decided Magneto was right all along, and embraced a bargain-basement version of his dream.

But then every time I wonder if I'm done, I learn that someone like Joseph or Stryfe is coming back and I think "yeah, I want to see that".

And then it turns out that Joseph comes back brainwashed and evil.

> Believe me, I'm not doing a lot of lurking here at this point. But when I am, and I see you posting, I take a look.

Well, thanks. It always means a lot to me if people make a point of reading what I have to say (Well, aside from the ones who hate what I have to say).


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
askani




Not going to even try quoting. I'll just take your points one by one. Well, sure looks like the dates you listed support Jemas not ordering any return. Thought I remembered reading it back the, though.

Mark Powers said in a chat, not long after he disappeared, that it would be a long time before we saw Cyclops in the X books again. He wasn't gone very long. Read to me like the idea might have changed midstream.

Was issue 4 of SEARCH that delayed? I remember it coming out the same month as UXM 391. When I think of ridiculously delayed minis from that era I think of CHILDREN OF THE ATOM.

Again, Apocalypse's powers didn't leave me thinking he was gone for good. Is his death that much more definitive than X FACTOR 68? He's a shapeshifter who can jump from host body to host body. How much of his psychic essence is required to revive him. To me, an out was that Cable thought he destroyed all of it but didn't. I don't know. I don't recall thinking he's really gone for good as I read it.

How did they explain it when he did come back? Has there ever been interaction between him and Scott about what happened between them? Not that it matters much at this point. Scott is what he is.

Sabretooth was just in a lot of books over a fairly long period. Even putting aside and idea of redemption. He had limited series. He would than appear in WOLVERINE some as well. Meanwhile, Sinister and Apocalypse, who are supposedly so over exposed could go a couple years doing pretty much nothing. I'm talking doing something. Not Apocalypse with a one page cameo lurking in the background.

The way I look at it is this. If you are tired of Superman vs Luthor, the FF vs Doom, you've outgrown the books. Find something else to read.
My tastes didn't change. I didn't drop the books because I was tired of Xavier and Magneto and wanted something new. Scott and Jean and wanted something new. I wasn't looking for radical change. For me, change the trappings, not the characters. And the integrity of the characters. That goes out the window as soon as they need another event. What's the latest, ORIGINAL SIN ? Look, look at all the dirty secrets all these characters have. Wolverine, someone of that ilk, fine. I don't want to read about Spider Man, Mister Fantastic, Captain America's dark secrets. That's not why I liked those characters. I don't want to read about an adulterer, kill squad forming, mutant revolutionary Cyclops. That is not what made him my favorite X Man.

TOO MUCH change. But to each his own. Is it character assassination or character development? Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Me, they could have never driven off with reasonably safe stories without radical shifts in character. I'd rather have 90s Cyclops, I thought reasonably in character, but not at the center of it all as he seems to be now. Spotlight firmly on him. Doing things with the character all too often means pushing the envelope too much for my tastes.

Thing is, the radical stories are often the ones that spike sales. So, can you really blame DC and Marvel for telling them? It's just not for me. You are 3 years behind reading X books? Do you avoid spoilers or just wind up rading them knowing what will happen?

SEARCH was the best Jean Grey depiction I recall reading since 2000, and the last time I thought a comic did the Scott/Jean couple justice. Mind you I have read very little X Men the last decade. One complete series, ENDSONG.

There used to be a poster on another board, maybe CBR. This was also several years back, at least. Used to blame what happened with Cyclops on THE TWELVE and SEARCH. As if one cryptic message meant the character HAD to be changed.

You have one question posed. Can something be touched by Apocalypse and remain pure? I used to say this all the time. It isn't bad writingfor Cyclops to come out unchanged in the end. Questionable writing would have been for him to come back unaffected. There was going to be a process where he reaclimates himself. But in the end he didn't have to come out radically changed. Lots of heroes have been deeply traumatized without changing. Others have been changed, but it doesn't always happen. More often it doesn't

As I said, though, I don't think Morrison was saying Apocalypse really changed him as much as opened his eyes. And any interview I've seen with creators since I stopped reading, same thing. I never saw Apocalypse mentioned. I read a lot of Scott grew ups.

Your humor belies your posting acumen. You argue your points very logically(and a hell of a lot more coherently than I do) even if I don't always agree. Although we tend to with the X books. Speaking of humor, how about another micro adventure? Those were hilarious.


Posted with Google Chrome 11.0.696.77 on Linux
Evil G:DR






This is Hazard, introduced in X-Men #12-13, Nicieza's first issues as the regular writer of the book. Hazard was Carter Ryking, a childhood friend of Charles Xavier, he could fly, generate and blast plasma energy, and channelled that energy through tasers built into his costume.

Hazard's father, Alexander Ryking, worked alongside Xavier's father and his stepfather Wayne Marko. He was incarcerated in some kind of super-asylum, but news of his father's death made him go crazygonuts, and sent him on a rampage to try and expose how his father and his co-workers had experimented him (and Xavier as well?), believing this is what made him a mutant.

The X-Men defeated him and he ended up being locked away again, and made a brief appearance during the Gambit solo book, and Nicieza would revisit "what was Xavier's father involved with?" again in the 'X-Men Forever' miniseries, but without bringing back Hazard.

Hazard lost his powers on M-Day, and returned in the Xavier-centric era of Carey's X-Men Legacy, only to die, a victim of Sinister's efforts to resurrect himself, which really felt like a waste of a potentially-interesting character, who was largely a blank slate, and could have been a recurring guy in an Xavier-centric series.

> And yes, the 90's pretty much was the nadir for the X-Books (And I actually grew up on, read and enjoyed those books. I still think the SL and FN runs are very good on the whole.). It really took the arrival of Grant Morrison to make the books accessible again.

There are so many things wrong with that paragraph, I don't even know where to start. You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would not succeed. In short, no, the 1990s were not the nadir. Arguably that period where UXM was just a reprint book, but in terms of "actual new material being published", the '00s have been the worst decade for the core X-Men books, because it's the decade where they completely lost track of what the X-Men are supposed to be all about (in addition to a general level of not being very good). Anything from the point where they move onto that damned island has failed at being an X-Men story before it even began.

And whether you love or hate the one book Morrison wrote (remember, everyone; friends don't let friends enjoy New-X-Men), that was JUST ONE BOOK. He didn't do squat for the eleventy-five other X-Men comics that were being published at the time, or the "accessibility" of the franchise as a whole. By creating an environment of "this is the only X-Men book that matters, the only one where anything important will happen", he did just the opposite, and we got that thing where there's only a few books that "matter". Contrast this to the 1980s and 1990s, where just about every book mattered and could justify it's existence in terms other than "this will sell enough to turn a profit for Marvel".

On a related note, I'm beyond tired of how so many vocal people keep on talking about the 2001-4 Jemas-run Marvel as being some kind of golden renaissance, just because there were one or two books they loved, and ignoring how much utter garbage, filth, bilge and sewage there was during that time period, and how there was a sort of company-wide sense of embarrassment to be writing and publishing superhero comics, and so elements that were super and/or heroic got toned down or thrown out entirely.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Evil G:DR




> Not going to even try quoting. I'll just take your points one by one. Well, sure looks like the dates you listed support Jemas not ordering any return. Thought I remembered reading it back the, though.

> Mark Powers said in a chat, not long after he disappeared, that it would be a long time before we saw Cyclops in the X books again. He wasn't gone very long. Read to me like the idea might have changed midstream.

I was surprised it was announced as early as it was, I certainly didn't remember that. If I had to guess, I'd imagine that they may have originally planned for him to be gone longer, but it looks like the miniseries was announced soon after the movie was out. Scott's return may have been sped up by the whole "he was in the movie but nowhere to be found in the books" debacle.

On a related note, for a guy mostly known for being an editor, I did enjoy the GI Joe run that Powers wrote a few years back.

> Was issue 4 of SEARCH that delayed? I remember it coming out the same month as UXM 391. When I think of ridiculously delayed minis from that era I think of CHILDREN OF THE ATOM.

It may not have been as horribly delayed as that thing was, but if it had stayed on a monthly schedule, it would have finished in January 2001, but that's when #3 was out, and #4 was out in March, the month after UXM #391.

I don't remember anyone ever talking about the cause of the delays, whether it was on the art side, the writing side, or something else entirely.

> Again, Apocalypse's powers didn't leave me thinking he was gone for good. Is his death that much more definitive than X FACTOR 68? He's a shapeshifter who can jump from host body to host body. How much of his psychic essence is required to revive him. To me, an out was that Cable thought he destroyed all of it but didn't. I don't know. I don't recall thinking he's really gone for good as I read it.

I can't say I ever really interpreted X-Factor #68 as a "real" death, since as I recall, the narration mentioned Apocalypse's laughter during his defeat, as if everything were going Just As Planned.

And Stryfe's death, at around the same time as Apocalypse's, was at least something where we had Gambit and Bishop talking about how "they may just have been seeing whatever Cable wanted them to see", leaving plenty of room to back out of it.

But while even back then, I'd been around long enough to know that if someone wanted to bring Apocalypse back, they'd find a way, this death did feel like as much of an attempt as I'd ever seen to kill him off 'for real'. My reaction wasn't the usual "sleep well, old friend, there will be a reckoning when you return", but a "I really don't know if he can come back from this".

> How did they explain it when he did come back? Has there ever been interaction between him and Scott about what happened between them? Not that it matters much at this point. Scott is what he is.

They introduced the idea that he could regenerate an entire new body from as little as a single drop of blood, in Cable & Deadpool #26-7. Although Nicieza, who wrote those issues, seemed to be also trying to introduce the idea that Cable accidentally infected a younger Apocalypse with the techno-organic virus "and that's why he's immortal, can regenerate all injuries, and change shape", despite how his origin miniseries depicts him being able to do most of that stuff with the powers he was born with.

Scott and Apocalypse had minimal interaction during the last 'proper' Apocalypse storyline, 'The Blood of Apocalypse', in X-Men #182-7. While it's not spelled out so much as it's heavily implied, the interesting thing there was how they were playing around with the idea that being merged together had messed Apocalypse up as much as it had messed Scott up, with him talking a lot about unleashing his new Horseman of Pestilence to decimate humanity, but being very hesitant to actually do so, and second-guessing himself.

Taking that into account, you'd think we were stuck in the middle of a plot where they weren't separated properly, and they need to be re-merged, and properly split apart so they'd be OK again, but no, because every writer from 2001 onwards wants to write Scott like this, the 'broken' version of him is far more popular with writers and readers than the old one ever was.

> Sabretooth was just in a lot of books over a fairly long period. Even putting aside and idea of redemption. He had limited series. He would than appear in WOLVERINE some as well. Meanwhile, Sinister and Apocalypse, who are supposedly so over exposed could go a couple years doing pretty much nothing. I'm talking doing something. Not Apocalypse with a one page cameo lurking in the background.

I am completely agreed with that, and I get the impression that the people complaining about "too much Sinister and Apocalypse" were largely whining about those one page cameos that were building to something bigger. Now sure, sometimes creative turnover means that whatever someone was building to either doesn't happen at all, or evolves into something completely different, but regardless, there's nothing inherently wrong with having your villain make cameo appearances to build towards something big. And there's a big difference between that, and actual "overuse" of a villain, where the fight with that guy is the actual main plot of a storyline, or the guy has got a role in an ongoing book's cast.

> The way I look at it is this. If you are tired of Superman vs Luthor, the FF vs Doom, you've outgrown the books. Find something else to read.
My tastes didn't change. I didn't drop the books because I was tired of Xavier and Magneto and wanted something new. Scott and Jean and wanted something new. I wasn't looking for radical change. For me, change the trappings, not the characters. And the integrity of the characters. That goes out the window as soon as they need another event.

I do accept that the books are going to need to shake things up every so often to keep things fresh, and find ways to boost sales, but as you say, there are ways to do that without damaging the integrity of the characters. But we're living in a day and age where guys like Brevoort talk about how they believe that Marvel's characters are pretty much 'indestructible', how you can do anything to them and they can bounce back from it like nothing ever happened. Which is some kind of wilful ignorance of stuff like the Pymp Slap, or the Decimation, where you have lots of vocal people who are never ever going to forgive and forget, there's even plenty of people who still feel like that about anyone who was on Team Tony back in Civil War.

> What's the latest, ORIGINAL SIN ? Look, look at all the dirty secrets all these characters have. Wolverine, someone of that ilk, fine. I don't want to read about Spider Man, Mister Fantastic, Captain America's dark secrets. That's not why I liked those characters. I don't want to read about an adulterer, kill squad forming, mutant revolutionary Cyclops. That is not what made him my favorite X Man.

True, there are some characters who can pull off "having a dirty secret", and some who can't, and you'd like to think that Marvel would know that difference, but clearly they don't anymore. But from what I've been able to discover online, some of these "Original Sin Secrets" are potentially damaging stuff like "Tony Stark was involved in developing Bruce Banner's gamma bomb", or "Reed invented a cure for Ben, but Johnny Torch destroyed it", while some sound harmless in comparison, like "the radioactive spider that bit Peter Parker, also bit someone else before it died".

And as for Cyclops, I can't even quite put into words what a horrible thing it is when they take a character you like, and twist them into something so different that they're not just a whole other person, but a person you can't even stand.

> TOO MUCH change. But to each his own. Is it character assassination or character development? Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Me, they could have never driven off with reasonably safe stories without radical shifts in character. I'd rather have 90s Cyclops, I thought reasonably in character, but not at the center of it all as he seems to be now. Spotlight firmly on him. Doing things with the character all too often means pushing the envelope too much for my tastes.

It really is a "be careful what you wish for" thing, where for any team-book character who doesn't have their own solo series, the trade-off for getting that spotlight on them always seems to be the character's very soul, as they get twisted and perverted into something that would appeal to more readers.

> Thing is, the radical stories are often the ones that spike sales. So, can you really blame DC and Marvel for telling them? It's just not for me. You are 3 years behind reading X books? Do you avoid spoilers or just wind up rading them knowing what will happen?

A little of one, a little of the other. The big stuff, it's kind of impossible to avoid, it's hard to stay online and not learn things like "Colossus becomes a Juggernaut", "Five of the X-Men become Phoenixes and take over the world, Cyclops kills Xavier", "Wolverine drowns his son Daken", "Rogue murders Scarlet Witch, then gets killed by Grim Reaper" or "Stryfe is back again, somehow, and so is Azazel" (finally, some good news), and the original 5 teenaged X-Men have time-travelled into the present and are all "What the H*ll is this crap? You've all gone wrong!", but stuff going on in the "lower-tier" books, I'm largely blind to, so it'll be all new information to me when I read it (although I think one of the books did a 'Dark Iceman Saga', of all things).

> SEARCH was the best Jean Grey depiction I recall reading since 2000, and the last time I thought a comic did the Scott/Jean couple justice. Mind you I have read very little X Men the last decade. One complete series, ENDSONG.

There's not much in there with them on the same page at the same time, but while I know it's a flawed story (largely due to being cut-down to half the length it was supposed to have been), I'd stand behind 'Eve of Destruction' in '01 as being Jean's last good storyline, throwing her into a leadership role, and playing her as someone who's been fighting Magneto as long as Xavier and Cyclops have, but she doesn't have that personal history with him Xavier has, she doesn't hate him like Cyclops does, she can step back and have the clarity to realise "Well, he's going to talk at us for about 20 minutes before he actually does anything", and actually factor that into a plan for how to deal with him.

> There used to be a poster on another board, maybe CBR. This was also several years back, at least. Used to blame what happened with Cyclops on THE TWELVE and SEARCH. As if one cryptic message meant the character HAD to be changed.

> You have one question posed. Can something be touched by Apocalypse and remain pure? I used to say this all the time. It isn't bad writingfor Cyclops to come out unchanged in the end. Questionable writing would have been for him to come back unaffected. There was going to be a process where he reaclimates himself. But in the end he didn't have to come out radically changed. Lots of heroes have been deeply traumatized without changing. Others have been changed, but it doesn't always happen. More often it doesn't

I can't say I interpreted that one line as having any more significance than when they add a "?" after a "the end", in a comic. It certainly left the door open for something to happen, but anyone declaring that this was clear evidence that there was a plan in place for all the crap that was done to Cyclops? That's just crazy-talk.

All that said, I did really like how Lobdell handled how Scott was affected by it all, with it turning him into a kind of "live for the moment" kind of guy, a lot more loosened-up than we were used to. I can't say I'd have wanted it to be permanent, but as a short-term thing, I really liked it, and imagine a lot of us who are incredibly repressed people have sometimes wished we could just be like that, even if just for a little while.

> As I said, though, I don't think Morrison was saying Apocalypse really changed him as much as opened his eyes. And any interview I've seen with creators since I stopped reading, same thing. I never saw Apocalypse mentioned. I read a lot of Scott grew ups.

Worse, you get people saying the franchise as a whole "grew up", by moving away from "superheroes fighting supervillains" into whatever the H*ll boring crap we were getting instead.

But with things like the modern take on Scott, like the notion that Xavier and Magneto in their classic forms are "outdated and irrelevant", the idea of Frost usurping the role of Jean and/or Storm as the female lead of the franchise, it's all in how Marvel keep on hiring writers who loved that garbage back in 2001-4, and keep on repeating it rather than dare challenge it, dare suggest that Morrison might have been wrong, that he might have inflicted terrible wounds on the franchise with those bad ideas, and try to fix them.

> Your humor belies your posting acumen. You argue your points very logically(and a hell of a lot more coherently than I do) even if I don't always agree. Although we tend to with the X books.

Thanks. It always feels to me more like I'm just rambling and saying whatever springs to mind, than that I'm making my point well, and I always felt that guys like you and Sinister were doing a better job by not getting all angry about stuff, but if people tell me it's working, I must be doing something right. And I think there's a small, ever-dwindling number of us who came in during the early 1990s who are all largely on the same page as things go, and as the modern books go, a number of the readers who came in during the 1970s or 1980s seem to be often taking a similar position (I think our moderator once compared being an X-Men fan these days to being in an abusive relationship with an alcoholic or a drug-addict).

> Speaking of humor, how about another micro adventure? Those were hilarious.

I'd been meaning to for years, but I just never seemed to find that combination of the time, the energy, and the motivation to do so, ever since losing one I'd half-written, and my general lack of enthusiasm for the modern books. Maybe one day I'll manage another.



Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
askani




Maybe that was it. Regardless of Quesada/Jemas, whoever was in charge at the time thought it was stupid not to have Cyclops in the books when an X Men movie had just come out.

Powers wound up writing, huh? Who was it that went to DC? Mike Marts?
Then I've read quotes from a Nick Lowe. The editors answer the letter columns, right?

I saw this posted somewhere around the time morrison left. The interim period when I think austin wrote a couple issues. There is a letter in it decrying what they did to Scott and jean. The reply was that we love the couple. That many of us grew up thinking of them as the definitive comics couple. That their story is far from over. Something like that, it's been a long time. I remember just shaking my head. You've just spent the last 3 years takig a dump on the character. One of those Austin issues has Scott sucking face with Emma at the graveyard AGAIN, making some half assed apology to her grave. And you LOVE the couple? What would you doif you disliked them?

What I remember about Powers was he was viewed as the posterboy for the editorial interference that so many thought permeated the x books during this period.

You remember minute details much better than I do. I don't even recall that laughter from ENDGAME. Were you posting about this when the series came out? I never recall seeing ths from you before. How permanent you thought the SEARCH death was. Maybe all the resurrection over the years had desensitized me to thinking anything was permanaent. Just remember it didn't cross mymind that he might be gone for good this time.

Nicieza tied his opwers into the TO virus? You're right. I remember him having them in that 90s origin series as well. Come to think of it I recall glancing through a Cable and Deadpool during that period because it mentioned apocalypse. I don't recall many details about that issue except the characters all seemed in character. Scott sounded and acted like Scott, same with Beast and others. Like the lost I'd read them in character in a long time.

Yep, the creators that I read all seemed to love Morrison. What I see in interviews is how Scott grew up. Wheras I thought he had already grown up, a long time ago.

As always, fans who disliked or were ambivalent to Cyclops, I get. It's the self professed long time fans. I don't get how you like this. Why did you like the character? Cyclops and kill squads?
But to ech his own. Me, I cannot change why I liked the character.

With Sinister and Apocalypse it wasn't just fans. I remember Wizard specials where the editors said they needed a rest. And I never got it. There were multiple comic book villains, during this period, who got so much more exposure.

Norman was an ongoing character in Spider man for how many years after he returned. I'm not complaining. I loved him during this period, but if you were talking overexposed he'd put Sinister and apocalypse to shame.

With change it's where do you draw the line. Obviously, nothing eveer just stayed the same. I always talk about trappings. Change the trappings. Peter is a teacher not a Bugle employee. X Men operate out on the run, sans their technology,instead of the mansion. Don't fundamentally change the characters.

But when is it too much? That is an individual thing. Any character with a solo book, I mean the ones I spent decades reading. Superman, Spider man, Cap, Batman. Writers have done stuff, to shake the staus quo, that I have been uncomfortable with. But not far enough that I'd drop them. When is enough enough to get you to drop the books? They reached that point with me with X Men, FF and Spider Man. Those were the characters I had bought without fail.

Good example with Original Sin. However, I'm guessing there will be more of the former than the latter. What is the X Men's secret? Has it been revealed yet? Let me guess, something else Xavier did? Better yet, we can find out some dark secret from Cyclops' past. He never was squeaky clean.

There are posters out there who have convinced themselves that he has this shady history with Jack Winters. Huh? One job that he forced Scott into in which Scott worked against him the entire time is a shady past. Unless they think CHILDREN OF THE ATOM is canon. If it is that Hank went tothe same high school as Scott. That series isn't canon. But these spologists will do anything to justify the new Scott as bing in character.

I don't hate Cyclops. However, I stopped reading 10 years ago whereas you didn't. Looking at it objectively, I would think kill squads are worse than an affair, but I read the one and only read about the other. The one resonates a lot more because I read it and was invested emotionally.

Careful what you wish for is me in 2000. I wanted the character back very badly. Spent 10 years just wishing they'd left him dead. Everyone wanted Jean back. I siad they will just trash her. And what I've read about it I haven't liked. Personally, I'd rather you kill my favorite characters than trash them. I don't want either, mind you. But given a choice of one or the other? The movies killed Cyclops. I'd rather that then make him a star at the expense of what Iiked most about the character.

Rogue murdered Wanda? Rogue is dead? I did read how Wanda's insanity was blamed on stuff Doom did to her and that she was back. Was this just end of issue cliffhanger apparent death ot are they dead/dead? I mean at least for while.

The thing I didn't like about EOD Jean was the Frenzy stuff. The recruiting and leadership stuff I liked.Now, that was different, but different in a way I didn't think really changed the character.

As always, I don't like the word reprssed with Cyclops because I don't think he had been in a vey long time. Emotionally repressed people don't share a psychic rapport with someone else. That level of intimacy? They'd go batty.Controlled I never argued. Scott was always avery controlled person. His mutation kind of demanded that.

Now, this said, EOD Scott was definitely looser. To my recollection, people liked it. It amazed me how much cooler people found Scott when he did stuff himself instead of ordering someone to do it. But it was just him and Wolverine.

I was definitely a bit unsettled by his seeming to go along with Wolverine gutting magneto. On the other hand, I thought it was classic Scott dealing with all those Genoshan rebels. What, a hundred of them? Dozens at least. They confront him with weapons drawn. SCott says they just want to talk and proceeds, with richochets, to shoot the guns out of all their hands. Doesn't hurt anyone, just disarms them so they can talk.

There is an example of the difference between kickass and badass. badass is Logan sticking his claws about 2 inches from someone's face and suggesting they talk. What Scott did there was kickass.

I emailed Lobdell at the time. Or maybe it was on X Fanor some message board. He said he had zero interst in writing a dark Cyclops. While his freer Cyclops was contradicted by morrison's bottled up one, much as I'd like to blame Morrison, that is not really on him. Lobdell was the interim writer. It was on him no=t to contradict Morrison's plans. Not to say he deliberately did. Maybe he didn't know. I would think, in that case, an editor should have told him.

Emma freaking Frost has more of a place in the X books than jean Grey. It's bizarro X men. But it's what we have. Jean, despite 15 plus years of lead roles in X books, is relegated to chick who does nothing but dies status.

It's hard to say what is really working. I mean Avengers did supplant the X books in sales, right? Whatever. I guess it's still working enough that they publish all these X titles. It;s seeing all the Avengers books that startles me. Just wasn't that way when I stopped reading.

I know what you mean about working up enthusiasm. How much am I going to post about something I'm done reading? No matter how long I did read it. But there is a cord there.

Do you have the old ones archived anywhere? LOL, they were absolute gold.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 on Windows 7

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software