I was skeptical of the X-Men '97 program when I heard about it; I certainly didn't intend to watch it. Still, I was aware that buzz was growing online after its debut a few weeks ago and I thought... after all... what harm could it do?
X-Men '97 is a continuation of the X-Men animated program that aired on Fox Kids in the 1990s. I enjoyed the 1990s program for the most part - I found the animation a bit crude (especially after I started watching the Bruce Timm Batman series) but I won't deny I was thrilled to see a major Marvel super hero in animated adventures that were helping raise the X-Men's profile around the world.
Still, why bring it back? Why not put that passion into a new animated X-Men program that kids in the 2020s might be interested in, rather than appeal to old guys who should have better things to do than watch a continuation of a favoured kids' show from their youth? Haven't comics themselves suffered greatly from fans' unwillingness to age out of the hobby? I mean, the comics themselves already produced a sequel to the 1990s cartoon that was written by Chris Sims... and that's all you needed to hear about that.
Going in, I was prepared for a nostalgia fest (and it is; they indulge in a recreation of the 90s X-Men arcade game for no good reason other than nostalgia). I was prepared to cringe. I don't think I was prepared to like it.
There's a moment in the first episode that cemented it for me. The X-Men's Blackbird jet is destroyed mid-air by a Sentinel. The X-Men must then use their powers to save each other from falling to their deaths. That's a pretty standard set-up for a super hero comic action set piece (in fact, the all-new all-different X-Men team faced that scenario way back in their 2nd adventure, X-Men #95). It climaxes with Cyclops using his optic blasts to slow his descent, an unusual means of demonstrating his power and control.
I was reminded of the scene in the film Iron Man 3 where Iron Man rescued people falling from an aircraft. Not just because of the similarity of the scenario, but because it called upon the hero to be resourceful (and for the film to demonstrate clear visual storytelling). As I say, scenarios like these were pretty typical in the comic books I grew up with; I see a lot fewer of them now - action scenes where the characters use their powers in ways that are creative and make sense according to the situation they find themselves in; opportunities to test characters and demonstrate something of their capabilities and even personalities; a situation that calls for a good command of visual storytelling rather than characters posing at each other while talking.
In which Michael imagines a typical X-Men comic book storytelling conference:
Writer: "Ugh, an action scene. I don't want to write an action scene."
Artist: "Nor do I care to draw one."
Writer: "Path of least resistance: they pose at each other in a double-page spread. Reader assumes the fight happened between panels."
Artist: "Whatever fills the pages works for me."
Writer: "That reminds me, I need to fill a data page. Maybe I'll quote Orwell. Or present nothing but redacted text."
I don't wish to join the chorus saying that the X-Men comics haven't been very good since Grant Morrison left 20 years ago - there have been outliers. It's just, they were outliers - not usually the main X-Men title. For the last 20 years the comic book counterparts have been trapped in their own storytelling engine. Usually the X-Men seem to be either fighting each other, fighting a faceless army or fighting someone so powerful they're practically a deity. The franchise has felt unmoored to me - ungrounded. Claremont's X-Men comics set up a template many other writers could use; when he was shown the door, his successors proved they could keep the books going through imitating his formula. But after Morrison broke the engine (or perhaps, after "M-Day" broke the engine) the massive cast of characters seem to have meandered, trapped in a shrinking universe with fewer and fewer new stories to tell, instead going through worn out tropes (an X-Man betrays the team! but they're a popular character so the team will get over it eventually; an X-Man dies! but so what, no one stays dead; the team breaks into factions with different philosophies and even fight each other! big whoop, they'll all be friends again when the next writer arrives).
X-Men '97 reminded me that, yeah, the X-Men are fun. They're interesting characters to spend time with. They have unique personalities, they clash over particular matters, they have different fighting styles... and they have a colorful rogue's gallery of enemies who have an interesting set of personalities too (Mojo maybe not so much). X-Men '97 reminded me... man, it's not that hard to tell a X-Men story that feels like a proper X-Men story. They made me feel for these characters again; even killing Gambit stirred me, despite all the comics have done to treat death with indifference (the present Krakoa age in the comics abolished death as any other than temporary inconvenience).
Many performers from the 1990s X-Men have reprised their voices, which is a little surprising. Cal Dodd's Wolverine sounds mostly the same, albeit weathered by age - although that kinda suits the character. I found Alison Sealy-Smith's imperious performance of Storm on the 1990s program off-putting (I think it drove me to dislike the comics version of Storm as well) but she seems to have a better balance now, less of the faux-Thor speech helps. The sheer number of returning performers is impressive considering more than 25 years have passed; even those who've aged out of their old roles have been recast into other characters for the new show.
For all that X-Men '97 is nostalgia bait for old men, I think new viewers might like it too; they'll probably have to watch the 1990s show first, though, and that might not appeal to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment