I did not read anything beyond the first issue of Avengers vs X-Men. I was intrigued by James Hunt's review on CBR that said:

" It cheats, pretending that previous issues hit story beats that they manifestly didn't. The issue opens with a recap that doesn't quite resemble what came before, and a clutch of flashback scenes plug in story elements one suspects should have been made clearer much earlier on. "

Can anyone elaborate on that? I'd love to know what kind of retcons they included within the recap of the last issue.

Basically, I think the Avengers vs X-Men was Marvel's version of DC's Flashpoint->New 52... Rewriting/Retconning their characters' history/backstory/version to resemble the "movieverse" or mainstream knowledge of the characters. Take Nick Fury for example: with Samuel Jackson representing Nick Fury in the movies and people (who aren't into comics) recognizing Nick Fury as someone that resembles Samuel Jackson, Marvel now has to make Nick Fury look like Samuel Jackson to avoid new fans from getting confused. So Marvel has a "New 52"-ish thing coming out called "Marvel NOW." They're reintroducing their old characters (like Jean Grey) and rehashing new stories so that people (the new fans) wouldn't have to backread all the way back to the Silver/Golden Age.

Of course, I could be wrong. :D

Interesting analysis. I agree Nick Fury's change is a bit like DC's move. But Nick Fury has nothing to do with AvX at all. That retcon was a bit on its own.

As for AvX, it doesn't necessarily resets Marvel. It opens up new possibilities, so I like that it keeps the integrity of what we know, but still allowing a new direction (more mutants, and more collaboration between powered humans and mutants).

As for the CBR comments, I could slightly see where they're coming from regarding Cyclops behavior/thoughts, but otherwise I'm not sure what they're talking about.

I believe what it refers to is the recaps explain or reveal things which the original story failed to do. It's an indictment of the earlier issues.

-J

As an aside, the Nick Fury thing isn't really a retcon. The new Nick Fury is actually the old Nick Fury's kid.

maybe I missed it in like New Avengers or something, but in AvX why is no one concerned with how Wanda just magically reappears?

nevermind: jus figured out that I missed it in "children's crusade". damn it's getting hard to keep up... especially when I'd rather buy hardcover collections

Yeah, she reappears in earlier Avengers issues, with her attempting to make amends.

And not really succeeding until AvX. So really this is just taking Wanda out of the "ooo evil!" spot (like Hal was in DC until Rebirth) and replacing her with Cyke and the "Phoenix Five". Which sounds like a really bad Japanese kid's cartoon.

Actually I think it sounds more like a failed Boy Band.

Disarmingly Girlish 19 year old male, "Hey Girl, Ya know What'll bring this place alive"
Assorted other Girlish males in Chorus, "Cyke and the Phoenix Five"
DG19M "Hey Girl, I know how to turn you on"
AGMC "listen to this overproduced song"
.
.
.
(3 annoying minutes Later)
.
Rather Ugly Looking guy in the band who has a modicum of talent:
"...He's like I'm Happy that you thought of me
Since my Backstreet Boys Lobotomy
I'm dirty like pornography
Now 13 year olds get off on me"

or something like that.

It just reminded me of G-Force, really.

Here's the real deal with the Samuel L. Jackson Nick Fury:

Marvel Now isn't even close to a reboot of anything. It is an excuse to print a bunch of issue 1's. It's just another Heroic Age type thing. A banner at the top of issues for a few months.

Jean Grey isn't being reintroduced the way you're making it sound. It is the entire original X-Men coming to current times and being pissed at what their older versions let the world become.

No Origins have been changed except to obvious things like the X-Men/Avengers/ F4 couldn't have formed in the 60's and still be in there 30s.