X-Men Origins, etc.

Discuss chronologies for characters in the main "Marvel Universe"

Moderators: Paul Bourcier, Kevin W., Col_Fury, Arthur, JephYork, Somebody

Locked
gregorynbaker
Minion
Minion
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:11 pm

X-Men Origins, etc.

Post by gregorynbaker » Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:24 pm

Hello all,

I know you have begun trying to fit X-Men: First Class, et al., into continuity. I want to address some of the X-Men origin stories, specifically what is in and and what is out.

The original "origins" ran as backups in X-Men vol. 1 #38-57. As Paul O'Brien has repeatedly indicated, they are not that great.

When X-Men: Children of the Atom came out, I was ready to embrace it as a retcon, but it was rejected by MCP. The publication of X-Men Origins: Beast confirms the 1960s versions is at least the correct template.

However, I was unimpressed by Angel: Revelations, which seemed too far afield from the original story in X-Men vol. 1 #54. It may conflict with X-Terminators #1, which I believe said Warren attended Phillips Exeter. The Worthingtons also seemed pretty WASPy as well, which clashed with the story Aguirre-Sacasa was trying to tell, which was very critical of the Catholic Church. (Don't get me started on trying to figure out when/if/how the Worthingtons know Warren is a mutant in XMFC)

In the last few months we have had Angel: Revelations, X-Men Origin: Colossus, X-Men Origins: Beast, X-Men Origins: Jean Grey, and X-Men: Magneto Testament. Excusing Magneto (which is incomplete but had an excellent first issue), where do these rank in terms of canonicity? What about the Uncanny Origins series? Given the fuller treatment of those stories more recently (X-Men Origins: Beast, Ororo: Before the Storm, and Storm vol. 2 spring to mind), are those still in continuity?

I know this is done on a case to case basis, sometimes panel to panel, but I was wondering what your thoughts were on these issues.

Thanks,
Gregory N. Baker

User avatar
Somebody
Director
Director
Posts: 3035
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: X-Men Origins, etc.

Post by Somebody » Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:39 pm

Like you say, it's very much case-by-case, and I haven't been buying the X:O one-shots to comment on those.

However, Angel: Revelations isn't a Marvel Comics book, but a Marvel Knights book. It's my opinion, based on certain statements made by Quesada and others at the time of the MK relaunch (the one that kicked Daredevil and a few other books back to standard Marvel Comics branding), that any MK book started after that point should be treated under, as someone else once put it, "Bizarro rules" (normally, a comic is presumed in-continuity unless (a) Marvel says it's not or (b) it can't fit. I think nuMK books should need a specific "this is in" statement to contradict the blanket "they're not" - as Magneto: Testament #1, also an MK book, does have).

cweed4
Big Bad
Big Bad
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:29 am
Location: Phoenix

Re: X-Men Origins, etc.

Post by cweed4 » Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:55 am

So does this mean that all MK books since the year 200X (I'm not sure when all of this stuff happened that you are talking about?) are assumed to be out-of-continuity unless they are specifically referenced in a MU book? For example, is SM: With Great Power not canon simply because of the MK label until something from that story is mentioned in a current Spidey story?

User avatar
Col_Fury
Director
Director
Posts: 6320
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 3:37 am
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: X-Men Origins, etc.

Post by Col_Fury » Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:21 pm

That's not the way I've been seeing it.(I don't remember Quesda's exact quote, but I took it to mean the these books wouldn't be in current continuity, as opposed to continuity at all) Since they've reformatted the Marvel Knights line into a line of prestige miniseries', we've seen two types of stories. Stories set in the past and stories set in the future. Obviously, Silver Surfer: Requiem has no where to go, it's in the future. The same for Spider-Man: Reign. But out of the stories set in the past, like Fury: Peacemaker, Spider-Man: With Great Power..., Ghost Rider: Trail of Tears, there is a place for them to go and they can fit. Some a little more comfortable than others, but they can.
-Daron Jensen

User avatar
Somebody
Director
Director
Posts: 3035
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: X-Men Origins, etc.

Post by Somebody » Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:53 pm

Haven't we been here before? :) ("Marvel Knights books" [Archive 68]; "Night Raven slip-up" [Thread ended Feb 2008])
New Marvel Knights Press Release, [url]http://tinyurl.com/4rcz26[/url] wrote: Again, Marvel stressed, the moves of the ongoing series are a redefining of the imprint, which will remain a viable location for projects. Rather than ongoings, however, following the changes, Marvel Knights will be the home for limited series by high profile creative teams that fall outside of the realm of the Marvel Universe.
That's a clear and unambiguous statement. Joe Q himself - at http://classic.newsarama.com/JoeFridays ... ays34.html - was less unambiguous, but still used phrases like "just a step to the right or left of continuity", and "What I’m basically saying is the readers of the new upcoming Marvel Knights books can read them for just the story without having to add on the pressure of how this fits into a larger tapestry. I know the writers and artist won’t be creating with those restraints." - in other words, the stories weren't being written with an aim of fitting into continuity.

Now, Magneto: Testament has an afterword to specifically say "that doesn't apply here - where we're making changes, it's because the existing comics themselves contradict each other". The fact that they felt the need to insert such an afterword says to me that the broader point is still valid except where the exception is explicitly noted.

Locked