Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
What is your idea of what Cyclops is or should be? I can't debate with you if you don't give your priors.(Also Bendis' best work was Daredevil, and Matt isn't a snarky character. At all.)
In (semi) recent years, Morrison and Whedon largely got the character right, imo. To me, Fraction, Kyle & Yost made wholesale changes to the point that he largely wasn't the same character anymore. I mean, yes, technically it's still Scott Summers, but it's not the same one. Not to me.
His work on the DD comic is good, yes, but his actual characterization of Matt isn't exactly groundbreaking, imo.
And now he's making a mess of Superman.
Why are you hating on Kyle & Yost again?
Don't tell me it's because of the X-Force thing. Forming such a team was the only logical thing to do... total opposite of what Cyke is trying to do now in UXM.
You just don't deal with immortal genocidal maniacs - that have armies at their disposal - by playing nice. You just don't.
You either try to terminate them with extreme prejudice and hope for the best or you get f*cked, simple as that.
Even Steve Rogers understood it, when he sent Valkyrie to bath in the blood of his enemies while he was banging Sharon doggystyle.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Why are you hating on Kyle & Yost again?Don't tell me it's because of the X-Force thing. Forming such a team was the only logical thing to do... total opposite of what Cyke is trying to do now in UXM.
You just don't deal with immortal genocidal maniacs - that have armies at their disposal - by playing nice. You just don't.
You either try to terminate them with extreme prejudice and hope for the best or you get f*cked, simple as that.
Even Steve Rogers understood it, when he sent Valkyrie to bath in the blood of his enemies while he was banging Sharon doggystyle.
Again, the concept isn't what I have a problem with; it's the execution. It's sheer lunacy for me to see Wolverine of all people tell someone like Cyclops that he's the one that's going too far, and on top of that, have Cyclops actually going too far. Even if he could say to himself "I need a black ops team for the messy shit" X-Force was it taken to an extreme that goes beyond sensibility.
Which of course feeds in to him being badly portrayed in his dialogue etc.
Generally, I think the pair are good at certain kinds of comics. Cyclops just shouldn't be part of them. Necrosha was a really, really nice concept imo. And I like their art too.
Edit: I don't plan to make too many more replies in here as I don't want to continue derailing the thread.
Originally posted by -Pr-
Edit: I don't plan to make too many more replies in here as I don't want to continue derailing the thread.
A little too late for that, lol. Galan will be pissed.
Let's move it here:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=658148&pagenumber=86#post16880971
Originally posted by -Pr-
In (semi) recent years, Morrison and Whedon largely got the character right, imo. To me, Fraction, Kyle & Yost made wholesale changes to the point that he largely wasn't the same character anymore. I mean, yes, technically it's still Scott Summers, but it's not the same one. Not to me.His work on the DD comic is good, yes, but his actual characterization of Matt isn't exactly groundbreaking, imo.
And now he's making a mess of Superman.
lol That's not an answer. You're just naming writers. What is your idea of what Cyclops is or should be?
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Wolverine was against using child soldiers. Not against the idea of X-Force per se, even though he would rather work alone.Laura was supposed to recover as a member of the X-Men --- instead, she got used as a weapon (again).
Which is something I don't think Cyclops would be comfortable doing. He, more than anyone on that team, would remember what it was like when they were recruiting what were basically kids to fight Magneto and the Juggernaut. He should know better.
I mean, remember how protective they were of Shadowcat? Colossus was an understandable exception, but they knew full well that they had to cut that shit out.
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
lol That's not an answer. You're just naming writers. What is your idea of what Cyclops is or should be?
I was naming writers because that would save me from having to write paragraph upon paragraph about it. As short as I can make it, Cyclops, even after what happened with Apocalypse, was still enough of the man that Charles Xavier recruited that he wouldn't do half the shit he ended up doing when Marvel tried to make him more "cool". He was never portrayed as being Magneto's natural successor, or even some weird middle ground between Xavier and Charles. He was, largely, always written as being the guy that would make Xavier's dream a reality, or die trying. Remember that line in Astonishing X-Men about how they're supposed to be superheroes?
Cyclops might not be as much of a boyscout as people like to portray, but he still had a very, very strong moral compass. Even stronger than Xavier. One that wouldn't allow attempted genocide of an alien race, or creating a murder-team for the lulz.
Originally posted by -Pr-
Which is something I don't think Cyclops would be comfortable doing. He, more than anyone on that team, would remember what it was like when they were recruiting what were basically kids to fight Magneto and the Juggernaut. He should know better.I mean, remember how protective they were of Shadowcat? Colossus was an understandable exception, but they knew full well that they had to cut that shit out.
I was naming writers because that would save me from having to write paragraph upon paragraph about it. As short as I can make it, Cyclops, even after what happened with Apocalypse, was still enough of the man that Charles Xavier recruited that he wouldn't do half the shit he ended up doing when Marvel tried to make him more "cool". He was never portrayed as being Magneto's natural successor, or even some weird middle ground between Xavier and Charles. He was, largely, always written as being the guy that would make Xavier's dream a reality, or die trying. Remember that line in Astonishing X-Men about how they're supposed to be superheroes?
Cyclops might not be as much of a boyscout as people like to portray, but he still had a very, very strong moral compass. Even stronger than Xavier. One that wouldn't allow attempted genocide of an alien race, or creating a murder-team for the lulz.
I think that's a lack of understanding for the character, then. Scott's 'very strong moral compass' was never that strong, and was always one that ****ed up, that let his shortcomings get the better of him, and made mistakes, be it abandoning his wife and son, twice, or rejecting his daughter, or feuding with Storm instead of giving up the metaphorical crown, or, hell, letting himself be conned into forming a anti-mutant hate group. But, similarly, you're assuming a static character, rather then one that's allowed to grow. Why did he become 'Magneto's heir' - which he wasn't, but as a shorthand for the more militaristic character, I get what you're saying- instead of sitting and playing liberal respectability politics? Because they weren't working. Because after Jean dying, and Genosha dying, and Cable dying, and so on and so forth, he had to make compromises - just as they did with trying to flat out execute Erik in 90s, or pulling regime change more then once in Genosha in the eighties and nineties, and so on and so forth. And, too, those hints of militarism were arguably there from the start - Scott never hestitated to employ the kids in fights in the X-Factor days, both Rusty and Skids and co. and the Power Pack, too. The complaints you make are just a call for empty nostalgia, rather then being reflective of Scott as a character making changes over time.
Finally, I think it's silly to say that any character's arc is because Marvel Is Trying To Do Something, instead of An Author Is Trying To Tell A Story.
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
I think that's a lack of understanding for the character, then. Scott's 'very strong moral compass' was never that strong, and was always one that ****ed up, that let his shortcomings get the better of him, and made mistakes, be it abandoning his wife and son, twice, or rejecting his daughter, or feuding with Storm instead of giving up the metaphorical crown, or, hell, letting himself be conned into forming a anti-mutant hate group. But, similarly, you're assuming a static character, rather then one that's allowed to grow. Why did he become 'Magneto's heir' - which he wasn't, but as a shorthand for the more militaristic character, I get what you're saying- instead of sitting and playing liberal respectability politics? Because they weren't working. Because after Jean dying, and Genosha dying, and Cable dying, and so on and so forth, he had to make compromises - just as they did with trying to flat out execute Erik in 90s, or pulling regime change more then once in Genosha in the eighties and nineties, and so on and so forth. And, too, those hints of militarism were arguably there from the start - Scott never hestitated to employ the kids in fights in the X-Factor days, both Rusty and Skids and co. and the Power Pack, too. The complaints you make are just a call for empty nostalgia, rather then being reflective of Scott as a character making changes over time.Finally, I think it's silly to say that any character's arc is because Marvel Is Trying To Do Something, instead of An Author Is Trying To Tell A Story.
I disagree with pretty much everything you just said.
So, you're wrong, basically.
For reals though, this isn't the place for this, as has been said.