X-Men history question

[racemccloud]

So, here's a question for Ron or any other X-ophile out there. I was at my parent's house, and my boxes of comics from when I was a high schooler in the 90's are just sitting there in my old room, and I always thumb through them, usually just to remind myself how bad they were. So I pick up an issue of adjectiveless X-Men and, first of all, I'm amazed that even though Jim Lee was good then, he's absolutely mind-blowing now, but I guess that happens when you do 22 pages in three months. Anyway, it's a story from when Bishop first appears, and the X-Men are all having a picnic, and it's basically an excuse for Lee to draw Rogue, Storm, Psylocke, Jean Grey and Storm in swimwear. Before the T&A takes place, though, Bishop meets Cyclop's "Blue" X-Men team, and reveals two things: Jubilee was the "last" X-Man, and Gambit (whose real name is LaBouche, apparently) was the last person ever to see the X-Men alive.
...
So, I dropped out of comics a few years after that and I know those two threads were among those never tied up while I was still reading. Did those two things ever go anywhere? My guess would be "no", but I hate to jump to conclusions like that.

See, it's storylines like this that make me realize that neat, six-issue "written for the trades" arcs were the only way to save the artistic integrity of comics as a storytelling medium.

And if it turns out that the whole Bishop/Gambit/Jubilee thing was eventually explained away as being some future-timelines time-travel vague mumbo-jumbo nonsensery, then that's not storytelling, it's backpedaling. And it's a terrible way to tell a story.

So, did anything ever become of that and I'm just ignorant? I hope so, because then I'd go track down the conclusion. I suppose I could just "Wikipedia" this, but I don't want to.

[jo-relrollins]

it was kinda explained away. The only thing that was seen that he mentioned was the fragmented video message of Jean and the whole X traitor. It turned out to be Xavier and Onslaught. But Jubilee as the last Xman and Gambit's whole thing, was sort of explained away, pretty much as multiple timelines and possible futures. At least thats what i remember.

[euchre0]

That's exactly what happened. As far as I can remember it was more or less ignored that Jubilee was the last x-man and Gambit was the last to see them alive. I can't recall that it was specifically touched with the whole alternate timelines explanation, but that's where it was left, never to be addressed again. Plus, Bishop's presence in Onslaught:X-Men changed history in a weird marty mcfly kind of way.

It makes me wonder, did the writer of that issue (who I assume to be claremont) intend write a story from those elements, or was it to be this long standing myth hanging over the x-men's head?

personally, I thought Onslaught was a great way to tie up the story.

[racemccloud]

I mean, I guess the whole "Onslaught" story worked out for them, but when the Gambit/traitor/Jubilee as Last X-Man concept was introduced, and then pretty much swept under the future carpet... I don't know, it seems like a case of the writer and editorial team not really knowing what their story was about. It's creating a mystery that you don't know the solution to.

[jo-relrollins]

i think thats the problem any book has, when you have a writer on a book who introduces a storyline and then a new writer comes on and has to write their own stuff along with incorporating a previous writers story.

[jimski]

Did anybody else read about Wolverine: First Class? Set in continuity right as Kitty is joining the school? Iiinteresting.