Whedon Speak, Part Three: How Cyclops Got His Groove Back

“I don’t like games, Emma.”

“No, you’re Scott Summers. You like homework and vegetables. But you do play games with me.”

I don’t like Scott Summers. I mean, I really, really don’t. And I’ve always operated under the assumption that it was supposed to be that way. I always believed that Cyclops was a lifeguard who never went off duty. Fifteen minutes into Little Miss Sunshine I recognized Greg Kinnear as “the Scott Summers character.” The same goes for Jack in season 2 of Lost. The very intentional archetype of the vanilla, by the books, tightly clenched, hand sanitizing hall monitor. The antithesis of all that is fun, spontaneous, vulgar, haphazard, and adventurous in this world.  

“Professor? You forgot to assign homework.”

But by the end of Joss Whedon’s run on Astonishing X-Men, I was willing to believe in another Scott Summers. Maybe an anti-Cyclops. And because he threw down the single-eyed, single-minded visor, I am prepared to call him Biclops. Haggard, angry, and almost unrecognizable from his previous manifestation, Biclops was everything Scott Summers probably wanted to be. The Snoopy to his Charlie Brown. The Fonz  to his Richie Cunningham. The Shawn Hunter to his Corey Matthews. The Spike to his William the Bloody Awful Poet. The Wolverine to his… well… 

And for me, I’ll always remember Astonishing X-Men as a favorite X-Men story because of its peculiar relationship to history. It is at once reverent to the stories which came before, while also a complete subversion of the characters we’ve come to know. In the “Torn” arc, Whedon delivers a fluffy and gun shy Wolverine, a primal Beast, and throughout, an adult Kitty Pryde. This serves the story, but it’s also a series of wink, or maybe one big collective wink to the fans. That’s not to say that it feels at all hokey or post modern in the annoying way. Because this is a story about growing up and about facing realities. It’s also a celebration of the best things about the X-Men. For a series so closely associated to the science and philosophy and question of human evolution, this is a book which hearkens back and emphasizes all the strongest moments of a decades-old story and asks “what’s next?” It’s survival of the fittest.   

In that regard, Astonishing X-Men is a shining success. It is a self-contained story which is strengthened by a working knowledge of character history, without necessarily requiring it. It is a complete story with a real sense of authorship and focus. While there are some stumbling steps along the way, the view is always pretty interesting. I’m of two minds on the Scott Summers thing. This is what he should be. It’s a logical progression that does not feel so jarring. His relationship with Emma is not just a good idea, it’s probably the best possible idea. But because this story is isolated and not the flagship X-Men title in the line, it’s a bittersweet thing to see a character develop into something far more interesting than he was before, knowing full well that it doesn’t carry over into the main branch of his continuity. Astonishing X-Men is something of a missing link in the evolutionary chain. Imagine a really smart, really savvy Bigfoot loping around the Pacific Northwest as the path not taken.
Runaways. This one almost baffles me. Almost. See, they broke the mold after Joss Whedon, but somehow they managed to reassemble it and sculpt Brian K. Vaughan. So it only makes sense that one could successfully further the other’s projects. But this is over-simplifying the very complicated process of emulating the style of another storyteller, or more accurately, guiding that story with your own hand. Depending on the work, this could be like tagging-in to finish a friend’s chess match, or hurtling head long into a game of squash, already in progress. I was excited to see Whedon’s name on the new roster. But months later, I’m ready to call my three Brian K. Vaughan scripted Runaways hardcovers a complete set. Whedon’s time travel arc “Dead End Kids” just didn’t pan out. Comparing it with his previous Marvel project is going to shed some light on the big Why.   

The same isolationist strategy that helped Astonishing X-Men develop into a satisfying, self-contained story damned Dead End Kids to a lackluster response. This is an ambitious storyline which introduces a whole score of new characters and a new environment for our heroes, probably more world building than a new arc of a continuing storyline ought to attempt. Looking at the status quo of Dead End Kids, this could potentially be the concept for a new series in and of itself. At the very least, it’s a new direction for a series with what should be lasting ramifications. But as Runaways readers, we know it’s just a temporary stop along the way. Whether pulling the Runaways out of current Marvel continuity was a failsafe to stay the tentacles of surrounding events or an actual, honest-to-goodness time travel story idea is not clear. But I certainly wouldn’t blame him for wanting to set his own blockades to protect his little corner of the Marvel universe, if only for a brief time. The downside is that the arc is probably doomed to becoming a footnote in the ongoing saga of the Marvel Universe, and maybe even the Runaways themselves. This all adds up to a low impact story with seemingly high impact ambitions. 

The two books suffer from the same afflictions, but the thing to remember is that while the Astonishing X-Men story led up to that off-world jaunt, that isolated adventure isn’t the whole of the story. There are three trade paperbacks worth of build-up. And so much of that buildup was also a deconstruction of the established X-Men mythology. Runaways doesn’t have the history that characters like Scott and Kitty and Peter and Logan have. And while I count Astonishing X-Men as one of the best series on my shelves, again, stop and think just how much that work relies on a celebration of history. Take away all the deconstruction, all the homage, all the echoes of past glories, and you’re left with a book that is really quite beautiful and well-scripted, but also pretty on par with the adventure Whedon delivers in “Dead End Kids.” Which isn’t to say it’s bad. Not at all. But so much of that book is a tribute to decades of great storytelling. Astonishing X-Men is a love letter to all the good decisions made by the writers of a book which has had many ups and downs. And that history simply doesn’t exist with the Runaways. So there’s no real level of perspective. Unfortunately, this says less about Runaways than it does about Whedon’s abilities as a comic book writer. “Dead End Kids” is not a bad book, but it doesn’t really stand up to those issues that came before it. My short answer is that the culprits are ambition and pacing. I think a single arc wasn’t enough to tell that Runaways story, just as I know a single arc wouldn’t have been enough to tell the Astonishing X-Men story. A short comic arc or miniseries does not equal a season of television. And while setting a story outside of the bounds of continuity is a great way to keep a story safe, it also opens it up to scrutiny and holds it back from making the kind of impact it could potentially make. 

Once again, history and continuity stand to either raise a story up or bury it in obscurity. The price of evolution.


Paul Montgomery is concerned about the mutant problem. To receive a pamphlet, write to paul@ifanboy.com.  You can also find him on Twitter.

And later this week, listen to his first episode of the award winning audio drama
Wormwood: A Serialized Mystery, co-written with Wormwood creator David Accampo. Paul joins the writing staff with season 2, episode 14.  All previous episodes from seasons 1 and 2 can be found for free at wormwoodshow.com or on iTunes.  



  1. It’s really sad to see that you can’t see Cyclops for the great character/person that he is. 

  2. @ron – I had to turn my framed picture of you away from me as I typed the opening paragraphs.  The Conor and Josh photos seemed to smile a little wider though.  Trick of the light.  

  3. I look at Whedon’s X-Men a little differently since I was introduced to the X-Men through the original Saturday morning cartoon on FOX, and prior to Astonishing I’d read less than a dozen actual X-comics. I have a general understanding of all the characters and can appreciate how Whedon plays with reader’s expectations of them, but it’s still more of a surface understanding, costing me the joy of seeing Whedon play in such a well-established sandbox. Still, the upside of not reading any X-books is that I don’t have to watch Cyclyops de-evolve back into the prat he’s generally portrayed to be.

  4. I’m so Torn on this, Cyke has always been my favorite character in the X-men; however, lets face it Pol is right he’s basicly one giant Super-ego. Whedon really did move him more into the Ego catagory, but lets face it Morrison was already moving him that way. I think that Joss’s run has impacted the current Uncanny work by Brubaker.

  5. (I am not sure I am awesome enough to post here.  Are nonstaff allowed to post in this thread?)

    Look at that picture up there.  Why wasn’t Cyclops an absolute badass from day one?  He is the Duke/Hawk of the X-men (that is a G.I. Joe reference for those of you not old enough to vote).

  6. I’ve got to agree with Paul here, Cyclops has always bored me but Whedon’s run finally gave him a little bit of personality and I think Fraction and Brubaker have taken that and helped him grow a bit in Uncanny now.

  7. Great post, Paul. It always seemed self-evident that the early Cyclops was written to be respected, but not liked. Who didn’t enjoy Wolverine’s incessant insults or Beast’s seeming insubordination?

    Cyclops evolved from Niedermayer to Hooper, thanks mostly to Whedon’s gifted writing. If that kind of evolution isn’t in the spirit of the X-Men, I don’t know what is.

  8. Great essay — 

    I can’t comment much further because I am waiting to see what my friends who love Cyke are going to say.  😀

  9. I’m surprised Whedon didnt like Cyclops in general cause he made Scott more likeable in my eyes. The regular X-Titles *like Uncanny* makes Scott too much of a dick and inept leader. In Astonishing he made Summers a great leader with a variety of tatics and stradegies. He was more leader there then anywhere else I have read. Then again Whedon made EVERYONE look better during his run.

    I know Ron was crying reading this first paragraph though. 😉

  10. @PaulMontgomery – It’s a misconception that I don’t like Cyclops, I just like pushing Ron’s buttons about him because as his friend, that’s what I do.  Also, Jack is my favorite character on LOST.

  11. @conor – Your photo was smiling because I was pushing Ron’s buttons.  I like Jack too, but not in season 2.  I remember you saying you always liked him, but I know I’m not alone in thinking that he was not easy to root for during that point in the series.  Most of the time though, Jack is more like the cool version of Cyclops Whedon presented.  

  12. I’m not that big of a Cyclops fan but I think your characterization is a bit harsh and oversimplified.  Scott Summers was never a character that was particularly comfortable with his feelings and probably took things too seriously at times.  Just because he is more angry and dating Emma Frost doesn’t mean he has changed that much as a character.  I think it is a situation that he still believes in the Xavier dream but not in the man himself anymore.  His father figure let him down, so now he is a bit more bitter and cynical.  I’m not sure why that makes him more interesting it is just a logical extension of what was already intrinsic in the character.  He is the leader so he doesn’t let his hair down often but he is hardly a robot and has on many occasions been very funny and spontaneous in his interactions with his teammates.  It isn’t as often as Wolverine or Beast but that is what makes it more special when it happens.

  13. I finish this article and have one remaining question.  Do you really know what it’s like to hurtle headlong into a game of Squash already in progress?

  14. @itsbecca – I don’t know how to play chess either.  

  15. Do people not actually read ‘God Loves Man Kills’ or ‘The Dark Phoenix Saga’?

  16. I’ve read Dark Phoenix.  

    How do these two relate to Astonishing?   

  17. Cyclops is a totally awesome character–way before Whedon got a hold of him [though he did a great job with him].  He is the x-men equivalent of Captain America [Steve Rogers-the real Cap].  He also ALWAYS speaks with he voice he had in the cartoon in the early 90’s.


  18. @SteveM:  It’s funny, but I have the same thing with hearing the cartoon Cyclops voice every time I read a book he’s in.    Actually, the same is true for most of the X-Men voices.  That show was truly burned directly into my subconscious.

  19. While it is fair to say Whedon did a lot for the character, he was not the first person to bring the change about in Cyclops. The push for a rough around the edges Cyclops has its roots in the early 80s after Phoenix was killed. He left the team and did some non team stuff. His X-Factor persona a few years later was intended to be a little flaky. He spent the better part of 40 issues moping about the "death" of Maddy and having weird sexual tension with the revived Jean, but he ended up being aligned into his more traditional role for the late 80s/early 90s Cyke that most people know him for.

    But, the current "Dark" Cyclops theme is a long progression from shortly after the Search for Cyclops. He didn’t rejoin the X-Men right away and went on a soul searching mission. He came back with longer hair, an unshaven look and an all black costume (See cover to Uncanny #391). While this version of Cyke only had a 3 month shelf life (Really, just the "Eve of Destruction" story), it really colored how Morrison painted the character. During Morrison’s run we got a much muddier Scott. He wasn’t always clear cut, he also started to not follow the rules and he got much, much darker. What Whedon did was what no one else at Marvel wanted to do… actually use what Morrison had given them to work with.

    And while Whedon performed his own magic on the character and made him into a much more enjoyable character, he was not the first and he was actually really just following, it would seem to me, an editorial decision dating back to 2001 to change Cyclops from a "Boy Scout" into something more interesting. And Whedon was just the take that finally got it 100%.

    Cyclops had long been one of my favorite X-Men. I was never happier with the character than when he was under the pen of Morrison or Whedon.

    Good essay though! 

  20. I had to step back for a few hours and catch my breath as not to respond to Paul’s attempt at character assasination emotionally. 

    (and for the record, I understand/get that this wasn’t a condemnation of Cyclops, rather a very well thought out analysis of Whedon’s comic work, for which exemplifies why I’m so proud to have Paul here at iFanboy, except when he’s taking cheap shots at characters.

    I have to echo OhCaroline’s sentiment and add onto it that I really feel bad for Paul becaus he’s built his opinion of Cyclops based on popular opinion and comics works within the past decade or so.  But much to the detriment of your argument,to ignore the history of the character and the continuity of the character is ignorant.

    Brubaker has gone on record (on our show even) to say that he believes that when all is sad and done, the X-Men "story" will not be Professor Xavier’s story, rather Cyclops’ story, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.  The other comments above about how Cyclops is the Captain America or the Duke of the X-Men are also completely accurate.

    When I’m up against the wall and need someone to have my back, I wish it was someone like Scott Summers.  Sure he may not be as glamourous as Wolverine or other X-Men characters, but by no means is the milktoast you make him out to be, and this establishment of him as such a character is sad, especially when done to irk a reaction or garner a laugh.

    Cyclops has been built as the consummate leader.  He is a strategic thinker, knowing how to deploy his team and deal with any situation.  He is a soldier, a friend and a lover.  His deep love for Jean Grey was the driving force of Dark Phoenix Saga.  He has continually put himself at risk and sacrficed himself for those he loves and has sworn allegience to for over 40 years.  If that’s not "cool", well then we’re operating on different frequencies I suppose.

    I wasn’t surprised when Whedon did what he did.  Cyclops has always been bad ass.  It just took someone as badass as Whedon (at times) to make you see that. 

    As far as I can tell, that’s your loss.


  21. I think when I started reading back issues, I caught wind on the Scott/Maddie marriage and how he deserted her (and baby Cable) the second he found out Jean was alive.  There, I thought "I don’t think I like this guy."  Then, in Morrison’s run when he and Jean were having problems, he decided to have an affair with her rival rather than talk it out with her and never really seemed that remorseful about it either.  There, I thought "Yeah… I really don’t like this guy."  So, it always puzzles me a bit when people think he’s the straight-laced vanilla guy when he’s really kind of a jerk at times.  I can appreciate what Whedon did for the character to get him out of that "stiff guy" pigeonhole, but it didn’t exactly make me care about Cyclops either.  I’m more of a Beast guy, personally.

  22. …Holy cow.  

  23. Sorry, I got interrupted in the middle of commenting — basically, what I was getting at is "what Ron said."  I love what Whedon did with Cyclops and cannot get enough of people pointing out that the run is really his story.  But in my view, Whedon was bringing Cyclops back to what he was like in the first few years that Claremont was writing him, not creating a totally new version of the character.  I understand where the popular version of no-fun Cyclops comes from, but — with Dark Phoenix and GLMK being a couple of the most well-regarded X-titles, and the Cyke in that being closer to what Whedon did than to the common perception, it always surprises me a little that it is so pervasive.  This was not a particular comment on the article Paul wrote, so much as the general fandom opinion, which is basically reinforced by the comments here.

    Sorry I was in a hurry before, did not mean to slight what Paul wrote, which is excellent as always,  and (on the Cyclops thing) reflects what a lot of people think.

  24. Of course, I would probably read an original graphic novel about hall monitors.

    That is one tough job!!

  25. Aaaaaaaaaaay! It’s The Fonz… or Fonzie. Never Fonze. 

    I’ve been thinking about Whedon’s Runaways story and remembering it fondly. More fondly, in fact, than while it was ongoing. I’d really like to take a look back and read it altogether. It was so consistently gorgeous. The story might have bit off more than it could chew, but some of those characters were really incredible. 

  26. Even if Whedon made Cyclops the next Jesus (which I’m sure Ron thinks he is anyways) to me he is still a prick. I’m sorry for the language but he is. Even during the early parts of Whedon’s run he was a condensending jerk. He didnt care about others feelings, he just wanted to get the job done and go home. Messiah Complex showed me at least that he has no problem killing his own son just to get the job done. Hell even Xavier told him that was a crazy notion and he needed to talk to his son….but Cyclops said (paraphrasing) ‘Gotta do what I gotta do’ and sent Logan after him.

    It doesnt help that Fraction/Brubaker’s run on Uncanny and Ellis’s Astonishing run have made this point clear….Cyclops as of right now, November 11th 2008, is a jerk.

  27. The appearance of Madelyne Pryor marked the beginning of a pretty bad downward spiral for Scott that culminated when Jean came back and X-Factor was founded. But what was fascinating about that time was that he knew what he was doing was wrong but he just couldn’t help himself.

    But in general, Scott has made the hard choices and done the right thing when he had to. It will be interesting to see how he deals with it now that Madelyne seems to be back.

  28. @TheNextChampion Let’s leave religion out of this, shall we? 

    And I should know better, but I’ll say it.  Go read anything prior to the last few years worth of comics and then come back.  I don’t necessarily agree with you that Whedon wrote Cyke as a jerk.  But after Astonishing, over the past year or so, it’s been a very odd characterization of Scott that I haven’t really enjoyed or agreed with. That said, Brubaker and Fraction on Uncanny?  Cyclops has been spot on.  No way is he a jerk there, he’s coming into his own, out of Xavier’s shadow, which I applaud.

     But seriously, go read any of the pre All New, All Different X-Men, then read Dark Phoenix, From the Ashes, Mutant Massacre, Fall of the Mutants, Inferno, X-Tinction Agenda, God Loves, Man Kills etc…then come talk to me about whether or not hes a prick.  

    @Patio makes a great point too – the guy’s been through hell and back.  Loses his family, becomes an orphan, is a mutant, loses his love tragically, marries someone else, gets his love back, his ex goes crazy and become a Goblin Queen, I mean the list goes on and on.  Yes he may have made bad choices or treated people poorly etc, but why are you all putting him on a pedestal.  He may be a mutant, but he’s still human.  We all make mistakes, it’s how we handle ourselves in the long run.  And I firmly believe that at the end of the day, Scott is one of the greats.

  29. Good article, sir.

    I see your point on the Runaways, but I think it’s a good story. It would be nice to see it as like… eight parts. I think it could have used those two extra issues to its benefit. It was hyper dense, but he NAILED those characters. More than anything, watching Joss write the Runaways was phenomenal and I loved it. Not at first, but it grew grew on me.

  30. @Ron: No No my arguement was that A) Whedon started out making him a jerk and then redeemed him and B) Cyclops has been a joker since….well since House of M really. I love those stories you mentioned and he is a great leader in those instances. Here I just sense shallowness and overall just a ‘by the numbers’ affiar when it comes to his leadership. I know Xavier has given him a lot of crap over the years with his brother and all….But when I see him and Scott argue, it feels forced and makes him look that much of a jerk.

    Whedon made me love Cyclops because I thought he turned him into a brilliant tacticion again. That whole run with him faking his death and breaking out was one of the best X-Moments…in my mind anyways. But with Uncanny and Astonishing, it’s like I dont even know who he is. I just dont see Brubaker/Fraction really writing a good Summers there. What I get is, again; is a paint by numbers leader who likes S and M on the side. When I read Dark Pheonix Saga and then go back to today’s X-Men….it’s sad to see how much of a downslide Scott has really had.

  31. I smell an X- Men Show. (Yes, I’m aware of the mini about the bases) but Ron has thrown the Infinity Gauntlet down and I’d like to hear more. Ron also gets 1000 life points for the use of the word "milktoast"

    As far as our Pal, Paul Montgomery is concerned, that was the best xomprehensive  review I have read in a long while, spefically because it articulated a chink in the Whedon Armor.

    Is there anything besides Dark Phoniex which illustrates Jean Grey as a character? in the mainstream books. Kilpatrick has me reading first class. I feel like I need to see her more as Jean Grey, the human as opossed to Jean Grey source of Psychic Source of Supreme Bad Asserry. Any trades will be considered.

    You boys are on fire this week. Flanagan kicked some arse in his post as well.

  32. At the risk of sounding like That Guy, I think the real problem Runaways had was lateness. While Astonishing X-Men could survive anything given the longevity of it characters, Dead End Kids was building a whole new world with months and months between installments, which turned out to be murder.

  33. I’m with @Ron on this one, although I can’t say I have a real affinity for the X-Men in General. Still, I’ve never thought of Cyclops as a man of the mundane but a man of principle.

     I’m with @Paul when it comes to Whedon’s Runaways though.

  34. I can’t stop laughing at that pic of Kinnear.

  35. You know, I don’t have any real desire to read the Whedon issues of RUNAWAYS.  I think I’m satisfied with the Vaughan run.

  36. Cyclops has always been one of my favorite characters despite hearing from people (who nine times out of ten have not read as many books with him in it as I have) that he’s lame.  For me the most important part of his character is that he’s been a field general since he was 15.  If Marvel-time is a sliding ten years this guy has been consistently winning battles since he was a teenager into his mid twenties now.  I think it makes sense he would be uptight for certain parts of his life considering what he was dealing with and the age in which he was dealing through it.  

    p.s.- great article Paul, people’s seem to have an opinion regarding ol Slim. 

  37. "Cyclops may be a jerk, but he’s OUR jerk."


    I’m paraphrasing i think but that’s the general gist of what Wolverine says in an early issue of SECRET WARS…the first Secret Wars from the 80’s…unfortunately i was very impressionable back then and have since always thought of him as a jerk…

    and yet somehow life goes on…

  38. I love it when the big boys step down from the mountain and pass judgement (Biblical and shit).  Where’s Josh?  We need his two (three?) cents.

  39. I don’t really care about Cyclops.  Like Conor, I only use the jokes about him to get Ron antsy.  I haven’t read enough X-Men to make a judgement.  It’s not my bag, as it were.  But, as you may remember, I really enjoyed Astonishing, almost despite myself.  I think it was just really well done, and it’s almost as simple as that.

    I agree that Whedon’s Runaways suffered mostly because of lateness, and perhaps a slightly over-complicated plot.

    For the record, there is no mountain from which we can step down, as far as I can tell.  Although, I do live in a second floor apartment.

  40. Ooh wait, I do have Cyclops think in my dome.

    He’s not Greg Kinnear, which is a funny thought, but not really accurate, because, if I were writing him, you need Cyclops, and at the end of the day, you’re much better off for having him than not.  But Kinnear was trying to be helpful, but wasn’t.  At the end of that day, you would be better off without him.  

    A team needs straight laced buttoned down people to  make sure the talented slackers get their ass in gear and follow the program.  Someone’s gotta make the schedule and have the confrontation when it’s necessary, because somehow, some way, shit has to get done.

    And with that, I just understood why he’s Ron’s favorite character.  Fascinating.

  41. @Josh – "there is no mountain from which we can step down"  Sure… I guess modesty is the best policy (fuck honesty).

    Are you saying that RON is the the Cyclops of your group?!?  My entire vision of how you three work behind the scenes just got busted all to shit.

    I am almost terrified to ask, but which X-man are you and which is Conor?  

    (I, by the way, am clearly Dazzler.)

  42. @Jimski – I literally cut a line in there about Runaways delays knowing that you would pick it up in the comments.  🙂  Just lining up volley.  

    @josh – I know Cyclops is necessary, and no, Kinnearclops isn’t a perfect analogy.  It’s still funny.  My point is that, while he’s needed on the team, he’s never been a favorite of mine.  And I thought that that was intentional.  I thought that, over time, certain writers picked up on this idea that he’s not fun and sort of ran with it.  So, Ron’s assertion that my view of Cyclops is based on popular opinion is certainly valid.  While Astonishing and other modern interpretations of the X-Men aren’t the only X-Men comics I’ve read, they probably make up for 40 or 50% of what I’ve read.  

    I will seek out more Cyclops and hopefully I can do a followup.   

  43. Maybe my view on Cyclops is more on the film perspectives of him. Sure the first and second one had him at a competant leader….but let’s face it: those two films focused more on Wolverine and Jean Grey then anyone else. And dont get me started on X3. I might not be a huge fan of Summers but damnit, the way he bite the dust was just sad and pointless. Here’s hope to X-Men Origins: Wolverine will have a better Scott Summers.

  44. But as Runaways readers, we know it’s just a temporary stop along the way. 

    This is a false premise.  Runaways always ran in its own little corner of the Marvel Universe, and therefore had the freedom to go anywhere.  When it started, it was in LA since no one else was there (with the exception of the would-be Losers).  As it continued, it slowly pushed into the Marvel U, but still had its own real characters.  The time travel arc, while a convenient way to get out of certain events, really was a natural progression to that story.  How do the kids continue to battle the Pride when the Pride is gone?

    I also think Cyclops is awesome.  He’s the example of the straight-and-narrow when readers all want to be Wolverine.

  45. Cyclops is a douche. At least that’s what the movies made me think of him. It’s hard to shake that stigma of a buzzkill when Wolverine is always riding his ass in the comics as such.

  46. @jmarquisto -By "stop along the way" I meant that the new status, the fact that they were stuck in that time period, was only temporary.  It was just a setting and "world" established for an arc and not a game-changing move.  Compare this to an X-Men mission to the Savage land and the X-Men’s more serious move to San Francisco.  I think that Whedon paid the kind of attention to his world-building as would be appropriate for a San Fran move as opposed to the temporary Savage Land move.  I was a little harsh, but I also don’t want this to be a month long Whedon love-fest.  I’m being a little critical of one of my favorite writers.  

  47. I heard there was character assasinatin’ goin’ on in here.

    Biclops is a porn name.

    Cyclops was my first favorite character that wasn’t featured in the Superfriends.  I didn’t know he was supposed to be lame until the message board era. 

    Interesting that much like Daredevil, he’s defined as much by his relationships with women as he is with superheroing.  Emma and Scott are one of the most fun couples to read about in comics.

  48. Didn’t Whedon just cast Nathan Fillion as Cyclops?  Hard when he needed to be and able to crack a joke from time to time.  The only thing I see that’s different about this Cyclops and old Cyclops is that his dialogue is better. 

  49. I agree the films had a pretty horrible depiction of Cyke.  Wasn’t he either captured, incapacitated, missing, dead, or otherwise ignored during the bulk of all 3?

  50. Not to go off subject, but per Paul’s note at the end of his column this week… his first episode of Wormwood, "Jack Nicholson’s Nose" is now online. So for more of Paul’s writing, you may wanna check that out. http://www.wormwoodshow.com.

    It’s cooler than Cyclops. 😉