X-Universe >> View Thread
1 2  >> All
Author
Quantum


Member Since: Sun Dec 21, 2008
Posts: 2,240


I think it's about time, what do you think?


Posted with Google Chrome 91.0.4472.124 on Windows 10
The Black Guardian 

Moderator

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


My opinion has always been that he serves no purpose with JAMES Proudstar around.

Even you just confused the original, JOHN Proudstar, for JAMES. ;\)

JOHN = stupid guy who died fighting Count Nefaria on a jet
JAMES = Juggernaut-level 90s X-Force tank who surpasses his brother in every meaningful way




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 89.0 on Windows 10
Quantum


Member Since: Sun Dec 21, 2008
Posts: 2,240




Posted with Google Chrome 91.0.4472.124 on Windows 10
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,026



    Quote:
    My opinion has always been that he serves no purpose with JAMES Proudstar around.



    Quote:
    Even you just confused the original, JOHN Proudstar, for JAMES. ;\)



    Quote:
    JOHN = stupid guy who died fighting Count Nefaria on a jet
    JAMES = Juggernaut-level 90s X-Force tank who surpasses his brother in every meaningful way


Except one. At least to me James is just as boring as a character as his big brother. \:\-P

The only purpose John served after his death was to provide motivation for James, but that was phased out with the slaughter of their tribe and James rebranding himself as Warpath. So now John's return would not serve the kind of immediately obvious purpose that you would have had when the tribe was still alive and James still called himself Thunderbird and wore the same costume as John. So to bring back John you would have to do something akin to Cold War Nostalgia Bucky and Spider-Gwen - replace a character with someone new and more interesting, someone who, when you look closely, really has little more in common with the original than the name.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 89.0 on Windows 10
Quantum


Member Since: Sun Dec 21, 2008
Posts: 2,240


You are right on all counts. Bringing him back and giving him the old costume and codename would be redundant (not redundant to James, though, who now has a different costume and code name).

What I want is to see him brought back as a normal person. Nothing to do with his tribe or his costume. A normal person trying to figure out how to live and how he relates to the new world.

Of course, all the X characters have costumes, and I wouldn't mind him putting on his old costume to fight their enemies, etc. Minus the feather!!!!!!! James has a different costume and code name anyway. But what I'm more interested in is seeing a good writer take an obnoxious character that was given no real development and treating them like a real character with a real personality. Krakoa is a new start for so many characters, and I think John deserves one too. I'd like to see a down to earth person living on Krakoa.


Posted with Google Chrome 91.0.4472.124 on Windows 10
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,026



    Quote:
    You are right on all counts. Bringing him back and giving him the old costume and codename would be redundant (not redundant to James, though, who now has a different costume and code name).



    Quote:
    What I want is to see him brought back as a normal person. Nothing to do with his tribe or his costume. A normal person trying to figure out how to live and how he relates to the new world.



    Quote:
    Of course, all the X characters have costumes, and I wouldn't mind him putting on his old costume to fight their enemies, etc. Minus the feather!!!!!!! James has a different costume and code name anyway. But what I'm more interested in is seeing a good writer take an obnoxious character that was given no real development and treating them like a real character with a real personality. Krakoa is a new start for so many characters, and I think John deserves one too. I'd like to see a down to earth person living on Krakoa.


I am, without any doubt, the wrong person to ask about this. I thought it was a mistake to bring back Jean Grey to launch X-Factor and I was against the resurrection of Bucky Barnes, and I still haven't changed my mind about either of them. So I don't see why John Proudstar deserves a new start, especially if he is going to have a completely different personality and outlook. Why not use a different, already existing character to fulfill the role of a "normal person" or create a new one? Especially if you don't want to have him burdened with the baggage of the old Thunderbird identity? It would also avoid some of the continuity problems that might require a major overhaul with his return (he was, in his original incarnation, an angry Viet Nam war veteran, which made him interesting in the 1970s, but a bit dated and harder to accommodate today).

John unfortunately was never fleshed out as a character, and what defining traits he had either weren't exactly unique. One of the reasons his creators decided to kill him off was because his powers and abilities (super strength and speed, enhanced senses) were to a large extent duplicated by other members (especially Wolverine) and his defining character traits, anger and arrogance, was also shared with some of the others. At the time of his first appearance he was remarkable as the first Native American X-person, but since then we've had Dani Moonstar, Shaman, Snowbird, Talisman, James Proudstar, Forge etc. etc. (There had already been several Native American characters in other Marvel books before 1975, e.g. Ringo Kid (half-white), Wyatt Wingfoot, and three men calling themselves Red Wolf).


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 89.0 on Windows 10
The Black Guardian 

Moderator

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


John had one thing that could be remotely interesting about him: he had a really horrible, jerky, egotsitical attitude and got along with nobody. He was even more abrasive than early Wolverine. And you want to take that from him?!

That just seems more boring than he already was.

I've never seen James as boring. He's the fun-loving guy of that family. I think he needs to hook back up with Risque.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 89.0 on Windows 10
BrennanZ


Member Since: Sun Mar 01, 2020


...he has to be there somewhere because it would make no sense for the X-Men to bring everyone back from the dead except their first casualty ever.

Hopefully they find him something to do, though.


Posted with Google Chrome 91.0.4472.124 on Windows 10
The Black Guardian 

Moderator

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



    Quote:
    ...he has to be there somewhere because it would make no sense for the X-Men to bring everyone back from the dead except their first casualty ever.



    Quote:
    Hopefully they find him something to do, though.


There are many people the X-Men are forgetting to bring back... or purposely ignoring.

They are just the type of people to not bring him back because they just didn't like him.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 89.0 on Windows 10
BrennanZ


Member Since: Sun Mar 01, 2020




Posted with Google Chrome 91.0.4472.120 on Linux
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,026


... (and as Futurama's Central Bureaucracy notes, "technically correct is the best kind of correct"), the Changeling - in the guise of Charles Xavier - was the first member of the X-Men to be killed in action. Which a lot of people seem to have forgotten. But even if John Proudstar was the second X-Man to be killed in action, one would think he would be revived on Krakoa. Even if some of the other X-Men (I'm looking at you, Logan!) would be jerkish enough to then keep reminding him how stupid he was in his death. O\:\-\)

Note: I say technically because at the time of his death only Professor X and Jean Grey, the organizers of the switch, knew that the Changeling had taken Xavier's place on the team, while the others were kept in the dark until the return of Professor X several issues later. (The real story was, of course, that this story was a retcon to undo Charles Xavier's first death).


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 89.0 on Windows 10
BrennanZ


Member Since: Sun Mar 01, 2020


...but no team forgets their second casualty either so... ;\-\)


Posted with Google Chrome 91.0.4472.124 on Windows 10
The Silver Surfer


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


Wasn't that implied to be a mutant gene Sinister used on humself?

I have a vague memory of a note about that early in Hickman's run, and thus why they don;t have the genetic material.

Of course, I could be remembering that wrong.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 88.0 on Windows 10
The Silver Surfer


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


Tell that to the Justice League, they always forget their first two deaths... Vibe and Steel.

Before you say anything, I liked them.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 88.0 on Windows 10
Quantum


Member Since: Sun Dec 21, 2008
Posts: 2,240


That was a problem at Marvel and DC at the time. With a few exceptions, they had no idea how to write non-white characters.

Most of the minority characters introduced at the big 2 were given extremely angry personalities: Sunfire, Thunderbird, Tyroc. If you read Danielle Moonstar's first appearance, she comes off much the same way.

The ones who weren't full of rage were given really terrible "streetwise" dialogue. Luke Cage and Cyborg, two very popular characters, were supposed to be speaking jive, but their dialogue was really just unreadable, much like Chris Claremont's atrocious attempt to make Rogue sound like she had a southern accent. Reading her dialogue was as painful as reading Cyborg's.

Otherwise, they were light and airy like characters from a fairy tale. Storm, T'Challa, and Norda were given otherworldly personalities and spoke like computers.

All of these are great characters, but their dialogue has never felt natural.

My point being, Thunderbird was a casualty of the prevailing trend at the time, which was to write him as an angry and inaccessible person.

I don't know if you ever read Grant Morrison's somewhat puzzling 1993 one-shot Doom Force, which was an unnecessary parody of Rob Liefeld's work. There is a character in it who sacrifice's himself at the end of the issue, and it makes one trend glaringly obvious; creating a character just to be killed off. Thunderbird's death seemed a lot like this trope.

I like renewal, and taking discarded characters and making something out of them. James Robinson did this a lot in Starman, Geoff Johns does it a lot, and the new X-Men paradigm has done it for so many characters, and they could do it for many more. I've always thought Thunderbird was a missed opportunity, and I'd love to see a new take on him.


Posted with Google Chrome 91.0.4472.124 on Windows 10
The Silver Surfer


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    The ones who weren't full of rage were given really terrible "streetwise" dialogue. Luke Cage and Cyborg, two very popular characters, were supposed to be speaking jive, but their dialogue was really just unreadable, much like Chris Claremont's atrocious attempt to make Rogue sound like she had a southern accent. Reading her dialogue was as painful as reading Cyborg's.


Gerry Conway actually once made a comment on this idea in his Justice League days. When he created Vibe, he had a thick Puerto Rican accent while out in public, but not at home. The idea is that is was a way of distancing his two personas, but also confronting the idea of how he was "supposed to talk," despite being raised in Detroit and not Puerto Rico. Members of the team mention the change, but the point was that nobody questioned it. Conway has since said that he idea was "too clever by half."

The fact is much of the "jive talk" I personally think fell into the category of "heart in the right place, but execution is wanting." On the same topic Conway said he still believes it was a good idea, but he was not the one to execute the idea effectively.



    Quote:
    I like renewal, and taking discarded characters and making something out of them. James Robinson did this a lot in Starman, Geoff Johns does it a lot, and the new X-Men paradigm has done it for so many characters, and they could do it for many more. I've always thought Thunderbird was a missed opportunity, and I'd love to see a new take on him.


I have to agree. Thunderbird died in his third appearance. It is ridiculous to write him off so easily. Is that really enough to decide there is no potential? Wolverine in his first three appearances hardly set the world on fire, now hie is one of Marvel's most overused characters.

I remember that he served in the military, what was that experience like? What was living on the reservation like? Was there a love of his life? A one that got away? Relationship with his parents? Why join the X-Men if he was that pissed off?

With his death, there is so much more.

What is it like to be a footnote X-Man? What would he be like with his brother? Would his younger brother now be older? Having died being so headstrong, would he be more cautious? What changes would he want to make?

Saying all that can been said about him has after three issues and handful of flashbacks show a bit of a lack of imagination, or lack of belief int eh complexity of the human condition.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 88.0 on Windows 10
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,026



    Quote:
    That was a problem at Marvel and DC at the time. With a few exceptions, they had no idea how to write non-white characters.



    Quote:
    Most of the minority characters introduced at the big 2 were given extremely angry personalities: Sunfire, Thunderbird, Tyroc. If you read Danielle Moonstar's first appearance, she comes off much the same way.


I wonder how much substance there is to this sweeping generalization. So there were a number of angry non-white characters (besides a number of angry white characters like e. g. Hawkeye, the Valkyrie, Wolverine, Northstar...). But they tended to be "second-wave" characters, the characters that had come before them tend to be ignored, maybe because of their more pleasant personalities? I'm thinking of people like Jimmy Woo, Wong, the Ancient One, Wyatt Wingfoot, Joe Robertson, Bill Foster, Gabe Jones, Glory Grant, even the Black Panther. And, given the state of race relations in the 1960s and 1970s and the way they were reflected in entertainment (think "blaxploitation"), e. g. angry black characters were "in" at the time, and since Marvel and DC did not yet have them, many creators must have thought they should make some. Maybe they wanted to have characters that would not be accused of being "Uncle Toms", and in many cases the anger of these characters was written as only too justified or at least understandable. And with quite a number of characters the anger turned out to be a phase that was overcome fairly quickly (besides Dani Moonstar I could mention e. g. Randy Robertson and Hobie Brown).


    Quote:
    The ones who weren't full of rage were given really terrible "streetwise" dialogue. Luke Cage and Cyborg, two very popular characters, were supposed to be speaking jive, but their dialogue was really just unreadable, much like Chris Claremont's atrocious attempt to make Rogue sound like she had a southern accent. Reading her dialogue was as painful as reading Cyborg's.


Well, as your elaboration on Rogue shows, this was by no means a problem confined to non-white characters, it is merely a subset of the problems most writers have with writing non-standard variants of English. They didn't get Luke Cage's jive right, but then they had already gotten the way white teens talked wrong (Rick Jones, Snapper Carr, early Mary Jane Watson). It does not help that slang etc. change notoriously rapidly, and that trying to represent it in writing often means that within a short while the expressions you use will have become dated. Incidentally, the dialogues written for foreign white characters like Nightcrawler, Banshee and Colossus (implausibly(1) interspersed with ungrammatical and misspelled snatches of their native tongue) were just as bad, if not worse.

(1) Instead of using words from their native language when they can't recall a "difficult" English word, they will use laps into German or Russian for words from the most basic vocabulary, like using "shto?" or "vas?" (non-phonetic spelling: "was?") for "what?".

With dialects, there is sometimes a bit of snobbery by the speakers of a dialect - no matter how good an actor or writer imitates their dialect, if s/he isn't one of them they'll claim that they got it wrong. I never found Rogue's Southern dialect unreadable or painful, it was mainly just a few phonetically spelled words (actually not a lot apart from "ah" for "I") and a few contractions and elisions. The only thing I took serious issue with was "y'all" being misused on a very few occasions.


    Quote:
    Otherwise, they were light and airy like characters from a fairy tale. Storm, T'Challa, and Norda were given otherworldly personalities and spoke like computers.



    Quote:
    All of these are great characters, but their dialogue has never felt natural.


Personally, I think that "natural" dialogue is extremely overrated. Thor, for instance, became a lot more fun to read, when Stan Lee made him speak "Shakespearian". The Black Panther, Storm and, as far as I recall, Sunfire and Thunderbird too, spoke grammatically correct standard English with no trace of an "ethnic" or regional accent, which definitely was a step forward from the way the language of Africans, Native Americans and East Asians had all too often been rendered in decades before. (NB: If I remember correctly, nobody was satisfied with the Kenyan accent Halle Berry tried to give Storm in the first X-Men movie).


    Quote:
    My point being, Thunderbird was a casualty of the prevailing trend at the time, which was to write him as an angry and inaccessible person.



    Quote:
    I don't know if you ever read Grant Morrison's somewhat puzzling 1993 one-shot Doom Force, which was an unnecessary parody of Rob Liefeld's work. There is a character in it who sacrifice's himself at the end of the issue, and it makes one trend glaringly obvious; creating a character just to be killed off. Thunderbird's death seemed a lot like this trope.


Characters created to be killed off are nothing new, and there is nothing wrong per se with this happening.(2) Complaining about it happening in a parody one-shot (which might as well end with all characters dying) is especially puzzling to me.

(2) Just think of Sam Spade's partner Miles Archer in "The Maltese Falcon", Ugarte in "Casablanca", four apiece of the Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven, most of the crews of the "Pequod" and the "Nostromo"...


    Quote:
    I like renewal, and taking discarded characters and making something out of them. James Robinson did this a lot in Starman, Geoff Johns does it a lot, and the new X-Men paradigm has done it for so many characters, and they could do it for many more. I've always thought Thunderbird was a missed opportunity, and I'd love to see a new take on him.


Thunderbird has already been done again in the form of James Proudstar, so I see no reason to bring back John (except, perhaps, in the context of Krakoa, where it seems logically inconsistent not to bring him back).




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 89.0 on Windows 10
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,026



    Quote:


      Quote:
      I like renewal, and taking discarded characters and making something out of them. James Robinson did this a lot in Starman, Geoff Johns does it a lot, and the new X-Men paradigm has done it for so many characters, and they could do it for many more. I've always thought Thunderbird was a missed opportunity, and I'd love to see a new take on him.



    Quote:
    I have to agree. Thunderbird died in his third appearance. It is ridiculous to write him off so easily. Is that really enough to decide there is no potential? Wolverine in his first three appearances hardly set the world on fire, now hie is one of Marvel's most overused characters.


They wanted to shock the readers (and, in-story, the X-Men) with an unexpected death, and decided that Thunderbird was the most "expendable" character on the team. I consider this a legitimate decision. Characters aren't always killed off for lacking potential, that would be too easy. Some characters are even created to be killed off (notably people like Jor-El, Lara, Thomas and Martha Wayne, Ben, Richard and Mary Parker...), but if they are written well, the readers will still care about them.


    Quote:
    I remember that he served in the military, what was that experience like? What was living on the reservation like? Was there a love of his life? A one that got away? Relationship with his parents? Why join the X-Men if he was that pissed off?


The answer to your last question is that Professor X goaded him into it, saying that he would be a coward if he refused to join.


    Quote:
    With his death, there is so much more.



    Quote:
    What is it like to be a footnote X-Man? What would he be like with his brother? Would his younger brother now be older? Having died being so headstrong, would he be more cautious? What changes would he want to make?


I would guess that if he still was so headstrong as he was in his final appearance after serving as a Marine in Vietnam, then there is little chance of him being more prudent after his revival. If he did change, I suppose it would be a bit of a repeat of what happened with Wonder Man...


    Quote:
    Saying all that can been said about him has after three issues and handful of flashbacks show a bit of a lack of imagination, or lack of belief int eh complexity of the human condition.


The way I see it, John Proudstar has long been brought back in the shape of his younger brother James (who would not even exist as a character were it not for John's death). When James first appeared, the only notable differences between the two were that James isn't an ex-Marine or a Vietnam veteran, and that he isn't as suicidally headstrong as John. Are these differences so important?





Posted with Mozilla Firefox 89.0 on Windows 10
The Silver Surfer


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    They wanted to shock the readers (and, in-story, the X-Men) with an unexpected death, and decided that Thunderbird was the most "expendable" character on the team. I consider this a legitimate decision. Characters aren't always killed off for lacking potential, that would be too easy. Some characters are even created to be killed off (notably people like Jor-El, Lara, Thomas and Martha Wayne, Ben, Richard and Mary Parker...), but if they are written well, the readers will still care about them.


I'm not arguing he should come back. I am just saying it is ridiculous to assume there is nothing there to write. When someone has been along so little before dying they have nothing but potential.

Richard and Mary were made spies. Krypton has had countless back up features and a few mini-series over the decades fleshing out what their culture and society was like, and they were literally created just to blow up, and in their first appearance was ONLY the explosion, no people or anything.



    Quote:
    The answer to your last question is that Professor X goaded him into it, saying that he would be a coward if he refused to join.


That is not much of an answer. So, Xavier goaded him... but why would that work? Could someone god you into joining a paramilitary group that at the time already has a history of fighting superhuman terrorists and killer robots?

It is the same idea they used to get Ben Grimm to pilot the ship into space, and it was later retconned that he did it to make sure they were all okay, because that is not a very good reason its own.

There would have to be a reason why goading would work on him. Did he not like being talked down to by a white man? Was there a moment in Nam he acted as a coward, and wants to make up for it? Is it false bravado because he really realized it was the best way to leave the reservation forever? Know his brother was also a mutant and wanted to set an example, that you have to be tough in the world?



    Quote:
    I would guess that if he still was so headstrong as he was in his final appearance after serving as a Marine in Vietnam, then there is little chance of him being more prudent after his revival. If he did change, I suppose it would be a bit of a repeat of what happened with Wonder Man...


This is sort of the problem... you are guessing. It is how you would see it, not some writer who resurrected him.


    Quote:
    The way I see it, John Proudstar has long been brought back in the shape of his younger brother James (who would not even exist as a character were it not for John's death). When James first appeared, the only notable differences between the two were that James isn't an ex-Marine or a Vietnam veteran, and that he isn't as suicidally headstrong as John. Are these differences so important?


I don't care if John Proudstar comes back or not, I just don't like it when people claim characters can't have anything done with them.

You claim that there are only two notable differences, but one we have seen a lot of, and one far less. Large parts of his life are a mystery. what a writer could fill in.

James iodized his brother? Why? I have two older brothers, and I do not idolize either of them.

You say those are the only differences there are, in reality, they are just the only ones we know. Outside of the short time he was with the X-Men, all we know is what is filtered through James' eyes. Who is to say he saw his brother accurately, and that John was not trying to be the man his brother envisioned him as.

He might have committed crimes while in the military, and not got caught.

Seeing how little the X-Men cared about him, he might rejoin the military, or dive into his native American ancestry in some way we have not seen his brother do.

His death could push him into his culture's spiritual side.

The possibilities are all but endless. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean nobody else does.

But, yeah keep him dead. I have no love for the character, or his brother either for that matter. Whatever you do to them makes no never mind to me.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 88.0 on Windows 10
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,026



    Quote:

      Quote:
      They wanted to shock the readers (and, in-story, the X-Men) with an unexpected death, and decided that Thunderbird was the most "expendable" character on the team. I consider this a legitimate decision. Characters aren't always killed off for lacking potential, that would be too easy. Some characters are even created to be killed off (notably people like Jor-El, Lara, Thomas and Martha Wayne, Ben, Richard and Mary Parker...), but if they are written well, the readers will still care about them.



    Quote:
    I'm not arguing he should come back. I am just saying it is ridiculous to assume there is nothing there to write. When someone has been along so little before dying they have nothing but potential.


Well, I never said that there isn't anything left to write. Anyone could write more stories about any character if they so choose.

"Potential" has been used so much by fans with reference to characters that I consider it basically a meaningless term. The more of a blank slate a character is, the sketchier their characterization is, the worse they are written, the more "potential" they seem to have.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      The answer to your last question is that Professor X goaded him into it, saying that he would be a coward if he refused to join.



    Quote:
    That is not much of an answer. So, Xavier goaded him... but why would that work? Could someone god you into joining a paramilitary group that at the time already has a history of fighting superhuman terrorists and killer robots?


Whether you like it or not, it was shown working in-story. Given the more recent "Charles Xavier is a manipulative bastard" trend I suppose one could e. g. retcon in that he gave him a bit of a telepathic nudge to make him join the X-Men, but that really would say more about Charles than about John...


    Quote:
    It is the same idea they used to get Ben Grimm to pilot the ship into space, and it was later retconned that he did it to make sure they were all okay, because that is not a very good reason its own.


Which I honestly don't think was that much of an improvement or even necessary. That Ben cared about his friends (and wanted Sue to love him) was something we already knew.


    Quote:
    There would have to be a reason why goading would work on him. Did he not like being talked down to by a white man? Was there a moment in Nam he acted as a coward, and wants to make up for it? Is it false bravado because he really realized it was the best way to leave the reservation forever? Know his brother was also a mutant and wanted to set an example, that you have to be tough in the world?


Some of the above was established in-story. That he was a coward in Viet Nam seems unlikely, he came out of his service as a corporal. And joining the X-Men can hardly have been his only ticket out of the reservation. Other stuff obviously would have to be retconned in (at the time his three appearances were written, John Proudstar had no brother).


    Quote:


      Quote:
      I would guess that if he still was so headstrong as he was in his final appearance after serving as a Marine in Vietnam, then there is little chance of him being more prudent after his revival. If he did change, I suppose it would be a bit of a repeat of what happened with Wonder Man...



    Quote:
    This is sort of the problem... you are guessing. It is how you would see it, not some writer who resurrected him.


As a fan and reader you're allowed to guess. Sorry, I didn't get that your questions were purely rhethorical.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      The way I see it, John Proudstar has long been brought back in the shape of his younger brother James (who would not even exist as a character were it not for John's death). When James first appeared, the only notable differences between the two were that James isn't an ex-Marine or a Vietnam veteran, and that he isn't as suicidally headstrong as John. Are these differences so important?



    Quote:
    I don't care if John Proudstar comes back or not, I just don't like it when people claim characters can't have anything done with them.


See my comment above re. "potential".


    Quote:
    You claim that there are only two notable differences, but one we have seen a lot of, and one far less. Large parts of his life are a mystery. what a writer could fill in.


Never claimed that couldn't happen. But that would make John Proudstar a different character, much in the same way as James Proudstar's subsequent stories led to him developing a distinct personality of his own and becoming more than a revival of the original Thunderbird. But in the beginning they were pretty much cut from the same cloth, so the difference between the two is more comparable to that between two versions of the same character (Scott and Ultimate Scott, Scott and AoA Scott etc.) than that between real brothers (Scott and Alex Summers).


    Quote:
    James iodized his brother? Why? I have two older brothers, and I do not idolize either of them.


Did James idolize his brother? That's news to me. All I know is that he wanted to avenge him.


    Quote:
    You say those are the only differences there are, in reality, they are just the only ones we know. Outside of the short time he was with the X-Men, all we know is what is filtered through James' eyes. Who is to say he saw his brother accurately, and that John was not trying to be the man his brother envisioned him as.


You can always retcon in more, I wanted to focus on the differences we were actually shown so far. But if you want, John can always become half-Skrull or whatever.


    Quote:
    He might have committed crimes while in the military, and not got caught.



    Quote:
    Seeing how little the X-Men cared about him, he might rejoin the military, or dive into his native American ancestry in some way we have not seen his brother do.



    Quote:
    His death could push him into his culture's spiritual side.



    Quote:
    The possibilities are all but endless. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean nobody else does.


It's not that I don't see it, but the same thing is true about literally every character who as ever appeared in a Marvel comic.


    Quote:
    But, yeah keep him dead. I have no love for the character, or his brother either for that matter. Whatever you do to them makes no never mind to me.


I've just discovered that his wikipedia article claims that he already has been brought back from the dead. Apparently he was seen as part of the crowd at Dazzler's concert in X-Force vol. 6 #9 (can't confirm, didn't read that issue).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbird_(John_Proudstar)#cite_note-26

Incidentally, he also was brought back, kind of and briefly, during Necrosha and Chaos War, and he of course appeared in various alternate versions, most notably in Exiles.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 89.0 on Windows 10
The Silver Surfer


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    Whether you like it or not, it was shown working in-story. Given the more recent "Charles Xavier is a manipulative bastard" trend I suppose one could e. g. retcon in that he gave him a bit of a telepathic nudge to make him join the X-Men, but that really would say more about Charles than about John...


Whether YOU like it or not, that is still not an answer, but I pulled out my Marvel Milestone edition copy of Giant-Size X-Men, and there IS an answer given, and there is a ll kinds of story potential.

It says that he is ashamed of the Apache. I had completely forgotten about that. There is all the potential int he world there.


I don't believe Warpath has those feelings, though I could be wrong because I never read much X-Force.

He views his people as weak, that is why the taunts worked on him.

SO, you have an Apache ashamed of his people, then joins the X-Men who are all about the Mutant identity. HE does not fit in with them, he dies, and then if resurrected he learns that they barely cared about him. A footnote in the grand tale.

He is a man without a people, but has a brother who is at least all in with one of them.. maybe both.

Two groups of opressed people he belongs to, one he is ashamed of and the other hates him, he sets out to be his own man, but he can't leave it all behind because his brother is a part of it. A tough choice.

That sounds like an awesome story.

I take it back, I think I do want him alive now.


    Quote:
    Some of the above was established in-story. That he was a coward in Viet Nam seems unlikely, he came out of his service as a corporal. And joining the X-Men can hardly have been his only ticket out of the reservation. Other stuff obviously would have to be retconned in (at the time his three appearances were written, John Proudstar had no brother).


Many Indian reservations are steeped in poverty. I can't say I know for sure about the Apache or Arizona situation. But it could be quite the obstacle.


    Quote:
    As a fan and reader you're allowed to guess. Sorry, I didn't get that your questions were purely rhethorical.


Yes, I know you are allowed to guess. But you are using as a means to say there was nothing there. So it is a pretty weak argument you were putting forward.

No matter what it is a bad defense of your point.



    Quote:
    Never claimed that couldn't happen. But that would make John Proudstar a different character, much in the same way as James Proudstar's subsequent stories led to him developing a distinct personality of his own and becoming more than a revival of the original Thunderbird. But in the beginning they were pretty much cut from the same cloth, so the difference between the two is more comparable to that between two versions of the same character (Scott and Ultimate Scott, Scott and AoA Scott etc.) than that between real brothers


But John is so ill-defined that isn't true. There is not enough there to change him into a different character.

Besides, characters change and grow all the time. Its called storytelling.

More importantly, if James changed into a character beyond just faux-resurrection of John... why couldn't John grow into a different and more well rounded character?


    Quote:
    Did James idolize his brother? That's news to me. All I know is that he wanted to avenge him.


If I remember correctly... and I might not, the mind does get foggy... that was a point in X-force minus 1.


    Quote:
    You can always retcon in more, I wanted to focus on the differences we were actually shown so far. But if you want, John can always become half-Skrull or whatever.


Any lack of difference, is because John didn't have much character development. It is a ridiculous argument to make, because one has had decades of character development, and the other was killed off because they decided they liked Banshee on the team.

Like, seven days of hos life are recorded. IF ou borught him back and didn't expand on him, that would be called bad writing.

Your Skrull crack is ridiculous, because you are comparing adding backstory to a character who has all but none, to to turning him into a skrull.

I know it was a joke but it was a bad one.

Again, backstory, tends to be a good thing in stroytelling. It is not the same thing as a giant curve ball.

Steve Rogers mother dying while he was young and poor, Xavier having lost loves before the X-Men were founded, Wolverine's love of Japan and Mariko, Alex Summers even existing, these were all "retcons." They also made the characters more interesting and unique, without fundamentally changing who they are, just how we understand them.

The odds of John and James having all the same experiences and reactions are pretty low.


    Quote:
    It's not that I don't see it, but the same thing is true about literally every character who as ever appeared in a Marvel comic.


So, why should John be any different? Why is he the exception?





Posted with Mozilla Firefox 88.0 on Windows 10
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,026



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Whether you like it or not, it was shown working in-story. Given the more recent "Charles Xavier is a manipulative bastard" trend I suppose one could e. g. retcon in that he gave him a bit of a telepathic nudge to make him join the X-Men, but that really would say more about Charles than about John...



    Quote:
    Whether YOU like it or not, that is still not an answer, but I pulled out my Marvel Milestone edition copy of Giant-Size X-Men, and there IS an answer given, and there is a ll kinds of story potential.


Now you want me to provide an answer, but when I previously answered another of your questions you said that didn't count because I was "just guessing". Incidentally, I looked up the story even before you did, I just didn't think that detail made that much of a difference. And as I already pointed out, the word "potential" does not awe me at all.


    Quote:
    It says that he is ashamed of the Apache. I had completely forgotten about that. There is all the potential int he world there.



    Quote:
    I don't believe Warpath has those feelings, though I could be wrong because I never read much X-Force.



    Quote:
    He views his people as weak, that is why the taunts worked on him.



    Quote:
    SO, you have an Apache ashamed of his people, then joins the X-Men who are all about the Mutant identity. HE does not fit in with them, he dies, and then if resurrected he learns that they barely cared about him. A footnote in the grand tale.


It is, I'm afraid, a story that would not work well today. Native Americans would find John Proudstar as a self-hating Apache incredibly offensive and would say this was a typical patronizing, at least borderline racist caricature of an Apache by a white writer. (He even uses the word "squaws", which not only is not an Apache word, but was considered deeply offensive by Native Americans even before that story was published). Maybe some Native American comic fans have already commented in this vein about the 1975 stories. I know I disliked that aspect of the story. Which goes to support what I wrote about the more badly a character being written, the more "potential" s/he has.


    Quote:
    He is a man without a people, but has a brother who is at least all in with one of them.. maybe both.



    Quote:
    Two groups of opressed people he belongs to, one he is ashamed of and the other hates him, he sets out to be his own man, but he can't leave it all behind because his brother is a part of it. A tough choice.



    Quote:
    That sounds like an awesome story.


I'd say it is an exaggeration to say that the other X-Men hate(d) John. Some, e.g. Wolverine, may not have gotten along with him, but they did not want him dead. And by the same token, quite a few X-Men did not get along with Logan either (Angel once left the X-Men because he refused to be in the same team as him). The originals other than Scott barely were aware of his existence because they departed after GSXM #1 (Shiro also left around that time), and none of the post-GSXM #1 recruits ever met him.(1) That he was largely forgotten is primarily attributable to the fact that he got himself killed so soon after joining. There it was even worse with the Changeling - there most X-Men did not even know that he was a (secret) teammate. Also, I would think that e. g. those X-Men etc. who get along well with James Proudstar would also be favourably inclined towards John.

(1) To elaborate: Jean, Warren, Bobby, Alex and Lorna remember Thunderbird as merely one of the crowd of unfamiliar new guys who rescued them from Krakoa and made them feel it was time to leave the X-Men. Hank, who was an Avenger at the time, never met John in person.


    Quote:
    I take it back, I think I do want him alive now.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Some of the above was established in-story. That he was a coward in Viet Nam seems unlikely, he came out of his service as a corporal. And joining the X-Men can hardly have been his only ticket out of the reservation. Other stuff obviously would have to be retconned in (at the time his three appearances were written, John Proudstar had no brother).



    Quote:
    Many Indian reservations are steeped in poverty. I can't say I know for sure about the Apache or Arizona situation. But it could be quite the obstacle.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      As a fan and reader you're allowed to guess. Sorry, I didn't get that your questions were purely rhethorical.



    Quote:
    Yes, I know you are allowed to guess. But you are using as a means to say there was nothing there. So it is a pretty weak argument you were putting forward.


I did not say there was nothing there. I was just weighing probabilities, mentioning two possible options, one involving his character remaining unchanged, and one going off in an unexpected direction.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      Never claimed that couldn't happen. But that would make John Proudstar a different character, much in the same way as James Proudstar's subsequent stories led to him developing a distinct personality of his own and becoming more than a revival of the original Thunderbird. But in the beginning they were pretty much cut from the same cloth, so the difference between the two is more comparable to that between two versions of the same character (Scott and Ultimate Scott, Scott and AoA Scott etc.) than that between real brothers



    Quote:
    But John is so ill-defined that isn't true. There is not enough there to change him into a different character.


As I tried to explain, I was looking at the situation when James first appeared in New Mutants, when he also only had ca. three appearances. Most of the development that set him apart from his deceased brother came later, was done by a different writer and no doubt with the intention of making James different from John.


    Quote:
    More importantly, if James changed into a character beyond just faux-resurrection of John... why couldn't John grow into a different and more well rounded character?


Stress on the word "different". But this is precisely what I argued - it is as if John and James were completely different characters from the beginning, they were extremely similar at that point. James' character development to a large extent is something that could have happened with John, had he not been killed, and, as a consequence, James would never have been introduced.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      You can always retcon in more, I wanted to focus on the differences we were actually shown so far. But if you want, John can always become half-Skrull or whatever.



    Quote:
    Any lack of difference, is because John didn't have much character development. It is a ridiculous argument to make, because one has had decades of character development, and the other was killed off because they decided they liked Banshee on the team.


See above. I was comparing the two in their respective ca. three first appearances. James' later character development did not enter into it.


    Quote:
    Like, seven days of hos life are recorded. IF ou borught him back and didn't expand on him, that would be called bad writing.



    Quote:
    Your Skrull crack is ridiculous, because you are comparing adding backstory to a character who has all but none, to to turning him into a skrull.



    Quote:
    I know it was a joke but it was a bad one.



    Quote:
    Again, backstory, tends to be a good thing in stroytelling. It is not the same thing as a giant curve ball.



    Quote:
    Steve Rogers mother dying while he was young and poor, Xavier having lost loves before the X-Men were founded, Wolverine's love of Japan and Mariko, Alex Summers even existing, these were all "retcons." They also made the characters more interesting and unique, without fundamentally changing who they are, just how we understand them.


To be nitpicky, Mariko was no retcon. We saw their first meeting, and things progressed from there.

Did the death of Steve Rogers' mother qualify as a retcon - did it contradict anything that had been stated before? AFAIK precious little had ever been said about Steve's parents and they made no appearance in his Golden and Silver Age stories, he seems to have lost his parents before his first appearance (pretty standard for Golden Age heroes). Let's look: according to Marvel wiki, Sarah Rogers' first on-panel appearance was in 1980, in CA #255, but the story contradicted a slightly earlier story (established in CA #225, undone as a memory implant in #247), which had given him a different set of parents. It is part of the whole continuity mess that is Steve's much-retconned origin, in this case the fault of Roger Stern and John Byrne, who wanted to make Steve the son of first-generation Irish immigrants (even though a ca. 1976 story had given him an ancestor who fought in the American Revolution as an 18th-century proto-Captain America). Perhaps not the best example to choose as a beneficial retcon.

Havok could have existed as a new X-Man anyway, he just wouldn't have been a Summers or Scott would have been unaware of what he was doing all the time. Because the latter detail was the only thing that was hard to accommodate with what readers and creators knew of Scott's backstory at that point.

I'm not against retcons in principle, so there's no need to defend them. Some retcons are good, some are bad, and some are necessary to repair the problems created e. g. by violations of established continuity. Others are really unnecessary, executed by editorial mandate (Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch must not be mutants because of Marvel's quarrels with another firm, so their origin has to be changed yet another time) or to satisfy a creator's ego (some writers seem to be especially prone to changing classic origins in order to leave a permanent mark on characters other people created). But retconned-in additions to a character's backstory can be anything, including making John half-Skrull (this was merely a variation on the fairly recent (2018) change to Carol Danvers' backstory, making her half-Kree).


    Quote:
    The odds of John and James having all the same experiences and reactions are pretty low.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      It's not that I don't see it, but the same thing is true about literally every character who as ever appeared in a Marvel comic.



    Quote:
    So, why should John be any different? Why is he the exception?


"Every character who has ever appeared in a Marvel comic" means just that, it includes countless characters who only appeared in one issue or even in just one panel as part of a crowd, and who are never considered for revival. So I don't want to make him an exception, you do.

PS:

One thing that makes me feel dubious about the "necessity" of John's revival is that with so many more native American characters in the X-books, there aren't really that many stories that you could do with nobody but him. The Viet Nam veteran angle - already hard to reconcile with the sliding timescale - is also covered by Forge, the spiritual and magic stuff by Dani and her family, by Forge and his mentor Nazé, and, to some extent, by Shaman, Snowbird and Talisman - in fact to such an extent that having John Proudstar enter into it would lead to accusations of lacking imagination and an unhealthy addiction to the "magical Indian" trope. There maybe is the angle of his relationship to his brother, but there I'm not too optimistic, as sibling stories in the X-books are almost never done well. And I'm not too keen to read stories that establish (via retcon) that John was a coward or a criminal before joining the X-Men.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 89.0 on Windows 10
Unstable Molecule


Location: Calgary, AB Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 3,089


Still, you'd think his little brother, being an X-Man and all, would constantly remind them that John is still among the dead. Unless James didn't really care for John either, which is possible, I suppose.

...and while googling to ensure that James and John actually were brothers (I was 90% sure), I found this on wiki:

"When the X-Men made Krakoa a mutant paradise, the resurrection protocols brought back many dead mutants including Thunderbird. He was seen at The Green Lagoon watching Dazzler's concert."

Maybe John left Krakoa. He died there, after all, so it wouldn't have the happiest memories.




"It is not our abilities that show what we truly are. It is our choices." – Albus Dumbledore
Posted with Google Chrome 91.0.4472.124 on Windows 10
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,026



    Quote:
    Still, you'd think his little brother, being an X-Man and all, would constantly remind them that John is still among the dead. Unless James didn't really care for John either, which is possible, I suppose.



    Quote:
    ...and while googling to ensure that James and John actually were brothers (I was 90% sure), I found this on wiki:



    Quote:
    "When the X-Men made Krakoa a mutant paradise, the resurrection protocols brought back many dead mutants including Thunderbird. He was seen at The Green Lagoon watching Dazzler's concert."



    Quote:
    Maybe John left Krakoa. He died there, after all, so it wouldn't have the happiest memories.


No, John Proudstar did not die on Krakoa, but near NORAD's Valhalla Base (in the Cheyenne Mountain near Colorado Springs, CO). But he can't have that pleasant memories of Krakoa either...




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 89.0 on Windows 10
Quantum


Member Since: Sun Dec 21, 2008
Posts: 2,240


*** But they tended to be "second-wave" characters, the characters that had come before them tend to be ignored, maybe because of their more pleasant personalities? I'm thinking of people like Jimmy Woo, Wong, the Ancient One, Wyatt Wingfoot, Joe Robertson, Bill Foster, Gabe Jones, Glory Grant, even the Black Panther.

With the exception of the Black Panther and the Ancient One, I've actually read very few stories, if any, with those characters, or the two you mention later, Randy Robertson and Hobie Brown, so forgive my not taking them into account, I don't know a lot about them.

*** I never found Rogue's Southern dialect unreadable or painful, it was mainly just a few phonetically spelled words (actually not a lot apart from "ah" for "I").

Right. The phonetic spelling is what I find painful about Claremont's Rogue dialogue. Writers, just please never do that.

*** Personally, I think that "natural" dialogue is extremely overrated. Thor, for instance, became a lot more fun to read, when Stan Lee made him speak "Shakespearian".

Well yeah, of course it works for Thor \:\)

*** Storm and, as far as I recall, Sunfire and Thunderbird too, spoke grammatically correct standard English with no trace of an "ethnic" or regional accent, which definitely was a step forward from the way the language of Africans, Native Americans and East Asians had all too often been rendered in decades before.

Good point for sure, but it's not their perfect grammar that bugged me. I was talking about their more robotic personalities. Like how Hollywood thought they could never make a normal American black person acceptable to American audiences in something like "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" or "Still of the Night" so instead they'd use Sidney Poitier.

*** Characters created to be killed off are nothing new, and there is nothing wrong per se with this happening.

I disagree with that for sure. I despise that trope. It's callous.

*** (2) Complaining about it happening in a parody one-shot (which might as well end with all characters dying) is especially puzzling to me.

I wasn't complaining about it happening in the one-shot. I was mentioning how the one-shot did a good job of distinguishing the trope.

*** (from your response below) They wanted to shock the readers (and, in-story, the X-Men) with an unexpected death, and decided that Thunderbird was the most "expendable" character on the team.

EXACTLY my point though. It's a weak storytelling. It's not shocking to kill off expendable characters, it's just showy. These days, we say "performative". This is also the problem I had with DC's Identity Crisis. "Look at how tough we are! No one's safe! We're going to kill off SUE DIBNY!!!!" I hate it.






Posted with Google Chrome 91.0.4472.124 on Windows 10
Quantum


Member Since: Sun Dec 21, 2008
Posts: 2,240




Posted with Google Chrome 91.0.4472.124 on Windows 10
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,026



    Quote:
    *** But they tended to be "second-wave" characters, the characters that had come before them tend to be ignored, maybe because of their more pleasant personalities? I'm thinking of people like Jimmy Woo, Wong, the Ancient One, Wyatt Wingfoot, Joe Robertson, Bill Foster, Gabe Jones, Glory Grant, even the Black Panther.



    Quote:
    With the exception of the Black Panther and the Ancient One, I've actually read very few stories, if any, with those characters, or the two you mention later, Randy Robertson and Hobie Brown, so forgive my not taking them into account, I don't know a lot about them.


That doesn't necessarily contradict what I said. Indeed, I might wonder if your generalization is based on insufficient evidence.


    Quote:
    *** I never found Rogue's Southern dialect unreadable or painful, it was mainly just a few phonetically spelled words (actually not a lot apart from "ah" for "I").



    Quote:
    Right. The phonetic spelling is what I find painful about Claremont's Rogue dialogue. Writers, just please never do that.


So you just have a general aversion to phonetic spelling and thus don't say anything about the actualy quality of Claremont's writing of characters speaking dialect - indeed it is left unclear why you single out that writer and that character. After all, Claremont also wrote Moira, Rahne, Sam, Sean with phonetic spellings, and other writers use similar methods (e. g. people writing Ben Grimm often use(d) the spelling "wuz" for "was"). As for me, I have no problem with phonetic spellings, but then I live in Europe where a lot of people take great pride in their dialects and also use a largely phonetic spelling to write texts in them, partly due to the fact that there is no standard orthography for most dialects. For instance, in Germany you can buy most Asterix albums translated into various regional dialects, and in Belgium there are some Spirou stories you can buy translated into the Brussels dialect of French.


    Quote:
    *** Storm and, as far as I recall, Sunfire and Thunderbird too, spoke grammatically correct standard English with no trace of an "ethnic" or regional accent, which definitely was a step forward from the way the language of Africans, Native Americans and East Asians had all too often been rendered in decades before.



    Quote:
    Good point for sure, but it's not their perfect grammar that bugged me. I was talking about their more robotic personalities. Like how Hollywood thought they could never make a normal American black person acceptable to American audiences in something like "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" or "Still of the Night" so instead they'd use Sidney Poitier.


I never thought of T'challa as having a robotic personality, I always thought of it as regal, befitting his status as a king. Also, he was/is the ruler of an idealized hyper-modern African country, so the last thing he should do is resemble a "normal American black person". With Ororo it is not dissimilar, in Wein's original conception she was a Kenyan goddess (well, a mutant who felt very comfortable in that role). It was only later that Chris Claremont made her father an American, had her being born in New York and growing up in Cairo (not the one in Illinois). But at least given the nature of her power it makes sense that she always appeared so cool and collected - she had to keep her emotions reined in so she wouldn't inadvertently cause meteorological disasters. But she evidently had problems with that, and Claremont offset it first with her claustrophobia and later her spiritual crisis that led to perhaps the most famous changes in hairstyle in superhero comics.

In general: These things do not exist in isolation. These extremely calm and collected Black characters were a necessary and probably inevitable corrective to the way Black persons (and especially men) had been portrayed for centuries, going back at least to Shakespeare's plays, as beings driven by their emotions and passions, whose mostly irrational behaviour ran the gamut from "child-like" to "animalistic". Apart from actors and fictional persons, Jackie Robinson also comes to mind (he was chosen to become the first Black player in modern-era major league baseball not only because he was a great player, but also because had the nearly superhuman self-control necessary to keep calm in the face of racist taunting).

Postscript: Another factor that may be in play here is that Marvel most of the time tended to write "natural leaders" as detached and cerebral. Place Ororo next to Cyclops, Mr. Fantastic, or Professor X and you wouldn't think of her as "the robotic one".


    Quote:
    *** Characters created to be killed off are nothing new, and there is nothing wrong per se with this happening.



    Quote:
    I disagree with that for sure. I despise that trope. It's callous.


It's what most of literature and related arts are built on. It reflects an important fact of life - countless people die before they can fulfill their life's potential, even if we love them. Since most writers do not determine the outcome of their stories by a throw of dice, but plan them ahead, their imitation of that fact inevitably leads to characters being created to become victims. And you're not seriously proposing that e. g. Spider-Man's origin would have had the same kind of emotional impact if Uncle Ben had not been killed (and instead would have lived to largely duplicate Aunt May's role in the stories that followed, while also relieving Peter of the necessity to be the family breadwinner as a news photographer)?


    Quote:
    *** (2) Complaining about it happening in a parody one-shot (which might as well end with all characters dying) is especially puzzling to me.



    Quote:
    I wasn't complaining about it happening in the one-shot. I was mentioning how the one-shot did a good job of distinguishing the trope.


I'll have to take your word for it. But I'm no admirer of Grant Morrison, and judging by your less than enthusiastic description of it, it seems I'd be wasting time and money trying to buy it to check whether it really does a good job of distinguishing that trope. From your description alone there's no way to say it is different from any other story.


    Quote:
    *** (from your response below) They wanted to shock the readers (and, in-story, the X-Men) with an unexpected death, and decided that Thunderbird was the most "expendable" character on the team.



    Quote:
    EXACTLY my point though. It's a weak storytelling. It's not shocking to kill off expendable characters, it's just showy. These days, we say "performative". This is also the problem I had with DC's Identity Crisis. "Look at how tough we are! No one's safe! We're going to kill off SUE DIBNY!!!!" I hate it.


Well, judging by your and The Silver Surfer's reaction, I'm tempted to say that Thunderbird's death definitely was shocking to some people. Personally, having re-read his debut appearance recently, I'm glad they got rid of him, he was the most badly written member of the cast at the time (vide my responses to The Silver Surfer further below). Killing him off can be said to have served a purpose, that of putting readers on their toes, and it made his departure stick in readers' minds. Had he just left the team it would have fizzled out and got lost in the shuffle, as five members of the old team plus new recruit Sunfire all left around that time. (And people would have asked: why the hell introduce this new character(1) if all they do with him is make him leave again immediately after?). What really would have been callous would have been to keep Thunderbird on the team for an extra year or two (despite being largely redundant next to Wolverine) and then kill him off. As it was, there was the pure shock of a sudden and unexpected death before the readers had a chance to establish a lasting emotional connection to the character. (As far as I can see, people who are calling for him to be brought back are doing this not out of attachment to the person he was, but for the "potential" of the person he could be if a writer decided to completely rebuild him. And IMO, "potential" in this kind of discussions all too frequently is just a euphemism for "they haven't actually done any good stories about this character").

(1) You'll recall that Sunfire had already appeared in X-Men vol. 1 #64, Sub-Mariner #52-54 and Iron Man #68-70 before GSXM #1.

Creating characters to be killed is neither good nor bad writing in itself nor is it an indicator of bad writing. Neither is killing off an already existing character. The story in which these types of characters are used can be written well or badly, alwhough I would of course specify that the gimicky or overuse of this trope is a form of bad and/or lazy writing, with the exception of satirical works and parodies.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 89.0 on Windows 10
BrennanZ


Member Since: Sun Mar 01, 2020


That was blatantly stated in his first appearances.


Posted with Google Chrome 91.0.4472.120 on Linux
The Black Guardian 

Moderator

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


Well, he did get brought back for that Chaos War mini several years ago. He sacrificed himself again, hoping it actually meant something this time.

Also, he's able to use the power of his tribal god, the Thunderbird, which has also be alluded to be The Phoenix in other stories.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 90.0 on Windows 10
Menshevik


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,026



    Quote:


      Quote:
      I like renewal, and taking discarded characters and making something out of them. James Robinson did this a lot in Starman, Geoff Johns does it a lot, and the new X-Men paradigm has done it for so many characters, and they could do it for many more. I've always thought Thunderbird was a missed opportunity, and I'd love to see a new take on him.



    Quote:
    I have to agree. Thunderbird died in his third appearance. It is ridiculous to write him off so easily. Is that really enough to decide there is no potential? Wolverine in his first three appearances hardly set the world on fire, now hie is one of Marvel's most overused characters.


I don't know how the readers reacted to Wolverine's first three appearances (Incredible Hulk #180 (one panel only), 181 and 182), so I can't tell if he set the world on fire or not. However, it would seem that Marvel already expected big things of him, because, as I see from his wikipedia article, Marvel featured Wolverine in house ads before his first full appearance, Hulk #181.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolverine_(character)#Publication_history

Unfair? Well, it would be hard to try to deny that it was...

On the other hand, there's the much-quoted saying that you measure a hero by their enemies. In his first appearance Wolverine fought among Marvel's heavyweights, fighting against both the Hulk and the Wendigo in his first three appearances. Meanwhile, in his first appearance, Thunderbird was one of thirteen (seventeen, if you factor in the "Deadly Genesis" retcon) X-Men fighting Krakoa, and in the two that followed, Thunderbird was one of seven X-Men (plus a telepathically present Professor X) up against Count Nefaria and his five Ani-Men. Now Nefaria gave them superpowers for this story, but the Ani-Men did not have a fearsome reputation at that point. They were simple villains for hire, and in previous appearances they had managed to get themselves defeated by Daredevil all alone. And Nefaria at that point was still only a non-powered normal human with a plan.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 89.0 on Windows 10
Quantum


Member Since: Sun Dec 21, 2008
Posts: 2,240


Another character whose dialogue I hated to read, because of the hamhanded way they tried to write it phonetically, was Rahne Sinclair.


Posted with Google Chrome 91.0.4472.124 on Windows 10
1 2  >> All

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software