The show isn't going to sink or swim on laundry and I'm only interested in assembling the '92 team on my shelf so the toyline can do whatever it wants.
This is a funny line. Points.
Not sure if I need Stacy X, but I'd take her mom. I hear she's got it going on.
I also laughed at this. Double points!
So just going back to Sunspot: do you want him in his street clothes, his blue and yellow suit or powered up?
I still want street clothes, with a powered-up hand/arm. Another hit of orange would look nice on the shelf.
So, selfishly my preference would be for a fully powered up Sunspot - since that figure could double in a New Mutants display or whatever. But, I think it would be reasonable to put him the street clothes look he sported for the vast majority of the season
Stacy-X is one of the few X-characters I have no interest in aside from tentacle Callisto, and fascist corporate dictator Banshee from that era of X-books. She always seemed just like a less interesting of Mystique who was all seduction and nothing else.
I'd buy a powered up Sunspot that could fit in a traditional X-Men display. I don't need him in his street clothes 97 look. I don't even really want "costumed" Morph with the paldrons etc. It'd have to be a pretty good head sculpt that I'd need for my AOA version etc. Don't need Val Cooper from 97. Maybe I'd take a Prez. Kelly if he could be used for a traditional display. Beast, Jubilee (if she looks good, I already have about 4), Morph, Deathbird, Brown and Tan Wolverine, Bastion, and 80s Cyclops or Cable would suffice for my needs from a 3rd 97 wave. Animated Psylocke, Archangel, Colossus and X-suit Magik I would buy just from Morph's transformations though.
Morrison's stories are already all over the first season of X-Men '97. I'm sure they can continue to adapt more modern material in a way that is compelling.
Yeah. The show's most acclaimed episode is literally an adaptation of the opening of the Morrison run.
I think we're giving Morrison a bit too much credit for what we saw in this "acclaimed" episode. The character involvements and deaths along with the emotional heart-string-tugging instances weren't present in most of what we saw in the New X-Men books covering Genosha. It was largely done for shock value and the giant cockroach Sentinel wipes out Genosha in what reads like a news broadcast. Charles is shocked, gets a bloody nose and Magneto is unaccounted for. Most of what made that episode was was DeMayo's and the rest of production's doing. There was no mutant ball, self-sacrificing love story culmination, or first and only meeting of a mother and her time-lost child. Morrison provided largely what amounts to a psychic's response to a Godzilla attack.
I’d like powered up Sunspot, final form Bastion with wings, and 90’s Crimson Dynamo!
Morrison's stories are already all over the first season of X-Men '97. I'm sure they can continue to adapt more modern material in a way that is compelling.
Yeah. The show's most acclaimed episode is literally an adaptation of the opening of the Morrison run.
I think we're giving Morrison a bit too much credit for what we saw in this "acclaimed" episode. The character involvements and deaths along with the emotional heart-string-tugging instances weren't present in most of what we saw in the New X-Men books covering Genosha. It was largely done for shock value and the giant cockroach Sentinel wipes out Genosha in what reads like a news broadcast. Charles is shocked, gets a bloody nose and Magneto is unaccounted for. Most of what made that episode was was DeMayo's and the rest of production's doing. There was no mutant ball, self-sacrificing love story culmination, or first and only meeting of a mother and her time-lost child. Morrison provided largely what amounts to a psychic's response to a Godzilla attack.
This is a response to the suggestion that adapting "modern" stories will be to the show's detriment, by pointing out that they've already been doing that from the jump. Who deserves how much credit isn't really the point.
But, I think the creators of the show themselves would disagree with your interpretation of the source material - why name an episode after that arc unless it's an important source of inspiration? Morrison's influence in the show is much more than this superficial read - made all the more obvious since we know they're going back to that well for season 2.
This is a response to the suggestion that adapting "modern" stories will be to the show's detriment, by pointing out that they've already been doing that from the jump. Who deserves how much credit isn't really the point.
But, I think the creators of the show themselves would disagree with your interpretation of the source material - why name an episode after that arc unless it's an important source of inspiration? Morrison's influence in the show is much more than this superficial read - made all the more obvious since we know they're going back to that well for season 2.
Everyone's entitled to like whatever they want. Morrison's run was indeed a veritable middle finger to X-Men canon and continuity, so the previous commentor's point is valid. I'm not sure what argument you're making in stating that adapting "giant sentinel slaughters Genosha" as a basic plot point, and then claiming to know the thoughts of the showrunners proves much of anything really other than what your own opinion already is. That's sort of the point isn't it? Name an episode after a story you borrowed a plot point from? Another " 'memberberry" for the audience. My point was that Morrison's version and what was shown in the show were far and away different. You're free to reshape your argument to defend Morrison because you like his stuff but please be intellectually honest enough not to mischaracterize other folks statements in your attempt to defend it. My point quite literally was that adapting a single plot point from a book and using it to move along a number of other subplots isn't thanks to Morrison beyond coming up with the idea to slaughter Genosha with a giant sentinel. I suppose you could point to cameos like newer mutants like Glob Herman as something, but again, is that really Morrison's influence or is that just dropping a random mutant some fans might know for fan service?
I'm not sure what "well" you're referencing them going back to in Season 2 since we don't know that much about it or the context of why the characters will be wearing the costumes from Morrison's era; be it a fashion montage or an enduring look. All we know is that 2/3 of the team are in either the future or the past. Neither of those really relate to anything Morrison presented. Of course we'll have to wait and see what comes of it.
That said, I don't know what "modern" stories you're referencing them already doing? Most of what we saw was 80s and 90s stories with a little bit of Bastion's Messiah Complex look tossed in. Even stuff like Blood of Apocalypse which they haven't shown us their version of is about 18 years old. What we watched were largely 20-30+ year old storylines thus far.
Whose statement did I mischaracterize?
You're completely free to not like Morrison's X-Men, and to think that any inspiration it has on the show is entirely superficial and only amounts to "big Sentinel attack." I disagree, but you've already suggested that I'm being dishonest so I'm not sure how much we need to dialogue about it. Of course I don't know what's in the hearts and minds of the showrunners. The impression I'm left with after season 1 is of a deep knowledge, appreciation, and respect for X-Men canon, and not some punchlist of "memberberry" moments that they wanted to check off. They clearly already drew inspiration from New X-Men for season 1, and they pulled it off well - I expect they'll be able to do the same with any future adaptation from that or other more modern X-stories, and the show won't necessarily suffer just because of when the source material was published.
Morrison's run was indeed a veritable middle finger to X-Men canon and continuity
That's certainly a take.
See, I get it. Younger people who came on board with Morrion's run or just before it are going to feel a stronger affininty for what Morrison did, and many old heads who cut their teeth on the Claremont/Byrne run often feel closer to what Jt marsh is expressing. There isn't going to be a meeting of the minds about this.
It isn't a monolith of course - there's a range and people who appreciate both.
TSI already proclaimed Morrison's run as arguably one of the best X-Men stories ever. If someone feels that strongly, they do. Just as those who venerate the Claremont stretch from Uncanny 94 through say Inferno aren't going to be moved off their spot. It is what it is.
Morrison is clearly a good writer. And he did what he was brought on to do, which is shake up the status quo of the x-men. He certainly succeeded at that. But it's easy to see why those who liked the old status quo feel as if what he did was a "middle finger to canon and continuity" - that was deliberate. That was the intent. To argue otherwise is somewhat disingenuous. But then, he wasn't the first writer to do that, and he was certainly better at it than a lot of them.
I argue the opposite. Morrison couldn't have done what they did without an appreciation of what came before.
Morrison's understanding of the characters and their history allowed Morrison to relaunch the franchise.
I argue the opposite. Morrison couldn't have done what they did without an appreciation of what came before.
So he had a wistful tear in his eye as he tossed the molotov cocktail into mansion 😉
Like I said - there's a zero percent chance you can make me love the Morrison run. I can acknowledge it had a job to do - but you can never make me ENJOY it. Some of it was the deliberate sledgehammer to the existing status quo - but ALOT of it was the atrocious aesthetic choices made with the art. God damn did I hate the art and the costumes so, so, so very much.
I argue the opposite. Morrison couldn't have done what they did without an appreciation of what came before.
So he had a wistful tear in his eye as he tossed the molotov cocktail into mansion 😉
Like I said - there's a zero percent chance you can make me love the Morrison run. I can acknowledge it had a job to do - but you can never make me ENJOY it. Some of it was the deliberate sledgehammer to the existing status quo - but ALOT of it was the atrocious aesthetic choices made with the art. God damn did I hate the art and the costumes so, so, so very much.
I just don't think it's accurate to describe New X-Men as being disrespectful or ignorant of what came before. It builds on both long-running themes of the X-Men AND on some events in the books that immediately preceded it. Of course that doesn't mean you have to like it, but it's not accurate to describe it as a "middle finger" to continuity when all you really mean is "I don't like it" (I acknowledge you didn't say it originally, but you ran with it!).
Also, again, my original point was solely to point out that Morrison's New X-Men has already made its way into X-Men '97.
It's amazing how many ways people have been able to remix "It wasn't what I grew up with, therefore it sucks" for all of these decades. With absolutely no self-awareness about how dangerously self-absorbed and petulant they are. Your childhood hasn't gone anywhere. You can re-read Claremont's run (it's my second fav, personally, after Morrison but before Hickman) as many times as you like and pretend the world hasn't changed since then.
Latest Post: Super7 Ultimates! Line Our newest member: DennisCah Recent Posts Unread Posts
