Originally posted by ExodusCloak
Dark X-Men: From the Beginning 1,2 and 3 and X-Men Legacy 226 and 227 are also "part" of the crossover.Matt Fraction has hinted
Spoiler:btw.
Jeans return
thanks.
and he's welcome to, as long as she doesn't stick her nose where it doesn't belong. scott's in charge, and he's with emma. simple as that.
Originally posted by ExodusCloak
On the bright side at least Emma is starting to sound like Emma again (post-Utopia).
from what i've been reading, fraction went a bit far during the run. he still can't write scott for shit, though. there's more to the man than being a strategist. him shouting at emma recently is just one example of how ridiculous the character is becoming.
that and his willingness to risk lives he normally wouldn't.
Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Yeah, it would really make sense for Jean to return and be all "Okay he's with Emma" and leave it at that. Right? 😐
that's assuming it would matter what she wants. she could very well end up with someone else, if anyone. i just don't want them replacing emma with her because some writer thinks scott and jean belong together. that's only going to make them revert to how they were in the 90s, and nobody wants that...
Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Yeah, it would really make sense for Jean to return and be all "Okay he's with Emma" and leave it at that. Right? 😐
Well Jean did nudge them together....
Originally posted by -Pr-
from what i've been reading, fraction went a bit far during the run. he still can't write scott for shit, though. there's more to the man than being a strategist. him shouting at emma recently is just one example of how ridiculous the character is becoming.that and his willingness to risk lives he normally wouldn't.
I find Yost sans Kyle a far worse writer then Fraction. He should not touch Scott or Emma...that Manifest destiny cluster f*ck and Confessions was all down to him...Kyle was credited last minute, not sure why.
Originally posted by ExodusCloak
Well Jean did nudge them together....I find Yost sans Kyle a far worse writer then Fraction. He should not touch Scott or Emma...that Manifest destiny cluster f*ck and Confessions was all down to him...Kyle was credited last minute, not sure why.
yeesh. though, imo he and yost, while decent most of the time, still managed to mess up scott. whedon and brubaker are the only ones who've come close to writing him properly over the last few years imo...
Originally posted by -Pr-
yeesh. though, imo he and yost, while decent most of the time, still managed to mess up scott. whedon and brubaker are the only ones who've come close to writing him properly over the last few years imo...
So you're hating on 90s, and he's only been written close to properly the last years. Paul, your version of Cyclops does not exist. And if he does, he exists in only a handful of comics.
Originally posted by Kris Blaze
So you're hating on 90s, and he's only been written close to properly the last years. Paul, your version of Cyclops does not exist. And if he does, he exists in only a handful of comics.
i'm not hating on the 90s at all. what i said was that they'd most likely revert the relationship to how it was in the 90s, even though both of them have grown since then.
"my" cyclops, as you put it, does exist. in simonsen's x-factor, in whedon's astonishing, in morrison's new x-men, in brubaker's uncanny, and plenty more. unfortunately, it's just been a while since any writer has done the job.
Originally posted by -Pr-
i'm not hating on the 90s at all. what i said was that they'd most likely revert the relationship to how it was in the 90s, even though both of them have grown since then."my" cyclops, as you put it, does exist. in simonsen's x-factor, in whedon's astonishing, in morrison's new x-men, in brubaker's uncanny, and plenty more. unfortunately, it's just been a while since any writer has done the job.
If that is YOUR Cyclops then why the poor choice of words? You claimed that they "came close to writing him properly"? If they managed to portray your favourite kind of Cyclops, why not commend them for it?
It basically comes down to
Paul: Nobody has written Cyclops properly.
Kris: Then proper Cyclops doesn't exist.
Paul: But Whedon, Morrison, Brubaker, Simonsen and many (who?) others wrote him properly.
Originally posted by Kris Blaze
If that is YOUR Cyclops then why the poor choice of words? You claimed that they "came close to writing him properly"? If they managed to portray your favourite kind of Cyclops, why not commend them for it?It basically comes down to
Paul: Nobody has written Cyclops properly.
Kris: Then proper Cyclops doesn't exist.
Paul: But Whedon, Morrison, Brubaker, Simonsen and many (who?) others wrote him properly.
I left out claremont and stan lee (in places). there are hundreds of issues of cyclops written properly. he's not my favourite because they write him the way i want them to. it's because they write him in keeping with the foundations that have been laid by past writers, those same past writers that made me identify with the character in the first place.
and i have commended them for it. many a time. the problem is that fraction, kyle/yost etc, haven't written him properly, and they happen to be the current writers..
where did i say nobody has ever written him properly?
Originally posted by -Pr-
I left out claremont and stan lee (in places). there are hundreds of issues of cyclops written properly. he's not my favourite because they write him the way i want them to. it's because they write him in keeping with the foundations that have been laid by past writers, those same past writers that made me identify with the character in the first place.and i have commended them for it. many a time. the problem is that fraction, kyle/yost etc, haven't written him properly, and they happen to be the current writers..
where did i say nobody has ever written him properly?
I'm trying to call you on your god damn flip-flopping here.
First it's "Only Whedon and Brubaker have COME CLOSE to writing him properly.
Second it's " Whedon, Morrison, Brubaker, Simonsen and many others wrote him properly.
Third it's "Hundreds of issues, including Lee and Claremont. But now he's not my favourite"
God damnit Paul, stick with something. uhuh
Originally posted by Kris Blaze
I'm trying to call you on your god damn flip-flopping here.First it's "Only Whedon and Brubaker have COME CLOSE to writing him properly.
Second it's " Whedon, Morrison, Brubaker, Simonsen and many others wrote him properly.
Third it's "Hundreds of issues, including Lee and Claremont. But now he's not my favourite"
God damnit Paul, stick with something. uhuh
i did say RECENTLY. last few years, as in, 5 or 6.
simonsen is what, late 80s? claremont is the same, adding in some 90s stuff. stan lee is WAY back. morrison is turn of the century.
so no flip flopping. 😛
Originally posted by Kris Blaze
I'm trying to call you on your god damn flip-flopping here.First it's "Only Whedon and Brubaker have COME CLOSE to writing him properly.
Second it's " Whedon, Morrison, Brubaker, Simonsen and many others wrote him properly.
Third it's "Hundreds of issues, including Lee and Claremont. But now he's not my favourite"
God damnit Paul, stick with something. uhuh
Claremont doesn't count, even back then he couldn't remember what he wrote a week ago.
Originally posted by John ByrneCan a fan say that a writer is getting the characters wrong when they were largely his characters in the first place?
Sure. Take NEXT MEN, which are indisputably my characters (whereas it must be noted that, especially with the X-Men, Chris has to share). If and when JBNM returns, if I portray Jack as a swinging playboy and Tony as an indecisive klutz, I would expect readers to respond with "Huh? What happened?" And if there is no reasonable answer forthcoming -- if there is no in context reason for their dramatic shifts in personality -- then you could most definitely tell me I am getting them wrong!
Here's a thing about Chris that used to make me crazy when we were working together: he is in no way a slave to continuity, not even his own. In another thread I mentioned how important scenes were sometimes lost, because Chris had already done them in his head, so when he came to script the pages he wrote them as something else. I grew to dread the phrase "That's how I felt when I wrote it." It's the same thing with characterization. He will write the characters as suits his stories, not the stories as suits the characters
And, like I said, given that this is the guy who piloted the X-Books to unprecedented heights, it's hard to argue that it doesn't work for him!
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31849&KW=marvel&PN=0&TPN=7
Originally posted by -Pr-
I left out claremont and stan lee (in places). there are hundreds of issues of cyclops written properly. he's not my favourite because they write him the way i want them to. it's because they write him in keeping with the foundations that have been laid by past writers, those same past writers that made me identify with the character in the first place.and i have commended them for it. many a time. the problem is that fraction, kyle/yost etc, haven't written him properly, and they happen to be the current writers..
where did i say nobody has ever written him properly?
Which of Stan Lee's 20 issues did you like?
Originally posted by ExodusCloak
Claremont doesn't count, even back then he couldn't remember what he wrote a week ago.http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31849&KW=marvel&PN=0&TPN=7
Which of Stan Lee's 20 issues did you like?
i liked how at the start, he was painting scott as being uber powerful (the most powerful on the team at the time), but with the good sense to keep it under wraps. it wasn't stan lee's scott that got me in to the character, but reading it nowadays, i can see where it all started.
Originally posted by ExodusCloak
I noticed that, we're on the same wavelength when it comes to Claremont. 😛
aye. the man is nuts.