posted
Her actual story point was to be the identifiable character-type (which I'm sure has a proper name, but I forget).
In the very (very) beginning this would have probably been Jean, as she joined in the first issue (until someone decided to take a big continuity crap over all that, but anyway). Later on, when the school was just full of grown ups running around saving the world they introduced Kitty Pryde (Sprite/Nightcrawler. Was her name changed because it was a soft drink, or because it was crap?). She too eventually grew up, so they threw in Jubilation Lee (hnng).
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Jubilee certainly isn't the strongest of Mutants but she isn't weak either and is a good support fighter (as far as she'd portrayed in the comics and the 90s X-men cartoon). And in the 90s her powers were growing as she gained better control over them, able to cause brain hemorrages with her 'fireworks'. Her fireworks are blinding, burning and have a bit of impact to them. (just guessing by the effect they had in comics/cartoons).
I liked the trailer and I'm excited to see it. Like any comic fan I have some gripes (don't like the guy they chose for Angel either - not prettyboy enough) and I would give my left arm to bar Halle Berry from ever starring in a movie again, much less playing Storm.
If this movie ends up being the last one (which it looks like) then at least it looks like it will be a pretty decent one.
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Kitty Pride was called Shadowcat after they dropped Sprite, not Nightcrawler silly. IIRC correctly, Sprite lasted like 1 issue, didn't it?
I was always a fan of Excalibur in the early days, but even then, Kitty wasn't all that old. Definitely not 21 yet. Did Jubilee get introduced after Kitty and Nightcrawler were injured and joined Excalibur?
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: She made fireworks and crap.
Yeah...I always wondered if Jim Lee did not create her after his daughter or something...
That was back when X-Men went through a few years of seriously crappy stories- they would dead-end a potline, drop it completely and then introduce a new mutant charcter to distract from it. (Jubilee, Gambit, Bishop, Ninja-Psyloke, etc.)
Then they squeezed every ounce of fan tolerance with silly "summer crossovers" that would cost a reader over $100 to collect all the parts....they lost a lot of readers then and their plots never had any lasting effect on the characters.
For example, they introduced the "mutant disease" that was very AIDS like and killed off Pyro with it...only to have him alive a few months later with no explanation....it was bad.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: I was always a fan of Excalibur in the early days, but even then, Kitty wasn't all that old. Definitely not 21 yet. Did Jubilee get introduced after Kitty and Nightcrawler were injured and joined Excalibur?
Not to mention the fact she just grew up all of a sudden. It's like Marvel finally realized that "Shadkitty" couldn't stay 13/mid teens for over 10 years.
X-calibur was what got me collectin the entire X-series int he 90s. I still think about the whole "warwolves" plotline now and then.
All the crossovers, glut of X-titles and lack of anything lasting happening (except the death of Illanya Rasputin, even then, she came back) and lack of funds led me to stop collecting.
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, after making a glib remark about Jubilee I seemed to have spawned some serious discussion.
So here's another serious question inspired by the above post. Which is the 'definitive' X-Men comic series? Does such a thing a exist? If not, which was the first? I get very confused when I see 'Ultimate X-Men', 'The Incredible X-Men', and 'Wolverine kicks the shit out of random badguy' whenever I frequent a comic store. It's actually prevented me from buying any. My introduction to X-Men was watching the cartoon at some ridiculously early hour during school holidays. Good times. Good times.
Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
"Uncanny X-Men" was first, I believe. And that's usually where the most important plot points and events take place. But that ridiculous Savage Land debacle that ate up, like, ten issues lately, focusing on some damn "Thundercats"-clones changing X-Men into dino antropomorphs, god I hated that. Why not reintroduce bellbottoms in hero costumes at the same time?!
Right now, my favorites are "eXiles", "Wolverine" and "Punisher". When Castle blew away the pelvis on that guy who had pissed on his wife's bones, man that was harsh. To me, it redefined what he was capable of. "Astonishing X-Men" has been good for a long time, I think, but I don't remember what they are dealing with right now. I liked the plot angle with Bishop working on the street in the mutant city blocks, slightly controversial themes, hate crimes and spousal abuse (not from Bishop).
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It was X-Men, thhen it became "Uncanny X-Men" one the new team (with Wolverine, Nightcrawler etc) took over (1980?).
For years that was it.
Then came the New Mutants book. Then they introduced X-Factor several years after that (composed of the original team of X-Men who thought the second team had sold out to magneto-who was actually a member for a few years as headmaster of the school).
Later (the late 80's-early 90's) comic book popularity exploded and so did the X-Books into (the horrible) X-Force, a second X-Men comic (no "uncanny" in the title), a new X-Force team, Wolverine's own series (and a second one in Marvel Presents) and a zillion limited series, one-shot graphic novels, prestige editions, crossovers, and alternate reality versions of the team.
Dont ask me to explain the time they killed the Punisher and brought him back as a voodo zombie fighting for God. Shit. You. Not.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Much of what is considered the heart of the X-Men, not just in terms of plots but character relationships and themes and the like, is all Chris Claremont, who wrote the book when it was reintroduced after its first run, as Jason mentions.
You might think that the original Lee/Kirby version would be it, but by all accounts it was pretty minor stuff compared to, say, the Fantastic Four, as far as their output goes.
Now personally, I was only really into the X-Men for a few years in the late 1990s, which was a decided nadir for the. . . franchise? Anyway, I wisely stopped just before Marvel wised up and hired Grant Morrison, and then started again after he left and Marvel took a great step backwards as far as risk-taking goes.
So, basically, it is like this: Twenty or so issues by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, only Kirby didn't draw all of them, and Lee didn't write all of them. Uh, Neal Adams and somebody else was on the book for awhile before it was cancelled and replaced by reprints of the previous issues. But I am scoffing at Wikipedia here and going from memory. Then the book was reintroduced with Chris Claremont writing, and he did that for, what, twenty years? A fan favorite, I guess, but I am very much not a fan of his stylistic quirks. Still, I would bet that, if any X-Men stories are in the public consciousness, he probably wrote them.
Then the crossover era of the 1990s, again mentioned by Jason, written by. . . well, Scott Lobdell took most of the flak. But wasn't this the era of Peter David's X-Factor, too? People seem to like that run, even though, once again, I am not a fan of the author. (I bet this would be a great spot to fit in a delightful pun! Or better yet, twenty thousand!)
Then the various X-Men spinoffs flap around for awhile waiting for a kind passerby to mercifully drag them off the highway and shoot them. Although there are some aborted runs in here that I can remember enjoying. Joe Kelly, who wrote the comic Deadpool, was on either X-Men or Uncanny X-Men, and I was excited, being a fan, but that lasted all of half a year or so.
And then Grant Morrison, who is probably the most critically respected comic writer to take a long-term pass at the core title(s). (Or, OK, respected by greasy postmodernist punks and nerds.)
I only rarely buy comics now (though paradoxically I read more comics reviews and criticism than I did when I was buying them), but I do like Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-Men. After buying the first six issues I quit, though, in favor of waiting for the collection(s). I'm not sure why anyone still buys comics in pamphlet form.
It's an interesting time to follow the economics and, like, cultural. . . you know, adventures? of American superhero comics, since it is pretty clear that actual comics with superheroes in them are dead and awaiting burial, while those same characters are hugely popular in other mediums.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
That having been said, outside of this thread most of the buzz about X-Men 3 that I've read is pretty negative.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
That's so silly though... how can you have negative buzz about a movie before ANYONE has actually seen it. Reminds me of how people used to diss episodes of DS9 and Voyager and Enterprise based on a prelimnary episode synopsis or a preview months before the actual episode was screened.
Never listen to reviewers... especially those online.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote:Originally posted by Not Invented Here: Well, after making a glib remark about Jubilee I seemed to have spawned some serious discussion.
So here's another serious question inspired by the above post. Which is the 'definitive' X-Men comic series?
Not saying it was definitive by any stretch of the word - but wasn't there some sort of TOS/X-men and TNG/X-men crossover. That just sounds like the biggest load of craptacle.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
I recall for a while, there was a trend to say that any crappy chracter was a mutant to cash in on the "mutant maina". They even said that Falcon (Captain America's old partner) was probably a mutant. Worst of all is Sabertooth- that charcater never had any "healing factor" nonsense untill he was in X-men and they whipped up a connection with Wolverine. Like for TEN YEARS Sabertooth got his ass kicked by Power Man, Iron Fist, Spider-Man, The Black Cat and possibly Aunt May, then he's suddenly this super-dangerous badass.
You know, the whole point to the X-Men is flawed- it's supposed to be about showing humans that mutants can be trusted and we can all live together in peace...then they make a super-team with NO HUMANS. Ever. Really. They have frikkin' mutant children, alien robots and extradimensional freedom fighters, but never a human.
If anyone wants a really great comic- go buy Trade paperback collections of Starman.
A great 81 issue run with one underlying story and the same creative team from the begining.
Also, Hellboy. Really, the more I love the comic, the more I cant stand the movie's childishness. The comic characters....they're so much more real. (for want of a better word).
Um...what buzz is there on X3 already? Did they wrap editing already?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
