As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Astonishing X-Men

13567

Posts

  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    edited August 2006
    LALALALA
    (hands in ears and over eyes at the same time)

    DouglasDanger on
    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
  • HtownHtown Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    So.

    What's in the box?

    Htown on
    steam_sig.png
  • Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User
    edited August 2006
    Htown wrote:
    So.

    What's in the box?
    Presumably whatever destroys the Breakworld.

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • TerrorbyteTerrorbyte __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2006
    Htown wrote:
    So.

    What's in the box?

    fs1.jpg

    Terrorbyte on
  • Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User
    edited August 2006
    Terrorbyte wrote:
    Htown wrote:
    So.

    What's in the box?

    fs1.jpg
    Astonishing! I must have created a parallel universe!

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • mattharvestmattharvest Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    Sentry wrote:
    Yup, that's exactly what happened. Which is why we just throw that whole thing on the 'did not happen' shelf. It's lodged in between Sins Past and Nightcrawler's family history.

    I think MIT proved that Nightcrawlers family history is the reason there is so much evil in the world...
    What is he again, the son of Destiny fathered by Mystique in a male body?

    ...you know, I wonder about that. If she can shapeshift on a cellular level, how come she can't copy superhuman abilities?

    No. He's the son of the devil. Yes, in Marvel the Devil is actually an ancient mutant. Angels were also ancient mutants.

    The rumor is that originally Nightcrawler was indeed going to be Destiny's child, but the editors didn't feel comfortable with the whole question about Mystique's sexuality (though I simply cannot fathom how someone who shapeshifts as much as Mystique could possibly be all straight).

    mattharvest on
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    Sentry wrote:
    Yup, that's exactly what happened. Which is why we just throw that whole thing on the 'did not happen' shelf. It's lodged in between Sins Past and Nightcrawler's family history.

    I think MIT proved that Nightcrawlers family history is the reason there is so much evil in the world...
    What is he again, the son of Destiny fathered by Mystique in a male body?

    ...you know, I wonder about that. If she can shapeshift on a cellular level, how come she can't copy superhuman abilities?

    No. He's the son of the devil. Yes, in Marvel the Devil is actually an ancient mutant. Angels were also ancient mutants.

    The rumor is that originally Nightcrawler was indeed going to be Destiny's child, but the editors didn't feel comfortable with the whole question about Mystique's sexuality (though I simply cannot fathom how someone who shapeshifts as much as Mystique could possibly be all straight).

    She's bisexual. In the comics she's certainly slept with a ton of guys, but it's been pretty strongly hinted that she goes both ways. (I woulda just said 'probably bi', but the last time I checked her wiki it pretty much made her out to be Marvel's biggest bisexual character ever.)

    Scooter on
  • TerrorbyteTerrorbyte __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    She's bisexual. In the comics she's certainly slept with a ton of guys, but it's been pretty strongly hinted that she goes both ways. (I woulda just said 'probably bi', but the last time I checked her wiki it pretty much made her out to be Marvel's biggest bisexual character ever.)

    Marvel has a pretty gay-unfriendly policy. Any book with a gay character immediately becomes a "mature reader" title regardless of content. Since X-Men is a pretty big all-ages seller, coming out with a definitive stance on Mystique's sexuality would bump it up to a mature title. Which, obviously, doesn't make sense when it comes to the $$$.

    This is one of the few things Quesada has done that I just outright despise.

    Terrorbyte on
  • MunchMunch Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Terrorbyte wrote:
    Marvel has a pretty gay-unfriendly policy. Any book with a gay character immediately becomes a "mature reader" title regardless of content. So, the 52 issue over at DC with Batwoman would've automatically been a mature title over at Marvel. One of the few things Quesada has done that I just outright despise.

    Quesada actually recently stated that this is no longer the policy, and was in fact only the policy on a single book, the Rawhide Kid. They've recently introduced Freedom Ring in marvel Team-Up, who's a pretty cool gay superhero, and Karolina from Runaways is gay as well.

    Munch on
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Terrorbyte wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    She's bisexual. In the comics she's certainly slept with a ton of guys, but it's been pretty strongly hinted that she goes both ways. (I woulda just said 'probably bi', but the last time I checked her wiki it pretty much made her out to be Marvel's biggest bisexual character ever.)

    Marvel has a pretty gay-unfriendly policy. Any book with a gay character immediately becomes a "mature reader" title regardless of content. So, the 52 issue over at DC with Batwoman would've automatically been a mature title over at Marvel. One of the few things Quesada has done that I just outright despise.

    I think thats more the legal department covering their asses than them being "gay-unfriendly."

    I immagine they give it a mature rating to prevent some bible thumping mother or father from claiming that Marvel comics glorifies the gay lifestyle and forces it on impressionable young children.

    Marathon on
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Er, Young Avengers? Runaways? Ultimate X-Men? I don't think those are listed as mature...

    Scooter on
  • SASA Registered User
    edited August 2006
    Marathon wrote:
    Terrorbyte wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    She's bisexual. In the comics she's certainly slept with a ton of guys, but it's been pretty strongly hinted that she goes both ways. (I woulda just said 'probably bi', but the last time I checked her wiki it pretty much made her out to be Marvel's biggest bisexual character ever.)

    Marvel has a pretty gay-unfriendly policy. Any book with a gay character immediately becomes a "mature reader" title regardless of content. So, the 52 issue over at DC with Batwoman would've automatically been a mature title over at Marvel. One of the few things Quesada has done that I just outright despise.

    I think thats more the legal department covering their asses than them being "gay-unfriendly."

    I immagine they give it a mature rating to prevent some bible thumping mother or father from claiming that Marvel comics glorifies the gay lifestyle and forces it on impressionable young children.

    Runaways and young Avengers are mature readers?

    SA on
    WoW: Revash (Cho'Gall)
    3DS: 5241-1953-7031
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Yeah, I don't think every book with freaking Northstar in it has an M on the cover.

    august on
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Htown wrote:
    So.

    What's in the box?
    Presumably whatever destroys the Breakworld.

    THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING.

    OR LIKE MAYBE BREAKWORLD IS IN THERE.

    You know

    SOMEHOW.

    august on
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Munch wrote:
    Terrorbyte wrote:
    Marvel has a pretty gay-unfriendly policy. Any book with a gay character immediately becomes a "mature reader" title regardless of content. So, the 52 issue over at DC with Batwoman would've automatically been a mature title over at Marvel. One of the few things Quesada has done that I just outright despise.

    Quesada actually recently stated that this is no longer the policy, and was in fact only the policy on a single book, the Rawhide Kid. They've recently introduced Freedom Ring in marvel Team-Up, who's a pretty cool gay superhero, and Karolina from Runaways is gay as well.

    Okay, maybe we should have read this before we wailed on the guy about the M thing.

    I guess they had to put that M on because gay cowboys are so hot. I mean uh. MATURE. Yeah there ya go.

    august on
  • SASA Registered User
    edited August 2006
    august wrote:
    Munch wrote:
    Terrorbyte wrote:
    Marvel has a pretty gay-unfriendly policy. Any book with a gay character immediately becomes a "mature reader" title regardless of content. So, the 52 issue over at DC with Batwoman would've automatically been a mature title over at Marvel. One of the few things Quesada has done that I just outright despise.

    Quesada actually recently stated that this is no longer the policy, and was in fact only the policy on a single book, the Rawhide Kid. They've recently introduced Freedom Ring in marvel Team-Up, who's a pretty cool gay superhero, and Karolina from Runaways is gay as well.

    Okay, maybe we should have read this before we wailed on the guy about the M thing.

    I guess they had to put that M on because gay cowboys are so hot. I mean uh. MATURE. Yeah there ya go.

    Maybe they put the M on it because the show man ass.

    SA on
    WoW: Revash (Cho'Gall)
    3DS: 5241-1953-7031
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Marathon wrote:
    Terrorbyte wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    She's bisexual. In the comics she's certainly slept with a ton of guys, but it's been pretty strongly hinted that she goes both ways. (I woulda just said 'probably bi', but the last time I checked her wiki it pretty much made her out to be Marvel's biggest bisexual character ever.)

    Marvel has a pretty gay-unfriendly policy. Any book with a gay character immediately becomes a "mature reader" title regardless of content. So, the 52 issue over at DC with Batwoman would've automatically been a mature title over at Marvel. One of the few things Quesada has done that I just outright despise.

    I think thats more the legal department covering their asses than them being "gay-unfriendly."

    I immagine they give it a mature rating to prevent some bible thumping mother or father from claiming that Marvel comics glorifies the gay lifestyle and forces it on impressionable young children.

    Runaways and young Avengers are mature readers?

    My mistake, I have'nt read those titles nor have I kept up with them like I should have. My bad.

    Marathon on
  • SASA Registered User
    edited August 2006
    Marathon wrote:
    Marathon wrote:
    Terrorbyte wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    She's bisexual. In the comics she's certainly slept with a ton of guys, but it's been pretty strongly hinted that she goes both ways. (I woulda just said 'probably bi', but the last time I checked her wiki it pretty much made her out to be Marvel's biggest bisexual character ever.)

    Marvel has a pretty gay-unfriendly policy. Any book with a gay character immediately becomes a "mature reader" title regardless of content. So, the 52 issue over at DC with Batwoman would've automatically been a mature title over at Marvel. One of the few things Quesada has done that I just outright despise.

    I think thats more the legal department covering their asses than them being "gay-unfriendly."

    I immagine they give it a mature rating to prevent some bible thumping mother or father from claiming that Marvel comics glorifies the gay lifestyle and forces it on impressionable young children.

    Runaways and young Avengers are mature readers?

    My mistake, I have'nt read those titles nor have I kept up with them like I should have. My bad.

    Oh, so you made an ignorant statement?

    SA on
    WoW: Revash (Cho'Gall)
    3DS: 5241-1953-7031
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Oh, so you made an ignorant statement?

    It would appear so, I was'nt trying to be a know-it-all by any means. Just offering my opinion on the subject at hand, albeit not informed as well as possible.

    Marathon on
  • Conditional_AxeConditional_Axe Registered User
    edited August 2006
    The original policy, which was dictated to Quesada by the board of directors, not invented by Quesada, was that, following the media backlash that Marvel received over the Rawhide Kid title (which probably, more than anything, was due to the writer openly mocking the character's queerness), no gay character could headline his or her own book. Karolina Dean, Wiccan, Hulkling, Freedom Ring, Northstar, various of the kids at Xavier's, Ultimate Colossus, etc. are members of an ensemble cast, although as it's been pointed out, Freedom Ring has been the headliner of Marvel Team-Up, at least for a few issues.

    After receiving negative media attention for its policy, Quesada stated (and this happened maybe a week or two ago) that the policy is no longer in effect.

    Conditional_Axe on
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Marathon wrote:
    Marathon wrote:
    Terrorbyte wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    She's bisexual. In the comics she's certainly slept with a ton of guys, but it's been pretty strongly hinted that she goes both ways. (I woulda just said 'probably bi', but the last time I checked her wiki it pretty much made her out to be Marvel's biggest bisexual character ever.)

    Marvel has a pretty gay-unfriendly policy. Any book with a gay character immediately becomes a "mature reader" title regardless of content. So, the 52 issue over at DC with Batwoman would've automatically been a mature title over at Marvel. One of the few things Quesada has done that I just outright despise.

    I think thats more the legal department covering their asses than them being "gay-unfriendly."

    I immagine they give it a mature rating to prevent some bible thumping mother or father from claiming that Marvel comics glorifies the gay lifestyle and forces it on impressionable young children.

    Runaways and young Avengers are mature readers?

    My mistake, I have'nt read those titles nor have I kept up with them like I should have. My bad.
    Runaways and Young Avengers are two of the five or ten best books around.

    So you really should. Read them, that is.

    deadonthestreet on
  • Conditional_AxeConditional_Axe Registered User
    edited August 2006
    Marathon wrote:
    Marathon wrote:
    Terrorbyte wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    She's bisexual. In the comics she's certainly slept with a ton of guys, but it's been pretty strongly hinted that she goes both ways. (I woulda just said 'probably bi', but the last time I checked her wiki it pretty much made her out to be Marvel's biggest bisexual character ever.)

    Marvel has a pretty gay-unfriendly policy. Any book with a gay character immediately becomes a "mature reader" title regardless of content. So, the 52 issue over at DC with Batwoman would've automatically been a mature title over at Marvel. One of the few things Quesada has done that I just outright despise.

    I think thats more the legal department covering their asses than them being "gay-unfriendly."

    I immagine they give it a mature rating to prevent some bible thumping mother or father from claiming that Marvel comics glorifies the gay lifestyle and forces it on impressionable young children.

    Runaways and young Avengers are mature readers?

    My mistake, I have'nt read those titles nor have I kept up with them like I should have. My bad.
    Runaways and Young Avengers are two of the five or ten best books around.

    So you really should. Read them, that is.
    unless you dislike gay Skrulls. Because you'd then hate both of those books.

    Conditional_Axe on
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Runaways and Young Avengers are two of the five or ten best books around.

    So you really should. Read them, that is.

    Thanks for the tip. Wish you had said something earlier, I was at my local comic shop earlier tonight. Oh damn...guess you just gave me a reason to go back, you bastard.

    Marathon on
  • Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User
    edited August 2006
    Marathon wrote:
    Marathon wrote:
    Terrorbyte wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    She's bisexual. In the comics she's certainly slept with a ton of guys, but it's been pretty strongly hinted that she goes both ways. (I woulda just said 'probably bi', but the last time I checked her wiki it pretty much made her out to be Marvel's biggest bisexual character ever.)

    Marvel has a pretty gay-unfriendly policy. Any book with a gay character immediately becomes a "mature reader" title regardless of content. So, the 52 issue over at DC with Batwoman would've automatically been a mature title over at Marvel. One of the few things Quesada has done that I just outright despise.

    I think thats more the legal department covering their asses than them being "gay-unfriendly."

    I immagine they give it a mature rating to prevent some bible thumping mother or father from claiming that Marvel comics glorifies the gay lifestyle and forces it on impressionable young children.

    Runaways and young Avengers are mature readers?

    My mistake, I have'nt read those titles nor have I kept up with them like I should have. My bad.
    Runaways and Young Avengers are two of the five or ten best books around.

    So you really should. Read them, that is.
    unless you dislike gay Skrulls. Because you'd then hate both of those books.
    I find the whole thing with Xavin confusing.

    And anyway, how can Skrulls be gay? They just change to whatever sex that happens to be handy at the time.

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • Conditional_AxeConditional_Axe Registered User
    edited August 2006
    Marathon wrote:
    Marathon wrote:
    Terrorbyte wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    She's bisexual. In the comics she's certainly slept with a ton of guys, but it's been pretty strongly hinted that she goes both ways. (I woulda just said 'probably bi', but the last time I checked her wiki it pretty much made her out to be Marvel's biggest bisexual character ever.)

    Marvel has a pretty gay-unfriendly policy. Any book with a gay character immediately becomes a "mature reader" title regardless of content. So, the 52 issue over at DC with Batwoman would've automatically been a mature title over at Marvel. One of the few things Quesada has done that I just outright despise.

    I think thats more the legal department covering their asses than them being "gay-unfriendly."

    I immagine they give it a mature rating to prevent some bible thumping mother or father from claiming that Marvel comics glorifies the gay lifestyle and forces it on impressionable young children.

    Runaways and young Avengers are mature readers?

    My mistake, I have'nt read those titles nor have I kept up with them like I should have. My bad.
    Runaways and Young Avengers are two of the five or ten best books around.

    So you really should. Read them, that is.
    unless you dislike gay Skrulls. Because you'd then hate both of those books.
    I find the whole thing with Xavin confusing.

    And anyway, how can Skrulls be gay? They just change to whatever sex that happens to be handy at the time.
    Despite his desire to please Karolina, it's pretty obvious that Xavin (and also Teddy...and also Mystique if we want to talk all shapeshifters) has a set gender identity, more than likely a result of his soldier heritage. In fact, I think it's safe to assume that Xavin is probably pretty straight and is just doing what he has to do to make Karolina comfortable when he turns into a girl. Especially in YA/Runaways, he seems uncomfortable being female for very long.

    Conditional_Axe on
  • SkwirlSkwirl Registered User
    edited August 2006
    I thought Quesada handled the question about gay characters very nicely in the latest Joe Friday. He basically said that there was internal discussion on the subject of gay characters, and that currently there was no policy on them in regards to rating comics. And then he pointed out, several times, that Freedom Ring had been headlining Marvel Team-Up for quite some time without any fanfare. He couldn't outright say that the previous policy was a stupid one, but he did make it very clear that that was no longer the policy.

    Also, I wanted to say that I think the idea of Mystique being Nightcrawler's father is one of the best ideas I've ever heard, and if I was ever in charge of writing an X book, my only goal would be to figure out a way to ret-con that in.

    As for the latest issue of Astonishing, I was going to say something about not thinking that Kitty's powers worked like that, I thought that if part of her was insubstantial all of her was. But I've decided that it was so awesome that I'm going to leave it be.

    Skwirl on
  • mattharvestmattharvest Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Skwirl wrote:
    As for the latest issue of Astonishing, I was going to say something about not thinking that Kitty's powers worked like that, I thought that if part of her was insubstantial all of her was. But I've decided that it was so awesome that I'm going to leave it be.

    No, they've shown her having the ability to be variably phased in the past. Conceptually, it's a nightmare (e.g. how does her blood circulation work? etc.) but they've done it. For example (I don't know issue numbers) during the period when sabertooth was being given therapy in the mansion (and had a weird Hannibal-style facemask and gauntlets to keep him in line) Kitty at one point was holding him down physically while also keeping a phased arm in Creed's forehead.

    [spoiler:eb4b5a9bb8]
    As for that latest issue, I'm none too happy with this reveal. Mainly because I've liked this redeemed White Queen just because it seemed to be an honest change-of-character that is rare in comics. Now, we're going to have one of a few situations, almost all of which irritate me:
    1) the Emma we've seen over the last few years (and who is now imprisoned) is not Emma Frost, but rather some other mutant (which wouldn't match up with conversations she had with Cassandra);
    2) the White Queen we were introduced to (formerly Perfection) is just faking this (but this would completely defang the reveal, and be incredbly lame);
    3) one or both of Emma and the White Queen are telepathic projections.

    There are a few others, but I just don't think any of them make me happy...[/spoiler:eb4b5a9bb8]

    mattharvest on
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Skwirl wrote:
    As for the latest issue of Astonishing, I was going to say something about not thinking that Kitty's powers worked like that, I thought that if part of her was insubstantial all of her was. But I've decided that it was so awesome that I'm going to leave it be.

    No, they've shown her having the ability to be variably phased in the past. Conceptually, it's a nightmare (e.g. how does her blood circulation work? etc.) but they've done it. For example (I don't know issue numbers) during the period when sabertooth was being given therapy in the mansion (and had a weird Hannibal-style facemask and gauntlets to keep him in line) Kitty at one point was holding him down physically while also keeping a phased arm in Creed's forehead.

    [spoiler:19c8087e03]
    As for that latest issue, I'm none too happy with this reveal. Mainly because I've liked this redeemed White Queen just because it seemed to be an honest change-of-character that is rare in comics. Now, we're going to have one of a few situations, almost all of which irritate me:
    1) the Emma we've seen over the last few years (and who is now imprisoned) is not Emma Frost, but rather some other mutant (which wouldn't match up with conversations she had with Cassandra);
    2) the White Queen we were introduced to (formerly Perfection) is just faking this (but this would completely defang the reveal, and be incredbly lame);
    3) one or both of Emma and the White Queen are telepathic projections.

    There are a few others, but I just don't think any of them make me happy...[/spoiler:19c8087e03]

    Have some faith man... if Joss Whedon is anything it's loyal to the characters. I don't think he'll do anything that would completely destroy the White Queen.. or completely ret-con her history.

    On an unrelated topic, lots of new posters here recently... did we have some kind of recruitment drive I was unaware of?

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Could be people who registered to vote.

    Scooter on
  • SASA Registered User
    edited August 2006
    Sentry wrote:
    On an unrelated topic, lots of new posters here recently... did we have some kind of recruitment drive I was unaware of?

    PAX is coming up

    Forum Registration re-opened like a week ago

    Civil War, X-Men 3, and Superman Returns have pulled lots of new comicbook readers this summer.

    SA on
    WoW: Revash (Cho'Gall)
    3DS: 5241-1953-7031
  • BriareosBriareos Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    I'm relatively new, and I've been drawn back into the both the Marvel and DC Universes because of their current, universe-wide storylines. Also, I've had an eye on the Astonishing X-Men title for awhile, because everything I had heard about it was amazingly good.

    I'm a huge Batman fan, and I've spent the last few years picking up then dropping various of the Bat-books. But I'm just now regaining my interest in several of the other heroes in both universes.

    Of course, I started collecting comics as a young'un, and then stopped for many years. Uncanny X-Men was the first comic I ever collected regularly (not counting Star Wars, of which I have several issues bought from a supermarket). I started right before the Mutant Massacre and was deeply hooked by that story arc. And also by John Romita Jr.'s pencils. Which reminds me, The Eternals is kicking major ass.

    Briareos on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • mattharvestmattharvest Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    i only registered to post my stuff in Artists' Corner (been a lurker for like 4 years). Figured I may as well nerd out in here too.

    mattharvest on
  • SASA Registered User
    edited August 2006
    Briareos wrote:
    And also by John Romita Jr.'s pencils. Which reminds me, The Eternals is kicking major ass.

    Romita Jr. is my favorite artist in the industry. I love his pencils and instantly recognizable style.

    If you're a fan, I highly recommend Spider-Man: The Lost Years. Ben Reilly kicking ass ninja style. His Kaine kicked major ass too.

    SA on
    WoW: Revash (Cho'Gall)
    3DS: 5241-1953-7031
  • Sars_BoySars_Boy Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    When is Astonishing supposed to take place, anyway?

    Sars_Boy on
  • MelMel Registered User
    edited August 2006
    It was supposed to be contemporary with the rest of the X-books, but Whedon has complained that the lack of communication between writers has left it kind of up in the air. At this point I'm not even sure which side of Civil-War it'll fall on; probably whichever leaves it with fewer continuity errors.

    Mel on
    71854.jpg
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Mel wrote:
    It was supposed to be contemporary with the rest of the X-books, but Whedon has complained that the lack of communication between writers has left it kind of up in the air. At this point I'm not even sure which side of Civil-War it'll fall on; probably whichever leaves it with fewer continuity errors.

    Well, if it comes before Civil War, at least we know how Frost is gonna go.

    Scooter on
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Sars_Boy wrote:
    When is Astonishing supposed to take place, anyway?
    We won't know for about 5 years, when we look back and reconstruct the storylines to all make sense together.

    deadonthestreet on
  • MelMel Registered User
    edited August 2006
    The cover for issue 19 (assuming it holds any actual meaning)...
    [spoiler:187f255fbb]has Emma still on the team and Scott without a visor.[/spoiler:187f255fbb]
    So if that change is going to be permanent, it'd have to be after Civil War. (unless, unlikely as it may be, an even bigger change is made in Civil War: X-Men)

    Mel on
    71854.jpg
  • Conditional_AxeConditional_Axe Registered User
    edited August 2006
    Sars_Boy wrote:
    When is Astonishing supposed to take place, anyway?
    He's said it takes place over the course of a few days and is self-contained. Probably all centering around the Decimation; Gifted and Dangerous before House of M, and the last two arcs after.

    Conditional_Axe on
  • HardtargetHardtarget There Are Four Lights VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited August 2006
    Mel wrote:
    The cover for issue 19 (assuming it holds any actual meaning)...
    [spoiler:860ae971a3]has Emma still on the team and Scott without a visor.[/spoiler:860ae971a3]

    the second part of that is fucking awesome, i hope that actually happens.

    Hardtarget on
    steam_sig.png
    kHDRsTc.png
Sign In or Register to comment.