|
Skwirl posted:And that has to be a different Rachel Summers than the one that's hanging around in 616. But Adult Franklin is a reality manipulator on par with any of the other ones, so that just gets way too confusing. If I recall, Hyperstorm comes from a reality where she didn't leave the DOFP future maybe? Comically, DOFP Franklin is nowhere near as powerful as 616 Franklin ends up being since he gets easily murdered by a Sentinel.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
Endless Mike posted:If I recall, Hyperstorm comes from a reality where she didn't leave the DOFP future maybe? Comically, DOFP Franklin is nowhere near as powerful as 616 Franklin ends up being since he gets easily murdered by a Sentinel. Hyperstorm himself is kind of a bitch, since he lost to a hungry Galactus, which for the child of a Phoenix host and Franklin goshdang Richards, is a pretty poor showing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
I feel like the superhuman family is a very Marvel thing. Most of the heroes in DC have regular lovers and few of them have children, unless you get into distant futures with the Superman dynasty and stuff. Flash, GL, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc. all have 'mortal' lovers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
A Strange Aeon posted:I feel like the superhuman family is a very Marvel thing. Most of the heroes in DC have regular lovers and few of them have children, unless you get into distant futures with the Superman dynasty and stuff. Flash, GL, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc. all have 'mortal' lovers. I'm not sure I'd agree with this. What I'd say is that a lot of the love interests become superheroes at some point. (Though that also happens in DC.) Mary-Jane, Gwen Stacy, Betty Ross, Jane Foster, Pepper Potts, etc are all normals but these days you've got Renew Your Vows/Spider-Gwen/Red She-Hulk/Thor/Rescue/etc which muddy the waters a bit. To be fair a lot of those are basically defined by the MCU at this point but still.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Say Nothing posted:So I wasn't imagining the weirdness surrounding Kitty Pryde during this time period? She seemed to phase out of her clothes on a regular basis when Claremont was writing. OK, so this thing was hiding in Rachel's suit, which Kitty then put on, and in doing so was swallowed by whatever that thing was? I'm just trying to figure out why Kitty was in Rachel's outfit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Costume party gone horribly wrong?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
*watching pornography, brows knit querulously* "I don't understand: who actually ordered the pizza?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:OK, so this thing was hiding in Rachel's suit, which Kitty then put on, and in doing so was swallowed by whatever that thing was? I'm just trying to figure out why Kitty was in Rachel's outfit. I can't believe I remember this, but... That thing is a warwolf, a critter sent by Mojo to attack Excalibur because reasons (I think it had something to do with Betsy Braddock?). Anyway, the Warwolves hunt by finding normal people, attacking them, erasing their minds completely and turning the poor saps into skinsuits. One did this to Kitty, but her phasing powers interacted weirdly and she was able to reform herself or whatever. Even leaving aside the vore thing, it was a very weird turn for the comic because for the most part it was pretty lighthearted, then you get this story about innocent people being effectively erased from existence and nobody really caring.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:warwolf 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
There wolf. There castle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I can't believe I remember this, but... They were chasing Rachael because she escaped from Mojo world. And it was like, the first issue so not really a weird turn since it started at the outset.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Ferrule posted:They were chasing Rachael because she escaped from Mojo world. I'm pretty sure that at some point Betsy did get Mojo-cams for eyes, though. Probably why I got that confused.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Excalibur was pure, unrefined Claremont insanity and it was pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Nobody has explained why kitty was wearing Rachael's costume.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Nobody has explained why kitty was wearing Rachael's costume. No one really knows, it's a riddle for the ages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Is it just on BSS that Claremont is only known as the weird fetish guy and not the guy who made the X-Men worth reading for a full decade?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
purple death ray posted:Is it just on BSS that Claremont is only known as the weird fetish guy and not the guy who made the X-Men worth reading for a full decade? It's a big world; he can be both.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:It's a big world; he can be both. He's like Heinlein like that, excellent writer, but very easy to tell what turns his crank.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:The only family tree that needs a Z axis. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
It's kind of dumb to me that Claremont has been retconned as "the weird fetish guy." Lots of sci-fi authors, really good ones even, have written about the intersection between the possibility of paranormal power and human depravity, because people are generally hosed up and horrible, but I guess it's fashionable to kill one's idols and etc etc. I mean, if you want to do anything with characters who apparently possess power over the human mind beyond "I command you to open the safe and give me bundles of twenty-dollar bills," it's probably going to get weird. I get that the hand-wringy crowd has "this is NOT OK" as a keyboard macro, and yeah, you know, maybe it's not supposed to be OK. It's body horror.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Pastry of the Year posted:It's kind of dumb to me that Claremont has been retconned as "the weird fetish guy." Lots of sci-fi authors, really good ones even, have written about the intersection between the possibility of paranormal power and human depravity, because people are generally hosed up and horrible, but I guess it's fashionable to kill one's idols and etc etc. Ok yeah do you have a nickname or something because this won't fit on a Starbucks cup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Push El Burrito posted:Ok yeah do you have a nickname or something because this won't fit on a Starbucks cup. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
There isn't actually anything wrong with dealing with sexuality, including uncomfortable sexuality, within the confines of a story. The problem tends to be the (for lack of a better term) piss forest situation where sexuality tends to zero in on 'whatever turns my crank' and is drastically out of place or forced in. Clarmont has moments of both I think. He isn't just fetish dude but he lets fetishes sneak in where they probably are inappropriate or distracting. I don't think it completely devalues his work (or else I'd be saying the same about a whole shitload of authors just to begin with) but it straddles a line between feeling appropriate to the story and feeling like a guy can't keep his spank out of his plot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
purple death ray posted:Is it just on BSS that Claremont is only known as the weird fetish guy and not the guy who made the X-Men worth reading for a full decade? Lotta Puritans around these parts. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Pastry of the Year posted:It's kind of dumb to me that Claremont has been retconned as "the weird fetish guy." Lots of sci-fi authors, really good ones even, have written about the intersection between the possibility of paranormal power and human depravity, because people are generally hosed up and horrible, but I guess it's fashionable to kill one's idols and etc etc. I think it's both hilarious and kind of cute(in the puppy sense, not the sexual attraction sense). Chris Claremont is a great writer responsible for many great things, but he's got a pretty huge quirk that can be playfully joked about. It's certainly well beyond "well sometimes the bad guys do bad things because they're bad guys who do bad things", but that's okay, it doesn't devalue his accomplishments. We still love him regardless. What I'm saying is, there's no reason to be defensive about it, Chris.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
I think there's inherent humour in knowing what any person's kinks, fetishes, and turn-ons are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Oh, I thought it happened later in the run; that's just me mis-remembering then. That was actually before she first joined the X-Men. Betsy tried to become the new Captain Britain with a powersuit, but Slaymaster ripped her eyes out. She decided to remain blind and use her telepathy to navigate the world instead, but was kidnapped by Mojo, fitted with bionic eyes...  ...and used as the nude brainwashed cyborg star of his TV show, until Doug Ramsey and the other New Mutants rescued her somewhat inadvertently. Doug got an eyeful, Warlock got a bit more. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
A Strange Aeon posted:This Xavier talk reminded me he's the Juggernaut's brother. Are there any other kind of dumb relationships like that? John Byrne decided Norman Osborne and Sandman were cousins because of their similar hairstyles. No one played along.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Alan Davis rather than Claremont was the selling point for Excalibur. As far as Claremont's fetish stuff goes, it's harmless, but I've always sort of held "Storm: The Arena" against him because a) it feels like it's more an opportunity for him to write his fetish stuff than to tell an interesting story; and b) it was supposed to be a Storm miniseries, and it's annoying that Storm - one of the best X-Men around - almost had this story where she's chained up in a dungeon being molested by mutants in gimp suits who have S&M as their mutant power for her first solo series. Maybe that's me being a prude but I don't think it would have put Storm in the best light.
Wheat Loaf fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Pastry of the Year posted:It's kind of dumb to me that Claremont has been retconned as "the weird fetish guy." Lots of sci-fi authors, really good ones even, have written about the intersection between the possibility of paranormal power and human depravity, because people are generally hosed up and horrible, but I guess it's fashionable to kill one's idols and etc etc. See, here's the thing - you can point out and, yes, mock Claremont's tendency to put "weird fetish stuff" in his stories while still, at the same time, understanding that he was a fantastic comics writer who turned the X-Men into something worth reading and then kept them there for way longer than he had any right to. This being the Funny Panels Thread, it seems to me like the focus is probably going to be on the inherent humor to be found in "what's with all the fetishy poo poo", and that's okay, because even if no one uses a disclaimer in their posts we can all understand that "this thing is funny" does not equate to "this writer is bad" or even "this writer has no value beyond our amusement." Some really good writers and artists have ended up in the Funny Panels Thread, and that does not mean that they are bad, it just means that those panels are funny.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
For the most part people do want to couple guy who inserts fetish is a bad writer. In fact that is how this started.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Not just Claremont. Kitty falls through the floor while having sex with Colossus.  Actually, that one was kind of funny.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:See, here's the thing - you can point out and, yes, mock Claremont's tendency to put "weird fetish stuff" in his stories while still, at the same time, understanding that he was a fantastic comics writer who turned the X-Men into something worth reading and then kept them there for way longer than he had any right to. I get that, chief, but "Claremont is a weird sex pervert, just look at his comics" is a relatively recent idea that's gotten a ton of traction outside of this merry thread, and I think it's reactionary and short-sighted, and the only reason I posted anything in his defense was because purple death ray posted:Is it just on BSS that Claremont is only known as the weird fetish guy and not the guy who made the X-Men worth reading for a full decade? this was kind of an excellent point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Let's not bandy insults about. Leave it to the master, who can stop criminals with a turn of phrase.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
I wish writers wouldn't put their fetishes in comics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Same, Bruce. Same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Nobody has explained why kitty was wearing Rachael's costume. I can't recall exactly *why* she ended up in a Warwolf that was in Rachel's spikey leather catsuit <speaking of fetish-y stuff> but I do remember that there was some commentary that she (Rachel) psychically/telekinetically created the costume *around* herself as needed, and thus couldn't just take it off/put it on if her powers were glitchy (and that *never* happens in comics  ). something something yer a Just before posting so I can't really call it an edit: Looks like Kitty was wearing Rachel's suit (thus contradicting my above text but goddammit I know I read this in that run of Excalibur  ) to act as Warwolf bait; works just fine, as can be seen in this blogpost, which is either taking the piss out of all the pervy mindcontrol poo poo, celebrating it, so a mix of both.Volume 3 or 4 of X-Men, someone/thing attacks the school and Rachel mutters something about "and they laughed at me for sleeping in my costume", but by then someone has wondered if she needed to do a full-on Phoenix-power transformation every time she needed to use the can, I guess...  (All-New X-Men #15)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Ygolonac posted:I can't recall exactly *why* she ended up in a Warwolf that was in Rachel's spikey leather catsuit <speaking of fetish-y stuff> but I do remember that there was some commentary that she (Rachel) psychically/telekinetically created the costume *around* herself as needed, and thus couldn't just take it off/put it on if her powers were glitchy (and that *never* happens in comics
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
Knormal posted:Okay, so why isn't Kitty just phasing out of the costume? Did she go through a period where she lost her powers like every other X-Man? It's a funnier picture to see somebody climbing out of a critter than just effortlessly ghosting through the side.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 09:58
|
|