by S.F. Jude Terror » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:45 pm
amlah6 wrote:X-Men Forever #18
My eyes have just been raped by the 90s and I think Claremont and Grummett did it on purpose.
The biggest problem I have with X-Men Forever is that I don't know Chris Claremont's work well enough to know whether or not he's being ironic. The plot has no originality outside of a few continuity changes which, in this issue at least, seem arbitrary. The characters are flatter than the paper the comic is printed on (but it's the Summers family so it's actually pretty in character) and the dialog is so hammy that I'm having trouble differentiating between what lines are bad and what lines are so bad they're funny.
While I can't decide if Claremont's contribution to this is self deprecating genius or a viscous bout of senility, I've read enough comics with Tom Grummett art to know that the horrifying 90s design of the book is intentional. As a period piece, the art in X-Men Forever works. It's not pretty, not by a long shot, but it makes sense. Beyond the 90s goofiness, this felt horribly rushed. The inks look sloppy and haphazard and the coloring is all different kinds of wrong.
For a series that is so firmly entrenched in nostalgia-based comic book storytelling, why are modern coloring techniques being applied? Flatten that shit out and knock it off with the over rendered lighting effects. Color the book like it's 1991 for goodness sake. Claremont's writing it like it's 1991. Grummett's drawing it like it's 1991. Wouldn't it make a hell of a lot more sense for it to be colored that way as well?
X-Men Forever seems to be a book that is wholly dependent on how much nostalgia the reader brings into it. For the right reader, this could be a fun endeavor. For someone like me who comes into it without any connection to the original material, it's just a bad comic book.
Fuck you, man.