Missy Posted August 20, 2004 Report Share Posted August 20, 2004 Marvel.com is currently running a poll asking readers who will make their surprise return in the pages of Astonishing X-Men #4. They list Phoenix, Magneto, Longshot, and Psylocke as the choices. However, I've added Gambit, Colossus, Dazzler, X23 (NYX), and Nocturne (Exiles) to the list. Colossus: Long dead (for comics anyways) and a fan favorite. Dazzler: If they're listing Longshot, I'm putting her on here. Gambit: Was (is?) blind, but will be staring in a brand new ongoing very soon. Longshot: ... I have no idea what to say. Magneto: Already in Excalibur, so this wouldn't be much of a surprise. Nocturne: Nightcrawler's daughter from Exiles will be making her way into the regular Marvel Universe soon. Phoenix: Marvel has already stated that she will make her return early next year. Psylocke: Long dead (for comics anyways) and a fan favorite. X23: Wolverine's supposed daughter who will be crossing paths with the X-Men very soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chops Posted August 20, 2004 Report Share Posted August 20, 2004 Colossus- Like you said he is a fan favorite. PLus comic book characters have the uncanny ability to return from the dead when it suits the writers. Plus I've read rumors that say Colossus is going to be featured more in X3, so it wouldn't surprise me if they try to cash in on that starting with the comic before he is in the movie. That way new readers will be introduced to him before seeing the movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Cataldi Posted August 21, 2004 Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 Gambit was blind? Huh? Yoda, explain, cause I know you'll know all about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted August 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 Actually, I just learned about it this past weekend at WWC. It was mentioned on the X-Men panel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragernok2002 Posted August 21, 2004 Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 Didn't Sinister offer Nightcrawler a via containing Colossus's DNA a while back? so maybe thats how they will explain him returning. My bet is Nocturne cause they wrote her out of the exiles and she then went away with someone she knew, instead of going to the x-men. And when did Gambit go blind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drubot Posted August 21, 2004 Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 Gambit was blind? Huh? Yoda, explain, cause I know you'll know all about it. I think one of his cards blew up in his face when he went on a mission with the X-men in China to find Xorn. I think it was in X-treme Xmen where him and Rogue temporarily lost their powers, and only recently they got them back. Back to topic, I'm hoping that Psylocke or Colossus comes back. Psylocke to screw up Cyclops' love life even more, or Colossus because like cvskin said he's a fan favorite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Edge Posted August 21, 2004 Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 Whatever happened to dead being dead? Seriously, fuck this. One of the best ideas they had in a long time was that recentplan of 'Dead means dead.' I don't want to see them pulling some Hulk Hogan retirement deal, and coming back after six issues. It messes up the continuity, and I find it disrespectful towards the readers. Plus, it lessens the impact of the death. And I will comment soon on Chris Claremont attempting to completely re-write everything Grant Morrison did. Seriously, what happened there? Was there an executive decision to fuck up all the progressive things Morrison brought to the formula? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted August 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 I think one of his cards blew up in his face Whatever happened to dead being dead? Whatever happened to mutants being invulnerable to their own powers? Below are my comments on who I perceive to be the top two candidates. Colossus: No way. His death meant too much to the Marvel Universe. To undo it would undermine his sacrifice. Gambit: Personally, I think he's the best bet here. With his upcoming series, they need to get him back into a book to sort of advertise his return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Edge Posted August 21, 2004 Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 I think one of his cards blew up in his face Whatever happened to dead being dead? Whatever happened to mutants being invulnerable to their own powers? Since when was that established? IE Wolverine has claws - if he cuts himself, he ain't invulnerable to it. Scott shoots energy beams, which, if reflected, hit him too. Same kind of thing. Gambit was charging a card, somebody shot it, and a fragment blew up in front of his eye. An explosion is an explosion is an explosion. I don't mind that. I do mind Magneto being back, and I do mind Phoenix coming back. Leave it for...say, five years, then do it. Bullshit and insulting to their readers to do this crap now. Oh, and Gambit is currently in Uncanny X-Men (The Chuck Austen one), walking around going 'What's going on, I can't see!' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Cataldi Posted August 21, 2004 Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 I think one of his cards blew up in his face Whatever happened to dead being dead? Whatever happened to mutants being invulnerable to their own powers? Since when was that established? IE Wolverine has claws - if he cuts himself, he ain't invulnerable to it. Scott shoots energy beams, which, if reflected, hit him too. Same kind of thing. Gambit was charging a card, somebody shot it, and a fragment blew up in front of his eye. An explosion is an explosion is an explosion. I don't mind that. I do mind Magneto being back, and I do mind Phoenix coming back. Leave it for...say, five years, then do it. Bullshit and insulting to their readers to do this crap now. Oh, and Gambit is currently in Uncanny X-Men (The Chuck Austen one), walking around going 'What's going on, I can't see!' Nah but your examples aren't really true. Wolverine's adamantium claws aren't his mutation, so he wouldn't be immune to that. And doesn't the fact that Cyclops' eyelids aren't blown off by his beams prove he's invulnerable to them? I can accept the Gambit blowing his own eyes up theory though. He didn't charge them, he blew something up and that caused the injury. (If that's what happened...I don't know.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted August 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 Whatever happened to mutants being invulnerable to their own powers? Since when was that established? IE Wolverine has claws - if he cuts himself, he ain't invulnerable to it. Scott shoots energy beams, which, if reflected, hit him too. Same kind of thing. Gambit was charging a card, somebody shot it, and a fragment blew up in front of his eye. An explosion is an explosion is an explosion. I don't mind that. It's been established that related mutants can't truly harm one another (i.e. Cyclops and Havoc), and I could swear I read somewhere that a mutant's power cannot be used to harm him/herself. Meaning, Scott couldn't look at his hand and blast it off -- it (the blast) would do nothing. As for Gambit, I didn't realize someone shot the card. That's a different story then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Edge Posted August 21, 2004 Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 Wolverine's adamantium claws aren't his mutation, so he wouldn't be immune to that. No, but his claws are. The adamantium was put in, but he had the claws first. And doesn't the fact that Cyclops' eyelids aren't blown off by his beams prove he's invulnerable to them? Not once they're unleashed. I know what you're saying though, and I'll explain in the next point. I can accept the Gambit blowing his own eyes up theory though. He didn't charge them, he blew something up and that caused the injury. (If that's what happened...I don't know.) He was charging a card, but a piece was shot off before he threw it. The rest, as normal, was reabsorbed by him, sine he never threw it. The other piece (the fragment that was shot off) had been charged, thrown accidentally, and blew up in his face. If he hadn't thrown it, he would have reabsorbed it, in the same way that Scott's power doesn't become actual until it leaves his body - hence the lack of eyelids being blown off. However, once it's out of his body, it's energy, and has been unleashed, thus he can be hurt by it. This theory covers everything except him and Alex being immune to each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat DJ Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 It's been established that related mutants can't truly harm one another (i.e. Cyclops and Havoc), Sabretooth and Wolverine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted August 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 It's been established that related mutants can't truly harm one another (i.e. Cyclops and Havoc), Sabretooth and Wolverine? As far as we know, they're not related. The only way they could be is if: 01. Mrs. Howlett was having an affair with Thomas Logan, and James was his son. (Which was implied in Origin.) 02. Dog, Thomas son, has become Sabertooth and changed his name to Victor Creed. And, as far as I know, that has not been revealed. If that's the case, they're half-brothers. Otherwise, nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat DJ Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 They could still be cousins, no? There could also be a child no one new about. A marital infidelity on Mr.Howlett's part, with a woman in town? Remember, in X2, they say the Mutant gene is on the father's side. (Not sure if the same holds true in the comics.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted August 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 They could still be cousins, no? There could also be a child no one new about. A marital infidelity on Mr.Howlett's part, with a woman in town? Remember, in X2, they say the Mutant gene is on the father's side. (Not sure if the same holds true in the comics.) Movie continuity and comic book continuity are two separate beasts. That's why the Joker has only been referred to as Jack Napier once in the comics. And it's not a coincidence that it appeared in Arkham Asylum, which was released the same year as Batman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat DJ Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 That's why I'm wondering if it was just invented, or mentioned in the comics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted August 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 I've never read it, but it could have been mentioned somewhere. See, this is the exact reason why Marvel had to tell Wolverine's origin. Because, as good as the films are, they're bound to add their own little bits that might go against continuity (RE: the Joker having killed Thomas and Martha Wayne). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat DJ Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 See, this is the exact reason why Marvel had to tell Wolverine's origin. Because, as good as the films are, they're bound to add their own little bits that might go against continuity (RE: the Joker having killed Thomas and Martha Wayne). To be honest, that's how it should have been, rather than what I've read as to why they were killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted August 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 See, this is the exact reason why Marvel had to tell Wolverine's origin. Because, as good as the films are, they're bound to add their own little bits that might go against continuity (RE: the Joker having killed Thomas and Martha Wayne). To be honest, that's how it should have been, rather than what I've read as to why they were killed. I completely disagree. Tying it all together is nice for a movie (where everything has to be wrapped up in 120 minutes or less) or a miniseries (where everything has to be wrapped up in six issues or less), but in the realm of ongoing comics and real life, random violence happens. The Waynes were killed because the crook wanted Martha's necklace. That's it. No other explinattion or need to tie it together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat DJ Posted August 23, 2004 Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 Meh, I read a book where the reason was different. Anyway, can DC comics come up with other names for superheroes' mothers, other than Martha? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted August 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2004 What book and what was the reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat DJ Posted August 24, 2004 Report Share Posted August 24, 2004 It's going to take me a bit to find the book, but Martha was working on busting a child pornography ring, and got waxed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted August 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2004 Hmmm... that might be an Elseworlds thing. EDIT: Was it Batman: The Ultimate Evil or Batman #430? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat DJ Posted August 25, 2004 Report Share Posted August 25, 2004 The Ultimate Evil, I believe. I have to see the book to know for sure, and a room cleaning is due shortly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.