|
Wait, was Nightcrawler's forked dong Claremont?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
How could that possibly come up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 13:40
|
|
|
I have no clue, I'm just aware that one X-Men writer claimed that Nightcrawler had a double-cock and given all of the other weird sex stuff Claremont shoehorned in it makes sense that it would have been him. e: Okay, good, I'm not going insane.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
Metal Loaf posted:Or have him say, "Oh, good grief, no!" when he learns his girlfriend is actually his sister in disguise, rather than, "Oh boy!" Sorry, but the correct Nightcrawler response is "Unglaubich!"  Alternative acceptable response: "Gott in himmel!" ("im himmel"?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
Please do not try and throw Chuck Austen's nonsense onto Claremont.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
prefect posted:Sorry, but the correct Nightcrawler response is "Unglaubich!" im Himmel, I think. Most nouns get capitalized in German no matter where in the sentence they appear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:How could that possibly come up? I remember it being an extra feature for the X-Men 2 movie. They asked him if he knew any secrets about the characters that no one else would, and he gave that as an answer. I took this as a truth for a while until I started to really read the comics, and found out who this guy was and what he ended up writing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
IUG posted:I remember it being an extra feature for the X-Men 2 movie. They asked him if he knew any secrets about the characters that no one else would, and he gave that as an answer. I took this as a truth for a while until I started to really read the comics, and found out who this guy was and what he ended up writing. As far as I can remember, this was something that either was directly said or heavily hinted at during Chuck Austen's run. (And fun fact, has made it's way into Internet pornography featuring Nightcrawler.) So it's one of those weird comic facts associated with superhero genitalia that is sort of out there, and isn't likely to get retconned unless people push for a full on frontal nudity/sex filled Marvel comics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
IUG posted:I remember it being an extra feature for the X-Men 2 movie. They asked him if he knew any secrets about the characters that no one else would, and he gave that as an answer. I took this as a truth for a while until I started to really read the comics, and found out who this guy was and what he ended up writing. VVV This VVVV Waterhaul posted:Please do not try and throw Chuck Austen's nonsense onto Claremont. It was always Chuck Austen with Nickcrawler's two dicks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure he was talking about Austen. There's supposedly an interview with him on the X-Men 2 DVD special features.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
irlZaphod posted:I'm pretty sure he was talking about Austen. There's supposedly an interview with him on the X-Men 2 DVD special features.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Or is it Sputnik posted:Yeah, I've watched the special features. Austen talks about an interview he had done and the reporter asked "You're the writer of Nightcrawler, tell us something no one else knows!" and he just blurted out "You know how Nightcrawler has two fingers? Well, he has two of something else too!" Toes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Choco1980 posted:Toes. I was thinking hearts! If anyone thought otherwise they are a pervert.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
prefect posted:Sorry, but the correct Nightcrawler response is "Unglaubich!" But it happens (it's his adopted sister, which is still weird, but not as weird) and he says "Oh boy!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
Going back to the John Byrne West Coast Avengers talk from a page or two back, I've recently seen this claim that almost everything Byrne did in the comic was motivated by his dislike of Englehart's run on Fantastic Four (which itself doesn't seem to be terribly well-liked).
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
Metal Loaf posted:Going back to the John Byrne West Coast Avengers talk from a page or two back, I've recently seen this claim that almost everything Byrne did in the comic was motivated by his dislike of Englehart's run on Fantastic Four (which itself doesn't seem to be terribly well-liked). Englehart has claimed that this was largely the result of editorial interference, to the point that he wrote the last year or so under the pseudonym "John Harkness".
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 13:05
|
|
|
The idea of John Byrne running characters into the ground because of tiny slights is completely in character so yeah I could see that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
If you'd put John Byrne and Chris Claremont working on same comic would they manage to put a single issue out before one would murder another? Bonus round: They're both working under Chuck Austen's direction. Could they put aside their differences long enough to murder Austen together? I'm assuming that Austen has lots of experience in holding off assaults from pissed off comic book writers, from the sheer fact that he's still alive. So it would take both of them to have a fighting chance. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Oct 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:If you'd put John Byrne and Chris Claremont working on same comic would they manage to put a single issue out before one would murder another? No they would murder the reader as their JLA storyline proved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:If you'd put John Byrne and Chris Claremont working on same comic would they manage to put a single issue out before one would murder another? (I have heard it is terrible!) :bobkatt!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
I've been reading Runaways for the first time... I'm about 4 issues away from the end, and wow do the wheels fall off fast. The first arc was really great, but the constantly changing creative teams after that make it too hard to get into a groove. Shame, cause I really liked the premise. Reminds me of Exiles kind of, a great start building to a lovely ending.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I've been reading Runaways for the first time... I'm about 4 issues away from the end, and wow do the wheels fall off fast. Runaways had three writers. Their was Vaughan which was great, Whendon which was okay, and Moore which I heard was terrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
redbackground posted:You do know they did an arc of JLA together (The Tenth Circle)? It has vampires! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:29
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Runaways had three writers. Their was Vaughan which was great, Whendon which was okay, and Moore which I heard was terrible. Whedon was garbage, the art completely carried his lovely run.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Tenth Circle is remarkably loving terrible. It is so utterly terrible it makes Chuck Austen's subsequent arc look gold in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Runaways had three writers. Their was Vaughan which was great, Whendon which was okay, and Moore which I heard was terrible. There was also Immomen at the very end, who, after Whedon and Moore's garbage, was decent. Not Vaughn-level by any means, but still way ahead of Whedon and Moore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Whedon was garbage, the art completely carried his lovely run. Yeah. Whedon on X-Men was okay. Whedon on Runaways was wasted paper.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Runaways had three writers. Their was Vaughan which was great, Whendon which was okay, and Moore which I heard was terrible. Moore wasn't even terrible. He was just... average. He was average and that just isn't good enough for something with the momentum that Runaways had. I realize I never got around to this, but I guess I should talk about the worst Deadpool run. After his first ongoing series, it seemed like the worst Deadpool run went to Frank Tieri, who was around for two story arcs. To be fair, they weren't all that terrible overall and had some strong moments (Deadpool's funeral issue for one), but there were two parts that really chafed me. One was in the first story, where Deadpool is brought back into Weapon X, realizes they're a bunch of assholes and rebels against them. This story turned out to be bullshit due to Sabretooth killing Deadpool's then-and-original love interest Copycat with zero repercussions because he's not going to be killed off and even if he was, it wouldn't be by someone like Deadpool. Deadpool then dies and even when he's brought back, he doesn't even care about all the bullshit Weapon X has put him through. Weapon X is built up to antagonize Wolverine and Deadpool is meant to move on, like it's a bad wrestling angle. Then he did the story Funeral for a Freak, which was a cute idea. Deadpool's dead and there are four guys claiming to be Deadpool running through the streets. There's a superhero, a murderous vigilante, a violent psycho and a charismatic pop culture MC. It all led to the reveal that T-Ray was behind it all and upon being defeated, Deadpool said that this proved that he was the true Wade Wilson after all. Not only did his logic make no sense whatsoever in terms of storytelling, but Tieri decided to completely negate Joe Kelly's awesome ending (where we found out that T-Ray is the original Wade Wilson and Deadpool stole his identity) out of spite. But the REAL worst run of Deadpool, as far as I'm concerned, goes to Daniel Way. After his run on Venom, I never wanted to read another Way book. Then he did the Deadpool arc in Wolverine: Origins and I read it out of curiosity. It was fantastic. It was several issues of wacky/violent Deadpool antics followed by an emotional issue where we get to see why Deadpool resents Wolverine so much. It blew me away. If this was Way's audition to write the new Deadpool series, then by all means! He started out strong, too. The first year was really good, outside of an unfortunate crossover with Thunderbolts. The Bullseye-as-Hawkeye arc was easily the highlight of the whole run. Then the problems started. First, Way decided to redo the same exact story that the last two Deadpool ongoings have tried, which is, "I'm tired of being seen as just a murderer. I want to be a hero now!" Then he started screwing up his own storytelling. For instance, there's a good storyline where he tries to join the X-Men and ultimately makes the X-Men look awesome in the public eye by antagonizing them on TV. Since he's seen as a bad guy, they come off as great heroes by thwarting him. He did a heroic act by sacrificing his need to be seen as a hero. Great! Then in the next storyline with Spider-Man and Hit-Monkey, Deadpool outright admits that he doesn't see the difference between being a hero and being seen as a hero. It's like he simply regressed in character development between stories. Way also brought up a subplot where Deadpool was seen as a traitor to the human race by siding with the Skrulls. This was national news. It was brought up an entire one time before being completely forgotten about. From there, the comic really dropped off. Way would drag you along by promising interesting story concepts and then having nothing happen. Instead, everything would hit an anti-climax and roll to the next storyline with the continued promise that something was going to happen. Also, while Way's humor quality dropped, his emotional quality became nonexistent. Kelly's run had a storyline where it was revealed that Deadpool would shove Blind Al and later Weasel into this dark room filled with sharp objects called the Box, which was treated as being on the same level as if he raped them. It was a traumatic, horrible thing that Deadpool would do and he came to terms with his past actions and was eventually forgiven. So of course Way has Deadpool ruin Weasel's life for hilarious, selfish reasons and shoves him into the Box as if it's a cute thing he does from time to time. I stopped reading around the time he was locked up in an English psychiatric ward and from what I've heard, it didn't get any better. I remember flipping through the final issue, which treated T-Ray as a throwaway villain. I think Deadpool was attacked by a SHIELD agent whose life was ruined by Deadpool's actions and he responded by bitching her out and making her cry. Then Evil Deadpool shows up to reveal he's not dead after all, just as a last minute way for Way to undo his status quo of Deadpool having lost his healing factor. The fact that Way was writing Deadpool's series during the character's most popular era was salt in the wound. Also, considering there were so many Deadpool comics being written at the time, Way's stuff really felt far from spectacular in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Whedon was garbage, the art completely carried his lovely run. Yeah just a reminder that he uprooted the cast, moved them across the country, then had them time-travelling back to the 1920s within three (?) issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
Gavok posted:The fact that Way was writing Deadpool's series during the character's most popular era was salt in the wound. Also, considering there were so many Deadpool comics being written at the time, Way's stuff really felt far from spectacular in comparison. Part of the reason Way's Deadpool run is so bad, too, is that it basically completely got rid of his supporting cast. Weasel showed up a bit but as you said Way did his best to ruin that relationship for cheap comedy. I can't remember if Blind Al showed up at all and I don't think Sandi and Outlaw appeared either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
It's especially bad since Way's run came on the heels of Cable and Deadpool, which built up a gigantic supporting cast for Deadpool(while admittedly shoving Blind Al and Weasel pretty far into the background), a group of people who genuinely trust, like, respect and understand Wade. And then BOOM he's just an anti-social guy who has no friends again. A good writer might have used the "Wade sided with the Skrulls" thing to explain away the supporting cast, but Way seemed to seriously just forget they existed. And the very few times characters from his past did show up, Deadpool just treated them like poo poo or they hated him for reasons unexplained.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Suben posted:Part of the reason Way's Deadpool run is so bad, too, is that it basically completely got rid of his supporting cast. Weasel showed up a bit but as you said Way did his best to ruin that relationship for cheap comedy. I can't remember if Blind Al showed up at all and I don't think Sandi and Outlaw appeared either. Yeah. I forgot to talk about the mental tics that Way introduced. One was "Pool-O-Vision", which luckily trailed off after a while. The idea being that we see what kind of cartoony madness Deadpool's psyche sees. This started out as a great gag in the Wolverine: Origins story, mainly for seeing Steve Dillon draw Wolverine in a Tex Avery style. Then there was the time he kissed Thunderbolts Black Widow (who was really regular Black Widow in disguise) and told her he loved her while in his eyes she looked like Death. Otherwise, the gimmick never brought anything to the story and felt like a stand-in for humor. The worst thing was creating the Deadpool inner dialogue. Deadpool's supporting cast became the yellow thought bubble and the white thought bubble. Two non-characters to have dialogue with him while never actually leading to anything. That's why the Posehn/Duggan run is so brilliant. They understand the need for a real supporting cast, but know that people are used to the inner dialogue. That's why they created Agent Preston and had her shoved into Deadpool's mind. There's an actual story in there and a feeling of the voice coming from a sympathetic character.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
Gavok posted:Yeah. I forgot to talk about the mental tics that Way introduced. One was "Pool-O-Vision", which luckily trailed off after a while. The idea being that we see what kind of cartoony madness Deadpool's psyche sees. This started out as a great gag in the Wolverine: Origins story, mainly for seeing Steve Dillon draw Wolverine in a Tex Avery style. Then there was the time he kissed Thunderbolts Black Widow (who was really regular Black Widow in disguise) and told her he loved her while in his eyes she looked like Death. Otherwise, the gimmick never brought anything to the story and felt like a stand-in for humor. I have read a bit of the Posehn/Duggan run and its pretty good, but I would say that the best Deadpool has ever been was in Uncanny X-force. Also it seems that the Frank Tieri run was just a set up for his Weapon X series.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
To be honest, I gave up on Daniel Way after his Wolverine story prior to Wolverine: Origins launching. You know, the one where he had his memories back and went to talk to people, but it just cock-teased you and showed him talking/killing people from his past but without revealing what was said or anything at all. gently caress you, Daniel Way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 10:58
|
|
|
Why is Daniel Way given books?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Why is Daniel Way given books? Wolverine: Origin was really big for 2002 Marvel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Wolverine: Origin was really big for 2002 Marvel. Way's Wolverine Origin is not the one from 2002. That was written by Jenkins
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Way's Wolverine Origin is not the one from 2002. That was written by Jenkins How many friggin' origins does Wolverine need? I guess he's Marvel's Joker, either zero or >1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:How many friggin' origins does Wolverine need? I guess he's Marvel's Joker, either zero or >1. The first Origin was the thing that introduced him as James and the Way shitfest was suppose to fill in the blanks, but instead we got Romulus. bobkatt013 fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Oct 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
McSpanky posted:How many friggin' origins does Wolverine need? I guess he's Marvel's Joker, either zero or >1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 16:35
|
|