X-Universe >> View Post
·
Post By
Mr Sinister

In Reply To
Nitz the Bloody

Subj: Re: I'm gonna go with 90s Jean.
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 at 05:36:56 am EDT (Viewed 205 times)
Reply Subj: Re: I'm gonna go with 90s Jean.
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 01:37:54 pm EDT (Viewed 275 times)

Previous Post


    Quote:
    Also, she was written with something close to real-people dialogue, not bloated Claremont-speak or Morrison's frequently-nonsensical "look at how metatextual I am" dialogue.


Real people by way of audience wish-fulfillment. Jean minus the portrayals of the aforementioned writers (and possibly Louise Simonson) wasn't a rounded character so much as an idealization of the girl next door-- she had the perfect body and the perfect looks, but it was all-natural and she was always clothed (insofar as spandex counts as clothing, but she was fully covered with it). Also, she just happened to pick the most socially awkward of the X-Men as her mate for an OTP, and she was fully committed to the X-Men's cause despite being able to pass in a way none of the other characters could. Even her powers were completely invisible when in use. And her character flaws extended to "having a temper when loved ones are threatened", and being too harsh on Sabretooth hardly counts as ambiguity.


> Real people by way of audience wish-fulfillment.

And no other comic character falls under this? Come on now. Most of them are absurdly muscular men or incredibly slender amazons, which most comic readers are not, but would probably like to be. Most of them can do or be things the audience cannot possibly do, but would very much like to be able to do (flying is a popular choice, it seems). Spider-Man, especially when he was a teenager, fell into this category, and one can also argue that he fell into this category when he was married to Mary Jane, an absurdly attractive supermodel/actress. Jean is hardly unique in this respect.

> Jean minus the portrayals of the aforementioned writers (and possibly Louise Simonson) wasn't a rounded character so much as an idealization of the girl next door-- she had the perfect body and the perfect looks, but it was all-natural and she was always clothed (insofar as spandex counts as clothing, but she was fully covered with it).

As opposed to what? Being dressed like a stripper like quite a few other female characters?

> Also, she just happened to pick the most socially awkward of the X-Men as her mate for an OTP, and she was fully committed to the X-Men's cause despite being able to pass in a way none of the other characters could.

And again, no other character falls into this category? You're just clutching at straws here. Even with the original X-Men, Iceman looked completely normal when out of "costume" (I'm using the quote marks because dressing in snow and pirate boots barely counts as clothing, let alone a costume).

> Even her powers were completely invisible when in use. And her character flaws extended to "having a temper when loved ones are threatened", and being too harsh on Sabretooth hardly counts as ambiguity.

Plenty of mutants' powers are completely invisible (Magneto's powers, for example), and plenty of characters have only a few defining character flaws. Batman, for example, is basically a nut with parental abandonment issues when you get right down to brass tacks. And Superman, the most enduring superhero ever, barely has any aside from "I'm the last of my race".



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.0.19 on Windows Vista
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software