tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post7425308517895571554..comments2024-03-28T03:13:15.831-04:00Comments on Remarkable: In Summary …Geoff Klockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09080580776997273785noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-9358568946220488612011-04-13T13:27:32.338-04:002011-04-13T13:27:32.338-04:00I'm a long time reader of Not Blog X, Teebore....I'm a long time reader of Not Blog X, Teebore. I used to comment there quite a bit, but now that G Kendall spends about half his time on <i>Spawn</i> (which I never read), I mostly just skim it until <i>Web of Spider-Man</i> week comes around, or he reviews an X-title I actually read.<br /><br />Strangely, his blog never really made me want to re-read the Lobdell/Nicieza/Harras era, but this one did. I guess my mind works in strange ways.<br /><br />I will definitely check out your blog next! See you there.Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-87818293964874212002011-04-07T17:21:18.440-04:002011-04-07T17:21:18.440-04:00@Matt: But, I only read all the Lobdell/Nicieza/e...@Matt: <i> But, I only read all the Lobdell/Nicieza/etc. stuff as it was coming out. I liked it at the time, but all these extremely thoughtful and analytical entries have made me wonder if it still holds up! </i><br /><br />The tone/style is a bit different than what Jason did here, but if you're interested in reading some critical analysis of the 90s X-books, starting with <i>X-Men</i> vol. 2 #1/<i>Uncanny</i> #281, I highly recommend <a rel="nofollow">Not Blog X</a> by G Kendall. <br /><br />And if Jason and Geoff don't mind a bit of shameless self-promotion, I invite you to check out my <a rel="nofollow">blog</a>, where I've been doing a full on <i>X-Men</i> retrospective and am currently in the early goings of Claremont's run.Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-74067900450879946922011-04-07T17:03:43.298-04:002011-04-07T17:03:43.298-04:00I started reading this series about a year ago and...I started reading this series about a year ago and got up to issue 180-ish, at which point I was sidetracked or something and never came back. Then about two weeks ago I got it into my head to finish what I'd begun so long ago, and I continued reading all the way through to the end.<br /><br />I've left a small flurry of comments over the past few days, nearly all of which were in (sometimes unnecessarily snarky) defense of Bob Harras. Maybe I have poor taste, but I like the guy, and I generally approve of his editorial style. But I wonder if in making those comments, I came across as anti-Claremont? If I did, that wasn't the case.<br /><br />My first X-Men comic was <i>Uncanny</i> #291 or 292 or something -- it was the first chapter of the "X-Cutioner's Song" crossover with Cable standing over Professor X's body, smoking gun in hand. I had seen X-Men comics before, but something about them didn't really appeal to me. Most of the issues I'd perused to that point were from the Australian years, and they were so unlike what was going on in the X-comics I was now reading. Their costumes weren't very flashy and they didn't seem too superhero-y.<br /><br />But going forward from "X-Cutioner's Song", there were often flashbacks and footnotes about old issues, before the Australia years. I tracked them down via <i>Classic X-Men</i> back issues, and that was where I fell for the writing of Chris Claremont. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned -- I still don't like the Australia years, and thanks to this blog I know why -- the "revolutionary politics" of the X-Men from that era just aren't something I like to read about. But the colorfully-garbed, "counter-revolutionary" X-Men of issues 94 - 176 constitute my all-time favorite run of any comic book ever. So I don't dislike Chris Claremont, though I'm not a fan of much of his later X-Men work. But this series really got me to appreciate even the stuff I don't like. I may not agree with it, but I feel that I better understand it.<br /><br />Now, is it odd that having finally finished reading all these entries, I wand to go back and re-read X-Men going <i>forward</i> from <i>X-Men</i> #1? I've read all of Claremont's run multiple times, and I know what I think of it, and my opinions, for better or worse (love the early stuff, don't like the mid to late stuff, but like the very late stuff), are unlikely to change. But, I only read all the Lobdell/Nicieza/etc. stuff as it was coming out. I liked it at the time, but all these extremely thoughtful and analytical entries have made me wonder if it still holds up!Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-48014119637021458642010-11-10T08:55:27.263-05:002010-11-10T08:55:27.263-05:00I've been slowly reading this series of articl...I've been slowly reading this series of articles over the last two months, and it's been very enlightening. <br /><br />While I don't agree with everything, I've been surprised to see Jason concur with some of the conclusions I reached when I reread the Essentials (chiefly, that Rachel was very annoying indeed, and that the first Genosha arc is a very underrated gem - indeed, the only part of the Australian era that worked for me).JDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-44661544135674912922010-10-18T18:57:28.210-04:002010-10-18T18:57:28.210-04:00Inky, it's great to hear that, truly. Unfortu...Inky, it's great to hear that, truly. Unfortunately, though, no plans at this time. Too many other projects being worked on right now. Perhaps one day ...Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13298753675007196538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-63841446945832644262010-10-17T23:03:37.584-04:002010-10-17T23:03:37.584-04:00Thanks for all of your time and insight, Jason. I&...Thanks for all of your time and insight, Jason. I've really enjoyed reading these.<br />(Now howzabout putting out a fat, 2000-some-odd page print-on-demand collection of all of these posts? I'd buy it in a heartbeat.)Inkwell Bookstorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01609687997535147041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-49119609091886026292010-09-13T01:33:44.534-04:002010-09-13T01:33:44.534-04:00Thanks so much for this, Jason. Job well done.Thanks so much for this, Jason. Job well done.Troy Wilsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-35508120641204401822010-09-10T01:52:57.497-04:002010-09-10T01:52:57.497-04:00Jason - great, GREAT, series!
Neil - looking forw...Jason - great, GREAT, series!<br /><br />Neil - looking forward to your analyses of CC's later runs.<br /><br />will either of you, or Geoff, analyze CC's other X-runs? specifically New Mutants and Excalibur?RonGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-8024826414835150622010-09-09T21:05:10.702-04:002010-09-09T21:05:10.702-04:00Wow. I've never heard a single negative comme...Wow. I've never heard a single negative comment about Chris Claremont as an X-Men scribe. In my circles, he is regarded as the definitive writer, and I cannot fathom many people disagreeing with that. I never would have imagined that his run needs to be defended. It, along with, say the Lee/Kirby FF and the Peter David Hulk, is one of the best comic runs of all time. I just kinda figured that was commonly agreed upon...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01440251817312635671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-38276867972533870252010-09-09T09:00:38.671-04:002010-09-09T09:00:38.671-04:00And here is my closing statement:
While I would ag...And here is my closing statement:<br />While I would agree about your general thesis that it is a good thing that in X-Men female characters fight as well as the male ones (although personally I was not as impressed as you were by Storm's defeat of the Toad), I still think that singling out the Spider-Man movies for comparison is wrong because<br />1. Spider-Man films are about a male solo hero, so even if MJ or Aunt May had been more efficacious or there had been a female ass-kicking character like Elektra in "Daredevil" or Catwoman in "Batman Returns", they still would have paled next to Spidey. Just as in films or series centring on a female action hero (Lara Croft, Wonder Woman, Xena, Buffy, Alien, what have you) all male characters are going to be outshone by her.<br />2. They're different genres - X-Men is action, Spider-Man is action/romance or even romance/action.<br /><br />Maybe the difference between us is that I like non-action genres more than you and that thus for me characterization is more important even in an action film and ass-kicking is not the primary measure of a person's worth. Considering the Claremont's Storm who kicks ass but is also essentially a woman in the way she thinks and acts, the cypher-Storm of the movie to me seems like a robot. Heck, IMO even the heroine of "Salt" is more of a woman than she is and her part was originally written for a man.<br /><br />Re. Octavius's wife in Spider-Man 2: She was added primarily so that this happy conjugal life of a scientist and a literary scholar would be seen as something that Peter would want to model his future life as a scientist and superhero with MJ the actress on. Otto's ambition (hybris) and the influence of his arms is what motivates his slide into villainy, not his wife's death.Menshevikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112873248418375924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-44276565783196151372010-09-09T07:50:35.793-04:002010-09-09T07:50:35.793-04:00We're getting to a point where it's just g...We're getting to a point where it's just going to be arguing subjective opinions. To put my opinion of the Spider-Man movies in a nutshell, I think Aunt May and Mary Jane are both useless idiots in the films (the former because her advice is so hollow and lame, particularly the speech in S-M2 about how being a hero is great because people line up to meet them, so it's totally worth destroying your life to be one), and the latter in that all three films have a climax that has her kidnapped and screaming. (Also her inability to figure out that Peter is Spider-Man, which in the movie is shown to be pretty easy.) Add to that Gwen in the third film, there just to create a love-triangle. And of course Landlord's daughter, who is there to serve Peter cake. And oh yeah, they gave Doc Ock a wife, just so they could gratuitously kill her off, and give Doc an *extra* reason to become evil.<br /><br />And to nutshell my feeling on the X-movies ... These are action films. And if women are able to participate in the action, demonstrate equal or greater efficacy to that of the men, I think that's significant, and good. Storm defeats the Toad, and Mystique gives Wolverine the longest fight of anyone he faces off against in the first movie.<br /><br />We could debate which film has more complex women, but I think that is going to come down to personal taste and which movie one thinks is, overall, better written. <br /><br />So, I'll bottom-line my point:<br /><br />The typical role of women in action films and superhero comics are girlfriend or femme fatale or mother-figure. In X-Men, the women fight alongside the men. I think that's laudable, and rare. <br /><br />In Spider-Man, the women are there to kiss Peter Parker and make him cake.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13298753675007196538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-5402348451075802142010-09-09T06:29:41.981-04:002010-09-09T06:29:41.981-04:00Well, "this is a story about a girl" obv...Well, "this is a story about a girl" obviously was not to be taken literally, but it shows that movie Peter's life revolves around MJ. Don't know from where you get that this quote turns Mary Jane into an idealized object of desire, after all, she goes through three boyfriends in two movies before Peter and she is characterized as a fairly down-to-earth "girl next door". As a secondary plot we see MJ's life apart from Peter, how despite various setbacks she works on her career as an actress. Indeed, one other huge difference is that the Spider-films focus on the dichotomy of "civilian" and superheroics, while in the X-films they have no life, for them a private life is not even an option.<br /><br />Storywise, Aunt May's dramatic role in the movies encompasses that of Professor X in the X-films, she is the mentor, among other things. <br /><br />On X1, Storm is by far the least important of the X-Men. Scott's characterization in that movie is actually pretty cool, he has his romance with Jean and his rivalry with Logan and he is the team leader, while Storm outside of battles just sits or stands there.<br /><br />Re. the Virgin-Mother-Whore construct: The way it is often used shows the truth of the adage that if you only have a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Nothing is easier than to put the movie X-women in these categories, they are a lot less complex characters than in the comics. Most embody variants of the Virgin (Rogue can't have sex, Kitty is underage, Storm has no time for love, Jean resists her attraction to Logan), there is no Mother (Storm and Mystique having been stripped of their maternal aspects in the adaptation) except perhaps Charles Xavier, and Mystique and Dark Phoenix are Whores of the Vamp/Femme Fatale subvariant. The movie MJ actually is difficult to fit into the pattern, since you could describe her with equal justification as a Virgin and a Whore. She has a more active love-life than the 1960s/1970s comics MJ or Gwen. Actually, if anyone really embodies the Virgin in the Spider-films, it is Peter Parker, in the end MJ has to take the initiative (she's Princess Charming, he's Cinderello). I also would say that the similarity between comics Gwen and movie MJ (or indeed post-ASM #121 comics MJ) have been hugely exaggerated, especially by Gwen/Peter shippers who still haven't got over Peter finding happiness (as far as it would be possible for him) with MJ after Gwen's death.Menshevikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112873248418375924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-84002790028023567732010-09-09T01:32:03.568-04:002010-09-09T01:32:03.568-04:00Thanks for that, Mike. McKellan's performance...Thanks for that, Mike. McKellan's performance as Magneto is extraordinary, but it would be a shame if he never knew that Claremont is the one who made that character into such a compelling role for him. (Still, I'm ever-grateful to McKellan for doing giving us by far the best realization of a Claremont character on film.)<br /><br />As noted, you see lots of people giving Singer credit for the Holocaust backstory in the films. That does frustrate me, but I guess that kind of thing is inevitable. I think it's probably rare these days that an actor in a comic-book movie will go back and read the comics. And in the case of the Marvel properties, one wonders where would they even begin. (It's fun to read about when it happens, though. The actress who played Mina in the "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" spoke of reading the graphic novel after getting cast, and pretty much all but admitted that she preferred the comic to the movie script.)<br /><br />As for what's coming up from moi in the next six weeks: Fantastic Four 17-18 (the ones published in 1999); the Star Trek: Debt of Honor graphic novel; his "High Frontier" prose novel trilogy (FirstFlight, Grounded, Sundowner); WildCATs 10-13 (from circa 1994); the Justice League: Scary Monsters miniseries (circa 2003); and his twelve part Dark Horse series, "Aliens/Predator: The Deadliest of the Species" (currently available in Dark Horse's second "Aliens/Predator" omnibus).Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13298753675007196538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-67299897289481744552010-09-09T01:11:29.982-04:002010-09-09T01:11:29.982-04:00Congratulations on wrapping up this series and you...Congratulations on wrapping up this series and your musical, Jason.<br /><br />As we move to Jason's posts about Claremont's non-X-Men work and then Neil S.'s posts about Claremont's later X-Men runs, would it be possible for Geoff to give us a heads up as to the material that will be covered in the next post? I haven't read much of Claremont's non-X-Men work and I haven't read any of his subsequent X-Men runs as I was long out of comics by then. I'm tempted to track down the works Jason and Neil will be covering, or at least the shorter ones, so that I can really appreciate their posts. It would be helpful to know ahead of time what's coming up.<br /><br />Speaking of Claremont not getting credit for what works in the films, I came across an interview with Ian McKellen where he states that Magneto does "have special powers which involve holding your hand out and emoting and having whatever effect is required by the plot. But in the end, what's interesting about a character is not those sort of abilities, but their inner life and their inner strengths and the complications of their relationships with other people. That's what I'm always looking for in the script. You can, at times, look in vain for those sorts of details in a script based on a comic, because, after all, the dialogue in a comic is perhaps not as interesting as the flash and bravado of the pictures. But I believe in Magneto. I believe he's a man with a real past and a real dilemma and a real purpose for being alive. His abilities with regards to bending and attracting metal are, in this sense, incidental to why I like him."<br /><br />McKellen believes in Magneto because Claremont believed in him. As Jason has argued in several of his posts, Claremont viewed his characters as real people and the resulting characterization is precisely why McKellen agreed to take the role. (Or at least why he said he agreed to take the role. I'm sure there were economic considerations.) Yet at the same time McKellen articulates the factors that make Magneto a worthwhile character, he expresses skepticism that those factors would have been developed in a comic. Poor Claremont.<br /><br />I've also read several people laud Alan Moore for Adrian Veidt's epiphany in Watchmen. At the failed Crimebusters meeting, Veidt realizes the ridiculousness of someone with his abilities using them to combat petty crime. Instead he uses those abilities to change the social order. But Claremont had already had Magneto eschew the traditional motives of superhero comics in favor of using his powers in attempts to effect social change at the highest levels. I don't know enough about other comics to know if "Claremont did it first" in this instance, but it seems like Claremont's Magneto may have been one of the earlier examples of this. <br /><br />-- MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-8425134657590221032010-09-08T20:11:20.693-04:002010-09-08T20:11:20.693-04:00All very excellent points, Mensh. They deserve a ...All very excellent points, Mensh. They deserve a well-thought-out response and this probably isn't it, but I'll try my best:<br /><br />I find the X films less problematic than the Spider-Man ones. (Although I am thinking mainly of X1 and X2, because everything after that was hackery.)<br /><br />"This is a story about a girl" is one of the things I hate about the first Spider-Man, as I think it is, for one thing, disingenuous. If it were about Mary Jane, it would be about Mary Jane. It's not; it's about Peter Parker. For a second thing, that line also turns Mary Jane into this idealized object to be desired, rather than a person.<br /><br />Sean McKeever's "Mary Jane" comic ... THAT was a story about a girl.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Aunt May is a "dispenser of sage advice" who gets terrorized and hospitalized by the Green Goblin. <br /><br />I can't defend Rogue's role in the first film, as you're right, she is the damsel in distress. But you've still got Mystique, Storm and Jean. Storm is no more or less a cypher in the first film than Cyclops, I don't think. <br /><br />(Only Wolverine, Rogue and Magneto get a lot of time with characterization.) <br /><br />But Storm and Jean still are equals to Scott and Wolverine at the end, when it comes time to bust heads. And Mystique faces off against big-bad-ass Wolverine, and acquits herself well.<br /><br />I'd still maintain that the women in X1 and X2 are, more often than not, equals to the men. <br /><br />And what's the feminist construct about how women are typically characterized as either Mother, Virgin or Whore? That's basically Aunt May, Gwen and Mary Jane in the Spider-Comics. Reverse Gwen and MJ and that's more or less the movies. (Insofar as the Gwen of the movies is the MJ of the comics, and vice versa, although really movie-Gwen is a complete non-entity, much like that blonde "Ditkovich" girl.)<br /><br />I think the women of X-Men (comics and films) are some of the few superhero-women not to be easily slotted into those types.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13298753675007196538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-62472144986126213992010-09-08T19:46:03.351-04:002010-09-08T19:46:03.351-04:00Sorry, the sentence about the X-Men relaunch was a...Sorry, the sentence about the X-Men relaunch was added later; "Few of the later additions stuck" refers to Spider-Man, not the X-Men.Menshevikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112873248418375924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-37643530354667518602010-09-08T19:41:30.542-04:002010-09-08T19:41:30.542-04:00Re. the X-Men and Spider-Man: There obviously is t...Re. the X-Men and Spider-Man: There obviously is the huge structural difference that Spidey is a solo hero fighting solo villains and the X-Men are a group fighting groups of villains. There is also the fact that Spider-Man was an instant classic in the 1960s and nearly all important supporting characters and villains date from that decade and thus reflect the gender-bias of the era, while the X-Men made a new start in 1975 with an almost entirely new team and cast of villains. Few of the later additions stuck, including his transient partnership with the Black Cat. With the less successful Daredevil bigger changes were possible, as shown by the 1970s title change to "Daredevil and the Black Widow" or by the pivotal role of Elektra in the Daredevil movie (and Elektra then got a movie of her own, while in the X-Men's case alpha male Wolverine got the first spin-off movie). <br /><br />It is also that the romantic elements are not central to the X-Men films while the romantic story is the life-blood and a central theme of the Spider-Man trilogy ("this is a story about a girl"). Thus Flash's, Harry's and John's important function is to pursue Mary Jane. There is one more very important female character, btw, - the dispenser of sage advice (and a blow to Doc Ock's head) Aunt May. The different genre-mix is obvious: Spidey loses his powers because his relationship with MJ goes sour, while in the heavier-on-the-action X-Men Cyclops' friggin' death goes all but unacknowledged by his lover and teammates.<br /><br />As a fan of both Claremont's X-Men and of (pre-OMD) Spider-Man I have to say that I am not entirely happy with both film franchises, but that I was more disappointed with the X-films. In the first one Storm is a cypher and Rogue, whose personality bears no resemblance to the Claremontean one, is a damsel in distress again and again. Things improve a little for her in X2, but X3 undoes all her progress, besides spitting out Mystique and killing off Jean (Callisto's utterly insignificant cameo and even Kitty's and Storm's heroics unfortunately are too little to offset the depressing picture).Menshevikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112873248418375924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-7033265118783341662010-09-08T19:19:33.401-04:002010-09-08T19:19:33.401-04:00Thanks, Jason, for a great series that always prov...Thanks, Jason, for a great series that always provided food for thought. <br /><br />Interesting question re. teams with more female than male members. Quite probably Claremont was the first to do that, although I believe that at least one team became 50-50 gender-balanced before the X-Men did, as for quite a while during the 1970s the Defenders core team consisted of Nighthawk, the Hulk, the Valkyrie, and Hellcat.Menshevikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112873248418375924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-73938764180058343032010-09-08T18:31:53.215-04:002010-09-08T18:31:53.215-04:00Jason, I wanted to thank you for taking the time a...Jason, I wanted to thank you for taking the time and effort to undertake and complete this project. Reading your review of Claremont's works, issue by issue, became a welcome part of my Tuesday afternoon ritual. As I read your sometimes funny and always insightful comments, it brought to mind my own experience of tracking down every X-Men issue from Giant Sized #1 through the then current issue, #269, and devouring them as quickly as I could. Though I stopped collecting around #285 or so, the experience stayed with me.<br /><br />It also helped inspire me to write my own issue-by-issue reviews of a personal favorite, the Marvel Transformers comic (some 110-odd issues when associated mini-series and crossovers are considered.) At this point I'm more than halfway through. <br /><br />Kudos, sir, for a job well done.Jimtronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18138709079942253485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-66074660327316541282010-09-08T15:25:34.422-04:002010-09-08T15:25:34.422-04:00"Fantastic. What work you've done here, J..."Fantastic. What work you've done here, Jason. I do like the way you've homaged your inspiration with the nice, understated --fin-- at the end, there. I thought there was material through October, though? A look at some post-UXM work? I seem to recall Claremont's FF in particular coming up. Is that dead, then?"<br /><br />Thanks for noticing the "fin," Gary. I was quite pleased with that. :)<br /><br />There are blogs about other Claremont work coming up, though. I might've miscalculated when I said it would last through October, but there are six more articles a-comin'. And if you scroll through the comments you'll see that Neil Shyminsky has some Claremont blogs on deck as well ... ! (Which I personally am super-excited to read.)Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13298753675007196538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-84887075972121499962010-09-08T15:00:16.135-04:002010-09-08T15:00:16.135-04:00Ah, what can I say that hasn't already been sa...Ah, what can I say that hasn't already been said? <br /><br />Thank you, Jason, for not only striving to be positive on the internet, but to be positive about Claremont, and to do it so well. <br /><br />I've always been a fan of Claremont's work, but this series has definitely given me a new appreciation for it (and even better, new tools with which to defend the work against the haters) and makes reading the issues again almost an entirely new experience. So thanks for that, too.Austin Gortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281239771248780430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-39691598777705458892010-09-08T14:17:00.877-04:002010-09-08T14:17:00.877-04:00"Considering that Grant Morrison completely u..."Considering that Grant Morrison completely undid Claremont's Magneto work (something I learned at this website), I don't think he particularly "recognizes" Claremont. Unless he's recanted somewhere and I didn't hear about it."<br /><br />Grant Morrison loves Claremont's X-Men run. In the back of one of the New X-Men collections they have the original X-men proposal that Grant sent Marvel and he speaks very highly of Claremont in it. There are also quite a few very subtle references to events from the Claremont run throughout the run. He really didn't "undo" Claremont's Magneto. People tend to forget that Fatal Attractions did that and Grant was basically writing him consistently with what had come in the 90s.jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-24183135605739713652010-09-08T11:59:56.411-04:002010-09-08T11:59:56.411-04:00Christian O. said:
"I do think Claremont is r...Christian O. said:<br />"I do think Claremont is recognized by the right people though - writers like Grant Morrison and Matt Fraction."<br /><br />Considering that Grant Morrison completely undid Claremont's Magneto work (something I learned at this website), I don't think he particularly "recognizes" Claremont. Unless he's recanted somewhere and I didn't hear about it.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04480022982363984291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-17938730240951492102010-09-08T11:57:43.673-04:002010-09-08T11:57:43.673-04:00Fantastic. What work you've done here, Jason. ...Fantastic. What work you've done here, Jason. I do like the way you've homaged your inspiration with the nice, understated --fin-- at the end, there.<br /><br />I thought there was material through October, though? A look at some post-UXM work? I seem to recall Claremont's FF in particular coming up. Is that dead, then?<br /><br />Thanks again for the wonderful series. It's increased my appreciation of the work, in particular the daring that Claremont exhibited with his ever moving forward attitude. Who needs lunchboxes and beachtowels? Give me X-Men #211, damn the status quo, full speed ahead!Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04480022982363984291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23042008.post-4182698288659337222010-09-07T23:20:58.201-04:002010-09-07T23:20:58.201-04:00Arthur: On X-Nation we've been discussing X-Tr...Arthur: On X-Nation we've been discussing X-Treme X-Men for the last three episodes in our 'Days of X-Men Past' segment. Maybe I should ask Jason to come on and we can hear his views on some of those Claremont issues.<br /><br />Jason: I really hope you get the opportunity to interview CC someday. I got to last year for the podcast and A) it was just cool to finally talk to the guy that wrote all those great comics I read as a kid, and B) all you have to do is ask one question and sit back. The man is wonderfully verbose.Paul Steven Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18392153757274116397noreply@blogger.com