"Some Angels Fall"
Writer: Grant Morrison
Artists: John Paul Leon(p), Bill Sienkiewicz(i), Chris Chuckry(c)
"Wherever angels go trouble follows...." This will be the last issue of New X-Men. Why asks you? Because a headache is beginning to form. It's called screwed up X-Men Continuity. I don't understand it. I don't care to understand it, and if Grant Morrison can't make me understand it, nobody will be capable. So, I'm writing off the X-Men as something I'll never understand again.
We begin with Darkstar's funeral. I actually know more about Darkstar than the X-Men. The Russian wielder of the Darkforce and one time girlfriend to Ice Man joined the Champions and later returned to her homeland to become one of the Soviet Super Soldiers who made a memorable guest appearance in Iron Man. The character has been drawn by John Byrne and the legendary Carmine Infantino who redesigned her costume. She deserved far more than being shot by an idiot with a Diabolik fixation.
Grant Morrison had no idea who this character was. He merely saw her as canon fodder to be cool and hip. The evidence can be seen at the funeral. I can see Alyson Hannigan and Leonard Nimoy, but where is Vanguard, Ursa Major and the new Titanium Man? Where is Tony Stark, Bobby Drake, Hercules and Black Widow, with whom she became fast friends? Furthermore, when Charles asks all to "share in a telepathic experience" in order to "understand what we have lot today" the page which should have been a montage of Darkstar's past adventures and deeds of heroism--which Morrison could have just made up for bloody sake--is conspicuous in its absence. This is the sign of a writer who doesn't know what he's doing, and remember I like Morrison's writing. I liked Doom Patrol and Animal Man. I loved JLA. In comparison, New X-Men is dog spittle.
When I first bought New X-Men I thought Grant Morrison was on the right track. Chuck continuity out the window and start from scratch. Don't emphasize things that have no bearing on the story. Well, here's Angel--Archangel forgive me. He's blue. Why he's blue? I never understood why he became blue. I suppose it's because eventually all mutants will turn blue. The Beast turned blue. Nightcrawler is blue. Angel became blue.
Angel became blue around the time Submariner discovered Jean Grey alive and well at the bottom of Hudson Bay. With Angel, Cyclops, Ice Man and the Beast, she became one of the core member of X-Factor. I remember this because of a Spider-Man X-Factor team-up. I never bought a single issue of X-Factor, but since Cyclops and Jean were both on the same team doesn't it follow that he should know that the entity he fell in love with was not Jean Grey at all? Shouldn't he realize that she is not the one who got him all hot and bothered? He and Emma stupidly talk about Jean as if she is the same character as the Phoenix. That would have been fine had Grant Morrison been rewriting continuity, but the blue Angel disproves this. If the Angel is blue, then X-Factor happened. If X-Factor happened, Submariner discovered the real Jean Grey healing in the cocoon. Scott should have known whom he married. Her name was Madelyn. In short, we have a mess again.
Can I ignore the continuity? Sure. Let's look at this issue if I ignore continuity. Some telepathic bald guy holds a funeral. We'll never know who this person was since she doesn't even rate a flashback, nor many friends. Those who bothered to show fail to eulogize her. Emphasizing how unimportant the funeral and the character was, the scene shifts to somewhere on a bluff. A blue guy with wings tries to coach other people with wings on how to fly. The hot black chick with wings spouts off her mouth, and the chicken boy laments. Chicken boy tries to fly, but he forgets to take off his jacket. He's got wings, he should expose them to provide lift. Course, then he wouldn't look cool. Not that he does. The hot black chick kisses chicken boy to perk him up and win a bet.
Meanwhile, the hottie in white reads a book by yet another blue guy who claims to be gay. The hottie in white does not believe this, and since this character is not subject to continuity, why should we? Then again why should we not? Can we take the hottie in white's word ?
Meanwhile on a sleek plane, a guy with a Geordi La Forge visor laments about his wife. The guy in the cowboy hat suggests the Geordi La Forge stand-in should go down on his wife more often to make her feel better and end the rift that has grown between them. Geordi laments. The hottie in white returns and dons a fetching bucket on her head. She appears to be listening in on their conversation telepathically and goes on a concentrated effort to invade Geordi's mind.
The hottie and white creates a mental illusion that Geordi and she are skydiving. When Geordi opens his chute, various costumes leave the package. These costumes must have some significance, but since there is no continuity, that significance is unknown. Instead of going splat which would annoy Geordi even more, he and the hottie in white land on pillows that appear to be part of a chalet with a big bed. The hottie in white and Geordi discuss the wife, and the wife sounds like a repressed bitch, but again, there's no real judgment we can give. There is no continuity and therefore no veracity we can assume from these characters' points of view. The wife could be just the most delightful person in the world. Without any backing testimony, we'll never know.
Hottie in white changes into a costume of red and cold. The costume seems to have some kind of significance, but again since there's no continuity, we can simply agree that the hottie formerly in white now becomes the hottie in red and gold. Geordi decides to cheat on his wife mentally. The hottie if we can take the advice of the man in the cowboy hat to heart will be extremely disappointed. End of story.
What did you think of this book?
Have your say at the Line of Fire Forum!