|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 11, 2007 16:32:13 GMT -5
Tana, let me try to help.
Guys think like this. If you're married think about your wife. If you're not, think about your mom.
What if someone were to use some sort of artificial method (drug, hypnosis, alcohol whatever) to alter your wife/mom's perception and then has sex with her.
Are you saying you wouldn't track this guy down and beat the living tar out of him?
If your answer is yes, then you believe this is a rape situation. If your answer is no, then I don't kno what to say. Tana would be right. It'll be impossible to find common ground with you.
As an ex-paramedic who has had to deal with this situation, it is rape. The way it's written in the comic, it is rape.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 11, 2007 17:24:32 GMT -5
Tana, let me try to help. Guys think like this. If you're married think about your wife. If you're not, think about your mom. What if someone were to use some sort of artificial method (drug, hypnosis, alcohol whatever) to alter your wife/mom's perception and then has sex with her. Are you saying you wouldn't track this guy down and beat the living tar out of him? If your answer is yes, then you believe this is a rape situation. If your answer is no, then I don't kno what to say. Tana would be right. It'll be impossible to find common ground with you. As an ex-paramedic who has had to deal with this situation, it is rape. The way it's written in the comic, it is rape. Thanks Nutty. I appreciate your help, and I think you've hit a key point of contention here: was Marcus' use of his machines to influence Carol's mind a violation or not? This is pretty much the foundation of the arguement of whether or not rape occured, and depending on how one answers this question, so goes the arguement.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Apr 11, 2007 20:33:32 GMT -5
I think it's obviously a violation of her free will and thus rape. And I'm not even some left-wing women's-libber.
RSC
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 11, 2007 20:44:50 GMT -5
you're not the only one RSC. Not a liberal,
here's another situation,... you're the new guy in prison and you're new roomie 'Tank' slips you a mickey,......
nevermind, I think you get it
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Apr 11, 2007 22:00:47 GMT -5
You know, there was a related situation recently in New Avengers where Hawkeye was written by Bendis as taking sexual advantage of a mentally disturbed Scarlet Witch. I'm not sure I would call it "rape" per se, but I know you could make a pretty good case for it. At the very least it's morally reprehensible as written.
RSC
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 12, 2007 5:25:02 GMT -5
RSC,
Thank you, that issue made me feel weird and I didn't know why. In a certain light, you are right. I don't know that it would be considered rape, because Hawkeye is not responsible for causing her altered state and didn't cause it with the means of having her as is the case with the comic in question here. But he DID indeed take advantage of a situation that he knew wasn't right. That does put it in a reprehensible light.
|
|
|
Post by Bored Yesterday on Apr 12, 2007 9:15:21 GMT -5
I'm having trouble reading these posts, because I keep having to duck under my desk to avoid the flying Surfer who seems to be leaping off the monitor.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 12, 2007 9:35:04 GMT -5
Tana, we do have some common ground to begin with. I see where you coming from and understood your position. But I was just trying to show that it is possible to see other sides of this than just the P.C. view that "she was raped - period". Nutcase - C´mon man, that was low. To ask what if "it was your wife" (or girlfriend) is just wrong from the start, because even if she had consensual sex whit somebody else I (like almost every man) would be upset. I will not even mention the "mother" part of your argument. You can do better than that. RSC - We all know you´re a heart bleeding liberal, man But Tana is right when she says it was all because last minute changes from the part of the editors. Michellinie couldn´t undo issues 198 and 199 to make Carol actually remember who got her preagnant, so the answer was making Marcus had her brainwashed...
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 12, 2007 15:13:57 GMT -5
Tana, we do have some common ground to begin with. I see where you coming from and understood your position. But I was just trying to show that it is possible to see other sides of this than just the P.C. view that "she was raped - period". Nutcase - C´mon man, that was low. To ask what if "it was your wife" (or girlfriend) is just wrong from the start, because even if she had consensual sex whit somebody else I (like almost every man) would be upset. I will not even mention the "mother" part of your argument. You can do better than that. RSC - We all know you´re a heart bleeding liberal, man But Tana is right when she says it was all because last minute changes from the part of the editors. Michellinie couldn´t undo issues 198 and 199 to make Carol actually remember who got her preagnant, so the answer was making Marcus had her brainwashed... This is not a PC view. I welcome you to come live with me for a few days. The PC police would put me under the jail, you'd see that I'm the least PC person there is. The simple fact is, once you introduce a foreign subatance or procedure that causes a loss in cognitive ability or affects choice. Basically anything that would make a person say yes, when they would have said no. If you take advantage. It's rape. The reason I ask you to consider the situation in context of the people you care about is that there is a tendencey to debate on here for the sake of debate. That's fine. But rape is not debatable and I wanted to get folks out of debate mode. This subject has ruined too many lives to be debatable. It's black and white. and funnyman Rush Limbaugh called me the other day and told me I was being too conservative. I still luvya though
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 12, 2007 23:41:22 GMT -5
You know because i was unsure that marcus was raised in Limbo I went and reread 200 and found something funny. marcus never says he manipulated carol's mind. Here's the direct dialogue: "Finally after weeks of such efforts--and admittedly with a subtle boost from Immortus' machines--you became mine." Now he may have used the machines to boost phermone levels in the room (which some perfumes and colognes claim to do), create beautiful soothing ambient light (like many clubs do) , rhythmic music (again clubs), oxygen rich air (all right not so much of that in our current landscape), any of a number of inhibitor lesseners (which to be honest might be the same as buying someone a drink in the future) but it never says he directly manipulated her mind. Earlier the dialogue concerning Immortus is slightly more direct, but still doesn;t say mind control exactly--this is what Marcus says happened between Immortus and the woman who gave him birth: "Once back in Limbo, through a combination of gratitude and the subtle manipulations of my father's ingenious machines, the woman fell in love with him." Now we're PRESUMING that Marcus used the exact same machines and that they did in fact alter mental control to change someone's perceptions. It's not like it ever says there's a direct push button mind control machine... But to be honest, marcus never says that he took control of Carol's mind and neither does the original story. It's ambiguous and while the interpretation is there and I think claremont took it that way, but then he contradicts himself. here's dialogue from avengers annual #10 as carol explains her anger: "Marcus said that Immortus' devices could bend me to his will, but he didn't want me that way. He set out to win my love and finally as he told you 'with a subtle boost from Immortus' machines' he succeeded." So he had devices that could bend her to his will, and make her completely subservient but this seems to suggest he didn't use them at least in full. yet carol acts as if she didn't have a choice. It doesn't sound quite right. I don't want to sound silly but why would one have a light version of mind control and a full version? carol says it was mind control but then also says it took her a period of time to figure out the machines. can we say she knew what mind control machine looked like? mental manipulation is different. grocery stores pump in smells to make you buy cakes and cookies as well as stimulate the pleasure centers of your brain. boxes are designed to stimulate children to smile and crave because of the friendly imagery of the animated character. women wear revealing clothing and things like high heels to stimulate the pleasure centers of men's brains. we accept that sometimes people will play to our mental weaknesses. I don't think we can prove that marcus did anything more than that. I wholly understand the disgust with this story, but it doesn't add up directly and conclusively to rape and I think Claremont only made it worse with this explanation of the events. It's interesting what happens when you go back and read these things.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Apr 13, 2007 0:16:28 GMT -5
You know because i was unsure that marcus was raised in Limbo I went and reread 200 and found something funny. marcus never says he manipulated carol's mind. Here's the direct dialogue: "Finally after weeks of such efforts--and admittedly with a subtle boost from Immortus' machines--you became mine." Well, it seems to me that "with a subtle boost from Immortus's machines" is prima facie evidence that he manipulated Carol's mind. If some guy told me that he f***ed my sister "with the help of a subtle boost from Immortus' machines," that guy's life would be measured by how long it took me to retrieve the .45 automatic I keep in my dresser drawer. First, the story never mentions pheromones. Second, if you get to read between the lines to support your point of view, then I do as well. Suppose you're Marcus. Do you come right out and tell the Avengers "I controlled Carol's mind in order to have sex with her?" Of course not. If you said anything at all, you would spin it to minimize any negative implications for yourself. You completely overlook the strong possibility that Marcus is lying and that Carol is in no condition to contradict him. You are implying that anything other than total robotic control of the other person legitimates the act. It doesn't. It's rape. Period. And if Carol was being controlled, how would she tell that fact? If she was being controlled could she not also be forced to parrot Marcus' facile explanation for the whole thing? Come on. How does any comic character know what any plot device looks like? Because the writer says so. OK. I may not think that "subtle" things like manipulative advertising is entirely on the up-and-up. It may get me to buy a box of cookies or a hamburger that I may not have bought otherwise. However, I make a distinction between spending $3 on junk food, and being raped.RSC
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 13, 2007 0:35:51 GMT -5
You know because i was unsure that marcus was raised in Limbo I went and reread 200 and found something funny. marcus never says he manipulated carol's mind. Here's the direct dialogue: "Finally after weeks of such efforts--and admittedly with a subtle boost from Immortus' machines--you became mine." Well, it seems to me that "with a subtle boost from Immortus's machines" is prima facie evidence that he manipulated Carol's mind. If some guy told me that he f***ed my sister "with the help of a subtle boost from Immortus' machines," that guy's life would be measured by how long it took me to retrieve the .45 automatic I keep in my dresser drawer. First, the story never mentions pheromones. Second, if you get to read between the lines to support your point of view, then I do as well. Suppose you're Marcus. Do you come right out and tell the Avengers "I controlled Carol's mind in order to have sex with her?" Of course not. If you said anything at all, you would spin it to minimize any negative implications for yourself. You completely overlook the strong possibility that Marcus is lying and that Carol is in no condition to contradict him. You are implying that anything other than total robotic control of the other person legitimates the act. It doesn't. It's rape. Period. And if Carol was being controlled, how would she tell that fact? If she was being controlled could she not also be forced to parrot Marcus' facile explanation for the whole thing? Come on. How does any comic character know what any plot device looks like? Because the writer says so. OK. I may not think that "subtle" things like manipulative advertising is entirely on the up-and-up. It may get me to buy a box of cookies or a hamburger that I may not have bought otherwise. However, I make a distinction between spending $3 on junk food, and being raped.RSC That's all fine and good. How many nearly omniscient lords of time with access to machinery from a million years in the future do you know, anyway? Here's a simple one. How does it work? The supposed mind control machine. How does it work? You don't know do you? How can you claim something is a mind control machine if we've never seen it, never knew the extent of its capacity, how it works, etc. Does anybody remember the story where Tom Thumb went to the future to get a cure for cancer in squadron Supreme? The cure was just simple vitamins. You can't presuppose what something is or what it does and claim that's evidence. Again, crappy story, and you're imposing and presupposing your limits on it. That's not evidence. The words are not a confession or explanation of how the machines work. If we go into court tomorrow and you say you have a machine that was used in a murder, but you don't know it works, you don't know how it does what it does and you only have one person who swears it was used and that person is not someone who is adept at technology and can't described how it worked or did what it did if anything, you would be laughed out of court. And you pulling out said 45 would be a lot more concrete. Sorry, but the story doesn't give you what you need to make your claim.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 13, 2007 6:54:32 GMT -5
and just because you were raised that something is OK doesn't make it so.
In the South many kids were raised that it's OK to hate because of skin color. Doesn't make it right.
In many homes kids are raised seeing their father beating their mother. This creates a cycle in which sons grow up to be abusive and daughters grow up seeking abusive partners. I would hope no person on here would say that this is OK
The sctions you listed by the Spartans are also wrong. When we look back many will comment on the 'barbaric' nature of those individuals.
RSC states it quite well when he points out the fact about 'subtle manipulation' As soon as he alters her ability, in ANY degree, too make choices under her own steam, without her awareness, and then takes advantage, it's still rape.
Since someone got a little upset by me asking them about it happening to their loved ones (why would it upset you if it isn't wrong) I'll put it like this.
Guys, how would you feel if Marcus Immortus had you in Limbo and gave YOUR mind a slight nudge?
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 13, 2007 9:15:33 GMT -5
The simple fact is, once you introduce a foreign subatance or procedure that causes a loss in cognitive ability or affects choice. When people date they normally go for a drink. Smoking a cigarrete is also ingesting a substance that affects cognitive ability (many substances actually). I´m not saying those things affect any and every choice made by the person, but according to you if someone goes out with a woman and they drink or smoke to relax and become more intim and after that go to bed (both wanting to) it is rape. Basically anything that would make a person say yes, when they would have said no. If you take advantage. It's rape. How do you know Carol would have said 'no'? Read Imperiusrex post about issue 200. She didn´t say it was against her will, or that she was being active mind controlled, Chris Claremont later presumed that. The only proof we have that Marcus brainwashed her is that she didn´t remember getting preagnant and what happened between them im Limbo. And that was because Michellinie couldn´t undo issues 198 and 199. The reason I ask you to consider the situation in context of the people you care about is that there is a tendencey to debate on here for the sake of debate. That's fine. But rape is not debatable and I wanted to get folks out of debate mode. This subject has ruined too many lives to be debatable. It's black and white. and funnyman Rush Limbaugh called me the other day and told me I was being too conservative. I still luvya though Sorry but it´s not for you to "get folks out of debate mode". This is a public board, you can get involved in the debate if you want to say something or if not go to other topics, but you don´t have the authority here to say what people can or cannot post (only Shriryu and Van have). I was not defending rape or anything, just saying that the story made it ambiguous if it was against her will or not. And it does, you just have to reread the story instead of trying to show what a great guy you are because for you "it´s black and white".
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 13, 2007 9:31:58 GMT -5
Well, it seems to me that "with a subtle boost from Immortus's machines" is prima facie evidence that he manipulated Carol's mind. If some guy told me that he f***ed my sister "with the help of a subtle boost from Immortus' machines," that guy's life would be measured by how long it took me to retrieve the .45 automatic I keep in my dresser drawer. Problem here is that then almost every guy who goes out with your sister is in danger, because even using a perfum can be seen as a subtle use of something. Going to a fancy restaurant instead of a place where they´re flippin´burgers can also be seen as a subtle use of something. I think you´re missing the point here RSC, that is how could you tell it was against her will (Carol didn´t say that)? If someone beat a woman up or get her so drunk that she´s almost in a coma and then rape her it´s rape no matter what, but when we´re talking about seducing a woman it becomes more complex than that. And there´s no Immortus machines in the real world, so it even more difficult to find analogues to "a subltle boost from his machines".
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 13, 2007 9:42:45 GMT -5
and just because you were raised that something is OK doesn't make it so. In the South many kids were raised that it's OK to hate because of skin color. Doesn't make it right. In many homes kids are raised seeing their father beating their mother. This creates a cycle in which sons grow up to be abusive and daughters grow up seeking abusive partners. I would hope no person on here would say that this is OK The sctions you listed by the Spartans are also wrong. When we look back many will comment on the 'barbaric' nature of those individuals. RSC states it quite well when he points out the fact about 'subtle manipulation' As soon as he alters her ability, in ANY degree, too make choices under her own steam, without her awareness, and then takes advantage, it's still rape. Since someone got a little upset by me asking them about it happening to their loved ones (why would it upset you if it isn't wrong) I'll put it like this. Guys, how would you feel if Marcus Immortus had you in Limbo and gave YOUR mind a slight nudge? well you're mixing two arguments without referencing them. the first argument was whether marcus is as evil as someone who purposely and maliciously is from another thread about the most evil character in the MU, so it's confusing to put it here. And whether or not you agree with my argument, you do nothing to disprove it except say what if it were you. well here's my answer--if I don't know exactly what happened to my mind and couldn't answer why I did what I did, I don't know. You act as if people don't ever do things they regret with no such thing as mind control, and just because Carol thinks it is so, doesn't automatically make it so. I mean she seems to have some control over her faculties and autonomy in #200 and is really to fight Marcus at one point during the end of the story when he threatens the Avengers. If that's how my mind control machine works, I want my money back... And that's the point, both stories never establish with any clarity as I showed through the actual dialogue what exactly happened. And if you're to say such things as mind control and rape, then shouldn't the story be explicitly clear about such things? I realize life isn't clear, but life also doesn't involve lords of limbo with technology from a million years in the future and other impossible situations. take me to the courtroom where you could prove this. It's a huge failing on marvel's point that these stories are so poorly written -both 200 and annual 10, but they are. And if they're going to tackle heavy issues, they should be well written.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 13, 2007 9:48:02 GMT -5
The sctions you listed by the Spartans are also wrong. When we look back many will comment on the 'barbaric' nature of those individuals. Sorry, but what are you talking about? Who listed what about Spartans? RSC states it quite well when he points out the fact about 'subtle manipulation' As soon as he alters her ability, in ANY degree, too make choices under her own steam, without her awareness, and then takes advantage, it's still rape. it is difficult to find real world analogues for things like machines from a lord of time from the distant future, but the point here is how can you tell it changed her mind? You can´t, and unless any of us here find a way to contact Jim Shooter or David Michelinie and ask them it remains dubious if Carol wanted or not. In the Kang Wars it was shown that she felt great physicall (but not only physicall) attraction to Marcus. Since someone got a little upset by me asking them about it happening to their loved ones (why would it upset you if it isn't wrong) I'll put it like this. Guys, how would you feel if Marcus Immortus had you in Limbo and gave YOUR mind a slight nudge? You may have misunderstood me. I was not upset, but you were just trying to manipulate my answer by involving loved ones (go reread my responce). You´re trying to do it again by saying that if it wasn´t wrong I would not have been upset. I could try to manipulate you too, by saying 'what if you had a date with a woman, you both had a few drinks, go to your place, and next morning she says, with no proof, that it was against her will and you raped her?' But I won´t do that (it was just an example of how I could try to manipulate your next answer) because I´m not reaching for all time lows here.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 13, 2007 13:09:58 GMT -5
Earlier Rex mentioned going to those particular clubs, the fallacy of that example is that the girls in question there CHOOSE to go into those clubs.
As far as the point about doing things you regret, it is clear to me that Carol did not CHOOSE to have a light nudge from any machine.
Von Bek, it starts to look like you are wanting to debate just for the sake of it. While that is fine on other topics, it's not so much here. Your analogy of the date with the woman, in your example she CHOOSE to drink. In the context of the story Carol clearly feels she would not have choose to be with Marcus without his outside manipulations.
As far as no comparison point, I disagree. I would say that someone slipping any drug into someones drink, without the drinkers knowledge, is a very close comparison. Marcus 'nudged' her mind without knowledge or consent. Marcus did this to furthrt his desires of their relationship. The writers intent is very clear here. If you need them to explain it go ahead, but it is clear to many of the rest of us
I've dealt with situations frighteningly similar. I have also seen courts of law send people away for these kinds of actions. Let me put it this way. If that technology was available, and any guy took my daughter on a date, and things developed in the exact same way as written here, or any similar way. That man wouldn't have to worry about court.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 13, 2007 13:35:50 GMT -5
I read back over where this thread has gone, it really looks like a simple debate has turned into people trying to justify, or if not excuse, rape. I know that this is not what you guys are trying to do.
I am gonna stop posting to this one, cus it has the potential to get ugly. Argue what you want to I don't want to start fighting here. I won't post to this again.
Luv y'all
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 13, 2007 13:40:37 GMT -5
Earlier Rex mentioned going to those particular clubs, the fallacy of that example is that the girls in question there CHOOSE to go into those clubs. What kind of clubs are you talking about? As far as the point about doing things you regret, it is clear to me that Carol did not CHOOSE to have a light nudge from any machine. How do you know that if she said 'no' the machines would have made her change her mind? Von Bek, it starts to look like you are wanting to debate just for the sake of it. While that is fine on other topics, it's not so much here. Your analogy of the date with the woman, in your example she CHOOSE to drink. In the context of the story Carol clearly feels she would not have choose to be with Marcus without his outside manipulations. I´m not debating just for the sake of it, but even if I were, it is fine and ok, like I already said this is a public forum. And you´re contradicting yourself. You posted that "everything that alters her ability, in ANY degree, too make choices under her own steam, without her awareness, and then takes advantage, it's still rape". Now you´re saying that if a woman drinks (and that would alter her ability to make choices - at least to a degree, according to how much she drank) is not rape, because she chooses to drink. The mind boogles... As far as no comparison point, I disagree. I would say that someone slipping any drug into someones drink, without the drinkers knowledge, is a very close comparison. Marcus 'nudged' her mind without knowledge or consent. Marcus did this to furthrt his desires of their relationship. The writers intent is very clear here. If you need them to explain it go ahead, but it is clear to many of the rest of us The writer intend can´t be that clear because he had to change the story! The original story was about the Supreme Intelligence using Carol´s womb to create an offspring. They had to change that in the last minute, so I´m pretty sure neither Michelinie nor Shooter wanted to tell a tale about rape. I've dealt with situations frighteningly similar. I have also seen courts of law send people away for these kinds of actions. I guess you met the sons of Lords of Time from another dimension then? ;D Let me put it this way. If that technology was available, and any guy took my daughter on a date, and things developed in the exact same way as written here, or any similar way. That man wouldn't have to worry about court. WOW.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 13, 2007 13:49:33 GMT -5
I read back over where this thread has gone, it really looks like a simple debate has turned into people trying to justify, or if not excuse, rape. I know that this is not what you guys are trying to do. If you know that this is not what we were trying to do (and it isn´t) why you´re saying it looks like that? I am gonna stop posting to this one, cus it has the potential to get ugly. How it has that potential and what you mean by "get ugly"? Argue what you want to I don't want to start fighting here. I won't post to this again. Luv y'all You joined the group of a minority here that when they cannot win an argument start posting things like that, and say they will never post again and so on...
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 13, 2007 13:56:35 GMT -5
Oh my Lord. The idea that I'm trying to justify rape in any way is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Here's my point and please understand it thoroughly. Number one the stories are both poorly written, they do not give definitive statements and they contradict themselves and they don't ever clearly state in any way that shows any evidence how exactly Carol's mind was influenced. If you read the stories as I just did last night, you'll see that the original was not clear and that it seems that if all marcus wanted to do was be born he could've just used his machines to wholly take her over. And this leaves us with an inexact knowledge of what he did or didn't do to carol. As and such the stories are badly written and weak and don't make their point properly. How that in any way somehow reads as a justification of rape is the stupidest thing I've read in some time. Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 13, 2007 15:02:16 GMT -5
It's this newfound inanity that has me lately passing by and not participating on the boards I used to love for their intellectualism.
|
|
|
Post by bendisbites on Apr 15, 2007 19:29:33 GMT -5
If anything the writers really dropped the ball. How do you let a rapist not get punished for his crime in your storyline? Chris Claremont should've concentrated on Ms. Marvel and Immortus instead of making them a backstory. Can I smite Chris Claremont for being a bad writer?
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Apr 16, 2007 18:12:56 GMT -5
Can I smite Chris Claremont for being a bad writer? Does he have an account here?
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on May 29, 2009 6:55:36 GMT -5
I loved this comic, though, yeah, the last few pages with Ms Marvel really fell flat. Still, the fight scenes were great. Claremont really knows how to write a good fight scene, with the characters using their powers in logical ways, using actual strategy and teamwork. The beginning with Spider-Woman rescuing "Jane Doe" was also good, setting up an element of mystery to the story. Finally, I thought the art was excellent.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Jun 8, 2009 21:31:51 GMT -5
Ultron--I think you and I are brothers separated at birth--I loved Avengers Annual 10!! I think mainly due to the art, which was so weird and cool at the time, and the fact that there were so many battles! I also loved the bit about Spider-woman catching Carole when she jumped off the bridge--the art showed the limitations of SW's flying ability and was really striking to me. Also--the Scarlet Witch came off as truly impressive in terms of power, and the Beast was really funny. This annual, if I recall correctly, came in one of those dull eras of Avengers history, and it really stood out. I don't even think I read the pages where Carole got whiny and self-pitying about what happened to her--at that point I was so tired of the X-Men and their constant whining that I just skipped it. Don't get me wrong--I was a huge fan of the new (at the time) X_Men, but after a couple of years the group fell into a rut of endless useless self-examination, dreary fatalism and boredom.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Jun 10, 2009 8:13:26 GMT -5
Thanks, Bobc. I'm glad to know I'm no longer an only child. :-)
P.S. The X-Men used to be my favorite comic, but I really think they started getting out of hand in the mid to late 80's, or thereabouts, and I started losing interest in them.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Jun 10, 2009 9:53:40 GMT -5
Ultron--as per usual you took the words out of my mouth. For me the real decline of the new X-Men was right around when Dave Cochran (sp) came back to the series (I loved his art on the first few issues and think it is highly under-rated and over-shadowed by Byrne's later work). It was obvious to me that Dave wasn't really trying that hard when he came back and his work looked rushed and gimmicky. And once Storm got a mohawk, the honeymoon was definitely over. I hated the Brood and all that crap.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 10, 2009 10:00:18 GMT -5
Hoo-boy, that's for sure. Storm was the soul of that book for me for a long time. An unapologetic earth-mother figure. Then somehow we're supposed to resolve that with this kinky S&M biker-chick makeover??
HB
|
|