Recent Posts

sundowhn

@sundowhn | Global Moderator

Staff Member

sundowhn

@sundowhn

Global Moderator
& la Bamfa

Posts: 385 Likes: 16
Joined: February 2014

Member Badges

Quote

Post by sundowhn on Jun 27, 2014 3:58:51 GMT -5

Jun 26, 2014 21:59:36 GMT -5 tiamatty said:

Jun 26, 2014 16:25:05 GMT -5 sundowhn said:

On the first point, are you talking about the company or the characters? You won't get any argument from me that more women and more people of color need to be working in comics. That's a no-brainer. Keep in mind, though, that the Frozen arc was penned by a woman (with the notorious cover), Louise Simonson was a power player in the X-Men franchise for a long time, and Jeanine Schaefer edits Wolverine -- one of the most macho of macho men in comics.

As far as the second point, how is a naked Kurt with his dainties covered by a speech bubble empowered by imagery? He's not any more so than a female character in a thong.

As far as the poses go, maybe you should ask women why they still sit with their legs crossed in conservative social situations verses spread like men or why so many feel compelled to torture themselves with nylons and heels and feel nude without face paint in place. Society is what it is and it's not comics that have defined what is "feminine" and what is "masculine".

There's no doubt that many female characters are objectified and certain male characters are vicariously lived through (Cyclops is the prime one that comes to mind). However, there are also male characters who are put on display and, unlike female characters shown as heroines of the stories, these objectified males often end up as the butt of jokes. Those male writers might want to oogle the female heroes, but the guys are a threat and so are often disempowered because of it. Gambit may be sexy but by god Cyclops has the power, he's RIGHT.

I'm not sure what your first question is referring to. I was saying that male characters, written and drawn by men, are hard to really call "exploited." If women were writing comics where Gambit spends half his time shirtless, there might be a point. If women were drawing comics that kept focusing on Nightcrawler's ass, there might be a point. But as it is, there is a huge, huge difference between men writing and drawing Gambit and Nightcrawler, and men writing and drawing Psylocke and Rogue. There's just no equivalence. Women are written and drawn in exploitative ways. I really don't think it's at all accurate to say the way that any men are written or drawn is exploitative. Fanservice, sure, but fanservice is not inherently exploitative.

Again, naked Kurt is nowhere near equivalent to a woman running around with tons of cleavage and the writer - usually male - having her say it's empowering. You'll never get a male character saying they like to go topless because it makes them feel empowered. You will get female characters wearing the most revealing outfits they can and making the claim that it's empowering. And if the costume was designed by a woman, then I would believe that claim, but how many costumes out there right now have actually been designed by women? The fact that it is always a man giving her that outfit is not empowering. She's not choosing to look sexy. She's having a man decide what would look sexy on her. If Psylocke gets a sexy outfit designed by Sara Pichelli, then writers can have her say she finds the costume empowering.

We're not talking about board meetings or dinner parties. We're talking about people actively engaged in fights. Maybe I'm ignorant, but I'm doubtful that female fighters have stances that are all that different from male fighters. A little different, sure, but not the kind of crap that's so common in comics.

Those men aren't really disempowered. Not being the boss is different from being disempowered.

I'm getting a sense of this topic getting mixed -- like you're talking about two different things. It doesn't matter who creates what material on whether the character is being exploited or not. If you want to go that far, then one of the major editors for the X-Men franchise is a gay male (Ketchum) -- so does that mean that he's incapable of exploiting female characters, only male ones? See how that starts getting muddied? The conversation is about the presentation of the characters, and it's not a mutually exclusive situation. It can happen to either females or males. Because we come along and say this is a ploy also used with Nightcrawler and Gambit doesn't mean that it isn't also used with Betsy, Jean and Emma, ok?

If creators use skin shots, provocative situations or poses or generally meat appreciation techniques, it can be considered exploitation of sex to sell a product.

And yes, having your thoughts, words or actions being rendered irrelevant IS being disempowered. Real life example: I once went to a superior in my company with a potential program issue that I thought should be addressed. He gave me a crooked smile, eyed me up and down leisurely and then disagreed it was a problem. He suggested maybe my thought process wasn't cut out for the corporate world and I should go back home and tend to my babies. THAT was disempowering and dismissive.

Betsy is not a disempowered character while she's swinging swords and kicking butt and making the hard calls. People saying she's all about how much of her butt is hanging out are wrong, as can be proven within the story context. Storm showing miles of legs while she blasts lightning from the sky and leads the charge isn't disempowering.

Iceman being perpetually shown in a bathing suit and portrayed (and subsequently dismissed) with the maturity level of a 14 year old 40+ years into his history is disempowering. Kurt standing there naked with a humorously drawn bamf oogling his bits and then being give zero say in everything that's transpired since he was gone then being shuttled off to be manipulated by his ex-girl/sister again is disempowering.

Are these the kind of poses you're talking about? I mean, Lindsay there is showing quite a bit of skin and has the whole black lace corset thing going on, but I don't think I'd want to be the one to tell her she's demeaning women and disempowering them by wearing that outfit.

Last Edit: Jun 27, 2014 4:09:10 GMT -5 by sundowhn

Jun 26, 2014 16:25:05 GMT -5

sundowhn

@sundowhn | Global Moderator

Staff Member

sundowhn

@sundowhn

Global Moderator
& la Bamfa

Posts: 385 Likes: 16
Joined: February 2014

Member Badges

Quote

Post by sundowhn on Jun 26, 2014 16:25:05 GMT -5

Jun 26, 2014 13:57:56 GMT -5 tiamatty said:

Jun 26, 2014 5:04:53 GMT -5 sundowhn said:

All true. Showing skin for the sake of showing skin without it furthering the story is sexual exploitation. Treating a character as a piece of meat is exploitation. Using sex to sell the character concept is sexual exploitation. Yes, it's more acceptable and even expected regarding female characters in comics, but male characters are used in the regard, as well. Coincidentally, the male characters most often used in that capacity are also frequently disempowered in the overall story -- non-alphas used to deliver punchlines or forward the strengths of other characters.

Betsy is an obvious example of female exploitation based on showing skin and poses -- yet how often is she shown taking an aggressive, leading role in the stories featuring her? Now compare that to Iceman. Which one is more empowered?

By your arguments, Tiamatty, I would almost believe that you don't feel like men can be sexually harassed in the world or believe the argument that a man, due to mechanics, can't be assaulted by a woman (ah, obviously he had to have wanted it!). As a woman and as someone who has personally experienced sexual harassment in the past, yes men can also be the victims of exploitation, harassment and assault. We women don't have the only stories of things like that.

I don't dispute that female comic characters are often exploited -- Jean, Emma and Psylocke are all prime examples of it -- I just know it also happens to male characters at times, as well.

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.)

On the first point, are you talking about the company or the characters? You won't get any argument from me that more women and more people of color need to be working in comics. That's a no-brainer. Keep in mind, though, that the Frozen arc was penned by a woman (with the notorious cover), Louise Simonson was a power player in the X-Men franchise for a long time, and Jeanine Schaefer edits Wolverine -- one of the most macho of macho men in comics.

As far as the second point, how is a naked Kurt with his dainties covered by a speech bubble empowered by imagery? He's not any more so than a female character in a thong.

As far as the poses go, maybe you should ask women why they still sit with their legs crossed in conservative social situations verses spread like men or why so many feel compelled to torture themselves with nylons and heels and feel nude without face paint in place. Society is what it is and it's not comics that have defined what is "feminine" and what is "masculine".

There's no doubt that many female characters are objectified and certain male characters are vicariously lived through (Cyclops is the prime one that comes to mind). However, there are also male characters who are put on display and, unlike female characters shown as heroines of the stories, these objectified males often end up as the butt of jokes. Those male writers might want to oogle the female heroes, but the guys are a threat and so are often disempowered because of it. Gambit may be sexy but by god Cyclops has the power, he's RIGHT.

Jun 26, 2014 10:27:55 GMT -5

UA #21

sundowhn

@sundowhn | Global Moderator

Staff Member

sundowhn

@sundowhn

Global Moderator
& la Bamfa

Posts: 385 Likes: 16
Joined: February 2014

Member Badges

Quote

Post by sundowhn on Jun 26, 2014 10:27:55 GMT -5

No, it doesn't really feel like a flagship, but I actually liked this last issue. It was finally a start on wrapping up story lines that have seemed to drag on forever. I'm not sold on future representation of this book as a bridge between mutants and other supers -- I think RR damaged his stance quite a bit with the poorly worded speech and his handling of Rogue and Wanda -- but it could, theoretically, still be salvaged. Anyway, it was a good single issue, so maybe he'll bring more like it in the future.

Jun 26, 2014 5:04:53 GMT -5

sundowhn

@sundowhn | Global Moderator

Staff Member

sundowhn

@sundowhn

Global Moderator
& la Bamfa

Posts: 385 Likes: 16
Joined: February 2014

Member Badges

Quote

Post by sundowhn on Jun 26, 2014 5:04:53 GMT -5

Jun 26, 2014 4:24:09 GMT -5 Icefanatic said:

Jun 26, 2014 0:46:26 GMT -5 tiamatty said:

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.

Jun 26, 2014 0:51:29 GMT -5 tiamatty said:

I wouldn't say he wasn't in control. She flirted, he went into Lady-Killer mode. It was a mutual thing. But fine, let's say he wasn't in control. That's one instance, in a long, long history of womanizing. It's one woman beating him at his own game, but the difference is he still almost certainly considers himself a Player. Sex, to him, still gets to actually be a game, because he is very, very good at seducing women.

So how the hell is he an example of male exploitation? As I said earlier, exploitation requires unwillingness, and Gambit is not only willing, he's actively engaged in it.

The things is, most female characters that are treated the way you are complaining about are usually also depicted as willing and actively engaged in it. You even occasionally get a diatribe from a female character about how even though other people may find their skimpy and sexually provocative attire exploitative, how in reality it is actually empowering for them. There's a marked similarity between the type of rationalizing you hear from female comic book characters regarding their attire, or frequent lack of it, that mirrors the rationalizing you hear from Playmates and porn stars. I have yet to hear a female comic book character bemoaning her exploitation while fighting bad guys in a thong and push-up bra.

Also, most people consider 'power poses' for men sexy and attractive, and frequently the opposite for women. If men were posed the way women frequently are, more people would likely find it comical than sexy. If a male character is striking a power pose in his underwear is that automatically not exploitative?

Do Gambit, Iceman and Nightcrawler get it exactly the same as female characters? No. But symptoms for a heart attack are also often markedly different in men and women.

All true. Showing skin for the sake of showing skin without it furthering the story is sexual exploitation. Treating a character as a piece of meat is exploitation. Using sex to sell the character concept is sexual exploitation. Yes, it's more acceptable and even expected regarding female characters in comics, but male characters are used in the regard, as well. Coincidentally, the male characters most often used in that capacity are also frequently disempowered in the overall story -- non-alphas used to deliver punchlines or forward the strengths of other characters.

Betsy is an obvious example of female exploitation based on showing skin and poses -- yet how often is she shown taking an aggressive, leading role in the stories featuring her? Now compare that to Iceman. Which one is more empowered?

By your arguments, Tiamatty, I would almost believe that you don't feel like men can be sexually harassed in the world or believe the argument that a man, due to mechanics, can't be assaulted by a woman (ah, obviously he had to have wanted it!). As a woman and as someone who has personally experienced sexual harassment in the past, yes men can also be the victims of exploitation, harassment and assault. We women don't have the only stories of things like that.

I don't dispute that female comic characters are often exploited -- Jean, Emma and Psylocke are all prime examples of it -- I just know it also happens to male characters at times, as well.

Jun 25, 2014 13:56:39 GMT -5

sundowhn

@sundowhn | Global Moderator

Staff Member

sundowhn

@sundowhn

Global Moderator
& la Bamfa

Posts: 385 Likes: 16
Joined: February 2014

Member Badges

Quote

Post by sundowhn on Jun 25, 2014 13:56:39 GMT -5

Jun 19, 2014 19:38:17 GMT -5 tiamatty said:

Jun 19, 2014 8:38:38 GMT -5 sundowhn said:

Considering neither Nightcrawler nor Gambit are alpha males and invariably take a backseat to their more "manly (harhar)" counterparts, I would disagree. They're far less likely than female characters to be given relevant decisions or strong roles. They also have a history of submissive roles with female partners -- Gambit acted like a wounded puppy for years opposite Rogue and Nightcrawler allows Amanda to betray him over and over again like he's a doormat.

Now, if we want to talk a writer wish fulfillment character, it's Cyclops. He's a type A control freak (average corporate type), he's geeky, he wears glasses, he has no sense of humor, there's nothing romantic about him, yet all these beautiful women keep throwing themselves at him. And, oh yes, he's always right.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most female characters written into situations where they're shown to have sometimes multiple males vying for their affections?

I'd say that Emma was assuredly exploited after she was rendered disempowered and victimized in her relationship with Cyclops, as was Maddie Pryor, but a character like Jean is a different story.

That's not to say it's ok to objectify characters of either gender, but the females, with a few exceptions, often have the advantage of a certain degree of control.

That they're not Alpha Males doesn't make them exploited. That's just a bizarre claim to make. I also disagree with them being in submissive roles. Gambit and Rogue had an unhealthy codependent relationship, but I never felt like Gambit was the submissive one in that relationship. Nor did I ever get the feeling that Nightcrawler was submissive to Amanda.

Yes, some female characters do end up in love triangles with multiple men. And usually, the woman winds up being a damned trophy. The woman's story becomes all about the men around her. Which is a problem comics have traditionally had in general: Female characters, all too often, are given stories that revolve around male characters. When two guys fight over a woman, it stops even being about the woman. It becomes a battle of egos, with the woman as the prize.

And control? Bullshit. The women are almost never the ones in control. The women are there to lose control, either external control, in the form of being chained up, or internal control, in the form of going crazy. If a male character has to be rescued, it's almost always going to be by another male character. If a female character has to be rescued, it's almost never going to be by another female character; it'll be a male character. And female characters are way more likely to actually need to be rescued, because they are not allowed to be the ones in control of a situation.

The same goes with relationships. Rogue was not the one in control of that relationship. Gambit would flirt, and she would freak out. And then he'd go flirt with another woman and sleep with her; even if Rogue could've done the same, she would've undoubtedly been cast as being in the wrong, when Gambit doing it was just being a lovable scoundrel.

Like I said, there's no male exploitation in comics. "Exploitation" requires unwillingness. Characters like Gambit and Nightcrawler revel in attention from women. They live for it, and they exploit that attention for all they're worth. They're still the ones in control of the situations they're in.

Uhm, Nightcrawler has been clearly shown running away from unwanted female attention on multiple occasions, as has Iceman. They're treated as a meat prize in those scenarios. (Ro and Rachel growling at one another over him, Ro snarking at Christine, various instances during Excalibur, Amanda treating him like garbage but then pouncing him or throwing sexual innuendos at his head, Cerise man-handling him, Emma referring to him as Ro's pet, etc) Regarding sexual poses or imagery, look at the history of shower scenes, sans clothes scenes or barely there scenes with both Nightcrawler and Gambit. There are a lot of them. In fact, Kurt's very first appearance back in land of the living was naked, with a strategically placed word balloon and shadows.

Now, I would agree that Jean long ago became a trophy. If Wolverine and Cyclops are the two CEOs of X-Men, then Jean is the sexy secretary. I agree that that sort of thing is nonsense and a lot of Silver Age female characters suffer from it. Bendis has brought it back in ANXM, too. I also think Emma was dumbed down and subjugated to prop up Cyclops and be the fantasy girl for him.

I think you'd be very hard pressed to put Storm, Kitty, Rachel or even Rogue in that same sort of exploited role, though. In Rogue's history, as a matter of fact, she had both Gambit and Magneto dangling from her fingertips, trying to make up her mind. I can't say that seeing someone like Rogue portrayed as so wishy-washy was particularly appealing at the time, but she was assuredly the one that the story was about, and yes, Gambit was used to tell stories about her and her development.

Last Edit: Jun 25, 2014 14:00:07 GMT -5 by sundowhn

Jun 19, 2014 8:38:38 GMT -5

sundowhn

@sundowhn | Global Moderator

Staff Member

sundowhn

@sundowhn

Global Moderator
& la Bamfa

Posts: 385 Likes: 16
Joined: February 2014

Member Badges

Quote

Post by sundowhn on Jun 19, 2014 8:38:38 GMT -5

Jun 17, 2014 3:18:39 GMT -5 tiamatty said:

For the record, I would disagree with it being exploitation. Generally, the characters are still being written and drawn by straight men, who are making comics for other straight men. The "sexy male" characters are simply another form of wish fulfillment. They're still hooking up with hot chicks, and they're still generally shown in power poses, while women get poses that highlight their sexuality.

Exploitation requires unwillingness on the part of the exploited. And I don't think that can apply here.

Considering neither Nightcrawler nor Gambit are alpha males and invariably take a backseat to their more "manly (harhar)" counterparts, I would disagree. They're far less likely than female characters to be given relevant decisions or strong roles. They also have a history of submissive roles with female partners -- Gambit acted like a wounded puppy for years opposite Rogue and Nightcrawler allows Amanda to betray him over and over again like he's a doormat.

Now, if we want to talk a writer wish fulfillment character, it's Cyclops. He's a type A control freak (average corporate type), he's geeky, he wears glasses, he has no sense of humor, there's nothing romantic about him, yet all these beautiful women keep throwing themselves at him. And, oh yes, he's always right.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most female characters written into situations where they're shown to have sometimes multiple males vying for their affections?

I'd say that Emma was assuredly exploited after she was rendered disempowered and victimized in her relationship with Cyclops, as was Maddie Pryor, but a character like Jean is a different story.

That's not to say it's ok to objectify characters of either gender, but the females, with a few exceptions, often have the advantage of a certain degree of control.

Last Edit: Jun 19, 2014 8:51:48 GMT -5 by sundowhn

Jun 15, 2014 23:41:23 GMT -5

sundowhn

@sundowhn | Global Moderator

Staff Member sundowhn @sundowhn Global Moderator & la Bamfa Threads \| Posts \| Activity Posts: 385 Likes: 16 Joined: February 2014 Member Badges	Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by sundowhn on Jun 15, 2014 23:41:23 GMT -5 Why is it that two male characters written with a level of sex appeal, the same way almost ALL female characters are written at one time or another, get so much grief from readers? Has anyone else observed this, or is it just me?
	Visit my Nightcrawler blog

Jun 14, 2014 17:27:13 GMT -5

sundowhn

@sundowhn | Global Moderator

Staff Member

sundowhn

@sundowhn

Global Moderator
& la Bamfa

Posts: 385 Likes: 16
Joined: February 2014

Member Badges

Quote

Post by sundowhn on Jun 14, 2014 17:27:13 GMT -5

Jun 13, 2014 13:40:59 GMT -5 tiamatty said:

Jun 13, 2014 8:34:06 GMT -5 fuzzyblueelf said:

Yes please of course this book needs cameos from the students -_- not like the team itself simplymake cameos or anything -_- why doesn't Marvel just make a New X-men book so people can stop asking for them to be shoved into every book under the sun.

Yes. Marvel should do that. But I guess those characters don't sell well. Because the shitty, badly-written Young X-Men did poorly, and it's not possible that it was Marc Guggenheim doing a shitty job that led it to fail.

The proper book for those characters to make regular cameos, for the past couple years, would've been Wolverine and the X-Men. But Aaron chose to ignore every single one of them, except for having Rockslide show up during a single arc - which happened to be the particularly awful circus arc.

Outside of anthologies, the New X-Men characters didn't do jack shit during the San Francisco and Utopia periods, either. So I wonder if Nick Lowe simply disliked the characters. Hopefully, Mike Marts does give a shit about them, and gives them another chance at their own book.

Bendis did the same with UXM. Of his new ones, the only ones I might want to actually read about more are Hijack and Morph.

Last Edit: Jun 14, 2014 17:28:51 GMT -5 by sundowhn

Nightcrawler #3 Review and Summary

Jun 11, 2014 10:41:16 GMT -5

sundowhn

@sundowhn | Global Moderator

Staff Member

sundowhn

@sundowhn

Global Moderator
& la Bamfa

Posts: 385 Likes: 16
Joined: February 2014

Member Badges

Quote

Post by sundowhn on Jun 11, 2014 10:41:16 GMT -5

Summary: It's opens on a fight with the Trimega. That doesn't last long because Margali shows up and deals nicely with them. She's clearly on the waxing end of the Winding Way at the moment and is strong and gaining in power. Kurt is worried for the safety of everyone and realizes he's in over his head, so suggests they head to the JGS for some help. Margali and Amanda agree but Gummi, Haus and Feuer refuse based on Trimega being after Kurt, not them.

They are met on the school grounds by the team. Storm wants Margali the hell away from her school because of past "atrocities" (yet conveniently forgets the enabling role Amanda always seems to play). She and Kurt get into a heated argument and he slings some accusations regarding the X-Men and their responsibilities, and reminds everyone he's not the same man he was and what his "demon sire" recently tried to do. Amanda steps in to try and break up the fight and they're grudgingly allowed to stay pending a mind scan from Rachel.

Switch to Kurt brooding in a Danger Room display set to "Heaven". Logan shows up with beer and the bamfs. Nightcrawler tells Logan point blank that he wants time alone. Logan says he doesn't care and proceeds to call Kurt on the moody BS, not quite getting to the root of the problem but getting closer.

Rachel and Frenzy are with Amanda (YAY Frenzy!) while Ray does a scan. She says she can't detect any threat and Amanda lets her know how wrong she was, taking out both of them.

Hank and Storm are interviewing Margali who is bound in cuffs. We get a little more information. She says the outer realms are in a state of flux with Azazel's bid for Heaven being only a recent example of it. While she has them talking, she does a spell and takes them both out, mentioning some possible goals.

Amanda is hiding and waiting then the school is attacked by an army of Trimegas. Logan, Kurt and Cecelia come running when the alarm sounds.

Review: Overall, I enjoyed this issue once they were back at the JGS. Claremont is slowly starting to uncover some of the changes in Kurt since he's returned and how his views have changed on things. He's frankly acting like a d*ck to his friends -- definitely not the lovable mascot playing follow-the-leader that they might want to remember him as. We're also starting to see some hints as to the whys. The argument with Ororo was handled organically and well, and the discussion with Logan was reminiscent of the initial portion of the "Big Dare" in tone -- only this time, Logan is challenging Kurt to live again. Amanda and Margali were in wash-rinse-repeat territory, but I expected that. There was more foreshadowing in the issue of Kurt having to make a choice of some sort between his past and his present, represented by the Szardos clan and the X-Men, respectively. Trimega is clearly linked to Margali or Amanda or both.

The pacing was excellent, there was nice character work for not only Kurt but also Margali and Storm, to a degree. I really enjoy Nauck's art, though I'm still not a huge fan of the colorist.

Appearing in the issue: Nightcrawler, bamfs, Amanda, Margali, circus crew, Ororo, Hank, Rachel, Frenzy(cameo), Monet (cameo), Logan, Cecelia, students

Last Edit: Jun 11, 2014 10:41:57 GMT -5 by sundowhn

Jun 7, 2014 14:02:16 GMT -5

sundowhn

@sundowhn | Global Moderator

Staff Member

sundowhn

@sundowhn

Global Moderator
& la Bamfa

Posts: 385 Likes: 16
Joined: February 2014

Member Badges

Quote

Post by sundowhn on Jun 7, 2014 14:02:16 GMT -5

Jun 6, 2014 14:14:29 GMT -5 cc008 said:

I think the "classic x-men" style may have left with Aaron. It was his vision to do that. Now this feels like it's falling into a satellite book like Astonishing became.

Yep, I'm afraid that's the case which doesn't bode well as far as I'm concerned. I don't read so many of the other titles because they're written like this. Amazing was a refreshing change in its first arc, at least for me.

Jun 5, 2014 23:29:44 GMT -5

sundowhn

@sundowhn | Global Moderator

Staff Member sundowhn @sundowhn Global Moderator & la Bamfa Threads \| Posts \| Activity Posts: 385 Likes: 16 Joined: February 2014 Member Badges	Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by sundowhn on Jun 5, 2014 23:29:44 GMT -5 Yeah, the Kyost opener being filled with snark was a huge disappointment. One of the things I loved about the brief work that Aaron did on the book was that they were written without that cluttering it up, like it does all the other books.
	Visit my Nightcrawler blog

Jun 4, 2014 15:33:16 GMT -5

sundowhn

@sundowhn | Global Moderator

Staff Member

sundowhn

@sundowhn

Global Moderator
& la Bamfa

Posts: 385 Likes: 16
Joined: February 2014

Member Badges

Quote

Post by sundowhn on Jun 4, 2014 15:33:16 GMT -5

Jun 4, 2014 8:59:33 GMT -5 fuzzyblueelf said:

I read Amazing X-men #8.

It was like almost everything Devillishrogue feared, there was a gruesome beginning it was Wolverine centric most characters got like what 2 Panels or a page if they were lucky. Really just felt like a filler issue, and I went into this thinking there would be more to Colossus showing up at the JGS but NOPE NO TIME FOR THAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON LOGAN AND HOW HE'S IN DANGER.

Yeah, I'm not getting a warm fuzzy feeling either, between #8 and the annual. /sigh

Elsa from "Frozen" comes to "Once Upon A Time"

May 22, 2014 23:32:45 GMT -5

Elsa from "Frozen" comes to "Once Upon A Time"

sundowhn

@sundowhn | Global Moderator

Staff Member sundowhn @sundowhn Global Moderator & la Bamfa Threads \| Posts \| Activity Posts: 385 Likes: 16 Joined: February 2014 Member Badges	Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by sundowhn on May 22, 2014 23:32:45 GMT -5 Thanks, guys! It's unlikely that we have it here, but I may take a look on you tube and see if any of the past seasons are there.
	Visit my Nightcrawler blog

May 22, 2014 12:12:12 GMT -5

sundowhn

@sundowhn | Global Moderator

Staff Member sundowhn @sundowhn Global Moderator & la Bamfa Threads \| Posts \| Activity Posts: 385 Likes: 16 Joined: February 2014 Member Badges	Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by sundowhn on May 22, 2014 12:12:12 GMT -5 What is this "Once Upon a Time" you speak of? I may have to check this out, if we can get it in Germany. My youngest absolutely adored Frozen. I'm more a Princess Frog kinda girl, though I admit Elsa was cool -- no pun intended.
	Visit my Nightcrawler blog

May 22, 2014 12:05:00 GMT -5