Sperg about comic books here

[Alexander Thaut]

Ellis has a comfort box and he doesn't like to step outside of it.



Yeah. Plus the X-books had grown to what, thirty titles? Joe Q was putting pressure to axe allot of that.

Site's still fucked up @Mississippi Motorboater, so Immagonna try this...



Hopefully you post your impressions like on the grief thread.



Morrison's run is a deconstruction. His pitch is in collections. Thanks to you I cracked my Omni open and took another look. Basically he was asked to figure out what was 'broken' with the X-Books in the 90s.

1. He rightly points out that Giant sized X-men was transgressive and in tune with fads of the time. By the time Morrison was on the books; the X-Men were normative and aged. His answer was to shift the X-Men back to youth culture of the time. As he understood it.

2. Morrison's New X-Men is if not his last than one of his last deconstructive works. He shook up stagnant characters. I even like what he did with Magneto in light of the decade of post Claremont stories. My own preference would be X-men #3 had been the end of that journey.

As to the art? I don't know what you mean. Frank Quitely is awesome as a draftsman and the other artists I remember are Phil Jiminez, Marc Silvestri, Ethan Van Sciver, and Igor Korday.

Morrison works best when you try to understand the context of what he's deconstructing.

Like, I get what he was going for in the Final Crisis shitshow but that's only because I was fully invested in the DCU at the time.

His X-Men run was decent but the art makes it really distinct imo.

 

[jspit2.0]

Morrison works best when you try to understand the context of what he's deconstructing.

Like, I get what he was going for in the Final Crisis shitshow but that's only because I was fully invested in the DCU at the time.

His X-Men run was decent but the art makes it really distinct imo.

Morrison is a big, swing for the fences guy. He also doesn't do characters well. For example, Frank Miller and DD Born Again. Miller takes those characters on arcs. Morrison, by contrast, doesn't really do that. He's more using pre defined characters to say something.

Final Crisis was just a terrible comic that was him riffing on the idea of Crisis and DC. Identity Crisis, Infinite Crisis, Zero Hour. New X-men was really his last deconstructive work.

He pivoted after that. In fact, the worst parts of New X-Men are those sections where he's tiring of deconstructing their mythos.

After that, he does this integrationist stick starting with All Star Superman . It is him toying with Silver Age Superman and trying to reintegrate Superman's whimsical aspects into modern stories. He does that again in Seven Soldiers, where he ambitiously tried to link dozens of characters together into a Slaughterhouse Five non-linear story. Then he fully commits in his Batman run. His thesis is that everything, every story happened. The opposite of deconstruction. He continues with that for the most part; until Action Comics/Nu52.

Starting in the Nu52, he pivots toward essentialism. A new Action comics, what was the Superman of Action Comics #1? That's Nu52 Superman. A socialist, asshole. Fighting the wealthy, jumping. Rough and somewhat gritty. I hated it, but I understood what he was attempting. He did the same thing with Wonder Woman Earth One, Multiversity, and Green Lantern. Burn it down to the core concept when the thing was launched. At its heart, build the character as it appeared in first appearance X.

On another note, I'm surprised to see you recommend those Hickman Avengers. I loathed Secret Wars and felt that that series was were he jumped the shark completely.

 

[Mississippi Motorboater]

Morrison is a big, swing for the fences guy. He also doesn't do characters well.

Which is precisely my problem. I'm there for the characters, not for some bald hacky British tryhard to wax rhetoric about everything that's "wrong with the X-Men" and what parts of them need to be "fixed". It comes off as unbelievably pretentious, especially where Magneto is concerned, for whom his "fix" was just to simplify the character to a batshit terrorist with zero nuance or dimension to him, to avoid lionizing him or whatever the fuck. And that's not me exaggerating. Morrison's literally gone on record by saying:

“No matter how he justifies his stupid, brutal behavior, or how anyone else tries to justify it, in the end he's just an old bastard with daft, old ideas based on violence and coercion,” Morrison said. “I really wanted to make that clear at this time.”​

In essence, he changed and simplified Magneto not because it would benefit the character in any way, but to serve some meta impulse for Morrison to provide wider commentary on villains like Magneto. Now, that may be "deep" and "postmodern" for a lot of people...but to me, it's just trite. It adds nothing to Magneto's character history, and is a chapter of his life that literally required an editorial retcon in order to reconcile the extreme contrast with his behavior before and since. That's the kind of retarded damage Morrison does to characters in order to serve his high-concept, trailblazer re-invention shtick, whether he fucking succeeds in that goal or not. And he was about to do the same to Rogue for the same imbecilic "meta commentary" reason, but thankfully the Marvel Editors had the good sense not to let him. Characters and their history are an expendable commodity to Morrison's self-indulgence, and he'll gleefully change them since he thinks he can only improve where others have failed.

Now, you can handwave this and everything else by saying that this was all necessary, that it was the only way to wipe away everything that was bloated about 90's X-Men, but honestly? When the solution to shitty writing is even more shitty writing, I'm not all that impressed. No matter how awful, cliched, or stagnant the comics felt after Claremont's departure, there was nothing in them that would ever make me feel that Morrison's hacky and detrimental take on the universe was the solution. You might think everything he did was justified and well worth the deconstruction. I'm not telling you not to enjoy it--fuck, you'll find plenty of company, since Morrison's run is worshipped like Renaissance marble.

But this run is the only time in 200+ issues of reading these comics where I've repeatedly found myself gritting my teeth, actively praying for it to be over.

As to the art? I don't know what you mean. Frank Quitely is awesome as a draftsman and the other artists I remember are Phil Jiminez, Marc Silvestri, Ethan Van Sciver, and Igor Korday.

It could be simply down to preference, but I think Quietly's faces look hideous. I can understand characters like Xavier and Cassandra Nova looking like puckered anuses, but when Jean and Emma Frost look just as ugly, I start to have a problem.

The Van Sciver and Kordey art looks good, but that's because the characters actually look like people, and not ballsacks.

 

[jspit2.0]

Which is precisely my problem. I'm there for the characters, not for some bald hacky British tryhard to wax rhetoric about everything that's "wrong with the X-Men" and what parts of them need to be "fixed". It comes off as unbelievably pretentious, especially where Magneto is concerned, for whom his "fix" was just to simplify the character to a batshit terrorist with zero nuance or dimension to him, to avoid lionizing him or whatever the fuck. And that's not me exaggerating. Morrison's literally gone on record by saying:

“No matter how he justifies his stupid, brutal behavior, or how anyone else tries to justify it, in the end he's just an old bastard with daft, old ideas based on violence and coercion,” Morrison said. “I really wanted to make that clear at this time.”​

In essence, he changed and simplified Magneto not because it would benefit the character in any way, but to serve some meta impulse for Morrison to provide wider commentary on villains like Magneto. Now, that may be "deep" and "postmodern" for a lot of people...but to me, it's just trite.

Well, if Magneto in 2003 was the same character as in 1991 I'd agree. But Magneto in 2003 was someone who, in order, advocated and attempted the extermination of the human race and who had turned on everyone and everything like a cur dog, yet at the same time was portrayed as the same nuanced moving character. Claremont took Magneto from that one note character, on a journey and then had people undo it in the 90s while at the same time trying to pretend that a man who would knowingly commit genocide of an entire race was anything other than a daft old bastard.

The good thing for me is that I don't consider anything after 1991 definitive canon.

That's the kind of retarded damage Morrison does to characters in order to serve his high-concept, trailblazer re-invention shtick, whether he fucking succeeds in that goal or not. And he was about to do the same to Rogue for the same imbecilic "meta commentary" reason, but thankfully the Marvel Editors had the good sense not to let him. Characters and their history are an expendable commodity to Morrison's self-indulgence, and he'll gleefully change them since he thinks he can only improve where others have failed.

Now, you can handwave this and everything else by saying that this was all necessary, that it was the only way to wipe away everything that was bloated about 90's X-Men, but honestly? When the solution to shitty writing is even more shitty writing, I'm not all that impressed. No matter how awful, cliched, or stagnant the comics felt after Claremont's departure, there was nothing in them that would ever make me feel that Morrison's hacky and detrimental take on the universe was the solution.

Agree to disagree? Morrison's take was far less disrespectful than say Ed Brubaker's take on Professor X or Warren Ellis' on the core team.

You might think everything he did was justified and well worth the deconstruction. I'm not telling you not to enjoy it--fuck, you'll find plenty of company, since Morrison's run is worshipped like Renaissance marble.

I think you'll find I don't worship Grant Morrison.

I've taken heaps of shit for calling Final Crisis one of the worst comics of the 21st century. (Oh how naive the 00s were). I consider All-Star Superman fine, but not even among the fifty best Superman stories. His Batman is a mostly mixed bag.

But oh the creativity. The understanding of how a sequential art form works or even a way with words. Morrison is certainly not Bendis or Scott Snyder. He's no hack. He's someone with strengths and weakness. A bold creative streak.

But this run is the only time in 200+ issues of reading these comics where I've repeatedly found myself gritting my teeth, actively praying for it to be over.

Wow. I was doing that back during Onslaught.

It could be simply down to preference, but I think Quietly's faces look hideous. I can understand characters like Xavier and Cassandra Nova looking like puckered anuses, but when Jean and Emma Frost look just as ugly, I start to have a problem.

Heh. I admit he's not Kevin Maguire or Adam Hughes. Have you, per chance, read Justice League International?

But I like his draftsmanship.

The Van Sciver and Kordey art looks good, but that's because the characters actually look like people, and not ballsacks.

Liefeld's gonna be rough on you. So does this mean, since you're past New X-men your read through is almost over?

 

[Alexander Thaut]

Morrison is a big, swing for the fences guy. He also doesn't do characters well. For example, Frank Miller and DD Born Again. Miller takes those characters on arcs. Morrison, by contrast, doesn't really do that. He's more using pre defined characters to say something.

Final Crisis was just a terrible comic that was him riffing on the idea of Crisis and DC. Identity Crisis, Infinite Crisis, Zero Hour. New X-men was really his last deconstructive work.

He pivoted after that. In fact, the worst parts of New X-Men are those sections where he's tiring of deconstructing their mythos.

I kinda wish Final Crisis explored some of the sidebar things, like the whole Legion of Three Worlds thing or the Brother Eye rise.

After that, he does this integrationist stick starting with All Star Superman . It is him toying with Silver Age Superman and trying to reintegrate Superman's whimsical aspects into modern stories. He does that again in Seven Soldiers, where he ambitiously tried to link dozens of characters together into a Slaughterhouse Five non-linear story. Then he fully commits in his Batman run. His thesis is that everything, every story happened. The opposite of deconstruction. He continues with that for the most part; until Action Comics/Nu52.

Starting in the Nu52, he pivots toward essentialism. A new Action comics, what was the Superman of Action Comics #1? That's Nu52 Superman. A socialist, asshole. Fighting the wealthy, jumping. Rough and somewhat gritty. I hated it, but I understood what he was attempting. He did the same thing with Wonder Woman Earth One, Multiversity, and Green Lantern. Burn it down to the core concept when the thing was launched. At its heart, build the character as it appeared in first appearance X.

Morrison has fun ideas but yeah. I think that he's really hit or miss.

On another note, I'm surprised to see you recommend those Hickman Avengers. I loathed Secret Wars and felt that that series was were he jumped the shark completely.

Mind you, I like the Hickman Avengers in the sense that you can really see the worst case scenario to the fuckups that led to Secret Wars.

Wolverine dies, but it's already kinda implied that with his death, the Mutant-Human relations got worse. In the "Wolverines" series that ended right before Secret Wars, Mystique is told by Destiny's diary that she MUST revive Logan for the sake of the world.

Superior Spider-Man fucks up a lot of Spidey's "role" as the respected her called "The Best of Us".

Then, AXIS came and the cracked formed even more, etc.

It's an interesting macro-scale thing to consider but I think Hickman pulled the punches with his Time Runs Out shit and his other Avengers stuff. It's nice in hindsight but it sucks because a lot of his character conflict got lost in timeskips imo.

Which is precisely my problem. I'm there for the characters, not for some bald hacky British tryhard to wax rhetoric about everything that's "wrong with the X-Men" and what parts of them need to be "fixed". It comes off as unbelievably pretentious, especially where Magneto is concerned, for whom his "fix" was just to simplify the character to a batshit terrorist with zero nuance or dimension to him, to avoid lionizing him or whatever the fuck. And that's not me exaggerating. Morrison's literally gone on record by saying:

“No matter how he justifies his stupid, brutal behavior, or how anyone else tries to justify it, in the end he's just an old bastard with daft, old ideas based on violence and coercion,” Morrison said. “I really wanted to make that clear at this time.”​

In essence, he changed and simplified Magneto not because it would benefit the character in any way, but to serve some meta impulse for Morrison to provide wider commentary on villains like Magneto. Now, that may be "deep" and "postmodern" for a lot of people...but to me, it's just trite. It adds nothing to Magneto's character history, and is a chapter of his life that literally required an editorial retcon in order to reconcile the extreme contrast with his behavior before and since. That's the kind of retarded damage Morrison does to characters in order to serve his high-concept, trailblazer re-invention shtick, whether he fucking succeeds in that goal or not. And he was about to do the same to Rogue for the same imbecilic "meta commentary" reason, but thankfully the Marvel Editors had the good sense not to let him. Characters and their history are an expendable commodity to Morrison's self-indulgence, and he'll gleefully change them since he thinks he can only improve where others have failed.

Now, you can handwave this and everything else by saying that this was all necessary, that it was the only way to wipe away everything that was bloated about 90's X-Men, but honestly? When the solution to shitty writing is even more shitty writing, I'm not all that impressed. No matter how awful, cliched, or stagnant the comics felt after Claremont's departure, there was nothing in them that would ever make me feel that Morrison's hacky and detrimental take on the universe was the solution. You might think everything he did was justified and well worth the deconstruction. I'm not telling you not to enjoy it--fuck, you'll find plenty of company, since Morrison's run is worshipped like Renaissance marble.

But this run is the only time in 200+ issues of reading these comics where I've repeatedly found myself gritting my teeth, actively praying for it to be over.


It could be simply down to preference, but I think Quietly's faces look hideous. I can understand characters like Xavier and Cassandra Nova looking like puckered anuses, but when Jean and Emma Frost look just as ugly, I start to have a problem.

The Van Sciver and Kordey art looks good, but that's because the characters actually look like people, and not ballsacks.

I think with Magneto, they've already mentioned that his powers may or may not be affecting his mental state?

I do think that Morrison could have used someone else that wasn't Magneto. The problem is that when you want a top tier X-villain, he's the most recognizeable. But he's also the one with the most character development.

Quietly's fine but I wish they didn't put him on Morrison's books because I think Quietly benefits from writing that fits his art.

Well, if Magneto in 2003 was the same character as in 1991 I'd agree. But Magneto in 2003 was someone who, in order, advocated and attempted the extermination of the human race and who had turned on everyone and everything like a cur dog, yet at the same time was portrayed as the same nuanced moving character. Claremont took Magneto from that one note character, on a journey and then had people undo it in the 90s while at the same time trying to pretend that a man who would knowingly commit genocide of an entire race was anything other than a daft old bastard.

The good thing for me is that I don't consider anything after 1991 definitive canon.

I think the thing with Magneto is that it would have been far better if they just turned that clone of him, Joseph, into "Classic Magneto" if they wanted to use him.

Sure, more clone shit and all. But it'd have been preferable to Magneto getting dumbed down.

Agree to disagree? Morrison's take was far less disrespectful than say Ed Brubaker's take on Professor X or Warren Ellis' on the core team.

remind me what those were.

I think you'll find I don't worship Grant Morrison.

I've taken heaps of shit for calling Final Crisis one of the worst comics of the 21st century. (Oh how naive the 00s were). I consider All-Star Superman fine, but not even among the fifty best Superman stories. His Batman is a mostly mixed bag.

But oh the creativity. The understanding of how a sequential art form works or even a way with words. Morrison is certainly not Bendis or Scott Snyder. He's no hack. He's someone with strengths and weakness. A bold creative streak.

I enjoy Morrison but then I'm also kind of a continuity fag with a love for the old shit and legacy things and whatnot.

Granted I don't worship artists of any kind. At all.

Wow. I was doing that back during Onslaught.

Wasn't there some weird sub-plot during the post-Onslaught shit where Black Widow and Hercules were trying to get a team of Avengers recruited? How the fuck did that not get turned into a proper story arc?

Heh. I admit he's not Kevin Maguire or Adam Hughes. Have you, per chance, read Justice League International?

But I like his draftsmanship.

Maguire deserves more regonition. I'm still pissed that, for some reason, the 2000s DCU kept calling the JLI a "joke" and turned Max Lord into a fucking villain.

Liefeld's gonna be rough on you. So does this mean, since you're past New X-men your read through is almost over?

i wouldn't recommend reading the original liefeld X-Force unless you really have a guilty pleasure about schlock.

 

[Mississippi Motorboater]

Agree to disagree? Morrison's take was far less disrespectful than say Ed Brubaker's take on Professor X or Warren Ellis' on the core team.

I haven't reached either author's runs yet, so who knows? Maybe I'll agree with you. I've looked up Brubaker's bibliography---his X-Men work is stuff like Deadly Genesis and some time on Uncanny, right? And then I think he did work with Carey, Kyle, and Yost on Messiah Complex. I don't know how any of those are...but I heard good things about the Messiah Trilogy.

And I don't know what the fuck Ellis worked on. I think I might've heard of him work on some side series like X-Force or some shit.

I think you'll find I don't worship Grant Morrison.

I've taken heaps of shit for calling Final Crisis one of the worst comics of the 21st century. (Oh how naive the 00s were).

Really? I'm surprised to hear you caught flak for disliking Final Crisis--virtually everyone I've talked to in the comic book community hates that series, and calls it the singular moment where Morrison went off the rails and disappeared up his own ass.

People are still salty as fuck over that arc. I can't imagine how bad it must be, if I'm developing aversions to what people consider to be Morrison's "good" work in New X-Men.

Wow. I was doing that back during Onslaught.

Figures. I skipped the whole Onslaught shenanigans after a few issues. And "The Twelve".

Heh. I admit [Quietly]'s not Kevin Maguire or Adam Hughes. Have you, per chance, read Justice League International?

Nah. I don't do DC.

Unless it's Jonah Hex.

Liefeld's gonna be rough on you.

I read a few issues of New Mutants for Cable's first appearance and to better understand X-Cutioner's Song, which ended up being pointless, since the story ended up being retarded anyway,

So my experience with Liefeld's work was pretty brief. I didn't really like what I saw, but because he didn't work on either of the main X-Books, I never needed to get acquainted with his art style like I do Quietly's....which is made worse, since his art looks fucking nothing like Van Sciver or Kordey.

So does this mean, since you're past New X-men your read through is almost over?

Not quite. I'm on the last few issues of New X-Men (the ones where Silvestri is drawing), and I'm about halfway through Claremont's X-Treme X-Men (there's this weird shit with the Shiar Empire and Storm's Ruby).

After that, it's all of the Reload Era (which I believe is made up of Whedon, Austen, and Claremont), and everything up through Second Coming.

So I've got a good seven years of X-Book material before I quit, and shuffle back to French stuff like Elric and Metabarons.

 

[Alexander Thaut]

I haven't reached either author's runs yet, so who knows? Maybe I'll agree with you. I've looked up Brubaker's bibliography---his X-Men work is stuff like Deadly Genesis and some time on Uncanny, right? And then I think he did work with Carey, Kyle, and Yost on Messiah Complex. I don't know how any of those are...but I heard good things about the Messiah Trilogy.

And I don't know what the fuck Ellis worked on. I think I might've heard of him work on some side series like X-Force or some shit.


Really? I'm surprised to hear you caught flak for disliking Final Crisis--virtually everyone I've talked to in the comic book community hates that series, and calls it the singular moment where Morrison went off the rails and disappeared up his own ass.

People are still salty as fuck over that arc. I can't imagine how bad it must be, if I'm developing aversions to what people consider to be Morrison's "good" work in New X-Men.


Figures. I skipped the whole Onslaught shenanigans after a few issues. And "The Twelve".


Nah. I don't do DC.

Unless it's Jonah Hex.


I read a few issues of New Mutants for Cable's first appearance and to better understand X-Cutioner's Song, which ended up being pointless, since the story ended up being retarded anyway,

So my experience with Liefeld's work was pretty brief. I didn't really like what I saw, but because he didn't work on either of the main X-Books, I never needed to get acquainted with his art style like I do Quietly's....which is made worse, since his art looks fucking nothing like Van Sciver or Kordey.


Not quite. I'm on the last few issues of New X-Men (the ones where Silvestri is drawing), and I'm about halfway through Claremont's X-Treme X-Men (there's this weird shit with the Shiar Empire and Storm's Ruby).

After that, it's all of the Reload Era (which I believe is made up of Whedon, Austen, and Claremont), and everything up through Second Coming.

So I've got a good seven years of X-Book material before I quit, and shuffle back to French stuff like Elric and Metabarons.

if you're up for it, the Utopia era of X-Men does have some interesting stuff with the whole dick waving fight vs Norman Osborn, Cyclop's escalation of morally questionable acts, and all that.

That and the whole Manifest Destiny saga with Hope Summers. If you can find that series with Cable and Baby Hope hopping through time, it's a decent read iirc.

the whole thing about Bishop going off the rails and trying to kill Hope was another thing entirely

 

[Water-T]

On another note, I'm surprised to see you recommend those Hickman Avengers. I loathed Secret Wars and felt that that series was were he jumped the shark completely.

I enjoyed it. Dragged a bit in some parts, and I was annoyed by the "Abul Rahim (or however its spelled) is really Doctor Doom!" revelation. It was Marvel's attempt to CRISIS their 616 and Ultimate universes together. It also tied up the mystery of the Beyonders that have been lingering since they were mentioned alllllll the way back in the 80s and tied them into the Beyonder. They distilled his convoluted backstory down to, "oh, he's basically a newborn version of the Beyonder aliens, who are powerful enough to murder the Living Tribunal."

 

[Jetpack Himmler]

I don't have much to say on X-Men, but I have collected my thoughts on Jon Kent since DC announced his "coming out."

The problem with Jon, at least to me, was that Bendis' forced aging of the character essentially killed his storytelling potential. Part of his appeal was that he was a cheerful and sweet kid--especially when contrasted with Damien--who I want to see come of age in a gradual and organic manner. Here, I wouldn't have minded him eventually realizing his bisexuality as part of his journey of self-discovery. We even lost a potentially nice character dynamic between him and Conner, who could have been the "cool older brother" who would serve as a mentor and support. Basically was Dick/Nightwing was to Damien. I even have this scene in my head where Jon would have asked Conner if they could share the Superboy name during a tender moment.

But no. Bendis had to have his go on an intergalactic road trip with his crazed grandpappy, Jor-El. It still bothers me that Clark let his wife and son go with barely a word of protest, and for Lois to abandon her own son to someone who was clearly mentally unstable. Then Jon spends almost have his life on Earth-3 imprisoned and tormented by evil versions by his parents (Superwoman and Ultraman) and he doesn't suffer any psychological trauma from it? Bull. Shit. I do not believe that for one minute that Jon would be well-adjusted when he returned to Clark and Lois. He should have been angry that his parents for not doing enough to keep him safe from Jor-El and the Crime Syndicate while suffering from PTSD. Yes, I know this is the DC universe where we have power rings, cold guns, and unbreakable lassos, but it's the small--human--things that break my suspension of disbelief.

Then Bendis had to make Jon the "best Superman ever". He was the one who inspired the United Planets and, by extension, the Legion of Super-Heroes while diminishing his father's achievements. Something that especially bothered me after Doomsday Clock took great pains to establish the Earth-0 Clark as the cornerstone of the entire DC multiverse. Bendis spent much of his run on Legion hyping Jon's destiny to exceed his father to become the greatest superhero of all time. I could not buy it for one nanosecond because I'm a firm believer in "show, don't tell" whenever possible.

Since then Jon has come off as redundant as he has no discernible personality other than being a xerox of his father while glossing over the traumatic events of his imprisonment on Earth-3. Conner was at least more brazen and overconfident, which made him stand out from the more reserved Clark. I could go on about how DC did the original Young Justice crew (Conner, Tim, Bart, and Cassie) dirty, but I'll stay on topic. Yes. I know that Earth needs a Superman while Clark is going off to Warworld to free its slaves from Mongul, but the problem is that Jon is essentially a temp while his father is away. He no longer stands on his own as a character. What really kills me is that DC no longer seems interested in doing any long-form storytelling to get their fans invested in their characters. It is always about the publicity stunts and attention. If it wasn't killing off Superman or crippling Batman in the nineties, it is changing the sexuality of Alan Scott, Tim Drake, and Jon Kent in the 2020s.

The pinheads at DC editorial need to realize that Clark is the icon with eighty-three years with several generations of fans. Jon has only existed for only six and to believe that he can replace the original is beyond stupidity. He had his own place in Superman's mythology, but his unnaturally accelerated aging turned him into a pale shadow of his father whose only defining trait is that he locks lips with a pink-haired twink. I have skimmed through issues Superman: Son of Kal-El on the comic store shelf. The quality is abysmal and Tom Taylor is an overrated hack who wants to use the character as a sounding board for his political beliefs. Fuck that. Challenge of the Super-Sons is going to be the last thing I will ever read of Jon Kent. I am not going to spend any more time or money on a character DC mangled beyond recognition.

 

[Cyber Bowling]

Since then Jon has come off as redundant as he has no discernible personality other than being a xerox of his father while glossing over the traumatic events of his imprisonment on Earth-3.

Your whole post was spot on, but to avoid a giant quote wall, I just wanted to highlight this because I think it really hits the nail on the head. Jon stopped being a character when Bendis took over. He's lucky he even continued to exist at all, and I suspect Bendis only included him because of fan outcry. But even then, Bendis didn't want to write about young Jon, so he lazily aged him up. He at least got attached enough to make Jon into this larger than life icon, but he completely failed to make Jon a character. It also ignores the whole entire reason people got upset about him being written out, they liked Jon entirely for his character, not because he was an awesome symbol or had cool powers or whatever.

There are some comics you want to read because the characters have interesting powers and have to use them in creative ways to beat equally interesting villains. Then there are comics you read because you like the characters, and all the crime fighting stuff is either supplemental, or it exists more for character advancement. Jon was popular despite the fact in most of the stories he appeared, he wasn't fighting supervillains or being the savior of the universe. Now, he's just boring.

I couldn't even get mad that they're making him bi because in my mind, he stopped being a character months ago. This is just the final nail in the coffin that he stopped being a character and is just a blank slate mouthpiece for whatever writer gets assigned to him, in this case, Taylor. Some of the interviews with Taylor really highlight this, with Taylor talking about how he couldn't waste the opportunity to get these important messages out with a big character. All he wanted was a big name character, there wasn't anything about Jon specifically where he felt this story had to be told, or it was a natural progression for the character based on what other writers did.

 

[Alexander Thaut]

I don't have much to say on X-Men, but I have collected my thoughts on Jon Kent since DC announced his "coming out."

The problem with Jon, at least to me, was that Bendis' forced aging of the character essentially killed his storytelling potential. Part of his appeal was that he was a cheerful and sweet kid--especially when contrasted with Damien--who I want to see come of age in a gradual and organic manner. Here, I wouldn't have minded him eventually realizing his bisexuality as part of his journey of self-discovery. We even lost a potentially nice character dynamic between him and Conner, who could have been the "cool older brother" who would serve as a mentor and support. Basically was Dick/Nightwing was to Damien. I even have this scene in my head where Jon would have asked Conner if they could share the Superboy name during a tender moment.

Character potential was lost. It sucks because I could have seen Superboy-Prime secretly chatting with Jon before he did that whole secret sacrifice thing in dark knights metal or w/e.

But no. Bendis had to have his go on an intergalactic road trip with his crazed grandpappy, Jor-El. It still bothers me that Clark let his wife and son go with barely a word of protest, and for Lois to abandon her own son to someone who was clearly mentally unstable. Then Jon spends almost have his life on Earth-3 imprisoned and tormented by evil versions by his parents (Superwoman and Ultraman) and he doesn't suffer any psychological trauma from it? Bull. Shit. I do not believe that for one minute that Jon would be well-adjusted when he returned to Clark and Lois. He should have been angry that his parents for not doing enough to keep him safe from Jor-El and the Crime Syndicate while suffering from PTSD. Yes, I know this is the DC universe where we have power rings, cold guns, and unbreakable lassos, but it's the small--human--things that break my suspension of disbelief.

I feel like Bendis may have been onto something, but then giving it to Tom Taylor was a fucking bad idea.

Like you can have Jon suffering from ptsd. Hell you could have tied it into a potential revival of the "Salvation" clinic from "Heroes in Crisis". Have Harley do a shilled guest star appearance where she drops her cuckoo act and tries to do a session with him out of respect for big blue.

I just don't know why it feels like they stopped all of Bendis' grand plans and suddenly we have more gay shit. I mean, Bendis isn't the greatest writer ever but I'd rather let him have a shot than hand shit to Tom Taylor and the SJW squad.

Then Bendis had to make Jon the "best Superman ever". He was the one who inspired the United Planets and, by extension, the Legion of Super-Heroes while diminishing his father's achievements. Something that especially bothered me after Doomsday Clock took great pains to establish the Earth-0 Clark as the cornerstone of the entire DC multiverse. Bendis spent much of his run on Legion hyping Jon's destiny to exceed his father to become the greatest superhero of all time. I could not buy it for one nanosecond because I'm a firm believer in "show, don't tell" whenever possible.

the problem isn't that they hyped it up imo.

the problem is that we never had any payoff to any of this bullshit.

We had like what, 3-5 issues of his Legion so far? Suddenly instead of having ANYTHING done, the rest of the speds in the company want to weirdly accelerate this future shock bullshit without any proper planning or foresight.

It's fucking obnoxious and nobody fucking wins. If anything, it kinda just pushes this amateurish fanfiction tier plot planning where everyone's a chosen one, everyone's fated to be great and overshadow da chudz, bullshit.

Since then Jon has come off as redundant as he has no discernible personality other than being a xerox of his father while glossing over the traumatic events of his imprisonment on Earth-3. Conner was at least more brazen and overconfident, which made him stand out from the more reserved Clark. I could go on about how DC did the original Young Justice crew (Conner, Tim, Bart, and Cassie) dirty, but I'll stay on topic. Yes. I know that Earth needs a Superman while Clark is going off to Warworld to free its slaves from Mongul, but the problem is that Jon is essentially a temp while his father is away. He no longer stands on his own as a character. What really kills me is that DC no longer seems interested in doing any long-form storytelling to get their fans invested in their characters. It is always about the publicity stunts and attention. If it wasn't killing off Superman or crippling Batman in the nineties, it is changing the sexuality of Alan Scott, Tim Drake, and Jon Kent in the 2020s.

at least we got Doomsday, Cyborg-Superman, Superboy, Bane, Jean-Paul Valley, and The Eradicator out of the death of superman and crippling of batman.

changing the sexuality of alan scott, tim drake, and jon kent doesn't really do much of anything.

like, they had to invent all new love interests for Tim and Jon. Alan's probably no longer married to the original Harlequin?

I mean, ok. But I'm sure it would have been smarter to use related character in the Superman/Batman/JSA mythos that don't have a ton of use just yet and have the potential for more? I mean, if you really wanted to, there's a few characters from those spheres they could have done something with to build some more shit.

1. Natasha irons
   1. Yes, she barely gets used anyways and it'd have been no great deal to do this to her. It'd even give them an excuse to shill a Steel series with father and niece. I mean, Steel's just black iron man, isn't he? Hell, it'd be a black LGBT woman. That's like 3x the points.
2. Kara (Supergirl)
   1. Fuckit. The only notable relationship she's ever had was with Brainiac 13 in the pre-crisis days. Making her bisexual wouldn't really be a big deal since she still has a lot of character potential.
3. Jason Todd
   1. Probably could have been the more interesting Robin to turn into a bisexual. Especially given the boatload of trauma. We don't know a ton about his romantic stuff because it's never been a heavy focus iirc.
4. (I can't think of a second Bat-character that could get shilled. We already have Batwoman who just can't seem to get a good series running for some reason.

For JSA members, literally pick and choose any legacy hero or golden age hero that doesn't have extensive history that's already written. Like, no shit why the FUCK didn't they just focus on using Obsidian anyways? Dude's a legitimately interesting character.

What? Y'all need another LGBT JSA character? Fucking hell, what about making some Golden Age hero that nobody uses into a homosexual. Like say. . .Red Bee?

You know, the All-Star Squadron character best known for sacrificing himself to let Hourman live, iirc. Make an interesting set of retrospective diaries or whatever. Have his ghost show up, lecture about the times.

Or, since we've already kinda established the All-Star Squadron retconned golden age hero Amazing Man as a civil rights activist, just pick a golden age hero to turn into a historic gay rights activist. There's quite a few options for them to use. Like, fucking hell you could have it be like one of the "Young All-Stars" because DC did jack shit with them outside of Neptune Perkins/Tsunami getting married.

Hell, I'm mildly surprised they haven't taken some non-plastic man/elongated man shapeshifter and retroactively tried to make him into a street level LGBT superhero on a street level/magic level. Basically turn it into woolf's Orlando, but with a superheroic twist.

(None of the SJW writers are intelligent enough to pull this off.)

The pinheads at DC editorial need to realize that Clark is the icon with eighty-three years with several generations of fans. Jon has only existed for only six and to believe that he can replace the original is beyond stupidity. He had his own place in Superman's mythology, but his unnaturally accelerated aging turned him into a pale shadow of his father whose only defining trait is that he locks lips with a pink-haired twink. I have skimmed through issues Superman: Son of Kal-El on the comic store shelf. The quality is abysmal and Tom Taylor is an overrated hack who wants to use the character as a sounding board for his political beliefs. Fuck that. Challenge of the Super-Sons is going to be the last thing I will ever read of Jon Kent. I am not going to spend any more time or money on a character DC mangled beyond recognition.

Suddenly in 4 years Grant Morrison somehow comes back to DC and pulls out 9 year old Jon Kent using a bullshit excuse. Noone questions why. Gay Older Jon becomes Superboy-Prime II.

Your whole post was spot on, but to avoid a giant quote wall, I just wanted to highlight this because I think it really hits the nail on the head. Jon stopped being a character when Bendis took over. He's lucky he even continued to exist at all, and I suspect Bendis only included him because of fan outcry. But even then, Bendis didn't want to write about young Jon, so he lazily aged him up. He at least got attached enough to make Jon into this larger than life icon, but he completely failed to make Jon a character. It also ignores the whole entire reason people got upset about him being written out, they liked Jon entirely for his character, not because he was an awesome symbol or had cool powers or whatever.

Yeah I think Bendis could have tried something, but Taylor's even more of a hack than Bendis.;

There are some comics you want to read because the characters have interesting powers and have to use them in creative ways to beat equally interesting villains. Then there are comics you read because you like the characters, and all the crime fighting stuff is either supplemental, or it exists more for character advancement. Jon was popular despite the fact in most of the stories he appeared, he wasn't fighting supervillains or being the savior of the universe. Now, he's just boring.

Yeah I liked the Calvin and Hobbes vibes of the Supersons. Was disappointed that it didn't get continued so we could have Jai and Iris West tag along with them.

I couldn't even get mad that they're making him bi because in my mind, he stopped being a character months ago. This is just the final nail in the coffin that he stopped being a character and is just a blank slate mouthpiece for whatever writer gets assigned to him, in this case, Taylor. Some of the interviews with Taylor really highlight this, with Taylor talking about how he couldn't waste the opportunity to get these important messages out with a big character. All he wanted was a big name character, there wasn't anything about Jon specifically where he felt this story had to be told, or it was a natural progression for the character based on what other writers did.

Taylor's boring.

I mix him up with King iirc.

 

[40 Year Old Boomer]

Then Jon spends almost have his life on Earth-3 imprisoned and tormented by evil versions by his parents (Superwoman and Ultraman) and he doesn't suffer any psychological trauma from it? Bull. Shit. I do not believe that for one minute that Jon would be well-adjusted when he returned to Clark and Lois. He should have been angry that his parents for not doing enough to keep him safe from Jor-El and the Crime Syndicate while suffering from PTSD. Yes, I know this is the DC universe where we have power rings, cold guns, and unbreakable lassos, but it's the small--human--things that break my suspension of disbelief.

He's not well-adjusted, he's bisexual.

 

[Water-T]

Looks like i spoke too soon about Bendis' LOSH being gone for good: the fucking bald bastard is doing a Legion vs. JLA miniseries in January.

I wonder what dumb shit he's going to do in this one.

 

[Alexander Thaut]

Looks like i spoke too soon about Bendis' LOSH being gone for good: the fucking bald bastard is doing a Legion vs. JLA miniseries in January.

I wonder what dumb shit he's going to do in this one.

WE BARELY HAD ANYTHING SET UP IN HIS LOSH.

WHAT THE FUCK IS DC SMOKING.

 

[Jetpack Himmler]

Look who is trying to be like Greta Thunberg.

 

[Water-T]

WE BARELY HAD ANYTHING SET UP IN HIS LOSH.

WHAT THE FUCK IS DC SMOKING.

Exactly. Those two issues of Millennium that was supposed to set up the series?

Fuck all happened aside from Rose/Thorn blabbing with an older Supergirl and rushing to see the LOSH do a photo op. THAT'S IT. And then nothing was done with her since in the series, rendering the whole thing a waste of time, paper, and $10 (each issue was FIVE DOLLARS). Then we get like three dozen characters at once and maybe 3 or 4 actually do or say anything of note each issue. For all of Shooter, Giffen, or Johns' flaws, they knew how to juggle such a large cast so every character had a chance to shine. Bendis can't fucking pull it off at all.

Fingers crossed that this at least ends up opening the door to the return of the prior LOSH incarnations. I'd even take the 5 Years Later or SW6 Batch LOSH over Baldy's BS Legion.

 

[Alexander Thaut]

Exactly. Those two issues of Millennium that was supposed to set up the series?

Fuck all happened aside from Rose/Thorn blabbing with an older Supergirl and rushing to see the LOSH do a photo op. THAT'S IT. And then nothing was done with her since in the series, rendering the whole thing a waste of time, paper, and $10 (each issue was FIVE DOLLARS). Then we get like three dozen characters at once and maybe 3 or 4 actually do or say anything of note each issue. For all of Shooter, Giffen, or Johns' flaws, they knew how to juggle such a large cast so every character had a chance to shine. Bendis can't fucking pull it off at all.

Fingers crossed that this at least ends up opening the door to the return of the prior LOSH incarnations. I'd even take the 5 Years Later or SW6 Batch LOSH over Baldy's BS Legion.

It's indicative of things getting so fucked that I'd prefer letting Bendis take the wheel instead of letting SJW corporate shills like Taylor take over.

 

[Cyber Bowling]

It's indicative of things getting so fucked that I'd prefer letting Bendis take the wheel instead of letting SJW corporate shills like Taylor take over.

I think there's a lot of negative things to say about Bendis, but he at least tries to write comics. With a few exceptions, I'd say he cares about the titles he writes. He might not be very good at them, but it's better than just taking over a title and turning the character into a mouthpiece for asspats.

You can tell Taylor doesn't care because of the way it was announced. He took over, and declared that Superboy was bi now and going to be dating a dude. He did it solely to get public asspats. If he really cared, he wouldn't have said anything, and built up to it in his run. You know, actually developing the character and exploring why they make the decisions they do so the reader can relate to them. Then, if you still want asspats, talk about how you're doing it and then during your interviews, explain how you laid the groundwork 20 something issues ago. Hell, you might even get new readers interested in all those other issues if you sell the character development really well in the interview and get the reader interested enough to pick up a trade.

I think that's the issue most people have with these big character changes. Iceman is probably the go to example of horrible "he caught the gay" plotlines. And, it wasn't even the "wrong" people complaining, I saw a lot of SJW leaning places rightly criticizing how poorly it was written, to the point where there's even plausible plot theories that Jean Gray did some mind control nonsense. People aren't frustrated with changes because they hate the gays or whatever, they're frustrated because it always signals lazy writing and a complete lack of character development. It can't even be saved by a good writer later inheriting the character, because unless they do a massive retcon, the bad writer already ruined the big first relationship, and it becomes very hard to write a breakup or kill the character because then you get people up in arms about how no gay characters can be happy.

The other annoying thing is how deceptive the writers are about it. It isn't "Jon Kent is bi" it's "Superman is bi" to get maximum good boy points, since the implication is you're making Clark Kent bi. Same deal with Alan Scott, they kept saying Green Lantern despite the fact that, even in universe, I feel like he's more commonly called Alan Scott specifically to differentiate him from Hal and the lantern corp. I'll actually give Bendis some more credit, at least when he wants to make a mouthpiece character/some kind of insert for someone IRL, he at least makes an original character instead of taking an existing character and turning them into what he wants.

 

[Alexander Thaut]

I think there's a lot of negative things to say about Bendis, but he at least tries to write comics. With a few exceptions, I'd say he cares about the titles he writes. He might not be very good at them, but it's better than just taking over a title and turning the character into a mouthpiece for asspats.

You can tell Taylor doesn't care because of the way it was announced. He took over, and declared that Superboy was bi now and going to be dating a dude. He did it solely to get public asspats. If he really cared, he wouldn't have said anything, and built up to it in his run. You know, actually developing the character and exploring why they make the decisions they do so the reader can relate to them. Then, if you still want asspats, talk about how you're doing it and then during your interviews, explain how you laid the groundwork 20 something issues ago. Hell, you might even get new readers interested in all those other issues if you sell the character development really well in the interview and get the reader interested enough to pick up a trade.

yeah they yanked stuff from Bendis, gave it to the SJWs, and turned little Jon Kent into a mary sue LGBT teen activist.

what's dumb as shit is that there could have been decent setup if taylor just started with the use of the time Jon spent in the LOSH in the future, considering how "alien" they can be. The concepts of human sexuality are probably not really applicable to aliens. Coulda been properly set up.

But nah, homo it is.

I think that's the issue most people have with these big character changes. Iceman is probably the go to example of horrible "he caught the gay" plotlines. And, it wasn't even the "wrong" people complaining, I saw a lot of SJW leaning places rightly criticizing how poorly it was written, to the point where there's even plausible plot theories that Jean Gray did some mind control nonsense. People aren't frustrated with changes because they hate the gays or whatever, they're frustrated because it always signals lazy writing and a complete lack of character development. It can't even be saved by a good writer later inheriting the character, because unless they do a massive retcon, the bad writer already ruined the big first relationship, and it becomes very hard to write a breakup or kill the character because then you get people up in arms about how no gay characters can be happy.

Kid Iceman turning gay was 10% an ok idea, 90% fuckup. It would have been interesting to see a younger alt timeline Iceman turn gay as an exploration of the human psyche.

The other annoying thing is how deceptive the writers are about it. It isn't "Jon Kent is bi" it's "Superman is bi" to get maximum good boy points, since the implication is you're making Clark Kent bi. Same deal with Alan Scott, they kept saying Green Lantern despite the fact that, even in universe, I feel like he's more commonly called Alan Scott specifically to differentiate him from Hal and the lantern corp. I'll actually give Bendis some more credit, at least when he wants to make a mouthpiece character/some kind of insert for someone IRL, he at least makes an original character instead of taking an existing character and turning them into what he wants.

the thing with Alan Scott is that if they were going to have any existing Green Lantern come out as bisexual, surely it'd have been someone that currently doesn't have a lover and is better established? I mean I love the JSA and all but they were erased from the DCU for almost a decade. Even then, it'd have been better to just use someone that isn't getting anything.

Hell, I'd sooner find it more believable that Kyle Rayner is bisexual, but that may be some stereotype of artists.

 

[GoPro]

I think there's a lot of negative things to say about Bendis, but he at least tries to write comics. With a few exceptions, I'd say he cares about the titles he writes. He might not be very good at them, but it's better than just taking over a title and turning the character into a mouthpiece for asspats.

You can tell Taylor doesn't care because of the way it was announced. He took over, and declared that Superboy was bi now and going to be dating a dude. He did it solely to get public asspats. If he really cared, he wouldn't have said anything, and built up to it in his run. You know, actually developing the character and exploring why they make the decisions they do so the reader can relate to them. Then, if you still want asspats, talk about how you're doing it and then during your interviews, explain how you laid the groundwork 20 something issues ago. Hell, you might even get new readers interested in all those other issues if you sell the character development really well in the interview and get the reader interested enough to pick up a trade.

I think that's the issue most people have with these big character changes. Iceman is probably the go to example of horrible "he caught the gay" plotlines. And, it wasn't even the "wrong" people complaining, I saw a lot of SJW leaning places rightly criticizing how poorly it was written, to the point where there's even plausible plot theories that Jean Gray did some mind control nonsense. People aren't frustrated with changes because they hate the gays or whatever, they're frustrated because it always signals lazy writing and a complete lack of character development. It can't even be saved by a good writer later inheriting the character, because unless they do a massive retcon, the bad writer already ruined the big first relationship, and it becomes very hard to write a breakup or kill the character because then you get people up in arms about how no gay characters can be happy.

The other annoying thing is how deceptive the writers are about it. It isn't "Jon Kent is bi" it's "Superman is bi" to get maximum good boy points, since the implication is you're making Clark Kent bi. Same deal with Alan Scott, they kept saying Green Lantern despite the fact that, even in universe, I feel like he's more commonly called Alan Scott specifically to differentiate him from Hal and the lantern corp. I'll actually give Bendis some more credit, at least when he wants to make a mouthpiece character/some kind of insert for someone IRL, he at least makes an original character instead of taking an existing character and turning them into what he wants.

I have to disagree on Bendis. He does not try to write comics. He is trying to write lazy TV series. Long monologues, excessive speech bubbles, frequent shot-reverse shot, repetitive panels, and his other favorite techniques scream failed TV writer. Bendis does not seem to care all that much about what he writes either, unless it's his pet character like Kitty Pryde or Luke Cage. With other characters he throws past characterization, storylines, and previous creative teams' interesting plot hooks out of the window. He focuses on his own dumb ideas instead, and well established characters are twisted to fit four archetypes Bendis can write. It would not be bad to do it if the stories were actually good, but I think that Bendis did not write anything decent in over 15 years.

Other matter is that Bendis is a precursor of problems you complain about. Many of his stories are his own wish fulfillment, he is obsessed with spawning diverse OCs even if they are redundant, and he likes to cram in superficial references to his own heritage and identity much like today's trans writers like to do. Again, last would not be bad at all if it was used well in service of stories, but it isn't. He, like Ellis, is an originator of many trends that got us to where we are today. Cohort who came after them merely iterated on these trends.