>>153109027
Was Jim Shooter a bad writer?

>>153109027
I see it as writers going through the motions occasionally.
With your example, however, I don't consider these guys good writers.

>>153109106
OP here, I don't consider you a good critic either.

>>153109027
I think making Claremont seethe is always commendable but yeah this story was an absolute mistake on all fronts.

>>153109762
Likewise.

>>153109074
Yes, but he wasn’t a half-bad editor

File: Scourgebait.png (468 KB, 542x788)

468 KB PNG

>Enforcer
>Fly
>Turner D. Century
>Hammer and Anvil

Imagine having such a long streak of Scourge of the Underworld bait characters. Only Dr. Malus had a niche going forward, and that was just because he was support role for villains.

>>153110051
Doing something solely to make someone else seethe is woman behavior.

>>153109027
was it that bad

>>153114555
saying something is woman behavior is fag behavior

>>153115225
Saying something is fag behavior is closet fag behavior.

>>153109027
Yuck

>>153109027
It's actually well documented what happened with this one. Carol's solo book had been cancelled, and back then Marvel had a tendency to kill or retire characters if their solo book tanked, out of the assumption that it meant audiences weren't interested in them. She was still appearing in Avengers, written by Michelinie at the time, and the mystery pregnancy story was started with the intent of resolving it in #200 and writing Carol into retirement. But the plot for #200, which would have involved the baby being a vessel for the Kree Supreme Intelligence got rejected at the last minute because it was too similar to a recent issue of What If? The Avengers #200 we actually got was the result of a rushed collaboration between Michelinie, Perez, Shooter and Bob Layton to co-write something ASAP in order to get the issue done and meet deadlines, while still fulfilling the mandate of retiring Carol.

This story wasn't written with the intention of it being "Carol got raped and nobody cared", Carol/Marcus was supposed to be a consensual but weird love story, there was just one line of dialogue in the story where nobody at Marvel realized the implications until after it had been published and they started getting letters about it, then fanzines started printing articles about it, Marvel felt like they had to do a follow-up story as damage control, and let Claremont do it, and he chose to just validate all the complaints, which was probably the worst thing he could've done there.

>>153114555
This wasn't done just to make Claremont seethe, that was just an inevitable side-effect because he was that guy who got too attached to a lot of characters he wrote.

>>153115333
Stop huffing your own farts

>>153117351
I bet Claremont even back then seemed like the out of touch autist type who couldn't even recognize what the other people around him were thinking.

>>153117351
>Marvel felt like they had to do a follow-up story as damage control, and let Claremont do it, and he chose to just validate all the complaints
What happened in the follow up story Claremont did?

>>153117627
>What happened in the follow up story Claremont did?
After Carol and Marcus return to Limbo at the end of Avengers #200, Marcus dies, Carol comes to her senses and realizes he was mind controlling her. She comes back to Earth and immediately gets her powers and memories stolen by Rogue, who almost kills her, and that's her new retirement. Xavier restores Carol's memories, and she shames the whole Avengers team for not realizing Marcus was mind controlling and raping her, even though most of the team weren't even present for the exposition of what was going on in #200.

Claremont was then allowed to have the depowered Carol hang with the X-Men for a few months before giving her the 'retirement' of becoming the insanely OP heroine Binary and going out into deep space with the Starjammers.

>>153114555
Tell that to the editors of Spider-Man, Marvel has been rage-baiting for about thirty years.

>>153117729
lol, Marcus won.

>>153117546
Most of the stories about Shooter having to tard-wrangle talent tend to involve Claremont, Byrne, or both at the same time. But their books sold really well, which gave them both a lot of creative freedom to do things their editors really should've said no to. Shooter didn't tard-wrangle hard enough or often enough.

But in this specific situation I just get the impression Claremont was the kind of guy who ended up waifufagging for every female character he wrote.

There's been a long-running issue with Carolfags not knowing the behind the scenes situation with Avengers #200 (or getting told the story and just ignoring what they've been told) and thinking Michelinie, Shooter and the others deliberately tried to sneak the rape implications into the story rather than it being a screw-up. It's possible Claremont and others were willing to believe the worst of them.

>>153117729
>Carol comes to her senses and realizes he was mind controlling her. She comes back to Earth and immediately gets her powers and memories stolen by Rogue, who almost kills her, and that's her new retirement. Xavier restores Carol's memories, and she shames the whole Avengers team for not realizing Marcus was mind controlling and raping her
What in the actual fuck how could anyone ever think this is a good idea

>>153117800
They're a bunch of little petty bitches at Marvel editorial.

>>153118087
It really does seem like the story was driven by behind the scenes drama, like Claremont was trying to shame everyone involved in Avengers #200 by canonizing the worst possible interpretation of it. But it also just comes across as the X-Men writer dunking on the Avengers, who he also writes as having way too hard a time dealing with Mystique's version of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants.

>>153118134
DC editorial is stupid but Marvel editorial is evil. It's just the way things are.

>>153117884
I was strictly thinking of it from a career perspective where you would think a guy like Chris would ask more questions to his boss or think that writing a story where you paint all the other heroes as incompetent morons who didn't think to ask questions/investigate more at best or weirdos who cannot conceive of rape in this form at worst, is a bad idea. I think Chris has to be some sort of autist who thinks that is a good idea to canonize. The type of thinking where he couldn't just reveal those weren't the Avengers or think up some other excuse. Like the creative process from the outside always looks like they are just scraping by when it comes to deadlines and everybody just goes off into their own little caves which I dunno, looks poorly organized and dumb. I get they didn't have e-mail back then, but like isn't that what the bullpen/offices were for? Like it is effectively sabotaging your fellow creatives at the same time. Reckless and dumb. I dunno, the process isn't too well known to me but from a layman pov, you would think this wouldn't keep happening.
Like why would you make the characters out to look like that? It's fucking writing, readers might have hated the imaginary story excuse but when it gets that bad, honestly one wasted issue isn't too big of a deal.

>>153117351
Was the original Kree baby gonna be like a mega intelligent super baby or something

>>153118338
You'd probably have to ask Michelinie if he's online and taking questions. I assume since the point was to retire Carol as a character, and it's known that the Supreme Intelligence wanted to use the baby as a vessel, that it was a Kree-human hybrid that the Supreme Intelligence wanted to upload itself into, and maybe the story ends with Carol having to go into hiding to protect the baby or something.

>>153118087
X-Fags wether the fans or writers always have a giant chip on their shoulder regarding the mere existence of the Avengers.

>>153118299
I don't really see the issue. The characters were written to be incompetent morons in that issue, might as well address that in the story. Then you can write some character development bullshit about them learning from their mistakes or something. Or just ignore it all and move on. At worst it's just typical fanboy behavior, being mad at the fictional character instead of the writers who made a shit issue. I assume Chris would probably not be allowed to write a screed about what hacks all the Avengers writers are.

>>153118560
Letting him write a comic that's basically calling out the writers of the previous story was a mistake in the first place. If Marvel felt they needed to do a damage control story, it should've been dealt with by the people who wrote the original story, or by someone who understood it was just a screw-up, not someone with an axe to grind. Using it as an opportunity to make the characters look bad when you're not their regular writer is a dick move, especially when it ended up blaming the whole team instead of limiting it to the ones who were actually present.

Of all the ways Marvel could have addressed fan complaints about Avengers #200, letting a writer who was equally salty about the issue validate and canonize all those complaints and tell the Avengers they suck was the worst way of going about it. >>153118299 is right, and this issue basically started the awful trend of X-Men writers writing stories that deliberately make the Avengers look bad.

>>153118712
Yeah I just don't see the issue Like why not, fuck em. Have a better write come in and do the big cathartic tell off. To be honest even the original story idea sounds pretty shit.

>>153118560
>The characters were written to be incompetent morons in that issue, might as well address that in the story
Letting your teammate continue to be brainwashed and raped sails past incompetence and goes right to retardation or straight evil.

>>153118770
You don't see the issue cause you are the exact kind of idiot the writer is trying to garner and spread their viewpoint, someone that eats up whatever shit a writer dishes up regardless of how agenda driven or being blatant character assassination just cause it lets you fuel their dumb axe to grind. People like you are the exact reason why Marvel had to be cursed with Bendis wrecking havoc on the entire setting and cast for over a decade no issue.

>>153118770
You seem to be incapable of grasping the idea that people paying money to read an Avengers comic aren't going to find it "cathartic" to have the X-Men writer guest-write an issue that tells off the team and tells them they suck, even setting aside the highly subjective notion of Claremont being a "better writer" than the four men involved in Avengers #200. The only people who were going to appreciate that story were a small number of angry Carolfags who wanted their interpretation of the story validated. I can't imagine most people who liked Carol actually wanted Marvel's resolution to it all to be "yeah, she was raped actually".

>>153118780
A big reason why actually canonizing that Carol was mind-controlled and raped was a really retarded idea. When Carol/Marcus is just a really weird, but consensual relationship, a later writer could one day just write her out of it and that would be the end of it. But canonize it as rape and it's stayed with her forever, it's over 35 years later and it's still being talked about.

>>153118915
Was the initial story of them letting Carol get brainwashed and raped and taken away not also character assassination for the Avengers and Carol? The Claremont issue is just addressing the horrible behavior they already did, I guess it could've been done better but it's a pretty reasonable response from Carol and it's not like it ruined the Avengers.

>>153118975
>Was the initial story of them letting Carol get brainwashed and raped and taken away
That's not the original story, that's the retcon. That's what Claremont chose to do in reaction to the original story.

Of all the possible ways to address people's problems with Avengers #200, this was the worst choice they could have made.

>>153119175
That's how the original story reads and is one of the main issues. That's not Claremont's fanfic no matter how much you want it to be. Hell even the original Kree storyline involved forced alien pregnancy. Mind control machines are plot point in the story, it isn't really a leap in logic.

>>153118975
I believe the original intent of the story was it was a consensual relationship that some readers read more into it being creepy/rapey and then Claremont came in after the fact and said “yep, it was rape”. Sort of like how fans speculated the black general dude from Man of Steel was Martian Manhunter and then in Snyder’s Justice League cut he goes “oh yeah totally that was definitely Martian Manhunter from the start” even though there really wasn’t anything there to back that up

>>153119300
A consensual relationship between Carol and a man from limbo who teleported her there and then admittedly used machines to help seduce and impregnate her with himself. Amazing idea for the 200th issue.

>>153119281
>That's how the original story reads and is one of the main issues.
It's -an interpretation- of the original story, and as it wasn't what anyone had intended, Marvel should have found a way out that didn't canonize that interpretation. It doesn't do any good to any of the characters involved.

>That's not Claremont's fanfic no matter how much you want it to be.
He may not have been the only person to have the idea, but he's still the one who canonized a really awful interpretation of the original story, then took it out on the other Avengers. Unless you just hate the Avengers in the first place I don't see how you possibly think this was a good idea, and I don't understand how anyone who likes Carol would support canonizing that she was raped instead of finding some other way to address the issues with the original story.

>>153119387
Revealing that his father's 'machines' to aid with seduction were just mood lighting and a tape deck would've been a better way of handling the issues with Avengers #200 than actually canonizing it as a rape.

>>153119435
It's a pretty heavily dominant interpretation. like most people would read as bizarre sci-fi rape, probably 90% or so. Of course you could've revealed a billion things to make it not rape or just not matter, could've made it so that wasn't even Carol but a clone or robot or Skrull or some shit. But even then the way the Avengers are written in that story is really weird and bad.

>>153119524
>It's a pretty heavily dominant interpretation. like most people would read as bizarre sci-fi rape, probably 90% or so.
Depends how old the average reader was, back then you'd have a significant proportion of the readership who were too young to know what rape was, which is another big reason why Marvel should've found another way out.

>But even then the way the Avengers are written in that story is really weird and bad.
Carol has a legitimate complaint about the way Beast and Wasp reacted to her pregnancy, and once the second story canonizes it as rape, we then have the issue of Tony, Thor and Hawkeye not realizing this, but taking the rest of the team to task for things they didn't do or weren't present for just makes it look like the writer has an issue with the Avengers. It's just a bad story written in angry reaction to a previous bad story, and doubles down on the first story's problems instead of trying to get rid of them.

>>153119590
Them not further investigating such a weird event still makes them look bad, even if they weren't there for the weird explanation. Did no one explain this to the rest off screen? Even if it's not canonized as rape exactly it seems Carol in universe still has reason to be angry at the Avengers too since they left her at the mercy of this mysterious man who grew out of a baby she gave birth to.

>>153119524
>like most people would read as bizarre sci-fi rape, probably 90% or so
I think it depends on whether or not you read it before or after the Claremont “it was definitely rape” story. Like how everyone now thinks Hank Pym was constantly beating the shit out of Jan because things like Wizard and the Bendis era of Marvel made that Hank’s entire thing when in reality he only hit her once in the middle of a mental breakdown

>>153119662
I think you’re missing anon’s point. Anon says the original story was bad but Claremont doubling down on it made it worse. Like if Marvel followed up One More Day with something like “Aunt May would’ve survived getting shot anyway so Peter sold his marriage and future daughter to the devil for nothing” or something.

>>153109027
Carol sucks anyway, making it a hilarious rape plot was the best thing they ever did with her.

>>153119715
They did follow up One More Day with OMIT, never read it though. But I disagree with his premise that following it up is bad at all.

the marywhorekek makes itself manifest...

>>153119749
It’s not that following up a bad story is a bad idea it’s that following up a bad story by doubling down on what made it bad is bad. OMIT followed up One More Day but it didn’t double down and make One More Day worse by introducing a retcon that made the original story even worse by saying Aunt May, Peter, and MJ are definitely damned to hell or something

>>153119999
I don't think the Avenger's follow up did double down on it, it addressed it and rescued Carol from a terrible and bizarre end. You could've swept it all under the rug I guess and made that Carol from 200 into a limbo clone or something but I like that less than having characters take account of the things that happened to them and not retcon everything away all the time. I think including the scene of her telling off the Avengers makes sense in universe and from a meta sense. I don't have a problem with the Avengers looking bad for a moment and having to take stock on a mistake they made and endure some criticism.

>>153120137
>I don't have a problem with the Avengers looking bad for a moment and having to take stock on a mistake they made and endure some criticism.
And, again, the problem is this isn’t the avengers “looking bad” this is the avengers looking either totally retarded or downright evil. It’s the equivalent of you at a party walking into a room and seeing your passed out friend getting diddled and you just walk away and close the door. It makes the Avengers look really, really bad and it’s hard to come back from that. Storywise it may be cathartic or whatever but when you’re supposed to be caretaking these franchises that people love and hold dear it’s a really retarded decision. If you’re familiar with wrestler colloquiums it’s Claremont burying the Avengers.

>>153120137
Would you be saying all this for a story where say the Avengers lecture the X-Men or a character like Rogue for example cause of a previous writers poor story?

>>153117351
Shooter once talked about it in his blog, check the link for the full post.
>And. I guess I signed off on this book.
>I regret it.
>But, in those days, in any case, the buck stopped at my desk. I take full responsibility. I screwed up. My judgement failed, or maybe I wasn't paying enough attention. Sorry. Avengers #200 is a travesty.
>Maybe outstanding editor and outstanding human being Jim Salicrup, who has occasionally honored this blog with his memories can lend some information about Avengers #200. If he says I participated, believe him. I don't know.
>A note: At the time, as I recall, David Michelinie and Chris Claremont were feuding, so that may have had something to do with this story. Ask Chris. Or Dave. Preferably Both. Or Jim Salicrup.
>Again, mea culpa. Sorry.
https://jimshooter.com/2011/12/avengers-200.html/

Some of the comments quote other people involved:
George Perez:
>I don't remember if it was Dave or Jim who did the Carol Danvers pregnancy story. I believe by the time it was printed it was by four different writers or something. That's probably not the most shining hour for the character, but I liked the idea that they had the kind of story that I really love, which was kind of a precursor to what I would end up doing in Crisis (on Infinite Earths), stuff where you could draw anything happening from various time zones.
David Michelenie:
>A last minute alternative was hammered together (hence the plot credit for four different people on that issue) and was hastily drawn and scripted to meet extremely tight deadlines.

Also this comment:
>I know this is coming quite late in the conversation, but I actually did ask Chris Claremont about this yesterday. Chris didn't really lay the blame at anyone's feet, but was glad that he got to undo things a bit with the Avengers Annual.

One of Jim's responses in the comments:
>Easier said than done. Herding cats. Some of the best you can find are failed, incompetent cats.

File: Death of Iron Fist.jpg (649 KB, 1006x1600)

649 KB JPG

>>153117351
>Marvel had a tendency to kill or retire characters if their solo book tanked
If you want to read something really retarded, read about how Iron Fist died.

File: Death of Iron Fist (1).jpg (134 KB, 897x370)

134 KB JPG

>>153120392

File: Death of Iron Fist (2).jpg (34 KB, 707x131)

34 KB JPG

>>153120440

File: Death of Iron Fist (3).jpg (149 KB, 900x438)

149 KB JPG

>>153120449

>>153120217
Claremont didn't write that though, that was Avengers 200, that's how people saw that story before he did that. If anyone buried them it would be those writers.

File: Death of Iron Fist (4).jpg (570 KB, 644x949)

570 KB JPG

>>153120459

>>153120463
No Avengers 200 could have been read that way, it was Claremont who made it official

>>153120392
They did it with Spider-woman too, a really fucking weird one where she dies and everyone's memory of her is erased forever.

>>153120527
That was the way most people read it. Kidnapped and mind controlled into sex so a guy could get her to give birth to him. People wrote articles titled "The Rape of Ms Marvel" a year before Claremont got to it. It's entirely cope on your part to attempt to pin the blame of this on to Chris instead of Shooter, Micheline and the others.

File: 858609.jpg (92 KB, 600x767)

92 KB JPG

>>153117351
>well documented
Not really though: >>153120348
It doesn't feel particularly "well documented" when everyone is kinda confused on who exactly did what. Jim takes full responsibility as he was a stand up guy and editor but says he doesn't remember participating in a plotting session, for instance. If anything it feels as though everyone is confused in the matter of who exactly did what. They all seem to admit it was bad. Also I know people like to accuse Claremont of seething but so many of these narratives about creators are a bit extreme and not wholly accurate, it is a caricature.

>>153120560
>People wrote articles titled "The Rape of Ms Marvel"
Yeah it was in this comics magazine, pic related.
https://carolastrickland.wordpress.com/ms-marvel/
>Am I just overly sensitive, or what? I know that I have a tendency to shoot my mouth off about the role of women in comics, but shouldn’t everyone be concerned when a comic displays a struttingly macho, misogynist storyline that shreds the female image apart with a smirk — and rewards the one who did the shredding? I should think that such a story would create an uproar in fandom — but where is there even a whisper of discontent?

I never got why people make such a big deal out of Avengers 200. It's a weird and shitty story but there have been way shittier Avengers books.

>>153122501
Avengers Disassembled probably had a worse impact and is a worse story cause Bendis.

>>153122575
Ironically enough, Carol being responsible for Disassembled would have made WAY WAY WAY more sense than Wanda though

>>153122796
What would've made even more sense is never letting that story be published or conceited at all

>>153122575
Bendis was directly influenced by Avengers 200 and the Claremont follow-up story for Avengers Disassembled. Not making that up, he says so in several interviews leading up this avengers run.

>>153123987
God I wish Bendis died in the womb

>>153120560
She starts the article as seen here >>153120600 with “am I just overly sensitive” which says to me it wasn’t as overt as you’re claiming. I’m not one of those guys on /co/ who vehemently defend Shooter I think he did as much retardation as he did good I just think it’s retarded for any writer to take a massive shit on characters like Claremont did in the follow up

>>153124059
Following up on this I hate, hate, HATE when writers have the X-Men go to the Avengers and say “where were you during Genosha?!?” They weren’t there because Morrison didn’t write them being there, you can’t go back later and act like these characters made these decisions on their own someone wrote them that way and an editor ok’d it, you can’t decide you want to use it as a way to bury characters you don’t like

>>153124090
And yet, The Avengers have never once helped the X-Men. Curious.

>>153124221
Except during Onslaught where they were all killed helping them

>>153124368
>Okay but 30yrs ago when Professor X....
I guess

>>153124550
>the founder and leader of the X-Men went rogue and nearly destroyed all life on the planet and the Avengers AND Fantastic Four died stopping him
>but it doesn't count because it was thirty years ago even though I said they never helped
Fucking X-Fags goddamn

>>153124608
That's exactly it though. It was under the duress of a global issue and not of their own volition for localized problems.

>>153124221
Anon, that's my whole point. Avengers don't have a history of helping the X-Men because guest stars in books are used to prop up sales, the X-Men never needed guest stars to prop up sales so they've always been in their own bubble. That's an editorial decision, not an in-universe decision so it's stupid to then go back and be like 'well how come the avengers never helped the x-men??'

>>153124672
So, what, is Captain America supposed to show up to the X-Mansion when they bring in another mass killer to join the team and that mass killer turns on the X-Men and starts killing them?

>>153124550
>Went from never to 30 years ago
Keep moving those goalposts bitchboy

>>153122501
Carolfags, anon. Some of them insisting the whole thing was deliberate all along, and some of them believing the Marcus story was responsible for Carol being largely absent from comics for over 15 years, when it's actually the other way around, the decision to retire her as a character had already been made, this was just the strange way they went about it. Even after Shooter was gone nobody cared enough to bring her back for another ten years.

>>153123987
You can easily tell that Avengers #200, Iron Man #150 and Byrne's West Coast Avengers are the few Avengers-related comics Bendis read when he was younger as they're the only ones he ever referenced.

Byrne's story where he retcons Wanda and Vision's twins into being fragments of Mephisto is comparable to Avengers #200 in that something really weird happens to a character and the other Avengers just accept everything they're told at face value, and don't ask any questions or follow up on any of it because that's the end of the story and the book's doing something different next issue. The people arguing that even before Claremont's follow-up story that the events of Avengers #200 were suspect enough that the team should have followed up on it are acting like these are real people in control of their actions, when with stories like this the writer usually just wants to draw a line under it and move on, not write more comics delving into what happened to explain and justify everything.

>>153124754
>because that's the end of the story and the book's doing something different next issue. The people arguing that even before Claremont's follow-up story that the events of Avengers #200 were suspect enough that the team should have followed up on it are acting like these are real people in control of their actions, when with stories like this the writer usually just wants to draw a line under it and move on, not write more comics delving into what happened to explain and justify everything.
This, perfectly put, anon. And really it should be up to an editor to look at what's being written and go "well this could really cause problems later on down the road" and work with the writer to do something else but I know at my job I don't want to do anything more than I have to and I imagine being a Marvel editor is the same way

>>153124689
Well you see, anon. Marvel Comics should just be called "X-Men Comics" and if those other characters are even allowed to have their own books, those books shouldn't be having their own stories about those heroes fighting their own villains, they should be entirely about the Avengers, FF, etc being good allies to the mutant community and spending all of their time fighting anti-mutant racism, protecting mutants from humans, and overthrowing human governments that believe in bigoted hateful things like having a record of who the mutants are and being able to protect themselves from mutants.
>this is what hardcore X-fags actually believe

>>153124812
>this is what hardcore X-fags actually believe
When did this attitude start? I was a frequent in X-Men message boards in the early 2000s and was regularly posting during the Genosha incident and legitimately don't remember a single person going "well where were the Avengers???!" Did it start when Marvel started to pivot towards the Avengers and away from X-Men in the mid-2000s? By that point I was in college so I wasn't on message boards as much then but it seemed like when I came back to them in the early 2010s X-fags became insufferable

>>153124812
Wouldn't it be faster to just make the non-X-Men superheroes also mutants?

>>153124754
>this was just the strange way they went about it.
It's pretty out in the open that Marvel is overwhelmingly misogynistic towards female characters.
Top that with Carol being openly feminist and that earned her the ire. Her retirement is being raped and forced to carry a baby to term.

>>153124904
To make the point yet again, it wasn't meant to be rape when originally written. That one line gave some readers that impression was a screw-up, not the writers' intent.

But Marvel's 1970s feminist heroine choosing to retire for love, to be with a man, or the possible original idea of her retiring to look after a baby, these are both things that would have a lot of her fans seething even if there wasn't anything in the story at all that they could point to as carrying rapist implications.

>>153124884
It really started around the time of Civil War and the Messiah Trilogy when Emma and Cyclops kept raising it in stories like the Avengers weren't busy with their own job and should be babysitting the mutants 24/7.

By AvX and the Bendis X-Men run that followed, all the way through to the run just before Krakoa, we kept getting the Avengers used as the establishment superheroes trying to stop the X-Men from doing a mutant chimpout, whether it was a 'mostly peaceful' protest or endangering the whole world so they could impose mutancy on some normies.

History has shown that the mutant metaphor was a mistake and the fandom it has created was a bigger mistake.

>>153124984
>endangering the whole world so they could impose mutancy on some normies
I was a lifelong X-Fag but even I thought that was fucking retarded, how could the X-Men be framed as the good guys in any light in that story? Imagine you're a normal guy then suddenly wake up as a fish person or your skin on fire 24/7 because a group of assholes decided it was important their line of freaks continue

>>153125018
It's literally an old villain plot from the days of Silver Age Magneto. And it's his plan in the first movie.

>>153124984
>History has shown that the mutant metaphor was a mistake and the fandom it has created was a bigger mistake
I think this is why in the last ten to fifteen years, outside stunt stuff like Hickman's run, X-Men's struggled to find an audience with comic readers, the zeitgeist has shifted to where the freaks and outliers went from being counterculture to being seen as more the oppressive, bullying group who harass normal people into fighting their battles when they just want to live a normal life and not have to deal with pronouns or who's allowed in what bathroom

>>153125064
>And it's his plan in the first movie
Oh my god that's right, how did no one making AvX make that connection?

>>153125084
They knew what they were doing, hack frauds that they are

File: 1752327052630209.png (3.24 MB, 1080x1665)

3.24 MB PNG

The real question is why didn't the X-men do anything when Ultron genocided Slorenia? There probably some mutants living there when Ultron showed up

>>153125449
Man. Avengers 2 sucks in comparison to this.

>>153124904
>>153124941
Does the readers of Carol's book perceived her as a feminist icon or hold her to those standards? The character was holding the identity of Ms. marvel, what?4 years?
I don't argue the rancid undertones but Im not a believer that she was holding that much of a feminist image.

File: FHcyqTKNmcMj4FoGLYmLFg.jpg (1.13 MB, 1486x1920)

1.13 MB JPG

Marvel sure does love it's Rape Retcons.

>>153124059
I would say read more than just the first line because her criticisms are pretty scathing. That said it appears that it is broadly correct that there wasn't much backlash contemporaneously, considering she also stated:
>And that there was no negative reaction to it except, seemingly, mine.
Which does appear to her anyway that she didn't see much else commenting about it. (There may well have been but that would involve someone researching it to check.)

>I just think it’s retarded for any writer to take a massive shit on characters like Claremont did in the follow up
I just think that far too many people have built up this skewed perspective of Claremont being some diva that isn't really real. Pretty much everyone had fallouts and issues with others, but some creators seemingly get labelled one way. Just above that post you can see issues around the death of Iron Fist which are just as weird. These character narratives people have formed around creators are strange.

Considering that everyone involved with that comic has apologised for it or at the very least criticised it and that Shooter took full responsibility for it, shitting on Claremont for dealing with the fallout seems to be a bit shitty, in my opinion.

>>153124090
>Following up on this I hate, hate, HATE when writers have the X-Men go to the Avengers and say “where were you during Genosha?!?” They weren’t there because Morrison didn’t write them being there
I mean this is a superhero universe comics problem of, to a very large extent the drama in comics is rather forced/contrived, and continuity can never fully make sense because of how long things have gone on for with so many creative teams.

We all suspend our disbelief to consume fiction to an extent. With comics, with how these universes are set up, you kind of have to have a specific suspension of disbelief because otherwise none of these comics work and it is a bit like criticising a genre when ultimately it just isn't for you (like getting mad at a soap opera drama or something when maybe you just don't like soap opera). Superhero comics after all are 20-something pages of story (no decompressed for trades), in and out, and used to be pretty disposable entertainment. For me, my main criticism of it is just how cheap it dramatically feels because those bags of tricks are used far too often without any feelings of weight behind them.

(That opens up a whole different discussion though about stuff "mattering" in comics, in my opinion comics of the past didn't necessarily "matter" more than comics now, just they could sometimes illict that feeling of things "mattering" more; nowadays with the multiplication effect of large and larger events/threats and creators desperate to go off in any and all wild directions only to be reset, it feels like there is less weight. Although some could say this is nostalgia on my part.)

>>153126737
>And that there was no negative reaction to it except, seemingly, mine.
>I never saw the next issue of LoC, but it seems to me that someone did loan me issue #3, and I remember reading reactions to my article that, summed up, told me that I needed to get laid to get my head on straight. So I continued to think that I was the only one who had recognized this as rape, had recognized the fact that rape is a bad thing, and that Marvel was the personification of the Anti-Christ. Well, that they needed to improve, let’s put it that way.
>And then came Avengers Annual #10, 1981, written by Chris Claremont.

File: Black Cat.jpg (136 KB, 650x1000)

136 KB JPG

>>153126631
Marvel just love rape.
>In attempting to persuade Francis to turn himself in, Felicia reveals she too had once been raped.[10] Flashbacks reveal that Felicia was raped by her boyfriend, Ryan, as a freshman at Empire State University. She did not report the rape, not wanting to become "just another statistic" and trained in fighting techniques, intent on revenge on her attacker. Ryan died in a car accident before she could do anything, however. The story nearly convinces Francis, but Spider-Man and Daredevil show up at an inopportune moment, and a fight erupts.
Remember when Kevin Smith wrote Black Cat getting raped?

>Call a story "The Evil That Men Do".
>Have rape.
>Have sexy covers.

>The series has received mixed reviews. ComicsAlliance named it among the worst comics of the decade, with Nick Nadel especially criticising the post-hiatus shift in tone, the reductive retconned origin of Black Cat, and the lack of coherence in the final issues, surmising that "if you ever need an example of just how far off the map superhero comics went in their forced attempts to go "dark" during this decade, look no further than "Spider-Man/Black Cat."[12] Several pointed out the juxtaposition of Terry Dodson's art with the grim subject matter; Comic Book Resources criticised the overly-sexual cover for the first issue,[13] while Ian Keogh of Slings & Arrows wondered if Smith was merely adding elements to later issues for shock value, and expressed discomfort that the story trivialised serious issues.[14] Mark Ginocchio noted the series seemed to represent Smith's status as a one-trick pony.[15]

>The first issue I have with Spider-Man/Black Cat is just how abruptly the tone of the series shifts once Smith takes his project on its three-year hiatus. If you read all six comics in one continuous sitting (as I did before prepping this post), the tone and mood of issues #1-3 and #4-6 are so starkly different it feels like two completely different, unrelated series.

>>153126737
>shitting on Claremont for dealing with the fallout seems to be a bit shitty, in my opinion
It’s not because Claremont decided to write the fallout in the worst way possible to shit on the Avengers. It’s like if Roger Stern wrote an X-Men annual where we find out Xavier had been diddling Jean since the beginning and everyone knew but just ignored it because there was that one panel in a Stan and Jack issue of X-Men where Xavier had an internal monologue about being in love with Jean.

>>153127158
There have been quite a few stories that shit on Xavier a lot though.

File: RCO006_1470496304.jpg (416 KB, 1041x1600)

416 KB JPG

>>153127007
We gotta catalogue all these rapes.

>>153127158
This is all reminding me of the Civil War era when every other writer took as their duty to shit on and bury Iron Man for that

File: Xavier Loves Jean.png (167 KB, 200x466)

167 KB PNG

>>153127158
>Claremont decided to write the fallout in the worst way possible to shit on the Avengers.
Legitimately how else do you get out of the rape hole they built without putting some responsibility out there on some characters? Seriously.
>where we find out Xavier had been diddling Jean since the beginning
Release the X-Files of Xavier. (Don't use this as an idea, Marvel.)
>because there was that one panel in a Stan and Jack issue of X-Men where Xavier had an internal monologue about being in love with Jean.
Really bad analogy and not really comparable. One panel best forgotten is not the same as a full issue which wrote out a character. Again, everyone else responsible for that issue apologised or criticised that story. Correct me if I'm wrong but you appear to give them the benefit of the doubt in coming up with the story and making mistakes. But you refuse to give Claremont the benefit of the doubt in following it up. Absolute responsibility for one person, none for someone else.

>>153127185
>There have been quite a few stories that shit on Xavier a lot though.
Christ even recently with the end of Krakoa and that shit with him murdering the crew of a ship which later got changed in another one shot. Secret histories of characters doing dodgy things is a trashy staple of comics.

>>153124090
Also the Avengers were kinda dealing with bigger issues at the time with Kang nuking Washington, ruling the Earth from the fallout of that tragedy and hunting superheroes down as they tried resisting his dominion of earth while he chilled in a sword shaped spaceship called the Damacles.

>>153127007
The only good thing this story did is give Elaine Coll/Scorpia her god tier redesign and in turn made her a much more utilised character in recent years with fun moments like thinking Dazzler is trash, teaming up with Rogue and Shocker against Darkforce Demons and joining the all girl Syndicate.

>>153127432
Hank Pym fans have a shared PTSD after Busiek stopped writing him and every other hack slop peddler got their mitts on him. At the least Gage, Ewing and Mackay have Pym's back since they actually give him cool shit, nice moments of characterisation and dignity.

>>153127931
>how else
Nigga there are so many cases of mistaken identity and ways to thrust the real avengers into another dimension or pull some bad retcon shit. Yeah it would be shitty but getting out of the hole that way is preferable.

>>153129218
And it would still gloss over that shit and may not necessarily have been better overall than just biting the bullet and addressing it. Again, I feel like this is taken out of a vacuum and highly critical of Claremont whilst ignoring everyone else.

Remember how Jim Shooter took responsibility for this comic even though he doesn't remember contributing to it, but he said the bucks stops with him? Why don't you criticise Shooter for allowing that Claremont story? Shooter would have signed off on it. So clearly he felt something about it.

I keep saying you seem to apply absolute responsibility on Claremont and not others.

>>153129378
It wouldn't gloss over that shit, it would set up the writers to have the real characters talk to her in a sane manner, you moron.

>>153129406
Anon, don't be a dick we're just chatting here in good faith. Having some bullshit random dimension shit wouldn't necessarily stop this story constantly being brought up and criticised. I've seen plenty of shit storylines end in such bullshit ways. It wouldn't be anymore sane to have the characters talk that shit away with such shit. In fact, it would probably make writers like that one who did criticise it, double down. And you don't really address anything else I say.

>>153129406
Huh? Retconning it away would literally gloss over the story.

>>153124984
It reminds me of when I asked what comics had Captain America as the bad guy in X-Men comics and like 95% of the answers were Quesada-era, Alonso-era, Cebulski-era comics which leads me to believe this is more of a Quesada acolyte-problem than a character problem as the idiots on Twitter believe

>>153129483
Yeah I already got that Shooter takes some blame. Claremont defenders tend to be dogmatic like you that's why you get focus.
It would be more sane if the characters were shown to actually not know about this because they were preoccupied with something and when learning they were impersonated or the alien casted some illusion then the real ones figure out it was all bullshit and are horrified.
It would be talked about but it would be less of an issue where people could see something went on and it got fixed and the characters were actually taken care of. Maybe it would get the same treatment as "erm..well that was weird" but y'know the characters would have some nuance and actual depth instead of being made into strawmen for Carol to knock down because muh feminism. Yeah, those people and Claremont were right to have outrage but acting like retards who wouldn't be willing to smooth this over and fix it? Yeah nah, just write a criticism and then have the guy who is on their side go insane and write shit that damages the brand the enjoyment of the books.

>>153125018
As far as I'm concerned the "fans" who defended the X-Men actions in AvX (or even defend AvX as "good" writing) aren't really fans, just clout-chasers and shills trying to defend Marvel from getting called out on its bad decisions.

>>153127007
>ComicsAlliance
After all things revealed, I'm kinda distrusting anything that comes solely from them. The whole thing of Chris Sims harassment against Valerie D’Orazio and the shadow campaings against certain writers make me realize that maybe the site shouldn't have been the first source to back up any story.
I think the Kevin Smith book is shitty but at the same time I don't think it is worse that other bullshit stories that were happening in Marvel at the time and never got the same level of attention.

>>153129534
Moron. You retcon the fact that it was them and instead of the real ones, they were illusions casted by Jason. Thus the real ones now deal with Carol now having to live with the trauma and try to understand her better just like the writers now have to read up on feminism and talk to women to make sure that didn't happen again. Think, anon, think. Consider my pov and consider other options. What you see as glossing over is the ending you have in mind, not the one I have.

>>153129575
I would argue Daredevil Father is a worse story than Kevin Smith's Black Cat mini, and I didn't like the latter to begin with

Part of me wonders if Comics Alliance is part of the reason why comics discourse got so fucked in the 2010s

File: carol.jpg (97 KB, 640x347)

97 KB JPG

>>153125758
She was pretty insufferable sometimes

>>153129643
The problem was the dynamic of fans and amateurs jumping directly to write in a plataform with a vast reach without any proper vetting. That sudden jump of "importance" broke the minds of a lot of pundits in the 2000's. And of course comics journalism wasn't an exception.
Also didn't help that Marvel become way to chummy with them, imagine a fan being talking in a friendly manner with the guys in charge of Spider-man or their personal hero. That would warped the self worth of many people.

>>153127185
And those are shit too

>>153129767
why, he is kinda of an asshole and a freak

>>153129559
>Yeah I already got that Shooter takes some blame.
He can take some blame for the Claremont story too.
>Claremont defenders tend to be dogmatic like you that's why you get focus.
Let me be clear, I am not being dogmatic at all and I am not a big Claremont fan either. Don't start with this strawman shit. I really think you're misunderstanding me. I simply think that people are fine with the context of how the original story was made and the problems that entailed, but don't apply the same leeway to Claremont and what happened with that story and why it was made the way it was. People have certain thoughts about Claremont and apply dogmatic opinions because of that. Like you're doing with your criticism. You apply absolute criticism to him and not so much others. I'm just talking about the reality of what happened. The truth is we simply don't have a big enough picture to know what the fallout of the story is, aside from one article. More research would probably be needed to see. We don't know all the ins and outs of what happened either. So your hypotheticals are based on incomplete information to absolutely criticise Claremont. And I think that we need a more complete picture.

>>153129559
>>153130068
So apparently Jim Salicrup, the editor, asked Claremont for a story like that. Jim:
>[Avengers #200] “for better or worse, made it possible for The Avengers Annual #10 to exist.”
>“the wonderful part about being part of an ever-expanding fictional universe is that when something doesn’t work out the first time, there are plenty of opportunities to fix it in future comics.”
>Salicrup initiated the project by asking Chris Claremont for a plot and putting together the cover.
So clearly the editors felt it needed fixing.

>>153130068
>Take some blame for the claremont story too
Yeah that's what I meant.
>not dogmatic at all...don't start with the strawman shit
Alright. The reason I said that is that your interpretation of my words in your reply here >>153129483 seemed like you weren't understanding what I said fully, then. Why would other writers want to sabotage their own characters by making them look retarded? Wouldn't they also enjoy Iron Man, Cap, and Thor? Or at least the money that comes with it (Yes obviously)? So then why would you have the creative faculty of a middle schooler who thinks what was printed is now immutable and now you have to justify why your hero just ate paste like a retard in front of everyone? Do you a. Say that he thought it was magic serum that would grant him powers but now that he thinks about it, why would it be lying around? or b. He was mindcontrolled by a particularly childish villain?
Claremont was given the benefit of hindsight after 200 already came out and instead chose the option that would throw everyone but himself under the bus unintentionally or intentionally. It doesn't make sense to to go along with this premise that is unfair in all directions. But whatever like you said and this anon posted >>153130296 We have to add Salicrup to the pile of blame. But I still think as a writer with a brain, it would've been very simple to go with the direction I had in mind. That sounds egotistical and rich since I have hindsight over all of these decisions but I don't quite give a fuck when people seriously think this is a way to treat these characters. It's 2000s Marvel.

>>153131746
>That sounds egotistical and rich since I have hindsight over all of these decisions
I'm at least glad you acknowledged your own hindsight bias. I think overall comics have these kinds of problems all the time. I posted that Jim Salicrup quote stuff too. Personally I don't see these changes as necessarily always ruining things because ongoing comics never always full make sense. Doesn't mean I justify everything of course. Everyone has that thing that prevents them from suspending their disbelief, that really gets them stuck. And yet it is also baked into the DNA of comics. It is a weird complex, so intrinsically part of comics, yet everyone has that one change or thing that gets to them or that they find insulting. And sometimes these things do become reused entrenched ideas, which compounds the problem.

>what was printed is now immutable and now you have to justify why your hero just ate paste like a retard in front of everyone?
Heroes eating paste is something I see as intrinsically Marvel (especially say Spider-Man ). Ultimately though there are many different ways of dealing with a controversy. They could have written a story like you say. But again, that's an absolute position with hindsight with only a fraction of the information to intrinsically focus on Claremont primarily. Hence why I think the hindsight bias doesn't help. Ignoring it, playing it off differently, may have read as not confronting it head on or not taking the criticism seriously. In some ways you could say Ms Marvel insulting the Avengers was more being used as a possible audience mouth piece for the complaint. For all we know this was actually the right decision. I say that because the person who wrote The Rape of Ms Marvel in that link actually praised Claremont's story.

(1/2)

>>153131746
>>153132233
Honestly I would love to know more. I should research it. How big a controversy was it? We don't know, someone posted earlier that article but that person seemed to think others didn't criticise it. It would probably require research, did future letter pages mention it, did they receive letters about it etc.

>Claremont was given the benefit of hindsight after 200 already came out
I just think we don't have enough information to make this assertion. Allegedly, Claremont may have read that article The Rape of Ms Marvel. But going off of Jim Salicrup, Jim Shooter, Perez, Michelinie all said, they criticised it, felt bad about it. Salicrup and Shooter had some influences with Claremont's story, we don't know the full controversy or pressure, we don't know what fully influenced Claremont.

So for all we know, making them eat paste may have been the best decision available considering all the potential pressures and pitfalls. Salicrup seemed to think so.

(2/2)

>>153109027
I didn't like it.

>>153132253
>making them eat paste may have been the best decision
I dunno about that. Sure the suspension of disbelief can quickly surmount this problem and this somewhat got ignored and wasn't brought up. However, Claremont using this as a way to get Carol back means that her history and the history of the Avengers has this black mark of retardation that will always be brought back up because how else do you explain Binary? How else do you explain her disappearance and Rogue stealing her powers?
The full context will always run aground in this. Claremont couldn't have known all that but he sure as hell acted rash in making the characters look OOC in the same way 200 did, instead of fixing it and using an issue to explain that the Avengers were influenced in some way by Jason or some other method. I assume they wanted only one issue to fix this mess as they didn't want to dwell on it further. Claremont using this to act as a mouthpiece sure feels good to those people offended but then you just sacrificed your story quality in service of outside influences that don't want entertainment, they want "role models." Shit like current day comics. Yes, Salicrup and Shooter deserve blame for this solution as well that Claremont cooked up and were probably demoralized by how bad it looked. But, y'see, Claremont is the writer. The one putting the pen to paper. He deserves blame no matter what amount, in how he painted the characters. And the info we have, the writing we do have, reeks of Claremont's righteousness and delusion that he has had before. Yes, there are many sides to the story and it might even all be carefully set up so they each say one part and never reveal the full extent of the blame/story. Who knows, almost all of them are dead.
The point is, from what we do have, it is my opinion that Claremont's solution is chiefly his solution and thus I blame him more.

>>153133701
>Claremont's righteousness and delusion
This is exactly my problem I've mentioned a few times. These narratives. People create an idea of Claremont being fully arrogant, righteous, delusional, and then apply it to everything. Having read so many anecdotes about Marvel creators, their creative arguments, editorial fights, and office politics, I could label a bunch of guys the same way. But taking certain stories out of context to always imply that everything is motivated by this, creates an inescapable black hole that you can assign anything to. Some posts ago you kind of implied I was dogmatic or defending Claremont, and I clarified I wasn't and I wasn't a big fan of him either. But I still think this labelling shit is dogmatic criticism that people have in their back pocket whenever Claremont comes up. And in my opinion, it muddies the water even when their is genuine valid criticisms to be found in Claremont's work.

What I've been trying to do is stay grounded and ask questions about how the process actually happened. Pressures, comments and ideas from the situation, controversy, the other people, could have all formulated into the end product. But when you imply that it's all haughty self righteousness, it kind of eh. It isn't grounded. There has got to be an interview or something somewhere with Claremont giving some information.

I mean a comment on Shooter's blog stated:
>I know this is coming quite late in the conversation, but I actually did ask Chris Claremont about this yesterday. Chris didn't really lay the blame at anyone's feet, but was glad that he got to undo things a bit with the Avengers Annual.
That doesn't particularly read as self righteous to me.

>has this black mark of retardation
Like I said, to an extent all comics has this issue. For me it just depends on whether future stories justify ignoring the silly parts or not. But fans and creators alike can overly dwell on stuff to a ridiculous degree until it colours everything.

>>153133873
>arrogant, righteous, delusional, and then apply it to everything
Yes that is why I am applying it to this case but "everything" is not part of my argument. We know Carol was his waifu a bunch and we know how he gets when others touch his waifus. We've heard about Nocenti having to break X-Factor to him gently and he still stormed off. Yes he is not special as there are a bunch of retards who act like divas at Marvel. But yet, this is still the case with this particular story and he still deserves blame. This is cope anon. I can label a bunch too.
>assign anything to
Yes I agree. Yet you are trying to paint me as unreasonable when I have given my specific reasons and stated my opinion.
>imo this is dogmatic criticism that mudddies the water
Ok. Fine. Your opinion, that's ok. But I have said and given why I think that Claremont has shown to be a diva across mutliple different examples across years and multiple different characters. The same is true many other creators. And that is why I bring it up in the case of Carol.
Some blame is his.
>It's all haughty self-righteousness
That's how it appears and I have shown why. I have talked about his track record and his overall impunity when it comes to inserting his fetishes and other pet characters. You say that the other editors could have also influenced how the story was created. And they should have intervened more and made better decisions. But when you read that story with Carol it comes across very clearly as written solely for Carol to act as that mouthpiece to strike down the strawmen. It comes across as solely Claremont. Contd.

>>153134118
>>153133873
And if it is solely him, then those attititudes Carol is bringing have to come from somewhere and I don't care if I can't read his mind but the act of giving into that outrage is some form of haughty self-righteousness even when he gives into the crowd. Sure it appears selfless but in actuality that decision is still made as one that is "best for them." The same could be said for a decision that I would like to have been done as it is me appearing haughty and self-righteous. However, one is that bails out one's self only while the other could have given room for other books and future creators to deal with less of a mess. And a coworker like that has to live with that blame.
>what I've been trying to do is stay grounded and ask questions about how the process actually happened...it isn't grounded.
Whoa thanks for the lesson teach, I almost missed today's lesson on how to pat my own back. You have given such a great example. Though I feel like all that is a bit obvious and it just wasted time. Trying to convince someone like this is dumb. Yes when you frame it like that I look like a retard but then again, you framed it not me. So I think there might be bias there.
>Doesn't read as self-righteous to me
Yeah when it's small little soundbite that doesn't really paint a whole picture and only just says he was pleased, (which is what a person who is self-righteous and accomplishes their self-masturbatory session in the pages of the annual would feel) you can interpret a lot of things from that.
>fans and creators can overly dwell on stuff to a ridiculous degree
Ok? We're in a Avengers 200 thread. Oh you mean my comment on the black mark? Well, that's because as I said, a lot of Marvel canon pivots from this moment. You can't just ignore it as easily as you'd like people like me to. If you make copes like this, you might be on your way to being a Marvel editor.

Holy shit.

>>153134118
>We've heard about Nocenti having to break X-Factor to him gently and he still stormed off
Again, you've reduced something down quite a bit to imply a certain position from Claremont. Did you know that he gave a pitch to Shooter about using Jean Grey's sister in the X Factor book that Shooter originally did listen to, state was good/interesting. There was processes here, different things happened. It wasn't all, running off crying. And many fans agreed with that stuff as a problem to be honest.
>Yet you are trying to paint me as unreasonable
I'm not falling you unreasonable, if anything you tried painting me with that brush first, just that I think it feels singular in interpretation without questioning things more.
>But I have said and given why I think that Claremont has shown to be a diva across mutliple different examples across years
Like I've just demonstrated with X Factor, there has always been more to these events though, that's my point, there is always more to the story.
>I have talked about his track record and his overall impunity when it comes to inserting his fetishes and other pet characters.
But as we have demonstrated with Avengers #200, the influence of editors and others on what was allowed happened. How others felt about the issue. Other potential influences to it. Even Jim Shooter saying the buck stopped at him, saying, just Claremont did X or Y is wrong.
>However, one is that bails out one's self
I'm not trying to bail him out, simply say I'd be interested to know more, hence I've been looking things up to try and piece more together.
(1/2)

>>153135427
>Yeah when it's small little soundbite that doesn't really paint a whole picture
It is a small soundbite, but you're not really using any soundbites, just the same worn anecdotes without the whole picture.
>Well, that's because as I said, a lot of Marvel canon pivots from this moment.
Personally I think you're over egging things, you have not demonstrated in any way or proven this to have that big an influence. If anything, this story is more a internet novelty for random sites to bring up when discussing Ms Marvel/Captain Marvel. Not necessarily something that truly impacted editorial. Fundamentally this was a mistake born of deadlines that happened before and happened after.
>Whoa thanks for the lesson teach, I almost missed today's lesson on how to pat my own back. You have given such a great example
I'm trying to discuss things in good faith anon and have fun doing so, there is no need to be such a dick about it. I'm not parting my own back, I'm challenging things. At this point there isn't much to say, I can't convince you of anything and we're mostly repeating ourselves.
(2/2)

>>153135440
Cut out part of my post so I guess (3/2) kek:
>Well, that's because as I said, a lot of Marvel canon pivots from this moment
>We've heard about Nocenti having to break X-Factor to him gently and he still stormed off.
The true irony here is, that the true and most obvious black editorial mark, resulting in problems, still infamous and well talked about, with a proven editorial track record influence, IS X Factor, is bringing back Jean Grey and what that entailed. Meaning his questioning of it was and still, quite correct.

>>153134184
>Well, that's because as I said, a lot of Marvel canon pivots from this moment.
Not really, it's influence is mostly this: >>153135440
>If anything, this story is more a internet novelty for random sites to bring up when discussing Ms Marvel/Captain Marvel.
This Ms Marvel stuff is more comparable to the death of Iron Fist.
>>153120392
Dumb shit that people bring up every now and then. Similar to shit like Black Cat's rape:
>>153127007
It is really over exaggerating it to act like it was a true pivot for things. And not just another dumb thing that happened.

>>153135853
Exactly. If things really did pivot around such a moment I'd expect someone like Jim Shooter to have talked about it in depth on his blog. And to my knowledge, aside from the blog post mentioned in this thread talking shit about 200, he never considered it a watershed moment.

>>153135427
>running off crying
Yet that still happened (the whole meeting) and it implies that he is more susceptible to emotion which is chiefly what my argument is about when it comes to Carol.
I know there are processes but here we are arguing shit over we BOTH don't know. So your point is still bullshit.
>There is always more to this story
Yes in a grand scheme yes but that is not what we are talking about. I'm talking about what we do know and I am extrapolating that. If you and the creators are so adamant that I should just believe the most charitable conclusion like a good little naive moron then you're wrong.
>editor influences
And? I already acknowledged that and this is why I said this is my opinion moron. You can't change it. I'm not trying to change yours.
>trying to know more
Yet you didn't even try to understand what I said where given the info we have, Claremont's actions look selfish.
>same worn anecdotes
First-hand accounts are the best and only pieces of evidence we have. You brought up some yourself.
>big influence
Nigga I just said how this impacted whole swaths of history and there is that story how Bendis looked to this story for Avengers Disassembled. Fuck off.
>I'm just doing this for fun
Yeah well get some autism medicatiom because the way you said it was very patronizing and sorry but I'm not gonna go to your post and pull quotes to spell it all out for you. Maybe that's why you're going in circles.
>>153135472
I never said I wanted X-Factor, moron. This appears like your only true goal is just to defend Claremont like a biased fan.
>>153135853
>>153135883
Alright samefags, I'm not saying it's a pivot moment for the company, I fucking said he unintentionally or intentionally had a bunch of plot elements like Binary, Rogue tie to this. Fucking disingenuous faggots, playing intentionally dense. So if you wanted to devalue the continuity and characters like good little modern Marvel fags, you'd say shit like this.

>>153136818
>I never said I wanted X-Factor, moron
Are you okay? I never said or implied that at all. You take the worst bad faith interpretations of things. The reason I mentioned it is, it is a much more obvious example of something with lasting influences/issues. I was using it as an example.
>So your point is still bullshit.
Singular interpretations of anecdotes without full context or comparison to other situations is bullshit.
>already acknowledged that
I know you did, I reiterated a point.
>Yes in a grand scheme yes but that is not what we are talking about
Your position is based on shallow narratives, you're emotional and resorting to insults, whilst criticising Claremont for being emotional. You think I'm naive but you take the worst interpretations of everything I say, as well as the worst interpretations of all this other stuff, to paint one picture over and over again. You have acknowledged plenty of the things I say whilst still turning around and banging the same drum thus ignoring those things, which is why I had to reiterate points.
>Nigga I just said how this impacted whole swaths of history
You say that but didn't elaborate at all. Who directly said this directly influenced them? How many examples can you actually name and attribute to that? Like that one example, got some quotes or information?
>Yeah well get some autism medicatiom because the way you said it was very patronizing
You insulted me first, you strawmanned me several times and even now, when I clarified all my positions, you kept doubling down and you think I'm patronising?
>Fucking disingenuous faggots, playing intentionally dense.
Maybe because your points aren't clear and rather than clarifying you double down getting mad. I think over time continuity has been devalued and didn't defend that like you accused me of, but again, I'm questioning the specifics of this situation and you're behaving like a little bitch and accusing me of random things.

File: Claremont.png (644 KB, 549x786)

644 KB PNG

>>153136818
>>153136979
>This appears like your only true goal is just to defend Claremont like a biased fan.
Notice how you're back banging that drum? Taking that cheap shot again? All you can do.

I agree with Alan Moore's criticism of Claremont's dialogue, he wrote a piece about it, the stupid long speech Cyclop gives at the end of Dark Phoenix is silly. And on Dark Phoenix, I think it is overhyped by fans. I think his stories got ridiculous, especially near the end. People who think he was screwed over near the end of his run are silly and missed the writing on the wall. I think he had to use Classic X-Men stories to desperately edit his run, George Lucas style, to tinker with things, especially in regards to the love triangle. I think he did make some shitty reactive changes. But there are characters and stories I like. I don't blindly recommend "Claremont's run peak superheroes!!!" like many plebs do.

But this "diva" shit is just a cheap retort rather than something substantive. You think I am a biased Claremont fan, when I am absolutely not, but you're just another biased Claremont hater. If anything, the biggest bitch I have ever interacted with is John Bryne, and I talked to him online on multiple occasions. The fact that people labelled Claremont a diva given how Bryne has behaved over the years, is really quite telling.

>>153136979
>bad faith interpretations of things
Sometimes the pessimistic outlook is the most risk-adverse one and when you're dealing with grey areas, I want to look at it through both lenses of it being charitable or malicious. In this case, with how this discussion is going, you picking the one that has Claremont in the right and you wanting me to not take that as some sort of implied slight, just shows you have autism.
>singular interpretations of anecdotes without full context is bullshit
I just gave you those and you said those weren't good enough. To me they are.
>banging the same drum
Ok intentionally dense retard. You're getting mad that there could be a possibility that you're wrong.
>who directly said this influenced them
Nigga read. Bendis. I just said. And I was talking moreso of the history of Marvel having several key characters tie back to it.
>my points aren't clear
Ok professor enlighten me how to not be autistic when you're not even giving examples now that you're mad.
>accusing me of random things
Ladies and gentlemen, this anon is now obfuscating my own words and is blind to their own words.

>>153137080
They are both divas. And I didn't bring up Byrne. You're turning this into some commentary on the comics community when I just wanted to take the info we have and say that Claremont as the writer had the much simpler job of just making the Avengers not look bad by having them not look retarded when they could simply just be affected by some external event which is not hard to do, and that concept isn't something that has changed since the 80's. Defending Claremont like this like he was a kid who couldn't have figured out a way to do that is laughable. You're saying that editors might have forced him to make it that way. Then why didn't they mention that? That they tried to appease the outraged crowd by making their heroes look bad? Something fishy is going on. But with how Claremont has acted and the stories surrounding specifically his writing, I'm leaning towards him. You'll lean towards Shooter and the rest. Whatever.

File: Alan Moore on Chris Clare(...).png (243 KB, 812x721)

243 KB PNG

>>153137086
>the pessimistic outlook is the most risk-adverse one and when you're dealing with grey areas
I am trying to talk nuance in a grey area. You misinterpret this nuance as defending things you dislike, which was never my intent. I clarify, you insult.
>I just gave you those and you said those weren't good enough.
You didn't give full context, like I just said.
>Nigga read. Bendis. I just said. And I was talking moreso of the history of Marvel having several key characters tie back to it.
Bitch, READ. I literally said:
>Like that one example, got some quotes or information?
I was asking you to elaborate on Bendis, provide more information. Can you seriously not read? You made a statement, I want more information. Are you just completely averse to reading and providing that information to prove your point? You cannot accuse me of:
>You're getting mad that there could be a possibility that you're wrong.
When you fail to actually argue your point in a substantive way and just hand wave, well Bendis. What did Bendis actually say about this story directly? If you want to prove a point and a connection to Bendis, do so. Then show more examples. And I would admit I was wrong. Can you name several examples, with quotes or information to back them up?

>>153137141
>And I didn't bring up Byrne.
Why do you get mad whenever anyone talks context to challenge your narratives? Labelling human beings in a singular way based on the same half-anecdotes is bullshit. Especially when some others have acted in far worse ways and yet don't get given that same label.
>You're saying that editors might have forced him to make it that way.
I never once said that or used the word "forced". Influenced maybe. I am simply saying, we have half a picture and maybe could use some nuance in navigating around things. Whilst you just take a concrete position whilst accusing me of not wanting to listen.

>>153137230
I literally said Bendis wasn't my main point, the point wasn't that the editorial and industry all collectively decided to be influenced by this event, I am explicitly telling you that the way Claremont wrote it is retarded. You are now focusing on tangents.
You are now more concerned with sucking off Claremont and the fact Byrne is tired as a subject and anons here felt like clowning on Claremont instead. It is a more grey area but he is ultimately the writer and yes there was probably editorial inteference. Yet when I recognize someone's handiwork and writing in the same type of tone in a bad story, suddenly I am delusional in ascribing this to him. Byrne being given that label all the time and you saying he doesn't shows you live on a different planet. And splitting hairs over forced or influenced doesn't change the overall point. Yeah one is more strongly worded but it boils down to Claremont having to take some of the blame. Otherwise he wouldn't have his name on the story. Yeah there's nuance but like I said, I recognize these trends/instances and have made my conclusion.

File: Alan Moore on Chris Clare(...).png (552 KB, 640x899)

552 KB PNG

>>153137442
>I literally said Bendis wasn't my main point
I never implied it was? I am saying, you make a point and need to elaborate your example. I am not focusing on tangents. I am saying, show quotes (editors, writers, creators), find examples and prove your narrative and I will change my mind. You've literally just refused to elaborate. And yet you accuse me of not wanting to change my mind? Anon, what?
>You are now more concerned with sucking off Claremont
What are you dense? Are you retarded? I literally criticised him in the last two posts I made and posted images criticising him.
>Byrne
This is my point, dumb dumb:
>((Everytime Claremont is brought up we have that same comment.))
>"Claremont is an emotional diva! Here is the same three half-anecdotes as evidence!"
>Someone like Bryne, numerous bad behaviours, doesn't get fully labelled the same way overall by the fandom?
Sure some people call out Bryne's bad behaviour, but he is not labelled in the same way. The implication is, that maybe these preconceived notions you're expressing aren't that substantive. It is very easy to jump to the first narrative you see and make that stick. You refuse to see it any other way. I am open to your view but you refused to provide decent information, even though you acknowledge it as a "grey area". I just want more information. Challenging your statements is me requiring more evidence/analysis, which you refuse to provide.
>suddenly I am delusional in ascribing this to him.
I never used the word delusional. Why do you do this self-flagellation?
>And splitting hairs over forced or influenced doesn't change the overall point.
Anon, I am not trying to split hairs, I mentioned it because it shows how you twist everything in this conversation, either majorly or slightly. Forced means something far different.
>I recognize these trends/instances and have made my conclusion.
You can't even express these trends/instances with information even when asked.

>>153137652
>I literally criticized him
You're trying to frame other more obvious issues and criticizing those as a level-headed take but then showing bias towards this instance. Every writer has flaws and pointing out the easy ones as a guilty pleasure or something you're willing to look past doesn't mean you're not biased when it comes to shit like this.
>but he is not labelled in the same way
Evidence not found in your post, that is also an anecdote about a large swath of the community.
>preconcieved notions aren't that substantive
Yes but that is all we have and thus, anons in a forum like this will take whatever we get, point out shit like Claremont and Byrne's falling out over Colossus's page as evidence that they are divas, and then extrapolate that and still recognize that isn't the full story. Yet, given every other story that is in line with that. Thus, they get repeated because that is all there is. Challenging your statements is me wanting you to provide the evidence to the contrary when you just say, "well we're not absolutely sure! Other people supervised them!" Yeah but you fail to see the overall history of all these creatives in this medium they look down upon. That point is subject to distortion and bias. However if you know the history of these people, then I think it leads to points of view like mine.
Claremont getting mad and acting rash is much more simple and in line with his personality.
I don't have as much evidence handy on me. Maybe other anons will provide it. Sure, I should provide more, and I look foolish for not doing so. I'll concede on that. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the world. It just doesn't exist right now for this argument. Whatever. I'll move past that. If you can't and call me a retard for that, whatever.
>delusional...self-flagellation
You're telling me I am wrong. What else are you implying? I said the direct consequence of your point and if I am wrong about something then what else would I be?

>>153137442
>>153137652
>>153138089
You two just need to fuck and get it over with

File: Classic Marvel.jpg (1.76 MB, 1920x1080)

1.76 MB JPG

>>153138089
>given every other story that is in line with that.
Sometimes fandoms create cults of opinions around creators. People make grand narratives and refuse to consider exceptions. Sometimes when you actually dig into it, you find that there is only a few examples and not this list that was implied. By challenging these narratives, I am not saying only one way is right, I want to challenge people's biases as well as my own.
>Evidence not found in your post, that is also an anecdote
You have been arguing about specific things that could be potentially be found, which is why I questioned you about evidence. I get that you now want to pull a "No U" against me on the topic of evidence, fair enough, yes it is a completely anecdotal point, but for me that would be found in how nearly every conversation on /co/ about Claremont goes the same way.
>Claremont getting mad and acting rash is much more simple and in line with his personality.
You brought up the X-Factor situation previously, mentioning an emotional tense moment, but this doesn't create a whole pattern, like I said about those opinions, there needs to be more examples balance with context. The situation had several different moments. So labelling it one way, defines it one way, which you then call a trend and then extrapolate from that a whole personality.
>you fail to see the overall history of all these creatives
Well that is because you explicitly aren't providing an overall history. You're providing a grand narrative view along with themes which matter to you. I'd love an actual in-deph overall history.
>I'll concede on that.
Fair enough. At least you admitted it. I am not going to call you a retard, anon, I did genuinely just want to discuss shit.
>You're telling me I am wrong.
I am not saying: "You're wrong and bad." I am asking you to perhaps look at it in a different way and provide more information. But fair enough, maybe other anons will.

>>153138440
Wha'chu giggling about, Wanda?
And man, I wish they'd bring back Storm's cat eyes, but then again I wish they'd bring back a lot of things

>>153138440
>You brought up the X-Factor situation previously, mentioning an emotional tense moment, but this doesn't create a whole pattern, like I said about those opinions, there needs to be more examples balance with context. The situation had several different moments. So labelling it one way, defines it one way, which you then call a trend and then extrapolate from that a whole personality.
NTA but Claremont was also pissed about Wolverine getting an ongoing solo series during his original tenure on the book. And another anon somewhere else in the thread posted a blog post from an editor saying Michelenie and Claremont were feuding at the time of the Avengers debacle

>>153138817
>Claremont was also pissed about Wolverine getting an ongoing solo series during his original tenure on the book.
How so? From what I heard, Miller and Claremont came up with the mini series and seemed quite happy with it:
>writer Chris Claremont and writer/artist Frank Miller came up with the basic idea while sharing a cab at San Diego Comic-Con, so they were tasked with creating the four-issue series.
And then Claremont was on the original team of the 1988 solo series. And at the time he wasn't so much "pissed" but rather "burnout" by how much the X-line had expanded. It was 1988 after all.

>Michelenie and Claremont were feuding at the time of the Avengers debacle
I read the blog post. There is no more information about this to pass judgement on if it was reasonable or not. And such arguments happened between creators all the time. Random Reddit shit suggests it was about Carol, but then Shooter's comment seems to suggest it proceeded this shit.

>>153139376
>but then Shooter's comment seems to suggest it proceeded this shit.
I mean: Shooter's comment suggests it happened before Avengers #200 not necessarily after it.

>>153139376
Anon, if we all say "Claremont was a good boy he dindu nuffin" will you be satisfied?

>>153139456
>Anon, if we all say "Claremont was a good boy he dindu nuffin" will you be satisfied?
This, shit again. I criticised Claremont multiple times ITT anon. Anon, when you give a statement and someone analyses it, that doesn't mean they are defending someone, maybe they heard different things about that stuff and want to discuss that. Further a discussion, have a debate. I don't want to be a dick or be patronising but you're being a dick by knee jerk reacting in that way. Come on man.

>>153139530
That's not the anon you were debating. I am. But yeah this the bed you made for yourself.

>>153140560
>That's not the anon you were debating.
I know it wasn't. That was pretty obvious.
>But yeah this the bed you made for yourself.
Not really, people just want to chat shit.

>>153127931
>Legitimately how else do you get out of the rape hole they built
By driving home that it absolutely is 100% consensual and the grown adults bitching about the plot of an Avengers comic that was thrown together at the last minute to meet the deadlines are people who need to just shut the hell up.

>One panel best forgotten is not the same as a full issue which wrote out a character.
It's literally one panel of Avengers #200 that's the cause of the whole controversy as well though. Carol getting written out of comics wasn't an avoidable situation here, her solo book got cancelled and it had been decided to retire her as a character. She's lucky they didn't just decide to kill her, as happened to other characters whose solo books got cancelled.

>Correct me if I'm wrong but you appear to give them the benefit of the doubt in coming up with the story and making mistakes. But you refuse to give Claremont the benefit of the doubt in following it up. Absolute responsibility for one person, none for someone else.
This is a really disingenuous argument. The point people are making is that the single moment in Avengers #200 that gave some people cause to think a rape had happened was a mistake nobody caught due to the circumstances under which the book was written.

Once Marvel had decided that a mistake had been made and they needed to address the fallout from that story, Claremont deciding to confirm that yes it was rape and to put the blame on the Avengers was just about the most horrible choice that could have been made for how to deal with this. It's horrible for Carol AND the Avengers, and this was entirely Claremont's decision. I can't see how doing this satisfied anyone except letting the people who were yelling rape feel vindicated.

>>153129378
Even Shooter didn't have the time and ability to micromanage everything at once and tard wrangle everyone working for him. Once X-Men took off as one of Marvel's top books, Claremont and Byrne would both get away with doing a lot of things to characters that editorial really should have stepped in and stopped. Sometimes it was just editors wanting to be their friends instead of being their boss, sometimes it was just the star talent getting away with things the lower-tier guys wouldn't.

Sure, the buck stops with Shooter and he let both stories slip through, but we can be more charitable about a book being a mess when it was a last-minute rewrite four guys worked on than when it's a book one dude worked on alone that was intended to address people's problems with the first story, and instead chose to double down on things by canonizing the perceived problem.

>>153124221
They team Up many times in Silver Age, they team Up against onslaught.
Hell, I think is retarded how many Mutties Bad future were neither Hulk and Thor Survive or help, but to be fair, Xmen writers are obsessed to made mutants being the best.