buttheadsmate Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I grew up with Psylocke as a Japanese chick,.......... It's OK ,nobody here is going to judge you because of what you once were Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battlecat Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 That always makes me think of that twisted toyfare issue where beast showed up in one frame with a thought bubble that said something like "A cat Morrison? Really?" His idea for mutants have an eventual 2nd mutation wasn't a bad idea, thats how angel got a healing factor. But it sucks because all the X writers after him dropped it and left it alone, leaving beast as a sad kitty. Apologies to DST, but the worst thing about Cat-Beast is the minimate! Otherwise I think it was a great move for the character, because he had adjusted so well to being the "blue furry guy" by that point. The cat thing took him another step away from being human, really messed with his head and shook his confidence, made his girlfriend break up with him after claims of bestiality in the press, etc etc. So it was good for the story at the time, and I'm glad it's stuck because constantly returning things to the status quo is the most boring thing about comics. Secondary mutation also gave us diamond Emma Frost, of course, which was a much better minimate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chronotrigger Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) It could be worse... Blasphemer! However, I just noticed the minimate Jean Grey doesn't have the blue stripes on her legs. Which, oddly enough, is possibly my most favourite part of that costume. Oh, well, nothing a simple dash of paint couldn't fix. Are those pouches on the side of her legs? My memory could be foggy, was this a common part of this specific costume? Idk how many subtle variations it's had... The blue stripes on the kubrick are supposed to be the same as the 'pouches' you see on the side of the minimate. The minimate has it more accurate in respect to the number and length. There's supposed to be 4 of varying length, not 2. They've been colored from the same color as her costume, to gold, to yellow, to blue. Also is that a new hairpiece on Jean? I grew up with Psylocke as a Japanese chick,.......... It's OK ,nobody here is going to judge you because of what you once were LOL. this made me spit out my coffee Edited November 13, 2009 by Chronotrigger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 About the Cat Beast, making him look like a ridiculous cat man did, I'm sure, make him less human. And possibly it led to good stories. But I don't agree with the idea that you find some flaw in a character, and then turn that into an even bigger flaw for dramatic purposes when it leads to changing something essential about a well-loved character (for instance, turning an ape man into a cat man). If this were always a good thing, why not make Superman so powerful that he can no longer live on earth at all for fear of making people's head explode when he talks or whatever, and follow his exploits of loneliness in the cosmos? Why not kill off everyone Batman has ever known or cared about, to make him even more of a sad bastard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnim zola Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 About the Cat Beast, making him look like a ridiculous cat man did, I'm sure, make him less human. And possibly it led to good stories. But I don't agree with the idea that you find some flaw in a character, and then turn that into an even bigger flaw for dramatic purposes when it leads to changing something essential about a well-loved character (for instance, turning an ape man into a cat man). If this were always a good thing, why not make Superman so powerful that he can no longer live on earth at all for fear of making people's head explode when he talks or whatever, and follow his exploits of loneliness in the cosmos? Why not kill off everyone Batman has ever known or cared about, to make him even more of a sad bastard? Excellently put. We might as well make Peter Parker sell his soul to Mephisto to become even more of a grandma's boy. Oh wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirymate Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 LOL! You cant use that children's cartoon to demonstrate Venom's coolness. Read the (as much as I hate him) McFarlane Spidey issues. Venom was cool as a villain. I did. When they came out. At the time he was the best thing to come through the Spider-titles since the Hobgoblin stories ended. The Larson issues were good too. Didn't start getting lame until Bagely. By that point Michiline was running low on ideas. Remember "the Sidekick's Revenge"? And, yes. I can use a cartoon. When the cartoon shows the villain as a dangerous psycho stalker that he was originally intended to be. If you haven't watched the episodes, then don't knock what you don't know about. I grew up with Psylocke as a Japanese chick, so it's not one that i have questioned much - but i can understand how it might seem confusing/annoying because i completely agree with you about Beast. It kind of made evolutionary sense that he was some-what ape-like. <snip> At least he looked distinctive, i guess - but i'm hoping something happens down the track to take him back to his ape-man roots. That's all it was. It wasn't even Morrison, Arnim, it was just Frank Quietly deciding that Beast looked too much like Logan, and since Frank had seen a French production of Beauty and the Beast recently, Hank McCoy became a cat-man. The whole "secondary mutation" thing was what they made up to justify it in story. So no, it had nothing to do with the character, or his history, or what would have made sense, it was just one of comics' current 800 lb gorillas making an arbitrary decision. Much like Jim Lee did back in the day. It's nothing new. Byrne certainly took his turn, as did others before him. But it's no less annoying all the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyd Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I did. When they came out. At the time he was the best thing to come through the Spider-titles since the Hobgoblin stories ended. The Larson issues were good too. Didn't start getting lame until Bagely. By that point Michiline was running low on ideas. Remember "the Sidekick's Revenge"? Not to pick a fight, but "The Sidekick's Revenge" was written by Al Milgrom, and felt like he wrote it as an afterthought. Michelline was losing momentum with his stories at that point, but he doesn't deserve to take blame for that story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirymate Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Not to pick a fight, but "The Sidekick's Revenge" was written by Al Milgrom, and felt like he wrote it as an afterthought. Michelline was losing momentum with his stories at that point, but he doesn't deserve to take blame for that story. No fight picked. I retract disparaging David for that particular story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battlecat Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) About the Cat Beast, making him look like a ridiculous cat man did, I'm sure, make him less human. And possibly it led to good stories. But I don't agree with the idea that you find some flaw in a character, and then turn that into an even bigger flaw for dramatic purposes when it leads to changing something essential about a well-loved character (for instance, turning an ape man into a cat man). If this were always a good thing, why not make Superman so powerful that he can no longer live on earth at all for fear of making people's head explode when he talks or whatever, and follow his exploits of loneliness in the cosmos? Why not kill off everyone Batman has ever known or cared about, to make him even more of a sad bastard? I guess I don't see a problem with change, and I don't see how he looks as essential to the character (as this thread points out, his look changed from his Avengers style to the "bushy/bulky" Lee Beast of the '90s, and before that he was just some big acrobatic guy -- did making him blue in the first place change something essential about the character?), but that's just me. I can understand the POV that you want him to remain true to how you see him -- but that's the exact same mentality that the people running Marvel/DC generally have. They grew up with certain versions of characters and often interfere with character progression to go back to what they remember as the good old days, ie. resurrecting old Green Lanterns and Flashes, or dragging Spider-Man back into the swinging '60s as Arnim Zola mentioned (although he mentioned it as evidence of the opposite argument :biggrin: ). I'm glad that with New X-Men one or two of the changes stuck after the writer left, for once. The Superman/Batman examples you give are much bigger changes that wouldn't leave anywhere for either character to go, but to some degree yes, I also feel like those characters are not allowed to grow and change within reason without being rebooted to the current editor/writer's favorite nostalgic "setting"... Edited November 13, 2009 by battlecat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rheul Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 LOL! You cant use that children's cartoon to demonstrate Venom's coolness. Read the (as much as I hate him) McFarlane Spidey issues. Venom was cool as a villain. And, yes. I can use a cartoon. When the cartoon shows the villain as a dangerous psycho stalker that he was originally intended to be. If you haven't watched the episodes, then don't knock what you don't know about. Venom was nowhere near as bad in the cartoon as he was in the comic. The character was watered down. Not as bad as he was in the film or the Spectacular Spider-man cartoon, but watered down nonetheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirymate Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I guess I don't see a problem with change, and I don't see how he looks as essential to the character (as this thread points out, his look changed from his Avengers style to the "bushy/bulky" Lee Beast of the '90s, and before that he was just some big acrobatic guy -- did making him blue in the first place change something essential about the character?), but that's just me. The change from non-furry to furry was brought on because they were going to try and make Beast a solo character and so it being Marvel, you can't be a solo hero without Marvel Angst. To that point Beast's life was going far too well, so they gave him something to mope about. And it worked largely because he became even more ape-like in appearance. The fur was originally suppossed to be black, drawn with blue highlights. Eventually the highlights sorta took over and artists and writers forgot he was black not blue. I have no explanation for the pointy hair though. I'm not oppossed to character evolution. I thought Aunt May should have stayed dead the first time. But my objection with Beast was the whole ape to cat aspect. If you wanted to make Hank less human, and even more animal like still, if theyd stuck with apes, I'd have been more accepting of the change. But no, Hank's a cat now, because he looked too much like Logan out of costume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyd Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I have no explanation for the pointy hair though. Same hairdresser as Wolverine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) I can understand the POV that you want him to remain true to how you see him -- but that's the exact same mentality that the people running Marvel/DC generally have. They grew up with certain versions of characters and often interfere with character progression to go back to what they remember as the good old days, ie. resurrecting old Green Lanterns and Flashes, or dragging Spider-Man back into the swinging '60s as Arnim Zola mentioned (although he mentioned it as evidence of the opposite argument :biggrin: ). I'm glad that with New X-Men one or two of the changes stuck after the writer left, for once. You are right, in that I see certain things about certain characters that I don't want to change. I personally like having Angel not be some blue faced freak with Kirby-eque patterns all over his body. I like having Superman as an alien resembling a human, not some blue energy creature. And I like Beast as either mutant with ape like abilities or mutant with ape like abilities and blue fur. Not mutant formerly with ape like abilities and appearance who now is. . .a giant cat. It's like, making Superman some blue energy creature. I think there is a line past which change should not be necessary. Characters can slowly evolve, but not into something wholly different from what they initially were. I also think that certain comic characters have developed an iconic look and identity that should remain. I think that is what many modern writers are realizing and agreeing with me about. Hal Jordan is the iconic Green Lantern. He isn't some psychopathic mass murderer turned Spectre. A good writer should be able to create good stories and to effectively establish conflict without creating fundamental changes to the character, in my opinion. The characters can change a bit, but not too much. Play off of the established character by introducing new scenarios and presenting new choices, but don't make Scarlet Witch kill off and re-animate Hawkeye, don't give Lex Luthor cancer, don't make Superboy some demented psychopathic nut-job. They are icons, with traits that should not be screwed with due to the whim of some writer or editor. We've got the Ultimates-verse and the DC Elseworlds for that stuff. Edited November 13, 2009 by karamazov80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TENIME_art Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 It could be worse. It could be that we'd get new characters, that are exclusive to only 50 out of 1,000 stores of a nationwide chain, and even then only one-per-case. Oh, wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnim zola Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I'm glad that with New X-Men one or two of the changes stuck after the writer left, for once. Play off of the established character by introducing new scenarios and presenting new choices, but don't make Scarlet Witch kill off and re-animate Hawkeye, don't give Lex Luthor cancer, don't make Superboy some demented psychopathic nut-job. They are icons, with traits that should not be screwed with due to the whim of some writer or editor. Both excellent points. I like how this debate has turned out, even though I don't know who was on what side. I will say Beast being a big muscle bound white guy that could climb trees and had super strength and jump high, then having a lab accident with blue hair as the result is one thing. but Mirymate is totally right, you dont go from a freakishly buff human into a freakishly buff cat. I wish I could make sense of it. On the Aunt May note, they only character development that would have saved spidey would be to final;ly let her go and die. She's going to anyway. But letting Joe Quesada retcon 40+ years of spidey history in One More Day was what made me stop picking up my comics again. The stupidity of that man saying that Spidey never Marrying Mary Jane would bring all those dead people back to life and no other marvel book is affected, is astonishing to me. The scientist in me is offended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battlecat Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 You are right, in that I see certain things about certain characters that I don't want to change. I personally like having Angel not be some blue faced freak with Kirby-eque patterns all over his body. I like having Superman as an alien resembling a human, not some blue energy creature. And I like Beast as either mutant with ape like abilities or mutant with ape like abilities and blue fur. Not mutant formerly with ape like abilities and appearance who now is. . .a giant cat. It's like, making Superman some blue energy creature. I think there is a line past which change should not be necessary. Characters can slowly evolve, but not into something wholly different from what they initially were. I also think that certain comic characters have developed an iconic look and identity that should remain. I think that is what many modern writers are realizing and agreeing with me about. Hal Jordan is the iconic Green Lantern. He isn't some psychopathic mass murderer turned Spectre. A good writer should be able to create good stories and to effectively establish conflict without creating fundamental changes to the character, in my opinion. The characters can change a bit, but not too much. Play off of the established character by introducing new scenarios and presenting new choices, but don't make Scarlet Witch kill off and re-animate Hawkeye, don't give Lex Luthor cancer, don't make Superboy some demented psychopathic nut-job. They are icons, with traits that should not be screwed with due to the whim of some writer or editor. We've got the Ultimates-verse and the DC Elseworlds for that stuff. I feel like the main universe should always move forward, and yes that sometimes leads to crap like electric Superman (and if it's that bad, by all means undo it) but it leads to lots of good things as well, ie. in Marvel the New X-Men, New Avengers, The Hood, Runaways, The Initiative, etc. If they want to do '60s Spider-Man, I don't get why they don't just create a Spider-Man series set in that time period, and if they want to do Hal Jordan why don't they write about him when he was alive, instead of bringing him back to life and resetting the franchise by 10 years? Plus, if you were reading X-Men long enough ago, then Beast randomly growing blue fur might well cross that line you mention, since it would screw with the character you knew and loved unnecessarily. I just don't like when things get "stuck" or stagnant because of identity mandates. Similarly, if they kept dead characters dead then death wouldn't have lost all meaning in comics. But anyways, interesting to hear your side, agree to disagree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) I will say Beast being a big muscle bound white guy that could climb trees and had super strength and jump high, then having a lab accident with blue hair as the result is one thing. but Mirymate is totally right, you dont go from a freakishly buff human into a freakishly buff cat. I wish I could make sense of it. You can't make sense of it, and that is kind of the point. Comics are chock full of amazing people with amazing powers. The idea that in the Marvel Universe mutants are for some reason feared when there are, like, a billion non-mutants with powers is ridiculous. So why are mutants so feared? Because they represent the innate unexpected. When we get comfortable with our X-Men, something is wrong. The X-Men are supposed to make you uncomfortable. So for that reason I approve of the completely random switch. It puts mutants, specifically one that has been there since the beginning and has even been an Avenger, in perspective and helps remind the world (comic and real) why mutants are feared. But I otherwise agree that iconic characters generally must maintain a certain identity and, for many, a certain look. Edited November 13, 2009 by Turtle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battlecat Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 The stupidity of that man saying that Spidey never Marrying Mary Jane would bring all those dead people back to life and no other marvel book is affected, is astonishing to me. The scientist in me is offended. Even worse is that when they "explained" Harry's return to life, it had nothing to do with the Mephisto deal! So I guess he just happened to show up again at the exact same moment that Peter changed history -- the reader in me is offended! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stack32 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I did. When they came out. At the time he was the best thing to come through the Spider-titles since the Hobgoblin stories ended. The Larson issues were good too. Didn't start getting lame until Bagely. By that point Michiline was running low on ideas. Remember "the Sidekick's Revenge"? Not to pick a fight, but "The Sidekick's Revenge" was written by Al Milgrom, and felt like he wrote it as an afterthought. Michelline was losing momentum with his stories at that point, but he doesn't deserve to take blame for that story. Not to defend the quality of the story, but I loved that story arc as a kid. Having Spider-Man, Moon Knight, Darkhawk, Nova, Night Thrasher, and the Punisher seemed pretty great at the time. I just might feel like my Minimate collection is complete when I can recreate the cover to ASM #358. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) I just don't like when things get "stuck" or stagnant because of identity mandates. Similarly, if they kept dead characters dead then death wouldn't have lost all meaning in comics. But anyways, interesting to hear your side, agree to disagree Yeah, obviously there are no right or wrong perspectives here. This is just my approach to comics. I like complicated, adult, and post-modern comic fare from time to time (I love Alan Moore's various works), but would prefer that it stay away from the characters I knew and enjoyed as a child in their "real" universe. I'm the same with with GI Joe But it seems that writers are having the same debate, as some move forward, destroying or completely restructuring everything that happened in the past in order to move a story or idea forward. Others, not so much, and so we see comics fluctuate from one extreme to the other, which is probably the best in the long run. I don't know anything about the behind-the-scenes debates and decisions here, but if you gave some guy like Grant Morrison completely free reign over the X-Men and they turned out something like the Invisibles or Doom Patrol work he did, all but the strongest advocates of "progressive" comic evolution might be put off. Similarly, if writers felt hamstrung to stick precisely to the Spiderman and X-Men stories, characters, and situations of 1963, comics would be boring as hell. Edited November 13, 2009 by karamazov80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirymate Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 The idea that in the Marvel Universe mutants are for some reason feared when there are, like, a billion non-mutants with powers is ridiculous. So why are mutants so feared? The out of story reason is the mutants-as-racism metaphor. In story, it's pretty much Magneto's fault. Magneto pretty much showed up as the first guy to claim to be a part of a hidden race of humanity, started spouting his mutant superiority speeches, tried to take over a nuclear missile site, and then a whole country. So first impression of mutants-as-threat stuck with people of the 616. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nessex Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I grew up with Psylocke as a Japanese chick,..........It's OK ,nobody here is going to judge you because of what you once were Bah ha ha ha! I'll pay that one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr baghead Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 If this were always a good thing, why not make Superman so powerful that he can no longer live on earth at all for fear of making people's head explode when he talks or whatever, and follow his exploits of loneliness in the cosmos? You know, that would make hell of an Elseworld book. Get Mark Millar or John Byrne, someone who wants to do crazy long sweeping Superman epics that focus on who he is on the phone and make this happen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 The idea that in the Marvel Universe mutants are for some reason feared when there are, like, a billion non-mutants with powers is ridiculous. So why are mutants so feared? The out of story reason is the mutants-as-racism metaphor. In story, it's pretty much Magneto's fault. Magneto pretty much showed up as the first guy to claim to be a part of a hidden race of humanity, started spouting his mutant superiority speeches, tried to take over a nuclear missile site, and then a whole country. So first impression of mutants-as-threat stuck with people of the 616. Rhetorical question, but yeah. Magneto did that way back when, but a lot has changed both in comics and in reality. My point was more that in order to stay relevant, to be believeable as a "threat" in their world, mutants and the X-Men need to periodically undergo changes. Otherwise, the mutant "threat" would be long gone, or at the very least gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rheul Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 The idea that in the Marvel Universe mutants are for some reason feared when there are, like, a billion non-mutants with powers is ridiculous. So why are mutants so feared? The out of story reason is the mutants-as-racism metaphor. In story, it's pretty much Magneto's fault. Magneto pretty much showed up as the first guy to claim to be a part of a hidden race of humanity, started spouting his mutant superiority speeches, tried to take over a nuclear missile site, and then a whole country. So first impression of mutants-as-threat stuck with people of the 616. Rhetorical question, but yeah. Magneto did that way back when, but a lot has changed both in comics and in reality. My point was more that in order to stay relevant, to be believeable as a "threat" in their world, mutants and the X-Men need to periodically undergo changes. Otherwise, the mutant "threat" would be long gone, or at the very least gone. Mutants represent a change in humanity itself. People cant control or understand why this change is happening they are just born that way. They feel that mutants will one day depose regular humans as the dominant life form on the planet. Add Magneto into the mix and you can see why people are upset. Saying that was a long time ago isn't really a valid argument. Did you see what happened last month when Quadaffi was speaking at the UN? He couldn't find a town that would allow him to stay there. Magneto is a murderer and a terrorist. People tend to remember that sort of thing. Mutants also take the blame for a lot of things they aren't responsible for. The average 616 bigot can often be heard saying things like "Dat Spiderman is a mutie I tells ya" Man, this thread just cant stay on topic can it LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.