Page 69 of 69 FirstFirst ... 19596566676869
Results 1,021 to 1,029 of 1029
  1. #1021
    Mighty Member Redjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Lost Angles
    Posts
    1,184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaddor View Post
    Well lets do XCU.

    the so called ''XCU'' starts from DOFP. with the rebooted timline and all. that was the first time fox said...okay we want to do films were everything connects or loosely connect. so there was DOFP, Logan, Deadpool and Apocalypse and all has made more than the phase 1 and phase 2 marvel films. 2 are even r rated...no disney crowd or kids. one DOFP is hard pg 13.. so the potential of XCU is already higher than the mcu when mcu first started, this is the reason fox wont share rights and marvel wants to share rights.


    and no XCU does not have to earn as much or be compared to MCU or DCEU because XCU is still a part of marvel. but it is great that X-Men has broken this much away from marvel and is now seen by many as another franchise. hardly any other marvel IP can do that.

    Ah but Hulk can have a solo. he already had one. universal just has to make a deal again but they are not bothered because hulk can no longer carry his own film. ah, kind of used to all the lies and un facts.

    Hulk is in thor 3 to keep people interested. at this stage if marvel has any real artistic integrity, all their films should be stand alone by now but the opposite is happening and that further exposes why they are declining.

    XCU has proven that they are better on their own and can earn a lot of money. as I said, you and marvel are the people begging for film deals. last I read your comment. you were nearly harassing someone in the gifted thread because he or she told you Xmen does not belong in the MCU....duh. lol.
    You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
    The Jack is BACK.

    MY SITE

  2. #1022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kintor View Post
    So you say but that's not how things are actually playing out. There have been gay characters in comics before and there have been coming out stories in comics before, it's honestly not that much of a headline grabber anymore. What does get attention though is when a famous character with decades of history suddenly becomes openly gay after the intervention of an emotionally unstable psychic. That just doesn't sit well with the outside observer. I call psychic conversion therapy but there are far less moderate descriptions gaining popularity online.
    Jean did not make Bobby gay. It is that simple. Jean did not make Bobby gay. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Jean did not make Bobby gay. Your little fan-theories don't reflect the actual content or intent of the story and acting like they do is wrong. Jean did not make Bobby gay.
    Last edited by Conn Seanery; 09-11-2017 at 03:00 PM.

  3. #1023
    Incredible Member Jaddor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redjack View Post
    You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
    I believe I do. nothing I said is untrue. my only anger is fox did not fully reboot when they should have. the XCU should not have started from DOFP .It should have started from Deapool and new mutants that leads up to xmen.

    You see unlike some, I dont make excuses or lie 24/7 just because I like something. XCU has a lot of problems and I am happy to discuss and CRITICIZE it instead of pretending everything is fine like some of you are doing with the MCU. do you even know MCU timeline is now messed up? they did an 8 year jump that has led to many inconsistency and thor 3 is displayed. it is displayed so much that the director seem to be dong a ''LOGAN''. WHERE HE SAYS ALTHOUGH IT IS PART OF A CINEMATIC UNIVERSE PEOPLE SHOULD ALSO SEE IT AS A STAND ALONE MOVIE.

    As for me having no idea what I am talking about why not ask DisMavel and Kevin Fiege why they have a very unhealthy obsession with X-Men to the point that marvel attempted to destroy and replace, then ban, manipulate and steal for xmen mythos?

    Notice fox and Xmen fans hardy talk about MCU or other marvel IP? Marvel is the one that wont shut up about xmen and marvel has destructive tendencies because for it. that destructive tendencies is what has now destroyed Inhumans and marvel comics itself. oh and another reasons, DC is far better than marvel right now and will remain that way for a long time to come.
    Last edited by Jaddor; 09-10-2017 at 10:53 PM.

  4. #1024
    Astonishing Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redjack View Post
    no. there aren't. there is a small subset of bigots in the "fan" community, unhappy with this revelation, who are trying to find fault with a story that was handled pretty well. that's not the same thing as those "theories gaining popularity."

    it's not clever. it's not subtle. it's not going to change anything.
    Wouldn't the question of if the story was handled well be veering into story criticism, where subjectivity is certainly a thing? While I'm sure that a decent percentage of critics of the story are critics because they don't like the idea of 616 Iceman being a gay character for whatever subjective reason, isn't there a point where the opinion on the decision of the retcon itself can be separated from the question of the story's artistic merits in and of itself.

    In other words, do we know that everyone who found fault with the story is opposing it simply because they don't like the creative decision and not because they genuinely think the comic is poorly written for reasons XYZ? It has been my experience that people can construct reasonable arguments to criticize stories I found to be excellent (the characters in Star Wars: The Force Awakens), and vice versa (don't get me started on Gwen Stacy in the Mark Webb Spider-Man movies). Art is well in the realms of subjectivity and something that works for one may not work for all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jaddor View Post
    I believe I do. nothing I said is untrue. my only anger is fox did not fully reboot when they should have. the XCU should not have started from DOFP .It should have started from Deapool and new mutants that leads up to xmen.
    Why should there have been a hard reboot there?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaddor View Post
    You see unlike some, I dont make excuses or lie 24/7 just because I like something. XCU has a lot of problems and I am happy to discuss and CRITICIZE it instead of pretending everything is fine like some of you are doing with the MCU. do you even know MCU timeline is now messed up? they did an 8 year jump that has led to many inconsistency and thor 3 is displayed. it is displayed so much that the director seem to be dong a ''LOGAN''. WHERE HE SAYS ALTHOUGH IT IS PART OF A CINEMATIC UNIVERSE PEOPLE SHOULD ALSO SEE IT AS A STAND ALONE MOVIE.
    No idea about Thor's problems, however the 8-year figure in Spider-Man: Homecoming is a non-issue; it can be dismissed as a typo in the timestamp. It certainly had no effect on the story itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaddor View Post
    As for me having no idea what I am talking about why not as DisMavel and Kevin Fiege why they have a very unhealthy obsession with X-Men to the point that marvel attempted to destroy and replace, then ban, manipulate and steal for xmen mythos?
    As far as the comics go, don't series wax and wane in popularity over time? As far as the MCU goes, the X-Men were never going to be a part of it due to film rights, so what's the problem with the Powers That Be tweaking other things to be similar in that specific sub-franchise? The X-Men are not getting shafted since they're not a part of it in the first place, any more than the X-Men getting shafted because they didn't appear in the Power Rangers movie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaddor View Post
    Notice fox and Xmen fans hardy talk about MCU or other marvel IP?
    Nope. I love both the X-Men and MCU movies. Both have made some excellent installments in the genre and deserve the kudos they have received over the years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaddor View Post
    Marvel is the one that wont shut up and they destructive tendencies that destructive tendencies is what has destroyed Inhumans and marvel comics itself.
    I have yet to see any proof that Marvel is destroying itself. I don't like a lot of their creative decisions and new materials myself, but that doesn't mean that Marvel is going down the tubes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaddor View Post
    oh and another reasons, DC is far better than marvel right now and will remain that way for a long time to come.
    Since DC doesn't have Spider-Man or Star Wars, it is impossible for them to ever be better than Marvel.

    Okay, seriously. Marvel is consistently the best-selling comic book company month-by-month now. DC's movie output is a joke compared to Marvel (Marvel invented the modern cinematic universe, while DC has had only one good movie out of four so far). Personally, I think that DC has better prices (and Green Lanterns is one of the best comics out there right now), but Marvel is currently king where it matters.
    Last edited by WebLurker; 09-10-2017 at 11:08 PM.

  5. #1025
    Mad scientist Carabas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    13,732

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kintor View Post
    Character development takes time, this is true of all personal growth from moral decisions to sexuality.
    And Iceman's character development towards outing himself has been going on since the bleeding nineties.
    "One may be intelligent, and a Nazi. Then one is not decent. One may be decent and a Nazi. Then one is not intelligent. And one may be intelligent and decent. Then one is not a Nazi"
    - Gerhard Bronner

  6. #1026
    Mighty Member Redjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Lost Angles
    Posts
    1,184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebLurker View Post
    Wouldn't the question of if the story was handled well be veering into story criticism, where subjectivity is certainly a thing? While I'm sure that a decent percentage of critics of the story are critics because they don't like the idea of 616 Iceman being a gay character for whatever subjective reason, isn't there a point where the opinion on the decision of the retcon itself can be separated from the question of the story's artistic merits in and of itself.
    1) Not a "retcon." A retcon is when you go back into existing continuity and change/omit/add a moment or large event to suit some current story point. This isn't that. This is a story in which everything we know about Bobby Drake remains true while at the same time revealing to us and him that even he wasn't admitting his sexuality to himself. I'm not gay but one of my siblings is and this refusal to accept oneself is something I observed over YEARS and saw how painful it was. My sibling came out to me in much the same way (without the telepathy, of course, because this is reality). Bobby's acceptance of his real nature is very much in keeping with how it sometimes happens in real life.

    2) No. This story was NOT, in fact, tackled in "one issue," but dealt with over several. It was not a sudden change but one which was handled in steps culminating in Jean's accessing Bobby's deep psyche directly. So, no, the complaints are not legitimate and do not stray into the realm of "that's just your opinion." They are based on either a complete misunderstanding of the story and the moments in question or homophobia trying to masquerade as a legitimate gripe.

    The idea that Jean forced Bobby to "turn gay" is both offensive and ludicrous. It's not even worth bothering to deconstruct.
    Last edited by Redjack; 09-11-2017 at 12:00 AM.
    The Jack is BACK.

    MY SITE

  7. #1027
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebLurker View Post
    Wouldn't the question of if the story was handled well be veering into story criticism, where subjectivity is certainly a thing? While I'm sure that a decent percentage of critics of the story are critics because they don't like the idea of 616 Iceman being a gay character for whatever subjective reason, isn't there a point where the opinion on the decision of the retcon itself can be separated from the question of the story's artistic merits in and of itself.
    That is a loaded question. It may be couched in the objective language of separating the art from the artistic context, but it is not intellectually honest. Editorial decisions like this are fundamentally artistic, they are made with a fundamental principle of art in mind, the reflection of reality. By seeking to separate the decision from the artistic impulse you are seeking to prioritise the subjective emotional reaction to a character by a narrow group of readers, over a supposedly objective and calculated decision. It is just a way of asking the question that presupposes the separation. Asking the question in this way fundamentally minimises the role of writers and editors and limits what is acceptable. It prioritises readers with one subjective perspective over others.

    This is a huge problem in our current internet culture. Criticism is a form of journalism, which like many journalistic pursuits has been somewhat hijacked by amateurs. A critic is not supposed to be a casual reader, who just reads through a story and forms an opinion. A critic is supposed to be engaged in an intellectual pursuit. The discipline of criticism demands intellectual honesty and a certain amount of rigour. Criticising a piece of art is totally pointless if by doing so one never rises beyond the subjective.

    Critical analysis will always be a subjective field, because reading is itself subjective, but there are many methodologies available to allow the text to be read in a deeper or clearer way. From just reading more carefully, with attention to details and apparent techniques, to deep analysis of the language, themes, structure, textual relationships, etc.

    It is not intellectually honest to form an opinion of a work based on a narrow reading, without at least analysing the text for other interpretations, and looking at the wider story for other elements that support or undermine that opinion. But instead, many amateur critics do the very opposite. They form quick emotional opinions and then look for any other details that support their point of view. In the process ignoring or minimising anything that contradicts them or undermines their opinion. This is not only intellectually dishonest, it priorities their own subjectivity over the work itself.

    This leads to intensely personal opinions on the writers and editors based upon insubstantial subjective perspectives. If one goes further and turns criticism on its head, focusing on the perceived decisions of the writer and editor before reflecting upon the work then it just becomes opinionated and biased, and totally undermines the credibility of the critic.
    Last edited by JKtheMac; 09-11-2017 at 02:09 AM.

  8. #1028
    Mighty Member JackDaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drops Of Venus View Post
    Ok, let me ask you something: how do you feel about Marjorie Liu's AFFIRMATION that she WROTE BOBBY AS A CLOSETED PERSON during her X-Men run, BEFORE Teen Jean had anything to do with his outing at all? How do you explain the scenes that she wrote that clearly indicated he had repressed feelings and he struggled with them? How's that for a proper story arc to back it up?

    It's certainly an interesting revelation. And certainly one that I (and I suspect many other comic fans) would love to ask some follow up questions about. (What was it made her think Bobby had repressed feelings?? Yes..you can cite a host of short failed relationships with women for example. But that's fairly typical of male super hero types in Marvel. Did she discuss point with her artists...so they could draw subtle body language "clues", etc. Did she discuss this interpretation of character with her editors?).

    But at very least...for me Marjorie's view more or less guarantees that showing Bobby "coming out" is a valid character development...she will obviously have given matter profound thought.

    A question for Redjack: I know you've said several times that Marvel gives you a pretty wide licence in how you write the characters, that you "pretty much just get on with it". But does control "tighten" as you write the bigger and bigger icons?? (I can remember Ed Brubaker saying he enjoyed writing Catwoman far more than Batman...because with Catwoman he was left to his own devices...while with Batman he ran up against much more editorial "help".) I ask...because I wonder..how process of introducing a major change to say likes of Wolverine or Spider-man would work in practice.)

  9. #1029
    Notorious M.O.S. Kuwagaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,998

    Default

    So the OP is tired of seeing division in regards to Marvel comics, and that kick starts a 70 page argument on everything under the sun, including other posters.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •