Endangered Species Chapter 7 (from X-Factor 22)

On 19 Aug 2007 23:38:25 GMT, Dan McEwen <ferroSPAMboy.DeleteThis@gmail.com>
wrote:

>grinningdemon <grinningdemon.DeleteThis@austin.rr.com> wrote in
>news:2ibhc3910tpli7amafcq0ah5r11ksc2quh@4ax.com:
>
>> On 19 Aug 2007 16:37:48 GMT, Dan McEwen <ferroSPAMboy.DeleteThis@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I don't remember Chamber even appearing in Milligan's
>> run...following Decimation, he lost his powers and was left on life
>> support with a big hole in his chest and no lower jaw...it was in the
>> New Excalibur storyline where he was revealed to be a descendant of
>> Apocalypse and taken and restored by other descendants of
>> Apocalypse...now he looks like Apocalypse Jr. and his new powers are
>> still unexplored...all that happened in Excalibur.
>
>I must have glanced at the story in the store or something. Then, since
>I never actually owned the comic, figured it must have been in something
>I did own that revolved around Apocalypse.

That happens to me sometimes too.

>
>>>Here's the thing. I hated Kyle Rayner until Morrison wrote him. He
>>>must have done something with the characterization to make me change
>>>my opinion of him.
>>
>> All right...Rayner I'll grant you...Morrison did some great things
>> with him but, if you'll recall, he was still a fairly new character at
>> that point...not much had been done with him yet...and you have to
>> admit that Morrison largely took a "hands-off" approach with the rest
>> of the JLA...I even remember reading in interviews that the main
>> difference between Morrison's run and Waid's run that followed it was
>> that Waid's was just as good but added character development.
>
>In some respects he probably had to since many of them were feature
>characters in other titles. I didn't like the few issues of Waid's JLA
>that I read. Then again, I'm not generally a fan of his work.

I loved both Morrison's and Waid's runs on JLA...but Waid is kind of
hit and miss with me...I've never read anything by him that I would
really call bad but some of his stuff is great and other things just
kind of fall flat for me.

>
>>>> Hmm...how can you tell?
>>>
>>>I can't tell if you're joking. I think saying "I disagree" was meant
>>>to signal that it was the end.
>>
>> I can't tell if I was joking either...at any rate, it clearly didn't
>> end anything as we're still going...oh well.
>
>Yeah, but you've mostly got to the point of "we agree, except on our
>opinions of Morrison's characterizations". Of course, that's where you
>started. Me, I'm just ignoring it since I know we don't agree. Unlike
>with some, I actually respect your opinion. I was a little, um, out of
>sorts lately with a couple of other posters. Sorry you guys had to see
>it.

Understandable...there's a certain poster from another thread who
shall remain nameless that has been rubbing me the wrong way lately so
I get it.

grinningdemon <grinningdemon.RemoveThis@austin.rr.com> wrote in
news:nlahc39qvbm0500fqhdks1adsqjtskug72@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 08:27:16 -0000, Billy Bissette
> <baines.RemoveThis@coastalnet.com> wrote:
>>grinningdemon <grinningdemon.RemoveThis@austin.rr.com> wrote in
>>news:k5qfc3drd4lk8c1golh8r667plppnr80cg@4ax.com:

>>> The problem here is the inconsistency...Scott was reacting to the
>>> Apocalypse merger in the opposite way prior to Morrison taking
>>> over...and then he got all cold and repressed...but Scott has always
>>> been repressed so I really don't see that scewing things up with
>>> Jean...Scott Lobdell's idea was far more interesting and made more
>>> sense since it caused more of a change in Scott.
>>
>> I will agree with that inconsistency. Unfortunately, such things
>>tend to be a problem when writers change. And more of a problem when
>>the new writer has already been working out a story idea.
>>
>> With better preperation on Marvel's side, we should have at least
>>seen Cyclops become more distance in the issues leading up to
>>Morrison's run. That would have made the change with Morrison less
>>dramatic, and also may have helped clue fans in that it was important
>>and not just that the new writer didn't know the character.
>
> Why should they have done that when Scott Lobdell's (the writer just
> prior to Morrison) idea for Cyclops was better...and made more
> sense...it showed the Apocalypse merger having a far greater and more
> interestesting effect on Cyclops...Morrison just made him act
> repressed like he always had...the mischaracterization came mainly
> from his interaction (or lack there of) with Jean...it just didn't
> make sense to me...and was a pretty lame way to break them up.

I happen to think the results of Morrison's idea was better. Which
of course is what personal opinion is all about. Since I liked the
overall result better, I'm more forgiving of the individual change.

Besides, I never really liked Scott anyway.

I do think both approaches (Morrison's and Lobdell's) have
potential. Lobdell had Scott go to one extreme, while Morrison had
Scott go to the other. Personally, I think Lobdell's version has a
more immediate pay-off, while Morrison's has a longer pay-off.
Extra-emotional Scott is interesting while he is emotional. But the
effect would eventually have to wear off, and he would slowly revert.
Less emotional Scott is more of a "You thought he was bad before?,"
and would arguably improve as the effect wore off.

Morrison does perhaps fail in how his Scott doesn't really visibly
improve, presumably because the story Scott is caught in remains so
depressing. That doesn't change until the end of Morrison's run,
when Phoenix frees him of his guilt. Morrison effectively left it
to the next writer to do a revived Scott. But Marvel was such a
mess after Morrison left...


You are right that in a perfect world, Morrison should have at
least have accomodated Lobdell's version. We don't know the
circumstances there. Marvel might not have been communicating
between writers (as seen with Claremont's confusion over who had
Beast at the time.) Writers have certainly told stories before of
Marvel's lack of assistance in keeping them up-to-date on things.
Or maybe Morrison did know of Lobdell's path, and just decided to
go his own way anyway. We don't know. (I would have hoped Lobdell
would have at least acknowledged Lobdell's path though, even if it
were to just mention it and then have Scott rebound in the other
direction.)

> I'm not saying other writers haven't been guilty of
> mischaracterization...but I can't think of one as completely off the
> mark as Morrison...and, as I've said, the high profile nature of his
> run actually makes it worse as it makes other writers try to emulate
> him...as Milligan did...this will likely be impacting the X-Men for
> years...and Warren Ellis taking over Astonishing has me worried
> because he has a similar writing style ot Morrison and will may well
> pick up where he left off or else do something worse.

I don't mind the emulation. And find it better than the muddled
reversals that Marvel started with right as he left.

I don't find Morrison that off the mark, and allow a bit of
forgiveness for it actually meaning something other than the writer's
whim. That's why things like the Carey example that I mentioned (or
Claremont) bug me more than what Morrison did.

Civil War also bugs me, where changes for a story were still
misguided and poorly written (and some aren't even really for the
story.) To me, Civil War is much worse than Morrison's run.

>> From what I recall, Milligan's Apocalypse is not just concerned
>>about mutants. When discussing the expected progression of the plague
>>with Pestilence, he pauses at the thought of children and the elderly
>>being affected the most. He's concerned about the humans that he
>>himself planned to kill.
>
> Yes, but the impression I got from the ending of the arc was that, at
> least some of that, was an act to gain trust from remaining
> mutants...that's certainly how it seemed to me.

The bit about the kids was just between him and Pestilence, and he
has to convince himself to continue. It certainly wasn't an attempt
to gain her trust, as if anything it would have made her more wary of
her master.

>> Funny thing is, we actually seem to be agreeing on a few things
>> now.
>
> On some things, yes...but not on the central premise that started our
> exchange...I still think Morrison horribly mischaracterized the X-Men
> and you don't.

You are right, we disagree on the central premise. We both know we
do, we both accept that we aren't going to change each others minds
on it, and I presume neither of us is really trying to by this point.

That doesn't mean that we can't have a meaningful discussion, or
even meaningful disagreement, over bits and pieces though. Maybe it
can even help determine opinions on specifics, or give someone else
an excuse to join in, if anyone else (beside Dan) is reading by this
point.

And there we have had some agreements. Not even necessarily from
changing opinions, but just discovering that we might be on the same
side in a few spots.