Who's a better (meaning less bad) choice?

[stealthwise]

In terms of writers that a company like DC or Marvel charge with being the "go-to" guy in terms of writing the big stories and determining the club's direction, which of these would you "prefer" to have at the helm, assuming that they're writing ANOTHER big crossover today?

Mark Millar (i.e. Civil War)
Brian M Bendis (i.e. House of M)
Geoff Johns (i.e. Infinite Crisis)
Dan Jurgens (i.e. Zero Hour)
Howard Mackie (i.e. Clone Saga)
Steve Englehart (i.e. Millenium)
Jim Starlin (i.e. Infinity Crusade)
Dan Raspler (i.e. Bloodbath)

NOTE: I left off Grant Morrison assuming he would be the top choice of 99% of people.

[Michael P]

Englehart. Yeah, Millennium was shit, but he's done some really good work, too. At the very least, he's not going to take it ridiculously seriously like some of the other names on this list.

[Reptisaurus!]

Englehart. Yeah, Millennium was shit, but he's done some really good work, too. At the very least, he's not going to take it ridiculously seriously like some of the other names on this list.

Millenium might have been the worst of the lot. (Haven't read Bloodlines, House of M, or the Clone Saga.)

I generally don't dig his work so much, but I'd probably tag in Jurgens. I didn't read it till fairly recently, but the whole Death-Return of Superman dealy was surprisingly good. I liked how the individual creative teams on each of the four books were given a chance to develop their own characters and storylines.

[Michael P]

Hell, Mackie wasn't even the architect of the Clone Saga, he was just one of the writers that got dragged along for the ride.

[The Mutt]

I'd go with Starlin from this list. I think he's best at understanding who all the characters are and how best to use them. The Marvel Two-in-One Annual with Warlock is one of my favorite portrayals of The Thing, Thor and Spider-Man, even though none of them are really major players in the story. He also knows how to do huge cosmic stories that are rooted in characters and their motivations, not mindless spectacle, and are anchored by strong emotional moments. See Dreadstar.

But what I'd really like to see is Keith Giffen and Walt Simonson reboot the entire Marvel Universe.

[Nitz the Bloody]

I voted for Mark Millar, because at least his big crossover event was entertaining, albeit perversely. If you read Civil War without any investment in the characters, it has the same sort of darkly humorous charm that Millar's Authority did.

[Reptisaurus!]

I voted for Mark Millar, because at least his big crossover event was entertaining, albeit perversely. If you read Civil War without any investment in the characters, it has the same sort of darkly humorous charm that Millar's Authority did.

Yeah, I was thinkin' that, too.

As a guy who learned to read with Spidey Super Stories more than two decades ago, it bothered me how badly the characters were used.

But barring my, like, fanboy-possessive "How dare you abuse MY characters" mentality, I think the story actually worked pretty well.

[stealthwise]

Hell, Mackie wasn't even the architect of the Clone Saga, he was just one of the writers that got dragged along for the ride.

I pinpointed him because he wrote some particularly bad moments. I'd list them off, but the whole saga tends to blur together for me, and I don't want to go through the "Life of Reilly" website again, as that alone is exhausting.

[Michael P]

I pinpointed him because he wrote some particularly bad moments. I'd list them off, but the whole saga tends to blur together for me, and I don't want to go through the "Life of Reilly" website again, as that alone is exhausting.

Most of Mackie's worst work actually comes post-clone.

[Sean Whitmore]

Most of Mackie's worst work actually comes post-clone.

And a lot of it was substantially worse than the Clone Saga.

Both on the Spidey books, and Mutant X.

Which is weird, cause Mackie's stuff prior to all that was pretty decent.


SEAN

[Michael P]

And a lot of it was substantially worse than the Clone Saga.

Both on the Spidey books, and Mutant X.

Which is weird, cause Mackie's stuff prior to all that was pretty decent.


SEANYeah, it's like sometime around 1998, he said to himself, "Okay, I've got the beginnings of a pretty good career here. Time to start sucking!"

[Karl H]

Controversially in some eyes, I've gone for Bendis.

On New and Mighty Avengers his understanding of the dynamics have writing a team have improved considerably since his Ultimate X-men run. And heck, he's been laying the ground work for next summer's secret invasion for years. Whilst House of M was a little hit and miss in places, I feel it paid more attention to continuity and character than Millar's Civil War.

As for Johns - I really didn't enjoy Infinite Crisis as much as I hoped to.

[Brian Cronin]

I went with Raspler. Along with Tony Bedard, he edited DC One Million, which was the best crossover ever.

-Brian

[dancj]

Interesting list of choices.

Really I'd have thought Grant Morrison (DC 1 Million), Marv Wolfman (COIE) and maybe Keith Giffen (Invasion) deserved to be on the list more than Steve Englehart

[Jared H.]

As much as I didn't enjoy Infinite Crisis, I'm loving Sinestro Corps, so Geoff Johns for me.

[Chiasm]

NOTE: I left off Grant Morrison assuming he would be the top choice of 99% of people.

He'd certainly be my choice.

[Chris N]

Millar's proven himself incompetent.

We know exactly what Johns' crossovers are like and don't need more.

I think Starlin did it well 17 years ago, then has repeatedly done it poorly since then.

Bendis should go back to writing character-focused crime dramas like Jinx and leave the superhero stuff to others.

Uhhh... from the list, Englehart

[Chris Heide]

And a lot of it was substantially worse than the Clone Saga.

Both on the Spidey books, and Mutant X.

Which is weird, cause Mackie's stuff prior to all that was pretty decent.


SEAN

Hell, I think Mackie's first 25 issues of Ghost Rider might just be the most underrated run anyone had on a book ever...

[Reptisaurus!]

Hell, I think Mackie's first 25 issues of Ghost Rider might just be the most underrated run anyone had on a book ever...

See your avatar?

That's the exact look I'm giving you right now.

[stealthwise]

Interesting list of choices.

Really I'd have thought Grant Morrison (DC 1 Million), Marv Wolfman (COIE) and maybe Keith Giffen (Invasion) deserved to be on the list more than Steve Englehart

Except that all of those would have been GOOD choices. ;)

[ultramandingo]

.....none of those guys are on my " must buy " list . but if it where a monkey theamed xover with bolland covers - id go with johns ( based on morrisons concepts )

[dancj]

Really I'd have thought Grant Morrison (DC 1 Million), Marv Wolfman (COIE) and maybe Keith Giffen (Invasion) deserved to be on the list more than Steve Englehart
Oops - I missed the disclaimer about Grant Morrison

[Shellhead]

In terms of writers that a company like DC or Marvel charge with being the "go-to" guy in terms of writing the big stories and determining the club's direction, which of these would you "prefer" to have at the helm, assuming that they're writing ANOTHER big crossover today?

Mark Millar (i.e. Civil War)
Brian M Bendis (i.e. House of M)
Geoff Johns (i.e. Infinite Crisis)
Dan Jurgens (i.e. Zero Hour)
Howard Mackie (i.e. Clone Saga)
Steve Englehart (i.e. Millenium)
Jim Starlin (i.e. Infinity Crusade)
Dan Raspler (i.e. Bloodbath)

NOTE: I left off Grant Morrison assuming he would be the top choice of 99% of people.

I reluctantly say Jim Starlin. He does have a good feel for a lot of the characters, at least the Marvel ones, but his crossover stories always end up starring his small cast of favorite characters: Adam Warlock, Thanos, and a few others. But the last time he did a true crossover event was Infinity Crusade, which was bad.

I do generally like the work of Dan Jurgens and Geoff Johns, but I hated Zero Hour and Infinite Crisis. Steve Englehart did nearly all of his best work in the '70s, though I give him credit for writing the first great crossover, the Avengers-Defenders War. Millar tells an okay story, but he tramples characterization in favor of his plot. Bendis does the same, only with less action and more deus ex machina. Mackie had no discernable talent whatsoever, and probably only got a job at Marvel because he knew somebody there. I'm unfamiliar with Dan Raspler, so I assume that he only worked during the '90s, the worst decade for comics ever.

[Babylon23]

I'd say Keith Giffen would be my #1 choice, and I'd vote for him if he was on the list.

With Annihilation, he took an idea that could have completely tanked both critically and commercially, used characters very few people cared about, had to fight against the "cosmic stories don't sell/suck" mentality, and still managed to turn it into one of Marvel's best stories in years. It's a shame so much hype was centered around the awful Civil war crossover, because Annihilation was the far superior 'event'.

I'd love to see either Marvel or DC let Giffen loose on their major players.

[Alan2099]

Out of the choices listed, I'd go with Starlin. Sure the story would probably end with Thanos and/or Adam Warlock saving the entire Universe again, but at least everybody would be in character for the most part and the idea itself would actually fit the universe it was written for.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Hell, I think Mackie's first 25 issues of Ghost Rider might just be the most underrated run anyone had on a book ever...

Underrated?

Maybe now, but it sold like nothing else back in the day.

(And pre-Clone Saga, I remember thinking Mackie was a pretty good writer - I mean I was eleven/twelve, but I also liked Warren Ellis' scattered output at the time, so I couldn't have had taste that bad... although I did read Spawn when it was in it's twenties and think it was good so....)

I won't vote, cause I hate crossovers, but I'd go with Jurgens.
Zero Hour was like DC One Million - the creative teams on respective books could use it as much or as little as they wanted, and all they had to do was write a single issue, not even numbered consecutively or tieing too much into the plot, to give a nod to it.

[stelok]

I will vote for Kurt Busiek and George Perez. I liked their work on inter-company crossover called JLA/Avengers. Busiek's knowledge of both teams' rich individual histories and roster histories is extraordinarily amazing.

And I also loved George Perez's CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS.

I think they can do a superb job on any company-wide crossover at either Marvel or DC.

[dupersuper]

the '90s, the worst decade for comics ever.

I see the 90's as the War & Peace comics decade..."It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...". On 1 hand you had craptastic stuff like most art-driven books(Image, Age of Apocolypse, etc.) which made up most of the market...on the other you had Kingdom Come, Marvels, Morrisons JLA, Waids Flash, Busiek and Perez Avengers, Death & Return of Superman, Vertigo comics like Sandman, Transmet, Invisibles, etc...

[Shellhead]

I see the 90's as the War & Peace comics decade..."It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...". On 1 hand you had craptastic stuff like most art-driven books(Image, Age of Apocolypse, etc.) which made up most of the market...on the other you had Kingdom Come, Marvels, Morrisons JLA, Waids Flash, Busiek and Perez Avengers, Death & Return of Superman, Vertigo comics like Sandman, Transmet, Invisibles, etc...

Good points.

Kingdom Come: a harsh analysis and critique of what was wrong with most '90s comics. Also, a fantastic Elseworlds adventure.

Marvels: I respect the concept and the effort, but I didn't enjoy it as much as most people.

Morrison's JLA: Morrison was an excellent choice to write JLA, he had a strong sense of the wild, weird creativity of the silver age from which the JLA was born. However, the Howard Porter artwork just wasn't good enough to support Morrison's intense creativity.

Waid's Flash: I've heard good things about this run, but the artwork wasn't good enough to get my interest.

Busiek & Perez Avengers: the best run on my favorite title. I gave up on comics in the early '90s, and this is the comic that brought me back.

Death & Return of Superman: I thought that the death itself was handled in a cheesy manner, but the Reign of the Supermen and his inevitable return was great.

Vertigo: The last two comics that I was still buying before I quit were Peter David's Incredible Hulk and Neil Gaiman's Sandman. When Sandman ended, I stopped buying comics. Sandman isn't even my favorite Vertigo title anymore, but it was one of the best for a while. I've heard that Invisibles is a difficult read, and I think Transmet actually came along after the '90s.

[Jamie]

I see the 90's as the War & Peace comics decade..."It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...".

That's A Tale of Two Cities you're quoting; War and Peace starts with "Eh bien, mon prince." (Yes, a Russian novelist started his novel with French dialogue.)

[stealthwise]

That's A Tale of Two Cities you're quoting; War and Peace starts with "Eh bien, mon prince." (Yes, a Russian novelist started his novel with French dialogue.)

Crap, beat me to it!

"It was the best of times, it was the BLURST of times?! You stupid monkey!"

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

and I think Transmet actually came along after the '90s.

Think it all you want, but it's not true, the book was out for a few years in the 90's.
I can remember kicking back and reading the first few issues with the Spawn soundtrack playing.