It feels like old news at this point, but earlier in the week, noted Writer of Stuff Peter David shuffled off this mortal coil after a long and protracted battle with an assortment of health conditions.
You had mentioned hiring a then-new Patrick Zircher as a "Moneyball" approach -- the 1995 New Warriors couldn't exactly afford Frank Miller or Jim Lee doing pencils. Is part of that approach accepting that good talent will get moved up to "the Bigs" of a better-selling, more prestigious title?
Terry Austin was Giordano’s background guy at the time and that cover had a s*** ton of Austin background to it. Architectural veracity was something of Andru’s trademark…
As for Adams, he claimed to have tweaked a lot of Andru’s Superman figures although I’d have expected to Giordano to that in the normal course…
But Andru! Every time I see the name, I think of that Defenders story he drew that Bill Everett, having already essentially redrew him for an inking job, was pissed over the gig and literally traced the pencils in ink. Reader, pencil art varied a lot and Andru’s was… some sort of mess. Get a copy of story and you’ll see.
What strikes me as funny about Andru is that his partner, Mike Esposito, like Everett, pretty much ignored the pencils and his rendering turned me off to Andru. Short version: Andru’s Marvel work was eye-opening and I’ve enjoyed his work ever since. I was even able to see why Infantino thought Andru was an appropriate replacement for him on the Flash. Unfortunately, Esposito’s inks made it real hard to see why.
That Andru/Everett job was MARVEL FEATURE 1, and I think it's gorgeous. I can see why Stan hated it -- it's not very mainstream -- but damn, I want a 24-issue run that looks just like that. The textures, the energy, the storytelling, it's all terrific.
Andru & Everett also did issue 3, and Everett behaved, for that one. It's far more conventional and to my mind, far less interesting. Though it still looks good.
!!! I cannot remember issue 3 other than, you know, there was one. Gonna have to track it down…
I also loved the art in issue 1. Not to be sarcastic but I loved the squiggly art. No doubt that was because Everett always had, brush or pen, beautiful linework.
That said, I could see an inker looking at Andru’s pencils and thinking WTF and then realize the only way not to put an unaffordable amount of time into the job was to ignore the pencils, to treat them as breakdowns — to go all Colletta or Esposito on them. (Not a criticism of art skills there but an acknowledgement of freelancers’ economics and need for income.)
Back in "the day," rough pencils were common, and an inker was expected to bring their style to the job. I'm reminded of a time a friend of mine asked an inker how they approached inking Carmine Infantino, and the response was, "Well, pick a line..." Andru may have been looser than most, but judging from the inks, if they truly were faithful to the pencils, then everything an inker needed was there.
And rather than go all Colletta or Esposito on them, they could go all Sinnott or Cardy or Giordano or Giacoia or Mooney on them. Or, sigh, Giella...
It wasn't until the 80s, I think, that pencilers started penciling so crisply that inkers were expected to ink the lines just as they appeared. Everett's reaction to Andru might have been simply that he thought the pencils were a little too loose, or that he was just tired that week, or something else. He'd been inking Colan around the same time, and that takes plenty of interpretation.
I absolutely agree that Esposito was a terrible inker for Andru -- flattened out all that beautiful depth Andru put into his art. Giacoia, Romita, Giordano...they knew what he was doing and how to bring it through.
Unfortunately, Andru and Espo were lifelong friends (well, that's nice for them, it just wasn't great for comics), and Andru would request Espo as his inker whenever possible. Terrific loyalty, but it ruined so many Andru jobs.
I don't like to dis any worker -- everyone needs to wok or whatever. So even though the Esposito jobs I like work out to maybe 0.01% of them, I of course acknowledge that back in his day, income was based on the amount of work turned out.
And to his credit, I still love his inks on the Iron Man 1 cover.
Since that first reply, I have gotten a look at that third issue. Everett did reach a balance between his work on the Spider-Man issue with Andru in which he overpowered the pencils pretty much completely and that first Defenders story which was a literal tracing (and I still like a lot). Went right down the middle letting the pencils *inspire* but not dictate the inks -- nor get completely ignored.
There's been a lot of great comics artists over the decades, of course, but IMO few who were also pretty good artists generally. You know, with skills other than those needed to draw comics. Ability with other techniques. Everett was a pretty good artist, not just a great comics artist.
As for Stan (one of the best editor in his time IMO) I can see him hating Feature 1 but besides how it looked, there was the question of IIRC of Everett doing it with a nasty attitude what with the PTSD from that Spider-Man job. And clearly it wasn't so bad as to hurt the possibility of a Defenders ongoing.
So to piggyback off of the New Warriors Timeslip anecdote - it seems like Marvel and DC make it a habit to at least once a year have some sort of "vague predictions" in a comic outlining future plans across their books (Kang's Tribulation Events, Timeless, etc). Does this cause any difficulties when trying to fulfill those predictions? Is the speculation from fans about what it could mean worth the headache?
In your experience, what is the shortest time between an idea being pitched and the comic hitting the shelf? And what is the longest time you can recall before an idea makes it to print?
I am a significant fan of Jean Grey and am pleased that Stephanie Phillips will continue Phoenix Issues for another year. I do have one question. As we both know, Jean Grey had a major Cosmic Upgrade (Phoenix Issue 008 page 22), confirmed by Captain Marvel and Loki (Spider-Gwen: The Ghost Spider Issue 13 page 19.
Question For Tom Brevoort:
Is the current version of the Cosmic Phoenix more powerful than the Phoenix of the White Crown, and is she the most powerful being in the Marvel Universe?
As the internet's self-appointed foremost New Warriorologist, I'd just like to throw in another note of support for that forgotten Slapstick mini, which I've had bound into a hardcover (genuinely)
"And am I just not remembering this story that Marc DeMatteis and Weezie Simonson worked on?"
Nah, a little googling reveals it's a fanfic idea he claims DeMatteis and Simonson were attached to, apparently in order to lend it some semblance of credibility (whenever creators deny his claims, he asserts they're lying as part of a massive coverup).
In a completely unrelated question, why do people with psychological problems so often make superhero comic books and superhero characters the focus of their pathology? Do you think there's something about the fact that they originate from human imagination, or the frequently fantastic subject matter, that leads to such attraction? Maybe it has to do with things that were first encountered during formative developmental years? If they had extensively read stories centered on Welsh mythology during their formative years, would that be the fixation?
I am not sure if that's exclusive to comics. It feels like it's become fiction in general, as well as celebrity. My guess is people find comfort in those things so it can also lead to flights of fancy.
I'm pretty sure based on the familiar wording of your post you try to troll me at CBR. Since I have never seen a creative deny my claims, please do post links to them doing to. I would love to read them for the first time myself.
If you've heard words like these before, it could mean people are trying to communicate something you ought to listen to. Since you're the only person spouting this stuff, if you google "dragon" (dematteis OR simonson) iceman, your rants are the first thing to come up. Here's what you had to say about Chris Claremont, for example:
******
"For his alternative pitch for X-Factor Claremont has always stated he wanted to include Jean's sister Sara in her place, with the three bachelor X-Men(Bobby, Warren and Hank) competing for her affection. He has recently started amending that Sara was to help Bobby come to terms with his homosexuality. Except that's not true and the Comics Code and EIC Jim Shooter would never have allowed it. So why is he saying something blatantly false? Why are some creatives now giving in-universe answers to real-world things, as if changes haven't been made to characters that is just how they have always been?
The only time I remember creatives doing something like that is when they were perpetuating the Sentry Hoax. Perhaps you are ready to join the ConspiraXcy?"
******
I suppose it does make more sense that I am yet another member of this apparently nefarious "ConspiraXcy" against Iceman, rather than somebody standing agog at the never-ending bizarreness of the Internet. Carry on. The truth is out there!
I don't rant, the only person ranting is you. There is no nefarious "ConspiraXcy" against Iceman. There is no fanfic. The "ConspiraXcy" is a fan-theory thread that covers the whole of the Marvel Universe and attempts to explain bizarre and inexplicable things as part of a possible hidden story-line. As far as I know, the only reference to a Dragon in it is a link promoting it's sibling 'featured thread', and that separate thread does cover the ACTUAL history of Iceman and his Dragon Mythos.
You are fabricating, conflating and distorting things to ridiculous lengths for reasons known only to you. I can count on one hand the people who have reacted in any way like you to me and have fingers left over. I think you are the one with the problem. I will not be replying to you further.
That Claremont quote, to me, sounds made up. I would love a source, because I don't recall Chris Claremont commenting on X-Factor much, and I don't think he ever cared much about Iceman. He was always a character that was carved out by other writers rather than Claremont (which is perhaps why he has tended to fall to the side compared to other characters).
It's possible Claremont at some point may have said to Shooter, "Please don't bring Jean back, here's what you could do instead." But any such suggestion would have been about his objections to undermining Jean's death and the havoc it was going to wreak on the Scott/Madelyne relationship. Zero to do with Iceman's sexuality.
What a shame. The idea of Weezie and DeMatteis having a secret project sounded fun. It does sound very suspect though. I don't think Simonson was very into the idea of exploring opposite forces to the Phoenix. Chris Claremont enjoyed doing that. I think Al Ewing did something near the end of Krakoa that touched on this, but it certainly had nothing to do with Iceman or Weezie or DeMatteis.
Still regarding the Phoenix force, perhaps the bitter taste about it is that, despite all its different uses in totally random and different contexts, there were no consequences, there are no consequences, it's as if it never happened. I've been reading a lot of stuff from the 90s and 2000s, and it seemed like everything was part of a long narrative full of details with consequences for the characters involved. But about the Phoenix, nothing.
In fact, it's as if the Krakoa age had started a policy of not caring about past events, focusing only on the present, with zero consequences of the actions to the characters, like Hank, Xavier, Cyclops and the Phoenix.
What consequences would you prefer is my question? Death? Being written off? Yet another protracted story about their guilt? To be honest, other than Xavier, I am not sure what those other three characters have done to warrant consequences.
What I mean is that Marvel comics used to have a more cohesive storyline and chronology. I'm reading stuff from the 80s to the 2000s and that's what I'm saying. Every character’s action actually mattered and tied in with other actions, and gaps were filled between different runs over the years. What happened in Apocalypse: The Twelve made sense in the years that followed, with Scott’s character, before and after Morrison, and the acrimonious relationship between Kitty and Emma (Claremont-Whedon), and the same with M-Day and the whole Decimation era and Messiah trilogy and Utopia and AvX and Bendis’ run. But then Hickman just ignored almost everything before Krakoa, leaving a huge gap between Rosenberg’s run and his own run. But there's perhaps nothing more confusing than the Phoenix plot: in a single decade we got 1) AvX, Phoenix-K'un Lun, Cyclops was treated as a villain, 2) an ongoing Jean Grey series with Jeen trying to learn how to be the Phoenix, 3) a prehistoric red-haired Phoenix, 4) Kid Cable brought Scott back to life, 5) Avenger Echo Phoenix, 6) Odin's lover and Thor's mother, and then 7) Jean is and always was and always will be the Phoenix, and Hope's father... and with each new Phoenix plot, the previous ones have been buried and forgotten, until the same happens with the next one. So there's no sequel or consequence. It's like nothing matters because it'll be forgotten next year. It's like nothing is canon, so nothing matters.
I think you're looking at broad strokes in terms of consistency, rather than overall detail. Claremont was notorious for dropping and not finishing some stories. A lot of aspects of New X-Men were rolled back in Astonishing and during Utopia, and New X-Men itself took liberties with some characters like Emma and Jean, who had been characterized differently immediately prior. Extraordinary X-Men didn't build much on what Brian Michael Bendis had been doing with his X-Men work. There's always going to be something missed or skipped or not consistently followed, but eventually someone comes along to tie things together. The third Summers brother took a decade to be revealed but it did happen.
As for Phoenix, I don't think 2 and 4 really fit in with the rest, they don't feel out of place.
Yes, everything that came after Bendis' run was inconsistent, like EXM and IvX, and Hickman just chose to ignore everything that came before Krakoa. But I see that you don't care about chronology or a cohesive storyline. So I imagine you wouldn't mind if Brevoort just chose to do a soft reboot and ignore everything between 2001 and 2024, and the next editor did the same with the current run. We won't agree on that, anyway, so let's just agree to disagree.
I think you're missing my point. I'm saying that comics have often dropped stories or rebooted things between runs many times. Look at Hulk. Immortal Hulk by Ewing is pretty different to Hulk by Cates and Johnson, in terms of story and character. This was the case in the '90s too. It's not a new thing. Stories do get paid off in the long-term (usually). I think people who are new to comics, like you, might read a little more into traditional, non-comic narratives but part of the process is understanding that the medium is different and sometimes things are dropped for a while and then come up again.
And I think you again ignore that there are inconsistencies in the eras you praise. The Utopia years didn't always gel with what Whedon was doing, and Bendis took a very different approach to Carey and Fraction in how he wrote a lot of supporting characters. What you're complaining about has been present for a long, long time. It existed before Jonathan Hickman, who I think you're unfairly shoveling blame on. Not everything that happened between The Twelve to BMB is some fully logical, cohesive narrative. And that's not the fault of any creator or editor, it's inherent to the medium.
I also don't think you make a good point about Phoenix. Consequence has been part of the character from the beginning. The lore isn't that complicated either, people just want answers to very specific, and, forgive me, niche, pointless questions that most writers don't think to answer because most readers understand that fitting a 50 year narrative into a new story isn't always going to be clean.
I remember reading Kitchen T’s Usenet posts when I was a kid.
One that stands out is when the creators contributing there were asked which non-Marvel characters they would fully integrate into the Marvel Universe if they could. Not in a crossover sense, but more like what Marvel would eventually do with Angela years later.
Tom, Kurt Busiek, and Scott Lobdell all answered (maybe Mark Waid too), and the names I recall being mentioned were Savage Dragon and X-O Manowar — though I can’t remember who picked which. It’s probably all archived somewhere, now that I think about it.
I wonder how you’d answer that question today. And if X-O Manowar was your pick back then, was there any serious consideration given to making that happen when Valiant was auctioning off their IP? He definitely has a very Marvel-like vibe.
Would've been cool having a wolverine and batman crossover and having their worlds collide in a book. Are any X-Men characters showing up in the Marvel and DC crossovers? Storm And Wonder Woman would also be cool but I like the unexpected team up we've started with so far.
I have read Wolverine and Kitty Pryde this past week. It was cool seeing this side of these characters, especially Logan with Mariko. Would love to see more of her in Saladin Ahmed's book.
Fair enough, there’s not really anything you can say right now to make me feel better about Ms Marvel’s recent stuff in NYX and the new giant size one shots, but I guess I hope that by coming here and sharing feedback on the issues I like, the books I don’t, the stories I absolutely love etc, might give a glimpse as to at least what this fan thinks.
Has anyone but Jed MacKay mentioned Phoenix?
You had mentioned hiring a then-new Patrick Zircher as a "Moneyball" approach -- the 1995 New Warriors couldn't exactly afford Frank Miller or Jim Lee doing pencils. Is part of that approach accepting that good talent will get moved up to "the Bigs" of a better-selling, more prestigious title?
Will Emma be part of cast of Exceptional after issue 10? Will she retain her telephaty gift or the fight with Mr Siniester has a prize for Emma?
Apropos that Spidey/Superman book FWIW:
Terry Austin was Giordano’s background guy at the time and that cover had a s*** ton of Austin background to it. Architectural veracity was something of Andru’s trademark…
As for Adams, he claimed to have tweaked a lot of Andru’s Superman figures although I’d have expected to Giordano to that in the normal course…
But Andru! Every time I see the name, I think of that Defenders story he drew that Bill Everett, having already essentially redrew him for an inking job, was pissed over the gig and literally traced the pencils in ink. Reader, pencil art varied a lot and Andru’s was… some sort of mess. Get a copy of story and you’ll see.
What strikes me as funny about Andru is that his partner, Mike Esposito, like Everett, pretty much ignored the pencils and his rendering turned me off to Andru. Short version: Andru’s Marvel work was eye-opening and I’ve enjoyed his work ever since. I was even able to see why Infantino thought Andru was an appropriate replacement for him on the Flash. Unfortunately, Esposito’s inks made it real hard to see why.
That Andru/Everett job was MARVEL FEATURE 1, and I think it's gorgeous. I can see why Stan hated it -- it's not very mainstream -- but damn, I want a 24-issue run that looks just like that. The textures, the energy, the storytelling, it's all terrific.
Andru & Everett also did issue 3, and Everett behaved, for that one. It's far more conventional and to my mind, far less interesting. Though it still looks good.
!!! I cannot remember issue 3 other than, you know, there was one. Gonna have to track it down…
I also loved the art in issue 1. Not to be sarcastic but I loved the squiggly art. No doubt that was because Everett always had, brush or pen, beautiful linework.
That said, I could see an inker looking at Andru’s pencils and thinking WTF and then realize the only way not to put an unaffordable amount of time into the job was to ignore the pencils, to treat them as breakdowns — to go all Colletta or Esposito on them. (Not a criticism of art skills there but an acknowledgement of freelancers’ economics and need for income.)
Back in "the day," rough pencils were common, and an inker was expected to bring their style to the job. I'm reminded of a time a friend of mine asked an inker how they approached inking Carmine Infantino, and the response was, "Well, pick a line..." Andru may have been looser than most, but judging from the inks, if they truly were faithful to the pencils, then everything an inker needed was there.
And rather than go all Colletta or Esposito on them, they could go all Sinnott or Cardy or Giordano or Giacoia or Mooney on them. Or, sigh, Giella...
It wasn't until the 80s, I think, that pencilers started penciling so crisply that inkers were expected to ink the lines just as they appeared. Everett's reaction to Andru might have been simply that he thought the pencils were a little too loose, or that he was just tired that week, or something else. He'd been inking Colan around the same time, and that takes plenty of interpretation.
I absolutely agree that Esposito was a terrible inker for Andru -- flattened out all that beautiful depth Andru put into his art. Giacoia, Romita, Giordano...they knew what he was doing and how to bring it through.
Unfortunately, Andru and Espo were lifelong friends (well, that's nice for them, it just wasn't great for comics), and Andru would request Espo as his inker whenever possible. Terrific loyalty, but it ruined so many Andru jobs.
I don't like to dis any worker -- everyone needs to wok or whatever. So even though the Esposito jobs I like work out to maybe 0.01% of them, I of course acknowledge that back in his day, income was based on the amount of work turned out.
And to his credit, I still love his inks on the Iron Man 1 cover.
Since that first reply, I have gotten a look at that third issue. Everett did reach a balance between his work on the Spider-Man issue with Andru in which he overpowered the pencils pretty much completely and that first Defenders story which was a literal tracing (and I still like a lot). Went right down the middle letting the pencils *inspire* but not dictate the inks -- nor get completely ignored.
There's been a lot of great comics artists over the decades, of course, but IMO few who were also pretty good artists generally. You know, with skills other than those needed to draw comics. Ability with other techniques. Everett was a pretty good artist, not just a great comics artist.
As for Stan (one of the best editor in his time IMO) I can see him hating Feature 1 but besides how it looked, there was the question of IIRC of Everett doing it with a nasty attitude what with the PTSD from that Spider-Man job. And clearly it wasn't so bad as to hurt the possibility of a Defenders ongoing.
So to piggyback off of the New Warriors Timeslip anecdote - it seems like Marvel and DC make it a habit to at least once a year have some sort of "vague predictions" in a comic outlining future plans across their books (Kang's Tribulation Events, Timeless, etc). Does this cause any difficulties when trying to fulfill those predictions? Is the speculation from fans about what it could mean worth the headache?
In your experience, what is the shortest time between an idea being pitched and the comic hitting the shelf? And what is the longest time you can recall before an idea makes it to print?
If the fastest wasn't the Heroes issue after 9/11 I would be surprised (but very interested!)
Good Morning, Tom Brevoort,
I am a significant fan of Jean Grey and am pleased that Stephanie Phillips will continue Phoenix Issues for another year. I do have one question. As we both know, Jean Grey had a major Cosmic Upgrade (Phoenix Issue 008 page 22), confirmed by Captain Marvel and Loki (Spider-Gwen: The Ghost Spider Issue 13 page 19.
Question For Tom Brevoort:
Is the current version of the Cosmic Phoenix more powerful than the Phoenix of the White Crown, and is she the most powerful being in the Marvel Universe?
As the internet's self-appointed foremost New Warriorologist, I'd just like to throw in another note of support for that forgotten Slapstick mini, which I've had bound into a hardcover (genuinely)
"And am I just not remembering this story that Marc DeMatteis and Weezie Simonson worked on?"
Nah, a little googling reveals it's a fanfic idea he claims DeMatteis and Simonson were attached to, apparently in order to lend it some semblance of credibility (whenever creators deny his claims, he asserts they're lying as part of a massive coverup).
In a completely unrelated question, why do people with psychological problems so often make superhero comic books and superhero characters the focus of their pathology? Do you think there's something about the fact that they originate from human imagination, or the frequently fantastic subject matter, that leads to such attraction? Maybe it has to do with things that were first encountered during formative developmental years? If they had extensively read stories centered on Welsh mythology during their formative years, would that be the fixation?
I am not sure if that's exclusive to comics. It feels like it's become fiction in general, as well as celebrity. My guess is people find comfort in those things so it can also lead to flights of fancy.
I'm pretty sure based on the familiar wording of your post you try to troll me at CBR. Since I have never seen a creative deny my claims, please do post links to them doing to. I would love to read them for the first time myself.
If you've heard words like these before, it could mean people are trying to communicate something you ought to listen to. Since you're the only person spouting this stuff, if you google "dragon" (dematteis OR simonson) iceman, your rants are the first thing to come up. Here's what you had to say about Chris Claremont, for example:
******
"For his alternative pitch for X-Factor Claremont has always stated he wanted to include Jean's sister Sara in her place, with the three bachelor X-Men(Bobby, Warren and Hank) competing for her affection. He has recently started amending that Sara was to help Bobby come to terms with his homosexuality. Except that's not true and the Comics Code and EIC Jim Shooter would never have allowed it. So why is he saying something blatantly false? Why are some creatives now giving in-universe answers to real-world things, as if changes haven't been made to characters that is just how they have always been?
The only time I remember creatives doing something like that is when they were perpetuating the Sentry Hoax. Perhaps you are ready to join the ConspiraXcy?"
******
I suppose it does make more sense that I am yet another member of this apparently nefarious "ConspiraXcy" against Iceman, rather than somebody standing agog at the never-ending bizarreness of the Internet. Carry on. The truth is out there!
I don't rant, the only person ranting is you. There is no nefarious "ConspiraXcy" against Iceman. There is no fanfic. The "ConspiraXcy" is a fan-theory thread that covers the whole of the Marvel Universe and attempts to explain bizarre and inexplicable things as part of a possible hidden story-line. As far as I know, the only reference to a Dragon in it is a link promoting it's sibling 'featured thread', and that separate thread does cover the ACTUAL history of Iceman and his Dragon Mythos.
You are fabricating, conflating and distorting things to ridiculous lengths for reasons known only to you. I can count on one hand the people who have reacted in any way like you to me and have fingers left over. I think you are the one with the problem. I will not be replying to you further.
That Claremont quote, to me, sounds made up. I would love a source, because I don't recall Chris Claremont commenting on X-Factor much, and I don't think he ever cared much about Iceman. He was always a character that was carved out by other writers rather than Claremont (which is perhaps why he has tended to fall to the side compared to other characters).
It's possible Claremont at some point may have said to Shooter, "Please don't bring Jean back, here's what you could do instead." But any such suggestion would have been about his objections to undermining Jean's death and the havoc it was going to wreak on the Scott/Madelyne relationship. Zero to do with Iceman's sexuality.
What a shame. The idea of Weezie and DeMatteis having a secret project sounded fun. It does sound very suspect though. I don't think Simonson was very into the idea of exploring opposite forces to the Phoenix. Chris Claremont enjoyed doing that. I think Al Ewing did something near the end of Krakoa that touched on this, but it certainly had nothing to do with Iceman or Weezie or DeMatteis.
Still regarding the Phoenix force, perhaps the bitter taste about it is that, despite all its different uses in totally random and different contexts, there were no consequences, there are no consequences, it's as if it never happened. I've been reading a lot of stuff from the 90s and 2000s, and it seemed like everything was part of a long narrative full of details with consequences for the characters involved. But about the Phoenix, nothing.
In fact, it's as if the Krakoa age had started a policy of not caring about past events, focusing only on the present, with zero consequences of the actions to the characters, like Hank, Xavier, Cyclops and the Phoenix.
What consequences would you prefer is my question? Death? Being written off? Yet another protracted story about their guilt? To be honest, other than Xavier, I am not sure what those other three characters have done to warrant consequences.
What I mean is that Marvel comics used to have a more cohesive storyline and chronology. I'm reading stuff from the 80s to the 2000s and that's what I'm saying. Every character’s action actually mattered and tied in with other actions, and gaps were filled between different runs over the years. What happened in Apocalypse: The Twelve made sense in the years that followed, with Scott’s character, before and after Morrison, and the acrimonious relationship between Kitty and Emma (Claremont-Whedon), and the same with M-Day and the whole Decimation era and Messiah trilogy and Utopia and AvX and Bendis’ run. But then Hickman just ignored almost everything before Krakoa, leaving a huge gap between Rosenberg’s run and his own run. But there's perhaps nothing more confusing than the Phoenix plot: in a single decade we got 1) AvX, Phoenix-K'un Lun, Cyclops was treated as a villain, 2) an ongoing Jean Grey series with Jeen trying to learn how to be the Phoenix, 3) a prehistoric red-haired Phoenix, 4) Kid Cable brought Scott back to life, 5) Avenger Echo Phoenix, 6) Odin's lover and Thor's mother, and then 7) Jean is and always was and always will be the Phoenix, and Hope's father... and with each new Phoenix plot, the previous ones have been buried and forgotten, until the same happens with the next one. So there's no sequel or consequence. It's like nothing matters because it'll be forgotten next year. It's like nothing is canon, so nothing matters.
I think you're looking at broad strokes in terms of consistency, rather than overall detail. Claremont was notorious for dropping and not finishing some stories. A lot of aspects of New X-Men were rolled back in Astonishing and during Utopia, and New X-Men itself took liberties with some characters like Emma and Jean, who had been characterized differently immediately prior. Extraordinary X-Men didn't build much on what Brian Michael Bendis had been doing with his X-Men work. There's always going to be something missed or skipped or not consistently followed, but eventually someone comes along to tie things together. The third Summers brother took a decade to be revealed but it did happen.
As for Phoenix, I don't think 2 and 4 really fit in with the rest, they don't feel out of place.
Yes, everything that came after Bendis' run was inconsistent, like EXM and IvX, and Hickman just chose to ignore everything that came before Krakoa. But I see that you don't care about chronology or a cohesive storyline. So I imagine you wouldn't mind if Brevoort just chose to do a soft reboot and ignore everything between 2001 and 2024, and the next editor did the same with the current run. We won't agree on that, anyway, so let's just agree to disagree.
I think you're missing my point. I'm saying that comics have often dropped stories or rebooted things between runs many times. Look at Hulk. Immortal Hulk by Ewing is pretty different to Hulk by Cates and Johnson, in terms of story and character. This was the case in the '90s too. It's not a new thing. Stories do get paid off in the long-term (usually). I think people who are new to comics, like you, might read a little more into traditional, non-comic narratives but part of the process is understanding that the medium is different and sometimes things are dropped for a while and then come up again.
And I think you again ignore that there are inconsistencies in the eras you praise. The Utopia years didn't always gel with what Whedon was doing, and Bendis took a very different approach to Carey and Fraction in how he wrote a lot of supporting characters. What you're complaining about has been present for a long, long time. It existed before Jonathan Hickman, who I think you're unfairly shoveling blame on. Not everything that happened between The Twelve to BMB is some fully logical, cohesive narrative. And that's not the fault of any creator or editor, it's inherent to the medium.
I also don't think you make a good point about Phoenix. Consequence has been part of the character from the beginning. The lore isn't that complicated either, people just want answers to very specific, and, forgive me, niche, pointless questions that most writers don't think to answer because most readers understand that fitting a 50 year narrative into a new story isn't always going to be clean.
Tom need to answer questions with answers not questions. We know what has been published already about Phoenix and Jean Grey in the shuttle.
I remember reading Kitchen T’s Usenet posts when I was a kid.
One that stands out is when the creators contributing there were asked which non-Marvel characters they would fully integrate into the Marvel Universe if they could. Not in a crossover sense, but more like what Marvel would eventually do with Angela years later.
Tom, Kurt Busiek, and Scott Lobdell all answered (maybe Mark Waid too), and the names I recall being mentioned were Savage Dragon and X-O Manowar — though I can’t remember who picked which. It’s probably all archived somewhere, now that I think about it.
I wonder how you’d answer that question today. And if X-O Manowar was your pick back then, was there any serious consideration given to making that happen when Valiant was auctioning off their IP? He definitely has a very Marvel-like vibe.
Would've been cool having a wolverine and batman crossover and having their worlds collide in a book. Are any X-Men characters showing up in the Marvel and DC crossovers? Storm And Wonder Woman would also be cool but I like the unexpected team up we've started with so far.
I have read Wolverine and Kitty Pryde this past week. It was cool seeing this side of these characters, especially Logan with Mariko. Would love to see more of her in Saladin Ahmed's book.
Jean being cloned and put in a cocoon will be clarified in the Dark Phoenix giant size
Fair enough, there’s not really anything you can say right now to make me feel better about Ms Marvel’s recent stuff in NYX and the new giant size one shots, but I guess I hope that by coming here and sharing feedback on the issues I like, the books I don’t, the stories I absolutely love etc, might give a glimpse as to at least what this fan thinks.
Peter David was a tremendous talent. One of my favorite comic book writers, as well as my favorite Star Trek novelist.
For anyone who's able to contribute, his family still needs help with medical bills: https://gofund.me/21c0a59b