|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 20, 2017 5:05:28 GMT -5
I remember one of them (Cole, I think) having a grudge against Wolverine for what he did to him, but I didn't know that they had become the Reavers. Which kind of underscores my point: they are characters with a history, but they've generally been treated as just background detail, so a lot of the readership-and, I suspect, every writer since Claremont departed-have simply never really registered any of that. This was a problem a lot of the time with Claremont: he created scores of characters, clearly knew himself exactly who they were and what motivated them and expected the readers to keep it all straight, too, but threw so much stuff in and then forgot the basic storytelling rule that readers actually need to be reminded of it once in awhile, so that half the time the details got lost. And of course, most of Marvel's current writers have a shaky grasp on the history of the characters, at best. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 19, 2017 9:55:38 GMT -5
I gave up UXM somewhere in the 230s. It had been running on empty for me for a while, but when you've been following characters for so long (since the Dark Phoenix saga), it's hard to give them up. I had never liked JRJR's art; I think it might have been okay when he first came on the book, but it got increasingly loose, sketchy and ugly. (And speaking of ugly--some of those costumes!) I was tired of hearing about Rachel's future and all the baggage that came with it. Mutant Massacre and Fall of the Mutants had the book become more and more depressing (which, to me, is different from being dark.) Then there was the "outback" era, which I simply found boring. That's when I called it quits. There is some good stuff here and there (including some nice guest art), but there's a definite drop-off after #175 for me. I never liked the "outback" era much, either, but it did make a fair bit of use of some of my favourite X-Men bad guys, though I suspect I'm the only one who actually cares about them: the Reavers, or more specifically, the three former Hellfire Commandos Angelo Macon, Murray Reese and Wade Cole. These three are possibly the most criminally underused characters with untapped story potential in the X-Men universe; they've been around for almost forty years since Wolverine carved them up in the original Hellfire Club storyline and then Donald Pierce subsequently rebuilt them as cyborgs, they actually have considerably more motivation than most for hating the X-Men, and they have been seen shown to be really quite competent at their job, but they were essentially forgotten about as soon as the Outback storyline was done, then pointlessly killed off, and later brought back without explanation only to be pointlessly killed off again. Some characters just get no respect...  |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 18, 2017 16:09:32 GMT -5
Now THAT I didn't know. Wow. Even the cover of the UK paperback was offensive!  I know it was different times and all that but seriously, what were they thinking?!! My grandfather had a copy with that cover. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 18, 2017 13:30:34 GMT -5
I guess it depends on your perspective... I look at it somewhat as a win for the fans over corporate stupidity. People voted with their dollars, and got good stuff afterwards. I do definitely think it was the start of all the renumbering and restarting nonsense that now goes on. it worked pretty well then, after all. They trick was it worked because it was fixing a mistake, not because it was a re-boot, and it seems Marvel STILL doesn't get that. I didn't know about the Englehart thing... I was really pulled into comic fandom then... just read my comic shop news every week and talked to the guy at the store... in fact, I probably didn't know who Englehart was back then.. I hadn't read anything before West Coast Avengers, and I never really liked the Mantis/Swordsman stuff.But...but they were the best Avengers! |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 18, 2017 3:14:44 GMT -5
At least they have respected his death. I guess that means that Captain Marvel, Gwen Stacy and Uncle Ben are the only characters to stay dead. Well, Captain Marvel has been temporarily resurrected at least three times, and there are a couple of alternate universe Gwen's running around, but technically, yes. Oh, and Thunderbird is still dead, too. Mustn't forget him... |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 18, 2017 3:09:50 GMT -5
The only book from this era that I bought or read was Heroes Reborn: Masters of Evil. I liked the art and the writing seemed good, but I didn't really know what was going on. That's OK-neither did the writer... |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 17, 2017 14:53:37 GMT -5
It was the start of the cycle of events and new #1's, the trend that defines Marvel these days. It started here and has snowballed over the years so that all Marvel is these days is one event after another with new #1s for books with each event. It is, in terms of business model, the start of modern Marvel. As a story, it was all hype and no delivery, overwrought angst and change for the sake of change without an actual story to tell as its driving force. It was marketing determining story rather than the other way around. -M So...you didn't like it, then? |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 17, 2017 10:50:11 GMT -5
I think "precise continuity" is probably pushing it a bit. The timeline laid out in the movies doesn't really make much sense (all of the characters should have aged considerably more than they have done) and we seem to have three entirely separate and contradictory versions of Angel in separate movies...
Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed most of them, but the continuity is a bit of a mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 17, 2017 7:47:15 GMT -5
It also led indirectly to the creation of the Thunderbolts, one of the real high points of the nineties for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 16, 2017 9:56:22 GMT -5
Certainly one of the best, though I still think Dave Gibbons and Gerry Haylock are strong contenders, too. Gibbons is a good artist (not familiar with Haylock) but a bit cartoony in comparison. Ridgway made the characters look as close to their actors as possible. I feel like he was to DW what Al Williamson was to the Star Wars comic. Gerry Haylock, on a Jon Pertwee Who strip in Countdown.
 |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 16, 2017 4:16:22 GMT -5
I've just acquired a box of old comics from the seventies, mostly old Marvel UK stuff, but in amongst it was a copy of Charlton's Baron Weirwulf's Haunted Library. The lead story is a wonderful little gem by Joe Gill called The Devil is in Town, which is basically about Satan trying to corrupt a peaceful little town. It's hilarious. Bank clerk Peter iscorrupted by an evil urge to steal money. Teenagers Billy and Johnny are driven by an urge to vandalize. And Peter's fiancee Anne gets...a dreadful urge to put on lipstick, turn the lights down and have a little fun with her boyfriend instead of watching TV! This shocks and horrifies Peter, who shys away like a startled horse despite having been inflamed to the point of declaring that "I can't wait until we're married" slightly earlier, and leaves Anne weeping with shame after she regains control of her raging hormones. I just love the fact that in Gill's eyes, a girl wanting to have a bit of a fumble with the man she's engaged to was on a level with pocketing forty thousand dollars from the bank or chucking a brick through someone's window...  |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 16, 2017 2:12:40 GMT -5
Yeegads! Have we mentioned the death of Pam Hawley yet?? Who? :$ Sgt. Fury's girlfriend. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 16, 2017 2:10:31 GMT -5
Did you ever read the Doctor Who Voyager graphic novel that Marvel UK published? There's a shape-shifter in that. (Frobisher.) You'd probably have to like Doctor Who though, but Frobisher is fun! Yes! Or at least some of it in DWM. John Ridgway was the best Doctor Who artist! Certainly one of the best, though I still think Dave Gibbons and Gerry Haylock are strong contenders, too. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 15, 2017 12:54:30 GMT -5
Dear mods, Sorry if I'm violating any codes of conduct here, but I don't enjoy watching one poster jump all over another for no reason. Farar, one of the true gentlepersons around here doesn't deserve to be snarked at, especially when we all know what the other titles were and why they're no longer used. There's no need to get pedantic and insulting about it. And then to "correct" mgd, too? Weak. Except that I didn't want to embarrass anyone, I would have mentioned that Farrar was absolutely correct in referring to And The There Were None as a Christie title. It is a fine example of metonymy. I didn't insult anyone, or indeed attack anyone-you did, for reasons best known to yourself. And apparently are not willing to stop, either. As for the title, since Christie herself didn't use it, it is not a Christie title. And with that, I'm done. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 15, 2017 12:16:43 GMT -5
I was actually trying to avoid saying the original title. Though I suppose I could have quoted the slightly less offensive second title, "Ten Little Indians". No, you were trying to one-up somebody to show how smart you are. And he knew both of the earlier titles. Just wasn't so insecure that he felt the need to broadcast that he did. Take it somewhere else when you feel like that. We're not trying to show each other how damn smart we are. I think I speak for almost everyone. Do you? Tell you what, why don't you take a poll on it, if it matters so much to you? What's your problem, anyway? |
|
