The A v X Thread

[Phil]

Jeffries appears in this week's AvX:VS #6 in a one page splash of the A-Scientists vs the X-Scientists by Kathryn & Stuart Immonen.

For those who haven't seen the issue in question:
http://immonen.ca/post/32869806478

[-K-M-]

Who is Jeffries fighting? Da Vinci?

[Le Messor]

AVX #12 SPOILED:-
SERIOUSLY; DON'T READ UNLESS YOU WANT IT ...

S

P

O

I

L

E

D

I read it as being like the 5 Lights awakening when Hope appeared; now that the Phoenix Force has been dissipated and spread throughout the world, it's cancelled out Wanda's Chaos Hex and rather than un-done what happened previously, it's just levelled the playing field and left the world in balance

You refer to the prophecy of one who will bring balance to the mutations?

Who is Jeffries fighting? Da Vinci?

Wasn't he an original member of SHIELD now? So, maybe.
Certainly, they call him Italian.

(I have to imagine that dialogue makes sense in the context?)

~ Le Messor
Willow: Is this the master plan? You're gonna stop me by telling me you love me?
Xander: Well, I was gonna walk you off a cliff and hand you an anvil, but it seemed kind of cartoony.

[-K-M-]

He also appeared in a New Avengers tie-in to this event set a few hundred years ago though.

[Phil]

Yeah, like most of the battles in the issue I don't think it's to be taken literally.

[EccentricSage]

How long has Jeffries been talking that fancy, for? I miss the good old days when different characters had different speach patterns, accents, dialects, slang... Ugh. But it's good to see him in the thick of it. Now I just wish the writers would let him do something awesome with his powers.

As for the mutant powers balancing thing... look at it this way, it doesn't matter what it means, any writer who wants to can use it to justify giving characters their powers back if they really want to. We've seen worse explanations for characters being re-powered. (Loeb...)

[Flightpath07]

As for the mutant powers balancing thing

For myself, I'm not in favour of it. Although i appreciate that Marvel says they won't bring in a flood of mutants suddenly, the temptation for writers to make up any villain (or hero) they need to move a story along, with the mere explanation of "they're a mutant", is too much for many to avoid. I like my supers to have details, to make the writers think up interesting stories behind how they got their powers that help flesh out who the character is. Just saying "mutant" too often is a cop out. So this new development makes me nervous. Good thing i only read a couple of Marvel titles. And if they flood "Wolverine and the X-Men" with a bunch of new mutant children (which they have already said is what will happen in that series), i doubt i'll keep getting that title.

Good thing there are other comic companies that i enjoy way more than Marvel.

[Mokole]

I agree, just randomly making up new characters each storyline is dumb and cheap, which is one reason why having a billion mutants is a bad idea. I also don't like how it makes mutants the 'evolution' of mankind; having mutants as a sidebar or the result of experiments like in Ultimate was so much more enjoyable, didn't have so many one and done characters. Heroes don't wind up facing new villains every day, it's nice to have a backstory to lean on most of the time.

[Phil]

If Byrne/Claremont had used existing characters we'd never have had AF.

[Le Messor]

the temptation for writers to make up any villain (or hero) they need to move a story along, with the mere explanation of "they're a mutant", is too much for many to avoid.

Well, that is why Stan Lee invented them!

I agree, just randomly making up new characters each storyline is dumb and cheap,

I half-agree; a lot of the time, it seems like they're 'making up' the same characters over and over again. (Like, how many of the Serpent Society are just people who throw real good? And how many shadowy secret societies does the New DCU need?)

having mutants as a sidebar or the result of experiments like in Ultimate was so much more enjoyable

I've never taken to that idea for some reason.
I'm not entirely sure why.

If Byrne/Claremont had used only existing characters we'd never have had AF.

True. (with my added 'only')

~ Le Messor
"Internal consistency is more highly valued than efficiency."

[Phil]

I half-agree; a lot of the time, it seems like they're 'making up' the same characters over and over again.

I think that that's the proverbial nail on the head.
Murmur was the greatest example of this, for me. Although obviously had the 'Legacies' sub-plot been allowed to come to fruition her existance would have made more sense.

[Flightpath07]

I think that that's the proverbial nail on the head.
Murmur was the greatest example of this, for me. Although obviously had the 'Legacies' sub-plot been allowed to come to fruition her existance would have made more sense.

I agree. Leaving that subplot dangling was a tragedy. Likelihood of it ever being fixed? - Zero.

[Alphan East]

Although obviously had the 'Legacies' sub-plot been allowed to come to fruition her existance would have made more sense.

I thought the whole "Legacies of Hull House" was one of the better things to come out of Volume 2... if it would have been done right. Introducing a few young characters in this way would have been a great way of setting up a Beta Flight with its own back stories and adventures... maybe even under the guidance of some Alphans like Shaman or Windshear.

[Mokole]

Agreed.

[Flightpath07]

Agreed.

Moi, aussi.