Wow. I didn't realize she was gone (again) for her to even come back (again).
She's actually be dead for over 8 years and looks like will be dead almost 9 years by the time she ends up coming back. That's quite a feat in comicdom.
Marvel's New 52 (or less)
- Thread starter the G-man
- Start date
She's actually be dead for over 8 years and looks like will be dead almost 9 years by the time she ends up coming back. That's quite a feat in comicdom.
Actually, I'd say Rich has been pretty accurate with his "scoops" at least since he broke the New 52 story last year (which is when I started following him). He was also correct about Before Watchmen, tracking and reporting about it several months before it was officially announced by DC. He has also said that most of the rumors he's reported on about the creative changes could be right or wrong. Most of them seem to be on the ball from what I've been following the last few months.
A follow up article to last week's...we could get confirmation about ReEvolution sometime later this week. Maybe. I still say we get confirmation at SDCC.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/07/02/marvel-now-the-marvel-relaunch-gets-a-name/
A follow up article to last week's...we could get confirmation about ReEvolution sometime later this week. Maybe. I still say we get confirmation at SDCC.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/07/02/marvel-now-the-marvel-relaunch-gets-a-name/
If Scott survives 
That explains that, I hadn't really given any serious attention to an X-book in like a decade.
To be fair, at least with a character named Phoenix it makes sense that she'd have the ability to return from the dead. I mean, calling her Phoenix originally didn't really fit, except in the context of the original story where she sacrificed herself to save the others, was briefly believed to be dead for a couple of pages, and was then "reborn" with a new costume and superhero name. So it's a name that actually became more appropriate once she did die and get "resurrected," and it's not surprising that going through that cycle has become a recurring part of her character. It would work better, though, if it were just her instead of every superhero ever.
There was also that big fire bird thingy that came with the new power levels...
Odin also managed to stay dead for that long before Fraction brought him back from the dead.
Barry Allen managed to stay dead for over 20 years.
Yet as often as not her character is called something else, typically her real name or Marvel Girl
Except that's not what a phoenix is. The mythological phoenix is not a bird that's made of fire (or appears to be, like the Firebird of Russian folklore), but rather is a bird that lives for centuries, then builds and ignites a pyre for itself, dies in the flames, and is resurrected (or spawns an offspring) from the ashes. Fire is only involved in its death and rebirth (or reproduction), not its everyday life. So as long as she was just "bird-made-of-fire girl," a name like Firebird would've been more apt than Phoenix.
Well, yeah, and Hank Pym has had nearly half a dozen code names, Nightwing was once Robin, Winter Soldier was once Bucky, Captain America has had two or three other aliases, etc. I never claimed that Phoenix was the only name she'd ever used. The point is that once it became a name associated with Jean Grey, it's understandable and appropriate that later writers made a recurring death-and-resurrection cycle part of her character, because such a cycle is the defining trait of the mythological phoenix, far more than the association with fire. And because of that mythological resonance, the concept of returning from the dead fits a character known as Phoenix far better than it fits other superheroes. If someone named Batman or Wonder Woman or Colossus or the Human Torch returns from the dead, that's just a plot contrivance. But if someone named Phoenix returns from the dead, that's as natural as if it happens to, say, Resurrection Man. It's simply a case of "does exactly what it says on the tin."
As a reader, a theme or trait associated with a fictional character name tends to lose its literary effectiveness if they change the name (or go years without calling the character by that name).
^I don't understand why you're trying so hard to nitpick a very simple point. The character has been called the Phoenix, and writers of the comic, such as Grant Morrison and Joss Whedon (in passing), have chosen to build on the mythological resonances of that name (in concert with the character's history) to say that dying and coming back to life repeatedly is a defining characteristic of Jean Grey's powers and character history. Heck, even the movies had her "die" and be reborn. There's no denying that they've deliberately built on the symbolic/mythic implications of the name "Phoenix." And I don't see what's so objectionable about that notion.
^No, I'm not being strident, I was just confused by your argument over what I thought was a simple statement of fact. Apparently I misunderstood your intent, and I apologize.
Thank you.
In any event, it is starting to appear as if Jean's return is less about the thematic elements of the Phoenix concept and more about good old fashioned time travel:
The reference to "Pleasantville," together with reference to a character based drama would seem to imply some sort of culture clash caused by people from different time periods.
If so, that seems to ignore the fact that, in "Marvel time," most major origin events happened ten years ago or less (ie, the FF was no longer trying to beat the Russians into space; Iron Man was injured in the Gulf War, not Vietnam; Cap was unfrozen under Bush, not Kennedy/Johnson; etc.). As such, I can't see there being much "Pleasantville" style culture clash between 2002 and now.
In any event, it is starting to appear as if Jean's return is less about the thematic elements of the Phoenix concept and more about good old fashioned time travel:
- the original five x-men time-travel two the present in a pleasantville style story and who are not going to like what they see once they are in the present and will find it unacceptable...[However] the time travel aspect of the story is not as important as the character based drama.
The reference to "Pleasantville," together with reference to a character based drama would seem to imply some sort of culture clash caused by people from different time periods.
If so, that seems to ignore the fact that, in "Marvel time," most major origin events happened ten years ago or less (ie, the FF was no longer trying to beat the Russians into space; Iron Man was injured in the Gulf War, not Vietnam; Cap was unfrozen under Bush, not Kennedy/Johnson; etc.). As such, I can't see there being much "Pleasantville" style culture clash between 2002 and now.
Well, not between now and the real ten years ago, but in the Marvel Universe, those ten years encompass fifty years' worth of comics history, and a huge amount has changed in that interval. Given the current state of the X-Men -- with Cyclops having lost his idealism and working alongside Magneto, Jean dead, Angel intermittently turning into an evil cyborg, etc. -- it's no wonder the original X-Men would perceive the world as having changed in ways they're not comfortable with, and their future selves as having lost their innocence.
^
The Legion of Super-Heroes did something similar back in the early 90's during the "Five Years Later" version of the Legion. The book at the time dealt with the Legionnaires reforming the Legion after 5 years being apart, where multiple events served to tear the team apart and, at least in one case, literally pit one Legionnaire against another as their planets went to war.
The series was bleak as Earth was currently occupied by the Dominion. During an explosion, a group of Legionnaires awaken and we find that they are the teenage versions of the Legion. They awaken and slowly come to grips with it being the future for them. Eventually, they meet their adult counterparts, learn that some of them are dead, others scarred (emotionally and physically), and in some cases, they are unhappy with the way they've turned out in the future. The older Legion, for the most part, were inspired to see younger, more idealistic versions of themselves.
Though, we later learned these were not the younger Legion thrust forward in time, per se, but chronal duplicates made by the Time Trapper. Why? Because Zero Hour, that's why! (Seriously, the original story for the SW-6 Legion, as they were called, was scrapped because of the changes wrought by Zero Hour and their existence was quickly explained as a plot by the Time Trapper to protect the Legion from the effects of Zero Hour.
It's an interesting concept, at the very least. It does make me wonder about the time travel aspect, especially since it's said not to be the focus. There are a few possibilities, as it could be the catalyst for some "New-52" style changes, a means of creating another alternate reality, a reset button waiting to happen, or a "timey-wimey" explanation.
The Legion of Super-Heroes did something similar back in the early 90's during the "Five Years Later" version of the Legion. The book at the time dealt with the Legionnaires reforming the Legion after 5 years being apart, where multiple events served to tear the team apart and, at least in one case, literally pit one Legionnaire against another as their planets went to war.
The series was bleak as Earth was currently occupied by the Dominion. During an explosion, a group of Legionnaires awaken and we find that they are the teenage versions of the Legion. They awaken and slowly come to grips with it being the future for them. Eventually, they meet their adult counterparts, learn that some of them are dead, others scarred (emotionally and physically), and in some cases, they are unhappy with the way they've turned out in the future. The older Legion, for the most part, were inspired to see younger, more idealistic versions of themselves.
Though, we later learned these were not the younger Legion thrust forward in time, per se, but chronal duplicates made by the Time Trapper. Why? Because Zero Hour, that's why! (Seriously, the original story for the SW-6 Legion, as they were called, was scrapped because of the changes wrought by Zero Hour and their existence was quickly explained as a plot by the Time Trapper to protect the Legion from the effects of Zero Hour.
It's an interesting concept, at the very least. It does make me wonder about the time travel aspect, especially since it's said not to be the focus. There are a few possibilities, as it could be the catalyst for some "New-52" style changes, a means of creating another alternate reality, a reset button waiting to happen, or a "timey-wimey" explanation.
I don't know about that. Marvel seems to take pride in the whole idea of "Unlike the Distinguished Competition, we've never rebooted our history! All those stories from 1962 really happened, except they actually happened in 2002 now!" So I doubt they'd go that route. They are planning to emulate the "New 52" in terms of a big promotional push and revamp to try to attract new readers and lure back old ones (so I read on the comics sites), but without the DC-style continuity restart.
Similar threads
