Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Avengers V X men - Who won? <Spoilers>


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-10-2012, 16:06
MidnightFalcon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Here--------->
Posts: 9,658

I say Scott Summers.

Everything he did was to bring the Mutants back from extinction, in the end that's exactly what happened.
MidnightFalcon is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-10-2012, 11:26
DariaM
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,009
I say Jean Gray Phoenix - the Avengers are just too sub X Men.
DariaM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 13:51
cyclone5uk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 31

Cyclops had no way of knowing the Phoenix would somehow bring back all the mutants. It was really just a hunch based on the fact that Hope was supposedly the mutant messiah and that she looked a bit like Jean Grey.

Yes it worked out in his favour, but at what cost? Cyclops is locked up, some of the key X-Mn are now wanted fugitives, mutant popularity will be at an all time low and Wolverine's school is the only remaining safe haven for X-Men/Mutants. Not to mention that the whole event effectively pulled the Scarlet Witch back into the picture, an unstable mutant who caused far more damage than the Phoenix ever did.
cyclone5uk is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 14:08
cyclone5uk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 31
But the real winner was Marvel - who managed to drag out a story that probably equated to no more than 5 or 6 issues of plot - to 12 issues, and consistently hit the top of the sales charts.

Not only that, but they made it a bi-weekly release with a rotating team of writers and artists. Much of the artwork was clearly rushed (to meet the tight bi-weekly deadlines) and there wasn't even much of an attempt to use artists whose styles had something in common. The issues drawn by Olivier Coipel were probably the best looking, and it made me think how much better the whole experience would have been if either Coipel or Stuart Immonen (who drew ALL of Fear Itself!) had drawn every issue, over a regular 6 issue/monthly release schedule.

They could have made this something special, but instead went the cash-cow route.
cyclone5uk is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 17:34
Wulfster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,268
But the real winner was Marvel - who managed to drag out a story that probably equated to no more than 5 or 6 issues of plot - to 12 issues, and consistently hit the top of the sales charts.

Not only that, but they made it a bi-weekly release with a rotating team of writers and artists. Much of the artwork was clearly rushed (to meet the tight bi-weekly deadlines) and there wasn't even much of an attempt to use artists whose styles had something in common. The issues drawn by Olivier Coipel were probably the best looking, and it made me think how much better the whole experience would have been if either Coipel or Stuart Immonen (who drew ALL of Fear Itself!) had drawn every issue, over a regular 6 issue/monthly release schedule.

They could have made this something special, but instead went the cash-cow route.
Yup.
And I'm afraid that's exactly why I stopped buying the majority of my Marvel titles at this point. With the exception of "Deadpool", "Ultimate Spider-Man" (which is still superb), and "Spider Men". DC's New 52 doesn't please everyone, but even "Flashpoint" was not as protracted as "AvX", and currently cross-overs are limited to affected "families" of titles. Loved "Night of the Owls" and currently loving "Rotworld" ...
Wulfster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 20:10
mr muggles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,906
I gave up on X Men years ago, my last peak was probably 4-5 years ago, I couldnt understand who was in what group. I just chanced upon the title you guys are threading about, nice to see Rogue back in her original costume! Can anyone tell me, do Marvel actually age any of their heroes, gradually over time? I was at my peak with X-Men from 1983-86. I think kitty Pryde was 18 around that time, how old is she now?! Or is that a silly question!
mr muggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 23:08
mred2000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 6,755
Can anyone tell me, do Marvel actually age any of their heroes, gradually over time? I was at my peak with X-Men from 1983-86. I think kitty Pryde was 18 around that time, how old is she now?! Or is that a silly question!
Yes but only gradually. I was told a few years back that, supposedly, only 11 years have supposedly passed in the MU since it began publication, that must be more by now.

Kitty was supposedly introduced in the 80s as a 13 year old. I'm fairly sure the mini series Mechanix, in the mid 2000s i think, depicted her at university so I guess she's only just in her early 20s now.

Whereas Rachel Grey seems to be younger now than when she was first introduced... Oh, but she's been a prisoner of the time stream at some point so that must be why, lol!!
mred2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 11:03
cyclone5uk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 31
Yup.
And I'm afraid that's exactly why I stopped buying the majority of my Marvel titles at this point. With the exception of "Deadpool", "Ultimate Spider-Man" (which is still superb), and "Spider Men". DC's New 52 doesn't please everyone, but even "Flashpoint" was not as protracted as "AvX", and currently cross-overs are limited to affected "families" of titles. Loved "Night of the Owls" and currently loving "Rotworld" ...
Although I've always bought more Marvel comics than DC, I do have to agree with you. DC are currently doing a much better job than Marvel.

One of the things I like best about New 52 (so far anyway), is that you can just read the core titles and not feel like you're missing out on too much. For example, I read Green Lantern but I don't read Green Lantern Corps or Green Lantern: New Guardians - yet the storyline running through the main Green Lantern title has always felt like a clear, linear, self-contained story. Not once have I felt the requirement to go and delve into those other titles just to understand what's going on in GL. No chance of doing that with Uncanny X-Men or Avengers.

Likewise with Batman, I'm only reading the core Batman title by Scott Snyder. I'm not reading Batman: The Dark Knight, Batman and Robin, Detective Comics or the new Batman Incorporated. What's particularly impressive (and it's manly due to Scott Snyder's talent), is that Night of The Owls was a crossover into the other Bat-titles. Yet I never once felt the need to go and explore those others just to fill in the gaps in the core Batman title.

DC seem to have taken the approach that you can have a flagship title for character and treat that as an almost stand-alone publication (from a reader's perspective). The family-titles that sit under that flagship title are their for those that want them, but arent really 'required' reading.

What I'd really love would be for Marvel to take the same approach and have Uncanny X-Men, Amazing Spider-man, Avengers and Fantastic Four operate as flagship titles, that can be read independently of their supporting family titles (i.e. New Avengers, FF, New X-Men, etc). Those lower-tier/family titles would be there for those that want them, but you should still be able to just buy the flagship titles and not feel like you're only getting half the story.
cyclone5uk is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 20:00
Matt D
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 11,116
I ditched Marvel and DC years ago, after getting fed up with crossovers.

With Marvel, I struggled through Onslaught, and finally gave up during the next one (with Bastion?).

With DC, I lasted through to No Man's Land and I think one after that, but finally stopped.


I didn't mind it too much if a crossover just involved a "family" of titles I bought (or mostly bought) anyway, like the X-Books or Bat-Books... But I really hated it when things happened across the entire bloody universe. I'd have loved it if the Batman / X-Men titles had existed in their own universe, with no links to the wider DCU / MU...
Matt D is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 02:23
farscape
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,224
I gave up on X Men years ago, my last peak was probably 4-5 years ago, I couldnt understand who was in what group. I just chanced upon the title you guys are threading about, nice to see Rogue back in her original costume! Can anyone tell me, do Marvel actually age any of their heroes, gradually over time? I was at my peak with X-Men from 1983-86. I think kitty Pryde was 18 around that time, how old is she now?! Or is that a silly question!
When I started reading comics in the eary nineties Marvel worked on a scale that a year marvel equals to three years in realworld time.

I remember reading that at the turn of the millenium this no longer worked so it was revised to a different scale. At this point Marvel ages its characters however it wants.

Case in point is Peter Parker. He is perpetualy in his twenties but whether he's in his early, mid or late twenties is generaly up to Marvel. When I started reading Spider-Man he was portrayed to to be in his late twenties. John Romita Jr would draw him with a mullet, stubble and older clothes and other heroes like say Nova would treat him an a longstanding pillar of the super hero comminity. During the 2000s relaunch Marvel editorial sent down to the writers Peter had to be younger. Peter was drawn by the same artist as clean shaven, baby faced and jeans and T-Shirt and in team ups other heroes would treat him as a rookie.
farscape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 01:12
JAS84
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Hull, UK
Posts: 6,810
Cyclops had no way of knowing the Phoenix would somehow bring back all the mutants. It was really just a hunch based on the fact that Hope was supposedly the mutant messiah and that she looked a bit like Jean Grey.

Yes it worked out in his favour, but at what cost? Cyclops is locked up, some of the key X-Mn are now wanted fugitives, mutant popularity will be at an all time low and Wolverine's school is the only remaining safe haven for X-Men/Mutants. Not to mention that the whole event effectively pulled the Scarlet Witch back into the picture, an unstable mutant who caused far more damage than the Phoenix ever did.
Don't forget Professor Xavier, who died. The X-Men lost their leader, that sounds like an Avengers victory to me.
JAS84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 12:31
cyclone5uk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 31
Don't forget Professor Xavier, who died. The X-Men lost their leader, that sounds like an Avengers victory to me.
Yeah, but Xavier hasn't really been part of the X-Men for a while now. Cyclops effectively booted him out after learning of a few skeletons in Prof X's closet.

Cyclops has very much been the leader for some years now (more or less since Deadly Genesis in 2005).
cyclone5uk is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 14:11
Teddybleads
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,812
Don't forget Professor Xavier, who died. The X-Men lost their leader, that sounds like an Avengers victory to me.
I was about to ask which character got bumped off this time? Not very original, didn't they kill him at the end of messiah Complex?
Teddybleads is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41.