Wasn't Phoenix Endsong that silliness where they said that now the Phoenix was second to God only in the Marvelverse?
I an SO glad later writers have been trying to undo that.
The X-Men Cinematic Universe (General Discussion)
- Thread starter DigificWriter
- Start date
Wasn't Phoenix Endsong that silliness where they said that now the Phoenix was second to God only in the Marvelverse?
I an SO glad later writers have been trying to undo that.
I don't remember that. i remember the Phoenix force bringing back Jean's body, and possesing Emma Frost for a little bit. It introeduced something called the "white hot room", or something similar, which Jean supposedly trapped the Phoenix in along with herself. The second mini had the phoenix (or part of it) split into something like five parts, each put into one of the Stepford cuckoos, something which they definitely brought up in the main books after the mini series. They weren't great mini series, so I haven't gone out of my way to reread them.
Yes, I mean Rachel. Just making a joke when I called her "Jean, jr". Though I can't say I ever warmed to the character. To me, Kitty is the last "real" X-Man. Plus she's an example of giving a new character a power set like one who was recently killed or depowered.
I'll admit that many of the post-2000 members were iffy at best, but I'd include Rogue, Psylocke, Gambit, Jubilee, Forge and Bishop as "real X-Men" surely?
Sorry,but no. Gambit and Bishop are on my worst list.
If they came from Claremont's era, I consider them "real".
If they ever appeared in an official X-Men comic and weren't retconned out of existence, I consider them a "real" member of the X-Men 
Then again, I count Dazzler as one of my top 5 X-Men characters, and I'm probably the only person on Earth who cared that Chuck Dixon killed off Skin (although that was, ironically, one of the least bad things of that particular run), so I'm definitely a fan of the more obscure and less popular X-Men.
I like the Claremont team and the original team a lot, but I don't consider either to be the "definitive" X-Men teams. I don't think there is a "definitive" team, and the variety is part of why I enjoy the X-Men books so much.
Then again, I count Dazzler as one of my top 5 X-Men characters, and I'm probably the only person on Earth who cared that Chuck Dixon killed off Skin (although that was, ironically, one of the least bad things of that particular run), so I'm definitely a fan of the more obscure and less popular X-Men.I like the Claremont team and the original team a lot, but I don't consider either to be the "definitive" X-Men teams. I don't think there is a "definitive" team, and the variety is part of why I enjoy the X-Men books so much.
For me it's Gerber Defenders, Stern Avengers and the Giffen/DeMatties Justice League.
Yeah, I get that. I mostly got into the cartoons before I could get access to comics, so I don't really have a "definitive" team for a lot of groups. For me, the only Marvel teams I have "definitive" versions of is the bendis New Avengers (the first team, right after Dissassembled) as my Avengers team (since its the first Avengers book I regularly read, plus I think its just a great book), and the PAD X-Factor team (the second and longer running group, meaning Maddrox, Layla, Siren, M, Rictor, wolfsbane, Longshot, Strong Guy and Shatterstar). But with the X-Men specficially I've just read and enjoyed so much I can't really name a favorite team or era.
Neelix is a "real" Star Trek character, too, that doesn't mean he doesn't suck.
I am highly disappointed that fox wont just cancel the whole x-men singer film universe and reboot the whole thing.
new mutants and deadpool gives them the perfect opportunity to do that.
logan seemed like a good end to the old film series so why keep making prequels. its is disgusting me as a huge fan of x-men.
I am more excited for new mutants than dark phoenix or whatever.
new mutants and deadpool gives them the perfect opportunity to do that.
logan seemed like a good end to the old film series so why keep making prequels. its is disgusting me as a huge fan of x-men.
I am more excited for new mutants than dark phoenix or whatever.
Whatever.
They're not going to cancel what I'm pretty sure is the longest-running continuous comic-book film franchise in existence, especially not while it continues to make money.
Well, a reboot is not really a cancellation and the series will come to some sort of an end sooner or later regardles of how long-running it is. But you're right that there's little reason for them to do it now, while the movies are still making plenty of money.
Yes, it is. People can try to redefine the term "reboot" in relation to fictional properties all they want, but its true definition (to discard all previous continuity and start over from scratch) will never actually change.
Creatively, sure, that's the definition, but when you bring the studio's financial incentive into the picture, there is a difference. A reboot will still (hopefully) earn money. A canceled franchise cannot do that.
Also, you can try to be the arbiter of 'true definitions' all you want, but that's not how language works. In fact, it's far more likely that the definition of the word will eventually change in some way than that it won't.
It really depends on whether you're talking about internal continuity (which X-Men never really had all that much of anyway) or in terms of marketing and branding. Some times it's one, sometimes it's the other, sometimes it's both. More frequently both.
If they're sort-of/maybe/kinda holding into at least some previous continuity but branding it as "new" then yeah, a "soft reboot" it is (see: 'Superman Returns', 'Star Trek (2009)' & arguably 'X-Men: First Class'.)
If however they're just starting over from scratch and to buggery what came before (see: 'Amazing Spider-Man', & 'FantFourStick'), then it's a "hard reboot".
It's probably worth noting that the comics themselves do soft reboots all the damn time with alarmingly increasing frequency from what I gather. I think it was just last year that 'Squirrel Girl' managed to have to issue 1's in the space of a year!
Just as a matter of publication history, X-Men itself wouldn't be what it is without the soft reboot that was the beginning of the Wein/Cockrum run that came after Lee & Kirby's initial creation of the title. That pretty much redefined the look and feel of the whole book into what's probably the most recognisable incarnation and the one all subsequent interpretations seem to measure themselves against.
If they're sort-of/maybe/kinda holding into at least some previous continuity but branding it as "new" then yeah, a "soft reboot" it is (see: 'Superman Returns', 'Star Trek (2009)' & arguably 'X-Men: First Class'.)
If however they're just starting over from scratch and to buggery what came before (see: 'Amazing Spider-Man', & 'FantFourStick'), then it's a "hard reboot".
It's probably worth noting that the comics themselves do soft reboots all the damn time with alarmingly increasing frequency from what I gather. I think it was just last year that 'Squirrel Girl' managed to have to issue 1's in the space of a year!
Just as a matter of publication history, X-Men itself wouldn't be what it is without the soft reboot that was the beginning of the Wein/Cockrum run that came after Lee & Kirby's initial creation of the title. That pretty much redefined the look and feel of the whole book into what's probably the most recognisable incarnation and the one all subsequent interpretations seem to measure themselves against.
Last edited:
Similar threads
