While we wait, anyone want to share thoughts on the Ultimate Endgame/Ultimate Finale?
(spoilers here)
I overall didn’t care for the way they wrapped things up, personally. I was fine with killing a number of characters they wouldn’t otherwise kill, but knowing they were wrapping up the universe took away a lot of the impact.
Trying to shoehorn in everyone for endgame seemed contrived, and unnecessary. I didn’t read Ultimate X-Men or Ultimate Black Panther, but I felt like Ultimate Spider-Man told pretty good story on its own, and we didn’t need Spider-Man (without his outstanding supporting cast) in the endgame. And Wolverine didn’t tell a very good story, and there was no reason to fit him in at the end.
Lastly, I think there’s been some excellent art on some of the Ultimate books, but using the Dodsons on the finale was a disappointment. I’ve never been a big fan of their work (though I may be an outlier here – I also don’t care for Bachallo or Ramos, and they get tons of work), and don’t think it fit the weirdness of what the Maker was doing terribly well.
I have to agree – the titles were all pretty much self-contained, which was good for reading what you wanted and ignoring the rest. But trying to find uses for everyone at the end meant some awkward puzzle-solving. I skipped Ultimate X-Men (which felt like SUCH a radical departure from everything else in terms of art and story) and couldn’t even tell you what role they even played.
This seriously could have been an Ultimates storyline with very little juryrigging, IMO.
As for Ultimate Wolverine, it felt like such a letdown. Good start, but once it killed off the last of the supporting cast and turned it into the Logan+Jean Grey (without a personality) + Sentinel show, it limped to its conclusion.
Black Panther was a slow burner that really didn’t do a lot for me compared to, again, its early potential.
Spider-Man was excellent but didn’t need to be dragged into the final confrontration.
I was honestly okay with the line wrapping up as long as it genuinely felt like a beginning, middle, and end, but if they really wanted all the stories to tie together, they needed a better sense of unity. At least the Absolute Universe, for again being mostly self-contained titles, feels like it’s got a unifying sense of identity.
The one complaint I was hearing over the internet was what was the point of bringing Ultimate Spider-Man in, killing him off without him accomplishing anything and then bringing him back to life?
In other Spider-Man related news, FACADE appeared in Venom this week. And apparently he’s got a hatred of Johnny Storm for some reason. And he’ll be appearing next in North’s Fantastic Four.
North seems to love his obscure villains. He used the Monocle a little while back And now he’s using Facade. Who’s next? The Big Wheel?
Hey, it may have been from the period after Jack Kirby had given up at Marvel, but at least Monocle was introduced during the Lee/Kirby FF run. There’s a big difference between obscure Lee/Kirby villains and someone from a Terry Kavanaugh comic. Big Wheel, while not Lee & Kirby, would be far better than Facade.
Big Wheel was used fairly recently as a villain during the Cantwell Iron Man run.
I didn’t hate the end of Ultimate Endgame. I liked seeing the threat defeated, as well as the point that the future of that universe was still unwritten. Neither the Maker nor Kang could capture the future. The event was an issue too long, and a bit repetitive, but I didn’t see the series ending any other way. I agree that the non- Ultimates didn’t have much impact on the story, but don’t care because I viewed it as an Ultimates story to begin with.
Ultimate Finale was kind of pointless, though: is the new Ultimate Universe done or not? You all said it was done, why are we getting some possible cliffhangers and “The Ultimate Universe will return?” I’m not surprised by the idea of the Ult. U returning, I just think it’s cheap. That said, more Ult. Spider-Man and Ultimates by the same creative teams wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.
If the Ultimate Universe was indeed to return, I’d really like to see them play with some lesser used properties instead of going back to the same old same.
Though at this point, I’m not sure what’s left to mine that wasn’t touched upon already, and which would be interesting.
That was the problem with the original Ultimate Universe by the end and why it needed to be stopped for a while. They had created the Ultimate version of so many minor characters by that point, there was very little left to mine.
It would be weird to bring back the Ultimate Universe again when Marvel is trying to build up the Midnight Universe as Marvel’s answer to DC’s Absolute Universe (which Hickman on Midnight X-Men, meaning I can’t see him doing anything with the Ultimate Universe any time soon). While not exactly the same, they serve a very similar purpose, and I don’t think Marvel needs three versions of their characters.
Deniz Camp has apparently signed an exclusive contract with DC, so Camp won’t be back at Marvel for a while.
I remember with the original Ultimate line that there seemed to be a race between creators to introduce the new, edgy version of as many characters as possible. Some were cool, others really served no purpose. And of course it choked the line before long.
Having read Elsewhen on Byrne’s forum, I can say it’s a pretty mixed bag. I can’t do a Paul-level review (or top his one-sentence review above), but:
The art is undeniably lovely (even though I haven’t seen it colored), and it’s a treat to see Byrne drawing those characters again.
The plot is a little all-over-the-place in a very Claremont style, interestingly. I’d say it’s a similar hit-to-miss ratio as Claremont’s own plotting.
I could do without the new mutant characters. I’d much rather have more time with the central cast. And “childlike” Jean is creepy, arguably worse than the personality-free Jean we usually get.
I’d love to hear what other people think, especially if you’ve read the published version.
lol. Paul said, “I didn’t care about that bullshit when it was called X-Men: The Hidden Years.”
Still, I was literally just now wondering myself whether it would be covered here and if anyone had a chance to read it yet. My better judgment tells me that Elsewhen cannot be, strictly speaking, GOOD, but I find myself nonetheless drawn to it as a novelty/morbid curiosity. Which says a lot about where my enthusiasm for 2026 X-Men comics is these days.
I’m mostly wondering if this exercise is a better example of the same concept as executed by Chris Claremont in X-Men: Forever. Which stuck to its stated premise for roughly the first two issues before going in WILDLY different directions. (Which I can’t really blame him for. How dull it must be trying to reheat half-remembered ideas from 20 years ago that you’ve already shared with the world anyway. Especially when what you do remember is of a rather painful and fraught time period.) But Byrne’s ambitions have always been considerably… lesser in scope than Claremont’s, and his plots rather perfunctory at best. I’ll never understand how Byrne himself wasn’t bored by his maddeningly ponderous Hidden Years stories, and that was 25 years ago. But at the same time, I can see his 2020s X-Men fanfiction representing a version of the series that genuinely could’ve continued from the Claremont/Byrne run, had Claremont left the title instead. At least in the sense of being a rather bland 1981 Marvel house style book with unusually lovely art.
John Byrne is such a contemptible fucking turd that I detest the notion of supporting him in any way. He’s also not dead last on the list of reprehensible comics creators, so there’s that. I dunno, “art vs. artist,” “never meet your heroes,” “no ethical consumption under capitalism,” etc. etc. And hey, there’s every possibility I’ll come away with more buyer’s remorse due to the quality of the product than the quality of the author’s character!
I feel like everything I’ve said here is a massive indictment against how far the bar has been lowered with regards to… well, EVERYTHING. Nevertheless.
@Thom H: And “childlike” Jean is creepy, arguably worse than the personality-free Jean we usually get.
Interesting to hear this element from the original ending to the Dark Phoenix Saga is retained. As scripted by Claremont, the Shi’ar “psychic lobotomy” of Phoenix is a brutal, tortuous procedure, with Jean’s powers, her intellect, and then her very identity being cut away with exacting surgical precision. As I recall, the scene shifts to Cyclops’ point of view towards the end (via their psychic rapport) in order to convey the full scope of this horror. Not merely as a literary choice, but a narrative necessity because Jean’s agency has been diminished to the degree that she quite literally no longer has the capacity for her own point of view.
As written, it’s always struck me as a fate worse than death.
And ever since then, I thought it was crazy of Jim Shooter to read THAT and say it wasn’t a fitting enough punishment for Phoenix’s extinction of the asparagus people. If anything, “heroic sacrifice” let her off easier! Now, if Shooter meant the lobotomy lacked the same dramatic punch as Jean taking matters into her own hands and blowing herself to atoms, that’s absolutely true. (Whatever the case, Shooter’s call was obviously to the betterment of the story, if for the wrong reason.)
What I’m left with is wondering just how Jean was meant to remain a functional character after that. I want to say that Claremont’s intent was to gradually lessen the severity of the mindwipe, allowing her to regain much in the way or her mental faculties if not her powers. (And the whole offer to be repowered by Magneto thing in X-Men #150, conceived as the third and final act of the Phoenix Saga.) So if Byrne is really leaning into leaving the character in that regressed state indefinitely, that’s umm… yikes.
Unless Byrne is using Jean’s condition as a really poignant and thoughtful commentary about the societal stigma towards people with traumatic brain injuries, adaptive challenges they face, and the physical/mental/emotional/financial costs of navigating these realities by survivors and their caregivers?
Who is facade was supposed to next Hobgoblin mystery (which at the time was settled as Ned).
Coming back over 30 years later would be a harder deal then Hobgoblin lives as only John Jameson is still a relevant character. Though he was in this weeks infinite so he is back in the spotlight a little and he has not been on the dark side since his dad became Peters Pal.
Hobgoblin lives struggled to make anyone care about Kingsley who had not been around for over a decade so anyone else is going have less impact and Facade is slow lame the legacy will not be successfully harnessed by a Phil Ulrich replacement.
But if the is a change to get evil John versus good JJ that would be a nice role swap for 2 of Spideys earliest supporting cast.
The next 90’s dangler to sort out is what happened to MJ’s Baby. What 90’s Plot line would you all pick up.
@TImothy- As I understand it, it was supposed to be a “Jean reduced to childhood” lobotomy at first but by the time Shooter intervened it was a “Jean loses her powers but keeps her personality intact” lobotomy. Rachel was supposed to be Jean’s daughter from the future, which would just be creepy if Scott slept with her when she had the mind of a child.
Shooter’s issue wasn’t Jean’s punishment, per se, but the X-Men’s reaction to the story. The original had Jean going back to the mansion and the other X-Men ignoring that she had committed Galactus-level mass murder. Shooter didn’t buy that and wanted Jean written out and it was Claremont and/or Byrne who came up with the idea of killing her off.
(Responding in part to myself – I am Timothy, Timothy is me… forms autofill issue)
I do recall in later years (from Shooter’s personal blog, I want to say) that his edict was not so much explicitly “Jean must die,” just that the original ending sucked and they needed to come up with something better. (Hence the whole “Storm casually sharing the breakfast table with this person just a month shy removed from being a cosmic annihilator” example.) It makes me wonder if Claremont didn’t sarcastically announce, “Well fine, WE’LL JUST KILL HER!” out of frustration… but Shooter called his bluff. And once it’s out there and Shooter’s ready to sign off on it, what’s a more fitting ending than that? There was no walking it back. It’s an exchange I could see playing out. The reality was, Claremont and Byrne truly had written themselves into a corner and it’s hard to imagine any conclusion with a different outcome living up to the stakes that they’d established. (Even if it was meant to be the second of a three-act story.)
And I’ve also heard Shooter proposed the idea of Jean being sentenced to a billion years of torture on a prison planet or whatever, and that’s just always sounded so silly/unserious. People tend to take it at face value, but I view that as Shooter being deliberately obtuse and/or just flippantly spitballing really stupid ideas to push Claremont towards the most logical conclusion.
I’m imagining something similar to Weekend at Bernie’s with Jean after her “psychic lobotomy”. The X-Men just pretend like nothing is different and Jean is still fine, going about their daily routines with her.
Shooter also came from a background of writing for DC, specifically Legion of Super-Heroes, so silly sci-fi concepts might have come pretty naturally to him — especially a prison planet.
I agree the Dark Phoenix Saga ended exactly the way it should have. Jean’s sacrifice was a shock, completely fitting for a sudden death. Amazing the number of near-misses that classic story had: What if Byrne hadn’t drawn in the asparagus people? What if Shooter hadn’t stepped in at the last minute? etc.
I hazily remember Byrne bringing the Phoenix into Elsewhen, but I’m exhausted by Phoenix stories/explanations, so I don’t recall much beyond my initial eye-roll.
Saw Supergirl and I liked it. I’ll give it a 4 out of 5. The critics are looking at it through the lens of superhero fatigue I think (You don’t have to reinvent the genre every time!). Fan reaction leans positive. The incels like Ethan van scriver really hate it so hit dogs are hollering, meaning it’s probably doing something right.
The Midnight Universe, at least the way Marvel have sold it so far, doesn’t interest me much, but it seems particularly misfired as a response to the Absolute Universe, which was a pretty close parallel to the New Ultimate Universe: “Living in a world shaped by a villain, these familiar heroes have had very different lives, but can they still prove themselves?”
“A horror universe where the heroes are all monsters” feels more like a very belated response to Vertigo’s “This existing DC trademark, but it’s demons” phase.
@Michael: I’d say take it up with Cyke68, who originally called the idea silly, but also:
I think establishing a prison planet at that point in Marvel’s history would be pretty out there. I mean, the X-Men were surprised and impressed to be on the Moon, for goodness sake. These days, no problem, but in 1980 that idea belonged much more to the Superman/Legion universe.
—
I have a faint glimmer of hope for Midnight Universe X-Men. I do like an alternate universe/What If…? take on the X-Men, and it will definitely be pretty. Hickman’s been pretty hit-or-miss recently, though. Maybe if it was just a mini like Marvel Zombies?
Marvel has the Kyln at this point in continuity, which is an intergalactic prison used to hold supercriminals who are too powerful to be incarcerated anywhere else.
Shooter’s idea for the prison planet where prisoners are tortured for an interminable sentence reminds me (somewhat) of the planet Shayol from science fiction writer, Cordwainer Smith.
@Thom H- In 1980, Marvel already had a planet full of Skrulls that cosplay as Depression Era gangsters. I don’t think that a prison planet would be any weirder.
Interesting. I shouldn’t have been so broad. But I stand by my point. A prison planet — in the context of the X-Men at the time — would have stood out like a sore thumb.
Phoenix was created because getting back from orbit was hard. And not too long before the Dark Phoenix Saga, it took the team multiple issues just to travel across the globe.
Maybe a billion-year sentence on a prison planet would have seemed normal in Avengers or Fantastic Four, but the X-Men were just beginning to dip their toes into space travel, so I don’t think it would have fit well given the realities of their book.
Claremont has said that keeping Jean at a prison planet was a bad idea because it meant the X-Men would spend all their time trying to get her out, severely limiting the stories he could tell.
@Michael: LOL
“Alright team, we have to go save the mutants being held at Graymalkin prison! Who’s on the list?”
“You got it, Cyclops! Let’s see… Blob, Pyro…”
“Hmm, they’re villains more often than not…”
Beast: “…Siryn…”
“Huh. I don’t actually know her all that well…”
..Dazzler…”
“Ugh, she’s such a diva. You know what? It’s a long trip from Alaska to New York, and plane tickets are so expensive these days… Ok, new plan: save your frequent flier miles, and keep an eye out for the cheapest flights! Direct flights only, and don’t book anything that leaves before noon. WE’RE COMING FOR YOU WATDEN ELLIS, AND NOTHING WILL STOP US!!! Wait, what’s this ‘convenience fee’ for? I’m not paying that, hit cancel…”
@Thom H A prison planet — in the context of the X-Men at the time — would have stood out like a sore thumb.
Yeah I guess I should clarify, it’s not so much the concept of a prison planet inherently that I find so ridiculous. Nothing objectionable about that in and of itself at all, in fact. More so the whole Jean being sentenced to a million years (or whatever) of torture and the X-Men going, “Yep sounds like a fitting punishment, let’s head home.” Not to mention how out of left field and tacked on that would feel as the actual conclusion to this 9-issue (or 37 if we’re counting all the way back to the initial Phoenix Saga) epic. Claremont voiced the obvious counterargument that the X-Men would NEVER go for that (to say nothing for how crude and extreme of a fate it was for a major character), so I guess I just find it hard to believe Shooter actually thought Claremont would be willing to write something so absurd into what the book was at that time – however much it gelled with Shooter’s own sensibilities and previous stories. I’m sure he was cognizant of just how much of a different writer Claremont was from himself.
If he actually sincerely believed that was an acceptable conclusion, maybe Shooter should’ve pitched the idea to Byrne. I don’t really see him championing it either. But he might’ve been more receptive than Claremont, whom I can only imagine staring at his boss in disbelief.
Given that Jim Shooter co-created the prison planet Takron Galton for Legion, wrote a story in which Legionnaires had to take turns suffering unimaginable pain, wrote a story featuring bondage-themed villain Grimbor, and had a history of writing female characters poorly (not always, but often enough to be noticeable), I’m sure his solution to the Phoenix problem was a sincere suggestion.
Hard to be objective over forty years after the fact and ample opportunity to build emotional expectations to the people involved when we did not even have direct access to the relevant facts to begin with, but all the same I have a hard time trying to believe that Shooter proposed long-lasting torture as punishment for Jean.
For one thing, that would scream “not going to last”. I could point out that the X-Men had been imprisomned and tortured by Magneto in #112-113 just a couple of years prior (people tend to forget who Magneto is even under Claremont’s writing) and we all knew they would escape, but I don’t expect that to be necessary. 1980 comics at the height of their popularity were not made that grim.
If Shooter ever said something like that, it must have been in some combination of jest and contempt towards Claremont and/or Byrne. It may even have been to point out that at that point in time no one would expect non-lethal resolutions to last.
Heck, these days we do not expect lethal resolutions to last either. I’m still trying to remember how come people just knew that Ben Percy’s villanious Beast would survive a black hole weapon and turned out to be correct at that.
I don’t know for a fact whether any of the three people involved thought that the Dark Phoenix situation had become a corner with no graceful exit, but I don’t think it would be wrong to arrive at that conclusion.
At the end of the day, the Claremont/Byrne run was admirable for its daring and drawing, but it was by no means the ultimate form of comics perfection, and Jim Shooter is not always to blame for that. It had Colossus struggling to uproot a tree stump, and it had much retcon-in-place regarding Wolverine and Jean.
@Luis- Some non-lethal solutions were expected to last in the early 80s. When Rich Ryder lost his powers. everyone at Marvel thought it would be permanent- that’s why Frankie Ray was given the Nova name. Similarly, when Hank Pam retired at the end of the Trial of Hank Pym storyline, according to Roger Stern, everyone at Marvel thought it would be permanent.
(And in Rich’s case, his power loss lasted 8 years.)
But unlike power loss, which can last as long as the writers want it too, imprisoning a hero or a villain is never a long-lasting solution, because the readers have seen too many jailbreak stories.
While we wait, anyone want to share thoughts on the Ultimate Endgame/Ultimate Finale?
(spoilers here)
I overall didn’t care for the way they wrapped things up, personally. I was fine with killing a number of characters they wouldn’t otherwise kill, but knowing they were wrapping up the universe took away a lot of the impact.
Trying to shoehorn in everyone for endgame seemed contrived, and unnecessary. I didn’t read Ultimate X-Men or Ultimate Black Panther, but I felt like Ultimate Spider-Man told pretty good story on its own, and we didn’t need Spider-Man (without his outstanding supporting cast) in the endgame. And Wolverine didn’t tell a very good story, and there was no reason to fit him in at the end.
Lastly, I think there’s been some excellent art on some of the Ultimate books, but using the Dodsons on the finale was a disappointment. I’ve never been a big fan of their work (though I may be an outlier here – I also don’t care for Bachallo or Ramos, and they get tons of work), and don’t think it fit the weirdness of what the Maker was doing terribly well.
I have to agree – the titles were all pretty much self-contained, which was good for reading what you wanted and ignoring the rest. But trying to find uses for everyone at the end meant some awkward puzzle-solving. I skipped Ultimate X-Men (which felt like SUCH a radical departure from everything else in terms of art and story) and couldn’t even tell you what role they even played.
This seriously could have been an Ultimates storyline with very little juryrigging, IMO.
As for Ultimate Wolverine, it felt like such a letdown. Good start, but once it killed off the last of the supporting cast and turned it into the Logan+Jean Grey (without a personality) + Sentinel show, it limped to its conclusion.
Black Panther was a slow burner that really didn’t do a lot for me compared to, again, its early potential.
Spider-Man was excellent but didn’t need to be dragged into the final confrontration.
I was honestly okay with the line wrapping up as long as it genuinely felt like a beginning, middle, and end, but if they really wanted all the stories to tie together, they needed a better sense of unity. At least the Absolute Universe, for again being mostly self-contained titles, feels like it’s got a unifying sense of identity.
The one complaint I was hearing over the internet was what was the point of bringing Ultimate Spider-Man in, killing him off without him accomplishing anything and then bringing him back to life?
In other Spider-Man related news, FACADE appeared in Venom this week. And apparently he’s got a hatred of Johnny Storm for some reason. And he’ll be appearing next in North’s Fantastic Four.
North seems to love his obscure villains. He used the Monocle a little while back And now he’s using Facade. Who’s next? The Big Wheel?
Hey, it may have been from the period after Jack Kirby had given up at Marvel, but at least Monocle was introduced during the Lee/Kirby FF run. There’s a big difference between obscure Lee/Kirby villains and someone from a Terry Kavanaugh comic. Big Wheel, while not Lee & Kirby, would be far better than Facade.
Big Wheel was used fairly recently as a villain during the Cantwell Iron Man run.
I didn’t hate the end of Ultimate Endgame. I liked seeing the threat defeated, as well as the point that the future of that universe was still unwritten. Neither the Maker nor Kang could capture the future. The event was an issue too long, and a bit repetitive, but I didn’t see the series ending any other way. I agree that the non- Ultimates didn’t have much impact on the story, but don’t care because I viewed it as an Ultimates story to begin with.
Ultimate Finale was kind of pointless, though: is the new Ultimate Universe done or not? You all said it was done, why are we getting some possible cliffhangers and “The Ultimate Universe will return?” I’m not surprised by the idea of the Ult. U returning, I just think it’s cheap. That said, more Ult. Spider-Man and Ultimates by the same creative teams wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.
If the Ultimate Universe was indeed to return, I’d really like to see them play with some lesser used properties instead of going back to the same old same.
Though at this point, I’m not sure what’s left to mine that wasn’t touched upon already, and which would be interesting.
That was the problem with the original Ultimate Universe by the end and why it needed to be stopped for a while. They had created the Ultimate version of so many minor characters by that point, there was very little left to mine.
It would be weird to bring back the Ultimate Universe again when Marvel is trying to build up the Midnight Universe as Marvel’s answer to DC’s Absolute Universe (which Hickman on Midnight X-Men, meaning I can’t see him doing anything with the Ultimate Universe any time soon). While not exactly the same, they serve a very similar purpose, and I don’t think Marvel needs three versions of their characters.
Deniz Camp has apparently signed an exclusive contract with DC, so Camp won’t be back at Marvel for a while.
I remember with the original Ultimate line that there seemed to be a race between creators to introduce the new, edgy version of as many characters as possible. Some were cool, others really served no purpose. And of course it choked the line before long.
Paul, will you be covering John Byrne’s Elsewhen?
I don’t have any interest in Elsewhen.
Having read Elsewhen on Byrne’s forum, I can say it’s a pretty mixed bag. I can’t do a Paul-level review (or top his one-sentence review above), but:
The art is undeniably lovely (even though I haven’t seen it colored), and it’s a treat to see Byrne drawing those characters again.
The plot is a little all-over-the-place in a very Claremont style, interestingly. I’d say it’s a similar hit-to-miss ratio as Claremont’s own plotting.
I could do without the new mutant characters. I’d much rather have more time with the central cast. And “childlike” Jean is creepy, arguably worse than the personality-free Jean we usually get.
I’d love to hear what other people think, especially if you’ve read the published version.
I don’t have any interest in Elsewhen.
lol. Paul said, “I didn’t care about that bullshit when it was called X-Men: The Hidden Years.”
Still, I was literally just now wondering myself whether it would be covered here and if anyone had a chance to read it yet. My better judgment tells me that Elsewhen cannot be, strictly speaking, GOOD, but I find myself nonetheless drawn to it as a novelty/morbid curiosity. Which says a lot about where my enthusiasm for 2026 X-Men comics is these days.
I’m mostly wondering if this exercise is a better example of the same concept as executed by Chris Claremont in X-Men: Forever. Which stuck to its stated premise for roughly the first two issues before going in WILDLY different directions. (Which I can’t really blame him for. How dull it must be trying to reheat half-remembered ideas from 20 years ago that you’ve already shared with the world anyway. Especially when what you do remember is of a rather painful and fraught time period.) But Byrne’s ambitions have always been considerably… lesser in scope than Claremont’s, and his plots rather perfunctory at best. I’ll never understand how Byrne himself wasn’t bored by his maddeningly ponderous Hidden Years stories, and that was 25 years ago. But at the same time, I can see his 2020s X-Men fanfiction representing a version of the series that genuinely could’ve continued from the Claremont/Byrne run, had Claremont left the title instead. At least in the sense of being a rather bland 1981 Marvel house style book with unusually lovely art.
John Byrne is such a contemptible fucking turd that I detest the notion of supporting him in any way. He’s also not dead last on the list of reprehensible comics creators, so there’s that. I dunno, “art vs. artist,” “never meet your heroes,” “no ethical consumption under capitalism,” etc. etc. And hey, there’s every possibility I’ll come away with more buyer’s remorse due to the quality of the product than the quality of the author’s character!
I feel like everything I’ve said here is a massive indictment against how far the bar has been lowered with regards to… well, EVERYTHING. Nevertheless.
@Thom H: And “childlike” Jean is creepy, arguably worse than the personality-free Jean we usually get.
Interesting to hear this element from the original ending to the Dark Phoenix Saga is retained. As scripted by Claremont, the Shi’ar “psychic lobotomy” of Phoenix is a brutal, tortuous procedure, with Jean’s powers, her intellect, and then her very identity being cut away with exacting surgical precision. As I recall, the scene shifts to Cyclops’ point of view towards the end (via their psychic rapport) in order to convey the full scope of this horror. Not merely as a literary choice, but a narrative necessity because Jean’s agency has been diminished to the degree that she quite literally no longer has the capacity for her own point of view.
As written, it’s always struck me as a fate worse than death.
And ever since then, I thought it was crazy of Jim Shooter to read THAT and say it wasn’t a fitting enough punishment for Phoenix’s extinction of the asparagus people. If anything, “heroic sacrifice” let her off easier! Now, if Shooter meant the lobotomy lacked the same dramatic punch as Jean taking matters into her own hands and blowing herself to atoms, that’s absolutely true. (Whatever the case, Shooter’s call was obviously to the betterment of the story, if for the wrong reason.)
What I’m left with is wondering just how Jean was meant to remain a functional character after that. I want to say that Claremont’s intent was to gradually lessen the severity of the mindwipe, allowing her to regain much in the way or her mental faculties if not her powers. (And the whole offer to be repowered by Magneto thing in X-Men #150, conceived as the third and final act of the Phoenix Saga.) So if Byrne is really leaning into leaving the character in that regressed state indefinitely, that’s umm… yikes.
Unless Byrne is using Jean’s condition as a really poignant and thoughtful commentary about the societal stigma towards people with traumatic brain injuries, adaptive challenges they face, and the physical/mental/emotional/financial costs of navigating these realities by survivors and their caregivers?
Not so much?
Who is facade was supposed to next Hobgoblin mystery (which at the time was settled as Ned).
Coming back over 30 years later would be a harder deal then Hobgoblin lives as only John Jameson is still a relevant character. Though he was in this weeks infinite so he is back in the spotlight a little and he has not been on the dark side since his dad became Peters Pal.
Hobgoblin lives struggled to make anyone care about Kingsley who had not been around for over a decade so anyone else is going have less impact and Facade is slow lame the legacy will not be successfully harnessed by a Phil Ulrich replacement.
But if the is a change to get evil John versus good JJ that would be a nice role swap for 2 of Spideys earliest supporting cast.
The next 90’s dangler to sort out is what happened to MJ’s Baby. What 90’s Plot line would you all pick up.
@TImothy- As I understand it, it was supposed to be a “Jean reduced to childhood” lobotomy at first but by the time Shooter intervened it was a “Jean loses her powers but keeps her personality intact” lobotomy. Rachel was supposed to be Jean’s daughter from the future, which would just be creepy if Scott slept with her when she had the mind of a child.
Shooter’s issue wasn’t Jean’s punishment, per se, but the X-Men’s reaction to the story. The original had Jean going back to the mansion and the other X-Men ignoring that she had committed Galactus-level mass murder. Shooter didn’t buy that and wanted Jean written out and it was Claremont and/or Byrne who came up with the idea of killing her off.
(Responding in part to myself – I am Timothy, Timothy is me… forms autofill issue)
I do recall in later years (from Shooter’s personal blog, I want to say) that his edict was not so much explicitly “Jean must die,” just that the original ending sucked and they needed to come up with something better. (Hence the whole “Storm casually sharing the breakfast table with this person just a month shy removed from being a cosmic annihilator” example.) It makes me wonder if Claremont didn’t sarcastically announce, “Well fine, WE’LL JUST KILL HER!” out of frustration… but Shooter called his bluff. And once it’s out there and Shooter’s ready to sign off on it, what’s a more fitting ending than that? There was no walking it back. It’s an exchange I could see playing out. The reality was, Claremont and Byrne truly had written themselves into a corner and it’s hard to imagine any conclusion with a different outcome living up to the stakes that they’d established. (Even if it was meant to be the second of a three-act story.)
And I’ve also heard Shooter proposed the idea of Jean being sentenced to a billion years of torture on a prison planet or whatever, and that’s just always sounded so silly/unserious. People tend to take it at face value, but I view that as Shooter being deliberately obtuse and/or just flippantly spitballing really stupid ideas to push Claremont towards the most logical conclusion.
Or maybe I’m giving Shooter too much credit.
I’m imagining something similar to Weekend at Bernie’s with Jean after her “psychic lobotomy”. The X-Men just pretend like nothing is different and Jean is still fine, going about their daily routines with her.
The good thing is we can see one of the versions of how DPS was supposed to end in Phoenix: The Untold Story.
Shooter also came from a background of writing for DC, specifically Legion of Super-Heroes, so silly sci-fi concepts might have come pretty naturally to him — especially a prison planet.
I agree the Dark Phoenix Saga ended exactly the way it should have. Jean’s sacrifice was a shock, completely fitting for a sudden death. Amazing the number of near-misses that classic story had: What if Byrne hadn’t drawn in the asparagus people? What if Shooter hadn’t stepped in at the last minute? etc.
I hazily remember Byrne bringing the Phoenix into Elsewhen, but I’m exhausted by Phoenix stories/explanations, so I don’t recall much beyond my initial eye-roll.
@Thom H- I never thought of a prison planet as a silly. It’s just a variation on the age-old concept of a penal colony.
Saw Supergirl and I liked it. I’ll give it a 4 out of 5. The critics are looking at it through the lens of superhero fatigue I think (You don’t have to reinvent the genre every time!). Fan reaction leans positive. The incels like Ethan van scriver really hate it so hit dogs are hollering, meaning it’s probably doing something right.
The Midnight Universe, at least the way Marvel have sold it so far, doesn’t interest me much, but it seems particularly misfired as a response to the Absolute Universe, which was a pretty close parallel to the New Ultimate Universe: “Living in a world shaped by a villain, these familiar heroes have had very different lives, but can they still prove themselves?”
“A horror universe where the heroes are all monsters” feels more like a very belated response to Vertigo’s “This existing DC trademark, but it’s demons” phase.
@Michael: I’d say take it up with Cyke68, who originally called the idea silly, but also:
I think establishing a prison planet at that point in Marvel’s history would be pretty out there. I mean, the X-Men were surprised and impressed to be on the Moon, for goodness sake. These days, no problem, but in 1980 that idea belonged much more to the Superman/Legion universe.
—
I have a faint glimmer of hope for Midnight Universe X-Men. I do like an alternate universe/What If…? take on the X-Men, and it will definitely be pretty. Hickman’s been pretty hit-or-miss recently, though. Maybe if it was just a mini like Marvel Zombies?
Marvel has the Kyln at this point in continuity, which is an intergalactic prison used to hold supercriminals who are too powerful to be incarcerated anywhere else.
Shooter’s idea for the prison planet where prisoners are tortured for an interminable sentence reminds me (somewhat) of the planet Shayol from science fiction writer, Cordwainer Smith.
@Thom H- In 1980, Marvel already had a planet full of Skrulls that cosplay as Depression Era gangsters. I don’t think that a prison planet would be any weirder.
Interesting. I shouldn’t have been so broad. But I stand by my point. A prison planet — in the context of the X-Men at the time — would have stood out like a sore thumb.
Phoenix was created because getting back from orbit was hard. And not too long before the Dark Phoenix Saga, it took the team multiple issues just to travel across the globe.
Maybe a billion-year sentence on a prison planet would have seemed normal in Avengers or Fantastic Four, but the X-Men were just beginning to dip their toes into space travel, so I don’t think it would have fit well given the realities of their book.
Just my opinion. YMMV, as they say.
Claremont has said that keeping Jean at a prison planet was a bad idea because it meant the X-Men would spend all their time trying to get her out, severely limiting the stories he could tell.
@Mike Loughlin- Which is hilarious, when you think of the Graymalkin plot.
@Michael: LOL
“Alright team, we have to go save the mutants being held at Graymalkin prison! Who’s on the list?”
“You got it, Cyclops! Let’s see… Blob, Pyro…”
“Hmm, they’re villains more often than not…”
Beast: “…Siryn…”
“Huh. I don’t actually know her all that well…”
..Dazzler…”
“Ugh, she’s such a diva. You know what? It’s a long trip from Alaska to New York, and plane tickets are so expensive these days… Ok, new plan: save your frequent flier miles, and keep an eye out for the cheapest flights! Direct flights only, and don’t book anything that leaves before noon. WE’RE COMING FOR YOU WATDEN ELLIS, AND NOTHING WILL STOP US!!! Wait, what’s this ‘convenience fee’ for? I’m not paying that, hit cancel…”
@Thom H A prison planet — in the context of the X-Men at the time — would have stood out like a sore thumb.
Yeah I guess I should clarify, it’s not so much the concept of a prison planet inherently that I find so ridiculous. Nothing objectionable about that in and of itself at all, in fact. More so the whole Jean being sentenced to a million years (or whatever) of torture and the X-Men going, “Yep sounds like a fitting punishment, let’s head home.” Not to mention how out of left field and tacked on that would feel as the actual conclusion to this 9-issue (or 37 if we’re counting all the way back to the initial Phoenix Saga) epic. Claremont voiced the obvious counterargument that the X-Men would NEVER go for that (to say nothing for how crude and extreme of a fate it was for a major character), so I guess I just find it hard to believe Shooter actually thought Claremont would be willing to write something so absurd into what the book was at that time – however much it gelled with Shooter’s own sensibilities and previous stories. I’m sure he was cognizant of just how much of a different writer Claremont was from himself.
If he actually sincerely believed that was an acceptable conclusion, maybe Shooter should’ve pitched the idea to Byrne. I don’t really see him championing it either. But he might’ve been more receptive than Claremont, whom I can only imagine staring at his boss in disbelief.
Given that Jim Shooter co-created the prison planet Takron Galton for Legion, wrote a story in which Legionnaires had to take turns suffering unimaginable pain, wrote a story featuring bondage-themed villain Grimbor, and had a history of writing female characters poorly (not always, but often enough to be noticeable), I’m sure his solution to the Phoenix problem was a sincere suggestion.
Hard to be objective over forty years after the fact and ample opportunity to build emotional expectations to the people involved when we did not even have direct access to the relevant facts to begin with, but all the same I have a hard time trying to believe that Shooter proposed long-lasting torture as punishment for Jean.
For one thing, that would scream “not going to last”. I could point out that the X-Men had been imprisomned and tortured by Magneto in #112-113 just a couple of years prior (people tend to forget who Magneto is even under Claremont’s writing) and we all knew they would escape, but I don’t expect that to be necessary. 1980 comics at the height of their popularity were not made that grim.
If Shooter ever said something like that, it must have been in some combination of jest and contempt towards Claremont and/or Byrne. It may even have been to point out that at that point in time no one would expect non-lethal resolutions to last.
Heck, these days we do not expect lethal resolutions to last either. I’m still trying to remember how come people just knew that Ben Percy’s villanious Beast would survive a black hole weapon and turned out to be correct at that.
I don’t know for a fact whether any of the three people involved thought that the Dark Phoenix situation had become a corner with no graceful exit, but I don’t think it would be wrong to arrive at that conclusion.
At the end of the day, the Claremont/Byrne run was admirable for its daring and drawing, but it was by no means the ultimate form of comics perfection, and Jim Shooter is not always to blame for that. It had Colossus struggling to uproot a tree stump, and it had much retcon-in-place regarding Wolverine and Jean.
@Luis- Some non-lethal solutions were expected to last in the early 80s. When Rich Ryder lost his powers. everyone at Marvel thought it would be permanent- that’s why Frankie Ray was given the Nova name. Similarly, when Hank Pam retired at the end of the Trial of Hank Pym storyline, according to Roger Stern, everyone at Marvel thought it would be permanent.
(And in Rich’s case, his power loss lasted 8 years.)
But unlike power loss, which can last as long as the writers want it too, imprisoning a hero or a villain is never a long-lasting solution, because the readers have seen too many jailbreak stories.