[Jason Powell takes us into the home stretch of his look at every issue Claremont's initial Uncanny X-Men run. I apologize for this coming out a day late but some LOST foolishness distracted the blog. It will not happen again (for obvious reasons).]
“First Strike”
With the previous two years having seen massive, line-wide crossovers, Marvel were perhaps a bit concerned about the fans becoming a bit fatigued. (Current Marvel doesn’t seem to worry about this.) Thus, 1990’s X-over is a quick, self-contained 9-issue affair. As someone noted during the “Inferno” discussions, the early Marvel X-events did a fairly admirable job of possessing a true sense of occasion. “Mutant Massacre” and “Fall of the Mutants” both featured large changes to the status quos of the series involved; “Inferno” succeeded in resolving several very long-running plot threads. And “X-Tinction Agenda” marks a large change as well, as it reunites the long-splintered X-Men and also introduces the new editorial standpoint, wherein the arbitrary divisions among the different mutant series are dissolved, and the X-universe becomes more of a melting pot, with characters freely moving from one series to the next. This attitude hasn’t really changed in the 20 years since – if anything, it’s become more extreme, with characters like Wolverine being gleefully dropped into every X-title on the shelves. (Much to the consternation of fans such as those who run the Marvel Chronology Project.)
The 1990 mutant crossover, titled “X-Tinction Agenda” comprises nine chapters published over three months, appearing in three issues each of Uncanny X-Men, New Mutants and X-Factor (the latter two series still being penned by Louise Simonson at this point). As the Uncanny author, Claremont writes chapters 1, 4 and 7 – the beginning of each month’s triad. With the “Days of Future Present” crossover in the summer X-annuals, Claremont was able to write the final chapter, expertly cleaning up the mess left by the earlier parts. Here, the inverse occurs: Claremont provides a slick, exciting beginning in collaboration with new regular art-team Jim Lee and Scott Williams, only for things to go haywire as the narrative ball is passed to Louise Simonson and a collection of less effective artists.
In 1988’s “Inferno” crossover, Claremont gave his chapters a faux-literary gloss by naming them “Part the First,” “Part the Second,” etc., alluding to Dante’s Inferno. He uses a similar trick in “X-Tinction Agenda,” with the opening page presenting the “Dramatis Personae” a la Shakespeare. Claremont even does his best to mimic Shakespeare’s style of listing his characters in order of social rank – note that the X-Men are placed at the top of the page, and the New Mutants along the bottom. (See also: X-Men Annual 9.) (“Dramatis personae” literally means “masks of the drama,” making it a particularly canny choice for a comic about superheroes – granting that very few of the X-Men and New Mutants actually wore masks at this point.)
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Lost Season 6, Episode 17 and 18: The End
[Spoilers. I wrote this RIGHT AFTER the show ended. I wrote it during Jimmy Kimmel. I sent it to Smartpop at like 2am but now the day is over and they did not post it, and I have not heard from them. There is a book expo in New York the Smartpop folks are at so maybe that accounts for it. Anyway, here it is. Look for Jason Powell's X-Men post Wednesday.]
Wow what a deeply WEIRD show.
I was going to start off here with a gag about that Chekov line where if you have a loaded gun in the first act you have to have it go off in the third, and I was going to say something about how Lost has a small arsenal of unused weapons. I was also going to talk about how much I love Kill Bill (the two volumes as one movie), and how I wanted one ending (BIG FIGHT SCENE), and got something totally different (The Bride and Bill did not even get out of their chairs) -- and was totally satisfied. I want to see plots reach their natural conclusion, but I can also be convinced to care about something else. I feel like Walt, and Aaron, and Dharma, and time travel, should mean something -- I don't want to feel like Jin time travelled and Sun did not for no reason other than the writers thought it would be more dramatic to keep them apart. (Don't tell me Jacob did not time travel her because she is a mother: so was Kate and he offered her the job.)
I have no idea what I think about the end of Lost. It is going to take me a while to think it through. I at least three quarters liked the episode. The whole series is going to take me longer to figure out. But I gotta write so here I go.
The summary. Jack and Locke get Desmond and send him down into the light, where they bet on what the result will be. They end up being both right: Jack is right that when he guesses disturbing the source it will allow him to kill the Man in Black, but the Man in Black is right that it will destroy the island -- except it turns out it can be reversed. Jack and the Man in Black fight and both mortally wound each other. Hurley becomes the man in charge of the island with Ben as his second in command -- and their first order of business is to get Desmond back. Kate and Sawyer make it to the plane in time to join Richard, Miles, and Lapidus as they leave. In the alt universe everyone remembers and in the big twist of the night the alt U turns out to be a kind of pre-heaven. In the end they are all ready to let go and move onto whatever the afterlife has to offer.
Obviously we are not supposed to care about a lot of the mysteries. I can live with it a bit. That we are not supposed to care what happens to Jin and Sun's kid is more troubling. That feels like it is going to continue to bug me for a long time to come. My friend Brady points out that the baby is not a character and thus I should be fine with not returning to her, but I am not convinced. Nothing to do with mystery being better as mystery: you can't introduce a abandoned baby three episodes from the end and just leave it there. Or maybe you can. I don't know.
Wow what a deeply WEIRD show.
I was going to start off here with a gag about that Chekov line where if you have a loaded gun in the first act you have to have it go off in the third, and I was going to say something about how Lost has a small arsenal of unused weapons. I was also going to talk about how much I love Kill Bill (the two volumes as one movie), and how I wanted one ending (BIG FIGHT SCENE), and got something totally different (The Bride and Bill did not even get out of their chairs) -- and was totally satisfied. I want to see plots reach their natural conclusion, but I can also be convinced to care about something else. I feel like Walt, and Aaron, and Dharma, and time travel, should mean something -- I don't want to feel like Jin time travelled and Sun did not for no reason other than the writers thought it would be more dramatic to keep them apart. (Don't tell me Jacob did not time travel her because she is a mother: so was Kate and he offered her the job.)
I have no idea what I think about the end of Lost. It is going to take me a while to think it through. I at least three quarters liked the episode. The whole series is going to take me longer to figure out. But I gotta write so here I go.
The summary. Jack and Locke get Desmond and send him down into the light, where they bet on what the result will be. They end up being both right: Jack is right that when he guesses disturbing the source it will allow him to kill the Man in Black, but the Man in Black is right that it will destroy the island -- except it turns out it can be reversed. Jack and the Man in Black fight and both mortally wound each other. Hurley becomes the man in charge of the island with Ben as his second in command -- and their first order of business is to get Desmond back. Kate and Sawyer make it to the plane in time to join Richard, Miles, and Lapidus as they leave. In the alt universe everyone remembers and in the big twist of the night the alt U turns out to be a kind of pre-heaven. In the end they are all ready to let go and move onto whatever the afterlife has to offer.
Obviously we are not supposed to care about a lot of the mysteries. I can live with it a bit. That we are not supposed to care what happens to Jin and Sun's kid is more troubling. That feels like it is going to continue to bug me for a long time to come. My friend Brady points out that the baby is not a character and thus I should be fine with not returning to her, but I am not convinced. Nothing to do with mystery being better as mystery: you can't introduce a abandoned baby three episodes from the end and just leave it there. Or maybe you can. I don't know.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Free Form Comments
Say whatever you want to in the comments to this post -- random, off topic thoughts, ideas, suggestions, questions, recommendations, criticisms (which can be anonymous), surveys, introductions if you have never commented before, personal news, self-promotion, requests to be added to the blog roll and so on. If I forget, remind me. Remember these comments can be directed at all the readers, not just me.
ALSO. You can use this space to re-ask me questions you asked me before that I failed to answer because I was too busy.
AND you can use this space to comment on posts that are old enough that no one is reading the comments threads anymore.
You do not have to have a blogger account or gmail account to post a comment -- you can write a comment, write your name at the bottom of your comment like an e mail, and then post using the "anonymous" option.
WRITING FOR THIS BLOG. If I see a big free form comment that deserves more attention, I will pull it and make it its own post, with a label on the post and on the sidebar that will always link to all the posts you write for this blog. I am always looking for reviews of games, tv, movies, music, books and iPhone apps.
ALSO. You can use this space to re-ask me questions you asked me before that I failed to answer because I was too busy.
AND you can use this space to comment on posts that are old enough that no one is reading the comments threads anymore.
You do not have to have a blogger account or gmail account to post a comment -- you can write a comment, write your name at the bottom of your comment like an e mail, and then post using the "anonymous" option.
WRITING FOR THIS BLOG. If I see a big free form comment that deserves more attention, I will pull it and make it its own post, with a label on the post and on the sidebar that will always link to all the posts you write for this blog. I am always looking for reviews of games, tv, movies, music, books and iPhone apps.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Lost, Season 6, Episode 16: What They Died For
My Smartpop review of Lost is up. Here is a sample. Click for more.
One thing the second to last episode of a season of Lost does well is ANNOUNCE stuff. They say they are going to do stuff, and then they DO it in the last episode of the season. “We have to move the island.” “Let’s set off a nuke.” “I am going to kill Jacob” and now “I am going to destroy the island.” (I am probably forgetting similar pronouncements from the end of seasons 1, 2, and 3: “I am not going to push the button” maybe?). The moment was a little undercut tonight, the only flaw in tonight’s fantastic episode — as a friend pointed out, earlier in the episode The Man in Black told Ben he could have the island if Ben would help him, presumably help him kill Jack (and maybe the others if, now that Jack has become the new Jacob, they still even matter). He tells him in the end he is going to destroy it — so what exactly is Ben’s motivation again? I got a little lost there.
I noticed a lot of people bothered by the campfire scene, where Jacob tells the four of them any of them can have the job if they want it. I was fine with it. I think the problem the writers ran into here was it was pretty clear how the candidate was being chosen -- everyone else was dead. They needed to do this now and in this way because they don't want Kate, Sawyer and Hurley dead just to make Jack the protector of the island.
Jacob here joins a long list of fictional characters who take FOREVER to actually die after they are said to be dead.
One thing I would like cleared up that I feel is not going to get cleared up is how "the rules" work. "Rule" is a word like "law" -- there is ambiguity if it is what you should do (like civil law) or what you must do (like the law that nothing can go faster than the speed of light). In one of the best episodes of season 4 we were told Widmore "broke the rules" when he had Alex killed, and another rule kept Ben from killing Widmore in that episode -- but not from trying to kill his daughter. I guess these rules went out the window when Jacob died, but it seems weird and I feel like it might mean nothing.
One more thing I want to know is about the babies dying. We still don't know what caused that and with the birth of Ethan Rom in the 70s it is clear something happened after that to cause it. I hope this one gets answered. I can live without the other half of the outrigger shootout -- which was clearly supposed to take place in What They Died For. But there are some things Lost needs to land. What do they need to land for you.
One thing the second to last episode of a season of Lost does well is ANNOUNCE stuff. They say they are going to do stuff, and then they DO it in the last episode of the season. “We have to move the island.” “Let’s set off a nuke.” “I am going to kill Jacob” and now “I am going to destroy the island.” (I am probably forgetting similar pronouncements from the end of seasons 1, 2, and 3: “I am not going to push the button” maybe?). The moment was a little undercut tonight, the only flaw in tonight’s fantastic episode — as a friend pointed out, earlier in the episode The Man in Black told Ben he could have the island if Ben would help him, presumably help him kill Jack (and maybe the others if, now that Jack has become the new Jacob, they still even matter). He tells him in the end he is going to destroy it — so what exactly is Ben’s motivation again? I got a little lost there.
I noticed a lot of people bothered by the campfire scene, where Jacob tells the four of them any of them can have the job if they want it. I was fine with it. I think the problem the writers ran into here was it was pretty clear how the candidate was being chosen -- everyone else was dead. They needed to do this now and in this way because they don't want Kate, Sawyer and Hurley dead just to make Jack the protector of the island.
Jacob here joins a long list of fictional characters who take FOREVER to actually die after they are said to be dead.
One thing I would like cleared up that I feel is not going to get cleared up is how "the rules" work. "Rule" is a word like "law" -- there is ambiguity if it is what you should do (like civil law) or what you must do (like the law that nothing can go faster than the speed of light). In one of the best episodes of season 4 we were told Widmore "broke the rules" when he had Alex killed, and another rule kept Ben from killing Widmore in that episode -- but not from trying to kill his daughter. I guess these rules went out the window when Jacob died, but it seems weird and I feel like it might mean nothing.
One more thing I want to know is about the babies dying. We still don't know what caused that and with the birth of Ethan Rom in the 70s it is clear something happened after that to cause it. I hope this one gets answered. I can live without the other half of the outrigger shootout -- which was clearly supposed to take place in What They Died For. But there are some things Lost needs to land. What do they need to land for you.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Uncanny X-Men #269
[Scott wanted to do the intro for this one. Here is what he said:
There are only a handful of men in this world that I truly admire: Bono, Phil Collins, Clarence Clemons... and, of course, Jason Powell. I have a dream that, one day, these men will perform a supergroup. I imagine that Jason would play bass and each note he played would be as deep and resonant as his analysis of EACH AND EVERY ISSUE of Claremont's Original X-men run. That's a lot of bass notes... Yes, Jason Powell is a great man... but he also likes Thundercats, because all heroes must have a flaw. On a personal note, I asked to do the intro to this week's post as this was my first issue of the X-men as a regular reader; a pretty odd issue to enter the series when it comes down to it- I had no idea who Rogue was as a character or any of the Carol Danvers backstory, there's no Wolverine here-or any character that I had previously associated with the X-men for that matter, in fact, I'm pretty sure that the main reason I bought this issue was the naked Rogue at the top of the issue (and, if I remember correctly, she didn't exactly put on much after that- cute little T-shirt with an 'X' logo on it, right?). So, I didn't buy this issue so much as my 13-year-old hormones did but, that's the power of Claremont, he had me hooked within a couple of issues.]
“Rogue Redux“
Carol Danvers, the original “Ms. Marvel,” was the quintessential Claremont Female – starting life as a second-stringer, she became a kind of beacon of feminist achievement when Claremont wrote her in the 70s: a solider, secret agent, astronaut, magazine editor and superhero, all while still in her mid-twenties.
Back in 1982, when Claremont was struggling to find his own voice in the wake of losing John Byrne (the Lennon to his McCartney), Carol became his icon in issue 158, wherein the character decides that her past is prologue and that the future belongs entirely to her. As I wrote in the blog for that issue, Carol was a stand-in for Claremont in that moment, declaring independence and fearlessly looking towards the future. As such, Uncanny 158 was the first issue of the series to belong entirely to Claremont himself, distinct from “Claremont AND Cockrum” or “Claremont AND Byrne.”
So, it is not insignificant that in Uncanny 269, Claremont’s last issue of Uncanny before the fall crossover (followed by an arc explicitly co-plotted by artist Jim Lee, and thereupon by Claremont quitting) … Carol Danvers dies. If there is any single comic in the latter day X-Men run that specifically points to a future in which the author leaves the franchise he poured his heart into (a franchise which would, in turn, barely miss him after he was gone), then this is it.
There are only a handful of men in this world that I truly admire: Bono, Phil Collins, Clarence Clemons... and, of course, Jason Powell. I have a dream that, one day, these men will perform a supergroup. I imagine that Jason would play bass and each note he played would be as deep and resonant as his analysis of EACH AND EVERY ISSUE of Claremont's Original X-men run. That's a lot of bass notes... Yes, Jason Powell is a great man... but he also likes Thundercats, because all heroes must have a flaw. On a personal note, I asked to do the intro to this week's post as this was my first issue of the X-men as a regular reader; a pretty odd issue to enter the series when it comes down to it- I had no idea who Rogue was as a character or any of the Carol Danvers backstory, there's no Wolverine here-or any character that I had previously associated with the X-men for that matter, in fact, I'm pretty sure that the main reason I bought this issue was the naked Rogue at the top of the issue (and, if I remember correctly, she didn't exactly put on much after that- cute little T-shirt with an 'X' logo on it, right?). So, I didn't buy this issue so much as my 13-year-old hormones did but, that's the power of Claremont, he had me hooked within a couple of issues.]
“Rogue Redux“
Carol Danvers, the original “Ms. Marvel,” was the quintessential Claremont Female – starting life as a second-stringer, she became a kind of beacon of feminist achievement when Claremont wrote her in the 70s: a solider, secret agent, astronaut, magazine editor and superhero, all while still in her mid-twenties.
Back in 1982, when Claremont was struggling to find his own voice in the wake of losing John Byrne (the Lennon to his McCartney), Carol became his icon in issue 158, wherein the character decides that her past is prologue and that the future belongs entirely to her. As I wrote in the blog for that issue, Carol was a stand-in for Claremont in that moment, declaring independence and fearlessly looking towards the future. As such, Uncanny 158 was the first issue of the series to belong entirely to Claremont himself, distinct from “Claremont AND Cockrum” or “Claremont AND Byrne.”
So, it is not insignificant that in Uncanny 269, Claremont’s last issue of Uncanny before the fall crossover (followed by an arc explicitly co-plotted by artist Jim Lee, and thereupon by Claremont quitting) … Carol Danvers dies. If there is any single comic in the latter day X-Men run that specifically points to a future in which the author leaves the franchise he poured his heart into (a franchise which would, in turn, barely miss him after he was gone), then this is it.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Lost Season 6, Episode 15: Across the Sea: One more thing
Spoilers Alert. Also undercooked random thought alerts, though you don't normally announce that.
One aspect of Across the Sea I did not see discussed (though I did not look that hard: mostly AV Club and Slate) -- One aspect of Across the Sea kind of dawned on me in the last few days. Back when the Richard episode aired people said "Lost always does this. You always think 'the Desmond episode' or 'the Ben episode' or 'the Richard episode' or even 'the Dharma time travel years' will finally give us the answer, and each time the answer is the same -- the guy you thought had all the answers is as caught in this mystery as anyone else. Desmond does not know what is up with the hatch, Ben lied about being born on the island, Richard is just another castaway who happens to be immortal, the Dharma guys know nothing. The Jacob and Man in Black story was no different. You thought these were going to be like the "original guys" but they were just castaways, like Jack and Locke. Like the idea from early this season that the whole show is about finding a candidate to replace Jacob, people died on the way to Jacob being the candidate. Across the Sea really is just LOST in miniature. Even Alison Janney said (though she does tell lies) that she was got here like everyone else, by accident. Everyone is a castaway. There are no natives. Across the Sea just told the story of the most recent time in history a new candidate came forward to protect the island -- it just felt like more because it has not happened in a long time. Though I am a bit aggravated with some things, I really do like that Jacob and the Man in Black are castaways like everyone else, flawed people with dark pasts. It makes it easier to sympathize with them than if they were merely supernatural forces with all the answers. And maybe it muddies the waters of the finale to make the Man in Black so sympathetic, but it is also ALWAYS better to be able to sympathize with a character than not, always better to be able to say "you know, if I were that guy in that situation, I might have done the same thing." Satan in Paradise Lost being a great example. And it is perfectly Ok for Jacob to not be very sympathetic: he was punished by being killed at the end of season 5, and the whole thing is about replacing him anyway. His suckiness sets up part of the need for the new guy.
One aspect of Across the Sea I did not see discussed (though I did not look that hard: mostly AV Club and Slate) -- One aspect of Across the Sea kind of dawned on me in the last few days. Back when the Richard episode aired people said "Lost always does this. You always think 'the Desmond episode' or 'the Ben episode' or 'the Richard episode' or even 'the Dharma time travel years' will finally give us the answer, and each time the answer is the same -- the guy you thought had all the answers is as caught in this mystery as anyone else. Desmond does not know what is up with the hatch, Ben lied about being born on the island, Richard is just another castaway who happens to be immortal, the Dharma guys know nothing. The Jacob and Man in Black story was no different. You thought these were going to be like the "original guys" but they were just castaways, like Jack and Locke. Like the idea from early this season that the whole show is about finding a candidate to replace Jacob, people died on the way to Jacob being the candidate. Across the Sea really is just LOST in miniature. Even Alison Janney said (though she does tell lies) that she was got here like everyone else, by accident. Everyone is a castaway. There are no natives. Across the Sea just told the story of the most recent time in history a new candidate came forward to protect the island -- it just felt like more because it has not happened in a long time. Though I am a bit aggravated with some things, I really do like that Jacob and the Man in Black are castaways like everyone else, flawed people with dark pasts. It makes it easier to sympathize with them than if they were merely supernatural forces with all the answers. And maybe it muddies the waters of the finale to make the Man in Black so sympathetic, but it is also ALWAYS better to be able to sympathize with a character than not, always better to be able to say "you know, if I were that guy in that situation, I might have done the same thing." Satan in Paradise Lost being a great example. And it is perfectly Ok for Jacob to not be very sympathetic: he was punished by being killed at the end of season 5, and the whole thing is about replacing him anyway. His suckiness sets up part of the need for the new guy.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Free Form Comments
Say whatever you want to in the comments to this post -- random, off topic thoughts, ideas, suggestions, questions, recommendations, criticisms (which can be anonymous), surveys, introductions if you have never commented before, personal news, self-promotion, requests to be added to the blog roll and so on. If I forget, remind me. Remember these comments can be directed at all the readers, not just me.
ALSO. You can use this space to re-ask me questions you asked me before that I failed to answer because I was too busy.
AND you can use this space to comment on posts that are old enough that no one is reading the comments threads anymore.
You do not have to have a blogger account or gmail account to post a comment -- you can write a comment, write your name at the bottom of your comment like an e mail, and then post using the "anonymous" option.
WRITING FOR THIS BLOG. If I see a big free form comment that deserves more attention, I will pull it and make it its own post, with a label on the post and on the sidebar that will always link to all the posts you write for this blog. I am always looking for reviews of games, tv, movies, music, books and iPhone apps.
ALSO. You can use this space to re-ask me questions you asked me before that I failed to answer because I was too busy.
AND you can use this space to comment on posts that are old enough that no one is reading the comments threads anymore.
You do not have to have a blogger account or gmail account to post a comment -- you can write a comment, write your name at the bottom of your comment like an e mail, and then post using the "anonymous" option.
WRITING FOR THIS BLOG. If I see a big free form comment that deserves more attention, I will pull it and make it its own post, with a label on the post and on the sidebar that will always link to all the posts you write for this blog. I am always looking for reviews of games, tv, movies, music, books and iPhone apps.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Iron Man 2
Spoilers. People have been asking for an Iron Man 2 review. I totally liked it, but also find myself without that much to really say. The same people who asked me to review it also provided some thoughts of their own. So I thought I would chuck a bunch of stuff in this post written by different people and see what happens.
The main thing I had to say about it was that it felt to me like a new kind of blockbuster. The Dark Knight did too to a certain extent -- but the Dark Knight was a BAD new kind of blockbuster, one that tried to make SERIOUS, DOWNER points, one that lectured the audience (It was not the first, but it was big about it). That is not good summer blockbuster material.
Iron Man 2 was new in a good way. The scene in the diner with Samuel L Jackson was what made it clear to me. The logo of the diner is in the window and it is all yellow and orange. Like something from the 70s, but not exactly the 70s. And I realized two things. 1. The nebulous time superhero comics are set in is very like the nebulous time Tarantino movies are set in (People are texting in Death Proof but everything else about the setting seems 70s; in the comics in what war does Iron Man's origin take place?).
2. Iron Man 2 is good for the same reason Pulp Fiction is good -- and watching Samuel L Jackson in the diner is the overlap, the scene in both movies. Pulp Fiction is an irreverent, randomly and gratuitously violent film, but even though those were all things the audience, including my high-school-self, valued, this was not why we watched the movie. We watched for the dialogue, for the conversations. The revolution of having such a successful cool picture, a movie (along with Reservoir Dogs) it felt like my whole high school was obsessed with be about PEOPLE TALKING is kind of amazing, especially when people think high school kids are just idiots who want to see violence (and we were, and we did, but the talking trumped all).
The main thing I had to say about it was that it felt to me like a new kind of blockbuster. The Dark Knight did too to a certain extent -- but the Dark Knight was a BAD new kind of blockbuster, one that tried to make SERIOUS, DOWNER points, one that lectured the audience (It was not the first, but it was big about it). That is not good summer blockbuster material.
Iron Man 2 was new in a good way. The scene in the diner with Samuel L Jackson was what made it clear to me. The logo of the diner is in the window and it is all yellow and orange. Like something from the 70s, but not exactly the 70s. And I realized two things. 1. The nebulous time superhero comics are set in is very like the nebulous time Tarantino movies are set in (People are texting in Death Proof but everything else about the setting seems 70s; in the comics in what war does Iron Man's origin take place?).
2. Iron Man 2 is good for the same reason Pulp Fiction is good -- and watching Samuel L Jackson in the diner is the overlap, the scene in both movies. Pulp Fiction is an irreverent, randomly and gratuitously violent film, but even though those were all things the audience, including my high-school-self, valued, this was not why we watched the movie. We watched for the dialogue, for the conversations. The revolution of having such a successful cool picture, a movie (along with Reservoir Dogs) it felt like my whole high school was obsessed with be about PEOPLE TALKING is kind of amazing, especially when people think high school kids are just idiots who want to see violence (and we were, and we did, but the talking trumped all).
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Lost Season 6, Episode 15: Across the Sea
Spoilers. My blog about the most recent episode is up at Smartpop. Here is a sample you can click to read the whole thing:
The episode works by taking the elements of Lost and transporting them back to a smaller story with fewer characters in the distant past, suggesting they all radiate out from that source. The rivals, bad parents, stolen kids raised by someone not their parents, being special, not being special, outsiders landing on the island by accident, ghosts, magic power sources underground, guarding the island, wanting to leave the island, wanting not to leave the island, mysterious “Others,” people “researching” the island’s mysteries by digging into it, passing the torch to a new guardian of the island. Like Battlestar Galactica the idea is that all this has happened before and will happen again. There is a gag at the beginning where Janey tells Claudia, the mother of the boys, that each question leads to more questions and to just stop. So we are not to wonder how Janey got the job of guarding the island. We just go back this one (pretty big but still) step. Battlestar Galactica wanted to say stuff literally happens over and over. This is just a suggestion here, a kind of non answer. It sort of unifies a lot of the stuff — it all happened to a handful of people a long time ago. But it does not explain why it happens again.
Today, I am less sure how I feel. Basically I liked it but did not love it. I know at one point I wanted the island to balance the spiritual and scientific since keeping both elements has been a big part of the show's success. But like Battlestar Galactica it ends up being all spiritual.
More things in the category of "This has happened before and will happen again": the slaughter of the people digging in the ground looking for answers, waiting for a replacement, choosing the wrong destiny (both Locke and The Man in Black were supposed to be something else), the single mother crazy in the wilderness.
Brad was talking to me about how as the show winds down it motifs come back more and more quickly, and this seems to be where it was headed. If Claire is the new Rousseau, than Rousseau was the new Allison Janney.
It all points back to Aaron again, because he was the kid that like Jacob and the Man in Black was born on the island (though like them he was conceived elsewhere). Is he the chance to unify the power split in Jacob and the Man in Black?
At first I thought that messing with the Light explained not only why the dead could come back but why babies can't be born on the island - -but Ethan Rom was born there in the 70s. He is not a magic baby. So I have no idea what could have caused the baby problem after the 70s.
It is also interesting to realize that the two men we saw playing a board game in this episode are both dead -- and that The Man in Black was killed by Jacob before The Smoke Monster, assuming the form of Titus Welliver and then John Locke got Ben Linus to kill him. The Smoke Monster is as much Titus Welliver as he is John Locke, which is weird to realize because you think of him as being really Titus Welliver in the form of John Locke (not giving a name for the Man in Black makes this very hard to discuss because both before and after he gets tossed into the Light he has no name -- so there is no good way to make clear the change from the first incarnation to the second).
And a good point by Gawker of all places:
To me the most interesting aspect of the episode was that everyone pretty much sided with Esau, right? I mean, other than killing C.J., what he was doing sort of made sense. He was working with other people, trying to explore the outside world, not taking on blind faith what one lady (one lady who killed his mom, btw) told him. Jacob was the wimpy little mama's boy, he's the one who seemed to follow things on blind faith. In the show's long-running Faith v. Science theme, Science typically tends to be favored, and last night was no exception. But isn't it kind of a cop-out to kill ancient Science and switch him out with evil Smoke Devil so we sort of have to, by default, side with Faith? Obviously it's the show's prerogative to force our attention, our loyalties, to one side or the other, but the debate seemed to go pretty one-sided last night.
A twist should be surprising yet inevitable. I think the reason I am so-so on this episode was that the twist was certainly not inevitable -- and it probably could not have been given that they thought of this much later than season 1. But taking that into consideration, that was pretty good.
The episode works by taking the elements of Lost and transporting them back to a smaller story with fewer characters in the distant past, suggesting they all radiate out from that source. The rivals, bad parents, stolen kids raised by someone not their parents, being special, not being special, outsiders landing on the island by accident, ghosts, magic power sources underground, guarding the island, wanting to leave the island, wanting not to leave the island, mysterious “Others,” people “researching” the island’s mysteries by digging into it, passing the torch to a new guardian of the island. Like Battlestar Galactica the idea is that all this has happened before and will happen again. There is a gag at the beginning where Janey tells Claudia, the mother of the boys, that each question leads to more questions and to just stop. So we are not to wonder how Janey got the job of guarding the island. We just go back this one (pretty big but still) step. Battlestar Galactica wanted to say stuff literally happens over and over. This is just a suggestion here, a kind of non answer. It sort of unifies a lot of the stuff — it all happened to a handful of people a long time ago. But it does not explain why it happens again.
Today, I am less sure how I feel. Basically I liked it but did not love it. I know at one point I wanted the island to balance the spiritual and scientific since keeping both elements has been a big part of the show's success. But like Battlestar Galactica it ends up being all spiritual.
More things in the category of "This has happened before and will happen again": the slaughter of the people digging in the ground looking for answers, waiting for a replacement, choosing the wrong destiny (both Locke and The Man in Black were supposed to be something else), the single mother crazy in the wilderness.
Brad was talking to me about how as the show winds down it motifs come back more and more quickly, and this seems to be where it was headed. If Claire is the new Rousseau, than Rousseau was the new Allison Janney.
It all points back to Aaron again, because he was the kid that like Jacob and the Man in Black was born on the island (though like them he was conceived elsewhere). Is he the chance to unify the power split in Jacob and the Man in Black?
At first I thought that messing with the Light explained not only why the dead could come back but why babies can't be born on the island - -but Ethan Rom was born there in the 70s. He is not a magic baby. So I have no idea what could have caused the baby problem after the 70s.
It is also interesting to realize that the two men we saw playing a board game in this episode are both dead -- and that The Man in Black was killed by Jacob before The Smoke Monster, assuming the form of Titus Welliver and then John Locke got Ben Linus to kill him. The Smoke Monster is as much Titus Welliver as he is John Locke, which is weird to realize because you think of him as being really Titus Welliver in the form of John Locke (not giving a name for the Man in Black makes this very hard to discuss because both before and after he gets tossed into the Light he has no name -- so there is no good way to make clear the change from the first incarnation to the second).
And a good point by Gawker of all places:
To me the most interesting aspect of the episode was that everyone pretty much sided with Esau, right? I mean, other than killing C.J., what he was doing sort of made sense. He was working with other people, trying to explore the outside world, not taking on blind faith what one lady (one lady who killed his mom, btw) told him. Jacob was the wimpy little mama's boy, he's the one who seemed to follow things on blind faith. In the show's long-running Faith v. Science theme, Science typically tends to be favored, and last night was no exception. But isn't it kind of a cop-out to kill ancient Science and switch him out with evil Smoke Devil so we sort of have to, by default, side with Faith? Obviously it's the show's prerogative to force our attention, our loyalties, to one side or the other, but the debate seemed to go pretty one-sided last night.
A twist should be surprising yet inevitable. I think the reason I am so-so on this episode was that the twist was certainly not inevitable -- and it probably could not have been given that they thought of this much later than season 1. But taking that into consideration, that was pretty good.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Uncanny X-Men #268
[Jason Powell continues his issue by issue look at Claremont's X-Men run. Jason Powell will soon be visiting New York City -- not for anything X-Men related, but because his musical as been accepted to the Fringe Festival here, the same Fringe festival that featured our own Mitch Montgomery's Triumph of the Underdog. So the moral of the story is if you want to put on a piece of critically acclaimed New York Theatre, writing blogs for me is the first step.]
“Madripoor Knights“
And we cut back to the Wolverine/Psylocke/Jubilee faction, seven issues after their previous appearance in the series. (This was, again, presumably to hollow out a chronological gap into which the latest batch of Madripoor-based Wolverine solo adventures could be dropped.) At a surprisingly late stage in the game, Claremont suddenly shows us, via flashback, a large and heretofore unknown section of Logan’s storied past. In what amounts to a massive ret-con, we learn that not only has Wolverine been an adversary of the Hand for 50 years (even though he didn’t know who they were when he met them in the 1982 “Wolverine” miniseries), but also – during one eventful adventure in 1941 – he met Captain America, the Black Widow and Baron Wolfgang Von Strucker.
Baron Strucker had already been linked to the X-Men in the brilliant Uncanny X-Men 161, which revealed that Xavier and Magneto once teamed up against him. Three years later, Claremont created Fenris, a pair of blonde, beautiful mutant twins descended from the Baron. The World War II flashback in Uncanny 268 doesn’t have any connection with the previously established Magneto/Xavier history, though it does allow Claremont to re-establish Andrea and Andreas Strucker as major X-villains in the present day. (Claremont will quit before doing anything significant with them.)
As part of Claremont’s ongoing Frank Miller riff, he has already created a Carrie Kelly stand-in and an Elektra stand-in. Avoiding foolish consistency, Claremont doesn’t bother with an avatar for Miller’s version of the Black Widow – he just brings in the real one, establishing her as yet another in Logan’s apparently long line of young female protégés. (Again, he uses Jubilee to voice likely reader reaction before we can do so ourselves -- thus her rhetorical question, “Is it like my imagination … or is every old buddy Wolvie’s got in the whole world … some incredibly fabulously gorgeous BABE?!!”) Claremont may also have been influenced by a recent issue of “What If” by future Image founders Jim Valentino and Rob Liefeld, depicting Wolverine and Black Widow working together as SHIELD agents.
“Madripoor Knights“
And we cut back to the Wolverine/Psylocke/Jubilee faction, seven issues after their previous appearance in the series. (This was, again, presumably to hollow out a chronological gap into which the latest batch of Madripoor-based Wolverine solo adventures could be dropped.) At a surprisingly late stage in the game, Claremont suddenly shows us, via flashback, a large and heretofore unknown section of Logan’s storied past. In what amounts to a massive ret-con, we learn that not only has Wolverine been an adversary of the Hand for 50 years (even though he didn’t know who they were when he met them in the 1982 “Wolverine” miniseries), but also – during one eventful adventure in 1941 – he met Captain America, the Black Widow and Baron Wolfgang Von Strucker.
Baron Strucker had already been linked to the X-Men in the brilliant Uncanny X-Men 161, which revealed that Xavier and Magneto once teamed up against him. Three years later, Claremont created Fenris, a pair of blonde, beautiful mutant twins descended from the Baron. The World War II flashback in Uncanny 268 doesn’t have any connection with the previously established Magneto/Xavier history, though it does allow Claremont to re-establish Andrea and Andreas Strucker as major X-villains in the present day. (Claremont will quit before doing anything significant with them.)
As part of Claremont’s ongoing Frank Miller riff, he has already created a Carrie Kelly stand-in and an Elektra stand-in. Avoiding foolish consistency, Claremont doesn’t bother with an avatar for Miller’s version of the Black Widow – he just brings in the real one, establishing her as yet another in Logan’s apparently long line of young female protégés. (Again, he uses Jubilee to voice likely reader reaction before we can do so ourselves -- thus her rhetorical question, “Is it like my imagination … or is every old buddy Wolvie’s got in the whole world … some incredibly fabulously gorgeous BABE?!!”) Claremont may also have been influenced by a recent issue of “What If” by future Image founders Jim Valentino and Rob Liefeld, depicting Wolverine and Black Widow working together as SHIELD agents.
Saturday, May 08, 2010
One More thing about Lost Season 6, Episode 14: The Candidate
Spoilers. Some people have been complaining about a major scene in the most recent LOST episode, and I wanted to give a brief reply. This is a typical mode -- trying to argue that the element people hated was actually a strength. Every time I do that, I feel like I loose "points" with folks for trying to justify something they see as just bad. Over-reading never makes anyone happy. But I feel compelled to give it a go anyway.
Here is the scene on Hulu, if you are in the US.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/146619/lost-the-candidate?c=2113:2234
Here is what I said about it on Smartpop
It was a really beautiful scene, in spite of the fact that it was a little silly that Sun got trapped like that (watching it with friends someone asked “what is she trapped by” and the answer was “a device … a plot device”). My first reaction was that there was something really off about watching two parents die together when one could have been saved — should’t there be some kind of “our child’s future is more important than your not leaving me”? But upon consideration I think it adds to the moment. It becomes really hard-core. He promised they would never be apart again. And so they won’t. I found that really powerful BECAUSE he knew what he was leaving behind. One of the most emotional scenes in Lost I feel like. Except for that plot device pinning Sun.
(I will also add that of COURSE they should be talking in English. Not only because Jin has not spoken Korean in 3 years, but for the more important reason that this is a big emotional scene. If the audience has to read they are looking away from the faces. Speaking Korean makes a kind of logical sense but that does not make it the right choice for this scene. Also, I don't know how familiar the actors are with Koran but they might do such a powerful scene better in English.)
Here is what Seth Stevenson said about it on Slate
After following the ins and outs of Sun and Jin's relationship for six seasons, I should have been riveted by their last goodbyes. Instead I was bored. Here's my faithful transcription of their tragic parting:
Sun: "Save yourself."
Jin: "No, I'm going to get you out of here."
Sun: "Please go."
Jin: "I'm going to get you out of here."
Sun: "Please go."
Jin [in subtitled Korean]: "I won't leave you. I will never leave you again."
Jin [switching back to English]: "I love you, Sun."
Sun: "I love you."
I want to care. I want to be wracked with sadness and moved to streaming tears, as Hurley and Jack were. But how can I surrender myself to emotion when the script is so jarringly flat? I'm sure the writers are trying hard, but this scene reads like zero effort was put into crafting specific, memorable dialogue.
Here is what my friend Katie said about it in the comments
I am not at all convinced there is a mother in the world who, when faced with the choice of dying alone or orphaning her child, would choose orphaning her child. But even if there were, that mother would at least, like, MENTION it in the "should you die with me or not" discussion. That it doesn't even come up is the writers willfully ignoring the issue because it would ruin their sad little scene.
Stevenson is right that the dialogue is jarringly flat and Katie is right that someone should MENTION orphaning the kid. But that explains the scene right there. They love each other so much, and don't want to leave each other alone again (she does not want to die alone; he does not want to leave her to die alone) that their dialogue is flat BECAUSE neither wants to mention that kid, the thing that should so obviously make them split up at this moment. Each waits for the other to do it, until it is clear they have a kind of silent understanding not to mention it. It happens on her part when he goes down to try to free her one last time -- you can see the look on her face as she struggles not with the realization that she is probably going to die, but with the realization, kind of horrible as Katie will agree, that she is not going to mention their daughter because she is scared, and really does not want to die alone. He makes the decision not to mention the kid when he speaks in Korean -- speaks to her as he did before the kid was born. The final "I love you"s are not examples of flat dialogue -- because each one carries the force of "thank you for not bringing up the obvious reason I/you really SHOULD die alone underwater."
Here is the scene on Hulu, if you are in the US.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/146619/lost-the-candidate?c=2113:2234
Here is what I said about it on Smartpop
It was a really beautiful scene, in spite of the fact that it was a little silly that Sun got trapped like that (watching it with friends someone asked “what is she trapped by” and the answer was “a device … a plot device”). My first reaction was that there was something really off about watching two parents die together when one could have been saved — should’t there be some kind of “our child’s future is more important than your not leaving me”? But upon consideration I think it adds to the moment. It becomes really hard-core. He promised they would never be apart again. And so they won’t. I found that really powerful BECAUSE he knew what he was leaving behind. One of the most emotional scenes in Lost I feel like. Except for that plot device pinning Sun.
(I will also add that of COURSE they should be talking in English. Not only because Jin has not spoken Korean in 3 years, but for the more important reason that this is a big emotional scene. If the audience has to read they are looking away from the faces. Speaking Korean makes a kind of logical sense but that does not make it the right choice for this scene. Also, I don't know how familiar the actors are with Koran but they might do such a powerful scene better in English.)
Here is what Seth Stevenson said about it on Slate
After following the ins and outs of Sun and Jin's relationship for six seasons, I should have been riveted by their last goodbyes. Instead I was bored. Here's my faithful transcription of their tragic parting:
Sun: "Save yourself."
Jin: "No, I'm going to get you out of here."
Sun: "Please go."
Jin: "I'm going to get you out of here."
Sun: "Please go."
Jin [in subtitled Korean]: "I won't leave you. I will never leave you again."
Jin [switching back to English]: "I love you, Sun."
Sun: "I love you."
I want to care. I want to be wracked with sadness and moved to streaming tears, as Hurley and Jack were. But how can I surrender myself to emotion when the script is so jarringly flat? I'm sure the writers are trying hard, but this scene reads like zero effort was put into crafting specific, memorable dialogue.
Here is what my friend Katie said about it in the comments
I am not at all convinced there is a mother in the world who, when faced with the choice of dying alone or orphaning her child, would choose orphaning her child. But even if there were, that mother would at least, like, MENTION it in the "should you die with me or not" discussion. That it doesn't even come up is the writers willfully ignoring the issue because it would ruin their sad little scene.
Stevenson is right that the dialogue is jarringly flat and Katie is right that someone should MENTION orphaning the kid. But that explains the scene right there. They love each other so much, and don't want to leave each other alone again (she does not want to die alone; he does not want to leave her to die alone) that their dialogue is flat BECAUSE neither wants to mention that kid, the thing that should so obviously make them split up at this moment. Each waits for the other to do it, until it is clear they have a kind of silent understanding not to mention it. It happens on her part when he goes down to try to free her one last time -- you can see the look on her face as she struggles not with the realization that she is probably going to die, but with the realization, kind of horrible as Katie will agree, that she is not going to mention their daughter because she is scared, and really does not want to die alone. He makes the decision not to mention the kid when he speaks in Korean -- speaks to her as he did before the kid was born. The final "I love you"s are not examples of flat dialogue -- because each one carries the force of "thank you for not bringing up the obvious reason I/you really SHOULD die alone underwater."
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Lost Season 6, Episode 14: The Candidate
My review of the latest episode of LOST is up on Smartpop. Here is what I said. Click through for more. Then come back here for some stuff I thought of after I wrote that.
We also discover why the Jin-Sun reunion was so lame. Because you can’t have two episodes in a row with HUGE emotional beats for those two characters. And they got a huge one here as they go down with the sub. It was a really beautiful scene, in spite of the fact that it was a little silly that Sun got trapped like that (watching it with friends someone asked “what is she trapped by” and the answer was “a device … a plot device”). My first reaction was that there was something really off about watching two parents die together when one could have been saved — should’t there be some kind of “our child’s future is more important than your not leaving me”? But upon consideration I think it adds to the moment. It becomes really hard-core. He promised they would never be apart again. And so they won’t. I found that really powerful BECAUSE he knew what he was leaving behind. One of the most emotional scenes in Lost I feel like. Except for that plot device pinning Sun.
Some more thoughts:
They killed 3 minorities. After all the dissing women, we are going to be left on Yelling White Dude Island.
I am really feeling the Old Testament stuff coming together here. Obviously I am not the first to mention it but maybe because I am teaching Paradise Lost it is hitting me really hard now. Is the Island just Eden? The Adam and Eve skeletons are actually Adam and Eve? The daddy issues stem from the daddy issues in the garden? The energy is some spark of God's original creative force? The light haired and dark haired kid ghosts we have seen, one covered in blood are Cain and Abel? Cain is immortal, cursed, frustrated with his brother -- like the Man in Black? The garden is guarded so people can't get back -- the island is hard to get to? Dharma is silly because science cannot explain God? Childbirth is hard on the island because hard labor was part of the original punishment in Genesis. You have to go to Exodus a little randomly to explain the Egyptian iconography (connected to the biblical Jacob), and I have no idea if Jacob and the Man in Black can be easily identified -- the man in Black has been called Esau (Jacob's brother), but could also be Cain or Satan (he is a smooth talking warrior who corrupts people and makes persuasive arguments for freedom over bondage to destiny-god) -- or the serpent. Lost is ... Paradise Lost?
I know I complained about Battlestar Galactica's religious angle, but BSG was too sentimental (everyone lives happily every after) where Lost is killing folks, and I feel like the specificity of an Old Testament story would be so much better than the general spiritual junk in BSG because Genesis can be about Story and Character in a way just pointing to "God" as the answer was not enough.
We also discover why the Jin-Sun reunion was so lame. Because you can’t have two episodes in a row with HUGE emotional beats for those two characters. And they got a huge one here as they go down with the sub. It was a really beautiful scene, in spite of the fact that it was a little silly that Sun got trapped like that (watching it with friends someone asked “what is she trapped by” and the answer was “a device … a plot device”). My first reaction was that there was something really off about watching two parents die together when one could have been saved — should’t there be some kind of “our child’s future is more important than your not leaving me”? But upon consideration I think it adds to the moment. It becomes really hard-core. He promised they would never be apart again. And so they won’t. I found that really powerful BECAUSE he knew what he was leaving behind. One of the most emotional scenes in Lost I feel like. Except for that plot device pinning Sun.
Some more thoughts:
They killed 3 minorities. After all the dissing women, we are going to be left on Yelling White Dude Island.
I am really feeling the Old Testament stuff coming together here. Obviously I am not the first to mention it but maybe because I am teaching Paradise Lost it is hitting me really hard now. Is the Island just Eden? The Adam and Eve skeletons are actually Adam and Eve? The daddy issues stem from the daddy issues in the garden? The energy is some spark of God's original creative force? The light haired and dark haired kid ghosts we have seen, one covered in blood are Cain and Abel? Cain is immortal, cursed, frustrated with his brother -- like the Man in Black? The garden is guarded so people can't get back -- the island is hard to get to? Dharma is silly because science cannot explain God? Childbirth is hard on the island because hard labor was part of the original punishment in Genesis. You have to go to Exodus a little randomly to explain the Egyptian iconography (connected to the biblical Jacob), and I have no idea if Jacob and the Man in Black can be easily identified -- the man in Black has been called Esau (Jacob's brother), but could also be Cain or Satan (he is a smooth talking warrior who corrupts people and makes persuasive arguments for freedom over bondage to destiny-god) -- or the serpent. Lost is ... Paradise Lost?
I know I complained about Battlestar Galactica's religious angle, but BSG was too sentimental (everyone lives happily every after) where Lost is killing folks, and I feel like the specificity of an Old Testament story would be so much better than the general spiritual junk in BSG because Genesis can be about Story and Character in a way just pointing to "God" as the answer was not enough.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Uncanny X-Men #267
[Jason Powell continues the homestretch on these issue by issue Claremont X-Men blogs. He may be coming to New York City soon for a visit -- Jason, am I allowed to say why? do you want to say why? Anyway we will finally meet in person. This will be exciting because I think of him as a digital image. One of those pixelated photographs that when you get real close turns out to actually be made up of tiny images of pages of Claremont comics that only look like person when you get enough distance from them.]
“Nanny – Into the Fire”
Debuting so near the end of Claremont’s run, the character Gambit is surrounded by some confusion as to the author’s intentions. The prevailing wisdom seems to be that he was intended as the angel to Mr. Sinister’s devil. Sinister, Claremont has explained, was the alter ego of a mutant child who only aged one year for every ten. Accounting for the character’s outré visual design, Sinister was conceived as the ultimate boogeyman. Gambit, meanwhile, was another projection of this same child, the vision of the quintessential “cool” superhero.
As far as I can remember, I haven’t seen or read Claremont confirming this plan, but if it’s true it explains Gambit’s somewhat ridiculous perfection in every area – wit, charm, style, fashion, and of course, super-powers. Of course, his debut having occurred in the 90s – superhero comics’ peak decade of excess and cynical commercialism – Gambit’s blatant and unabashed wish-fulfillment qualities are just as explainable as the result of greedy corporate calculation.
That said, in either case, someone (and I apologize for not remembering who) has pointed out online that Gambit is actually an entirely reasonable addition to the X-Men cast, embodying a perennial trope that the mythology had previously been missing: The lothario. I quite appreciate this point of view, as it gives me personally a more sympathetic view of a character I’d previously been inclined to dismiss as a bit of cynical pandering. So, whoever exposed me to this more charitable take, please do stand up and take a bow.
“Nanny – Into the Fire”
Debuting so near the end of Claremont’s run, the character Gambit is surrounded by some confusion as to the author’s intentions. The prevailing wisdom seems to be that he was intended as the angel to Mr. Sinister’s devil. Sinister, Claremont has explained, was the alter ego of a mutant child who only aged one year for every ten. Accounting for the character’s outré visual design, Sinister was conceived as the ultimate boogeyman. Gambit, meanwhile, was another projection of this same child, the vision of the quintessential “cool” superhero.
As far as I can remember, I haven’t seen or read Claremont confirming this plan, but if it’s true it explains Gambit’s somewhat ridiculous perfection in every area – wit, charm, style, fashion, and of course, super-powers. Of course, his debut having occurred in the 90s – superhero comics’ peak decade of excess and cynical commercialism – Gambit’s blatant and unabashed wish-fulfillment qualities are just as explainable as the result of greedy corporate calculation.
That said, in either case, someone (and I apologize for not remembering who) has pointed out online that Gambit is actually an entirely reasonable addition to the X-Men cast, embodying a perennial trope that the mythology had previously been missing: The lothario. I quite appreciate this point of view, as it gives me personally a more sympathetic view of a character I’d previously been inclined to dismiss as a bit of cynical pandering. So, whoever exposed me to this more charitable take, please do stand up and take a bow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
