tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post129164444870581824..comments2024-03-28T03:13:15.831-04:00Comments on Remarkable: Uncanny X-Men 270Geoff Klockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09080580776997273785noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-37501447125129732602010-05-28T07:26:07.522-04:002010-05-28T07:26:07.522-04:00Well, part of it may be that my opinions differ on...Well, part of it may be that my opinions differ on a number of things that he feels quite passionately about (1960s version trumps all later versions, Peter and MJ should never marry, Magneto should be a Hitler-like bad guy), so I may be a trifle (over-)sensitive on these matters. Of course I've seen more of his comments re. Spider-Man than re. X-Men.Menshevikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112873248418375924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-60759121016282130072010-05-28T05:33:12.189-04:002010-05-28T05:33:12.189-04:00That is interesting. I post on an internet forum ...That is interesting. I post on an internet forum that Stern semi-regularly posts on, and he doesn't come off that way at all. Maybe his online persona is tamer. :)<br /><br />Thanks for the recommendations on the magazines. I will have to look into some of that stuff.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13298753675007196538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-68626832018476122972010-05-28T04:04:47.081-04:002010-05-28T04:04:47.081-04:00Well, I had to look the Dante thing up myself, so ...Well, I had to look the Dante thing up myself, so before yesterday my knowledge wasn't that superior ;-)<br /><br />Re. Stern: I don't remember everything exactly, but e.g. he is quoted in BACK ISSUE #29 (August 2008, the "Mutants" Issue), an issue in which Chris Claremont for unknown reasons refused to participate. It probably would be worth your while to get it (it should still be available from TwoMorrows Publishing), as it also contains interviews with Ann Nocenti, Art Adams and John Romita, Jr. Stern talks about nixing the idea of Nightmare being Nightcrawler's father in "Nightcrawler's Two Dads and the Owl That Could Have Been". (He first prevented that from happening before he was X-Men editor, when he was writer on Dr. Strange).<br /><br />Actually, I probably exaggerate re. Stern's attitude, but my impression is that he does have quite an ego (see him discuss Peter Parker/Mary Jane - they don't work as a married couple because he says so, he does not have to explain why!) and of course even after he left the X-Men he would try to counteract Claremont on occasion (he was involved in bringing Jean Grey back, for instance), most notably in the X-Men vs. Avengers mini-series. See his statements in BACK ISSUE #35 (August 2009) in the article on Magneto, which again was written without any input from Claremont, but where Stern is given a full page to rant against Claremont's reinvention of the character (not MLK and Malcolm X, for him Xavier and Magneto are like FDR and Hitler). Btw, what is given in the "rough outline" for Stern's unpublished plot for XMvA #4, is actually to a large extent what was published without him, (written by Jim Shooter and Tom DeFalco). So he tried to destroy Claremont's work on Magneto in that series and still seems proud of it. (He says he had to take on the assignment because if someone else had written it, the Avengers would have appeared like jerks. What a nice thing to say about your colleagues).Menshevikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112873248418375924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-39188037136822197522010-05-27T17:41:51.780-04:002010-05-27T17:41:51.780-04:00Mensh ... hm. Fair enough on the Dante point. I ...Mensh ... hm. Fair enough on the Dante point. I guess I should've done more research on the point. I bow to your knowledge! <br /><br />(By the way, though, "Nightcrawler's Inferno" in X-Men Annual 4 also labeled its individual chapters "Part the First," "Part the Second," etc.)<br /><br />Say, do you have any links to Stern talking about nixing Claremont plots? Most of what I know about that comes from Byrne, and I'd like to hear Stern's take on it.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13298753675007196538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-28103150874907964912010-05-27T17:32:56.362-04:002010-05-27T17:32:56.362-04:00(That should be: "first TWO English translati...(That should be: "first TWO English translations").Menshevikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112873248418375924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-29719399069519215162010-05-27T17:31:29.757-04:002010-05-27T17:31:29.757-04:00Thanks. Re. the inter-title connections, your post...Thanks. Re. the inter-title connections, your post got me to reflect on just how many and how many different kinds of connections there were between UXM and NM in the 1980s, so at a time it was almost as if you had a bi-weekly mutant title (just look at the way e.g. old UXM plots were continued and new ones set up with the Magneto/Lee Forrester subplot in New Mutants, which really had little to nothing to do with the New Mutants at the time, other than that Warlock's arrival on Earth had accidentally caused Asteroid M to crash).<br /><br />Re. "Inferno": I suppose that in an English-speaking context the very word is enough to conjure up the name Dante, but are the parts called "Part the Nth" in any English translation? According to wikipedia, in the original the three main parts ("Inferno", "Purgatorio" and "Paradiso") are called "cantiche" (singular "cantica"), and the subdivisions of each are called "canti" (singular "canto", English plural "cantos"). And at least in the first English translation I found on the net (by H.F. Cary, 1805-1814, and H.W. Longfellow, 1867) these were simply called "Canto I", "Canto II" etc., not "Canto the First" etc. <br />Also, I don't really remember any specifically Dantean references and connections in the "Inferno" crossover - while you have them in spades in "Nightcrawler's Inferno". Since Claremont clearly knows a bit about the "Divine Comedy" (he had Dr. Strange quote a few lines in UXM Annual #4), I'd think he'd have used something more specific to specifically invoke Dante in the "Inferno" crossover.<br /><br />Re. the Stern/Harras analogy: Ain't that the truth! When Roger Stern talks about how he disallowed various of Claremont's ideas, he often sounds a little too gleeful to me...Menshevikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112873248418375924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-47571820888928817522010-05-27T15:56:08.124-04:002010-05-27T15:56:08.124-04:00"Claremont spent something like 15 solid year..."Claremont spent something like 15 solid years slow burning and getting the book to this point but I wonder if it's accurate to say this is the era where these decisions forced the x-men to take all that carefully built up 'fuel' and burn it all up in one almighty ultra-commercial blast? "<br /><br />Damn, I love this.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13298753675007196538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-45001459183002887542010-05-27T15:52:08.668-04:002010-05-27T15:52:08.668-04:00When Byrne/Stern left, Claremont was free to go nu...<i>When Byrne/Stern left, Claremont was free to go nuts for nearly a decade. Which was awesome, yet Byrne/Claremont is still the most well-remembered era of X-Men. It's understandable why Lee/Harras wanted to go back to it.</i><br /><br />Yes, maybe. Marvel at this time were big into nostalgia and the 'Image' explosion began here in 1990 so it's the ultra-commercial aspect combining with nostalgia to remold the book into a more 'classic' feel.<br />I think the School is arguably the linchpin that they felt would bind together the X-universe at this point as you by now such a large choice of characters that breaking them into chunks (teams) was the only way to go. The side effect is that this is possibly where the X-men starts to ammass such a sheer weight of continuity and baggage it is no longer as polished and accessable today. In short the slick style Lee, Liefeld & Harrass stamped onto the franchise at this point was never going to be sustainable on a longterm basis as it put the visuals before content and creative patience.<br />Claremont spent something like 15 solid years slow burning and getting the book to this point but I wonder if it's accurate to say this is the era where these decisions forced the x-men to take all that carefully built up 'fuel' and burn it all up in one almighty ultra-commercial blast? <br /><br />1990/91 made a lot of people at Marvel succesful beyond their wildest dreams, but the impact on the books longterm I question.....Dave Mullenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14712176963061935401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-68182048522171359932010-05-27T15:16:55.836-04:002010-05-27T15:16:55.836-04:00"That would be The Adventures of the Galaxy R..."That would be The Adventures of the Galaxy Rangers:<br />http://www.hulu.com/the-adventures-of-the-galaxy-rangers"<br /><br />Nice!Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13298753675007196538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-24404581383355662242010-05-27T15:15:52.479-04:002010-05-27T15:15:52.479-04:00Mensh, as always I appreciate having my declaratio...Mensh, as always I appreciate having my declarations challenged. (Okay, not "always" -- sometimes it pisses me off. But in this case, I do appreciate it.)<br /><br />So thanks for putting some perspective on this issue beyond what I was looking at. Being so involved only in the Claremont material as I have been for years, it's easy to overlook the Silver Age precedents (even though I like the Silver Age X-Men a lot). And it's even easier to generalize about post-Claremont X-Men -- even though I did stick with the X-Universe for over a year after he left. You're right that there were still separations amongst titles, although the crossovers became so frequent that the boundaries -- to me at least -- felt much more porous. Starting in 1990, with the back to back "Days of Future Present" and "X-Tinction Agenda," were were getting two X-overs a year, every year. (Of course, since I bailed in 1992, I'm a bit hazy on whether that practice continued. Presently, of course, Marvel comics are in a constant state of crossover -- though it sounds like that is ending for a while, maybe.)<br /><br />On the other hand, I'm going to stick to my ground on one point. Despite the fact the Divine Comedy is not the only work ever to utilize the "part the first" construction ... You're saying you don't think the chapter titles in a crossover titled "INFERNO" were specifically meant to invoke Dante? Seriously ... ? I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'm pretty sure they were.<br /><br />Geoff, yeah, next week is cool for the X-Annual review. Thanks, man!<br /><br />Tee, yeah, as was pointed out last week -- and I think I might mention it in one of my blogs, and if I didn't I should have -- Jim Lee was in many ways like a new iteration of John Byrne. Byrne kept Claremont on his toes, and his love of the Silver Age X-Men meant that he (along with Roger Stern, who sounds a bit like Bob Harras), curbed Claremont's wilder excesses and kept the series on-model. (If "model" is understood here to be classically Silver Age in construction.)<br /><br />When Byrne/Stern left, Claremont was free to go nuts for nearly a decade. Which was awesome, yet Byrne/Claremont is still the most well-remembered era of X-Men. It's understandable why Lee/Harras wanted to go back to it.<br /><br />I do think Lee is as good a superhero artist as John Byrne was, too. (Though I'm happy to hear from more technically art-savvy folks why that might be a wrong-headed opinion ...)Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13298753675007196538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-40327190554031522182010-05-27T15:07:25.598-04:002010-05-27T15:07:25.598-04:00From the last post's comments thread:
Jason: ...From the last post's comments thread:<br /><br />Jason: "Which one was 'Star Blazers'? Was that the one where they each had a badge, and when they touched the badge it activated their powers? That one was cool."<br /><br />That would be The Adventures of the Galaxy Rangers:<br /><br />http://www.hulu.com/the-adventures-of-the-galaxy-rangers<br /><br />No guts, no glory...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-21050992609103948752010-05-27T12:01:34.830-04:002010-05-27T12:01:34.830-04:00a news-report/exposition sequence, reminiscent of ...<i>a news-report/exposition sequence, reminiscent of Frank Miller’s “Dark Knight” and Paul Verhoeven’s “Robocop.” </i><br /><br />If memory serves, Claremont opens each of his X-Tinction Agenda issues this way, doesn't he (I suppose we'll find out soon enough...)? <br /><br /><i>At the time, Claremont railed against the series going backwards: back to the Danger Room, back to the mansion, back to Professor X, but it is not hard to see why he was overruled, given how fresh and lively those old standby’s became under Jim Lee. </i><br /><br />I think this is a great point, and it suggests that, perhaps, the move back to the old X-standards wasn't ENTIRELY marketing based. While a return to the status quo makes good business sense, one could also argue that the illusion of change is maintained despite returning to the old trappings simply because Lee depicts the old standards in such a new and different way. <br /><br />Actually, I really enjoyed your discussion of Lee's role in the book in this post, pointing out both his strengths (making the old look fresh and new again) and weaknesses (playing up the less unique aspects of Genosha to the detriment of the story). <br /><br />It's refreshing to read an honest critique of his work, beyond "his art is kewl!!" or "his art totally sucks!!".Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-17559513051477371912010-05-27T11:06:41.189-04:002010-05-27T11:06:41.189-04:00Crap! Sorry I put that up out of order Jason. Is s...Crap! Sorry I put that up out of order Jason. Is slotting it in next week with an apology good? it is totally up to you. Sorry everybody!Geoff Klockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09080580776997273785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-30507993473308470152010-05-27T04:44:25.298-04:002010-05-27T04:44:25.298-04:00Another thought-provoking review, although as usua...Another thought-provoking review, although as usual I am a bit sceptical about some of your conclusions and theses. For instance, possibly due to the differences between your literature education and mine, chapter-headings like "Part the First" to me do not specifically indicate Dante's "Divine Comedy" or even whoever wrote the English translation, but rather 18th to 20th century writers putting on an (affected) "ancient-speak", as e.g. in Lewis Carroll's "Hunting of the Snark" (where the parts are called "Fit the First", "Fit the Second" etc.) or even a 1950s "Goon Show" ("Dishonoured Part the First" to "the Last"). Also, I don't recall if you mentioned it in your reviews of the Byrne era, but the triplet structure - 1) Danger Room, 2) some soap opera, 3) the villainous attack - goes back all the way to X-Men vol. 1 #1.<br /><br />Re. the behinds-the-scenes struggle between Claremont, Lee and Harras, I wonder how much that was magnified in the participants' memories when they talked about it later, because at least in this issue Chris Claremont seems to be enjoying the "old-time show", bringing back Stevie Hunter, revisiting the early days of his run as well as his early New Mutants. But then I always had the impression that Chris Claremont was good at rolling with a punch or making lemonade from the lemons his higher-ups handed him...<br /><br />I also see the difference that you describe between before and after X-Tinction Agenda a little different, inasmuch as the situation afterwards is not unlike what had existed at the time when there was only Uncanny X-Men and New Mutants, when characters from one book would continually appear in the other and also quite a few subplots threaded between the two books. Indeed, for me X-Tinction at the time actually appeared almost as a return to a more natural kind of storytelling where the largely arbitrary segregation of the different books and teams was no longer maintained by every plot contrivance known to man. Also I have to wonder if the change may not actually appear greater than it was because fairly shortly after the X-Tinction Agenda the X-Men were spread over two parallel titles - the separation from the new X-Factor, Excalibur and New Mutants/X-Force was still very strong.Menshevikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112873248418375924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-65042195944020942942010-05-27T01:31:10.457-04:002010-05-27T01:31:10.457-04:00Oh yeah, thanks, Deep. Geoff, the review of X-Men...Oh yeah, thanks, Deep. Geoff, the review of X-Men Annual 14 was meant to slot in in between 269 and 270.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13298753675007196538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-46256547741391562662010-05-27T00:43:50.214-04:002010-05-27T00:43:50.214-04:00please tell me you're not skipping over the an...please tell me you're not skipping over the annuals x-over? I've been waiting for that deconstruction the whole time!deepfixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05688617334074955669noreply@blogger.com