Marvel Animation’s X-Men ‘97 Discussion Thread.

Okay, I think we should distinguish between "understanding" a story and "enjoying" a story.

Obviously if I watch "Kill Bill 2" or "Return of the Jedi" without having watched the prequels I understand what is happening on the screen, what the characters are saying and what their goals are. I think even if I watch a random episode of any soap opera I can understand the relationships between the characters and at what point in the plot we are..

But it seems obvious to me that I enjoy Star Wars 6 more if I know what Luke Skywalker's path was. I watched Guardians of the Galaxy 2 with a person who hadn't seen ANY Marvel movies (not even GOG 1). She had fun? Yes. But I had to answer a lot of questions after the film and she said that maybe it would be better for her to see the first one before that.

Now, obviously 99% of the time you don't need to have seen "the previous episodes" to UNDERSTAND the story, but it seems like a legitimate question to ask what it takes to ENJOY it.

 

Knowing previous stories can enhance your enjoyment, sure, but that doesn't make it an absolute requirement. Ideally, it should be possible to come in late to a series and still have a satisfying experience -- after all, any installment can be someone's first, so it's in the creators' best interest to make every installment enjoyable enough in itself that the audience wants to track down the earlier stuff and find out what they missed. So asking "Do I need to see the other stuff first before I can enjoy the new stuff even slightly?" is kind of getting it backward -- at least, if the creators have done their jobs right.

So if the question is whether XM97 is good enough on its own that a newcomer would be inspired to start watching the original series, I'm not really qualified to say, since a lot of its appeal for me is how well it recaptures the feel of the original. You'd have to ask someone who was coming in cold -- or just try it yourself. But another part of its appeal is how much better-made it is than the original -- it captures the good aspects of the original '90s look and improves on the bad. And I think its storytelling is pitched at a slightly more mature level than the original was free to be on FOX Kids. So I think it has good aspects that aren't just about nostalgia.

Otherwise, I think the new series probably works as a fresh start about as well as the original. Indeed, both series start in a similar way -- from the perspective of a new character who's drawn into the X-Men's world when the team rescues them, and who serves as an audience surrogate as they learn about the pre-existing status quo of the X-Men, their relationships and personalities, and their antagonists. In the original show, Jubilee served that role, and here it's Sunspot, so it's appropriate that Jubilee is the one who takes him under her wing and pays it forward.

I mean, it's pretty much the nature of the X-Men that their story doesn't start at the beginning. Even in their comics debut, they were an established team when Jean arrived and joined the school as their newest member. And their '70s relaunch began with Professor X recruiting new members from all over the world and asking them to help rescue the classic team. The '80s animation pilot used Kitty Pryde as the newcomer/audience surrogate brought into the X-Men's world, the 2000 movie used Wolverine and Rogue in that role, and X-Men Evolution used Nightcrawler. So coming into the story in the middle is pretty much how it always works.

 

Recently I discovered that some people watch ONLY the Guardians movies without seeing any other Marvel films. Needless to say they end up a bit confused by Gamora's attitude in part 3...

 

yeah, I struggle to remember if there are any references to the MCU in the first two ones.

 

Wasn't GOTG1 the film that first explained what the Infinity Stones were, as well as who Thanos was?

 

Right.

 

Apparently the answer is yes there is enough to enjoy it and you never should've asked the question.

 

Holy shit, I didn't realize Tim Fleming was/is Gambit!

I came in with no real memory of the original, which I haven't watched since I was a kid, and I followed the first two fine. Pretty much as long as you know who the characters are it's pretty easy to follow.
I watched episode 2 and I really enjoyed it. All of the stuff with Magneto joining the X-Men and deciding to follow Xavier's philosophy was really good.
My only real complaint I've had so far is that there is some very awkward exposition dialogue, but that kind of thing isn't too unusual in the first few episodes of a new series or a relaunch, so hopefully once all of the reintroductions are out of the way, we shouldn't have as much of that.

 

Watched the first two episodes and, really, the resolution of Magneto trial makes more sense here than in the comics.

 

Episode #03 clip

 

Watched episode 3. I really like how this show is picking up plot points from the original 90s series that weren't really completed or explained. Can't wait to see where it all goes.

 

So they did Madelyne Pryor. Interesting that they're keeping it ambiguous when the switch happened.

The new Bishop actor sounded more like Philip Akin this week. The resemblance is strongest when he's speaking calmly; it's when he gets more enthusiastic in the action scenes that the similarity fades.

 

The stuff after Madelyne turned and created all the hell illusions was seriously creepy.
I'm aware of the basics of the Madelyne Pryor storyline, but that was it, so I wasn't entirely sure what to expect through a lot of this one.
I'm curious if we're going to ever get a definite answer as the when the switch happened.
Is this the first that Forge has appeared in these series?
I'm assuming we'll be seeing Cable at some point before the season is over.

 

No, he showed up repeatedly, first as an ally of Bishop in the future, later in the present as the leader of X-Factor. https://marvelanimated.fandom.com/wiki/Forge

But I don't think the show ever really explained him or tied his past and future selves together, so there's a fair amount of room for the new show to flesh him out.

 

I always found "Lifedeath" painfully dull, so not excited at all for this subplot. Though hopefully they change it for the better.
But otherwise, episodes 2 and 3 were amazing! Like mentioned earlier, episode 3 was CREEPY.

And the Scott/Jean/Madelyne story worked so much better than in the comics. Scott isn't an irredeemable jerk in the cartoon!

 

I would've liked if they'd given some reason why the second Jean chose the name "Madelyne Pryor," of all things, instead of her just saying it like she knew that was her name in the comics. I'm not sure if I found out I was a duplicate of the person I thought I was, I'd pick something that... extravagant... for my new name.

 

They did, but it was easy to miss. In the flashback to Jean's childhood, when her friend was hit by a car, Jean called out "Madelyne!" I'd assume the friend's surname was Pryor. Still, they could've made that clearer.

 

Well, this was a far less convoluted story than in the comics and Cyclops certainly comes off as better for it.

I do have to wonder why it's so hard for adaptations to just make Cable be the Son of Scott and Jean though and just ignore all the Madelyne stuff...

 

The girl in the origin flashback is Annie, not Madelyn. CC confirmed.

 

Oh, I guess I misheard because I was expecting the name Madelyne to come up somewhere.