I chose Jean and Cyclops mainly because of how iconic their relationship was and the fact that it had so much depth. They also were a solid couple for years and had a healthy relationship up until the end. This was actually a tough choice, though - Rogue and Gambit's relationship was not as defining for the two characters or the X-Men as a whole as Scott or Jean's, but it definitely had pathos and emotional intensity.

wait what happened to cyclops hand lol so big

Gambit and Rogue. They would argue, fight, flirt with other people, keep secrets from each other, and make up. Despite multiple friends telling Rogue that Gambit was no good, she stayed with him anyway. They almost seemed like a real couple.

Cyke and Jean were boring. There was just not very much to them. They were too perfect. When written well they were more like a escapist's fantasy of what a ideal couple should be. The writers that did try to humanize them like Simonson, Seagle, and the other guy from the late 90s who's name I can't remember, were also boring/bad writers. So basically they were either written badly or they were too perfect to be interesting as a couple. Occasionally the role they would play would be interesting in contexts to the rest of the team, but they were rarely ever interesting by themselves as a couple.

....You see, itw threads like these that stress me out. I have to destroy Rogue and Gambit as a couple...despite being something i like and want more of...to point out the obviously superior couple who i could go either way with. Its sad, but its so common to knock down Scott and Jean it doesnt take nearly as much effort as analyzing Rogue and Gambit

Lets just say in as short as possible a description. Gambit and Rogue arent a couple. Their a phase in a relationship put on repeat. They are interesting solely because he likes her and she cant touch him. You could easily replace Gambit in that equation with Colssus and get the same result. Partly because of Gambits weaknesses as a character abd partly because the relationship between them never progresses far enough from "will they wont they...we cant" which is the entire gimmick. Every Rogue and Gambit story relies on a single trope for drama, to the point that there is nothing to Rogue and Gambits relationship except the hope that they may one day settle down. Its shallow writing that is sheilded behind fandesire and the belief that nost relationship stories are more interesting during "the chase" then they are during the actual relationship. Which us funny because every time they move forward in their relationship they get moved back into the chase.

Jean and Scott are iconic. I can say that without resevervation because their is more to them then just being the most prominent relationship in X-Men and one of the most relevant in Marvels History. With Jean and Scott there are layers and phases that go beyond anyone trope. They've played the roles of students with crushes, the young couple deciding their future, lovers torn apart by tragedy, the couple reunited after having moved on, parents moving past prior drama, and finally solidifying their commitment by getting married. Their only been increased by supplemental material adding depth to their relationship with a psychic connection at a young age that is pivotal to saving both of them as well as their actions being driven by untold moments between them. Theyve been challenged and beaten by death, by new lovers, by old attractions, by new responsibilities. Theyve grown as characters on their own while contributing to the others growth. From Cable-Rachel- Stryfe & X-Man, to Apocalypse-Phoenix-Maddie and Emma. Theyve carved out a large and intricate net across the X-Men world and their actioka and relationship have ripples that effect more then just them, but the entire teams history. They grow and stumble as a couple and individuals alongaide every growth and stumble that the X-Men universe has had. And their may not be any period in the X-Men where the impact of Scott and Jean isnt felt in the books.

The fact is most times people call them boring it isnt because of stories that they've read with them in it (Though "Oh Boy!" could I give you a couple boring as all crap ones). The reason most people find them boring is because when i say "30 year old married Superhero couple" I lost you at 30 and you closed the page at married. You assume their perfect because theyve grown up and in most peoples mind being middleaged and married isnt the source of interesting stories. But in his 30s Cyclops sacrificed his life in front of his wife and son to save the life of another son he barely new but felt responsible for. And despite being in a crapsack of a story...its more interesting and dramatic then anything Rogue and Remy have ever done.

Now that you people have forced me to battle my 2 favorite couples against eachother...im gonna go on sabatical to recover from this nonsense.

Gambit and Rogue always remind me of the Pepe Le Pew short from the old Looney Toons show. I guess because in both cases it's a male with a french accent forcing himself on some female. Anyways, I have always thought of Rogue as a younger woman and Gambit as a man in his mid thirties at least, not that a relationship between people of those ages is unusual but Gambit comes off as a creep sometimes.

With Jean and Scott there are layers and phases that go beyond anyone trope. They've played the roles of students with crushes

Not really. Scott would always have long inner monologues about how he liked Jean, almost somewhat obsessively and while Jean may of thought he was cute, but she was more into Warren and that other local neighborhood jock guy....I think his name was Ted. I don't remember. Warren got a girlfriend and stopped pursuing Jean and she wound up with Scott. She settled.

the young couple deciding their future

Again, this is something that only happened in the Koays's head canon where Cyclops is an interesting character. Jean used to live at college and Scott used to live at the mansion. They weren't even sure if they were going to be together forever and shortly after that, Jean became the Phoenix, and then shortly after that, Jean and Cyclops thought each other were dead and Scott dated Coleen Wing and it is implied Jean had relationships of her own....definitely slept with Wyngarde.

lovers torn apart by tragedy,

This is true. Although I don't how much I would say Jean was "torn apart" as much as I would say she just died.

the couple reunited after having moved on

Cyclops moved on. And, just like any weirdo would do, married and had a child with a woman that looked exactly like his dead girlfriend. Jean was just in a magic coma.

and finally solidifying their commitment by getting married

This was just "fandesire", (which oddly enough you accused Rogue and Gambit of being). If you actually look at actual continuity these two weren't the starcrossed lovers everyone imagines them as. They were just two characters that dated and had a relationship that really wasn't anything all too loaded until the Proteus saga, which was designed to be that way for the climax of the Dark Phoenix Saga to have more impact

Gambit & Rogue no contest

(Settles into chair on isolated mountain) "Oh look, a notification....*sigh* @Cattlebattle is removing passion from X-Men again. I MUST STOP HIM!"

1. I was mostly talking about them as in plots, tropes and themes, while trying to SHOOT DOWN the idea that "Scott loves Jean and Jean loves Scott and this is what its been always and forever so we could get here" not support it. "Loser likes popular girl" is exactly what i mean by students with a crush. What im saying is that its a completely different trope, with completely different drama then the next phase of their relationship. Which is "Young People deciding their future"....where Cyke is pretty clearly going to stay an X-Man and Jeans life is beginning to point away from the story and lifestyle of fighting bad guys. Which has subtext and drama completely different from their next phase which is (as you so crudely pointed out) is Jean losing control of her powers (*being replaced by a cosmic entity) and dying.

Each phase has a different feel and source of drama from characters. Something which could easily be challenged by another relationship with adequate investment...but not by Rogue and Gambit who are always hitting the same well for story potential. "Rogue and Gambit can't be together because ____. But just when it looks like they can get past it, Gambit does _____." Its why i say they should just have a kid...a regular non time hopping aged up kid and use that as a source of drama to grow the relationship beyond teenage drama.

2. By the time Scott and Jean got married they had been together..or a unspoken but major part of eachothers pathos for the majority of the franchise. So while the wedding itself is the culmination of fandesire, the desire has nothing to do with how it progresses the relationship of the characters. Regardless of what their relationship was prior to Dark Phoenix or how and why it eas revved up in improtance to both characters and story

..the fact remains it that it WAS important and it remained important to both characters stories to the point where it was a proper culmination.

3. LOL bring it Cattle. The first Comic i read was either X-Factor's tie-in to Days of Future Present or something recapping it. I first read X-Men looking for Scott, Jean and Rachel. And while I may have to defend the shit runs to do it...i stick with who brought me to the game?.

That said...i wasnt even going to jump in here but lets be real. Gambit and Rogue are winning because people like the tease but arent critiquing the lack of story. And Scott and Jean caught critique on their story that isnt accurate.

Its like the game is tied at zero and someones trying to win by subtracting from zero instead of adding to their own score.

You are making it sound like Scott and Jean had this cleverly written relationship that spans comic book relationship commonalities when it didn't. Scott and Jean's relationship has always been sloppily written and for most of it Scott seemed obsessive and dickish and Jean seemed sort of flaky. Probably because most of the time they were written by guys that had no idea how to talk to women or because women weren't considered as important at this time.

The only time their relationship revved up, as I said, and seemed more realistic and that they were these unwavering lovers was during the Dark Phoenix Saga....which has been retconned to not even really be Jean anyways. So, it didn't really go through phases it was just a boring status quo until Claremont and company shook it up and then Jean returned and people had to jump through hoops to restore the status quo.

So, your argument is “the characters have been around a long time and writers keep forcing them back together”?? Sue and Reed have been together a long time...so naturally their relationship has gone through different phases, doesn't really mean it's good most of the time.

Their wedding wasn't much of a culmination. It was because fans had been requesting it. Especially after the popularity of the 90s cartoon where Scott and Jean were featured as lovers. If you just read the comics with no outside forces influencing your perspective their relationship feels absolutely jaded and and just freaking weird. I mean, Scott marries a woman who looks like his dead girlfriend, who he accuses of actually being Jean several times, then Jean later absorbs her psyche.....not exactly the foundation for a happy marriage.

I really like that crossover

@cattlebattle: Actually your argument is more about how long theyve been together and what the writers have done then mine is.

My argument is simply that they've done different things with their relationship. I can argue that point by saying "Hey look this is what was going on between Scott and Jean during Night of the Sentinels, and this is what was going on between them at the time of X-Factor #70" And they'll be two different things that couldnt have been switched around. Rogue and Gambit dont have this.

Im not saying Jean and Scott are awesome and awe inspiring. Or that their writing is always great or even streamlined (its X-Men...retcons are more important then the actual stories). Im saying its better then Gambit and Rogue who's entire relationship is one reused plot device repeated and fed by teasing fans with the hope that they might make it work...despite a lack of quality writing to hold it up.

2. Well proper culmination meaning it fit that the relationship reached that point given its history. I mean their actual decision to get married even comes a bit out of left field. But its like Rogue gaining control of her powers.... the story it happened in is forgettable...but the fact that it happened fits the character arc.

Also pfft. Scott dated his HS sweetheart, and when she died he settled for a chick that looks just like her and when she comes back Jean absorbs her mind. Meaning he gets the best of both worlds (3 worlds?) in a wife and she gets a husband who at that point only ever had a successful dedicated relationship with women who looked just like her...plus a baby(4 babies?) with no stretch marks. That is THE PERFECT foundation for a marriage.

3. I feel like i never finished Days of Future Present...(Like ive read the X-tie ins, but have no clue where the FF story goes), so i might be confusing it with the other dozen or so revisits to "Days of". But i just remember Franklin Richards coming off very whiny and out of control...which was the point....but also something that really bugs me when it happens on that scale. Surprisingly that also seems to be where he gets most of his fans from.

3.1 Lmfaoooo.

I think with the 90s its a easy target for a lot of bad X-Men habits that have grown to out of control (not that the 2000's dont have their killsquads and mutant metaphor plots). But its comic relationships ingeneral that are sort of written in a way thats easy for people to wrap their head around. I mean Batman and Catwoman are popular for similar reasons to Gambit and Rogue....and that is insanely popular and successful. But I feel like if it weren't Gambit and Rogue in the 90s it would be some otber couple from the 80s- 70s and so on.

That said Its always the 90s that seem to stop the fandom from being well rounded....quite sad.

Gambit and Rogue have though. They start off as just a flirtatious relationship and blossom to a complicated on and off relationship.....people have that in real life you know....of course, if Cyclops is one of your favorite X-men characters I often question your perception of reality ;)

Anyways, here is some nerd that wrote a chronicled thesis on their relationship...

http://www.gambitguild.com/repository/rogam.html

I guess. But it I feel like you say "it fits" because the relationship is something you are used to in from the comics in hindsight, cartoons, movies etc. I mean, when Claremont took over the franchise he had intended to pair them off with other people, after they brought Jean back ,because he had seen how crap the relationship was beforehand, so it doesn't seem like it was a glaringly obvious.

It's still weird.

Yeah, the Fantastic Four Annual in sort of tangential and only exists because Franklin Richards is featured. It isn't necessarily a good crossover, I just like the stuff between Rachel and Franklin, Wolverine seeing Rachel for the first time since he impales her randomly (awkward), and Art Adams always impressive artwork in the X-Men Annual.

It' just that the X-Men was insanely popular in the very early 90s. It sold tons of merchandise and had the well known animated show. A lot of people don't have time, effort or money to read through tons of back issues so if they start reading comics in the modern age, they just look back the early 90s and say "yeah, that's how things were" even though it was only a brief, hiccup in the X-Men's history that was dictated by its success in other mediums.

I've never liked the Gambit / Rogue pairing. Don't know why.

@koays:

Gambit and Rogue arent a couple. Their a phase in a relationship put on repeat.

Nah, they were a couple.

They are interesting solely because he likes her and she cant touch him. You could easily replace Gambit in that equation with Colssus and get the same result.

Not really. They were also interesting because of the aspect of Gambit not really being a good person in his past. Seeing whether or not she would forgive him and still want to be with him is somthing that made them intersting. Rogue kept secrets as well. The revelation of the Cody kid in her first solo was interesting. There was also a short time where they had a love triangle with Joseph. It was interesting to see if Rogue would choose the man she can touch, or the man she claims to love. Sure, their relationship has not grown at all since the 90s, but what Marvel relationship has?

Every Rogue and Gambit story relies on a single trope for drama, to the point that there is nothing to Rogue and Gambits relationship except the hope that they may one day settle down.

Yeah, they're watered down and are pointless now days, but which couple is not? Obviously Marvel is afraid to go further with couples now days, but Gambit and Rogue had more character development and interesting stories as a couple between 1991 and 1997 than Scott and Jean had within their existence. Technically they should of taken the next step in their relationship in the early 2000s, but marvel is ran by douchbags who only want to appeal to children.

Jean and Scott are iconic

True.

I can say that without resevervation because their is more to them then just being the most prominent relationship in X-Men

Not really.

With Jean and Scott there are layers and phases that go beyond anyone trope

Where are you getting this from?

finally solidifying their commitment by getting married

Comic book marriages were a gimmick in the 90s. They did it with Spider-Man and Mary Jane and they did it with Superman and Lois Lane. It would boost sales. That is the only reason Scott and Jean got Married.

It also killed sales down the line. For a while, Spider-Man was a C-lister in the 90s. Spider-Man not being able to sell comics is actually what started the over use of Wolverine in the late 90s, because Wolvie sold like crazy back then. Superman's sales also went to shit. You could also blame the terrible writing on it. There was that clone story with Spider-Man and those Superman clone stories. Because of this Marvel no longer commits to couples. They entirety of the 2000s was them backtracking. They killed off Spider-Man and Mary Jane as well as Scott and Jean.

The only reason that Scott and Jean were able to take a next step was because wedding were fashionable during the time period. Getting married didn't make them any more boring tho, since they were already boring to begin with.

Theyve grown as characters on their own while contributing to the others growth. From Cable-Rachel- Stryfe & X-Man, to Apocalypse-Phoenix-Maddie and Emma

Contributing to other characters growth is all they really do. They're not interesting, they just find interesting obstacles to overcome. Then they hug, hold hands, or have sex and talk about that "love can overcome all" nonsense.

@cattlebattle: Pfft My disconnect from reality is purely limited to my ongoing better then perfect marriage with Rachel Grey.

Otherwise I add this to the pile with Kitty Pryde having 3 major relationships starting and ending as her only storylines in 12 years. Yes this is true to reality. Yes I know people like this. No that doesnt make it ok to write about. Because yes it can get just as annoying in person.

Lol i dont want to be forced into a position where im pit further against something i like. But again Rogue and Gambit can't be defended as better in my eyes....you can only throw rocks at the Summers Residence and hope their property value goes down.

Lol but when you critique it for not fitting and them not being unique you point to where they were when Claremont joined. Which would be fine if i was saying Stan Lee's first 4 issues made the couple legendary. But what im saying is that considering everything they had been through (even just from Claremont onward) a fitting cap to it was to have them get married.

By no means is it glarying obvious early on... I mean Kitty and Starlord could go on to be the greatest love story of all time if Scott and Jeans relevance is the example to follow... but what im saying is that its the acceptable development after 30 years being the main couple in the series at that point. Its not that i dont get your point, i just have a far easier time accepting it as the cap off to a extremely long (in comic comparison) standing relationship.

The FF Annual and X-Factor/X-Men crossover stuff is one of the reasons why I really wanted to have a thorough discussion about the 80s(early 1990?) books outside of the main title. Like im seeing having the X-line featured in this and I really cant remember what everyone was doing going into it.

I almost find it funny...that Morrison and the Movies are so despised by the same 90s crowd for doing the same things to the source material that the 90s TAS did to the fandom. Its irony of some form....

@invain: Lol i cant seperate all of that without a laptop (RIP KoaysTOP??) but heres what I got.

1. There are two forms of drama for Rogue and Gambit. The "You cant touch me" drama of Rogue and the fact that a major character failing of Gambit is that he tends to do the wrong thing under pressure. Its just a tug of war on the "will they wont they" rope. And again, I like this couple....it defies even my confusion over Gambit. But critically looking at them...they go through a series of drawn out interactions that leave them right where they started every time. It would be one thing if it were more drawn out or accomplished more things...but they really tend to stagnate alot when their together.

2. Layers and Phases to Jean and Scott means just what i said. You can look at them from multiple points in their history and see them in a different type of relationship. Its not a matter of you liking the developments or even the story (i sited The Twelve for god sakes) but the fact is the couple fighting over "identity" on a roof in X-Factor and the couple raising their son in a dystopic desert future are at a different phase in their relationship. Rogue and Gambit dont have that because every plot is them trying again with the same dynamics. It will always be: If Rogue and Gambit arent together its because Rogue is preventing it and if they break up it's because Gambit screwed it up.

3. Lmao if were going to blame bad Spiderman comics in the 90s on his marriage then i've got a few psychotic writers and a clone saga id like factor in.

To your point of them being boring... yea they often are and its basically my whole point. At the end of the day it your purogitive who you like more. But the question posed is "Which Couple Is Better?" So critically we have to examine the relationships...Scott and Jeans is deeper and actually goes somewhere while Rogue and Gambit's doesnt go very far and just repeats its same "Will they? wont they?, they can't, but will they?" Story as the basis of their story. It basically doesnt have to ever evolve pass this point because thats all its played with since its inception.

Its like saying "The Beast has been featured in more Marvel comicbooks then almost any solo hero" it may be hard to admit. And it doesnt make him more interesting. And it definetly doesnt mean you have to like him more then your other heroes... but if the conversation ia about appearances then you have to factor that in. Scott and Jean are boring...but looking angsty at eachother is just one of their settings....not the entire relationship like Rogue and Gambit.

4. I....i really dont know where you got the whole "love concurs all" thing from. Doesnt really apply to them or their stories...they spent half the 90s in the future, possessed or chasing after their kids and when they weren't their stories definitely didnt end with love concurs all....it was more "What does this mean for us..."

That said, that is their role in the 90s. But theyve got two spinoff books the tail end of an X-Factor run and a ridiculous amount of flashbacks, revisits and retcons released that reexamine their relationship. Not including Morrisons run. So trust me they do more then facilitate other characters plots.

Wait....does this site have new font or something or is my compute broken?? What the hell.....

For the record, I agree with you that Scott and Jean is a better couple than skeevy french creep and Dolly Parton, I just don't agree with that aggrandized post you wrote about their relationship.

Scott and Jean were just a boring run of the mill super hero couple throughout the 60's and 70's, and then in the 80s, briefly before the Dark Phoenix Saga, they were written a bit better, and then, after Jean returns from the dead their relationship is just weird and depressing....I mean, as I have said, Scott marries a look alike of her, has a child, runs out on her, and then after Madelyne's death, Jean absorbs her psyche no doubt absorbing intimate moments....that's some shit out of Maury Povich or something. Definitely not good grounds to get married under. Tying the knot is probably the last thing they should have done. Then during the 90's they returned to the boring super hero couple.

Days of Future Present is from 91 I believe. At that point in time, Marvel had all yearly crossovers during Annuals, which was a better idea. The annuals used to come out randomly too.

Eh, the X-Men have been interpreted and reinterpreted so many times people don't even know what they want anymore. Most of the people that claim they hate the movies don't even know what they are talking about half the time and I think the hate for Morrison's run doesn't come from it shifting whatever the perception of the status quo so much as it has to do with Morrsion kind of not understanding the X-Men franchise or its characters. He even admitted on a podcast that he never really liked the X-Men a whole lot, which is obvious at some points.

Throughout the X-men's existence mutants have been stated to evolve by gaining super human abilities, hence why people are afraid of them, some guy can evolve to shoot lasers out of his hands and wreck a city block.....Morrison came along and was like "Of course, they evolve into bug people!!"....his run is like 40% his own interpretation of the X-Men, 20% deconstructing the franchise, and 40% trolling the fanbase. Not saying that I don't like Morrison's run, it's just that if you don't like Morrison's other work you are not going to like his X-Men run.....an "acquired taste" I suppose.

@koays: Get a better phone. I'm using mine right now. I just got a Samsung 5G somthing a couple days ago.

@koays said:

Nah, the mutant Massacre wasn't Gambit doing the wrong thing under pressure, it was him doing the wrong thing to survive. His powers would of literally of made him go crazy if he didn't get brain surgery from Sinister. See New Son to see what would of happened to Gambit if he would of let his powers go unchecked.

Another aspect of the drama in their relationship was Gambit's marriage to Bella Donna, which was somthing he was forced to do. He even once referred to it as "being forced to marry my best friend in order to stop our families from killing each other." There was also that time that Rogue touched Bella, stealing her memories from her, which brought on another aspect of their character development.

2. Layers and Phases to Jean and Scott means just what i said. You can look at them from multiple points in their history and see them in a different type of relationship. Its not a matter of you liking the developments or even the story (i sited The Twelve for god sakes) but the fact is the couple fighting over "identity" on a roof in X-Factor and the couple raising their son in a dystopic desert future are at a different phase in their relationship.

The late 90s were out of character bullshit. Seagal and Cruz were terrible writers. They even once did a entire inner monologue where he constantly referred to the Juggernaut as a mutant. The part where they moved to Alaska to get away for a while, shortly before Hunt for Xavier, was stupid. They would fight over bullshit. Jean created a Phoenix costume and Scott thought she would turn into another Onslaught. Then Scott got away with lying to her face multiple times. In real life most relationships I've been in you can tell when someone is lying, especially when it is delivered the way Scott did. On top of that, she's a telepath. It's stupid and out of character from beginning to end. You're using these writers to defend Jean and Scott? Might as well use Morrison, who you've constantly bashed since I've been here for writing them out of character.

Uncanny X-Men #356

Rogue and Gambit dont have that because every plot is them trying again with the same dynamics. It will always be: If Rogue and Gambit arent together its because Rogue is preventing it and if they break up it's because Gambit screwed it up.

Not true. They grew and evolved throughout the 90s. Originally they wouldn't even tell each other their real names, but they grew past that. Their relationship first hit some major development after X-Cutioner's Song when Rogue was blinded and told Remy how much she liked him and wanted more than anything for him to hold her. He walked away, implying like he was afraid of commitment, only to come back later with a blanket, wrap it around her, and Grant her wish by holding her. Their relationship evolved further in Gambit's first miniseries series when Rogue finally admitted that she loved him. This is also where Rogue touched a comatose Bella Donna, permanently stealing her memories from her, basking in what Remy's touch was like. Then their relationship hit a fork in the road in X-Men #31 when Sabretooth told Rogue a story of a young Remy who tricked a girl into falling in love with him in Paris. After Remy had slept with her, he steals what he was after from her, and Sabretooth later kills the girl. This leads to them taking a break for a while until finally making up in a later issue and then moving on to the character development their relationship received in the first Rogue Mini, where Bela Donna wanted revenge for Rogue stealing her memories in the Gambit solo. The next big piece of development was the kiss at the end of Legion's Quest where Rogue realized Gambit did somthing awful that he was afraid of in his past. This caused Rogue to leave the X-Men, and later find and begin a flirtatious relationship with Joseph. We later see Rogue and Gambit reconnect, with Rogue telling him that she will love him unconditionally, no matter what. This changed after she was forced to kiss him in Uncanny X-Men #350 tho. Gambit hated himself for what he did, and since she had him in her mind, she hated him too, so she leaves him in Antarctica. They later reconnect when Gambit returns to the X-Men and get to the point where they are willing to touch each other, and Gambit is willing to share all aspects of his life with Rogue. Then logically the next step would of been for them to get married or some shit, but that never happened because this was around the time the Joe Quesada era begun and all relationships started going around in circles.

Why you make me have to explain all this shit for? I assume that since you said that you would never read a Gambit solo, you didn't get all of there relationship from the 90s.

3. Lmao if were going to blame bad Spiderman comics in the 90s on his marriage then i've got a few psychotic writers and a clone saga id like factor in.

No, we don't, but I read a few articles that claimed that Marvel does. Superman also started sucking after getting married, but what can I say, Louise Simonson sucks. Return of Superman is where I first started hating her.

To your point of them being boring... yea they often are and its basically my whole point. At the end of the day it your purogitive who you like more. But the question posed is "Which Couple Is Better?" So critically we have to examine the relationships...

Yeah, I agree. They should be boring, they should be perfect, this relationship shouldn't be humanized. A escapist's fantasy is what they should be, because due to Jean's powerset and Cyke's character, humanizing them just seems out of character or stupid within itself. It's cool, I don't mind them like that, but they don't appeal to me when written like that.

Scott and Jeans is deeper and actually goes somewhere while Rogue and Gambit's doesnt go very far and just repeats its same "Will they? wont they?, they can't, but will they?" Story as the basis of their story. It basically doesnt have to ever evolve pass this point because thats all its played with since its inception.

Not really. Cyke had a relationship with Maddy that went somewhere, but with Jean it didn't really go anywhere, besides them taking care of their son in the future. Having a future kid from a alternate timeline showing up on your doorstep doesn't necessarily translate as "going somewhere." Yeah, they did get married, but then what? Nothing. They just continued on doing the exact same thing as they did before. Up until Seagle and Cruz showed up and started writing them badly.

Scott and Jean are boring...but looking angsty at eachother is just one of their settings....not the entire relationship like Rogue and Gambit.

*sigh* Already explained above.

4. I....i really dont know where you got the whole "love concurs all" thing from. Doesnt really apply to them or their stories...they spent half the 90s in the future, possessed or chasing after their kids and when they weren't their stories definitely didnt end with love concurs all....it was more "What does this mean for us..."

They've said lines simular to "we've been through so much, our love can get us through anything together," dozens of times, dating all the way back to Simonson's X-Factor. They also said many simular lines in the 90s.

PS. Eight issues does not equal half the 90s. It was only two mini series that were four issues each. I didn't even read the second one, so as far as I know it might of only been four.

Like I said in my first post: Jean and Scott are either badly written, or they are a escapist's fantasy of what a ideal couple should be. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it don't appeal to me. I think a perfect couple is probably what they should of remained since every writer that tried to humanize them ended up writing them badly. Due to the psychic link that they share, one could argue that they shouldn't ever have to argue. They should be able to use better communication skills than anyone in real life, and be able to work things out without getting into fights. They just don't appeal to me like that. I would rather read about a couple that can fight and argue like a couple in real life, without being written badly to do so.

I will agree that Simonson did some what humanize them and it did actually make some sense due to Jean not being psychic at the time. But it is hard for me to take that run seriously because I hate Simonson.

Gambit and Rogue. I liked Cyclops and Jean individually but i never cared for them as a couple.

@invain: -_- Dude How the hell are you seperating quotes on a 5G??? Im on a S7edge and i just reset a wall of text i was writing for the battle forum (though that may have just been my phone looking out for me). How the hell does everyone navigate this site better then me?? And why do all the goddamned words looks funny!!!

Anyway..

Lets not confuse my complete an total astonishment with Gambits popularity with a lack of knowledge on his background and character. Even if I wasnt a huge X-Men nerd, Rogue being one of my favorite X-Men sort of means i have to be familiar with Gambit.

And to another point, I get the idea of the rough and tumble, being in love doesnt = happiness, Love is pain/pain is love, things dont always work out perfectly mindset. It is the new modern love cliché.... and while it may appear that this is closer to reality....i feel like after HighSchool there's only so many false starts and finishes that people legitimately have that can even resemble Gambit and Rogue a little bit. The fact is they were stretched ridiculously far for drama and them milking it to invoke the same feelings from readers for as long as they have is a legit critique on the growthband progress of their relationship. Because even now when they appear together its the same thing. And ill go as far as to defend Gambit, and say that it's mostly how people write all of Rogue's personal relationships. But the truth is that like you critique Scott and Jean and think they shouldve been able to just talk through their problems....Gambit and Rogue should've been able to do the same...we just excuse that they dont because within the dynamics of the X-Men they are essentially the teenage lovers who cant get things right.

Now to Scott and Jean. I really just do not have this same "idealized fantasy" opinion of them that you have. Honestly i never have and I've rallied against it when arguing against TAS and its failings. Jean and Scott can be and are iconic without being the definition of perfection. If we want to point towards the very few writers who have portrayed them as that "ultimate love-love happy" fantasy then we can...but that just doesnt begin to encompass what they have been from start to finish. The same way we have to take into context what David mightve done with Rogue and Gambit...or Carey's poor writing off of the relationship in the late 2000s...we need to look from Lee to Morrison to the retcons establishing Jean pointing Xavier to Scott. Its not a perfect relationship, its not always the most interesting relationship, but there is ALOT going on in it and because of it. The mainline 90s titles may not show it...but everywhere else it is evident.

Sidebar- Where the hell does that crazy "Love stopped the Phoenix" scan keep coming from???

Sidebar 2- To be objective when analyzing a character, i cant disavow certain writers or eras. Its allows me to write half a page on why The 12 sucks, and still think that sacrificing himself to Apocalypse was one of the most badass things Cyclops has ever done and a awesome moment in the characters history...despite the shit that follows. Similarly Polaris in Austin's run was extremely interesting even if the writer may have been on drugs. And Rogue and Gambit while being one of my favorite couples in comics....have moved well into the 2010s doing the same things theyve always done without maturing. When as you pointed out the writers are jusr trying to keep things recognizeable for the children. So while i may seem indecicive...if you ask me a character question, you'll get a character answer.

@cattlebattle

Thank you...someone else gets how discomforting this design change is....smh they cant find time to write about new comics, and comic news but upset my OCD with a font change, yea theyve got time for that.

I'll concede that Scott and Jean on paper probably shouldnt have gotten married. (Honestly going back and reading some of the wedding dialogue and remembering that Jean basically pulled a "There can be only one" on Maddie and the Phoenix's minds...well its kinda creepy in a hilariously psychotic way. But its sort of like "Yea for 30 years weve been through more crazy crap then a then a blindman in manure factory...which has brought us closer then most couples...so lets ignore the fact that that i was turned on by the purple ninja chick a couple issues ago and tie the knot"

Wait theres a schedule for annuals now?

Idk....discussion of Morrison exhaust me at this point. Its like for everything he did interesting conceptually....theres a character he screwed over or a tenant of the series that is missing.

Like have you ever noticed how after being a on and off theme in the 80s the 90s went full on with the idea that Mutants were the next phase of humanity and it was imminent. And then Morrison comes around and shows us mutants popping up all over the place now....but he spends more time examining them as a subculture(which i do applaud) then as humanity evolving. To the point that the rest of the franchise from that point stops treating them as evolved humans but as a seperate species/race/culture. Its like one of the founding tenants of the series is just back burnered

And what's he doin with that hand! O_O

Yeah, the relationship suffered from poor writing and retcons and other outer forces messing with it...as I said, if you just have an abridged version of it, or get your information from the cartoons or something, it feels like they were always this deeply important couple, but, if you actually read the continuity from the comics..."yikes". Cyclops always seems kind of obsessive and pathetic and Jean, well, the version of Jean that confesses her unrequited love for Scott during the Dark Phoenix Saga wasn't even really Jean. So.....it's just weird confusing comic book nonsense.

I guess not, lol. The Days of Future Present X-Men Annual tie in was weird I remember because it was technically the first appearance of Gambit, it was released before the issue he debuts in if I recall and the events in the annual are supposed to be not too long before X-Tinction Agenda, which didn't happen in the regular continuity until half a year later. Very confusing in its release date vs reading order.....if you know what I mean.

Yeah, Morrison essentially wrote "Grant Morrison's version of the X-Men". While I actually like the run (more so because I like Morrison's writing and subjects he tackles more than I like what he did with the franchise) I still like to think of it as alternate reality that just happened to be considered canon. He honestly didn't do anything all that original, The U-Men were some what like the original Reavers, Cassandra Nova was somewhat like what the Shadow King was, Fantomex was based on the Italian character Fantomas by way of being a pastiche of "mysterious, ultimate warrior" characters commonly found in X-Men fiction, and everybody liked him, so he sort of successfully trolled the fanbase in that case, secondary mutations had existed before as well....it's been a long time since I read it but yeah, I can understand why people don't like it.

It's a 4G LTE Galaxy S5. The request desktop site features makes this website look exactly like the desktop version.

Lets not confuse my complete an total astonishment with Gambits popularity with a lack of knowledge on his background and character. Even if I wasnt a huge X-Men nerd, Rogue being one of my favorite X-Men sort of means i have to be familiar with Gambit.

In the late 90s their relationship was usually shown in Gambit's first ongoing.

And to another point, I get the idea of the rough and tumble, being in love doesnt = happiness, Love is pain/pain is love, things dont always work out perfectly mindset. It is the new modern love cliché.... and while it may appear that this is closer to reality....i feel like after HighSchool there's only so many false starts and finishes that people legitimately have that can even resemble Gambit and Rogue a little bit.

You're overanalyzing. You cant find reality in any relationship from any medium in entertainment. I was also referring to the 90s when their relationship didn't have false starts or finishes. It was one big story where they were constantly together throughout the decade. Sure, they hit a few road blocks but it never looked like they were actually finished.

The fact is they were stretched ridiculously far for drama and them milking it to invoke the same feelings from readers for as long as they have is a legit critique on the growthband progress of their relationship. Because even now when they appear together its the same thing. And ill go as far as to defend Gambit, and say that it's mostly how people write all of Rogue's personal relationships. But the truth is that like you critique Scott and Jean and think they shouldve been able to just talk through their problems....Gambit and Rogue should've been able to do the same...we just excuse that they dont because within the dynamics of the X-Men they are essentially the teenage lovers who cant get things right.

There you go referring to their shitty modern relationship again. What Marvel relationship doesn't go around in circles now days? I'm sure Scott's and Jean's would as well, but I have nothing to critique with them from the modern era because she's dead. My point was that Gambit and Rogue was going somewhere before Marvel made all of their relationships go around in circles.

Now to Scott and Jean. I really just do not have this same "idealized fantasy" opinion of them that you have. Honestly i never have and I've rallied against it when arguing against TAS and its failings. Jean and Scott can be and are iconic without being the definition of perfection.

It seems like their fanbace prefers them as a "idealized fantasy". Or is it just a coincidence that every long term Scott and Jean fan seems to dislike every writer that humanized them? I didn't watch TAS outside of a few episodes. I have no idea what you mean by that but I find it kind of weird how often you bring that silly cartoon up.

If we want to point towards the very few writers who have portrayed them as that "ultimate love-love happy" fantasy then we can...

And how many writer that didn't write them as "Ultimate love-love happy fantasy" are deemed good? I have not read all of the flashback series or the silver age, but in main cannon from the 70s to Jean's death, there are few, and arguably none. Claremont wrote them as a perfect relationship that loved each other no matter what. Simonson humanized them but with the exception of you, most people seem to consider that a bad run. Even towards the end post Inferno she started to go back to Claremont's characterization, which Lobdell and Nicieza continued up until 1995. Seagal and Cruz humanized them. Ever notice that no one ever talks about them? It's cuz they Suck. Worse than Chuck Austin imo. Then after that we have Morrison, who again humanized them, but most fans of the relationship seem to not like Morrison's treatment of it.

...we need to look from Lee to Morrison to the retcons establishing Jean pointing Xavier to Scott. Its not a perfect relationship, its not always the most interesting relationship, but there is ALOT going on in it and because of it. The mainline 90s titles may not show it...but everywhere else it is evident.

Funny how you say the 90s don't show it but it was actually Scott Lobdell who first made that retcon in the 90s.

Sidebar- Where the hell does that crazy "Love stopped the Phoenix" scan keep coming from???

I just made that scan, I didn't realize it was a thing. It's from Uncanny X-Men #308. I just used Marvel Unlimited app on my phone and took a screenshot and edited the immage down to size.

Sidebar 2- To be objective when analyzing a character, i cant disavow certain writers or eras. Its allows me to write half a page on why The 12 sucks, and still think that sacrificing himself to Apocalypse was one of the most badass things Cyclops has ever done and a awesome moment in the characters history...despite the shit that follows. Similarly Polaris in Austin's run was extremely interesting even if the writer may have been on drugs. And Rogue and Gambit while being one of my favorite couples in comics....have moved well into the 2010s doing the same things theyve always done without maturing. When as you pointed out the writers are jusr trying to keep things recognizeable for the children. So while i may seem indecicive...if you ask me a character question, you'll get a character answer.

I can see where you're coming from, but all relationships in Marvel throughout the 2000s go nowhere thanks to Joe Quesada. They did let Jessica Jones and Luke Cage get married for some reason but I don't know. They just seem to only let Bendis do what he wants.

@invain: lol were going to end up agreeing to disagree...but in response to a couple percieved personal attacks??

1. Idk how to get across that i've followed this relationship closely without getting "But you didnt read this solo" as a response. Were essentially both trying to argue that the other missed some crucial character development that proves all our points and will change the others mind, when its not there.

2. I was addressing the claim that Scott and Jean are some idealized fantasy as a negative. Since it implies that Gambit and Rogue and their back and forth is more realistic...when its just another drama cliché. I understand that their is a golden period of writing for the couple...but my critique of them comes from the fact that rather then move on to another period they simply revisit variations on things theyve already done.

3. Im referring to their modern relationship because it has spoiled their history and perception. Sort of like the 90s overall did the same to Scott and Jean. It doesnt mean their relationship is bad, but it means that its a problem i dont feel they overcome.

4. Their fanbase is crazy. Their the difference between people who know about X-Men and are fans of it and those who read the stories and absorb the media and know what happens. I remember a thread way back where a sudden surge of CBR users flooded who strongly disliked Emma, and when asked why Scott and Jean were so special, it was the equivalent of certain "other posters" responding with "this is sacred if you don't get it your a hypocrite" (*wink*). Having read the material i can say inspite of the obvious failings...i like them and like their position in X-Men, but im not gonna make things up about their relationship to make it what its not.

5. I bring up the cartoon because opinions about it often allign with the ideas about the 90s and "what the X-Men should be/are"

6. You have set insane standards of disproof here. Like to even start to reply i have to widdle us down to the one X-Men writer who is actually considered good by a noteworthy percentage. I mean we both obviously know that a writer can have a terrible run or story and still craft a noteworthy or quality moment in their history. Age of Apocalypse is trash, AoA Magneto is awesome. Austen is hated with a passion and yet his Polaris is arguably more interesting then Davids. Lobdells crowning pile of shit is Eve of Destruction and yet its probably got the best character moment for Jean Grey in years at that point. So to me the idea that someone wrote them as real characters but also had a trash run is moot. I mean the people who like that version and not the fleshed real people could be put in the same box as people who prefer Cyclops bland instead of anything hes done to grow post Morrison.

7. I stand by my statement. The quantity of Scott and Jeans stories in the 90s increased. The quality did not. The retcon existing under Lobdells penn is just like any of the soul searching and family building they did in other titles. It doesnt change the fact that the overall scope of Scott and Jean cant be taken from just the 90s.

8. Stop showing off what you can so with your phone! Seriously though how are you splitting quotes though??? If i quote and tag...even in comp version ...it clears everything.

9. Your right, i just dont like to disqualify things from analysis just because we dont like the politics behind them.

Again I like Rogue and Gambit...really i do. But im also like the only User who likes Scott and Jean and is willing to form complete sentences to defend the good parts of them. And here we have a moment where I legitimately just feel their a better couple then Gambit and Rogue but theyve been picked apart for so long that the comparison is out of their favor...so i have to do the same. And I just dont feel that the totality of Rogue and Gambit is equal to the totality of Jean and Scott.

Personal attacks? How is anything I said a personal attack. You're the one who tries to rile people's jiffies by making outrageous claims like Gambit can be replaced by Colossus....what exactly does Cyclops bring to the Jean and Scott relationship anyway? Just his DNA? ...Might as well replace him with Havok. ?

1. Idk how to get across that i've followed this relationship closely without getting "But you didnt read this solo" as a response. Were essentially both trying to argue that the other missed some crucial character development that proves all our points and will change the others mind, when its not there.

Technically you can get the jest of it without reading the solo. You should read his first miniseries series and Rogue's mini series if you have not. They're pretty good for 90s comics. Gambit's annual from 1999 was very important to the relationship as well.

2. I was addressing the claim that Scott and Jean are some idealized fantasy as a negative. Since it implies that Gambit and Rogue and their back and forth is more realistic

It was more realistic too a point. Like I said earler, that part of their relationship should of ended in the early 2000s.

3. Im referring to their modern relationship because it has spoiled their history and perception. Sort of like the 90s overall did the same to Scott and Jean. It doesnt mean their relationship is bad, but it means that its a problem i dont feel they overcome.

I think Gambit and Rogue had a better ride than Jean and Cyke. Between 1991 and 2000 was the golden age for them. Then you get to X-Treme X-Men and you have a unhappy Rogue and Gambit constantly flirting with Storm. I almost wish that Claremont would of just ended it and put Gambit with Storm. The relationship would of probably of meant more if it would of ended, because the further writing with Gambit and Rogue only watered it down. Storm and Gambit would of also of been a hundred times better then Storm and Panther.

5. I bring up the cartoon because opinions about it often allign with the ideas about the 90s and "what the X-Men should be/are"

I know that cartoon is a curse to the fandom. Like I told you before, I'm a fan of the movies. And I feel like most of the time when people say "the movies should be more like the comics" it might as well translate as "the movies should be more like the 90s cartoon." The movies are like the comics that they're based off of, except X3 and Origins Wolverine.

So to me the idea that someone wrote them as real characters but also had a trash run is moot.

True but I already gave you Simonson and explained how Seagle and Cruz literally wrote them badly. Considering how I've already seen you pick apart Morrison, I don't think I need to explain that one. Alan Davis was also in there somewhere in the late 90s. He wasn't as bad as Seagal but still not very good.

7. I stand by my statement. The quantity of Scott and Jeans stories in the 90s increased. The quality did not. The retcon existing under Lobdells penn is just like any of the soul searching and family building they did in other titles. It doesnt change the fact that the overall scope of Scott and Jean cant be taken from just the 90s.

When exactly was their golden age then? The 60s silver age when their relationship was treated as nothing more than a grade school crush? The 70s where Claremont made them kiss for the first time, yet barely even used Jean? The 80s where they had sex on top of a mountain in New Mexico...oh wait that wasn't Jean, she spent that time resting underwater somewhere. It was funny when Cyke told that story to Rusty Collins in X-Factor only for Jean to overhear and get all pissed off. With the exception of DPS the relationship only existed for three and a half years in the 80s. Then there's the 2000s where Morrison made Jean try to have sex with Wolverine only for him to tell her no and Cyke had a mental affair with Emma...definitely looks like the 90s was the golden age for the couple. Lobdell actually wrote them well even if they were boring as a couple he still made them interesting in other aspects.

8. Stop showing off what you can so with your phone! Seriously though how are you splitting quotes though??? If i quote and tag...even in comp version ...it clears everything.

First I highlight your text that I want to respond to and copy it. Then I hit the 'quote' button that is right next to 'link' and right under 'Paragraph' above where we post. Then I go to where the quote will be and put my finger on my phones screen until the paste button appears and paste your test. Then I hit the 'enter' but on my keyboard to space down. Then I hit the quote button to end quote. Then I type my reply.

Gambit and Rogue. They were different from most X-Men couples. They were at risk of being together because of Rogue's draining powers. Gambit knows that Rogue could drain his life force and possibly end up killing him, but he still wants to be with her. That takes a LOT of bravery and courage to stick with someone who could cost your life. That just shows how much he loves her. Another reason why I love this couple so much is because they both relate to each other within being similar outcasts, but different backgrounds. Both of them started off on the wrong side of the law (as villains: Gambit was part of Sinister's Marauders and Rogue the Brotherhood) and they both redeemed themselves whilst joining the X-Men and their love towards each other made them more powerful. They're an amazing battle couple. Cyclops and Jean are iconic as always, considering they are the original couple, but they're a bit boring in comparison. They mostly showed their romantic side of their relationship, whilst Gambit and Rogue had more than that. They had regret, sorrow, loss, arguments, flirting, playfulness and determination. I just found them more interesting to watch and read about. They may have been downplayed recently, like a lot of couples have, but they will always be #1 in my book.

Gambit and Rogue were a interesting couple. I never saw much to like with Jean and Cyclops. Cyclops was better with Emma Frost imo.

Gambit and Rogue are great but... they are kinda aren't what they used to be.

What made Jean and Cyclops epic for me was ENDSONG! OMG That last scene they shared together nearly made me cry.