| dlotemp: I understand your point. Without a doubt, rational thinking ultimately makes me realize that to perceive that a "pop" character, such as Xorn has become, would dissapear simply because Morrison has completed his run with the X-Men is pretty ridiculous, and thusly the "reinterpretation" of characters such as Xorn (and undoubtedly Beak as well) is a relatively unavoidable outcome. The bottom line is that the "X-Men" concept exists as a franchisable one, though what IS unfortunate is that consistency within character interpretation seems to be less important within Marvel's current impetus. But then, who am I to question that? If sales on Uncanny X-Men are up, then I'm talking out of my ass b/c my inability to appreciate Austen's take on ANY character, let alone Xorn, is an inconsequential perspective on the whole. Assuming we forget about creator-character integrity. But then I guess one could say that Nightcralwer had been bastardized to hell by Claremont (given Cockrum's vision of his character), and yet most would see Claremont's take on Kurt Wagner as the quintessential one. So where do u stand on this issue, dlotemp? What matter more in your eyes; the "artistic vision" of current creators, judged ultimately by the sales of their book? Or the original creators' goals/vision for their character? |
)