tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post7772025543057224775..comments2024-03-28T10:18:00.370-05:00Comments on Gentlemen of Leisure: X-amining Uncanny X-Men #221Austin Gortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-5208209509977557942019-01-07T09:28:26.363-06:002019-01-07T09:28:26.363-06:00This was the very first X-Men comic I ever read/ow...This was the very first X-Men comic I ever read/owned. I cherished it deeply. I think I've read this issue about 900 times.<br /><br />RE ages: Dazzler is much older than Rogue. Dazzler might be older than the O5 X-Men -- recall she had a law degree before they met her in the Dark Phoenix Saga, the same issue that says Jean is "less than a quarter century old."<br /><br />Jeff Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-21060843693323054392014-07-23T22:09:46.127-05:002014-07-23T22:09:46.127-05:00@Dan: I always hated the idea of Sinister being th...@Dan: <i>I always hated the idea of Sinister being the avatar of an old mutant trapped in a child's body. It's too complicated and just kind of silly. Claremont said Sinister's name and appearance were supposed to be a reflection of a child's ideal villain, but he wasn't really a child, so why would he go with something "kewl" if he was, in fact, older than everyone else?</i><br /><br />It never bothered me, I think because no matter how old he "actually" is, I interpret Claremont's plans for Nathan Essex as that he absolutely WAS still a child, because he'd never <i>mentally</i> aged. Becoming an adult is about so much more than just years passing... it's the experiences you have in adolescence, your changing hormones, maturity, etc. Nathan will never know rejection by a lover, or acceptance by another; he'll never figure out how to settle conflicts with words and compromise when fists and name-calling are no longer socially acceptable; his boys will never drop. To me, he's less like Claudia from "Interview with the Vampire," and more like a malevolent Peter Pan (who was already kind of creepy).<br /><br />As for the continuing lack of a reason for the Mutant Massacre, I could swear I've read an interview with Claremont where it was indicated that the reason Essex did it was the exact same reason Mr. Sinister's look was so over-the-top eeeeeevil. That is to say, he ordered the Massacre for absolutely no other reason than that it's the sort of thing (a 10-year-old would think) a really, really evil supervillain should do. The pointlessness of it WAS the point, as it were.Drewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-44161392863091440792014-02-12T10:59:29.418-06:002014-02-12T10:59:29.418-06:00@Jason: Sure they do!
Well, they take their sweet...@Jason: <i>Sure they do!</i><br /><br />Well, they take their sweet time doing it! :) <br /><br />@Anonymous: <i>Dormammu and Umar fight Strange and Clea near the Grand Canyon and the readers learn Umar is Clea's mother. Claremont never did clearly explain what the connection was.</i><br /><br />And, of course, he later retcons out the events of that issue as being significant to the Adversary's arrival on Earth, so it's ultimately a moot point anyway. Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-81998163074426214222014-02-09T15:53:45.318-06:002014-02-09T15:53:45.318-06:00It's not clear what Doctor Strange 9 has to do...It's not clear what Doctor Strange 9 has to do with this issue. Dormammu and Umar fight Strange and Clea near the Grand Canyon and the readers learn Umar is Clea's mother. Claremont never did clearly explain what the connection was.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-72816500118088684412014-02-09T01:29:47.599-06:002014-02-09T01:29:47.599-06:00"Heck, the X-Men even *talk* about preemptive..."Heck, the X-Men even *talk* about preemptively hunting them down, but never really do. "<br /><br />Sure they do! :)Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13298753675007196538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-31296067411088129862014-02-09T00:32:02.274-06:002014-02-09T00:32:02.274-06:00@Teemu: // a Claremont interview from 1979: "...<br>@Teemu: <i>// a Claremont interview from 1979: "Soon the readers started to read more in the book than actually was there and we at Marvel did nothing to discourage them - more like the contrary." //</i><br /><br />No doubt. I've spoken to several creators about that phenomenon. The more intricately plotted a project is or simply the more hifalutin its aspirations seem to be, the more depth and concordance it's assumed to have, particularly given how material like the stuff we're reading now and what it leads to have conditioned fans to expect payoffs and hidden relationships and master plans, sometimes to the detriment of the overall experience.<br /><br />@Teebore: <i>// One of the reasons I've been reluctant to dive into the Wolfman/Perez Teen Titans stuff is a fear that, after so many years of hearing it's praises sung, I'll read it and be underwhelemed //</i><br /><br />I think I mentioned this earlier when comparisons between the X-Men and Titans series came up, but I reread their entire run and more maybe a half-dozen years ago and, while both the pure nostalgia and the appreciation for what they were doing in the context of the times were completely intact, I did cringe on occasion at what were perhaps still incontrovertible tropes. You couldn't use "God" or "Jesus" as an expletive, so a college-age Robin would say things like "Dear Lord, I-- I didn't know!"; "What the hell" (or stronger, obviously) was still replaced by "What in blazes," and so on. I can't speak as to what it'd be like coming to it new, though, which is exactly what we're saying. Go figure.<br /><br>Blamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342343767763035991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-39170613433131341522014-02-08T14:20:03.585-06:002014-02-08T14:20:03.585-06:00@Dan: That said, I think Sinister's great. He ...@Dan: <i>That said, I think Sinister's great. He doesn't need a complicated origin. He's bad, likes to work behind the scenes, and is really powerful if he actually has to get his hands dirty. </i><br /><br />Agreed. Though I like the obsession with Summers DNA. Helps make my favorite character more important. :) <br /><br />@Teemu: <i>It's disturbing really how in the Claremontian world you can add a sense of otherness to villains just by withholding them having next to any thought-bubbles. Compare to Sebastian Shaw or Mystique</i><br /><br />That's a really great observation, especially since it can change over time as Claremont decides to flesh out one villain or another. <br /><br />@Matt: <i> Thing is, I still think it's cool now, and not in any sort of ironic way. It's just an awesome name for a bad guy. Which means as a thirty-five year old adult, I think I should feel a little insulted!</i><br /><br />Ha! Indeed. I too have always liked the name unironically - as Jason says, it's in the tradition of Dr. Doom. <br /><br /><i> He didn't spend all those years at gentlemen's school to have the honorific dropped from his name!</i><br /><br />Ha again! I shall henceforth do my best to afford him the respect he's earned. :) <br /><br /><i>The reason I liked the guy so much was his involvement in everything. There was a period in the nineties when, if an X-writer had something they needed to explain, they could refer to the ol' playbook and provide a succinct, simple answer: "Mr. Sinister." ... I ate it up and I loved it.</i><br /><br />Right there with you. I was absolutely captivated by Mr. Sinister the behind-the-scenes schemer. I tend to really like those types of characters in fiction, and in a chicken-or-egg thing, I have no idea if that's why I like Mr. Sinister, or if I like that type of character because of Mr. Sinister. <br /><br />@Jeff: <i>I kind of don't like how non-CC writers tied Apocalypse into his back story, but that's because I think he's a strong enough villain to stand on his own.</i><br /><br />I've always liked the idea of Mr. Sinister working against Apocalypse (and manipulating the creation of Cable to that end), but I was disappointed when they eventually revealed that Mr. Sinister's look/longevity/powers all came from Apocalypse.Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-18161769142083647172014-02-08T14:19:59.044-06:002014-02-08T14:19:59.044-06:00@Jason: Mr. Sinister probably makes my Top Ten Al...@Jason: <i> Mr. Sinister probably makes my Top Ten All-Time Favorite X-Characters list.</i><br /><br />Ditto. Easily. <br /><br /><i>Plus, Maddie's becoming a regular character here is great.</i><br /><br />I have a great deal of affection for the character, and of course it pretty much all comes from this next run of issues leading into "Inferno". <br /><br />@Blam: <i>The Marauders are still pretty much ciphers — a bunch of new villains with terrible designs whom I've been told (and, yes, to an extent shown) are chillingly lethal yet who remain less than even two-dimensional.</i><br /><br />Unfortunately, the won't ever rise above the level of barely-two dimensional ciphers. Claremont basically uses them as extremely effective cannon fodder, and while I would have loved for him to use them more often than he does (and perhaps flesh them out as characters more in the process), I have to admit I find something appealing in the fact that they're nothing more than really efficient and ruthless henchmen. For as much as I love and appreciate the complexity of a Magneto or Dr. Doom, sometimes it's nice to have villains who are just there to give the heroes someone colorful to fight against. <br /><br /><i>Perhaps the Marauders aren't meant to be another reflection — I'm not even sure if all of them are mutants, although some are, which makes their mission stranger</i><br /><br />I'm not sure if Claremont intended for them to be another dark reflection, though it could be argued that the "dark reflection" role has been vacated by both the Inner Circle (who are now the X-Men's allies) and Freedom Force (who we'll shortly see start to work with the X-Men, briefly, on a few occasions). I *think* they are all mutants though (except of course Vertigo, who is technically a mutate, whatever that distinction may be), again, whether Claremont intended them to be or not I'm pretty sure they've been established as such at one point or another by now. <br /><br /><i> the question is also begged of why all the mutants aren't banding together right now to hunt down these mercenaries preemptively</i><br /><br />Yeah, that's a legitimate question, and one that is never properly answered. Heck, the X-Men even *talk* about preemptively hunting them down, but never really do. <br /><br /><i>When I first encountered Mister Sinister in Inferno, sampling the X-titles for the first time in a few years, I assumed that he was some evil counterpart of Colossus'</i><br /><br />I first encountered Mr. Sinister in the 90s, and I wonder if his look (or Colossus') had changed enough by then to differentiate them, because I never made that connection, yet I know you weren't alone in that assumption, and I can certainly see it now. Maybe I was just too dumb a kid? <br /><br /><i>There's clearly a huge imbalance, no matter one's age, in reading older material that's almost completely new to you rather than either reading it knowing (and really enjoying) the later material to which it builds and/or rereading it having loved it as a first exposure to vast superhero-comics sagas.</i><br /><br />Definitely. One of the reasons I've been reluctant to dive into the Wolfman/Perez Teen Titans stuff is a fear that, after so many years of hearing it's praises sung, I'll read it and be underwhelemed, as I never read it as kid and have only nominal affection for the characters (and then, really only the "sidekick" characters and not the Wolfman/Perez originals). My hope is that the execution, as I've been told, is strong enough to overcome the need for nostalgia or familiarity to truly enjoy it, but I'm still a little apprehensive. <br /><br />Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-25083904575780084852014-02-08T05:58:20.200-06:002014-02-08T05:58:20.200-06:00@Jason: Claremont did tend to change his mind mid-...@Jason: <i>Claremont did tend to change his mind mid-story, a lot.</i><br /><br />How much did that happen without an editorial mandate or some other external factor screwing up what he wanted to do, though?<br /><br />@Blam: <i>... it's not something that I got from the comics themselves, so if it was intentional then at the very least Claremont didn't make it explicit enough for my puny brain.</i><br /><br />Hah... to my delight I recently found in my local library a treatise by a Finnish fellow about <br />"Superheroes - a phenomena in American comics" where he in the chapter concerning X-Men references a Claremont interview from 1979: "<i>Soon the readers started to read more in the book than actually was there and we at Marvel did nothing to discourage them - more like the contrary.</i>"<br /><br />Hilariously, can't omit to mention, in the final chapter of the book he scratches the surface of the Reagan era comics like The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen and the perceived fascism of the superheroes in them and ends with the ominous warning: "If the readers go on to take shine on these heroes of Miller and Moore then Fredric Wertham has sadly been right." The year of publication was 1991. Teemunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-67429884632586367932014-02-07T22:46:55.560-06:002014-02-07T22:46:55.560-06:00@Jason: I probably worded that wrong. I believe ...@Jason: I probably worded that wrong. I believe that was his intention to reveal that as Sinister's origin, I just don't know if I buy that he thought that Gambit and Sinister were supposed to be corny at the time. But that's just guessing on my part, I have no real idea! Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14447265712189987074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-14286130150499242832014-02-07T21:20:13.078-06:002014-02-07T21:20:13.078-06:00"Maybe I'm off base, but it always felt d..."Maybe I'm off base, but it always felt dismissive of the characters to me, like Claremont had changed his mind about them or something. "<br /><br />I think it was always his intention. The Classic X-Men backups in 41-42 strongly suggest it. And Weezie drops a big hint in X-Factor 39 (Inferno conclusion) as well.<br /><br />But there's no way to know for sure, I guess. Claremont did tend to change his mind mid-story, a lot.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13298753675007196538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-17887847039952853902014-02-07T17:37:31.485-06:002014-02-07T17:37:31.485-06:00@Teemu: // Someone ... made a point about Marauder...<br>@Teemu: <i>// Someone ... made a point about Marauders that they really complement their not-so-impressive powers by using them in proper team-play fashion: Vertigo messes the enemies' balance, then Arclight punches ground to take them off their feet and then the rest are free to finish them with energy harpoons and whatnot. //</i><br /><br />It was in a comment on <a href="http://geoffklock.blogspot.com/2009/05/jason-powell-on-uncanny-x-men-221.html" rel="nofollow">Jason's post on <i>Uncanny</i> #221</a> over at Geoff Klock's blog <i>Remarkable</i>. (I've finally caught up the point where I mostly go to read his post on the issue <i>du jour</i> — well, <i>de la semaine</i> — after I've read the issue itself and before coming here to Teebore's post.) It's really intrigued me as I read it, but it's not something that I got from the comics themselves, so if it was intentional then at the very least Claremont didn't make it explicit enough for my puny brain.<br /><br>Blamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342343767763035991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-18230214630118332472014-02-07T17:36:53.762-06:002014-02-07T17:36:53.762-06:00Big fan of this issue, particularly the set piece ...Big fan of this issue, particularly the set piece near the end with Dazzler riding that huge steel girder collection into the ocean. I love Silvestri's work here, have I mentioned that? Its true.<br /><br />Nothing intelligent to add, just that the next issue is even better.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12219137212221355997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-23606067431682563202014-02-07T16:23:01.131-06:002014-02-07T16:23:01.131-06:00@Jason: I think when I first heard that Claremont...@Jason: <i> I think when I first heard that Claremont intended it to be something a kid came up with, hence its corniness, I was suggestible enough that I nodded my head and said, "Yeah, I guess the name is kind of corny."</i><br /><br />When I read interviews with Claremont about that storyline, I feel like he's kind of embarrassed by the characters or something and is trying to hand wave that away by saying "That's what kids are afraid of." Maybe I'm off base, but it always felt dismissive of the characters to me, like Claremont had changed his mind about them or something.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14447265712189987074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-49090505263255556442014-02-07T16:20:00.666-06:002014-02-07T16:20:00.666-06:00@Dan: I always hated the idea of Sinister being th...@Dan: <i>I always hated the idea of Sinister being the avatar of an old mutant trapped in a child's body. It's too complicated and just kind of silly. </i><br /><br />I agree with Dan. I actually think he works much better as a Victorian-era mad scientist who looks like a vampire and runs creepy orphanages. If CC wanted to make him some manifestation of a kid's fears that's one thing, but like Dan said, it doesn't really work if the "kid" is supposed to be a mutant who doesn't age. And since I'm with Dan, Matt and Jason that the character design and name are great, I don't want to hear that it's supposed to intentionally ridiculous. Making Gambit another projection honestly makes no sense at all to me. <br /><br />I kind of don't like how non-CC writers tied Apocalypse into his back story, but that's because I think he's a strong enough villain to stand on his own. Also, anything involving Dark Beast in the 616-universe never happened.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14447265712189987074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-6965723320795461932014-02-07T13:37:42.235-06:002014-02-07T13:37:42.235-06:00I agree that "Mister Sinister" is a grea...I agree that "Mister Sinister" is a great name. I think when I first heard that Claremont intended it to be something a kid came up with, hence its corniness, I was suggestible enough that I nodded my head and said, "Yeah, I guess the name is kind of corny."<br /><br />Now I'm on board with my fellow 35-year-old Matt, and thing it's cool. It's got a nice poetic ring, and it's very Silver Age, like "Doctor Doom." <br /><br />Speaking of that guy ... <br /><br />"as far as Claremont was concerned, every Sabretooth ever seen on a Marvel page was a clone created by Mr. Sinister with the two noted exceptions. Not unlike John Byrne's idea that any Dr. Doom appearance he didn't like was a robot,"<br /><br />... I think Nathan Adler still posts here sometimes. He pointed out to me once that -- given the Dr. Doom parallel -- it's appropriate that Sabretooth's name eventually was revealed as "Victor."<br />Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13298753675007196538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-72840967372448328802014-02-07T13:33:47.683-06:002014-02-07T13:33:47.683-06:00"Also, it irks me when people drop "Mr.&..."Also, it irks me when people drop "Mr." from his name all the time. I mean I get it when we call him that for brevity's sake, but when, for example, third person narration refers to him as "Sinister", I don't like it. He didn't spend all those years at gentlemen's school to have the honorific dropped from his name!"<br /><br />:) This is brilliant. Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13298753675007196538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-48963338620416429042014-02-07T12:48:07.964-06:002014-02-07T12:48:07.964-06:00As a certified Mr. Sinister maniac, this was one o...As a certified Mr. Sinister maniac, this was one of my most eagerly sought back issues when I was younger. I was a little disappointed when I finally read and learned he played so tiny of a role in the proceedings.<br /><br />As a kid I thought the name Mr. Sinister was cool, so mission accomplished, as far as giving him a name a kid might have come up with. Thing is, I still think it's cool now, and not in any sort of ironic way. It's just an awesome name for a bad guy. Which means as a thirty-five year old adult, I think I should feel a little insulted!<br /><br />Also, it irks me when people drop "Mr." from his name all the time. I mean I get it when we call him that for brevity's sake, but when, for example, third person narration refers to him as "Sinister", I don't like it. He didn't spend all those years at gentlemen's school to have the honorific dropped from his name!<br /><br />The reason I liked the guy so much was his involvement in everything. There was a period in the nineties when, if an X-writer had something they needed to explain, they could refer to the ol' playbook and provide a succinct, simple answer: "Mr. Sinister." Just give him a quickie vague speech monologue on the subject of whatever just happened and move on. I ate it up and I loved it.<br /><br />I like the origin he was eventually given too, though Claremont's original plan is probably the aborted storyline I would've most liked to see him play out. It looked like he was going that direction again in <i>X-Men Forever</i> before it was cancelled.<br /><br />"<b>There's an ad in this issue for the Robotech RPG.</b>"<br /><br />Another trip down memory lane! This was one of the many RPGs I played when I was younger, though I didn't get into it until years after it came out. I discovered <i>Robotech</i> on Cartoon Network when I was in college and that's when I picked up the game.<br /><br />Blam -- "<b>When I first encountered Mister Sinister in Inferno, sampling the X-titles for the first time in a few years, I assumed that he was some evil counterpart of Colossus'</b>..."<br /><br />You aren't the only one. In <i>Earth X</i>, Alex Ross and/or Jim Kreuger did this dopey scene where Colossus and Nightcrawler discover that they eventually became Mr. Sinister and Belasco, respectively, in the future and then traveled back in time to menace the X-Men. I guess it was meant as a commentary on the convoluted nature of the X-books in the nineties, but boy did it take me out of the story!<br /><br />Dan -- "<b>Speaking of supposed dropped Claremont plots, what was the one about Sabretooth?</b>"<br /><br />I've always heard the same thing as wwk5d -- as far as Claremont was concerned, <b>every</b> Sabretooth ever seen on a Marvel page was a clone created by Mr. Sinister with the two noted exceptions. Not unlike John Byrne's idea that any Dr. Doom appearance he didn't like was a robot, or Jim Starlin's own Thanos clone army he created in <i>Infinity Abyss</i> to explain some of Thanos's lesser appearances in the nineties.<br /><br />Teemu -- "<b>...were those the last gift of the celebrated costume design talent that is JRjr from his first run on UXM?</b>"<br /><br />The Marauders were definitely visually designed by Romita Jr. Marvel's recent "Mutant Massacre" collections feature his model sheets for them.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580725636327122073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-67867936564083951632014-02-07T08:52:53.913-06:002014-02-07T08:52:53.913-06:00@wwk5d: I like the Marauders. The costumes aren...@wwk5d: <i>I like the Marauders. The costumes aren't that great, but they're not the worst we've seen.</i><br /><br />Wait... were those the last gift of the celebrated costume design talent that is JRjr from his first run on UXM? Issues #211 (Massacre) and #210 were the last ones drawn by him at that time, but Wikipedia tries to give credit of creation of Scalphunter to CC and Silvestri.Teemunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-29326371733960513272014-02-07T04:05:55.966-06:002014-02-07T04:05:55.966-06:00"Speaking of supposed dropped Claremont plots..."Speaking of supposed dropped Claremont plots, what was the one about Sabretooth? Didn't he say that he planned to reveal that this Sabretooth appearance was actually that of a clone? Basically he was taking the Doombot approach and using it to retcon the "weaker" Sabretooth appearances. I think he tried to do this in X-Men Forever. Anyone know?"<br /><br />Well, one version I've read was that Sabretooth and all the Marauders are pretty much to be clones at this point (the Vertigo clone here is supposed to the clone of the original Vertigo who is a part of the Savage Land Mutates). The original Sabretooth is the one who appeared in Iron Fist and would antagonize and humiliate Wolverine on his birthdays (as seen in the Classic X-men back-up story). The 'real' Sabretooth would only be involved in the outer fringes of what was happening in the X-universe, while the Marauder Sabretooth would be the one fighting the X-men directly. Or something like that. Who knows how it would have played out since that was one of many ideas that was dropped, especially once CC is gone.<br /><br />I like the Marauders. The costumes aren't that great, but they're not the worst we've seen. As for them being ciphers...it does kind of fit in with the disposable clone aspect of their original character, and makes them more mysterious and dangerous. But I do like how CC gives some of them enough personality traits to at least make them interesting adversaries. wwk5dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-85870063229353303292014-02-07T02:31:57.567-06:002014-02-07T02:31:57.567-06:00@Blam: The Marauders are still pretty much ciphers...@Blam: <i>The Marauders are still pretty much ciphers — a bunch of new villains with terrible designs whom I've been told (and, yes, to an extent shown) are chillingly lethal yet who remain less than even two-dimensional.</i><br /><br />Rats, should have worked this to the earlier post, but: the one-dimensionalness may even be deliberate by Claremont and even if it isn't it works finely. They are what they are: mercenaries from the bloodthirstier end of spectrum. There's not much inner conflict going on in their heads so they can just thrive to be the best there is at what they do. Judging by the results - Mr. Sinister may disagree - they are doing pretty good. <br /><br />To elaborare what I said in earlier post, it is a motivation and a half for the current X-Men to get their act together hastily if they are going to win this particular superpowered bunch of enemies.<br /><br />It's disturbing really how in the Claremontian world you can add a sense of otherness to villains just by withholding them having next to any thought-bubbles. Compare to Sebastian Shaw or Mystique; no one can even move without Shaw thinking the repercussions of it to the inner rankings of Lords Cardinal and Mystique is most of the time downright writing a novel inside her head because she's envious to Pyro's success possibly.Teemunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-72444662259402122102014-02-07T02:10:24.312-06:002014-02-07T02:10:24.312-06:00@Blam :...more frustrating when you realize that t...@Blam :<i>...more frustrating when you realize that they really are operating in separate worlds with minimal crossover and shouldn't be, however.</i><br /><br />A textbook example of "be careful what you wish for" if I ever saw one. :)Teemunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-73131507098817414652014-02-07T01:32:53.077-06:002014-02-07T01:32:53.077-06:00@ Blam: The Marauders are still pretty much cipher...@ Blam: <i>The Marauders are still pretty much ciphers — a bunch of new villains with terrible designs whom I've been told (and, yes, to an extent shown) are chillingly lethal yet who remain less than even two-dimensional. Sabretooth is an exception, just given my prior experience with him; that experience, however, is limited and seems at odds with his characterization here.<br /><br />Claremont isn't the first writer to introduce a sort of villainous opposite-number organization out to eliminate our heroes suddenly, granting them by authorial fiat a gravity that's really only earned over time (unless they're flat-out amazingly impressive creations, and for my money the Marauders are not). </i><br /><br />Someone somewhere, could it have yet again in one of those J. Powell assessments or comments therewith, made a point about Marauders that they really complement their not-so-impressive powers by using them in proper team-play fashion: Vertigo messes the enemies' balance, then Arclight punches ground to take them off their feet and then the rest are free to finish them with energy harpoons and whatnot.<br /><br />I wouldn't argue if someone claimed that Mr. Sinister in his Summers obsession trains these manoeuvres to them and assigns them with silly numbers but then the Marauders won't use the numbers in action because they feel they are silly.<br /><br />... which makes them actually quite a good sort of team to bin against the current roster of neophyte X-Men with their old baggages who at this point still need to make a huge drama of such simple superheroics as cutting a teammate off from metal debris underwater with really really concentrated light beams.Teemunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-91901765699109680602014-02-07T00:26:06.453-06:002014-02-07T00:26:06.453-06:00I always hated the idea of Sinister being the avat...I always hated the idea of Sinister being the avatar of an old mutant trapped in a child's body. It's too complicated and just kind of silly. Claremont said Sinister's name and appearance were supposed to be a reflection of a child's ideal villain, but he wasn't <i>really</i> a child, so why would he go with something "kewl" if he was, in fact, older than everyone else? I'm sure Claremont toyed with the idea for a while, but I just kind buy that it was the reason for Sinister's design. Maybe Claremont was trying to save face after coming up with a slightly goofy villain.<br /><br />That said, I think Sinister's great. He doesn't need a complicated origin. He's bad, likes to work behind the scenes, and is really powerful if he actually has to get his hands dirty. That's good enough for me. He was such a blank slate here, in a good way... No silly obsession with Summers DNA, no being Apocalypse's garbage boy, and no reincarnation as a woman or flamboyant Victorian weirdo who likes milk.<br /><br />Speaking of supposed dropped Claremont plots, what was the one about Sabretooth? Didn't he say that he planned to reveal that this Sabretooth appearance was actually that of a clone? Basically he was taking the Doombot approach and using it to retcon the "weaker" Sabretooth appearances. I think he tried to do this in X-Men Forever. Anyone know?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7266470995513648978.post-79911813704561886272014-02-06T21:49:23.581-06:002014-02-06T21:49:23.581-06:00It also doesn't help that Silvestri's work...<br>It also doesn't help that Silvestri's work isn't doing much for me. Certain panels have me admiring a face or a figure, and it's possible I'd like it more if Dan Green weren't inking since the art looks better if I squint to just get the gist of it, but his composition overall just doesn't have the strength of Cockrum, Byrne, or Smith (all strong in different ways, to be sure). One reason why the Image founders' styles as a group bothered me is that setting aside the underpinning, where Lee and Silvestri and even Larsen had it all over Liefeld and MacFarlane and I guess Valentino (whose <i>Normalman</i> rocked but whose straight Marvel and Image art disappointed), the inking whether by others or by the pencilers themselves largely shared this slight, scratchy style that made everything feel tentative. The effect was intentional, and supposedly kewl, but it came across as hurriedness or lack of confidence. Green's style kind-of prefigures this.<br /><br />Plus: "Lightengale" was done the second time it was uttered; now it's dreadful.<br /><br />I'm sad to disagree so much with you, Teebore, and with Jason given his own articulate examinations of Claremont's run over at <i>Remarkable</i>, but I gotta call it like I see it. No doubt our perspectives differ to a great extent because I'm coming to this stuff new at 40+ years old, whereas not only did you read it as it unfolded or as recent established history but you were a kid when you did — my own equivalent being the Cockrum and Byrne eras. I still think my tastes were set enough by the time I was a senior in high school for me not to have adored Silvestri and these '90s-harbinger characters had I still been picking up <i>Uncanny</i>; we'll never know. There's clearly a huge imbalance, no matter one's age, in reading older material that's almost completely new to you rather than either reading it knowing (and really enjoying) the later material to which it builds and/or <i>re</i>reading it having loved it as a first exposure to vast superhero-comics sagas. I didn't just not read this stuff when it came out; I never got back into the X-Men titles again to the extent that this feels like the dawning of anything I'm familiar with beyond spot research, so I'm assessing it largely on its own merits to my modern eyes.<br /><br>Blamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342343767763035991noreply@blogger.com