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.


SEAN

Yeah, 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.