What creators have done the most (harm) to the X-Men? [Archive]

Stephane Garrelie

07-24-2005, 04:53 PM

A very dangerous thread, but I will play the game.

IMO:
I'ld said Bob Harras as both X-editor and EIC.

others:
-Scott Lobdell
-various writers of the 90's
-Grant Morrison. That's what happens when a great writer wanna make money and mistakes the fans of the x-men for stupids (remember the "psychic adultery?"). his out of characters Scott and Emma!!! :rolleyes: and some other things.
-anyone responsable for mutants at each street corner.
-marketing people
-various quesadians editors and Joe Q himself, even if they did lots of good things too.
-and of course Chuck Austen (kurt demoniac origine!!!!!!!! Lorna daughter of magneto!!!! Black Tom the child-murdering tree!!! etc...).

chicagokmc

07-24-2005, 04:54 PM

Taskmaster

07-24-2005, 05:00 PM

Morrison did a good amount of dammage including, but not limited to:

-Sublime - an intelligent bacteria that hates mutants and is responsible for every plot hole and half thought out idea Morrison came up with

-Xorneto - great idea of Magneto hiding out in the school, horrible cookie cutter Hitler story of Magneto becoming a drug addicted psychopath, with no plan in sight (at least none that has any sense to it) and even the idea that Xorn was Magneto made no sense considering the school's past with him and the fact he was living with several of the worlds greatest telepaths and Wovlerine who could identify anyone he's ever met in his entire life

-Fantomex - need I say more

-Death of Jean Grey...again

-Weapon X - turned the Weapon X program, into the vaguely thought out Weapon Plus program and tried to tie Wolverine and Captain America's origins together, great idea, lets just tie everyones origin into Wolverine's in fact lets make Wolverine the Adam of the Marvel Universe (oh crap now i've given some crappy writer the idea ;) )

-Assualt on Weapon Plus - a story that could've been great, lead absolutely no-where

-Hellfire Club is a STRIP CLUB?!?!?

-Beast -Hank isnow Cat-like because when Morrison thinks of Beast he thinks of Beauty and the Beast and NO OTHER FREAKING REASON!?!?!

-Secondary mutations - Emma's now a Colossus rip-off, Shaw is a telepath (see assault on Weapon Plus), gave Austen the idea for Archangel to have healing blood

I could go on and on

Taskmaster

07-24-2005, 05:01 PM

Wow....im suprised Morrison is in the lead, I'm not alone :p

chicagokmc

07-24-2005, 05:05 PM

Morrison did a good amount of dammage including, but not limited to:

-Hellfire Club is a STRIP CLUB?!?!?

-Secondary mutations - Emma's now a Colossus rip-off, Shaw is a telepath (see assault on Weapon Plus), gave Austen the idea for Archangel to have healing blood

forgot to add hellfire club to my previous morrison answer. but yeah, that's really, really bad considering the vast use of the hellfire club in the x-men history.

secondary mutations, i am actually ok with. i can buy that fitting into the whole category of being a mutant. if used properly (i.e. austen and claremont have used it poorly with the angel), it could be a cool thing.

SUPERECWFAN1

07-24-2005, 05:05 PM

i'll go on an island by myself and say grant morrison. i read every issue of his run and i actually liked the first few stories. i think he harmed x-men with his final run and magneto. i could even live with magneto being a kick-taking junkie. i could live with the magneto/xorn trick (after all, morrison created xorn). but the destruction of new york was too over the top, as was the killing of magneto.

I think If Grant had left at 150# and walked away then , everyone would be saying that final arc was explosive. I loved that Traiter story. I mean It was so genuis. Morrison has said that Magneto was a Terrorist and said he was gone.

But he dropped hints. Kids wearing " Magneto Was Right " shirts and his name popping up at times. I always felt he had It In his mind that he had a way he was gonna make Magneto return.

Xorn was there and fans had liked him. So he turned out to be the traitor. Damn shame they didn't wait at least a year to have Magneto come back and Xorn 2# pop up. They had a huge " Return" right there. Magneto returns ....and pff they blew It on both accounts. Now Xorn 2# Is barely mentioned and thier deciding on what Magneto's charactor will be again.

magneto, as defined in the last 20 years, is as vital to the x-men as prof x. magneto's stance on mutant/human relations is one of the reasons the x-men exist. morrison should have known that magneto would not be left dead by marvel. that said, he could've taken magneto in a different direction that wouldn't require goofy retcons ("it wasn't the real magneto..."). also, it is going to be real tough for magneto to top the destruction of new york. it may not have been the original intention, but now you have to have a house of m type story come in and help clean this up (once universe gets re-booted).

as bad as some of austen's stories were, i can't think of anything he wrote that isn't easily reversible (i.e. crazy polaris, weaker juggernaut).

Its going to be tough to top what Morrison did with Magneto...thats for sure. I think Bendis and company have an Idea laid out and we'll see where they take him. I do hope he returns as a Bad Villain again. Thats where Magneto works best. As a bad guy who doesn't back down for his Ideals. Even If It threatens Humanity.

Robin3

07-24-2005, 05:05 PM

This is an easy one: Grant Morrison.

He did so much damage, Marvel had to retcon most of his stories after his run.

Beast

07-24-2005, 05:09 PM

This is an easy one: Grant Morrison.

He did so much damage, Marvel had to retcon most of his stories after his run.
That's a common misconception. But other than revealing that Xorneto wasn't Magneto, most of Morrison's run has been respected and used to further plots. Hell, Excalibur grew out of Morrison's run, as did District X. It certainly wasn't retconned out of existance. Morrison did do a lot of damage, especially to Magneto. But he had some good ideas, at least in the first half of his run. Fetus boxing Cassandra Nova not one of the greatest ones however. But what was good was kept and expanded on, just like any writer before him.

DDM

07-24-2005, 05:12 PM

Bob Harras (editor) ran off Chris Claremont & Louise Simonson in favor of Jim Lee, Rob Liefeld, & others who left Marvel to form Image. The X-Men imploded from the weight of garbage Marvel produced at this time.
Fabien Ninzcea (Kwannon/Psylocke among other stories)
Scott Lobdell
Joe Casey (cokehead)
Chuck Austen (sexhead, Nurse Annie, Crazy Lorna)
Joe Quesada (hires editors ignorant of the Marvel Universe history, too reliant on Brian Michael Bendis, too dependent on gimmicks, story decompression)
Mike Marts (editor) ignorant of the very characters he's in charge to edit

crystalline green

07-24-2005, 05:24 PM

I would have to say Morrison for all the above mentioned reasons. Plus, for me, he cheapened one of my favorite characters: Emma Frost. He was the one who started giving her the faux british dialogue and retconned her history with the Hellfire Club so that debuted as a stripper instead of the shrewd businesswoman her used her mutant powers to build her own fortune. Not to mention the whole plastic surgery thing. It's ironic that I would find his sins most grevious because I enjoyed the early part of his run and thought he had some cool ideas.

Austen runs a close second because thanks to him: Nightcrawler has a silly demon for a father, Lorna is Mags daughter, Adjectiveless has the worst line-up, Warren is neither blue nor interesting, and Iceman is stuck in his silly ice-form.

SUPERECWFAN1

07-24-2005, 05:29 PM

Austen runs a close second because thanks to him: Nightcrawler has a silly demon for a father, Lorna is Mags daughter, Adjectiveless has the worst line-up, Warren is neither blue nor interesting, and Iceman is stuck in his silly ice-form.

I think your forgetting that Austen Isn't the one on X-Men anymore. In fact Milligan Is using Polaris,Havok,Iceman , Rogue & Gambit. The other Interesting members are gone so..thats not his fault about the current team.

Beast

07-24-2005, 05:37 PM

Agreed about Emma Frost, she was turned from fabulous into phony really fast. With the out of nowhere British dialogue, plastic surgery, and stripper past. But then Morrison only wanted her because he needed a 'Colossus' character, and decided to turn Emma into him. As for the changes, I think CC sums it up best. :)

Dear One-&-All:

Just for the record, speaking purely and solely as the character's creator (not that that seems to have much weight these days and even less relevance), Emma was never a brunette. As created, she was blond from birth and has never had elective, enhancement cosmetic surgery. She was from the beginning intended to be flawless.

Sigh.

So much for my Canute moment.

Cordially,

Chris Claremont

crystalline green

07-24-2005, 05:38 PM

I think your forgetting that Austen Isn't the one on X-Men anymore. In fact Milligan Is using Polaris,Havok,Iceman , Rogue & Gambit. The other Interesting members are gone so..thats not his fault about the current team.

I know Austen isn't currently writing X-men, but didn't the current roster form during his tenure. My impression was that Milligan is using them because he has to for the time being. He inherited the current line-up when he took over (which could conceivably change thru his own plotting or as an after-effect of HOM).

crystalline green

07-24-2005, 05:40 PM

As for the changes, I think CC sums it up best. :)

Yay! I love CC for saying that :-)

The Shadow

07-24-2005, 05:43 PM

Scott Lobdell.

Hated almost everything he did.

Gingold

07-24-2005, 05:44 PM

Luckily, the X-franchise as a whole has been strong enough that even though a lot of hackery has been perpetrated on X-Men and the ancilary titles, not much lasting harm has been done. The Lobdell years were pretty bad, but the franchise recovered and blossomed under Morrison and Claremont and is doing pretty well under Claremont and Whedon now. The books were pretty unreadable for the better part of the 90s, though, and I'd put the blame on Bob Harras's feet for that- though he wasn't acting in a creative capacity then.

Titan Slade

07-24-2005, 05:46 PM

I have liked everything Morrison has written over at DC comics, but I hated his X-Men run. He destroyed the best looking X-Men member Beast, by turning him into a giant cat :( . This I can never forgive.

Beast

07-24-2005, 05:48 PM

SUPERECWFAN1

07-24-2005, 05:53 PM

I know Austen isn't currently writing X-men, but didn't the current roster form during his tenure. My impression was that Milligan is using them because he has to for the time being. He inherited the current line-up when he took over (which could conceivably change thru his own plotting or as an after-effect of HOM).

He had Polaris,Havok,Iceman and Juggernaunt and was given Rogue & Gambit since Claremont took Warren & Nightcrawler. Even though why Claremont wanted Warren astounds me. Guy shows up for 3 Issues at the end of a cancelled series! Chuck actually did good stuff with Angel and should have got to keep him.

I don't think Chuck should get the blame for what happened to this team. He had a great dynamic for this Team. Milligan god willing makes some changes after HOM and brings back an " Anything can happen " atmosphere.

crystalline green

07-24-2005, 06:06 PM

He had Polaris,Havok,Iceman and Juggernaunt and was given Rogue & Gambit since Claremont took Warren & Nightcrawler. Even though why Claremont wanted Warren astounds me. Guy shows up for 3 Issues at the end of a cancelled series! Chuck actually did good stuff with Angel and should have got to keep him.

I don't think Chuck should get the blame for what happened to this team. He had a great dynamic for this Team. Milligan god willing makes some changes after HOM and brings back an " Anything can happen " atmosphere.

"God willing" is right. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. :) My problem with Austen's line-up was that it was an assemblage of characters that I cared the least about personally. Obviously he had his own vision for bringing them together but the team never quite gelled, IMO. That having been said, I don't dismiss him as the evil to end all evil. His run did have its highpoints with the characterizations of Juggs and Sammy and his early take on Northstar.

zonzorp

07-24-2005, 06:23 PM

Broadly speaking, the 90s writers, the 90s artists, and the 90s editors, except Peter David and his artistic collaborators on X-Factor.
May all their work be undone.

hbkabdul

07-24-2005, 06:28 PM

I say Chuck Austen and most of the main reasons have already been listed. I'm not saying Austen is a total hack but when it came to writing X-men stories he ugh!

I'm so suprised at all the vitrol for Morrison's run on New X-men especially considering his work still influences 90% of the X-titles now.

Valmore

07-24-2005, 07:35 PM

Two words:

Frank Quietly.

Gads his artwork sucked wind. He made Beast look stupid, all the women look 40, and EVERYONE looked constipated.

They should have been the X-Lax Men with Quietly's terrible drawing.

Expletive Deleted

07-24-2005, 07:59 PM

Is this a "who did the most harm to the franchise" or "who contributed the story/plot point you most dislike" question? Because they're not exactly the same thing.

I say Roy Thomas.

Even though I like his run, he got the book cancelled. Can't do much more harm than that.

Stephane Garrelie

07-24-2005, 08:04 PM

Is this a "who did the most harm to the franchise" or "who contributed the story/plot point you most dislike" question? Because they're not exactly the same thing.

I say Arnold Drake and Roy Thomas.

They got 'em cancelled. Can't do much more harm than that.never really cancelled, only reprints and no new stories for some time. Ant the last run was Roy Thomas/Neal Adams with last issue by Roy Thomas/Sal Buscema. and Roy Thomas is the one who worked in the shadows to have new stories with a new international team. so I don't think we can say he did much harm. the Roy thomas/Neal Adams run is a ref.

Nevets F

07-24-2005, 08:07 PM

Morrison by FAR, in my opinion

Expletive Deleted

07-24-2005, 08:10 PM

never really cancelled, only reprints and no new stories for some time.They stopped production. That's as close to cancellation as you can get without going over.

I dig the Thomas/Adams run. I really do. But you don't run reprints for six years when sales are good.

Sir_Hawkeye

07-24-2005, 08:11 PM

God I hope I can someday be forgiven by you guys :) But I must say it I liked Grant Morrison's stuff! I liked it because all his ideas were unique to X-men or X-men originals. For one he brought back the uniforms (if you look in Stan Lee's original X-men they all had the same kind of costume). Also he created secondary mutations and really that was a good way to put a twist on old heros. And Beast becoming cat like well if you look through history Beast has changed a lot really and he suddenly stopped in his Fox cartoon look so isn't it natural to have him mutate. Plus he gave us a real feel for the X-mansion being a school more than anyone has yet. Oh and The Hellfire Club becoming a strip joint was kinda weird but I mean that was just one little mistake. OWe and I think by making Magneto become psycho he was just trying to show what Mags could really do I think. I loved his stories cause it was about the characters not the powers and that rocks.

Oh and I hated Chuck Austen's stuff I mean I kinda enjoyed seeing a new brotherhodd but that Demonic Nightcrawler Draco story along with Nurse Annie thing was unforgivable. Although there are exceptions to every writers badness remember he gave us SquidBoy and Made Juggernaut an X-men(which kicked ass).

Stephane Garrelie

07-24-2005, 08:13 PM

They stopped production. I'd call that cancelled.

I dig the run. I really do. But you don't run reprints for six years when sales are good.Lol. yes, I know.
But that's not what I'ld call "harm". the x-men before Claremont weren't a very important book in term of sales. never.

Beast

07-24-2005, 08:16 PM

God I hope I can someday be forgiven by you guys :) But I must say it I liked Grant Morrison's stuff! I liked it because all his ideas were unique to X-men or X-men originals. For one he brought back the uniforms (if you look in Stan Lee's original X-men they all had the same kind of costume). Also he created secondary mutations and really that was a good way to put a twist on old heros. And Beast becoming cat like well if you look through history Beast has changed a lot really and he suddenly stopped in his Fox cartoon look so isn't it natural to have him mutate. Plus he gave us a real feel for the X-mansion being a school more than anyone has yet. Oh and The Hellfire Club becoming a strip joint was kinda weird but I mean that was just one little mistake. OWe and I think by making Magneto become psycho he was just trying to show what Mags could really do I think. I loved his stories cause it was about the characters not the powers and that rocks.
It wasn't really that unique. It was just Morrison's take on classic X-Men stories. You had your Magneto story, your Shiar story, your Weapon X story, your Future story, etc. etc. etc. He also didn't create secondary mutations, though he coined the term if I recall correctly. As for Beast, he didn't change a lot. He changed once, from humanish to apeish. And that look has been his iconic form 90% of the time since 1972. And it was the result of chugging his X-Gene formula, not a natural devolution in his form. So it shouldn't have been natural that his form changed again, considering he's been restored to human and returned to his apelike after that even. Which basically showed that his damaged genes locked that as more or less his true form.

jetter_cheeze

07-24-2005, 08:26 PM

Is this a "who did the most harm to the franchise" or "who contributed the story/plot point you most dislike" question? Because they're not exactly the same thing.

To most people here i think the latter is the right answer. i don't like what certain writer wrote, but that doesn't mean i hate them for it, nor does it mean they did the most harm to the mythos. Suppose certain writers did do harm, then the clean-up would probably create some very unique ideas and stopry developments, but this is starting to make too much sense here.

I say Roy Thomas.

Even though I like his run, he got the book cancelled. Can't do much more harm than that.

You have hit the nail on the head with this one. This is the most harm that can be done to an X-book.

Stephane Garrelie

07-24-2005, 08:34 PM

God I hope I can someday be forgiven by you guys :) But I must say it I liked Grant Morrison's stuff!I'm happy for you but i didn't.
I liked it because all his ideas were unique to X-men or X-men originals. For one he brought back the uniforms (if you look in Stan Lee's original X-men they all had the same kind of costume).Claremont brought back the originals yellow and blue/black first in new mutants in the 80's and for the x-men in uncanny durring his last 2 years in 90/91
Also he created secondary mutations and really that was a good way to put a twist on old heros. And Beast becoming cat like well if you look through history Beast has changed a lot really and he suddenly stopped in his Fox cartoon look so isn't it natural to have him mutate. Plus he gave us a real feel for the X-mansion being a school more than anyone has yet. Oh and The Hellfire Club becoming a strip joint was kinda weird but I mean that was just one little mistake. OWe and I think by making Magneto become psycho he was just trying to show what Mags could really do I think. I loved his stories cause it was about the characters not the powers and that rocks.there's nothing that I like in all this :o
"real school" with mutants at each street corner like in the movie! it's anticpation sf, not superheroes, what would be ok for a possible futur is only a bad idea for the present. It makes the books unrealistics. just like the oussamagneto thing (which was very bad taste).

Oh and I hated Chuck Austen's stuff I mean I kinda enjoyed seeing a new brotherhodd but that Demonic Nightcrawler Draco story along with Nurse Annie thing was unforgivable. Although there are exceptions to every writers badness remember he gave us SquidBoy and Made Juggernaut an X-men(which kicked ass).yes

Deus ex Chris

07-24-2005, 09:00 PM

i don't like what certain writer wrote, but that doesn't mean i hate them for it, nor does it mean they did the most harm to the mythos.
It's great that you can distinguish between the two. Morrison, along with Mark Millar, Joe Quesada, and Bill Jemas, spear-headed the rejuvenation of a lackluster, dying concept. I can understand disliking things he did, but the man drummed up an interest in the franchise that hadn't been seen in years. He opened up creative avenues for writers like Chris Claremont, Greg Pak, Brian Bendis, and Joss Whedon--avenues that are still being pursued today. Astonishing X-Men, Phoenix: Endsong, X-Men, Uncanny X-Men, and House of M are all big-sellers and all--to some extent--live in the house that Morrison built. Morrison, the most harm? I just don't see it.

Now, Bob Harras and Scott Lobdell are another story entirely.

El Chupacabra

07-24-2005, 09:05 PM

Chuck Austen. Why? One word: MAMMOMAX.

....and he basically took Exodus, a very nice/unexplored 'powerful' character, from out of nowhere and made him into a complete joke.

But Morrision probabaly caused more "X-Team" related damage and had some wacky ideas. I honestly couldn't tell you who was worse.

Babylon23

07-24-2005, 09:06 PM

From a creative perspective, I'd have to say Bob Harris. He forced long-term writers Louise Simonson and Chris Claremont off their respective titles, and left them in the hands of artists with little writing ability. From what I've read, he dictated storylines to the writers.

During his period as editor, it was impossible to read 1 x-book. Crossovers seemed to occur every month between the x-books. Everything was marketing driven. Issues seemed geared pureply towards promoting the next big crossover event. At the same time, the x-comics seemed to be in a seperate universe to the rest of the Marvel U.

Much of the 90's x-books are a mess due to his heavy-handed approach. I think he's fortunate enough that earlier creators had built up the franchise so much that even his efforts couldn't undo their work.

Frank

07-25-2005, 06:18 AM

Bob Harras by far.

His stubborness caused CC to leave in 1991 and the X-Men never recovered from it. Everything that happened since damaged everything that I loved about the X-Men. Just an example: Gambit was my favorite character with CC and Jim Lee; he`s now the character I hate the most. Only Whedon and Cassaday have helped to bring the X-Men into something that ressemble what they were before in term of being interesting characters, in term of having fun, in term of intrigue. But it will take a lot more than that to get rid of the stench of 10+ Years of crapolla.

All of it because of Harras.

Mister Mets

07-25-2005, 07:23 AM

never really cancelled, only reprints and no new stories for some time. Ant the last run was Roy Thomas/Neal Adams with last issue by Roy Thomas/Sal Buscema. and Roy Thomas is the one who worked in the shadows to have new stories with a new international team. so I don't think we can say he did much harm. the Roy thomas/Neal Adams run is a ref.

That's a really good point on Mr. Thomas.

Two words:

Frank Quietly.

Gads his artwork sucked wind. He made Beast look stupid, all the women look 40, and EVERYONE looked constipated.

They should have been the X-Lax Men with Quietly's terrible drawing.

I'm going to have to disagree. I thought he was one of the great X-artists.

Radical_dreamer

07-25-2005, 07:40 AM

I have to say.......Claremont

Dont get me wrong I do rather enjoy the fellow (that sounds straighter in my head) but he gets my vote simply because of X-treme X-men. That entire serie was a waste in my opinion, not one story stands out above aaverage even if the premise was intriguing. and that title....urgh...just, no.

DDM

07-25-2005, 07:53 AM

When Morrison was writing New X-Men, he retconned Emma's past to be a brunette, physically flawed woman who had cosmetic surgery to be Sebastian Shaw's ideal woman. I kept telling people from The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Deluxe Edition #14 that Emma Frost never had cosmetic surgery & was always ashe blonde. Apparently, an aspect of her mutant genes granted Emma with a flawless body:

Dear One-&-All:

Just for the record, speaking purely and solely as the character's creator (not that that seems to have much weight these days and even less relevance), Emma was never a brunette. As created, she was blond from birth and has never had elective, enhancement cosmetic surgery. She was from the beginning intended to be flawless.

Sigh.

So much for my Canute moment.

Cordially,

Chris Claremont

Hopefully, Claremont can re-retcon Emma Frost back to her original state. Emma is a sophisticated, powerful telepath to give Jean Grey access to false memories.

The Dosadi Experiment

07-25-2005, 07:58 AM

Morrison, brilliant start of his run, interesting ideas, then halfway in everything started to crumble, and ideas were dropped, in favour of the next batch of ideas, it because clear than none of it would be adressed, and none of it would be revisited.
Fun and great at first, but then you get the joke, and it just becomes repetative and frustrating.
Lackluster stories near the end killed it for me personally, it became one convoluted little mess, where things were done just because they could be done, not because they served a purpose.

Austen, at least GM had mildly interesting ideas, Austen didn't even have that.

Lobdell, I liked Lobdell, the only thing he sucked at was how he constructed a story, he always lacked a decent run-up to a climax.

Other than that

Quesada killed much with hype and gimmicks. If there's anything more deadly to a story than bad writing, it's hype.

Harras killed much with the annual everything's locked in big summer events.

Twigglet

07-25-2005, 08:26 AM

Chris Claremont..

If only because that a lot of X-writers have tried to copy his ideas or mess with what he did, only to make themselves look weak in comparison. When a title has such a difinitive run, it's hard for writers to top it and I think after how many issues Claremont did it's hard for the title to be as good or remotly the samr again. And if new writers take it in a different direction than the "defining" writer a lot of fans will hate it.

What Grant Morrison did to the X-men, like it or not was good for the X-mn as it rose the sales a lot. New X-men is probably the 2nd best run on an X-title after Claremonts run if only because it triedd namy new things. Secondary mutations, the destrction of Genosha, planet X, the school being outed. Like them or hate them they were new and exciting.

I've said it before on this forum and I'll say it again, from DOTFP onwards the X-men franchise has slowly been declining in quality, with a few exceptions here and there, and perhaps have been slowly increasing since New X-men. Since DOTFP needless changes have been made, some silly decisions have been made and the X-titles were just a mess in the 90's.

I think Queseda is finally doing some good things, Bendis, Whedon, Brubeaker, PAD and Millar are all talented writers Queseda has put, or will put on X-titles, it's a step in the right direction.

Twigglet

07-25-2005, 08:27 AM

Chuck Austen. Why? One word: MAMMOMAX.

Can someone tell me, why making the best character ever known to man makes Chuck Austen a bad writer? :p

jarrod

07-25-2005, 09:04 AM

I'd have to agree with Bob Harras sentiments. He's pretty much the reason why the X-Books went nowhere for a decade and continually drove away both established and promising writers (Claremont, Simonson, David, Segale, Kelly, etc). There's definitely things done by creators on a case by case basis which I've strongly disliked (Nicezia's Kwannon retcon, Lobdell killing Illyana/Pitor, Austin's parentage for Kurt, etc) but no one has shown a consistant pattern of disregard which has actually harmed the X-line like Harras. He's the easy choice.

I'm a bit surprised by the Morrisson nominations though, I felt his run was exactly what the X-Men needed to get kickstarted post-Harras. Sure, there were elements I disliked (as in every creator's run) but I always felt the good far outweighed the bad in New X-Men. Streamlining the Phoenix concept, breaking things with the Shi'ar, expanding the scope and student body of the institute, Xaiver going public, the X-Coproration, breaking up Scott and Jean, the growth of mutant culture and just generally updating the whole concept of the X-Men into something more contemporary... sure Xorneto was a bit messy (the "message" sort of got lost in the character assasination) and I felt a golden opportunity was lost with Genosha, but like all bad decisions, those seem to be rectified after Grant's departure anyway.

fishtaco

07-25-2005, 09:10 AM

Bob Harras- Need more be said?
Joss Whedon- Destroyed Kitty Pryde
Joe Quesada- Not only for obvious current reasons, but because of his obnoxious lateness with his art on X-Factor with Peter David
Ben Raab- Awful stories. Mediocre fill-in writer
Nick Lowe and Sean Ryan- Letters pages, never read a comic before, lets countless continuity errors go by.
Rob Liefeld
Mike Marts- For obvious reasons.
Greg Pak
Chuck Austen
Brian Bendis- For House of M
Scott Lobdell- Ruined a lot of characters, wrote bad stories.
Akira Yoshida- Ruined the AOA.

Twigglet

07-25-2005, 09:12 AM

DavidQ!

07-25-2005, 10:43 AM

Well people say that Austen's run on Action comics was good (Dc), but when I reread it. Its still garbage.

People i dont like plainly because they are bad.

1. Claremont- Stinks up to high heaven

Whiskers

07-25-2005, 12:44 PM

I personally don't like Chris Claremont. Sure, he introduced some great characters, but he's also killed off just as many.

riftt

07-25-2005, 02:42 PM

morrison has done the only respectable job on x-men in 30 years.

dazzler_slave

07-25-2005, 02:47 PM

The worst thing to ever happen to the X-Universe was Bob harras for all the reasons stated by previous posters, plus that awful Mutant X comic he wrote..ugh!

As far as writers go, every writer has contributed something I have liked, but the following are writers that, for me, produced more ideas, developments etc that I really didn't like:

Grant Morrison: the new Emma, the new Beast, the way the X-Men thought it was ok to just shoot Cassandra Nova in the head, killing Jean again, the whole Xorn/Magneto fiasco, Weapon Plus, secondary mutations etc. (on the plus side, loved outing the mutants, making the school a real school, the Stepford Cuckoos)

Chuck Austen: Demon Nightcrawler, Angel boning a minor, Iceman regressing to teenage status in his behavior, hero Juggernaut and way too many other things to mention. (on the plus side, was very happy that he got rid of Stacy X as soon as he came on board, and liked that he brought Northstar into the fold)

Steven Seagle: Honestly, I can't really point out one single thing that jumps out as being bad, I just found his mercifully short run to be really dreary and tedious.

fishtaco

07-25-2005, 02:53 PM

Bendis has ruined the X-men with 4 issues of a limited series which is currently the best selling comic?
So its the best selling comic. Does that neccesarily mean it's good? Didnt think so.

1. Claremont- Stinks up to high heaven
You are aware that Chris Claremont is the creator of Shadowcat, Rogue, Rachel, Psylocke, Forge, Gambit, Jubilee, Cannonball, Thunderbird III, Sage, Emma Frost, Lifeguard, Slipstream, Northstar, Moonstar, Karma, Wolfsbane, Magma, Mystique, Pyro, Avalanche, Destiny, Tom Corsi, Sharon Freidlander, Warlock, Cypher, Sunspot, Fenris, Leech, Callisto, Masque, Sunder, Plague, Magik II, Margali, Belasco, Selene, Demon Bear, Warpath, Tarot, Empath, Lilandra, D'ken, Deathbird, Gladiator, Sebastion Shaw, Donald Pierce, Gateway, The Phoenix, Nimrod, Lockheed, Lady Deathstryke, Zaladane, Whiteout, Mariko Yashida, Yukio, Shadow King, Elias Bogan, Icarus, Jefferey Garrett, Warhawk, Adversary, Naze, Val Cooper, Amiko, Caliban, Aurora, Guardian, Vindicator, Wendigo, Sasquatch, Shaman, Snowbird, Roulette, Catseye, Harpoon, Sabretooth, Scalphunter, Madelyne Pryor, Gateway, N'astirh, S'ym, Captain Britain, Meggan, Nga Mahn, Strong Guy, Lila Cheney, Vargas, Stevie Hunter, Blockbuster, Jamie Braddock, Scrambler, Arclight, Blockbuster, Legion, Gaby Haller, Black Tom, Eric The Red, Kate Pryde, Dai Thomas, Alistaire Stuart, Alysande Stuart, Alexi Vazhin, Kyrmi, Tam Anderson, Tullamore Vogue, Killian, Bloody Bess, Lady Mastermind, Goth, Bonebreaker, Skullbuster, Pretty Boy, Wade Cole, Angel Macon, Murray Reese, Cylla Markham, Stonewall, Super Sabre, Crimson Commando, Fabian Cortez, Corsair, Hepzibah, Raza, Chod, Sikorski, Domina, Hawkshaw, Pipeline, Jetstream, Stephen Lang, Leash, Moira MacTaggert, Magus, Nanny, Nanny II, Orphan Maker, Proteus, Sarah Grey, Riptide, Sinister, William Stryker, Widget, Robert Kelly, and countless others, right?

The writer of God Loves, Man Kills, Days of Future Past, the Dark Phoenix Saga, right?

The one responsible for most of the developments in Storm, Colossus, Nightcrawler, Wolverine, Nightcrawler, Dazzler, Longshot, Professor X, Havok, Banshee, Magneto, Bishop, and countless others?

Just wondering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im going to take both Bendis and Whedon off my list. One has only written 4 issues, and another has only written 11. But if they both keep this up than I can be sure to add them.

Rio_de_Janeiro

07-25-2005, 03:23 PM

because in my opinion, each writer took the x-men in the direction he (she?) wanted and dealt with it accordingly. some fans like some writers while others hate the same writer, and all have very good reasons for such.

i personally like some writers more than others, but i find it lame nowadays to have these little disputes.

i believe the "need" for continuity has done more harm than good for the x-men in general. in addition, the "let's milk the titles till no more" attitude of marvel has contributed a lot to this sorry state the titles usually find themselves in.

see, one can argue (and here is my opinion about the writers) that:

claremont solidified the x-world into its sort-of current status quo, but at the same time froze any real opportunity for change and difference.

morrison wrote the most entertaining stories, but ruffled too many feathers in the reactionaries.

kelly had brilliant ideas with very little follow-through

austen had bright moments lost in an avalanche of pedestrian ideas

etc. etc. etc.

to single out one author as doing more harm than others is just puerile.

rio.

Bishop_Proudstar

07-25-2005, 03:31 PM

Radical_dreamer

07-25-2005, 03:33 PM

So its the best selling comic. Does that neccesarily mean it's good? Didnt think so.

You are aware that Chris Claremont is the creator of Shadowcat, Rogue, Rachel, Psylocke, Forge, Gambit, Jubilee, Cannonball, Thunderbird III, Sage, Emma Frost, Lifeguard, Slipstream, Northstar, Moonstar, Karma, Wolfsbane, Magma, Mystique, Pyro, Avalanche, Destiny, Tom Corsi, Sharon Freidlander, Warlock, Cypher, Sunspot, Fenris, Leech, Callisto, Masque, Sunder, Plague, Magik II, Margali, Belasco, Selene, Demon Bear, Warpath, Tarot, Empath, Lilandra, D'ken, Deathbird, Gladiator, Sebastion Shaw, Donald Pierce, Gateway, The Phoenix, Nimrod, Lockheed, Lady Deathstryke, Zaladane, Whiteout, Mariko Yashida, Yukio, Shadow King, Elias Bogan, Icarus, Jefferey Garrett, Warhawk, Adversary, Naze, Val Cooper, Amiko, Caliban, Aurora, Guardian, Vindicator, Wendigo, Sasquatch, Shaman, Snowbird, Roulette, Catseye, Harpoon, Sabretooth, Scalphunter, Madelyne Pryor, Gateway, N'astirh, S'ym, Captain Britain, Meggan, Nga Mahn, Strong Guy, Lila Cheney, Vargas, Stevie Hunter, Blockbuster, Jamie Braddock, Scrambler, Arclight, Blockbuster, Legion, Gaby Haller, Black Tom, Eric The Red, Kate Pryde, Dai Thomas, Alistaire Stuart, Alysande Stuart, Alexi Vazhin, Kyrmi, Tam Anderson, Tullamore Vogue, Killian, Bloody Bess, Lady Mastermind, Goth, Bonebreaker, Skullbuster, Pretty Boy, Wade Cole, Angel Macon, Murray Reese, Cylla Markham, Stonewall, Super Sabre, Crimson Commando, Fabian Cortez, Corsair, Hepzibah, Raza, Chod, Sikorski, Domina, Hawkshaw, Pipeline, Jetstream, Stephen Lang, Leash, Moira MacTaggert, Magus, Nanny, Nanny II, Orphan Maker, Proteus, Sarah Grey, Riptide, Sinister, William Stryker, Widget, Robert Kelly, and countless others, right?

The writer of God Loves, Man Kills, Days of Future Past, the Dark Phoenix Saga, right?

The one responsible for most of the developments in Storm, Colossus, Nightcrawler, Wolverine, Nightcrawler, Dazzler, Longshot, Professor X, Havok, Banshee, Magneto, Bishop, and countless others?

Just wondering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im going to take both Bendis and Whedon off my list. One has only written 4 issues, and another has only written 11. But if they both keep this up than I can be sure to add them.

yes but just has you said.... the number of issues written and the number of issues sold doesnt mean its good. :)

And I kind of see House of M as the logical continuation of the mutant hstory and a very interesting and profond way of looking at the MU

Bishop_Proudstar

07-25-2005, 03:38 PM

Everyone who was responsible for:

1) "Onslut".. or "Onslaught".

2) "Phalanx Covenant" wasn't a total waste because Emma got her chance to develop as an X-Man, and Generation X (Blink I) were introduced.

3) The editors who allowed a TV writer to create an "Evil Dangerroom" after the establishment of an "Evil Cerebro".

4) Now, The X-men should not trust any of their technology... Right?

5) The importance of Cable... Especially to Apocalypse..

6) Boom Boom releasing Sabertooth who severly injures Psylocke.

7) Then, they heal Psylocke via The Crimson Dawn.

8) The entire Ninja/Hand/Mystic mess regarding the transformation of Psylocke
(yess that means Claremont as well..)

9) "Sublime".. "That Which Sublimes" ..just a weak excuse to save Magneto from death. It screamed of Morrison making his mark on The X-men, then "oops"! "We need to fix this" (Cassandra X = good, Sublime + Xorneto + White Hot Room = awful)

10) Danielle Moonstar as a valkyrie... It just "stunted" the character and the importance of her own powers..

11) Amanda Sefton as Magik II. Shadowcat could weild the Soulsword, but she had no magical powers..(and they still left Sefton in Limbo and "limbo")
What's the point?

12) Excalibur's "Cross-Time Caper" lasting for 2+ years. It was just a way to keep Rachel away from Jean, and from facing Apocalypse and Sinister with The X-Men. Maybe, they were avoiding her?

fishtaco

07-25-2005, 03:59 PM

yes but just has you said.... the number of issues written and the number of issues sold doesnt mean its good. :)

And I kind of see House of M as the logical continuation of the mutant hstory and a very interesting and profond way of looking at the MUI said that sales dont matter. Now Im saying that its too early to judge with a small amount of issues PUBLISHED. that has nothing to do with sales

bones mccoy

07-25-2005, 04:30 PM

chris claremont.

Bishop_Proudstar

07-25-2005, 08:10 PM

morrison has done the only respectable job on x-men in 30 years.

Very good, different, quirky, and.....over-rated.

In some ways it was like "Tim Burton's X-Men", but it was good.

He seemed to try too hard to "stamp" the X-Men towards the end though..

He has silly subplots and non-events like "Who shot Emma Frost?" that seemed like covers of indecision.

Xorneto.

Bishop_Proudstar

07-25-2005, 08:15 PM

Frank

07-25-2005, 11:21 PM

I think Lobdell is getting a bad rap because he was into the Summer Events Days were it was all over the place and nothing was making much sens. But in quiet single story issues he was excellent. He did a great job on Uncanny X-Men 300 with JR for instance.

Twigglet

07-26-2005, 03:02 AM

So its the best selling comic. Does that neccesarily mean it's good? Didnt think so.

No but the fact it features an alternate reality full of different X-men and only 4 issues are out, means it can't be doing much damage, I mean seriously, what damage has been done?

Im going to take both Bendis and Whedon off my list. One has only written 4 issues, and another has only written 11. But if they both keep this up than I can be sure to add them.

So why put them on the first place? Keep what up btw?

Brian Cronin

07-26-2005, 03:41 AM

If I delete something, don't repost it.

That way bannings lead.

-Brian

Dussan

07-26-2005, 06:47 AM

Hands down, Grant Morrison has done the most damage.

Jean Grey being dead again and Magneto becoming a crack whore just makes me sick.

So much crap was done to the X-Men that it's damn near impossible to retcon it all.

streator

07-26-2005, 07:38 AM

im going to approach this topic as harm meaning making the x-men as concept the least interesting/attracting the least amount of readers/affecting the franchise overall negatively.

the only "harm" claremont has done to the x-men would be his subsequent returns to the franchise. i have liked some of his work post 2000, but i have too really not enjoyed some of it as well. i would consider the stuff i didnt enjoy as "harmful" because it kind of taints his overall legacy which is arguably a very hard thing to live up to. i am not interested in reading about mind control stories over and over again, for example. "harmful" as in its not really all that interesting, and the book isnt selling as well as it used to (around austen numbers pre-house of m). this is all my personal opinion, and im sure others disagree. but i think if claremont can be accused of any "harm" it would fall into his more recent work.

while i enjoyed some of casey's run, i think he too caused "harm" to the overall x-franchise. the majority or readers were not looking for casey's style on uncanny x-men. readers left the title. uncanny was at its lowest under his run, if im not mistaken. i would argue that it has been somewhat of an uphill struggle since casey took over to get uncanny readers back and to have them stay.

DDM

07-26-2005, 07:54 AM

I personally don't like Chris Claremont. Sure, he introduced some great characters, but he's also killed off just as many.

The only character Chris Claremont killed was Phoenix. Sure he used the X-Men's possible deaths are springboards for new directions, but they either never were dead or they were resurrected in some way.

Beast

07-26-2005, 07:56 AM

The only character Chris Claremont killed was Phoenix. Sure he used the X-Men's possible deaths are springboards for new directions, but they either never were dead or they were resurrected in some way.
Thunderbird I. But still, his death toll isn't really that big. :)

DDM

07-26-2005, 07:58 AM

Thunderbird I. But still, his death toll isn't really that big. :)

Len Wein's plot, Claremont only scripted the book.

Beast

07-26-2005, 08:00 AM

Len Wein's plot, Claremont only scripted the book.
Touche. But it's still attributed to ole C.C.

fishtaco

07-26-2005, 08:06 AM

No but the fact it features an alternate reality full of different X-men and only 4 issues are out, means it can't be doing much damage, I mean seriously, what damage has been done?Thats where you are mistaken. The reality in House of M is the 616 universe. The Marvel Universe. Our reality is ALTERED, not an ALTERNATE reality. Huge difference.

So why put them on the first place? Keep what up btw?If they keep up the bad-ness.

Twigglet

07-26-2005, 08:52 AM

Thats where you are mistaken. The reality in House of M is the 616 universe. The Marvel Universe. Our reality is ALTERED, not an ALTERNATE reality. Huge difference.

Sorry, you were right there, but I stand by what I meant, the X-men are ovbviously altered in some way, so I don't know how he can be harming the characters?

dont make me angry

07-26-2005, 10:08 AM

that guy who made cyclops a big massive beast like person with no hair

Novaya Havoc

07-26-2005, 10:47 AM

I dislike Claremont simply for his titanic ego and what is now mediocre storytelling. Oh, and I hate Sage. And his new Psylocke. And... well... pretty much everything he is doing now is uninspired. It may be editorial smackdown, but I don't care for him anymore.

Sure, storylines like Inferno were awesome (especially having to deal with the editorial garbage involved in the Jean Grey resurrection), but you can't just let the guy rest on his laurels for the 1980s. A lot of readers aren't that kind to characters like Luke Cage, Dazzler, Longshot, Cloak/Dagger, and several others from the era that actually were pretty good. I don't see why Claremont, then, should get some free pass that the writers and creators of these 80s characters aren't (the new Jessie Drew revitalization excepted).

The truth is, Claremont still lingers on with his old methods of storytelling that don't fly with a contemporary mass-market. Superheroes have moved away from fantasy and moved more toward science fiction. Claremont is still tossing out plots with Mojo and the Shi'ar for chrissakes, which -- before he was once again embedded within the X-Mythos -- were slowly disintegrating.

Rather than updating the Hellfire Club from its pseudo-Illuminati status, Claremont just tosses in a throwback character from his stories' past. His attempts at embedding his mutants into the socio-political climates of today pale in comparison to someone like Bendis, who has worked wonders in his Ultimate X-Men run (see: New Mutants. If that was not a top-notch re-imagining of Dazzler and Emma Frost, I don't know what would be).

The sociology of today looks toward people to whom we can relate. And in an era of "reality" TV, Dan Brown novels that draw on history and not fantasy, and of more global connectivity and information being transmitted than ever before via internet, we have a readership that is very grounded in the concrete. Allegories simply will not relate. No more Cold War "what ifs?" No more allusions to racism and homophobia -- are readers want characters who are hated and feared for being MUTANTS, and black. Or gay. Or white. Or what-have you.
The good Marvel movies -- you'll note -- ground their characters into OUR reality. X-Men 1 starts off with the HOLOCAUST, and then posits itself into the Senate floor of Washington D.C. It didn't start off with the Shi'ar building the X-Men a Danger Room.

That is where Claremont lost his touch. What worked in the 70s and 80s simply will not fly today. He has not evolved with the times, and his stories do not resonate with most readers.

Deus ex Chris

07-26-2005, 11:15 AM

That is where Claremont lost his touch. What worked in the 70s and 80s simply will not fly today. He has not evolved with the times, and his stories do not resonate with most readers.
Very well said and thought out. I agree, and I do think it's very possible that Claremont is the individual that has done the most harm and good. Afterall, no other creator has had remotely as much creative influence over the X-Men.

Beast

07-26-2005, 11:23 AM

I don't buy for a minute that his work in the 70's and 80's would not flying today. Since I caught up on his 70's and 80's work with the X-Men Essentials. And they read just as well as any other writer working at the moment. And are on par with his modern stuff in being good. And at least he has a good grasp of continuity, unlike many of the other current X-Men writers at the moment.

Novaya Havoc

07-26-2005, 11:26 AM

I don't think Claremont has really done HARM, per se, but at this point he isn't helping. Marvel is desperately trying to reach new readers, and Claremont is about to give us a BRITISH team composed mostly of non-Brits (Oi! The majority of the American market will just gobble that up, I'm sure. He should have stuck them in Chicago, but that is his haven for Kitty Pryde, and Kitty Pryde only.) with an extra-dimensional blue-elf, a time-warping Captain Britian, and a pink-haired "punk" Dazzler. Come on.

He harms characters through this method of storytelling, but I don't think he harmed the X-Franchise "the most." (That would go to Morrison, IMO) He did build up the X-Franchise and had a lot of good stories -- for the TIME and the culture of comics. This is a time you could still market Ka-Zar as a quasi-legitimate comic. But Claremont had a lot of stinkers, too. And his BEST stories are those with some of the most hard-hitting and gritty subjects: persecution, genocide (DOFP), slavery and exploitation (Genosha), murder, betrayal (Madelyne Pryor/Cyclops), and so on. He had good stories at the core, but to the modern eye, a lot of the trimmings and rationale are just silly. Vampires and aliens, stereotyping of foreign characters, and silly romances. Very little relation or consequence with our socio-political climate and environment (outside of the Outback Era). But, again, at the core it was good. It's just that all that extend

There's a reason all Phoenix re-imaginings conveniently drop out most of his goofy extraterrestrial references. The Brood, DOFP, and the Dire Wraiths are about as good as he could get with his journeys into time and space.

Radical_dreamer

07-26-2005, 12:00 PM

Beast

07-26-2005, 12:05 PM

Beast

07-26-2005, 12:11 PM

yeeeeeeeeeeeees BUT you have to remember that this is NOT a hypothetical. he DOES write TODAY and it is not as good as his classic stuff.
Re-read, if you will. I specifically say that his current stuff is as good or better than some of his classic stuff. And that it's on par with the other writers currently working in the industry.

Novaya Havoc

07-26-2005, 12:15 PM

Name one character that has been seriously harmed by Claremont's storytelling? He took a great deal of 2-dimensional characters from a cancelled book and turned them into living and breathing characters.

Dazzler.

Yes, Claremont sells. But he also has sole control over a lot of fan-favorites. I -- for the most part -- am hating BK Vaughan's run on Ultimate X-Men, but still buy it because Dazzler's in it.

Claremont is penning Psylocke, Ray Summers, Storm, Gambit, Rogue... each with their own fan-followings. I will buy Excalibur to see what Claremont does to poor Dazzler (again), but that doesn't mean I like his writing. To me, Claremont is a dead horse, and those aforementioned reasons are very telling as to why.

As for Phoenix, check X2. Check Ultimate X-Men. Check Grant Morrison. Check X-Men Evolution. You're a Claremont fan, but the marketing pendulum swings in an entirely different direction. Claremont writing comics is the near equivalent of "Stan Lee presents." He is an old horse.

Twigglet

07-26-2005, 12:28 PM

Considering he's still putting out a book that typically lists in the Top 10, I don't see how he's harming sales.

Name one character that has been seriously harmed by Claremont's storytelling? He took a great deal of 2-dimensional characters from a cancelled book and turned them into living and breathing characters. Not to mention all he did with the All-New All-Different cast. And what do you mean all Phoenix re-imaginings drop out the extra-terrestrial stuff. The two have been pretty much inter-twined from the beginning.

He is harming sales though I think, if I'm not mistaken I think he's selling less than Austen was on his run (before the inevitble boost for the HOM crossover...

You can tell he isn't a major seller based on sales of Exaclibur and X-men the end both which fall (or fell) to mich each month.

1 character he has harmed RACHEL on his current run, I'd say that counted.

Novaya Havoc

07-26-2005, 01:03 PM

You can respond to your fans, and still have an overwhelming ego. Pride and egotism are different ballparks. Claremont consistently hypes up his poor works (Excalibur, X-Men: The End) and horrible "character developments" in such icons as Tessa and Mojo. Sage is badass, and Dazzler spongecake, according to Claremont -- but only in his mind and his rendition. The man thinks his way best, and it's clear in his writing. Responding to fans is not humble.

Vegetarian Goat

07-26-2005, 01:12 PM

Marvel is desperately trying to reach new readers, and Claremont is about to give us a BRITISH team composed mostly of non-Brits (Oi! The majority of the American market will just gobble that up, I'm sure.

To be fair, the original Excalibur, (Which many people loved) only had two british members in it as well.

Novaya Havoc

07-26-2005, 01:15 PM

To be fair, the original Excalibur, (Which many people loved) only had two british members in it as well.

And, to be fair, the original Excalibur came at a time when there weren't nearly as many mutants, and took three well-established X-Men with it (Shadowcat, Nightcrawler, and Rachel Summers). X-Factor was more popular at the time.

Bishop_Proudstar

07-26-2005, 01:33 PM

I don't think Claremont has really done HARM, per se, but at this point he isn't helping. Marvel is desperately trying to reach new readers, and Claremont is about to give us a BRITISH team composed mostly of non-Brits (Oi! The majority of the American market will just gobble that up, I'm sure. He should have stuck them in Chicago, but that is his haven for Kitty Pryde, and Kitty Pryde only.) with an extra-dimensional blue-elf, a time-warping Captain Britian, and a pink-haired "punk" Dazzler. Come on.

He harms characters through this method of storytelling, but I don't think he harmed the X-Franchise "the most." (That would go to Morrison, IMO) He did build up the X-Franchise and had a lot of good stories -- for the TIME and the culture of comics. This is a time you could still market Ka-Zar as a quasi-legitimate comic. But Claremont had a lot of stinkers, too. And his BEST stories are those with some of the most hard-hitting and gritty subjects: persecution, genocide (DOFP), slavery and exploitation (Genosha), murder, betrayal (Madelyne Pryor/Cyclops), and so on. He had good stories at the core, but to the modern eye, a lot of the trimmings and rationale are just silly. Vampires and aliens, stereotyping of foreign characters, and silly romances. Very little relation or consequence with our socio-political climate and environment (outside of the Outback Era). But, again, at the core it was good. It's just that all that extended metaphor and allagory are mostly insufficient nowadays.

I don't want "new readers"...

..because I doubt that "regular readers" cared whether I was "hooked" by the plots when I started reading comic books.

It's a lame argument.

I wanted the challenge. I wanted to understand. I didn't want "dumbed-down, hipster" comics.

If it's modern, that's great.

If you want new readers for a new "canon" (because the old is mostly Claremont's), retire or kill most of the X-men in all of the X-books now.

Wolverine, Cyclops, Cable, Jean Grey, Nightcrawler, Colossuss, Angel, Xavier..

Start from "The End", and begin anew.

Bishop_Proudstar

07-26-2005, 01:42 PM

And, to be fair, the original Excalibur came at a time when there weren't nearly as many mutants, and took three well-established X-Men with it (Shadowcat, Nightcrawler, and Rachel Summers). X-Factor was more popular at the time.

I'm not a fan of Excalibur (after year 2).

I felt that Rachel, Kurt, and Kat belonged at Xavier's after they discovered that Storm and The X-Men were alive.

There were the "Muir Island X-men" for Captain Britain to fill the roster.

I just figured that Marvel was afraid to pull these X-men away from Excalibur.

I figure that Excalibur was supposed to move towards being England's Avengers (with some connection to Xavier's due to Braddock's sister being an X-man).

They didn't seem to be fighting any mutant menaces, but Rachel's memories of Ahab...

dazzler_slave

07-26-2005, 01:43 PM

Stephane Garrelie

07-26-2005, 02:20 PM

Dazzler was not ruined by Claremont, she was expanded in many ways. The only tiny gripe I have is that he treated her like a total newbie when she joined the X-Men even though she had just finished up 40 Issues of her own series and had fought the likes of Dr. Doom, Enchantress and Galactus and had hung out with the Avengers a lot. Other than that, he did a great job with her, especially in the Outback.
I totaly agree

When I heard he was returning to the X-Men with Revolutions back in 2000 I was so excited. When he started I ended up being very disappointed. The Neo were terrible, and I didn't like the Nightcrawler priest thing. Plus I found the stories to be uninspired and a little tired.
the same here. but i liked the crimson pirates.
with this exception, I think "Revolution" and Neo stuff weren't x-men stories. it was something else with x-men in it. but it was too different from his original run and to say everything not very good :o

Then he moved to X-Treme X-Men and I got excited again.[...]I liked X-treme and I love the current uncanny. I only miss thought bubbles, narative captions and footnote. but there's improvement with Betsy's thought captions :D in the most recent issues.
Me too I like classic writing.

PS: Don't forget the awesome "X-Men: True Friends" from 1999 with Rick Leonardi and Terry Austin

Novaya Havoc

07-26-2005, 02:30 PM

Novaya Havoc:

You are well spoken, to be sure, and some of your points do have merit, but I have to disagree with you. Dazzler was not ruined by Claremont, she was expanded in many ways. The only tiny gripe I have is that he treated her like a total newbie when she joined the X-Men even though she had just finished up 40 Issues of her own series and had fought the likes of Dr. Doom, Enchantress and Galactus and had hung out with the Avengers a lot. Other than that, he did a great job with her, especially in the Outback.

I agree with much of your points, Dazz, but have to again disagree on my opinion of Claremont then and now. But we most disagree on the characterization of Dazz.

Dazz was not expanded at all under Claremont. In Dazzler she used a wide array of powers (and non-powers) to win battles, from "fog light" to holograms to laser-shields, to lasers, to strobes, and so on. After Fall of the Mutants, Claremont made Dazzler a one-trick "laser-and-photon-bomb" pony, and conveniently Dazz only used these skills on near-omnipotent characters (the Adversary, Master Mold/Nimrod, Rogue).

He outright disregarded all of the continuity in the Dazzler series, save the throw-fans-a-bone Eric Beale and OZ Chase issues (260 and 228). He made her a whiny, vain dependent when she was nothing of the sort. The only time Claremont characterized her well, in my opinion, was between #110 and #118. After that, he molded her in his own image, and -- when fed up with the fan backlash -- replaced her with Jubilee from #244 onward.

So I strongly disagree with her expanding her character. Just placing her in a team environment didn't expand the character -- it strongly contradicted it!

But you're more than welcome to disagree. I just happen to think Dazzler was much more true-to-life and well-rounded than the depiction in Uncanny. C'est la vie.

Vegetarian Goat

07-26-2005, 02:39 PM

I agree with much of your points, Dazz, but have to again disagree on my opinion of Claremont then and now. But we most disagree on the characterization of Dazz.

Dazz was not expanded at all under Claremont. In Dazzler she used a wide array of powers (and non-powers) to win battles, from "fog light" to holograms to laser-shields, to lasers, to strobes, and so on. After Fall of the Mutants, Claremont made Dazzler a one-trick "laser-and-photon-bomb" pony, and conveniently Dazz only used these skills on near-omnipotent characters (the Adversary, Master Mold/Nimrod, Rogue).

He outright disregarded all of the continuity in the Dazzler series, save the throw-fans-a-bone Eric Beale and OZ Chase issues (260 and 228). He made her a whiny, vain dependent when she was nothing of the sort. The only time Claremont characterized her well, in my opinion, was between #110 and #118. After that, he molded her in his own image, and -- when fed up with the fan backlash -- replaced her with Jubilee from #244 onward.

So I strongly disagree with her expanding her character. Just placing her in a team environment didn't expand the character -- it strongly contradicted it!

But you're more than welcome to disagree. I just happen to think Dazzler was much more true-to-life and well-rounded than the depiction in Uncanny. C'est la vie.

I totally agree with you on all points- I think Claremont did shoe-horn Dazzler into his idea of what he wanted her to be, but i honestly don't mind his characterization. Yes, i would've liked her to be a bit more aggressive, and i would've liked to have seen a bit more ingenuity on her part as far as her powers are concerned, but when i read Claremont Dazz, I just keep thinking to myself- the only reason she's on the X-Men in the first place is because her life was ruined, and she's pissed. She really had nowhere else to go. Certainly, the Dazz from her solo series would've taken this a little better, and tried to move forward with her life instead of bitching about it, but there are a million different excuses one could make for why that didn't happen.

So yeah, Claremont's Dazz isn't the Dazz we all know and love from her 42 issues, but i find it to be an interesting social experiment. Too bad he (and the editors) didn't feel the same way.

I'm done complaining. I'm glad she's coming back. :)

Novaya Havoc

07-26-2005, 02:46 PM

PS... Veggie. I just sent you an add on myspace. ;)

Vegetarian Goat

07-26-2005, 02:57 PM

PS... Veggie. I just sent you an add on myspace. ;)

I thought that was you! Cool.

dazzler_slave

07-26-2005, 02:57 PM

I agree with much of your points, Dazz, but have to again disagree on my opinion of Claremont then and now. But we most disagree on the characterization of Dazz.

Dazz was not expanded at all under Claremont. In Dazzler she used a wide array of powers (and non-powers) to win battles, from "fog light" to holograms to laser-shields, to lasers, to strobes, and so on. After Fall of the Mutants, Claremont made Dazzler a one-trick "laser-and-photon-bomb" pony, and conveniently Dazz only used these skills on near-omnipotent characters (the Adversary, Master Mold/Nimrod, Rogue).

He outright disregarded all of the continuity in the Dazzler series, save the throw-fans-a-bone Eric Beale and OZ Chase issues (260 and 228). He made her a whiny, vain dependent when she was nothing of the sort. The only time Claremont characterized her well, in my opinion, was between #110 and #118. After that, he molded her in his own image, and -- when fed up with the fan backlash -- replaced her with Jubilee from #244 onward.

So I strongly disagree with her expanding her character. Just placing her in a team environment didn't expand the character -- it strongly contradicted it!

But you're more than welcome to disagree. I just happen to think Dazzler was much more true-to-life and well-rounded than the depiction in Uncanny. C'est la vie.

I stand corrected. I totally forgot about all the uses for her powers in her own series. You're right, CC did totally disregard them in X-Men. I have every issue from her series, looks like it's time to re read them! :) I have to say I kind of liked the vanity added to her character. From what I remember from her series, she was a great heroine, but a little generic in a lot of ways. A little interchangeable with other heroines. Now I may be wrong, as I said, it has been awhile since I read her series. Anyway, I kind of liked the progression for her. She was in hiding in Lila's band and that made her a little bitter because of the unfairness of it all. She had just achieved stardom when it was all taken away due to her being outed. The bitterness moved to a bit of vanity, as she sang in old bars in Australia. Keep in mind, however, that her biggest displays of vanity were during Inferno, when the baser emotions of all the X-Men were being pulled to the surface as a side effect of the demon invasion. Longshot, Rogue, Storm, Havok and Wolverine weren't portrayed too positively either. However, that all being said, I can totally understand why you don't like Claremont's handling of Dazzler. I discovered her during Inferno or shortly after, which is when I started collecting, so I bought her series entirely as back issues so for me Claremont's vision would be stronger than for someone who came off the Dazzler series first. Anyway, it is nice to have another fan of Alison here. I totally dig your Avatar by the way!

dazzler_slave

07-26-2005, 03:02 PM

I totally agree with you on all points- I think Claremont did shoe-horn Dazzler into his idea of what he wanted her to be, but i honestly don't mind his characterization. Yes, i would've liked her to be a bit more aggressive, and i would've liked to have seen a bit more ingenuity on her part as far as her powers are concerned, but when i read Claremont Dazz, I just keep thinking to myself- the only reason she's on the X-Men in the first place is because her life was ruined, and she's pissed. She really had nowhere else to go. Certainly, the Dazz from her solo series would've taken this a little better, and tried to move forward with her life instead of bitching about it, but there are a million different excuses one could make for why that didn't happen.

So yeah, Claremont's Dazz isn't the Dazz we all know and love from her 42 issues, but i find it to be an interesting social experiment. Too bad he (and the editors) didn't feel the same way.

I'm done complaining. I'm glad she's coming back. :)

Well said. I have to ask about your avatar. At first I was sure it was Dazzler. Then when your tagline said "Truly Outrageous!" I decided it must be Jem and the Holograms. Now I think it's Dazzler. I'm confused! :)

Novaya Havoc

07-26-2005, 03:02 PM

Vegetarian Goat

07-26-2005, 03:04 PM

But as always, good to see another Dazz fan here. You should get on MySpace and add Veggie and me. ;)

We should start a club.

Stephane Garrelie

07-26-2005, 03:06 PM

I read her series in french "Titans" (starwars by and infantino, Machine man By Kirby, Dazz, and Mikros a french series by Jean-Yves Mitton.)

What do all of you thought of the mid 80's Beauty and Beast (Ali and Hank love story) writen by Ann Nocenti. you now the one with "the son of Dr Doom"

Novaya Havoc

07-26-2005, 03:06 PM

Hollerback. We so should.

Stephane...
Beauty and the Beast was a GREAT idea (stress the idea) dealing with Dazz's psyche post her outing. But the comic book format was very, very limiting. If Beauty and the Beast were a novel, it could have been very good. But, as a comic, B&B stands as good idea, average-to-poor execution. Nocenti, et al, just didn't have the time and space to flesh everything out appropriately.

PS... you should get on MySpace, too... sil vous plait? ;)

LoneWolf21

07-26-2005, 03:10 PM

Well said. I have to ask about your avatar. At first I was sure it was Dazzler. Then when your tagline said "Truly Outrageous!" I decided it must be Jem and the Holograms. Now I think it's Dazzler. I'm confused! :)

It's an edited picture of Jem made to look like Ali. So a little from column A, a little frrom column B

Stephane Garrelie

07-26-2005, 03:11 PM

Novaya Havoc

07-26-2005, 03:16 PM

EDIT:Ho!!!! I got it ;) just saw the link in VG sig!!!!!

Holler. Just look up ophiel01@yahoo.com once you set up your profile and add me. :)

dazzler_slave

07-26-2005, 03:33 PM

My avatar is a direct rebellion against Excal. I hope Claremont addresses Dazzler Dazzler -- and it looks like he may -- but I won't hold my breath.

But yeah. X-Men Dazz wasn't BAD, but she was very different from the old self (and it was most notable in Inferno, but it didn't take a turn for the better with the "Mall" experience in 244) which rubbed me the wrong way. And most heroes are generic regardless of gender, I'll argue. Many of the men are carbon copies (Banshee, Capt Britain, Cyclops, Havok, Xavier, Quicksilver, et cetera) with only differing backstories. Likewise, Dazz, Jessie Drew, She Hulk, and so on are similar. But Ali isn't some exception.

But as always, good to see another Dazz fan here. You should get on MySpace and add Veggie and me. ;)

When all is said and done I AM Dazzler's Slave and really, I will pathetically take her any way I can get her as long as she is in comics. You know, when I saw her in the ad for House of M, I was totally excited, then I quickly got scared because I know how Marvel likes to bring characters out of obscurity for a storyline just to kill them, so I figured she was fodder. Then I heard about the whole Excalibur thing and I am excited again. I have high hopes myself. Oh, and I think I will sign up for MySpace. Gonna do it when I get home. I'm at work right now, posting messages on this board when I should be working.

dazzler_slave

07-26-2005, 03:35 PM

We should start a club.

We so should. The Disco Dazzler's Good Time International Fan Club. We can give all new members a disco ball and the issue of her series where she defeats Enchantress in a singing competition! lol

dazzler_slave

07-26-2005, 03:36 PM

It's an edited picture of Jem made to look like Ali. So a little from column A, a little frrom column B

I would so buy Dazzler And The Holograms! Perfection!

DDM

07-26-2005, 03:54 PM

Re: Dazzler

Although she has fought many villains in her past, her main goal has always been her music & acting careers--not being a super-hero. Therefore, when she joined the X-Men relunctantly, Dazzler was out of practice as a warrior & fighting as part of a single unit, a team, such as the X-Men. Rogue, who is trained by Mystique before she joined the X-Men, has far more experience than Alison in this case.

Magneto_X

07-26-2005, 05:19 PM

Iceman is stuck in his silly ice-form.

He's also made from Havok's pee.

LoneWolf21

07-26-2005, 05:30 PM

He's also made from Havok's pee.

No he's not. Alex was joking. Was it a bad taste? Depending on your view, yeah. Bobby reformed his body another way, forgot how though.

Beast

07-26-2005, 07:09 PM

When I heard he was returning to the X-Men with Revolutions back in 2000 I was so excited. When he started I ended up being very disappointed. The Neo were terrible, and I didn't like the Nightcrawler priest thing. Plus I found the stories to be uninspired and a little tired. Then he moved to X-Treme X-Men and I got excited again. Maybe he could shine again on a completely new title. The first couple of storyarcs were bang on and I was excited again! Then it kind of meandered and got a little dull. My biggest disappointment was that they totally threw away the whole premise of the book - the Destiny Diaries in favor of being some sort of police? I'm still not sure what was happening. So then I hear it is being cancelled, no loss, and he is back on Uncanny.
A couple quick points in relation to Revolutions and X-Treme X-Men.

When he returned for Revolutions, there was a great deal of fan rumbling for new villains and new ideas. Marvel nudged CC into that direction, instead of letting him settle back into the book and do his own thing. So when he tried to deliver new and different, people complained it was too new and too different. It's a shame really, he probably would have done a great job if given a chance.

As for X-Treme X-Men, you also have to be aware what happened when he was doing that book. First he had Beast pulled out from under him, which required re-writing his first year storyarc plans to get him out of the picture. Plus the editor he was working with changed 3-4 times, each one wanting the book to go a different direction. He even has said in interviews that he was told to dump the 'Destiny Diaries' idea because the new editor didn't like it. And each time an editor changed, his storyline was pushed a new direction.

Magneto_X

07-26-2005, 07:41 PM

A couple quick points in relation to Revolutions and X-Treme X-Men.

When he returned for Revolutions, there was a great deal of fan rumbling for new villains and new ideas. Marvel nudged CC into that direction, instead of letting him settle back into the book and do his own thing. So when he tried to deliver new and different, people complained it was too new and too different. It's a shame really, he probably would have done a great job if given a chance.

Nah, its because CC's new villaians sucked. The Neo were touted as "super-mutants" but they had no truly interesting characters among them, they were basically Morlocks who lived in tribes (how original) and their power/s weren't that different from any other mutants (Magneto ended up killing them all *himself* in a few pages---with no effort). Another villain I remember Claremont introduced was a space pirate.

His FF run was far superior, IMO.

ibrakeforchinwe

07-26-2005, 08:16 PM

I'm sure someone has said this before but

1.Chuck Austen
2.Chuck Austen
3.Chuck Austen
4.Chuck Austen
5.Chuck Austen

Frank

07-26-2005, 09:44 PM

I don't think Claremont has really done HARM, per se, but at this point he isn't helping. Marvel is desperately trying to reach new readers, and Claremont is about to give us a BRITISH team composed mostly of non-Brits (Oi! The majority of the American market will just gobble that up, I'm sure. He should have stuck them in Chicago, but that is his haven for Kitty Pryde, and Kitty Pryde only.) with an extra-dimensional blue-elf, a time-warping Captain Britian, and a pink-haired "punk" Dazzler. Come on.

Something that CC has always avoided is stereotypes and doing the obvious. I think it`s you who is not being progressive: does a British Team has to be composed of Brits? See that would be the "square" way to handle a concept like this.

I know CC often repeats himself in term of themes(enslaving) and so forth but he rearely does what you think he`s gonna do and that is rare. Sometime you feel like he doesn`t have a road map where he wants to go because there isn`t a clear picture but that is compelling. It keeps the mystery. Of course when he misses his mark, man does he miss it! But it always helps when the editor don`t screw it up. His FF run could have been better had he had more time and not shown the door. Also we forget that his current X-Men run, the concept of it by bringing old locals and using old concepts was a mandate by editorials since the plan was for this CC-Davis comic to be the traditional book.

But returning to the X was a mystake.

streator

07-26-2005, 10:03 PM

claremont has done the most "harm" to the x-men in an unfortunate way.

everything ends up being compared to his original work.

every writer has to live up to his run.

even claremont himself, as i've noted, has to live up to his previous work.

the x-men cannot be without taking into account claremont's work on the title.

i am not a huge cc fan, especially recent work.

i do admit that it is undeniable that every writer/creator since cc has to compare himself/herself to the body of work he produced.

"harmful", maybe.

it is us that buys the stuff, though.

Keith_Martineau

07-26-2005, 11:04 PM

Something that CC has always avoided is stereotypes and doing the obvious. I think it`s you who is not being progressive: does a British Team has to be composed of Brits? See that would be the "square" way to handle a concept like this.

It should also be noted that there are TWO Brits on the team, Captain Britain AND Pete Wisdom. It should ALSO be noted, that this is not one, but TWO more than the original Excalibur team EVER featured.

Brian Cronin

07-26-2005, 11:05 PM

A few points...

1. I don't love the topic, as negative threads tend to bring out the worst in people, but you folks seem to love you the negative threads, and since it doesn't actually violate a rule, I'm fine with it being here.

2. The topic is to name a creator that you feel has done the most harm to the X-Men. Therefore, respond to that. Feel free to say, "I disagree with your pick, as I do not think ___ is bad, and here are my reasons."

3. The topic is to name a creator that you feel has done the most harm to the X-Men. NOT to say, "Writer X is better than Writer Y" or "Writer X is not as bad as Writer Y." Stuff like that will be deleted.

4. The topic is to name a creator that you feel has done the most harm to the X-Men. Not to knock fans. So don't knock fans. Fans are not the topic. The topic is to name a creator that you feel has done the most harm to the X-Men. If you do not wish to do that, or if you feel that fans have done more harm, feel free to do so and to think that, just don't post it here.

5. The topic is to name a creator that you feel has done the most harm to the X-Men, not "I wish to look down upon people posting in a thread about naming creators that that they feel have done the most harm to the X-Men." If you are put off by the topic, I totally sympathize with ya. Just don't post about it here.

No reason this thread cannot be both civil and on topic.

So continue! :)

On topic.

(Responding to this post would be OFF topic, by the way ;)).

-Brian

magnus4001

07-27-2005, 12:26 AM

It should also be noted that there are TWO Brits on the team, Captain Britain AND Pete Wisdom. It should ALSO be noted, that this is not one, but TWO more than the original Excalibur team EVER featured.

The original team had two brits as well: Captain Britain and Meggan.

Faded

07-27-2005, 01:28 AM

I think pretty much any prominent writer of the X-Men has done their fair share of doing harm to the X-Men, including writers Grant Morrison, Chris Claremont, and Joe Casey, Scott Lobdell, and Fabian Nicieza (all of whom I am fans of). And I think they all did great things in their own ways as well. I'm not going to put anyone on blast like that.

onetruejp

07-27-2005, 02:22 AM

I will always believe that creators bend on not changing their styles or being slavishly drawn towards continuity or long-running, meandering plotlines will kill a book faster than anything. Say what you will about Morrison. I bought NXM 114 on a drunken whim on my 21st birthday from a 7-11. I had not read X-Men since Onslaught. I didn't have to. It was wonderful.
The plots were all new (yes, even the ones that were retro-pastiche were so vastly altered from their original ones that they can't really be compared). No one explained what their powers were everytime they used them. The characters acted like people rather than action figures. If Grant failed at any point it's only because he was shooting much higher than any X-writer had before him. Even his continuity gaffes are really just improved retcons of the original ideas (Emma Frost "perfect?" Boring. Frost human, vain, shallow, weak? Interesting. Faceted.)

There are only a few x-writers that have been able to do this. Claremont might have been one when he started (having gone back and re-read some early stuff, my opinion of him is that his plots and characters are like a Monet: fine and interesting viewed from a distance, but jumbled and patchy and incoherent when you're right up in them), and PAD on X-Factor, and Grant Morrison and pretty much all the Ultimate X-scribes (not Bendis, but I'll let him off for forgetting what book he was writing) and Peter Milligan on X-Force/X-Statix and even Lobdell had his moments, but other than that ...

Stephane Garrelie

07-27-2005, 03:44 AM

you folks seem to love you the negative threads
-Brianwith 31 answers and 213 views for the "most (good)" thread (currently on p.2),and 118 answers now (but there were at least 166 answer before deleting) and currently 2627 views for the "most (harm)" thread, I wonder what can make you think something like that! ;)

Beast

07-27-2005, 03:49 AM

Twigglet

07-27-2005, 04:29 AM

with 31 answers and 213 views for the "most (good)" thread (currently on p.2),and 118 answers now (but there were at least 166 answer before deleting) and currently 2627 views for the "most (harm)" thread, I wonder what can make you think something like that! ;)

Much more harm has been done to the X-men than good :p

Seriously though, the "good" thread was only ever gonna have Claremont as winner, he has done so much for the X-mythos, this one is much more interesting due to the different opinions.

Keith_Martineau

07-27-2005, 07:40 AM

The original team had two brits as well: Captain Britain and Meggan.

Isn't she non-human, strictly speaking? Thought she was from another dimension or something. If I'm wrong, cool.

DDM

07-27-2005, 07:55 AM

Isn't she non-human, strictly speaking? Thought she was from another dimension or something. If I'm wrong, cool.

Meggan is a mutant. Her powers & lifeforce, like Captain Britain, are tied to the UK. If she were to leave the UK for an extended period of time, her powers would get out of control.

magnus4001

07-27-2005, 08:32 AM

Isn't she non-human, strictly speaking? Thought she was from another dimension or something. If I'm wrong, cool.

DDM's got it. She's a mutant from the regular Marvel Universe. However, I can understand how you thought she was from another dimension as she was introduced in the Jasper's Warp arc from Captain Britain's run in several Marvel UK anthologies. That was a remade-reality story a bit similar to House of M, so it could seem that she came from another reality. She was a resident of the Marvel Universe who just got caught up in Jim Jasper's reality warping powers like everyone else in the story. But she really did originate in the 616.

jarrod

06-18-2009, 01:03 PM

This thread made me miss DDM and fishtaco. Glitterati/Egyptian, why'd you have to drive away all the CC fanz? :frown:

Are they all at X-Fan now?

darknessatnoon

06-18-2009, 01:17 PM

This thread made me miss DDM and fishtaco. Glitterati/Egyptian, why'd you have to drive away all the CC fanz? :frown:

Are they all at X-Fan now?

This thread, which I had never looked at before, sickens me. Wherever they are, I'm sure they would welcome you j'rod.

Dagger

06-18-2009, 01:18 PM

This thread made me miss DDM and fishtaco. Glitterati/Egyptian, why'd you have to drive away all the CC fanz? :frown:

Are they all at X-Fan now?
They're in a place where they are more welcome. The 7th circle in hell, I do believe.

Twisted Bliss

06-18-2009, 01:18 PM

This thread made me miss DDM and fishtaco. Glitterati/Egyptian, why'd you have to drive away all the CC fanz? :frown:

Are they all at X-Fan now?

JAU is a CC fan. He's still here (when he isn't doing his ninja, mountain walking Glasto thing)

darknessatnoon

06-18-2009, 01:22 PM

My favorite post in this thread is Cronin's. If I delete something, do not repost it. LOL these bitches CRAZY! Their lives are about reposting.

jarrod

06-18-2009, 01:33 PM

darknessatnoon (cokehead)

End of Time

06-18-2009, 01:46 PM

This thread makes me cry on the inside...

Grant M. gets mentioned a lot... but I have to say, reading some of the arguments against his work make me realize that there is a kernel of truth to him being on this list.

The things he introduced did harm characters and concepts, but then again he did it with a flair that made it all look interesting... except for Planet X... and Here Comes Tomorrow.

jarrod

06-18-2009, 01:48 PM

Planet-X was retarded, but I really liked HCT.

darknessatnoon

06-18-2009, 01:48 PM

darknessatnoon (cokehead)

Your insider knowledge is needed here (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=274317).

End of Time

06-18-2009, 02:02 PM

Planet-X was retarded, but I really liked HCT.

HCT is such an incomprehensible story, especially that last issue, a normal person couldn't make heads or tails of what was happening, or why it was happening. You needed some doped out fanboy to explain it online... a theory that was copy-pasted to all the message boards with people pretending they came up with it, acting all smug.

It was like Inland Empire, where you had the devoted Lynch-licker step out and cry "It's brilliant!" not because of the story or the twists and turns... but because it's incomprehensible, and that makes the people who say they got it and then spout pretentious post-modernistic crap about transcendalism and other weird shit with fancy names, just to hide the fact that they didn't get it either.

jarrod

06-18-2009, 02:26 PM

HCT is such an incomprehensible story, especially that last issue, a normal person couldn't make heads or tails of what was happening, or why it was happening. You needed some doped out fanboy to explain it online... a theory that was copy-pasted to all the message boards with people pretending they came up with it, acting all smug.

It was like Inland Empire, where you had the devoted Lynch-licker step out and cry "It's brilliant!" not because of the story or the twists and turns... but because it's incomprehensible, and that makes the people who say they got it and then spout pretentious post-modernistic crap about transcendalism and other weird shit with fancy names, just to hide the fact that they didn't get it either.
I didn't find it incomprehensible at all, it was pretty straight forward. Future X-Men vs Sublimed (cokehead) Beast, Jean's reborn, taken advantage of, she elevates fully, cuts off the future by changing the past. Easy.

I mean, there were some more open ended segments and non-linear elements with the Phoenix/time stuff, but even that wasn't too tough. I liked Morrison's more open-to-interpretation framing of things, it made the homage feel extra Claremontian.

NewMutant

06-18-2009, 04:15 PM

Joe Casey and Chuck Austen.

Bad stories, bad concepts, rarely good art, lack of a focused cast and all with in the longest running X-title.

It drove Uncanny into the gutters and only is becoming the flagship because they Astonishing is always delayed and X-Men became a solo title.

Hell X-Treme was a more important (and I think much better) book during this time.

Claremonts return prior to X-Treme was awlful as well, but he hardly the creator to have done the most harm since he help build most of it. Plus that run didn't last that long.

It seems like they let Austen stay for years and never cared that the book sucked. When adding Juggernaut to the team is the most interesting thing being done there is something wrong.

Don't get me started on Husk and Angel. And Angel's lame secondary mutation.