web stats

CSBG Archive

Cronin Theory of Comics – Nostalgia/Importance Quotient

Here’s a simple enough equation I have come up with. The greater the importance of the scene in the comic book, the greater damage it does to the story for the scene to be steeped in nostalgia. Nostalgia is not a bad thing, per se. Little geeky touches in a comic that only longterm fans will appreciate is fine by me. Alan Moore’s work is filled with stuff like that. When a book like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen has enough little nods to give Jess Nevins something to do, you know that there is a lot of nostalgia involved. However, the big difference there is that the nostalgia did not affect any IMPORTANT parts of the story.

Compare that with this week’s Astonishing X-Men.

The cliffhanger of the comic book and the most dramatic moment of the comic?

It’s this….

kitty.jpg

That, of course, is an homage to the end of Uncanny X-Men #132…

Uncanny-X-Men-132-pic1-Wolverine.jpg

THAT, I believe, is not a good ratio.

When nostalgia begins to affect important moments in your story? That’s not good. It’s not some insanely awful thing or anything like that, but it doesn’t make for good comic book writing either.

Reader markus had an excellent point where he noted that I left out a step, and didn’t specify WHY it is bad. Luckily, he also supplied exactly the type of reason I was thinking of

On that latter matter I’d suggest it’s because it’s pastiche, i.e. a copy reference that often (but not always) forgets to provide a deeper meaning of its own. Instead, it often relies on the cited/referenced earlier work to provide meaning or impact. It’s a bit like saying “that was great!” instead of “this is great!”; “comics used to be good” instead of “comics are good”.

That’s exactly what I’m thinking of, with the “pastiche” point being the most important part, in that pastiches are examples of openly imitating the works of earlier creators, with the intent of commenting on the past work. This is openly imitating the works of earlier creators….period. You’re not CREATING anything here. You’re just saying, “Hey, remember that cool scene? Here it is again.” That’s not good writing. It is not clever or original to just repeat a famous scene.

Can anyone think of some examples of some comics that gave too much importance to nostalgic scenes?

47 Comments

Can’t hep with the example, but you also seem to be missing a reason why such things are likely bad writing.
On that latter matter I’d suggest it’s because it’s pastiche, i.e. a copy reference that often (but not always) forgets to provide a deeper meaning of its own. Instead, it often relies on the cited/referenced earlier work to provide meaning or impact. It’s a bit like saying “that was great!” instead of “this is great!”; “comics used to be good” instead of “comics are good”. Ultimately one ends up with a series of increasingly empty pointers to past moments of greatness, whose value is slowly being erroded by inferior imitations.

(Moore’s “little nods” don’t face this problem as much because nothing is relying on them. It doesn’t matter to the story if you get it.)

On that latter count I’d be inclined to excuse Whedon here: the scene is about the one remaining X-Person challenging the group that just demolished the X-“Men”. It’s a fairly straightforward “I’ll be back” (which in itself cites earier works down the ages) and works as such on its own. The reference to UXM #132 is neat, but not strictly necessary for understanding or enjoying the scene.

All that said, Whedon’s work has been a retro trip throughout (Kitty! Colossus!) and IMO also sells itself as such. Given that, not providing moments such as the above could – IMO rightly – be criticised as not living up to one’s side of the deal.

I totally agree with you on this, and it’s one of the things that’s really exasperating about DC right now (I don’t want to seem to be picking on them, it’s just they seem to be more into this lately)

-Whole story arcs just to bring back Krypto, Kara Zor El and other Silver Age elements into Superman’s continuity.
-Putting Lex Luthor back in purple leotards and green armor
-Diana back as Diana Prince (ok, so this one is being presented as Wonder Woman rediscovering herself… I can wait and see on this for a bit)

That’s all I can think of right now, but far too many silver age and Super Friends ‘homages’ seem to be popping up lately (Wendy and Marvin on Teen Titans? …sheesh…)

I agree with you on almost everything you ever write, Brian, but I think you picked a bad example here. I loved that final image of AXM this week! I think the shadows are a bit weird (what kind of light source could project stalactite shadows like that? The angle seems impossible–that distracted me far more than the obvious, and cool, homage), but it’s a fun scene in a fun book.

In fact, I don’t even mind the other examples of “bad nostaligia” that Ticoman points out. Yeah, Marvin and Wendy seemed silly, but they didn’t ruin the story, and I don’t read comic books to see bad guys in business suits, so Lex in his purple and greens is just fine with me (and for the record, I read comics because the ladies love it, of course).

So you guys will have to do a better job trying to convince me that these allusions are ruining the stories. For me, they are extra layers of fun.

It probably won’t surprise you to hear that I think you’re wrong in this instance, Brian.

While it’s true that nostalgic allusions can harm a story (c.f. Dreamwave’s Tranformers ongoing, which was so slavishly steeped in kissing the cartoon continuity’s ass that I was ready to drop the book before the company imploded), I don’t think it’s true in this case.

The point of the scene in question is to show that now, after the Hellfire Club has taken out the X-Men (in their own home, no less), Kitty Pryde is going to come back and kick some evil mutant tail, AND that this is going to be a significant period of development for her character. The allusion here reinforces that point, and gives the reader something to expect. It works very well as a cliffhanger, setting up the next issue. My main problem was I have to wait until August to see what happens next.

Could Whedon have done something more original to make the same point? Sure. But that doesn’t make him wrong for going with this choice.

moose n squirrel

June 24, 2006 at 7:47 am

I’ll defend Brian’s example here. The problem isn’t just that it’s a nod to pure nostalgia, it’s that it’s a cliffhanger that consists of a nostalgic callback. The purpose of a cliffhanger is to make you want to see what comes next; the purpose of a nostalgic callback is to make you think about what’s happened in the past. These are at cross-purposes, because anyone who actually gets the reference won’t be thinking about the next issue of Astonishing X-Men – they’ll be thinking about Uncanny X-Men #132. So we have the precise inversion of the Alan Moore/LOEG case, where the comic works more if you miss the reference, because then at least the cliffhanger does what it’s supposed to do.

All of this leaves aside the specifically Whedoncentric problems of juxtaposing Wolverine and Kitty Pride in just this way (“Kitty is cool! Kitty is Wolverine! I heart Kitty so much I based my entire career on writing versions of her character over and over again!”).

I never would’ve noticed that. But I have no interest in reading old X-Men comics.

…or in reading Joss’s X-Men comics, come to think of it.

“Can anyone think of some examples of some comics that gave too much importance to nostalgic scenes?

Kurt Busiek’s entire Avengers run.

Jeph Loeb’s entire career (especially the incomprehensible Superman/Batman #25)

I never would’ve noticed that. But I have no interest in reading old X-Men comics.

…or in reading Joss’s X-Men comics, come to think of it.

So you post in this discussion about new comics relying on old comics references just to remind us that you aren’t interested in the new comic in question or the old comic in question? Ooooookay…so what was the point?

T., Brian posted about the nostalgia factor, not Bill. And Bill’s nuts anyway.

As usual with a lot of comics these days, and Whedon’s Astonishing X-Men in particular, it seems like writers get an image in their head and then make sure that the book gets to that point. I wonder if Whedon thought of this panel months ago and then wrote the whole story to reach it. That would be a shame.

That being said, I actually read this at the store on Wednesday, because I was unencumbered by children and had some extra time. This is a pretty good comic book. Not enough to make me start buying it, but I think it works relatively well even if Whedon simply wanted to get to the Kitty Pryde kicking ass panel.

And how did she know what Logan said lo those many years ago? That’s what I want to know …

I fail to see how the Kitty scene is destroyed by nostalgia. I just read the panel and said to myself “cool – Kitty is going to kick some ass next issue!” I didn’t even realise it was an homage to the past. I thought you said that a tip-of-the-hat to old readers without getting in the way of a new readers’ enjoyment is what qualifies as a good use of nostalgia? I’d think by that definition Astonishing X-Men uses nostalgia well.

T., Brian posted about the nostalgia factor, not Bill. And Bill’s nuts anyway.

Greg, I realize that Bill made the comment and Brian posted the original article, I just don’t understand why Bill would post in a thread about a new comic referencing an old comic just to point out that both the old comic and the new comic are beneath him and add nothing else to the discussion. Just came off a little snobby to me.

I agree with Brian’s overall point, I just think that he chose a bad example since as others have pointed out, someone who isn’t aware of the original story could easily enjoy the homage on its own.

Here I don’t think the callback obstructs the emotional impact of the scene, because the intended tone is the same for both scenes. If it had been some visual that reflected a completely different tone and totally unrelated story, that would have been bad.

I’d compare it to the old movie references you sometimes get in the films of folks like Sam Raimi and Quentin Tarantino and Peter Jackson and George Lucas and so on- there’s a shot in REVENGE OF THE SITH where Yoda brushes his hair back just like a character in SEVEN SAMURAI, and it’s a fun little reference that still fits the moment and the character.

There’s also a problem if the nostalgic callback gets in the way of comprehension, though that’s more a story thing.

T: So you post in this discussion about new comics relying on old comics references just to remind us that you aren’t interested in the new comic in question or the old comic in question? Ooooookay…so what was the point?

I think you’ve covered the point already, there. No, not that there was none; that I, being someone unfamiliar with the old X-comics, would not notice this. New readers may benefit from it being a fun moment, and older reader would say “Deja vu? I love deja vu!” and all that.

“I wonder if Whedon thought of this panel months ago and then wrote the whole story to reach it. That would be a shame.”

An admitted Whedon fanboy, I’ll defend him and claim this isn’t the case. Throughout his career, he’s repeatedly stated how anytime he gets a situation like this in his head and he think’s it’s the best idea to base a story around, he cuts it, because that’s not good writing and it usually frees the story to develop on its own, rather than to reach a certain end.

I’d like to think he’d follow that example in his comics writing too, but who knows…

moose n squirrel

June 24, 2006 at 12:16 pm

I just read the panel and said to myself “cool – Kitty is going to kick some ass next issue!” I didn’t even realise it was an homage to the past.

But that’s exactly the point. It worked for you precisely because you missed the reference, so it just worked as a cliffhanger. For anyone who picked up on the reference, it was a nostalgic callback which defused the cliffhanger (because a callback gets you to think about what’s happened in the past instead of getting you excited about what’s going to happen in the future). It’s not that it’s bad because it’s nostalgic, it’s bad because it’s nostalgic in exactly the wrong place.

Moose, I’d argue that it works whether or not you recognize the reference. If you don’t recognize it, you think “Kitty’s going to kick some ass” and get excited. If you do recognize it, you think “Kitty’s going to kick some ass on a Wolverine level” and get excited. Basically, it’s not shoehorned into the story in a jarring way that disrupts the flow. I think recognition enhances the cliffhanger rather than defusing it.

I remember the original scene and when this month’s scene popped up, while persuing a friend’s weekly stash, I called his attention to it. As he’s not near as ancient as I, he did not immediately see the homage, though he knew of the context. Interestingly, for purposes of this discussion anyway, when I quit reading comics regularly, it was when Kitty was still using Wolverine as her idea of “bad ass”. Now, I understand she’s all grown up and legal and such, and I don’t know if the years and Jubilees between have lessened the relationship, but I agreed with my friend, the new reader, that the homage worked well for what it was.

That being said, it did strike me as a bit of lazy writing. Of course, Kitty’s gonna riff on Wolverine after the team gets a major butt-kicking from the Hellfire Club. Sorta like the old “all Asian people know kung fu” thing to me. Or maybe I’m just a cynical old poop.

I agree with Brian’s point, but I do agree that the scene works rather well to a reader that doesn’t know the original. Actually, the scene works better to the readers that doesn’t know it’s a hommage. My whole problem with it, is that the hommage highlight my problems with the issue (and Whedon’s run as a whole). I could not stop the feeling that while Claremont choose Wolverine because the story asked for him, that Whedon choice of Kitty has more to do with his crush on her than anything else. It also made me think about how little sense it does for the Hellfire Club to attack the X-Men in the mansion when they could use Emma to attract them anywhere else (I mean, I don’t read the other mutant books, but there’s suppose to be 3 X-teams plus the New Mutants at the mansion, right?). So, by doing a very direct rip-off of Uncanny #132, Whedon ended pointing out for me that this whole use (which is decent enough on itself) really felt as far weaker version of the original Claremont/Byrne story.

I didn’t mind the reference myself, although those comics have been reprinted enough times that I’m surprised there are people who didn’t pick up on it.

If I have any objection, it’s that Kitty is being elevated to Woverine levels of “kick-assedness.” She’s never been my favorite character, and it’s a little annoying to see her become the greatest “X-Man” of all.

Guess I’d rather see Storm or Rogue do the honors …

I’m of two minds about it – it seems like a boring, repetitive way to show that Kitty is y’know, gettin’ all “bad ass”, but if the next issue opens up with her being laughably ineffectual and being casually defeated then I would find that totally ironic and think it very clever.

And I don’t think finding a scene like that awkward depends on having read Uncanny X-Men a hundred years ago or whatever, scenes where the hero is “now yer in trouble ’cause that just pissed me off!” are so common, in action movies, comics, pro wrestling, whatever, it’s trite and ridiculous no matter when it’s done.

I don’t read the X-men so I can’t really comment on the example above, is it meant as a wink or is it something the issue revolves around setting up?

From what I can see there seems to be three storytypes/devices that involve pushing nostalgia buttons.

1. The Wink/nod – Where you get a throw away bit or comment to something that can be read straightforward easily enough but means something to us more hardcore types. Such as the “Doomsday” bit in the recent All-Star Superman issue, you don’t need to know what that is but it’s a nod to past stories and the people who read them.

2. Returning a past element in order to tell new stories about them. This is where I would place things like the return of Krypto, where a writer (Joe Kelly specifically) had a story they wanted to tell and went about reinstating the character so they could tell it. Did he HAVE to do such in the manner he did? No, I’m sure if he really wanted he could’ve gone about doing an elseworlds. However, I don’t see why one should deny usage of a concept or character just because John Byrne said so.

3. The “love letter”. This is where I would clasify stories that exist solely to remind you of how great past stories were. The recent issue of Teen Titans comes to mind where the whole thing was basically “Hey, remember how weird and creepy Morrison’s Doom Patrol was?”.

The only approach I have any real problem with is the third one because it doesn’t feel like you’re getting much of anywhere with it. Is this panel a case of 1 or 3?

I was wondering when the Doomsday example would come up, JR. While I think you didn’t need to get that reference to enjoy the story, it was definitely the only moment of the series so far where I had to think, “you know, that wouldn’t be that interesting if I wasn’t a Superman fan.”

I wasn’t aware of the Wolverine reference when I read the issue, but I was underwhelmed by that ending. The first thing I thought was that the art looked bad. Kitty is in some kind of weird, contorted position like she is about to try and shoulder her way through the panel. The speech bubble bugged me too. After pages of her thoughts, she suddenly starts talking out loud, but there’s no one to talk to. It just seemed silly. I know pronouncements to nobody aren’t exactly uncommon in comics, but it really stood out here.

Then I found out that it was an reference to an earlier work, and I still thought it looked bad. Now there was a reason for Kitty’s bizarre posture and it was a completely irrelevant to the action in the story. Her fist is clenched and her arm is in that position to mimic a piece of art, and not because it is a natural motion. At least on Wolverine it makes sense, because he always does that. It also helps that Wolverine looks like he’s fighting the current, but Kitty looks more like she’s just turning around. The water barely splashes off her.

I think if they’d make Kitty looks more natural it might have worked better. Especially if they’d just made her comment a thought instead. She doesn’t have to speak it for it to be an homage, and thinking it seems less out of place given what has come before in the issue.

I agree with you on almost everything you ever write, Brian, but I think you picked a bad example here. I loved that final image of AXM this week! I think the shadows are a bit weird (what kind of light source could project stalactite shadows like that? The angle seems impossible–that distracted me far more than the obvious, and cool, homage), but it’s a fun scene in a fun book.

Thanks for the compliment, Tim!

And you are absolutely correct (as was Markus), that I should have spent more time convincing you in the piece. I edited some new stuff in, but I’ll mention it here, too.

My main concern is the pastiche effect of the scenes. Pastiches are examples of openly imitating the works of earlier creators, with the intent of the new work being to comment on the past work (like Wide Sargasso Sea or pretty much any metafiction work). This instance is openly imitating the works of earlier creators…period. No comment or anything – just an open imitation. You’re not CREATING anything here. You’re just saying, “Hey, remember that cool scene? Here it is again.” That’s not good writing. It is not clever or original to just repeat a famous scene.

And while I don’t think it’s good writing, I also don’t think the concept is that big of a deal, but I think the more important the scene is, the bigger the deal is. If you do scenes like the above as throwaway scenes, it’s one thing. But when you’re doing them as the cliffhanger/climatic moment? Not so good.

How would you write out that equation in mathmatical terms?

N >= i = Dm

N being Nostalgia
i being Importance of scene and
Dm being the amount of Damage done?

Still not sold on the example, although I totally agree on the concept you are trying to explain. I just think there are much better nostalgia examples out there.

For example, Superman/Batman #25. Loeb desperately tries to find every single silver age concept he can to throw in there. At one point he tries to make a reason for the Composite Superman to appear. What’s his reason to appear in the story? Superman and Batman are in a big free-for-all brawl and Mxyzptlk is watching from space. The premise (I think) is that Mxy wants to get them ready for the upcoming Crisis. As their fighting, Mxy appears to think they aren’t fighting together well enough (despite having a team-up book for 25 issues and being on the JLA together for about a decade now) and he says to himself “Now…How Do I Get These Dum Dums To Work Together After All This Time…? OH. Sometimes I even impress myself!” He snaps his fingers, Supes and Bats merge and *poof* Composite Superman makes his first post-Crisis appearance. The Composite appears in all of 3 panels before Superman and Batman are separated. It was done so stupidly and in a way that was totally inorganic to the story just because Loeb wanted to make an excuse to work an old concept into the story. He pretty much wrote the whole issue in a way to get him to that point, and it still didn’t work.

Much better example than this Astonishing X-Men one, I believe, since in this case the panel actually makes sense and works within the story.

I don’t think whether the scene is readable without knowing the homage is that important, because it is still an example of a writer just taking an older scene and reusing it, wholesale, without making some sort of critical comment upon the original scene.

And I am saying that, if you are going to do that, it should only be done in scenes that do not have massive impacts upon the plot of the comic book, because you shouldn’t be taking scenes that are important to YOUR work wholesale from OTHER creators.

It WOULD be worse, if the scene was important AND only readable if you had prior knowledge of the original scene. I certainly do agree that that is WORSE. And in that case, there are many nostalgic important scenes WORSE than the Astonishing X-Men scene in question.

But I think that’s just varying degrees of bad.

I think it is bad to have your important scenes just be wholesale reproductions of previous creators’ scenes. But yeah, there are a lot of scenes even WORSE out there.

It’s not a scene, though- it’s a moment. A single panel.

Hey, Kurt Busiek’s Avengers run was great. It was steeped in nostalgia, but at least it was honest about it, and it still managed to move people forward as characters. I think that if there’s going to be a reason to do it overtly, you could do worse than take a look at what Busiek and Perez did. The Ultron arc was especially fantastic.

The fact that people think this is actually gonna have some effect on Kitty Pryde’s character and contribute to her evolution shows how bad our collective memory is.

First, we fall for Marvel re-doing the superhero registration act, and now people think that Kitty Pryde will finally become her own adult character.

Never gonna happen. First of all, how can you possibly expect a series that is intentionally steeped in nostalgia to move characters forward. That’s nonsensical. Second, there’s the fact that Kitty Pryde has had dozens of thees moments and never makes that move forward. We’ve seen this before. Kitty Pryde gets cornered, we get to see how much of a badass she really is (aka hundreds of fans get new masturbation material), and in the end there’s this notion that now Kitty Pryde will take care of herself and be an awesome confident person. Remember when Claremont cut her hair and gave her claws?

Except that never happens because Kitty Pryde’s fans don’t really want her to move on. They want her to keep being the Kitty Pryde they know and love. The one who’s got a little purple dragon, looks up to Wolverine, loves the quiet guy, and is an underdog. The Kitty Pryde that these people love is thirteen years old, and now we’ve got this weird character who’s supposed to be college-age, but keeps devolving and re-evolving, just so people can keep getting that moment over and over again.

And that’s the real problem with doing a moment like the one from AXM. It pulls the character back to an old idea, and buries her in it. After all, if Kitty Pryde finally becomes the mature ass-kicker after this, it will mean that all the other times she supposedly did that already didn’t count. It erases parts of the character’s history.

You can’t create a character’s future by re-creating the past.

That’s just the standard illusion-of-change, though. So far in this run Kitty does seem more mature than she did back in the old days, whether she regresses or not is up to the next writer who gets hold of her.

I’m not really “falling” for any of it, the registration arc, Parker’s unveiling, etc., I just take whatever entertainment value these things produce on their own until the next change obliterates them. I’m not too frustrated with that (trying to make sure that all changes are indeed permanent with long-lasting ramifications would put good writers at the mercy of bad ones as well as vice versa).

But the difference is that this is the illusion of change, except the illusion is actually of regression. It’s trying to disguise regression as change disguised as regression. It just doesn’t work. It doesn’t do anything.

moose n squirrel

June 25, 2006 at 4:09 pm

hundreds of fans get new masturbation material… The Kitty Pryde that these people love is thirteen years old

So disturbing and yet so true.

Regression to maturity? I’m not sure I follow. (Nor do I see why it should matter, if it’s purely a continuity issue.)

You can’t create a character’s future by re-creating the past.
Days of Future past …? ;-)

Seriously, that was an awesome comment. Thanks.

Apocada, that happens with a lot of characters, there are plenty of worse offenders. Two that come to mind are Iceman and Nightwing. Iceman is always supposed to come into his own and realize the full extent of his powers. It happens, and the next writer regresses his right back to where he was. Same thing with Nightwing, how many times have we seen him break out of Batman’s “shadow” now? He’s been breaking out of Batman’s shadow for over 25 years now!! And after each time he breaks out of Batman’s shadow, the very next issue he has an inferiority complex and is doing what he does best again: losing fights.

Here’s the kicker. Just like I responded to Greg Hatcher’s recent article, once again I don’t think it’s the fan’s fault. Fans have shown that they’ll respond positively to growth if you’ll let them. Look at Wally West, the character was lucky enough to leave the pen of Wolfman early in the New Teen Titans run, so Wolfman didn’t get a chance to get him thoroughly stigmatized as a total loser like he did with the other characters. In time, Wally West left his mentor’s shadow for good, never mentioned inferiority again, and if anything his fanbase grew.

So I think it’s a bad habit we’re getting into to blame fans all the time. The problem is the writers. THEY want to write that pivotal moment in the character’s life, so they choose to invalidate the previous story to make it happen. Chuck Austen wants to write Iceman’s coming of age story and get credit for maturing the character so he invalidates the previous Iceman coming of age story. Devin Grayson wants to get credit as THE writer that brought Nightwing out of Batman’s shadow so she invalidates the last story that brought him out of Batman’s shadow.

I don’t think this concept is limited to “scenes” (which I believe does included singular moments like the X-Men example). In my mind, covers are often the biggest violators of the N/I quotient. Just think of how powerful the COIE cover with Supergirl in Superman’s arms (which in itself was an homage of sorts) was the first time you saw it. Then think of all the times they trotted out the same exact pose, meant to refer back to the COIE cover. It’s never been as powerful (or interesting) since. Each “throwback” cheapens itself the more the concept is used. Now, instead of being impressed, I groan at the lack of originality, thinking, “Here we go again.”

The “Crisis on Infinite Earths” #7 homages are a great example, as is Superman/Batman #25. I think that nostalgia, when used sparringly, can enhance a story. But if used too much, it can really weigh the story down. While I liked the last page of the latest Astonishing X-Men, Paul O’Brien’s latest X-Axis reviews have made me realize that so far, the latest storyline seems to be Joss Whedon’s version of the Dark Phoenix saga. Look at the parallels: the HFC beat the X-Men one by one except for one member, Emma may betray the HFC just as Dark Phoenix did, someone among the X-Men is supposed to be the “destroyer of worlds” (in the “Dark Phoenix Saga,” Phoenix obviously fit that bill) and a bunch of aliens want to take him/her down (Breakworld replaces the Shi’Ar). Hopefully Whedon will take his story in new directions, as opposed to just telling a familiar story with new window dressing.

i saw the scene like this..way back in the cc/jb run wolverine was a)the last man standing so to speak..and b)they gave it thier best shot now its the x-mens turn.

it was similar to the fast ball special..it just added a touch of cool to an allready cool scene….if kitty feel in a cavern and said ok emma im going in..it would have been cool..but it seems like since it was a homage its now not ok..i thought steranko and others (kirby…etc.)showed that what ever we “perceieve” to be as rules..arent..thats comics..we got no rules…other than make the story good….movies have rules…books do..txv shows….we shouldnt..we should alway challenge the rules and push them.guys like eisner and moore they push what we cant do..i see joss as doing that..he gave us a good cliff hanger and a homage all in one shot.and it did remind me of the old run..
i agree..
.it reminded me that kitty and emma have that history…last time she was the victim..the one the others went to save..this time..as a women..shes the last line of defense and now will go and save the others..showing that she has grown. its not just a “look kitty is tough” scene..its showing that when the hellfire last wooped butt this bad she was a victim now she has grown and will be the savior.it gave me a sence of kitty is an equal when back then she was just a lil kid..now she is the most dangerous member..when wolvierine use to be.

shes come full circle so to speak.

an sorry about the poor spelling an grammar

You make a good point, T. And you’re definitely right that the problem isn’t limited to Kitty Pryde.

Gabesummers, your whole point presupposes that the moment was, in actuality, good.

Which is an opinion you’re welcome to have, but not a very strong arguing point.

dear Apodaca
im problly just easily pleased hahaha
i just didnt take it as bad..its those self help books..im trying to find the positive!!!

at first it did jar me out of the story and send me back there to the origianl issue..but then i thought why would joss do that…so that was what i came up with he was trying to be artsy…from what i hear writers do that..get all meta-physical with it and deep.
so when i took as ..kitty is the most dangerous one now..i was thinking ok thats cool.

Sorry if that last remark came off as really harsh. I didn’t mean for it to sound that way, but reading it now, I can see how it would come across.

Apologies.

its cool..my poor gramar and spelling probly brought the worst out in ya hahah no worries….were all comic fans..so its all love.

“especially the incomprehensible Superman/Batman #25″–Why does everyone act like that arc was so crazy and stupid and bad and weird? It was completely straightforward. It was almost OVERLY expositional.

This has nothing to do with the topic under discussion, but several people here have referred to how much Whedon loves Kitty Pryde. If that’s the case, then why did he kill her?!?!?!?!?
(I hope it wasn’t some attempt to keep anyone else from ever writing her again. That would be too sick.)

I’ve only read one Whedon book ever, and I know nothing about him, really. But I know he killed Kitty, and I’m still really upset over that.

Leave a Comment

 

Categories

Review Copies

Comics Should Be Good accepts review copies. Anything sent to us will (for better or for worse) end up reviewed on the blog. See where to send the review copies.

Browse the Archives