| |
|
No Lawrence, Storm is not Storm is not Storm. There is no single, seamless Storm. Not after 20 odd years and a a truckload of different writers.
I guess you could say the same thing about any of us, after 20 years of experiences. And yet if you did say the same thing, people would look at you funny. Because life is about change, yes, but an evolutionary change. Prunce may be completely different in 1980, 1990 and 2000, but s/he remains Prunce nontheless, because Prunce is contained within his/her own distinct continuity. The MU Storm is a single fictional character that operates in a similar fashion. The UU Storm is a new character, based on the original but with her own evolution that began with Ultimate X-Men 1. It's not that the UU Storm isn't Storm, it's that she's a different Storm. Perhaps this is why she appears in a universe with a continuity distinct from the MU. Shocker.
I want new writer's to bring something new to a book. The reason you enjoy NXM's because it's rebooted/made over: It's NEW. The character's don't feel the same, don't look the same and, well, the whole tone of the thing's changed.
Sure, but then the series' tone has always changed. This is nothing new. These are still recognizably the same characters, who have had all of the experiences catalogued in the issues before Grant arrived on the scene. Mark Millar, meanwhile, is writing about different characters. These are two fundamentally different approaches to the franchise, with Grant choosing to play in the original sandbox and Millar opting for a new one. The reason I like NXM isn't because it's new (and a lot of it isn't, not really). I like it because Grant is writing interesting stories about characters I like, and doing it well. I wouldn't buy Scott Lobdell's take on these characters even though I like them, and I wouldn't buy Grant's take on characters I don't like, such as the JLA. It's a two-sided equation.
You're dancing around the idea of whether a series should be internally consistent. I would say yes, and that while other interpretations are welcome and valid, they should occur within their own series. NEW X MEN did not begin with issue one, and Grant so far has recognized that fact and accomodated it in his storytelling and characterization.
Since the X-Men thing is becoming too cluttered, we could look at Superman instead. Smallville, Superboy, Louis & Clark, Superman, the animated series. All valid and unique television interpretations of Superman. Yet they all have an internal consistency, one in which each series' representation of Clark Kent must maintain a solid continuity between installments, despite varying wildly between series. My Storm point applies here - that it is not unreasonable for a fan of one interpretation to be disinterested in another interpretation, perhaps arguing that the George Reeves Clark is not the same character as the Dean Cain Clark. And so Clark is not Clark is not Clark.
Would you argue that superconsistency should apply to Superman the concept, as I would, or the episode-to-episode relationship within a specific series? If Grant's NEW X MEN is distinct from the previous issues, should it have been a distinct title? |
|
|
