X-Universe >> View Post
·
Post By
Evil G:DR

In Reply To
askani

Subj: A World Without Apocalypse
Posted: Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:42:53 pm EDT (Viewed 65 times)
Reply Subj: Re: I don't know where he is, but he's still not in prison.
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 at 03:48:01 pm EDT (Viewed 80 times)

Previous Post

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.

> 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
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