Jump to content

Talk:Cyclops (Marvel Comics)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fictional character biography

[edit]

This section needs a complete reordering. Surely it should be chronological? It also clearly needs a clean up, I'll happily do this soon, but if any regular contributors have strong views, I'll refrain.CrazyFoolMrT (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is he dead?

[edit]

Does Astonishing count as canon? If so, can we add to this article that it appears Whedon has killed Scott off as of the latest issue of Astonishing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.215.206.179 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, in my opinion... we don't know for sure if he is dead, even emma herself says that he IS in love with her, not WAS... and there's a common theory shared by many online that he and emma are using unorthodox methods to combat danger... and yes, astonishing is canon... (Pr1983) 01:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's alive - read the most upto date solicits "ASTONISHING X-MEN #23 “UNSTOPPABLE” The end is near. The situation is dire. The outlook is bleak. But Cyclops has a plan. Part 5 (of 6)". So unless that's a zombie cyclops... --Fredrick day 16:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that all the talk of the town is that Cyclops will play a major part in the Messiah Complex event in October of 2007. I'd hate to see how this guy responds to someone who is asleep.

Under "Post-Civil War", it's written:
As he falls out to space Emma says "i'm so close as he is dying."
The paragraph then goes on to discuss the flashbacks Cyclops sees. My interpretation of this page was that the panel with Emma saying "I'm so close" was not a depiction of an actual event occurring in parallel with Cyclops floating in space, but was actually the first of three flashback panels. All three flashback panels (with Emma, with young Jean, and with Xavier) are shown through a first person perspective, successively looking at earlier and earlier points in his life. As I understood it, the panel with Emma is of Cyclops and Emma engaging in intercourse, with her stating that she is "so close" to climaxing. If others agree with this interpretation, the writing should be changed to reflect this, in a manner which is not rude or overly crass. Ydermenj 14:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - WP:OR, we don't give our interpretations, just the facts as reported by good sources. --Fredrick day 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character History - The X-Men | Needs Revision

[edit]

On Cyclops' page the following 'graph can be found on his early tenure with the X-Men:

"Cyclops had an on-again/off-again relationship with Jean Grey during their time in the X-Men, and when he refused to leave with the other senior members, feeling that the X-Men was the only place he truly belonged, she was deeply upset. For a long time he actually couldn't work up the nerve to tell Jean how he felt about her, fearing that his optic blasts would hurt her - or anyone else he cared about for that matter - and also because he felt he was no match for his wealthy team-mate Warren Worthington III, AKA: Angel, who was also romantically interested in Jean. What Scott didn't know was that Jean actually had a crush on him, but she was too shy to make a move. This culminated in her tragic "death" as she tried to pilot a space shuttle through a solar flare, her rebirth as Phoenix and her suicide on the Moon"

The above discusses Jean's romance with Angel, which did cause a bit of a stall before the flaring of Cyclops' romance with Jean. Now while this did take place, jean and Cyclops had an openly declared and committed relationship directly after Jean's breakup with Warren. Jean and Cyclops were together far after the Original X-men left the team, and were replaced by the new roster in Giant Sized X-Men #1. While Jean left the X-men to pursue a modelling career, and Cyclops was leading the new team, the two were still committed to one another. This is brought to the forefront when Jean attempted to pilot the doomed shuttle that led to her merger/replacement by the Phoenix. During this issue, Cyclops is adamant about piloting the shuttle and jean has to subvert him. not to digress too much, the pair's relationship by this point is well established in issues written by Len Wein as well as Chris ClaremontCapoCastillo

Cyclops was the first X-man ever, jean grey was the 5th since the first issue of X-men introduced her to the already formed team of cyclops beast iceman and angel so i am changing that

Additional information

[edit]

The following text was at Summers Family Tree (comics). Most of it is already in this article. Possibly soem of the rest should be incorporated. I am coverting Summers Family Tree (comics) to a redirect to this page. DES 18:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated, is the family tree of Scott Summers aka Cyclops from the X-Men. He has been married to Madelyne Pryor and Jean Grey and is currently dating Emma Frost. With Madelyne he has had one child, Cable who was cloned to create Stryfe. In an alternate universe, he and Jean Grey had a child, X-Man who is essentially Cable (the child of Madelyne, Jean's clone) having been raised better. He and Jean also had a daughter, Rachel Summers who took after her mother in many ways.

Scott's father, Major Christopher Summers is Corsair, leader of the Starjammers and his brother Alex Summers, is also a mutant, who goes by the name Havoc. There are also theories that Gambit is possibly Scott's other brother.

Havoc, got together with Polaris and later Madelyne Pryor with whom he had a child who he named Scotty.

According to X-Men: Deadly Genesis, Vulcan is the third Summers brother. I was hoping for Black Vulcan myself...ka1iban 14:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In the official-fan-fic style "Marvel A+X", Scott is depicted frozen by Skrulls while cooking wearing a "MEAT IS MURDER" apron. This suggests he is a vegetarian, although I'm not sure it is ever brought up otherwise. It seems to contradict his status quo personality, but the health benefits might appeal to him. He may also take his general moral quest to such an extreme that he feels he is ethically bound to protect animals with just as much vigor? These are speculation. Maybe he needed an apron and it was the only one available, he is quite pragmatic. Irony does not seem like his cup of tea. Pictured here: https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/40673202859003599/

"Metaphor" rewrite

[edit]

I've rewritten the section on the metaphorical nature of his condition, fleshing out the major points and trying to get a fuller text out of it (not dimensionwise, contentwise). I've also removed the Doom Patrol reference;

" The early X-Men paralleled DC Comics' Doom Patrol in many ways; Doom Patrol was the story of a group of outsiders, cursed with their powers.";

As it seems irrelevant to me, or at least not made very good use of... The article is on Cyclops, the section on Cyclops's thematic undercurrents; to make a reference to an entirely different group to relate it to the X-Men seems out of place here; probably more appropriate on the X-Men's main page, possibly in a portion of text about the X-Men's themes. I've just noticed after publishing that, stupidly enough, I've still left some mistakes and I do need to link up to some other stuff (sorry for this, my pc isn't in the best condition, in that it stops working rather randomly, so I wanted to get the text up fast enough not to lose it a third time). I'll get to correcting it now, if I can. Finally: I'm sorry if I've made a glaring error here, but is "Cyclops's" the correct form? English isn't my native language (Portuguese as I am), so I'm not entirely sure, and trying to google the form didn't help. If it needs to be corrected, well, there you have it: I apologize. Zeppocity 23:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I LOVE the "Metaphorical nature and condition" section! Great insights. That said, it DOES NOT belong on a Wikipedia page as it is totally original research. It's a good section, just not for a reference article.ka1iban 14:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclops - the pool hustler

[edit]

'Cyclops is a dynamite pool hustler'!!!! - Has anyone ever seen any evidence of this?

In several comics, including the X-MEN/TEEN TITANS crossover from the early 1980s, we see Cyclops clear a pool table by making an absurd shot at the cue-ball using his optic blasts. I think "dynamite pool hustler" is a fair characterization. 63.249.68.89 15:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also does it in his lost years after Jean dies and he makes out with a sailor. He thinks about using geometry (Stay in school!) and his perfect aim. --Chris Griswold 22:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Edition

[edit]

The current information on "Ultimate Cyclops" is poorly written and incredibly sparse. I've done what I can to polish things off, but further information and organization may be necessary. --AWF

Agreed. Tends to be running through a lot of the Ultimate X-men. Ultimate Nightcrawler is equally sparse, as are Ultimate Shadowcat, Ultimate Iceman, Ultimate Dazzler, Ultimate Beast, and others. Psyphics 20:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X3 Edits

[edit]

If people want to add info from the new film, please make sure your edits are well-constructed and have ":{{spoiler}}" above them. Some of us haven't seen the film yet *rassa-frassin grumble grumble* ka1iban 20:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Eye color" issue is not silly & needs to be addressed. It demonstrates a lack of concern on the filmmakers part for maintaining the continuity between the comic and film. --Lbsst14 19:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In an article this size, it's really such a minor point that silly seems to be the best word to describe what really seems to be an attempt to push a POV about the filmmakers. CovenantD 22:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're being paranoid. Besides, everyone knows the filmmakers are dips. That's not up for debate. The eye color, at the very least, is more a small indiction of the differences between standard comics continuity and the movie. Plus, trivia is fairly encyclopedic. ACS (Wikipedian) 18:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, "trivia" is trivial and not significant. So, no, not encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGriswold (talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 July 2006
I'd usually disregard the opinion of someone who cannot even sign their comments on a talk page, but good point. ACS (Wikipedian) 00:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop being rude. --Chris Griswold 07:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moi?! Never! Besides, isn't it a little hypocritical to say something like that after insisting on calling me "one of the Aces"—as if I haven't disambiguated myself—and Stephanie Brown "the teenage mother"? I mean...I'd hope a relative of the original, elder tennis player Christopher Griswold would be above name calling. Ah well. ACS (Wikipedian) 07:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: I can tell you apart now. The rest of what you said is pointless and rude as usual. --Chris Griswold 07:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being that the eye color is an identifying characteristic, and the natural eye color of this character is mentioned in every official description by Marvel (not including one in this Wiki Entry), it should be noticed that the film differs. It’s a very simple detail that they missed. I don’t see the difference between that and them casting a 6 foot Scandinavian to play the part of Cyclops…it differs from official cannon. You might consider that minor "trivia" but I certainly don't. --Lbsst14 15:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read comics for years and have no idea what color his eyes are. It's trivial. When has it ever mattered to the character or the plot? The only character I can think of right now whose eye color has been an important plot element is Lex Luthor.--Chris Griswold 08:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Superman is commonly referred to as 'big blue' not just on account of his costume but of his eye colour too. For the record, if it hasn't been stated, Cyclops' eyes are brown. Given that Cyclops wears a visor and his eyes are usually shielded, the fact that they finally show his eyes onscreen and get them wrong says nothing but bad things about the filmmakers. I don't see the harm in having it addressed. Pr1983 04:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Supes is a hell of a lot more recognizable, and his eyes will be visible in each drawing of him. Cyclops has his eyes covered pretty much all the time. Heck, most people think his eyes are naturally red for chrissakes. I also disagree on the: bad things about the filmmakers. I mean, eye color is the least of the problems with X-Men 3, and the least of the the problems filmmakers should ever worry about. Kusonaga 04:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what i meant, i just used Superman as an example. I mean, cyclops has CRIED in the x-men movies, even though he's incapable of it as his blast would pummel any tear that came near his eye. I had written a huge paragraph, but took away my other complaints as to stay on the topic. I think it should be included, because it is information i think every cyclops fan should know. Pr1983 06:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclops has shed tears in the comics as well, the most recent example being in Astonishing #14. My point being, even if "logically" he should be incapable of it, it happens. I can make a similar comment about him being "unable" to bounce his optic blasts off of objects- he's been doing it since the 1960s. All comic-book powers have an element of the ridiculous and there isn't much point in singling out the Cyclops character for a discussion of these absurdities.
I thought the scene where he was being fitted for new lenses was especially incorrect. He shouldn't have been able to tell which side was clearer because they weren't ruby lenses and he would have blasted them to smitheereens. Additionally, the doctor should have been shorter. --Chris Griswold 08:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Its a small issue. There's no point on going out of your way to change an actors eye color. especially since this doesn't follow any story from the comic books(not page by page). He also doesn't use any of his costumes from comics in the movie... That's not even mentioning how many dimensions there still are in marvel, where anything may be different. It'd be understandable if his eye color was an Iconic part of his character like his visors, or even mary jane's hair color, but its not.

Control of power

[edit]

Ok I do not know enough to add this myself yet. I was flipping through comics a couple of weeks back, and in Astonishing Emma Frost basically went inside Scott's head to analyze why he couldn't control his power...and fixed it. Any have the issue or anything after? because if he really does have control now I think that should be added. Onikage725 17:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is also an issue about the Marvel U handbook entry as to the scope and range of Cyclops powers unaided. In the Gifted storyarch of Astonishing X-Men, it shows that Cyclops is able to take off his glasses and fill the entire visible horizon with crimson optic enrgy, blowing a Sentinel back dozens of feet. This said, i don't believe the Marvel u handbook represents up to date info, or does not assume Cyclops' potential without his visor. CapoCastillo 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have the latest Astonishing X-Men issues, but the fact that it is right in the middle of a story arc makes me think that any alterations should be made after the arc ends, when it is confirmed as to whether he can or cannot control his blasts. Regarding his power itself, a section with several notes about his showings in comics wouldn't go amiss in my opinion. Pr1983 04:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in Civil War: X-Men, that particular arc discusses that Cyclops' potential, and the ammount of energies he holds back are much greater than previously thought. We may want to keep powers a little open-ended as Cyclops' status after Astonishing and Civil War may be different than previously mentioned in Marvel publications CapoCastillo 23:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, especially since as of the current issue of Astonishing, Cyclops is still comatose and has yet to display any conscious control of his optic blasts; for all we readers know, Emma's psychic "therapy session" with Scott was a front for negating his powers in some other way while knocking him out; there certainly wasn't much time for his teammates to examine him before the Hellfire Club went after them. -- Pennyforth 06:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pr1983 that no assumptions should be made in regards to the degree of control Cyclops has over his powers. Joss Whedon is known to throw curveballs in his stories and as such we should not make statements without knowing what would really happen. the first few posts in the Astonishing X-Men section for Cyclops' entry were fair and without assumptions. However the last post under spoilers stated that he rose "abeit powerless" Now whose to say he is powerless? A fairer entry would state "no apparant display of power" The quality of that entry was also suspect as the entry-maker made two spelling errors and mistook what clearly looked like a semi-automatic handgun in the picture for a revolver.192.169.41.46 01:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Ivan[reply]

There is an oxymoron in the spoilers' section on the events in Astonishing X-men #17. How can it be entered that he shot Perfection "mistaking" her for Emma Frost and then conclude with a disclaimer stating that it is unsure whether Scott knew who he was shooting. I think an edit is in order here. ~~Ivan

Perfection was the name of the person he shot, not that "he shot perfectly" TehPhil 15:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, as of February 2009, does he have control of his powers? It's not made too clear in the article. 157.252.148.145 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 02:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relationships Section Dispute

[edit]

The article quotes "It has been remarked that Cyclops is incapable of sharing true romance with women however, judging by the outcome of most of his relationships." While I agree Cyclops has had a good deal of bad luck with the significant relationships in his comics career, this statement seems like pure postulation. There's no soruce or citation indicating Cyclops is incapable of pulling off a successfull relationship. CapoCastilloCapoCastillo

I agree. I mean look at Jean. Sure, there were bumps, and the way it ended was kinda sucky and might support that statement...but it also disregards that they were one of comics' power couples for DECADES. I mean, to newer or younger fans, sure it might look like that. Marvel's gone through plenty of changes in recent years. But try to keep in mind these characters have been around (real time, not comic time) for 43 years. Scott and Jean fell in love in the Uncanny days back in the 60's. And remember X-Men #30, when they tied the not? That was a major event. And it was in 1994. There were bumps *coughPhoenixSagacough* but they were a strong pair, and "soulmates" for a very long percentage of X-history. Onikage725 10:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the comment made above by Onikage725, I think it is highly ridiculous that one has apoint of citaton for a comic character. First of all comic characters are more prone to rectons, then other articles and are updated monthly, its only going to get tiresome. Are wikipedia viewers really going to care if a comic character is not properly cited, chances are no. Mrwednesday 24:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is an encyclopedia, not a message board. Citations, examples, keeping track of the history...it's par for the course. And I just mean that the comment was speculative. For the majority of the character's exisence he was involved in one of the most well known relationships in comics history. So saying he's incapable of sharing romance is someone's point of view, not an unbiased fact. Onikage725 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody is added a tag, then obviously somebody cares. CovenantD 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of Wikipedia if it's not accurate? And how can accuracy be judged, except by citation? People make their way to these articles because they want information about the characters, not speculation.

Very good point, and the previous statement about Scott not having so much bad luck is also correct. After all who's to say that any relationship in comics doesn't have its bumps. Mrwednesday 24:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion that line should be removed from the article. Emma is obviously in love with him, as was Jean for years, and so far they both seem to be relatively fulfilled. The fact that they are both telepaths, to me says that he is capable of romance, but he only displays it on the inside. Pr1983 04:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishing X-men #17 has Cyclops up and about as shown in the last two pages. He is no longer wearing his shades. It is also worth noting that instead of using his optic blasts, he used a hand gun to attack Perfection/White Queen.

Powers Section Additions?

[edit]

In regard to the section detailing Cyclops’ powers, would a sub section (or follow-on section) of that entitled something along the lines of ‘Prominent examples’ be useful/appropriate? Say, a list of impressive feats he’s performed using his powers? I have a list of said feats, and I can back them all up with scans if need be. I think it would really help people who read the page to get a better account of his abilities, which are generally underestimated by the average comic book fan. Pr1983 06:16, 14 August (UTC)

You know what? Go ahead and add what you want, and maybe we can work it in. Cyclops is a character that uses his power very creatively, such as in playing pool with it. --Chris Griswold 07:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will do... I'll just do a text list for now, then if need be i can link to the images... EDIT: Added section, and tested all the links. If one is wrong, let me know. Pr1983 07:48, 15 August (UTC) Edited at 13:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

Per the WP:COMIC talk page, Ultimate character entries should be merged into the character's main article. --Newt ΨΦ 14:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Closed with an obvious Consensus to Merge CovenantD 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Move Alternate Versions to the bottom?

[edit]

Should we move the alternate universe versions to the bottom? I think it makes for a bit of a confusing read when I get to the alternate versions before i get to powers and abilities. I also think it should bear mentioning that Ultimate Cyclops should be merged with alternate versions as Ultimate Cyclops is indeed, an alternate version.CapoCastillo 19:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But I do think we need to take it easy on this "fairytales" stuff. These are one-issue stories and hardly wort mention. Chris Griswold 09:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i'll second that opinion as well. The fairytales story, while very cyclops-centric, gets a lot more mention than I would guess that a one shot would get.CapoCastillo 23:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. So yeah, move it... Pr1983 09:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Makes little sense

[edit]

"Uncanny X-Men #93: Cyclops battles Quicksilver, and Quicksilver himself remarks that only his speed saved him from being hit by Cyclops. This alone demonstrates an impressive combination of quick reflexes and incredible accuracy." So... he didn't hit quicksilver? and quicksilver said his speed saved him... and he's a speedster. mmkayyyy, that all seems kind of obvious and not worthy of putting in the section meant for great feats!!— ChocolateRoses talk

The fact that Quicksilver is a speedster makes it even more impressive in my opinion. Quicksilver was going as fast as he possibly could, even a little slower and he would have been hit. He does get hit eventually due to Cyclops rebounding his blast off several surfaces, though it is as much down to luck as anything. Pr1983 18:09, 25 August, 2006
I don't know. Quicksilver uses his speed to avoid getting hit from any particular adversary. And if he hadn't been using his superspeed, then it logically follows whoever was trying to attack him would hit. I don't think that the speed by which Cyclops' blast travels is so much a feat as the ammounts of damage he can cause and the reflectability of the blasts.CapoCastillo 17:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quicksilver is fast, so fast he can run faster than the human eye can percieve... cyclops has eye powers. Although there are a ton of cool things cyke can do, this is probably the weakest "impressive feat" in the lot. TehPhil 15:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Something else that seems stupid is his ability to reflect the beam. It's an interesting idea, but if the beam is so powerful it can't be reflected from anything, because the object it hit would be destroyed. Also, a lot of hoo-ha is made about his beam, when he is essentially without physical superhuman condition, making the lily-livered pussy vulnerable to pretty much everything: He has no healing factor, hardened skin or resistances, nor reflexes, for example. On the other hand, there are other mutants that specifically have these abilities, highlighting the absence of them in Cyclops.-A101

There are numerous mutants without any physical superhuman abilities and are vulnerable to physical attack. So that really deosn't matter. I don't think Prof Xavier, Storm, Havok, Polaris, Nightcrawler, Psylocke, or any of their number see this as a liability. In fact most of the mutant community does not have invulnerability or a healing factor, therefore your point is moot.

Ok, some1 can delete my comments then if they want:)-A101

In addition, he's also sometimes been depicted as having energy absorption abilities beyond sunlight or Havok's blasts, namely when he channeled one of Storm's lightning bolts into a massively powerful blast (Uncanny X-Men Annual #3). He's also capable in martial arts and a pilot. Interesting comics and tv shows have been made on less. JetGoodson 07:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Powers?

[edit]

Listed are his continuous occular energy beams, his immunity to havok's powers, but then there's hand to hand combat training. I don't think this should b listed as notable. Cyclops, while trained to deal with matters hand to hand, is by no means a superior martial artist in the sense that melee combatants Captain America and Shang-Chi are. Cyclops rarely even resorts to fisticuffs in combat. I think that noting his training as a power per se starts drawing comparisons to actual hand to hand type heroes like Daredevil and Iron Fist. I think we should remove this from notable powers and leave it as a blurb in the skills section where it belongs CapoCastillo 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'd like to see Cyclops punch and kick more. We should put it to a vote.--Chris Griswold (☏) 18:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, that after reading that first point, there is one thing i feel i should point out... in X-Men: Unlimited #31, Cyclops used his skills as a hand to hand combatant quite impressively, impressive in the sense that for the duration of the fight Cyclops had his eyes CLOSED. surely that says something about his ability... Pr1983 20:07, 09 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive Feats

[edit]

It's very title seems POV. Impressive to whom? I've tagged it hoping to stir some discussion. CovenantD 04:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of the Feat List of Namor The Sub-Mariner that was deleted a while back. Sure, the information is interesting, but none of it's really relevant or important. Odin's Beard 03:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who posted the original version, and it was taken from a 'respect cyclops' thread on a comic forum (with the members permission of course). Yes, i'm a fan of cyclops, but if i thought that it wasnt truly impressive then i wouldnt have included it... if you guys want to take it down then so be it :\ Pr1983 02:56, 01 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think taking it down is a good idea. Its a good refrence tool for back issues. But a name change from "impressive feats" may be in order. something less, POV. I'll think of something and change it, to cause some discussion.TehPhil 15:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

source of power

[edit]

I have the marvel handbook on my comp, and it stated that Cyclops absorbs ambient energy such as sunlight, not that he only absorb sunlight.

He'd pretty much have to put out as much power as he does. JetGoodson 07:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. A lot of super-powered characters generate massive amounts of energy with no known source. Sometimes there is a handwaving excuse like solar energy absorbtion or a highly efficient metabolism, but the math doesn't add up in most cases; the total amount of energy in sunlight, a known quantity, is inadequate -- especially since he doesn't absorb the visible light frequencies. Even assuming 100% efficiency in absorbtion, conversion, and storage, the total amount of energy demonstrated in Cyclops' strongest blasts is far more than he could be getting from solar sources even if he was an all-day nude sunbather. (And Superman? Forget about it!) So there is most likely a comic-book rubber science answer, like extracting energy from another "dimension" (if Giant-Man can absorb matter from another dimension, why not energy?) Noclevername 22:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He does absorb other energy, although apparently not as efficiently. For instance in one of the X-Men annuals Storm hits him with a lightning bolt to charge him up to be extra powerful (at the time they're on Arkon's homeworld and the sun is obscured). Absorbing the lightning is apparently painful, but not harmful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.141.14.101 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Is there any reference for his eyes being "psionically controlled interdimensional aperatures?" Everything I've ever seen has suggested the solar/ambient radiation asborption as his source of power. The current powers section seems a little far-fetched (I know, I know...), and I'd like to see some kind of canon issue or sourcebook reference if it's staying up that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamsorkin (talk • contribs) 15:50, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Leadership

[edit]

A mutant, Cyclops produces powerful "optic blasts" from his eyes, forcing him to wear specialized glasses at all times and a specialized visor in combat. His powers may have led to his inhibited, meticulous character. These same qualities, however, make him an ideal field leader for the X-Men and even teammates such as Wolverine, who has deemed him an 'overgrown Boy Scout', admire his leadership skills.

What same qulities ? The articles talks about his powers and then leadership doesnt make sense (Gnevin 12:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think they mean that he has an "inhibited, meticulous" personality.192.251.125.85 13:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly the meticulous part.

Either that or they're shouting out the spider-man slogan. --tetris11 18:21 4 April 2008

Affiliations needs to be changed.

[edit]

How can Cyclops have an Affiliations to the X-Men and the X school for higher learning (X-Mansion). You can't have an Affiliation with the base of operations of the team. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.149.62.8 (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

He is affiliated with both the school/institute that operates at the mansion and the mutant strike team that operates out of the same mansion. A student at the school would be affiliated with it, but not with the the strike team, the X-Men. Organizationally, they are separate.

The trivia section is garbage

[edit]

Can we please either update it with actual trivia worth noting, or get rid of it all together.

Wait... what?

[edit]

"Cyclops' optic force blasts contain a marked physical improbability: according to Newton's third law (of reciprocal actions), when Scott releases his optic blasts his neck should be thrust backward with equal force, which would be enough to snap his neck several times over. However Cyclops is completely immune to the effects of his own powers. An equal force against his head by his optic blast's concussive force would simply reabsorb into his body."

Why would a beam of light cause any sort of recoil or kickback? That doesn't make much sense to me. Even high powered lasers in real life wouldn't have this effect. --Machriderx


It's not a laser or a beam of light (although some writers don't get this and treat it as a laser) that Cyclop shoots out of his eyes - it's a forceblast - it pushes things - which means that unless he's braced he should fall over or be pushed back. --Fredrick day 13:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I see what you mean. But I still don't see the point in using real world physics to talk about super hero comic books, a genre of fiction that is usually about doing things that defy physics or any real world laws in the first place. --Machriderx 18:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

other disagree and anyway Wikipedia should discuss things in terms of the real-world, so it seems entirely legitimate to me for someone to discuss how the physics works/doesn't work. --Fredrick day 19:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; an encyclopedia is about the real world and we shouldn't get lost in the fiction. Ignoring real-world physics is something they might do in an X-men story, but in Wikipedia real-world physics is an appropriate topic. It is even more appropriate than the details in the fictional character biography, despite how entertaining those are. -- Lilwik 20:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that a laser beam does have recoil. The momentum of a photon is E/c. The power of a laser beam is the number of photons emitted per unit time multiplied by the energy of the photon. Divide the power by c and one has the force of the beam, or the change in momentum over time (or just do the momentum of the photon multiplied by the number emitted per unit time). Throw in conservation of momentum and you have recoil. Or just combine the fact that he's knocking people on their asses with conservation of momentum and in the real world that means he feels kickback. In the comic book world, we can claim that there is some workaround, like an anti-parallel beam of weakly interacting particles, like neutrinos or neutralinos. Or like the book Physics of Superheroes says, just claim he has phenomenally strong neck muscles. And back muscles. And leg muscles. And he can stick to the ground like Spider-Man when his beam fires...I think I prefer the neutrino beam. Either way, it's a wrong-headed, mistaken notion that a laser doesn't have recoil. --JetGoodson 05:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although canon states that it isn't anything as complicated as a laser or neutrino beam...just a blast of concussive force, and as such should have a corresponding recoil. It's notable because the general rule for non-magic based comic book powers is a one-time exception to scientific principles. See The Physics of Superheroes by James Kakalios —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.204.163 (talk)

The idea that Cyclops's immunity to his own powers explains the lack of recoil has been added and reverted several times. It says that the equal and opposite force from the beam is just absorbed into his body. The problem with that is that when you absorb a large force into your body, physics says that you are supposed to be knocked off your feet. It would be good to have some sort of explanation for the way the beam works, like some invisible antiparallel beam that doesn't destroy the back of his head somehow, but unless we can find some reliable source with further information, we just have to accept that it is unexplained. -- Lilwik 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The "Powers and Abilities" entry specifically states that he does not produce the force himself, but acts as a portal to the extradimensional realm where this energy exists. Therefore the force is not applied to his own body, but rather transferred into the other universe where the particles originate. Saying his neck should snap is sort of like saying that throwing a bowling ball through an open doorway should cause the door frame to move! I've therefore removed the offending statement, and tackled the rest of the Trivia section. Noclevername 15:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to know is how his power can rebounded off the smallest of surfaces, numerous amount of times, and yet still deliver quite a force to its intended target. It's like the beam temporarily becomes a wave that just bounces of collateral surfaces until it reaches its target, where it then becomes a stream of really dense particles. Even quantum light isn't that fickle. It seems that Cyclops can just 'command' his beam to switch from light-mode to particle-mode whenever he wants.-- tetris11 18:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Jean Grey the first mutant recruited by Xavier, not Cyclops??? Phizzyj 18:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, she just received counseling by Xavier. Cyclops was the first one recruited expressedly for the X-Men. Otherwise, there is a whole slew of random mutants that trudged through Xavier's life.


I've read both of the arguments about how his power is generated, but I can't cite where. It seems that some writers go with one or the other which is confusing when trying to determine how his power is generated. Is it listed in any of the recent Marvel handbooks?Drunknesmonsta (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ASTX022 cov col2.jpg

[edit]

Image:ASTX022 cov col2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Xmen1.jpg

[edit]

Image:Xmen1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a complete rewrite

[edit]

This article needs a complete re-write - anyone want to have a go before I do? What about one of my stalkers? you want to have a go? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

We need a picture of Cyke in a brighter blue costume, with one of his big yellow and red visors. That's how he's better known IMHO. Lots42 (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality/Quality

[edit]

I've added tags disputing the neutrality of the sections involving New X-Men and his assumption of the role of Headmaster. Most notably, the sections involving his relationship with Emma and his involvement with Jean seem biased toward the traditional Scott/Jean relationship. For example, Scott doesn't "beg for forgiveness" nor does he "admit that he's wrong about hurting Jean." Essentially, he apologizes for hurting her and in no way acknowledges that he intended to hurt her or that he needs forgiveness for his involvement from Emma. Additionally, the sections have questionable neutrality. No doubt his relationship with Emma was looked down upon by several long-standing characters, but the amount of detail is unnecessary (ex. Wolverine's quote from Astonishing X-Men). We only need to know that characters disapproved.

As well, the areas I read may be too casually written and out of line with the encyclopedic style of Wikipedia.

Feel free to discuss this here.Luminum (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole deal probably needs some work, but the areas you point out definitely do. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major clean up

[edit]

I reformatted the majority of recent events concerning Cyclops. I standardized references and merged smaller sections into larger overall character themes, rather than brief story arcs, such as the controversy of Cyclops' heading of X-Force, keeping secrets from the team and Emma, and the growing rift between him and Emma as a result, leading to the events in Dark X-Men. I will attempt to clean up the rest of the article along with any other interested editors, as well as adding more references. if you have any issues witht he edits, feel free to discuss them here. Thanks!Luminum (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general clean up comment at the head of the article needs to be removed. It is non-specific as to areas in need of revision 2ndshot (2ndshot 10:57, 05 Sept 2010 (UTC)

That it's general isn't a reason to remove it. It still needs to be corrected. If youw ould liek to add the tag for specific sections, feel free. Thanks for the ref work!Luminum (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like what?2ndshot (2ndshot 10:57, 11 Sept 2010 (UTC)
All the things I mentioned earlier. It's also way too plot heavy and overrunning on unnecessary detail, in-universe, and still lacks notable sources, not just comic book reference. Given how high in importance the project is, these need to be addressed. CHeck out Superman or Batman for examples or guidance.Luminum (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Codenames

[edit]

Should this section mention other codenames that Scott uses in alternate continuities?

The Harry Osborn article lists an alias as Hobgoblin, used in Ultimate Marvel, and I was just wondering if Captain America should be on Summers' list, as he used this alias in a future timeline of the Ultimate continuity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.163.105 (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visor

[edit]

Could someone who knows about uploading images please add this image http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/981/87374-8781-cyclops_super.jpg to the Cyclops_(comics)#Powers_and_abilities section of this article? It seems relevant, as it depicts how his visor actually works in the comics. Such information about how the character's equipment was designed by his creators seems like it could help contribute to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.150.129 (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Quartz glasses

[edit]

The powers section of the article states, in the last paragraph, that the ruby quartz glasses Scott Summers wears were created for him by Xavier. In X-Men Legacy #208, Xavier states that he believes Scott had "possible prior contact" with another mutant, as when Xavier found him at the orphanage, someone had already fitted Scott with the ruby quartz glasses. It is later established, can't remember the issue number, but could find it, in X-Men Legacy, that Sinister ran the orphanage and was, in fact, most of the staff and children there thanks to his cloning procedures.

Should the entry be changed to reflect Mister Sinister as the creator of the ruby quartz glasses? 71.45.138.201 (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

[edit]

The biography for this character is either way too long or split into too many different sections. This article needs a clean up. Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of secondary reliable sources in the article

[edit]

Kurzon To avoid a revert war, I'd like to explain why a third-party source that establishes a subject's notability should remain on this subject page. First, all subjects on Wikipedia must establish Notablity; that is, the subject must demonstrate some true real world relevance, which is typically exhibited through coverage in third party sources (e.g. a newspaper article, an academic journal, a magazine article, a media outlet publication). Subjects are not notable in and of themselves, unless they are of the categories that meet general notability guidelines. Fictional comic book characters are not in one of those general notability categories and must therefore demonstrate notability through sources like those.

For example, it is not enough to have an article talking about all the characteristics of Cyclops or Magneto, because that information is primarily derived from primary sources (i.e. information from the comics themselves). An article should describe a character from an out-of-universe perspective, rather than an in-universe perspective. So when describing Cyclops, it should talk about the character based on his creation and publication from Marvel, generally what he does, and how the character is received or viewed in the context of the actual world, with much less emphasis on what the character is in the in-universe world of the Marvel universe. That is why Featured comic book character articles (and other fictional character articles) such as Batman or Superman devote the majority of the article's space to discussing the characters from real world context: How the character was created, influences in the character's writing, reception and impact of the character, analysis and larger legacy of the character in society.

For this article, of the 132 sources listed, only five are non-primary sources, and even then, a few of them only go toward citing in-universe information. The value of a citation that discusses the subject in terms of the character's real-word relevance from a third-party—not how popular Cyclops is to other Marvel characters, not how popular Cyclops is according to a Marvel press release, but how popular Cyclops is to audiences in an article that passes through editors before being published) establishes out-of-universe perspective. It doesn't matter if one disagrees (the same as any citation of a critic's review of a movie or show), or if being on some magazine's list provides insight into the character. What it provides is evidence that the character is recognized and relevant enough to even be discussed. An academic article that discusses the literary themes exhibited by Cyclops would be an example of a third-party source that both establishes notability and insight into the character. (Finding one would be great.)

As it stands, this article, for lack of the requirements it needs to establish notability, would probably be a candidate for deletion (hence the multiple issue tags at the top). It is obvious that a a character like Cyclops has notability in the real world, but for lack of any sources provided or any description of it in the article, it lacks notability. (That is probably why it has yet to be deleted, despite lacking much established notability; editors likely know the character has it, but no one has taken the work to make the article demonstrate it.) A source like IGN's ranking of characters or CBR's audience vote of best characters isn't much, but as far as the article right now goes, it's the most appropriate citation to have on the page. It is one of the only ones that establishes the subject's notability at all: that the character is even recognized and received and talked about by anyone. Even a largely insignificant character like Maggot derives WP:Notability from the fact that the character is repeatedly listed in third party sources as an example of a silly or weird comic book character (though the article also lacks for establishing character notability through any of those sources). Wikipedia is not primarily about knowing what the character is like within the comics. It's about knowing what the character is as a real world subject.

Were this a better article, we would have much more information on the character's comic debut, what went into the character's creation and continued portrayal, and how the character was received or discussed by audiences and media (the citation in question would likely be in the "Reception" subsection of "Cultural impact", if any), and, ideally, as extrapolated from third party sources. Right now, what we have is a glut of in-universe description (way too much) and no out-of-universe information except for the date and issue of when the character debuted and the character's ranking in popularity. Were the character popular enough, a citation like IGN or CBR's comic rankings would actually be the least relevant of the kinds of sources on public impact that could be out there (again, compare the content and citations in Superman or Batman). But for now, this is apparently the best thing on the page. My suggestion is to assist by finding other, more extensive third party sources to contribute to establishing the article's notability. Let me know if that helps to clarify the issue. I'm happy to keep working on this with you. Luminum (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclops (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

O5 Cyclops

[edit]

Should there be a separate section or maybe even a separate article for the time-displaced Original 5 Cyclops from the All New X-men? He even has his own series. Rachelskit (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Relatives

[edit]

I want to start adding a relatives part to each comic book characters relatives on there tab thing starting with the X-Men since they will be the easiest. I will experiment with the best look but, I want it to be just like how famous peoples relatives are listed so why not for fictional characters as well. I will also experiment with names and codenamed and maybe a slash so both can be shown.

Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cyclops (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 November 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Cyclops (Marvel Comics) as per consensus. (closed by page mover) Bradv 00:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclops (comics) → Cyclops (Scott Summers) – See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). The "comics" dab should be used only for publications, such as the 2001 and 2014 comics based on this character. Cambalachero (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyclops (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclops's Youth

[edit]

Fixed a section that originally stated that Scott was from Anchorage Alaska and referenced Classic X-Men 15. But in that issue of Classic X-Men 15, it clearly states that Christopher Summers (aka Corsair) is flying south from his PARENTS' house in Anchorage, Alaska. That means Christopher, Kathrine, Scott, and Alex didn't live there. They were just visiting.

Oh page 5 of the back up by the way or page 25 of the over all story.

Image deletion nomination(s)

[edit]

One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC).

You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 30. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclops_(Marvel_Comics)&oldid=1244834126"