X-Men: The Animated Series

Small Screen Specials, Series and Direct-To-Video
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3085
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Post by EricJ » January 28th, 2009, 3:40 am

In which case it should have been "Missing episode(S)", since we also lost the Galactus episode due to rights issues over a certain crap summer movie at the time... :(

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18384
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » January 28th, 2009, 9:04 am

I wasn't aware we've so far lost two episodes in the Tick series on the US DVDs. I was aware of one episode being dropped from early in the season, but didn't realise there were two in question. Yes, the UK sets seem to have everything present and correct (though I can't confirm if those shows have been edited for content or not, which they may have been to ensure inclusion).

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 4807
Joined: September 1st, 2006
Location: You're always better off with a really good lie

Post by Daniel » February 12th, 2009, 1:52 pm

Here are the episode lists for Volumes 1 & 2 and a few more details.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1347
Joined: January 23rd, 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere

Post by eddievalient » February 12th, 2009, 4:22 pm

Wow! That's almost half the series right there! Now with any luck, they'll actually finish releasing this one *cough*gargoyles*cough*
The Official Lugofilm Ltd Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/bartsimpson83

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18384
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » February 12th, 2009, 6:08 pm

So what what wrong with the one I posted here last week? ;)

http://www.animated-news.com/2009/x-men ... more-10271

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2949
Joined: October 24th, 2004

Post by GeorgeC » February 12th, 2009, 11:26 pm

Marvel, Marvel...

'Twill be a long time coming before you even release a show half as good as Batman: TAS, Justice League, or as pure fun as Batman: The Brave and The Bold.

The right mix of talent is obviously working for WB now, and has been going on twenty years now.

They just haven't quite clenched it yet with the Marvel characters. Gotta spend that money right and get the right people when they're available...

Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 5207
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Post by Randall » February 12th, 2009, 11:31 pm

Looking over that episode list, I'm definitely picking these babies up. I only watched the show occasionally when it was on, and am not a big Marvel mutant fan, but those were kinda cool stories.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2949
Joined: October 24th, 2004

Post by GeorgeC » February 13th, 2009, 12:50 am

There are X-Men stories I like, too, but I just don't care for the way they've been represented in all the animated series so far... The shows seem to magnify the worst melodramatic elements of Marvel Comics while at the same time making it so juvenile that you feel like you've read a Golden Book written for 3-year-olds or just watched one of those sappy after-school specials that used to be produced in the 1970s and 1980s. Not a good feeling for for this viewer.

Beyond rewriting and twisting some of the characters in ways I just don't recognize (writing and character design-wise), there's this need by some of the creators to capitalize on whoever they think is the "hot ticket" of the moment --

Yep, Wolverine.

At once, the most popular X-Men and at the same time the worst thing that ever happened to the title...

Good stories regardless of him. Just haven't seen much since X-Men # 3 (1991, second series) that I care for. Best run in my opinion is still the Claremont/Byrne run (Uncanny X-Men #107-143) followed by Paul Smith's and Jim Lee's runs. (Jim Lee before Clarement left and Lee decided he knew how to write and plot. Lee doesn't!) The rest are continuity gobbtley-goop and far too many rehashes of what Claremont/Byrne did nearly 30 years ago.

That is a big problem with the whole comic book industry in general. It feeds on itself and rarely introduces anything positive and new without destroying foundations.

Ironically, I see the bright spot as being the animated works produced on the DC characters. They have been mostly consistent and enjoyable since 1992. Wish I could say the same thing for the monthly comics produced by either DC or Marvel since the 1990s!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3085
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Post by EricJ » February 13th, 2009, 4:30 am

Randall wrote:Looking over that episode list, I'm definitely picking these babies up. I only watched the show occasionally when it was on, and am not a big Marvel mutant fan, but those were kinda cool stories.
Story editor Larry Houston, who gave GI Joe a bit of gravitas above and beyond the 80's toytoondom of its day...

I've seen X-Men: Evolution, and the constant winking "hipness" of KidsWB is no step up in action cartoons--
The 90's X-Men came at just the right point, with the right bit of comic-epic cool. :)
GeorgeC wrote:Marvel, Marvel...
'Twill be a long time coming before you even release a show half as good as Batman: TAS, Justice League, or as pure fun as Batman: The Brave and The Bold.
At least on cable, since most of the good Marvel stuff's going to Lionsgate at the moment...
(Yeah, just watched "Hulk Vs." on Blu, so what?) 8)

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18384
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » February 13th, 2009, 10:31 am

It's quite ironic, the argument that George is putting forward that Marvel's animated properties have never matched the best of WB's DC attempts from the past 20 years.

For all the failure that Marvel seems to have had in translating their characters to animation, I don't think they're particularly sweating: last time I looked their <I>live-action</I> endeavors were doing a little better than DC's, right? ;)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2949
Joined: October 24th, 2004

Post by GeorgeC » February 13th, 2009, 12:22 pm

Despite all the live-action success, the live-action Marvel films are basically NOT the same characters as the ones in the 32-page monthlies.

There were radical changes in the X-Men films and they're more like the failed Ultimate X-Men monthly than the mainline X-Men comics the storylines were claimed to be based on. I'm not disputing that the Dave Cockrum designs would have looked silly -- I've seen recreations of these and other costumes live and they look dumb at cons and Universal Studios -- but the outfits used in the movies ended up making the live-action X-Men look more like a biker gang or paramilitary unit than superheroes.

There's definitely a case there to be made that a quality animated film series would have been more faithful to the source where X-Men are concerned. Spandex animates better on acetate than live-action. I don't know that such a thing could be produced in the US in the current climate. The people doing the Marvel adaptations seem to be more interested in putting "their spin" on things than being faithful to the spirit of the original comics and acknowledging what the original creators did. THAT'S my real problem with Marvel animation and live-action superhero films in general (whether we're talking Marvel of DC properties).

The Batman films themselves exist in a separate universe from the comics in more than a cosmetic way... Basic things like Batman's no-kill policy and no-guns are ignored in favor of a Hollywood spectacle and the films sometimes feel more like James Bond than, well, Batman! The animated versions have been far more faithful to the comics than anything done in live-action aside from the Adam West show (of all things).

Really, the only live-action superhero film done in the last 30 years that seems to be acknowledging its roots and building on them was Superman: The Movie. Despite occasional slides into campiness, that film was really respectful to the comics and most importantly a good film, period! It has aged and lasted better than I think most people would have expected. The films made since 2000 I don't think will hold up very well. I doubt any of the X-Men or Spider-Man films will be thought of so fondly when they reach their 30th anniversaries. The less said about the live-action Batman and Superman films since Superman II, the better!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1347
Joined: January 23rd, 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere

Post by eddievalient » February 13th, 2009, 12:42 pm

George obviously missed the point of The Dark Knight. It deserved to be nominated for best picture (and I'm far from the only person who thinks that) because in the film, Nolan raises a very important question. The question is this: As a species, is humanity inherently good with a little bit of evil or are we inherently evil with a little bit of good? There are no easy answers and, to its eternal credit, the film doesn't give one. It presents both points of view and leaves it up to the viewer to decide for themselves. This is a question that no one wants to discuss and the fact that Nolan did discuss it at such length is supremely daring. Of all the comic book movies that have been made, Dark Knight is the first one to really be worthy of an oscar and the fact that it was almost completely ignored (and would have been entirely if Heath Ledger were still with us) shows that the so-called academy truly knows nothing.
The Official Lugofilm Ltd Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/bartsimpson83

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2949
Joined: October 24th, 2004

Post by GeorgeC » February 14th, 2009, 1:09 am

I saw the film, Eddie. I get it.

You have your opinion, and a lot of opinions DO share it. BUT, you guys are missing the point -- it's just an opinion and not everybody shares it.

Frankly, I DIDN'T think The Dark Knight (or any live-action Batman for that matter) was that good and none of the performances in that film were Oscar-worthy in my opinion.

I realize a bunch of Bat-fans are disappointed Ledger isn't getting his posthumous due (like he's entitled to an award because he died from a drug overdose???) but frankly the guy wasn't that good an actor when he was living, either. He's a lot like Orlando Bloom in some ways -- above average looks, but other than that pretty much a non-entity in most of his films. He was in a large number of mostly mediocre films and was only starting to get notice because of "That Cowboy Movie" and playing The Joker.

Anybody playing The Joker gets something of a career boost. It's a very loud, bombastic character. Of course it's going to get you some attention! Caesar Romero LOVED playing The Joker because it revived his career when he was in middle age and he got to act like a kid. Nicholson was being, well, Jack, and it shows if you've seen enough of his films. That's all he does in films -- play himself!

I DIDN'T care for the portrayal of The Joker in this film and I know I'm in the minority. Unfortunately, most people's perception of this character are shaped by what they see in the films and 99% of the people that saw this film have NEVER read a darn comic and even the comic book fans don't seem to understand a lot of the things about the Batman characters anymore. Most people accept whatever they see in front of them and don't bother to do their own research and have to be led by the hand. When you have have enough people that are that intellectually lazy, it's amazing what writers, directors, and actors can get away with. (The latter group's lazy, too. They don't read, either!) It's very dishonest and disingenuous in my opinion.

Too many people buy into the whole cult of personality that's taken over entertainment as a whole -- it's infected comics, movies, you name it -- and I find most fans have only read the junk published since the mid-1990s or only the Grant Morrison and Frank Miller takes on The Joker. There's a heck of a lot more out there than just that little slice. They might find if they actually bothered to read more than Morrison and Miller that their takes on the character are way off-base and far from the best and most enjoyable versions of the characters, too.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3085
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Post by EricJ » February 14th, 2009, 1:53 am

Ben wrote:For all the failure that Marvel seems to have had in translating their characters to animation, I don't think they're particularly sweating: last time I looked their <I>live-action</I> endeavors were doing a little better than DC's, right? ;)
We know XM:E was primarily a product of Fox's contractual embargo on any direct spinoff TV series while the movie trilogy was still in theaters...

There's a making-of segment for W&tXM on the latest Lionsgate Marvel disk, and the sentiment at Marvel Animation seems to be that no X-Men series can ever escape the shadow of the 90's series...The shoes are just too big to fill, and no one's succeeded yet. :)
(Hence the idea of twisting the "Age of Apocalypse" storyline, in which, yes George, they explain "why Wolverine as the leader"...Jean's also missing, and Scott is characteristically wimping out into self-pity. Wolverine, of course, is no leader, which they explain is the whole point of the series.)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 4807
Joined: September 1st, 2006
Location: You're always better off with a really good lie

Post by Daniel » March 10th, 2009, 10:33 pm

Updated and finalized versions of the covers for Volumes one and two... drastic change, yes, but nice improvement.

Post Reply