Talk:X-Men Forever

Comics: Marvel Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

Critical response

I was trying to gather some reaction and critical response for the series. It's not much but three different reviews from IGN gave reviews ranging from okay to poor. The reviews are from early on in the series, and there were no reviews of the collected editions. Other reviews may have judged the serious better.

IGN Ratings for X-Men Forever #1 - 6.0/10
- Daniel Crown (June 10, 2009). "X-Men Forever #1 Review. Chris Claremont relaunches Marvel's mutant franchise from the point he left it in 1991". IGN. News Corporation.
#2 Not Rated
IGN Ratings for X-Men Forever #3 - 4.8/10
- Jesse Schedeen (July 8, 2009). "X-Men Forever #3 Review. The X-Men dig deeper into the mystery of their fallen teammate". IGN. News Corporation.
X-Men Forever #4 - 4.5/10
- Daniel Schmergel (July 29, 2009). "X-Men Forever #4 Review. Sabretooth shows up at the worst time - as he always does". IGN. News Corporation.
X-Men Forever #5 - Not rated and no other issues rated up to X-Men Forever #24 - Not rated

Sales figures might be interesting, and that the series is still ongoing suggests some level of commercial success.
Claremont describes X-men Forever a success and that it lead to Marvel revisting other old storylines in the same way, including a New Mutants Forever mini-series. The article is from April 2010, and mentions some of the X-men Forever stories from the preceeding year. -- Horkana (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sales: issue one sold out, and was reprinted. -- Horkana (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

X-men Forever announced at New York Comic Con.

Although slightly different from the quote in the article the sentiment expressed is the same and this one is sourced:

Mark and I both think that the one significant advantage to all of this is that, unlike X-Men or Uncanny, we're not restricted by the need to keep the characters intact for the corporation. We are actually free to present a world where everyone is at risk.

The quote in the article at the moment seems longer than necessary, it should be enough to say there is a requirement to keep the characters intact, without needing to go on with examples, although again those are available in this source too.
If you did want to extend the quote a bit longer you could combine it with this one that talks about Magneto being dead (although personally I find this impossible to take seriously, given enough time I'm sure Claremont will bring someone back from the dead):

The thing with Forever is we don't have that restriction. If a character is at risk and that character dies, that character is dead, now and forever. And we make that clear right off the bat, if for no other reason than that the preview begins with a memorial service for Magneto.

Jesse Schedeen (February 7, 2009). "Claremont's X-Men Return Forever. Chris Claremont discusses picking up his seminal X-Men run after an 18-year absence". IGN. News Corporation.

So I've spent enough time on this for now but there are plenty of sources that can be fit into the article with a bit more work, if anyone is interested in doing so please go ahead. If you look at the wikisource of this page you will see I've formatted most of the sources I've mentioned using citation templates to make it even easier for other editors. Most likely I'll come back and make these fixes myself but others are more than welcome to jump in. -- Horkana (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]