PeterDavid.net

Peter, I'm sort of curious why the exchange in question was changed. Was it too obsure for the editorial powers-that-be, or was there a legit reason?

Big week for PAD books.

Second X-Factor in a row with no Rahne! Boo! Otherwise, a great issue.

Really looking forward to seeing Lin in Fallen Angel (there is some art preview on Newsarama). Can't wait! Can't wait! Oh, is there a reason you couldn't name her Linda?

1602: Why didn't Johnny go back to look for (Namo)rita? Poor girl, drifting all alone out there.

Wonder Man: hehe, the French took the statue back. Good thing our government isn't pissing them off in real life...oh wait!

I have just read X-Factor #16 and I must applaud you, sir. The issue brought a tear to my eye.

I was confused by the red balloon and actually thought, "Is it a reference to that movie they often showed us in elementary school? How random."

Siryn would probably enjoy the little seen sequel--Revenge of the Red Balloon.

http://www.atomfilms.com/film/revenge_red_balloon.jsp

As long as I'm in a generous mood, I present this weeks "Dog Police I Can't Get It Out of My Head What The Hell Were They Thinking" Award to DJ Bobo for Vampires Are Alive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-dDxp8Cez0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaintitcool%2Ecom%2Fnode%2F31752

It's bad in a way that most bad things can only aspire to. It's been accurately described as "It's like it's from a musical about Vampires written by Trey Parker."; "If Meatloaf banged Anne Rice...and they made a retarded child that nobody wanted..."; "this is what happens when you let Jim Steinman and Bonnie Tyler do the soundtrack for Dracula 4000"; and "It's a real shame what they can get away with these days."

It's also Switzerland's entry in the 2007 Eurovision Song Contest.

That's one of the most unintentionally terrifying movies ever made.

I thought Monet had just lobbed it through the guy's head. This was better. Definitely more style. Although one pick-pick-pick moment - the word is "meurtrier", not "meurtier".

thats odd,

I completely caught the reference and the joke.

I dont think the extra line is needed. but maybe its just me.

Fallen Angel continues to impress.

I was glad to see Malachi still around. The political manuveurings of Xia, Jubel, and Malachi will be interesting to watch.

As a big fan of your Linda, I am intrigued to read about Lin in the next couple of issues. Nice covers too!

Mind you, I wasn't disapppointed by the ending to 1602:FF#5. But when the envelope on Victor's airship was torn apart an issue or two ago, I pretty much assumed that the last shot of the series would be of Reed Richards, filled with 250,000 cubic feet of air heated by Johnny, carrying the ship and the cast across the horizon.

I mean, PAD being PAD and all. :)

Nice of you to explain that since when looking at the page i had no clue what it was about.

At least now i know its a hint toward a movie... yet i still don't have a clue which it could be.

In this moment i wish i had as much knowledge of movies as Anthony DiNozzo.

About the issue itself.
Monets action against that "mutant hater" can be seen as a bit violent but on the other hand, other mutants have done worse.
Like nailing a guy, squished in his bikecycle against a wall.

Of course the main story with Jamie was near perfectl and the art worked well with the writing.

On a point. Jamie and his dup where talking about what happens if the prime dies, that brought an intresting question up. What happens to the Son if the dup is absorbed? Or if the the original Madrox dies?
Its also intresting to learn that a dup CAN have children.

othergrunty, it's this French short film called THE RED BALLOON, about a kid who is followed by a red balloon. As I remember it, the balloon is eventually popped by some other kids.

The film is a clever allegory. I remember arguing with the other kids in 3rd grade what it meant. Half of us thought that it meant that our teacher hated us while the other half just thought she had run out of lesson plans and was showing us French films out of desperation. Frankly I wish she'd shown us RED ASPHALT instead. There was a movie that left an impression.

I'm growing attached to Huan, and despite everything that was said when the series first came out, I do like the way Andrew Currie has been drawing him and Carol Danvers. I find her a fascinating character, and if the series ends with her death or her descent back into her old world I'll be saddened. But then, I suppose that's the point, since this appears to be a tragedy.

I recently pointed out elsewhere that the only silver lining about this horrible future is that so far we haven't seen any Sentinels.

Nice meta-reference with Hank McCoy being a fan of "Frasier," btw.

In X-Factor I really did feel for Jamie's dupe, and I was glad that the story ended with Jamie allowing him to go on with his life instead of absorbing him. Of course I'm curious who the dude with the red eyes is.

Monet just keeps getting more and more ruthless, which is disturbing. Peter, a while ago when capital punishment was being discussed, you said that if somebody had killed your family you'd probably love to have the chance to exact personal vengeance upon them...which was exactly why it would be wrong for the system to allow you to, since in your anger you might go over a line that an impartial judge and jury would not. I see this thing with Monet and that guy who helped burn all those mutants alive as somewhat similar--I know that the pain he suffered from being crucified by Monet probably pales in comparison to the pain his victims suffered as they burned to death, but it's still too much. It's the kind of thing the good guys aren't supposed to do, and it's exactly the kind of extreme violence that Simon is trying to teach Huan not to use over in Wonder Man.

As Doc Locke pointed out, Jamie isn't a picture of mental health, and we see more of that in this issue; he's so frustrated by everything that he invites his dupe to shoot him. But Jamie isn't alone; first Monet defenestrates (hehe) Jamie for only kinda, sorta cheating on her...then she deliberately crucifies this guy...what's next? How far out of control does she have to get before her teammates step in?

Gah, I called Huan a "him!" *smacks self in head*

Geez, PAD, isn't this the third time you've lost a page of dialogue out of a comic? Abomination, Spike vs. Dracula, now X-Factor? Just who in the printing business did you piss off?

J.

WM3 - Suing for the statue? OK, that was funny. AND clever. Though, as far as I know, it'd never work. It WAS a gift and all. No strings attached that I can remember. Kind of hard to make a case that it ought to be repatriated. But, hey, this is an alternate universe. Different circumstances and all?

Re: othergrunty

Technically, Jamie Prime is already dead- Haven killed him trying to cure his legacy virus.
Back in the day, if Jamie Prime was unconscious, his duped disappeared. These days, he can go to sleep and they still exist. I (and other fans) have always assumed that this was due to Jamie Prime's departure (I actually, I'll take credit for that idea :D )

It was all good, especially X-Factor and Angel.

I want to be careful what I write about X-Factor because I don't want to give too much away. The short version is I liked it a lot. While PAD and I are worlds apart when in comes to religion, he did a good job of portraying what I think would be true for this duplicate. I disagree with the "dominion" definition, but that is quibbling. The ending, while not unexpected, was played exactly right.

I am really interested in seeing where all of this is going. But after the negative (in my opinion) viewpoint in last months issue, this was an interesting counterbalance. In fact, it was probably planned that way, knowing PAD.

Bottom line, this issue rocked.

Iowa Jim

This was truly an impressive issue of "X-Factor" and I have found this arc to be the best so far. First, the unique way Madrox "won" against hydra last issue and now this. I truly thought jamie was going to "suck it up" - literally - and absorb his dupe. I was very pleasantly surprised.
On the Monet issue, I personally would have liked for her to splich the racist's head, but the way she eventually got revenge/justice was much more interesting. Right now, "X-Factor" is strting to compete with "Astonishing X-Men" and "New X-Men" for my favorite X-book. It is definitely one i am looking forward to each month. To which I can only say to PAD: Thank you and well done.

Loved X-Factor. Still got the Red Balloon reference without the extra dialogue. The scenes with Jamie and his prodigal dupe were great. Moving stuff. Must've been hard to resist the temptation of using a line like "The good Jamie giveth, and the good Jamie taketh away" to alleviate the mood. Monet is usually my favorite character (besides Jamie, natch) but I was pretty disturbed by her actions. Crucifixion seems extreme, even for Monet, but I'm sure this will be dealt with in future issues. As always, great job.

I have a question for you, Iowa Jim, if you don't mind.

Reverend Jamie's sermon reminded me what I have heard from some religious people who are friends of my parents, that the planet isn't a gift for humans to do with as they will, but rather something they should look after and be good stewards of. While I may not believe certain things they do, on that we agree, and I consider them reasonable people. However, I am painfully aware that there are others who believe just as strongly in God but don't care one bit about the environment, or maintain that everything we hear about possible problems with the planet is just leftist propaganda for the purpose of...well, it's anybody's guess since I can't imagine what anybody would have to gain from lying about this.

So I was just curious what you believed here, since you're religious.

Couldn't help noticing Jamie's suicide threat. Also, not listed as a new item, but picked up the new softcover reprint of the first half-year, with Rictor's suicide attempt in the first issue.

If you're approached with another Marvel/DC crossover, maybe you should think about X-Factor and the Suicide Squad.

I can't comment on the issues listed in the thread title, but I finally got my copy of the X-Factor: The Longest Night trade. Finally! It took forever for that to come out, I thought I was going to have it months ago.

I loved it. Great fun all around.

I didn't read House of M, so I wasn't familiar with Layla from that. I loved her right from her first appearance. I think she's what my friend Paul calls a "diabolical hero." Lots of fun.

maintain that everything we hear about possible problems with the planet is just leftist propaganda for the purpose of...well, it's anybody's guess since I can't imagine what anybody would have to gain from lying about this.

Money. Not that I'm saying this is why anyone does it but there's no denying that the potential for disaster brings in the grants, not to mention invites to appear on the Today show.

Of course, there's also money to be made in denying it.

In Craig Thompson's Graphic Novel "Blankets" his religious, conservative parents see recycling as part of an evil plot to make people forget that "Jesus will be back in a few years" (If I recall corrctly, this book takes place in the 1980's.)Supposedly James Watt made similar comments about how taking care of the planet isn't necessary because the Rapture is coming soon.

Similarly, some people see any argument about taking care of the enviroment as some kind of evil, hipie, anti-christian stance trying to deny "man's dominion over the earth appointed by God etc." and/or as some attempt to replace Judeo-Christian values with a pagan, "Earth is our mother" message.

Again, if you'll check Senator James Inhofe's (R-Okla) comments, he will never stop screeching that global climate change is a huge hoax put on by nearly the entire scientific community and evil liberals who want to pass various laws to control everyone's life.

Then again, I'm an atheist, lefist who can't believe that so many people in Oklahoma chose that yutz to represent them.

Supposedly James Watt made similar comments about how taking care of the planet isn't necessary because the Rapture is coming soon.

Watt was and is no favorite of mine but the closest thing to that quote was the following: "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns; whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations." Which, as you can see, is pretty much the opposite of what it was claimed he said!

He also never said that Jesus would return when the last tree was felled; that was quoted by Bill Moyers, using the journal Grist. To their credit, both Moyers and Grist apologized.

I heard that for all their other faults, evangelicals are pushing for a more environmental friendly policy.

"maintain that everything we hear about possible problems with the planet is just leftist propaganda for the purpose of...well, it's anybody's guess since I can't imagine what anybody would have to gain from lying about this.

Money. Not that I'm saying this is why anyone does it but there's no denying that the potential for disaster brings in the grants, not to mention invites to appear on the Today show.

Of course, there's also money to be made in denying it."

There's no denying that group think -- and money for those who feed it -- exist in both the right and the left. But there are also tw other things that cannot be denied.

1) The main opposition to environmental policies are from companies who have economic stakes and deep pockets -- deeper than those of their opponents.
2) Even if it turned out that the environmental threats are not as great as claimed, still pumping CO2 into the stomsphere, destroying forests, and polluting, are not good for the environment.
It's like a person living to be 90 while smoking and eating junk. It happens, but smoking and eating junk are still not good ideas.

I heard that for all their other faults, evangelicals are pushing for a more environmental friendly policy.

"maintain that everything we hear about possible problems with the planet is just leftist propaganda for the purpose of...well, it's anybody's guess since I can't imagine what anybody would have to gain from lying about this.

Money. Not that I'm saying this is why anyone does it but there's no denying that the potential for disaster brings in the grants, not to mention invites to appear on the Today show.

Of course, there's also money to be made in denying it."

There's no denying that group think -- and money for those who feed it -- exist in both the right and the left. But there are also tw other things that cannot be denied.

1) The main opposition to environmental policies are from companies who have economic stakes and deep pockets -- deeper than those of their opponents.
2) Even if it turned out that the environmental threats are not as great as claimed, still pumping CO2 into the stomsphere, destroying forests, and polluting, are not good for the environment.
It's like a person living to be 90 while smoking and eating junk. It happens, but smoking and eating junk are still not good ideas.

2) Even if it turned out that the environmental threats are not as great as claimed, still pumping CO2 into the stomsphere, destroying forests, and polluting, are not good for the environment.

Agreed. Even if it turns out that the global warming apocalypse has been grossly overstated, if believeing in it results in doing what we can to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, it will be all for the better.

There is a danger, though, in overdoing the claims. Anyone old enough to remember the 60s and 70s knows that the worst predictions from that time have proven wildly incorrect. Soylent Green looks pretty silly now--not only are we NOT eating our own dead butthe average american grocery store has a variety of foods undreamed of in 1973. (ok, we still have 15 years to go before we can totally declare Soylent Green wrong but I think I'm on safe ground here.)

The environment is too important to just become another Hollywood fad du jour, like Tibetan independence or the plight of the American farmer. I think it would be better to ease off on the panic claims and stick to what is known for sure, which is serious enough without any embellishment.

You mean... Soylent Green ISN'T people????

Anyhoo...

Rob Brown, I'd like to suggest that we not treat Iowa Jim as our "token Christian." For one thing, Iowa Jim is not the only Christian who participates in this forum. Captain Naraht and Bill Mulligan are also Christians. For another, Christianity is as diverse as any religion out there with myriad sects, each of which has its own take on Christianity. Heck, even within any given Christian sect you're bound to find people who disagree about certain aspects of the faith. Finally, even though he has stated that Christianity is central to his life I am quite confident it is not the only thing he cares to discuss. :)

I know I sound like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, having asked Iowa Jim in a prior thread for his perspective as a Christian. But there I was merely asking for his opinion as one particular Christian, rather than asking him to "represent" Christians everywhere.

Rob, I'm sure you're question wasn't meant to paint Iowa Jim with a broad brush but to me it seemed like the net effect.

Of course, for all I know, Iowa Jim might read this and say, "Myers, you're full of crap and I can speak for myself, so shut it."

But I thought I'd chime in and suggest we treat Iowa Jim as just, y'know, a regular guy. Because I suspect he is one. :)

Addendum to my prior post...

Think of it this way, folks: would any of you think it was cool to ask Peter, "You're a Jew, PAD, so what do you think?"

Yeah, see what I mean? The question assumes quite a lot. Too much, in fact. Jews aren't a monotlithic group. Nor are Christians, Muslims, comic-book lovers, ornithologists, plumbers, or any other group you can name.

I heard that for all their other faults, evangelicals are pushing for a more environmental friendly policy.

As with many issues, evangelicals tend to be a very diverse group. There are a few very prominent evangelicals who believe we should be good stewards of God's creation, who agree at least in part with global warming, and/or who push for policies that are more typically promoted by environmentalists.

I think global warming as portrayed by Gore and others is inaccurate, but personally am in favor of taking care of the earth. Which is why I disagreed with PAD's use of "dominion" at the start of the story (it fit the story, so I understand why he did it). Most evangelicals see us as being responsible for creation, not as overlords who can use creation and throw it away. I know that was not PAD's intent, but that is why I would use the word "rule over" like a governor.

Just my thoughts.

Iowa Jim

Let me add to my last comment: Dominion has been used to translate Genesis 1 and is a possible interpretation. But it normally has the idea of absolute sovereignty, while stewardship has the idea that I am accountable to someone else. In the context of the X-Factor story, dominion was a necessary choice and fit quite well. I am just expressing my own interpretation of the passage.

Iowa Jim

I've read and loved lots of your work, Peter, and I thought X-Factor 16 was one of your best ever. It was so well put together, and I loved the conundrum faced by Jamie encountering a dupe who had built a life (and a family) for himself. The feeling at the end, of both Jamie prime and the dupe having a sense of relief after Jamie made his decision, was extremely satisfying to me.

I was touched by this story. I always love your writing - but this one in particular gave me the feeling of "instant classic," even as I was reading it.

I am embarrassed to admit that this is the first issue of X-Factor I have read. I had been getting my comics from the grocery store spinner rack and they weren't carrying X-Factor. Yesterday, however, I went to a nearby comics shop to pick up some storage supplies and grabbed copies of X-Factor #16 and Wonder Man #3.

Haven't had time to read Wonder Man yet, but I loved X-Factor even though certain parts were a bit confusing given that I've missed, y'know, 15 chapters of the story. But that's what back issues and trade paperbacks are for.

Loved the idea of Jamie Madrox having sent out multiples expecting them to come back, only to have had them run off and build lives of their own. And Jamie's decision to let this one live was quite moving. "Worth a piece of my soul" indeed.

Are Jamie's duplicates exactly like him at the time of the split, or do they instantly form their own unique personalities? I ask because his duplicate's choice to go from studying religion as a dispassionate observer to living the faith seems to indicate a hunger on Jamie's part for something more in his life. Assuming, of course, that his multiples are exactly like him in every respect until they go off and have their own unique experiences.

I guess I'd know this stuff if I hadn't been relying on my grocery store spinner rack for my visiting the comics shop regularly, tho, I have to be careful. Those places are like crack to me and my money's tighter than it used to be.

Damn you Peter David for luring me back into temptation with your terrific writing!!!!!!!

>Anyone old enough to remember the 60s and 70s knows that the worst predictions from that time have proven wildly incorrect.

Not necessarily. One of the main things people were on about were the dangers of overpopulation.

I can't speak for the U.S., but here in Canada,, hardly a day goes by that the papers don't have something about too many people in cars, too many people in class, too many people using social services, too many people in ERs, too many people ... do we see a trend here? Looks as though they may not have been that far wrong after all.

Are Jamie's duplicates exactly like him at the time of the split, or do they instantly form their own unique personalities? I ask because his duplicate's choice to go from studying religion as a dispassionate observer to living the faith seems to indicate a hunger on Jamie's part for something more in his life. Assuming, of course, that his multiples are exactly like him in every respect until they go off and have their own unique experiences.

Jamie would seem to be the ultimate nature vs. nurture experiment. A sociologist would have a field day with this guy. (So would a drug company, though that could get ugly. Imagine if a less than ethical scientist had the opportunity to test drugs on perfect replicas, free from the myriad variables that most human tests must contend with).

"Think of it this way, folks: would any of you think it was cool to ask Peter, "You're a Jew, PAD, so what do you think?""

It wouldn't bother me, actually, depending on the context.

PAD

I was told the first 2 rules of Judaism were "You do not talk about Judaism."

"The environment is too important to just become another Hollywood fad du jour, like Tibetan independence or the plight of the American farmer. I think it would be better to ease off on the panic claims and stick to what is known for sure, which is serious enough without any embellishment."

I also don't like the shallow Hollywood treatment of serious subjects. I just saw Syriana and found it disappointing. But as I see it, if it takes Hollywood or other gimiks to get people to think, and to push them to act, I'm fine with it. The other side is certainly not beyond manipulation, and shallow presentation of issues to pass their point across.

"Dominion has been used to translate Genesis 1 and is a possible interpretation. But it normally has the idea of absolute sovereignty, while stewardship has the idea that I am accountable to someone else. In the context of the X-Factor story, dominion was a necessary choice and fit quite well. I am just expressing my own interpretation of the passage."

The hebrew verb that appears in Genesis 1 is pretty oppressive word for 'rule over'. I didn't remeber that. If you read it as the word of God rather than as reflecting a certain ancient culture's POV that might cause you to think of the world in terms of dominion. But the Bible can justify a wide range of opinions and interpretations, depending on where you're coming from. In Genesis II (Attack of the Clones), God places Adam in Eden to work it and to keep it. So that works nicely, and it's also the more ancient version with the snake and all the cool stuff.

"I am embarrassed to admit that this is the first issue of X-Factor I have read."

That's OK Bill, admiting the problem is the first step :)

I haven't gotten this issue yet.

"Are Jamie's duplicates exactly like him at the time of the split, or do they instantly form their own unique personalities?"

If I understand it correctly, Jamie's duplicates emerge out of his psyche each representing one aspect of his personality. I'm not sure if it has something to do with his state of mind he's in whe he's dulicated. Does that mean that that aspect of his personality is no longer in Jamie -Prime? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. Does it mean the duplicates do not have as complex a personality as Jamie? Are they more psychologically healthy or less? I'm not certain about any of these questions since I've only started reading X-Factor regularly in this installment. But if I'm wrong, this is the place to be wrong.

"Not necessarily. One of the main things people were on about were the dangers of overpopulation.

I can't speak for the U.S., but here in Canada,, hardly a day goes by that the papers don't have something about too many people in cars, too many people in class, too many people using social services, too many people in ERs, too many people ... do we see a trend here? Looks as though they may not have been that far wrong after all."

It is hard for me to think of Canada as an over populated country.

There is an iroic problem in which industrial countries don't have enough popluation growth to sustain their economy and carry the previous geeration, while under-developed countries have too many people for their economy to sustain. And then you have China with it's gender ratio problems. Weird world.

Posted by: Peter David at March 5, 2007 07:55 AM

It wouldn't bother me, actually, depending on the context.

I see.

You will all be happy to know that I have decided to get off my soapbox, smash it, and use it for kindling. :)

Well, at least use the soap.

Are you saying I don't wash frequently enough, Mr. Mulligan??? Are you??? ARE YOU???

Well, that's the word on the street.

>It is hard for me to think of Canada as an over populated country.

As a whole it isn't. Nowhere near. The problem lies in the fact that most people really wouldn't care to live near the arctic circle, so the vast majority of the population (90%?) live along a relatively thin section adjacent to the border with the U.S.. Too, the 'more opportunities in big cities so let's move there' thing doesn't help.

">It is hard for me to think of Canada as an over populated country.

As a whole it isn't. Nowhere near. The problem lies in the fact that most people really wouldn't care to live near the arctic circle, so the vast majority of the population (90%?) live along a relatively thin section adjacent to the border with the U.S.. Too, the 'more opportunities in big cities so let's move there' thing doesn't help."

It sems to be more an infrastructure problem than over-population.

On a more sci-fi note, people talk about the need to terraform and colonize space in order to deal with over-population, but maybe there will be a stage of colonizing hostile places on earth like Sahara, Siberia, and northern Canada. Of course, there are also ecological considerations, and you don't want to destroy wildllife environment and indigenous population, but there might be ways to accomodate both concerns. Colonnizing space has another justification, because we don't want to be too dependant on one planet, even if we are not going to destroy it. Anyway, this is all in the realm of Sci-Fi.

Mike wrote: "I was told the first 2 rules of Judaism were 'You do not talk about Judaism.'"

Did you hear that from a Jew? My experience is that some Jews love talking about Judaism, and some aren't that interested. Like anything else, people who are interested in the subject want to talk about it; those who are not interested don't care to.

FALLEN ANGEL:

Wonderful wrapup of a fascinating storyline. It's interesting to explore Asia Minor's role in Bete Noir, and to see the corruption of Jude. I never actually liked him that much, and I get some perverse pleasure from his suffering as he tries to keep his high moral and ethical standards in the face of a city that is neither moral nor ethical; it just is what it is, and does not tolerate those who try to change it.

You have a blog! Where have I been hiding for the past five years? I'm in awe of your previous work in X-Factor. When I get the chance, I'll catch up on your current run.

I'm a guy but what the heck... Marry me, Peter!!!

Steve Premo, I think that "first two rules" thing is a Fight Club reference: "Rule #1 is: You do not talk about Fight Club. Rule #2 is: You do not talk about Fight Club!"

I instantly got the Red Balloon reference, having sat through it at least once a year from second through sixth grades. Seeing the rest of the dialogue does make the scene work a little better, though.

Dug the Frasier reference in Wonder Man, too, especially given the epilogue to the play at Farpoint.

George Takei on Howard Stern mentioned PAD and his book Captain's Daughter today.

Ray, that is just...just WEIRD.

No, not that George mentioned Captain's Daughter. No, what's weird is, I was thinking about some of the stuff I've sent to some of the contests lately, and hw my late Dad always told me to keep working. He (obviously) told me that before he died, but the first time was WAAAAY before he died. Anyway, my dad had surgery to remove two pretty big tumors from his colon a few years back, The surgery took WAAAAAY longer than expected. So, I'm in the waiting room with my Mom, staying calm, staying cool, reading my new book.

Captain's Daughter, as a matter of fact.

I was thinking about that day all week. That BOOK all week. And then I see this. Small world.

Peter, that book kept me centered. It helped me help my parents. I owe ya one. More than one. Several gross, as a matter of fact.

Thanks.

Wow, this entry got derailed fast on the religious front.

Anyway, PAD, I just wanted to say that X-factor #16 really stuck out this week in comics. It's my favorite thing by you since Hulk: The End and Hulk 466. You continue to impress me.

I want to also give my support to Andrew's art on Wonderman. He really fits the series and I love his interpretation of Beast lots.

To tell the truth, the cover for X-FACTOR #16 scared the crap out of me for a moment--but that's probably because I just finished reading 'Salem's Lot. I saw the cover, and the first thing that came to mind was Father Callahan warding off the vampire....but anyway, good stuff as usual, both there and in WONDER MAN.

One kibitz, though. I like the story in the WONDER MAN mini, but I simply can't stand the Hanna-Barbera depiction of Hank McCoy. Everyone in the book that isn't blue and furry appears generally realistic--why does Hank have to look like a long-haired Grape (well, maybe closer to "Blueberry") Ape?

Chuck - Count me in. The way Beast is depicted is simply ludicrous. Even WM looks kind of silly. He used to be if not a 'captain of industry', at least a 'chief stewart of industry' yet drawn that way he looks as though his IQ is smaller than his shoe size. A charicature, even ...

Rob Brown, I'd like to suggest that we not treat Iowa Jim as our "token Christian."

That's reasonable. I hadn't realized that my question could be taken that way when I posted it, but I see now how it could've been. You can treat me as the token Canadian if it makes you feel better (if StarWolf doesn't want the job, which is dirty but must be done by someone).

More later...

The Red Balloon,

that creepy French movie gave me nightmares as a kid.
kudos.

The X-Factor issue made my heart hurt. Moving stuff, and a nice twist from the last issue's rather sci-fi tinge. I wasn't too sure aboot the preacher- pulling the gun on Jaime Prime, thought it may have been an easy "cheat" to make him a bad guy, but it ended stronger and unexpected. Great comic booking.

Oh, and the Red Balloon bit, I completely missed the reference, but I somehow think it works better as just "huh." "What" *Pop* "Nevermind, its moot now" without the reference to the movie because it keeps it really vauge and more of a non-sequitor random moment. Course, that's just me.

Speaking of movies about Red Balloons, everybody should watch "Billy's Balloon", assuming you haven't seen it already. Its fairly twisted, but pretty funny, and worth it for the final shot: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=8841621472709863028&q=BILLY%27S+BALLOON

Posted by: Rob Brown at March 6, 2007 03:17 PM

You can treat me as the token Canadian if it makes you feel better (if StarWolf doesn't want the job, which is dirty but must be done by someone).

Only if I get to be a "token" something, too.

I just wanted to say, this is one of the single best character studies I've ever read in a comicbook. So, [APPLAUSE] {Yay! Yay! Bravo!} good job. ;) And it was uplifting, too. How often do you see that in modern comics? Not very.

I thought it was interesting in Quesada's news interview, when the anchorwoman asked him, y'know, about Captain America dying, "Aren't comics supposed to be fun?" X-Factor is fun.