TIL that Jim Shooter killed the romance between Kitty Pryde and Colossus because he felt that the age difference...

TIL that Jim Shooter killed the romance between Kitty Pryde and Colossus because he felt that the age difference between them at the time made it inappropriate

Good. He was right.

Well it kinda was. Peter was what, nineteen at least and Kitty was way underage (13-15?), yet she was trying to get into his pants and sucking his face all the time. I mean sure, my head canon was that they were boning since the Brood saga but that was me at age fifteen and I didn't yet start to think how creepy it was in a way since ages mean little in comics,

this

Ugh, thank god Whedon brought it back

>OP still sucking Brevoort cock

So it was part of the larger ploy of pretending that women don't have sexual impulses. That's fucking gay.

He also kept homosexuals and other liberal bullshit out of comics for as long as he was EIC. Man is a god damn hero

Two Jim Shooter threads in one day, OP?

Go back to bed, Byrne.

no, it was protecting the brand from the New York Times running an editorial that says Marvel Comics endorses fucking minors. It's like not wanting to have openly gay characters in comics read by nine year old during the giant AIDS scare where people are saying it was a homosexual onky disease sent to punish sinners, etc. The association and stigma from such things is toxic when your audience at the time was meant to be kids who depended on their parents buying them the product on a monthly basis

She was Ryan's girl any way.

>Kitty and Peter break up because it's pedo
>Wanda and Vision break up because it's unnatural

I want this Marvel back

>tfw you're so autistic that Marvel prints your faggot letter as a joke and the whole world now knows how cringeinducing you really are

Haha
One is Byrne the other Shooter.

Language.

Shooter tightens his grip, and more systems slip through his fingers.

Hey, he wanted Marvel to be child-friendly.

No, he wanted Marvel to be *parent*-friendly. Plenty of children were using "damn" and "hell" in the 1980s.

Even better. They were the ones buying the comics.

He also insisted Jean get killed at the end of Dark Phoenix, essentially punishing her for embracing her sexuality.

You wouldn't happen to be a PMRC supporter?

>Shortly after it was announced that Disney had bought Marvel—has it been two years already?—someone asked me what I thought would happen, and in particular whether Disney would “suck the life” out of the comics. I said this:
>This changes the landscape considerably.
>Disney will help Marvel with their marketing, merchandising and media muscle. Disney will not tolerate the anarchy, chaos, unprofessionalism, small talents with big egos, and rampant editorial ineptitude/wrongheadedness rife at Marvel (and most of the industry). They'll fix all that and gain ironclad control over their new "brands." Which brings us to your speculation re: sucking the life out of the comics. I fear that in the course of fixing the various problems listed above they will go too far and suppress useful things -- reasonable freedom, spontaneity, innovation, experimentation, groovy outrageousness and all the crazy-but-good stuff.

And then Aaron killed it again.

Holy shit. They fixed nothing and still sucked the life out.

How does Disney do it?

They have the movies now. Why would they give a shit about the comics?

So they have stories to adapt, duh.

Thank god Gillen ended it for good

They already have 70 years worth of those, and their lawyers can only extend the copyright for so long. Why should they bother?

>unprofessionalism, small talents with big egos, and rampant editorial ineptitude/wrongheadedness
Yet this is still as bad as ever.