I don't think that's a dating thing; McKeever mentioned in an interview that a major part of the series is Rikki encountering an AU (or, I guess, MU) version of her brother.
Oh, I see. Interesting and awkward, I guess.
Maybe she can date Gravity.
While I agree about the return of the 90's month that it seems to be, I welcome back Nate, as I was an avid follower of his book X-Man that lasted longer than most spin off books like his...especially considering his was running along side Cable for the longest time, which is funny since they are the same character basically.
You do have a point; X-MAN lasted 75 issues from 1995-2001. To be fair, there are many characters who haven't lasted over six years in their own ongoing. Cable & Deadpool together only lasted 50 issues recently. That said, 1995 was quite different than 2009. Even 1999 was quite different. Even during Marvel's bankruptcy, anything with an X on it sold well. Now? Not so much. Or at least as easily. You could say that after a 75 issue series run over six years that had a definitive ending for the character, he has more than run his course. Why do American comics believe every story for every character has to be indefinite? No story is. Not even the story of our own lives.
What is the point of X-Man? In 1995, it made sense to have SOME refugee from AGE OF APOCALYPSE have an ongoing and have adventures in 616 who wasn't a villain like Sugar Man, Dark Beast, or Holocaust. This was before EXILES, too. He ran his course after an admittedly long run but obviously Marvel thought best to let sleeping glow-eye's lay for about 8 years. He's a hanger on character; even his name is generic. In 2001, even, the X alone was enough to sell a book at $2.25 - $2.50 an issue. Is it enough in 2009 at $4 a pop? Besides, he's literally an alternate version of Cable, himself a refugee from an alternate, deposed time-line. He was the poster child for complicated, impossible to understand origins; I think I understand Immortus more than him (Immortus is the future version of Kang and Rama Tut, and they all can co exist and fight each other, and I defy anyone to tell me how that makes sense). X-Man's premise was being an impossibly powerful telepath in a world he didn't know, destined to die young. Over 6 years, he did that. His story's done. Anything else is just undoing #75 in 2001 and just trying to suck blood from a stone.
I for one am getting tired of the "blood from a stone" strategy. Marvel wants to suck $4 out of any fringe fan, no matter how pointless or aimless or perfectly completed franchise they like. If Marvel thought they could get $4.99 out of a THUNDER-RIDERS one-shot from 15,000 people, I'm sure they'd go for it. And that's just a sign of a lack of ideas. What worked in 1999 won't work in 2009. There has to be more to selling comics at the near end of the first decade of the 21st century than just rehashing crap from 10, 20, 40 years ago exactly as it was over and over and over until we all die. And if there isn't...just be like ARCHIE and admit that outright, with no illusions of change.
We need more ideas like AGENTS OF ATLAS or RUNAWAYS in it's prime or whatnot. We don't need DEATHLOK volume 4. Not if it offers nothing new from volume 1 or volume 3.
Nate Grey gave his life to save the Earth from some adversary. Nice, noble death. What's the point of undoing that? If not even a past his prime, ran his course C-Lister like X-Man can stay dead, or have a storyline matter, why should I even bother with a big two comic? That's the question that I rarely see an answer to.
A running joke is that every time the Marvel Handbooks would run a BOOK OF THE DEAD edition, within 5-10 years everyone or at least 90% of everyone in it was back. Marvel ran one of those in 2004 or 2005 and right now it seems that will once again be true. There truly are no new characters to be made, or no living characters who can be rehashed, in some bold NEW way (not, "let's tell DEATHLOK stories from 1998, only in 2009 with digital art!")? C'mon, that can't be true. Can it?
