All things considered, and given the parties involved, I'd call that a good guess tho, Jason!

How long before a "reformed" Hitler turns up in a ^^***** comic? How about kindly old Uncle Joe Stalin, all smiles and apologies? Isn't Pol Pot due for rennovation?

It gets old with companies following the same pattern.

1. Hiring a hot shot to "save a title"

2. The hot shot creates confusing backstory

3. The hot shot is removed and the company throws in the next hot shot to do more damage.

4. Years later the mess created from several crappy writes needs to be cleaned up so a massive crossover or event is created to attempt to solve the problem.

5. Bleah

Whoops, I missed this post yesterday.

 
 
 <<Yes, which is exactly what I said. Except for the part about Morrison voicing his own opinions about the costumes. He doesn't have a problem with, say, Superman's 'Action Suit' in All Star Superman. It goes back to his belief that the X-Men aren't superheroes.>>

Which is fine, but don't express it through the voice of a character who has worn one, of his own choice, for so long.  You are transferring your contempt for the costumes onto Logan.  It would be better perhaps to have Logan express that he'd had a change of heart, for whatever reasons.  What Logan said reads like he felt that way all along.  This was clearly not the case.

 
<<No mind reading needed. Cyclops comments on the effects of his possession and he does something which I agree seems out of characters. It doesn't need to be spelled. However, when someone says a writer does something out of "ego" most of the time is mind-reading.>>

Spelled out?  Can ONE character, Scott or anyone else, comment that it was out of character?  Shouldn't any of them be remarking on this?

You specifically ascribed Apocalypse's survival of the fittest mantra to Scott' s mercy killing of Ugly John, as if he was thinking like Apocalypse.  Again, clearly, his dialogue shows this was not the case.

We can debate degrees of mindreading, but I'd say it qualifies.

<<I don't remember much about Return to Weapon Plus, so I'll take your word for it.>>

I envy you, I wish I could forget it.  I guess you mean after the drinking issue, though.  I think that was the first part of that storyarc.  You gave me the impression that you recalled, and very much enjoyed, that issue.


<<Thanos' point about the marriage is correct.  Whether you like it or not, Scott an Jean were happily married for 6 years(our time).  It's not arguable on panel. 
 
 And I didn't argued against it, did I>>

If I recall correctly, you argued that the aftereffects of Apocalypse were a reasonable cause for the marital problem.  In and off itself, I concede that.  It's retroactively deconstructing the Scott/Jean relationship that I'm arguing about from a storytelling
point of view. 

I liked Scott/Jean and was against breaking them up, but that's personal like and dislike.  Objectively, if an experience fundamentally changes Scott, it's not unreasonable that it could end the marriage.  Morrison didn't just do that.

<<For the record, I did like Scott and Jean as a couple and I hated his pairing with Emma. Especially after Joss Whedon gave Scott a Testicletomy.>>

Marvel couldn't pay me to read Scott with Emma.
I haven't read any of Whedon, but have heard of it.
Don't like what I hear, but he'd have to go aways to top Morrson's testicletomy.

<<Morrison, rather than being satisfied with simply having Scott come back and say I'm different, thus we don't work anymore, retroactively diminishes he marraige, and everything between them since 1986, to going through the motions.  The drinking issue has Scott basically calling it an overblown teenage crush. 
 
 Yeah, that's what character development and retcons do sometimes. The characters change and evolve, sometimes into things we don't like.>>

Again, Scott changing is not the problem  Don't misunderstand, I dont want it, but it is plausible after what happened.

Jean and Scott's relationship and marital history is Jean and Scott's relationship and marital history.
Scott, even fundamentally changing, doesn't change what we saw on panel for 6 years.

Yes, retcons happen and they're often decried as unnecessary.  Here would be a perfect example.
Just say Scott is different now, it doesn't work now because he's different now.    The rest is revisionist nonsense.  Morrison believed it, so Scott said it.

If, for some unfathomable reason, a writer wanted to break Sue and Reed up, I'd hope they'd do it with something that happened in the here and now rather than try to retcon in that the marriage really wasn't a happy one. 

<<Read Morrison's interviews and he says basically the same things he has Scott say.  Again, the characters are a mouthpiece for his beliefs rather than acting how they've always acted. 
 
 So? Every writer does that in every interview, in every message board post. JB does it. Chris Claremont does it. Mark Waid does it. Every single character is a 'mouthpiece' of the belief its writer has about how it should act. Sometimes we disagree with them.>>

This is a valid point.  I wasn't really making the point as one of criticism in general.  Moreso, that Morrison is doing it and it's not true to the characters' history.

Like read Mark Waid's take on Doom and it showed in his run.  And Waid got a ton of criticism for it from the people who didn't like it.

However, Doom has been varying degrees of evil under different writers.  Same with Magneto.  Logan never expressed distaste for superhero costumes and the Scott/Jean marriage was happy or 6 years.  IMO, they're less arguable.

You don't even need to do it with Scott, that's the really annoying part.  He doesn't like Scott/Jean, he can get rid of it without rewriting history.

<<Some here would disagree, but I'd say no. His personality may have shifted, but he still was the consumate leader of the X-Men he always had been.>>

After you've dragged him through the mud.  Put him through trauma, don't shatter his moral credibility.
That's too essential to my enjoyment of the character.

I imagine now that someone will bring up that this happened 20 years ago, but that's a different argument.

And has his personality shifted?  From what people tell me, doesn't sound like it.

<<Which is he?  The badass Scott who fired full blast at Magneto's head from about 5 feet?  Or is he the Scott who is apologizing for hurting him after he did? 
 
 
Both. One of the reason I heard from those who like NXM is that Morrison made Cyclops into a more rounded character. With contradictions, and perhaps more 'real'. I disagree. Morrison didn't made all that up, it was all that already, he was already a great characters, he just tied him up in a more coherent whole.

BTW, your assesment of Apocalypse's possession of Scott I think it's spot on.>>

To each his own, I suppose.  To me, Scott was not the badass, he was not both.  People say Scott was not human.  I can give you a slew of examples of Scott being human.

Scott had doubts and fears like the rest of us.  He doesn't have to commit the moral transgressions that he did to be human.

But it's what you're looking for from the books and characters.  When Scott does the right thing, I'm not bored.  I want my heroes better than the average person.

<<Exactly.  He not only killed Magneto, he mocked him. It's also stretching credibility that he could kill Jean with EMP energy after the stunts she had pulled to save herself and Logan and get them back to earth so quickly. 
 
 I agree. Sometimes it's pretty clear when a writer doesn't like a character and does everything in his power to screw him (something that most writers do, even those who are hailed as being faithful to the characters)>>

Again, you're ascribing a dislike to the character that I haven't seen Morrison confess.  He made Magneto ineffectual because he thought he was outdated, that his time had past.  Maybe that's how he genuinely saw the character.  I disagree, but I'm not accusing him of deliberatey sabatoging characters. I didn't accuse him of that with Scott. 

 <<I also liked the talk. It gave a nice introspection to what Scott's feelings and thoughts at that moment were. And it sounded what an honest talk would be between two trusted friends who respect each other. However, I'd also could have done without the bathroom scene.>>

Not any self blame from Scott the entire issue. He just got caught in an affair.  Is this too much to expect? 
Scott making excuses and having a self pity party.  
Another case of to each his own, I suppose.

On the other hand, I thought Jean/Logan, on Asteriod M, was very well done.


<<I disagree. I think that it works precisely because the cheated party is telepathic. If both were non-telepaths, it would be harder to say it was actual cheating. But since Jean is a telepath, Scott being so close to Emma made it seem as if it was as bad as a physical affar, perhaps even much worse, given the close psychic rapport they shared for so long.>>

I disagree.  Morrson is trying to differentiate between the two.  If not, why flash back to Hong Kong?  To show the difference, but you're trying to claim that he' saying it's just as bad.

I don't think he's saying one way or the other, outright.  He wants the reader to decide.  My point is it's not ambiguous because of the particulars of the Jean/Scott relationship.  He may as well have just had them engage in a physical affair.
 
 
<<A bluff, perhaps? I don't know. In any case I was expanding on the points raised against the run. "Jean tortures Emma" is a bitching soundbyte.>>

I already said that torture was stretching it, but you're view was minimizing Jean's wrongdoing.

 <<She might as well said that. No, she didn't specify. But it's clear that she wanted him to move on ('All I ever did was die on you") and be happy. And at that point it was clear that Emma had a change of heart and truly loved Scott.>>

No, she wanted Scott to move on with his life.  I don't think she would have minded if he waited till he was away from her gravesite before doing it.  It's disgusting.  Then he's doing it again the next issue.
What Morrison should have had Scott do was take her hand and walk away together.  But I suppose a modicum of decency was too much to ask.

Your line from Jean only further illustrates Morrson's misrepresentation of the Scott/Jean relationship.  Before he arrived, Jean had thought Jean dead twice, Scott had thought Jean dead twice.  How this matches his version is beyond me.

He and Greg Pak have turned Jean into a cariacture, a resurrection cliche.


<<Was it in poor taste? Perhaps. But that kiss meant the hellish, Sublime controlled future wouldn't come to pass. Happy ending, love triumph, acceptance, forgiveness, blah, blah, blah. Even I liked it, and I hate the Scott/Emma couple too.>>

Another case of agree to disagree. 

 
<<Morrison essentially undid the 86 retcon without flat out saying it.  The characters just start referring to Jean like she's the character in UXM 101-137.  HCT has Jean being reborn from  giant egg .  To me, that was a nod to FF 286.  Jean dies and is reborn that way. 
 
 
Yes, that's true. That's why I mentioned it in the parenthesis. However, since he didn't especifically retconned it, it can still be seen as if the previous retcon is still in place. Yes, the characters say that Jean did indeed became the Phoenix, but the truth is, she did. The PF made a duplicate of her, had it been the real Jean, things would have played exactly the same way they did, right? So they were right in showing apprehension about the fact that the Phoenix force was merging with Jean.>>

That is stretching it and you know it.  The characters have never be confused by it before, now suddenly they are?  They can give Jean Phoenix without referencing her as the character in UXM 101-137.  Rachel was Phoenix and they didn't make her the character.


<<Morrison makes a mess of the Phoenix concept just like he did with Weapon X becoming Weapon 10. 
 
 How does it make it a mess? Morrison's retcon didn't changed anything. Just added to it.>>

There is no Phoenix force which one person controls at a time.  It's just incredibly high end TK.  There are multiple Phoenixes in the White Hot Room.    Where does this match anything we'd been told previously?


<<Not anymore than claiming that NXM stories were aimed at the 'aging fanbase', without a shred of evidence, anecdotal or otherwise. Which was what I was replying to.>>

So, in other words, since they twisted the facts, in your mind, you figured you'd do the same?

<<Who are the biggest detractors of Sins Past, Avengers Disassembled and Civil War? 
 
 Frankly? Most who read it. To this day I have not seen more than three or four people say that Sins Past was was great. Even some who dislike NXM qualify they displeasure by saying that they might have been good stories, just not good X-men stories. And being good stories is something that the ones you mentioned just
aren't>>


Just aren't in your opinion.  Just as, in the opinion of many, Morrison didn't write good X Men stories.  I don't know what Spider-Man forums you were on.
The ones I was on, sadly, I think had more pro Sins Past than against.  Not by a big margin, but it sure as hell wasn't universally disliked.  But it's strongest detractors were people who knew the characters.

I saw tons of people who liked Avengers Disassembled.  There are Civil War issues that sell 3 times what Morrison's NXM did.  You think that happened because most people disliked it?
 
<<Great post, Larry. I enjoyed reading it and replying to it.>>

Thank you.  I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

Jason, Emma did reform in 1994.  She was one of the headmasters who taught the Gen X kids.  Her and Banshee. 

They did an aborted Phoenix story with Jean in 1998.
It was never stated that she had the force, though.
It only lasted a couple issues then was dropped.  When Claremont returned, in 2000, she was using Phoenix imagery, but didn't have the force.  She only had telepathy durng this period.

<<In any case, I thought this was blown way out of proportion. In the end it just meant that the X-Men had different uniforms. Dreadful ones, yeah, but I've thought that most of the of the non Conkrum, JB and Lee's costume have been awful anyway.>>

Don't misunderstand, it ranked far down on my last of problems with the run.  It's the people in the costume
that are my biggest concern, not the costume.  Still, I thought having Logan say that was out of character. 

<<Mindreading, as used here, usually refers to ascribing intentions to the writers, not the characters, and that's what I was referring to.>>

I didn't realize that we made a distincion.

<<Am I hypothesizing about the impact of Apocalypse's influence in Scott? Yeah. But I'm not really stretching it. If En Sabah Nur had any sort of influence in him, naturally it must be what Apocalypse felt more strongly about.>>

It's possible, I don't dispute that.  IMO, then, it's a problem with the storytelling.  There should be confirmation so it isn't hypothesizing.

Again, for something supposedly so out of character, was a reaction, any reaction, from someone too much to expect?

In any case, I see Thanos doing what you did, through his interpretation of the evidence.  That Morrison didn't like the X Men the way they were when he got there, so changed it to something he liked.  Scott/Emma instead of Scott Jean, the end of the Xavier/Magneto dynamic among the changes.

<<I did. But the rest of the Return storyline seemed pretty forgettable to me.>>

Well, I'll say this much for his run.  I won't ever forget it.  Not in a good way, but I won't ever forget it.

<<Whedon's stories range from terrible to mediocre, but he has the ability to manipulate the connections the readers have with the characters. Colossus' return, for example, was one of the most dull and unimaginative ressurrections I have ever read, but it was lauded everywhere just because Whedon gave Cassiday a two page spread of a fastball special to draw.>>

I'll reserve judgement without reading it.  I heard he had Scott's lack of control of his blasts being some psychological problem on Scott's part.  That didn't sound good to me.  I saw a couple paragraph take, from Whedon, on Scott a couple months ago.  Didn't like what I read.  Something about Scott becoming the badass he's always really been.   But I don't want to be overly critical without reading.

When the first couple issues came out, I looked at boards to see the reaction.  I saw less of the divided camp than I did with Morrison.  Saleswise, it's easily been more of a success.  It still sells great even being late all the time.  Someone lkes it.

<<Just how necessary a retcon is is often a point of view. In this case I suppose it was to effectively destroy as completely as he could the Scott and Jean relationship so he could move on with Emma. Obviously his failing as writer there lies in the fact he wasn't able to convince many readers that the substitution was a better status quo.>>

Agreed, retcons, I suppose like stories in general, are in the eye of the beholder.  If you like what the retcon accomplishes, I imagine that you're more receptive of it.

<<In your opinion. As you've said before, you don't believe Morrison was sabotaging the characters intentionally, and I agree. He wrote what he thought were good X-Men stories, a 'love letter to the Claremont/Byrne run" as he put it. Some agree that his interpretations were true to the character, some don't.>>

Absolutely agreed in that I believe his intentions were not malicious.  He wrote what he thought were good stories.  And that's where opinion comes in.  I, and many others, find it ironic that he would cite Byrne/Claremont when he did things that were anathema to it.

The Jean/Scott love story is the centerpiece of the DPS.  What's your ode to it?  It's destroyed and Scott hooks up with one of the people who indirectly helped to cause it.  The word ironic comes to mind. 

<<To me, Scott have always been a badass. Not the type that goes around saying "I am the best there at what I do" to everyone they meet, nor the one who is considered a badass because he machineguns criminals like a psycopath. He's a badass because he's smart. Efficient. Precise. He can take on all the X-Men at once. He's the consummate leader of the X-Men.>>

That doesn't make you a badass.  Depends on how you define badass, I guess.  Kickass, yes, badass, no.

<<But his personal life has been a mess. Sometimes not the fault of the writers themselves, but you know the kind of circumstances and actions that have reflected badly on Scott's character in the past.>>

Always is a stretch, and you know it.  Scott's personal life isn't a mess in the last half of the original run.
Where is it "a mess" from 150-200?  Most of the 90s?

This is a difference between stuff happening to Scott and Scott being portrayed as an emotional cripple or wreck.  "Stuff happens" to Cap, Superman, any character with their own title.  They are put through severe emotional stress at times.

It's more than Scott having shit happen to him, he's a mess.  The neurotic coward in early X Factor isn't Scott and neither is Morrison's uber repressed adulterer.
Scott can have shit happen to him without being a mess.  Shit happened to him in UXM 137, he wasn't a mess in 138.

IMO, no matter what happens to him, Cyclops should not be committing adultery.  It goes against any previous version of the character.  And, for me, a point of no return.

Use Apocalypse to put Scott through the emotional wringer, fine.  Test his mettle as a hero.  But he's got to recover before he's crossed those lines.  I'm only one Cyclops fan, but that is this 30+ year Cyclops fan's opinion.

<<Again? Where I did it the first time?>>

I was referring to Scott/Ugly John and ascribing intent that may or not be there.

<<But yes, I admit to mindreading. But Planet X was very insistent on just how pathetic and outdated Magneto has become. But Morrison has admitted that he was going through some personal problems when he wrote it, so that might have had something to do.>>

It's amazing  how accepting you are when you like the story.  That's how I feel when I'm reading the stuff coming out of Scott's mouth.  Morrison is forcefeeding his take on Scott/Jean on the reader.

It's up to the reader.  When Planet X came out, it had many staunch defenders.  Many people who agreed with the take on Magneto.  Agreed 100%.

Wasn't Morrison's father dying at the time?  I recall seeing him admit that it might have resulted in the story being a bit darker.  I have NEVER seen Morrison
admit to any mishandling of a specific X character.  I could have done better with Scott or Jean or Magneto. 

<<No, the part where we disagree is that I think that he did it to show how ambiguous the situation was. Had neither of them were telepaths, it was harder to argue that the affair was as serious as a physical one, but the way it was shown, it wasn't nearly as clear cut. For Scott, it wasn't a big deal, hence the flashback to Hong Kong where he remained celibate. But for Jean, it was a deep betrayal. I think there is enough there to let the reader decide.>>

We disagree, fundamentally.  First off, Scott shared the rapport with her.  For him, it should be a big deal as well.  IMO, no way is Morrison trying to say it's worse because it's Scott/Jean.  He's not trying to say, it's worse because this couple had a psychic rapport.
The psychic rapport is never mentioned once in the issues.

Let me be clear, this is conjecture.  I have not seen Morrison say this.  IMO, he's trying to get the reader to ponder what is cheating and what isn't.

<<I wasn't. I described what happened because I thought torture was an extremely poor choice of word. I would call it more aptly "mindraping" as was discussed above.>>

Reread your initial reply to Thanos.  You think that's being really critical of Jean?  You pretty much said that Jean held up a mirror to Emma's face and if that's torture, then she tortured her.  You mention nothing about the invasion of Emma's privacy.  The bringing through any defenses Emma put up to protect that privacy. 

<<We'll just have to disagree there. Given the storyline and situation, it didn't seemed indecent, and just walking away holding hands wouldn't have been as effective to show Scott did decide to live on.>>

Why wouldn't it have been?  Scott's decided to stay on rather than walk away.  You think the only way Morrison can leave the reader with a measure of hopefulness is to have Scott kiss Emma at Jean's gravesite?

To say we have different tastes is an understatement.
At the risk of treading on broken record territory, it's disgusting.

<<I can't comment on what Greg Pak had done with Phoenix after Morrison left, as I was never able to get past the first issue of the first miniserie.>>

I read it, for Jean, and found it hard to get through.
Didn't buy it, that's for sure.  It's the most X reading I've done since Morrison left.  Endsong taught me my lesson, though.  I passed on Warsong. 

<<Yes, I'm doing some mental gymnastics there. I'm trying to reconcile the run within the larger story of the X-Men, and as you said, it was a retcon without being explicitly a retcon, and as far as I know, the FF issue which brought her hasn't been especifically retconned out of continuity. Until it is, my explanation is as good as any to keep some sort of coherence between it and Morrison's run.>>

There you go.  Mental gymnastics are required.  It may not have been officially retconned, but it has been essentially.  Jean is, at worst, a piece of the whole that is the Phoenix force, consciousness, etc.  That was not the case when Morrison arrived.

<<I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I know what Morrison did with the PF was a mess. Just like every single other storyline that touched upon the original, so Morrison isn't the only one who can be faulted.

What I meant was about Weapon X/10. How does that make it a mess?>>

Well, I think he did throw in later that Weapon Plus was a splinter group, but originally each project they worked on was numbered consecutively.  Yet, you had multiple Weapon Xs before.  Garrison Kane was a Weapon X.

<<Except that I wasn't twisting the facts. There seems to be an undercurrent in certain posts that say that any story they dislike must be because they are aimed at aging, anal fanboys. Which is bullshit.>>

I apologize for this one.  Looking back, in context, considering what you were replying specifically to, your comments are not unreasonable.   

<<Boards I frequented? Newsarama, Joe Quesada Forum, a few native to my country. All I saw a general tone of hatred and condemnation to the companies and the writers of such things as Sins Past and Avengers Dissassembled.>>

Comicboards, CBR, usenet.  I've seen polls on Sins Past where pro won.  It's mixed, I don't deny that.  Universally hated, nowhere I saw.  Don't mistake this as my endorsement.  I disliked them all.  Difference between you and me is I also dislked Morrison's NXM. 

<<It's purely anecdotal, of course, but I have seen many who accept the quality of NXM despite disliking what Morrison did with the characters. And I have not seen many even claim Sins Past or Avengers Dissassembled were good stories.>>

Maybe I need to check out your forums.  It would be nice to see them hated.  But it was not the case where I was.   The haters are loud and vociferious, but there are many defenders.  Comicboards has an arcive, so does usenet.  The posts are still there if someone wants to look.

Of course, what is the only real objective measure that can be used?  Sales.  Sins Past didn't sell through the roof, but Avengers Disassembled and Civil War did.
And they didn't bleed sales on Sins Past, either.  It just didn't explode like the others. 

<<I have seen a lot more mixed reaction to Civil War, though. And really, any other fact, like quality, was irrelevant to its sales next to it being the BIG CROSSOVER EVENT written by one of the most popular writers these days.>>

Well, that's part of what sells nowdays.  Big name creators and crossovers.  But if you're Marvel, who do you listen to?  A couple hundred people posting on the net or the several hundred thousand buying the books?

Jason, I've seen Morrison talk of his love for silver age DC.  Raves about it.