Recent Posts

I would dis it being Bendis calling the shots. If it was, Molly Hayes never would've been in Battle of the Atom. Bendis said on his Tumblr that he was outvoted by Lowe and Aaron. That's why this latest arc of All-New X-Men had him reveal that Future Xavier was controlling the rest of the Brotherhood. Battle of the Atom itself was an Aaron idea.

Bendis was using Kitty before Claremont was brought in. He sees her as an integral part of the story he's writing. If Claremont's plans clashed with Bendis', then I think it's totally fair for Bendis to win that one. Claremont's history, to be blunt, does not and should not matter in terms of who gets what. Bendis is writing two flagship X-titles, Claremont is writing the solo title of a character not appearing in either of Bendis' books. It's the same reason why, unfortunately, Wood lost both Kitty and Rogue - Bendis and Remender were using the two in their own books before Wood's X-Men launched, they already had long-term plans for the characters, and their books were more important, so they got dibs over Wood.

Depending on exactly what Claremont wanted to do with Kitty, it is perfectly reasonable for Marts to tell Claremont no. If he just wanted to have a story where Kitty helps Nightcrawler out with a mission, and it's not going to contradict anything in ANXM, then sure, there probably wouldn't be any harm in it. If he wanted to do something that wouldn't have fit with what Bendis is doing, then, no, I'm sorry, but he doesn't get to do that.

So, yeah, at this point, I've seen absolutely no real indications of Bendis calling the shots for the whole line. He calls the shots for his two books. What he does may have some repercussions on other books, but usually, they're fairly small, and I think it's mostly up to the writers of those books. If Jason Latour doesn't want the upcoming Last Will and Testament Of Charles Xavier to effect WatXM, I doubt he'll really have to. If the storyline is reflected in WatXM, it's almost certainly because Latour saw a great seed he could use. And the same is true the other way around, too: If Latour comes up with something in WatXM that Bendis thinks he can use, then Bendis will use it; otherwise, he'll ignore it.


Edit: I'm also not sure Marts necessarily needs a direction for the franchise as a whole. A direction for the whole franchise was what gave us several years of Scott and Wolverine being the only two who mattered, and story after story revolving around their dick-measuring contest. I would say that Marts should help each writer to have a clear direction for their own books, while working to make sure none of those directions are working against each other.

The X-Men franchise won't be cancelled. It's not going to happen. They're still among the top-selling Marvel comics. The idea that Marvel's going to drop them is so stupid as to be beyond belief. The only people who could possibly buy it are the most paranoid whine-asses.

Also, Marvel's not going to reboot. Again, it's a ridiculous idea. They didn't reboot when they started the Ultimate Universe. They didn't reboot with House of M. They didn't reboot with Fear Itself, or AvX, or Age of Ultron, or any of the other events that people just knew were going to end with a reboot. Marvel's not going to reboot. It's not going to happen. They're not DC. The decades of existing history is part of Marvel's draw. They would lose a lot of long-time readers with a reboot, and they wouldn't pick up many new readers. It would be a terrible business decision.

All these types of rumours are silly.


Edit: I should also say that, now that Lowe and Aaron are out of the X-office, we're already seeing a move away from it being the Scott and Wolverine Show. Storm's been getting an increasingly large role. A lot of the characters who'd been pretty much extras are getting to actually do things again. With Aaron gone from WatXM, the New X-Men students are being allowed to frigging exist again.

Mike Marts seems to have a very, very different view of the franchise than Lowe, and so far, it seems like a good one. So I think things should be pretty fine while he's in charge there.

Well, I haven't seen anything exploitative from Soule. Nor have I seen anything from KSD. A better comparison might be, say, Greg Land compared to Sara Pichelli. Sara Pichelli drawing a sexy woman is very, very different from Land drawing a sexy woman. Pichelli drawing a sexy woman is genuinely empowering. Land drawing a sexy woman is exploitative. Because they're approaching from different mindsets. The fact that Land traces so many of his women from porn shows that he's drawing women as sex objects. He puts women in sexy poses, gives them sexy expressions - it's all about making them appeal to men. Pichelli tries to make them look strong. They're not sex objects.

None of those men have ever been put in bondage that required a woman to rescue them. It's still pretty common for women to wind up in bondage and need to be rescued by a man. Beyond that, I still disagree that any of those men are being exploited. Not in the way women are. I think to compare the treatment of men in comics to the treatment of women in comics is simply insulting, and diminishes just how horribly misogynistic the industry is, and has traditionally been. I think calling it exploitation puts it in a context that simply doesn't apply.

Actually, those women are posing in the same ways a man would. They're posing in ways that accentuate their strength, rather than their femininity. And she's choosing to dress like that - she's a woman making a decision for herself. With women in comics, though, their clothes are being decided on by the artist. It's the artist (and sometimes writer) who chooses what the woman wears. So the argument that the female characters dress the way they do because it's empowering falls flat on its face, because it's a man deciding what counts as female empowerment, and deciding that female empowerment means having their tits half hanging out.

I think who creates the content does matter. Men writing and drawing women in bondage situations is very, very different from women writing and drawing women in bondage situations. Men are the ones who have the power in society. So there's a very distinct undertone when they put women in bondage situations and have her rescued by a man. It changes the context.

Betsy is disempowered when the panels focus on her ass, no matter what she's doing. It's saying that no matter how good a fighter she is, no matter how strong and powerful, she's still ultimately a sex object. When that happens, she's being drawn in an exploitative way.

Having your views dismissed is disempowering, yes. I would disagree that that's really happened with Gambit or Nightcrawler, though. I can't think of any instances where they went to Scott or Wolverine with a problem, and were dismissed. Well, I suppose Gambit occasionally gets that from Wolverine, but Wolverine's an ass. For the most part, especially during the Lowe years, X-Men other than Scott and Wolverine simply weren't allowed to have opinions at all - male or female.

Ultimately, I simply think there's a difference between fanservice - which Gambit and Nightcrawler definitely do a lot of - and exploitation. Exploitation is a lot more insidious, a lot more demeaning, and a lot more institutionalized than fanservice.

Obviously, men can be harassed and raped by women. On the other hand, I have a very, very difficult time buying the idea that male characters, being written by men, and being drawn by men, can really be called "exploited." And I think talking as though they're being exploited, and comparing them to how female characters are treated, is just absurd.

You think they're exploited? Get back to me when it's women writing those scenes, and women drawing those scenes.

And frankly, pointing to female characters saying their sexy costumes make them feel empowered is another part of the problem, because - again - those scenes are almost always written by men. Power Woman doesn't have a giant frigging hole for her tits as "empowerment" - she has a giant hole for her tits so male readers can ogle her. So many characters wore swimsuits because it was something that appealed to male readers. It's not "empowerment," it's sexual exploitation. You're not likely to hear women in comics complain about exploitation, because the male readers don't want to hear about that. They want the fantasy that women like being ogled. (Though there was that scene during Dark Reign where Moonstone complained about the Ms. Marvel costume she was given.)

Power poses for men are sexy, but not for women? Why? Why the double-standard? Why is it a male in a dominant and aggressive pose sexy? Why is a woman in a similar pose not? And I'm not even saying men should be posed differently; but the fact that even your "exploited" men still get to look stronger than 90% of female characters traditionally have makes the idea that they're "exploited" look silly. (Luckily, Marvel, at least, has made actual efforts to improve this: Female characters are getting fewer "sexy" poses, and more strong poses.)

I would still disagree with the male characters being "exploited." Not in the way female characters are. To compare the two is, in my view, to diminish the traditionally piss-poor treatment female characters have gotten. The men are still being drawn with strong bodies, compared to the ridiculous bodies given to women. Men are drawn in power poses, women are drawn in sexual poses. Men get open poses that show strength and aggression, women get closed poses that highlight their tits. That's exploitation.

Another side of it: When women are pursuing a man, it's about the man. When men are pursuing a woman, the majority of the time, it's still about the men.

There's simply no equivalence. Gambit and Nightcrawler are used for appealing to women (and gay men), but it's not exploitation.

All-New Ghost Rider, Ms. Marvel (yay!), New Warriors, X-Force.

And My Little Pony.