Question about Uncanny #287 and beyond...

Scific1258 wrote:

: Hi, all.
: I've been re-reading Uncanny #287, Fatal Attractions, and Onslaught.
:
: I was wondering if all three of these arcs were planned way in advance or made
: up as the comics progressed.

According to Scott Lobdell, who was the X-Men's "head writer" during that
period, management and editorial wouldn't allow for longterm planning back then,
so he had to make things up as he went.

--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
POPP'D! >> http://poppd.blogspot.com/

Election is a bitch.

--
[This is a Usenet message, posted to the rec.arts.comics.* groups.]
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Uncanny #287 and beyond... 

Marc-Oliver Frisch wrote:
  >> I've been re-reading Uncanny #287, Fatal Attractions, and Onslaught.
  >>
  >> I was wondering if all three of these arcs were planned way in advance or
  >> made up as the comics progressed.
 >
 > According to Scott Lobdell, who was the X-Men's "head writer" during that
 > period, management and editorial wouldn't allow for longterm planning back
 > then, so he had to make things up as he went.

Must be why we had to wait 3 years or so between the mention of
Onslaught and us actually meeting him.

-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Uncanny #287 and beyond... 

BlakGard <blakgard.TakeThisOut@aol.comix.net> wrote in message
news:20040313133048.10302.00001321@mb-m03.aol.com...
 > Marc-Oliver Frisch wrote:
   > >> I've been re-reading Uncanny #287, Fatal Attractions, and Onslaught.
   > >>
   > >> I was wondering if all three of these arcs were planned way in advance
or
   > >> made up as the comics progressed.
  > >
  > > According to Scott Lobdell, who was the X-Men's "head writer" during
that
  > > period, management and editorial wouldn't allow for longterm planning
back
  > > then, so he had to make things up as he went.
 >
 > Must be why we had to wait 3 years or so between the mention of
 > Onslaught and us actually meeting him.
 >

Nope. Onslaught was first mentioned in Uncanny X-Men #322, and his identity
is revealed in X-Men #54. That's one year, give or take. One particularly
muddled year, mind you.

- Nathan P. Mahney -<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Uncanny #287 and beyond... 

  >>
  >> I was wondering if all three of these arcs were planned way in advance
  >> or made up as the comics progressed.

I've heard from several sources that Onslaught was essentially
improvised. Lobdell described it as a work-in-progress - after it was
finished. It's notable that the "Road to Onslaught" one-shot which
appeared at around the same time gives a significantly different plot
from the one which actually appeared in the stories (one which, for
example, bothered to explain why Onslaught took over New York with
Sentinels). I suspect the incoherence of the story is a combination of
continual rewrites up to the last minute, and lack of co-ordination as
to which book would take responsibility for certain major plot points.

--
Paul O'Brien

THE X-AXIS - <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.thexaxis.com" target="_blank">http://www.thexaxis.com</a>
ARTICLE 10 - <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.ninthart.com" target="_blank">http://www.ninthart.com</a>
LIVEJOURNAL - <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien" target="_blank">http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Uncanny #287 and beyond... 

Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
   >>>> I've been re-reading Uncanny #287, Fatal Attractions, and Onslaught.
   >>>>
   >>>> I was wondering if all three of these arcs were planned way in advance
   >>>> or made up as the comics progressed.
   >>>
   >>> According to Scott Lobdell, who was the X-Men's "head writer" during
   >>> that period, management and editorial wouldn't allow for longterm
   >>> planning back then, so he had to make things up as he went.
  >>
  >> Must be why we had to wait 3 years or so between the mention of
  >> Onslaught and us actually meeting him.
 >
 > Nope. Onslaught was first mentioned in Uncanny X-Men #322, and his identity
 > is revealed in X-Men #54. That's one year, give or take. One particularly
 > muddled year, mind you.

That's right. For some reason, I juxtaposed UXM #354 as the issue he was
revealed. It was exactly a year after #322.

-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Uncanny #287 and beyond... 

Thanks for the info.
Actually, Onslaught itself first appeared in X-Men #50(Vol. 2).

It just didn't come right out and SAY it was Onslaught. We just had to wait
four issues after that to find that out.
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Uncanny #287 and beyond... 

Scific1258 <scific1258 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040316105309.10302.00001448@mb-m03.aol.com...
 > Thanks for the info.
 > Actually, Onslaught itself first appeared in X-Men #50(Vol. 2).
 >
 > It just didn't come right out and SAY it was Onslaught. We just had to
wait
 > four issues after that to find that out.

Yeah, but at the time of writing that wasn't supposed to be Onslaught. And
it makes little sense for that character to be Onslaught. Weren't the
mid-nineties grand?

- Nathan P. Mahney -<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Uncanny #287 and beyond... 

If that thing wasn't supposed to be Onslaught, then what WAS it supposed to be?

So, X-Men #50 introduces a psionic entity, which looks identical to the energy
creature which shows up in X-Men #54, and it's not the same creature and/or
Onslaught?

Man, this was just the START of the Onslaught crossover, too...we all know how
disparent some of the plotlines were.
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Uncanny #287 and beyond... 

Scific1258 <scific1258.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040316160644.15181.00001537@mb-m18.aol.com...
 > If that thing wasn't supposed to be Onslaught, then what WAS it supposed
to > be?
 >
Keep in mind that I'm going off repeated hearsay, so what I say may not be
completely factual. IIRC, the entity in X-Men #50 was supposed to be tied
to both Gateway and Landau, Luckman & Lake.


 > So, X-Men #50 introduces a psionic entity, which looks identical to the
 > energy
 > creature which shows up in X-Men #54, and it's not the same creature
and/or
 > Onslaught?
 >

Does it look at all like Onslaught in X-Men #54? I seem to recall that
there was no resemblance.

 > Man, this was just the START of the Onslaught crossover, too...we all know
 > how
 > disparent some of the plotlines were.

Making things up as you go might work in a self-contained title, but it's
literary suicide in the sprawling perma-crossover that was mid-90s X-Men.
Writers were being told to include Onslaught before it was even known what
Onslaught was. And no effort was made to tie all of these plots together
when the time came to do so.

- Nathan P. Mahney -<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Uncanny #287 and beyond... 

Scific1258 wrote:
 > Thanks for the info.
 > Actually, Onslaught itself first appeared in X-Men #50(Vol. 2).
 >
 > It just didn't come right out and SAY it was Onslaught. We just had to wait
 > four issues after that to find that out.

Appeared, yes, but he was first mentioned in UXM #322 (just after AOA),
when Juggernaut was thrown across several states and was only able to
utter a single word before passing out - "Onslaught."

-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Uncanny #287 and beyond... 

The only resemblance to that thing in X-Men #50 and the one in #54 was that
they both came off as eerie; especially when it showed Onslaught and Xavier
staring each other in the face.

The "face" of Onslaught looks identical to that thing from X-Men #50.
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Uncanny #287 and beyond... 

Scific1258 <scific1258.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040317091131.03211.00001725@mb-m23.aol.com...
 > The only resemblance to that thing in X-Men #50 and the one in #54 was
that
 > they both came off as eerie; especially when it showed Onslaught and
Xavier
 > staring each other in the face.
 >
 > The "face" of Onslaught looks identical to that thing from X-Men #50.

You'll have to clarify that for me. In the first paragraph you're saying
that the two beings share no resemblance besides eerieness. In the next you
say they look identical. Which is it?

- Nathan P. Mahney -<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Uncanny #287 and beyond...