Axel-In-Charge - Feb 22, 2013

[jyeager11]

Is it really that big of a deal though? If they think "New Avengers" will sell more than "Illuminati" more power to them. You know the whole "whats in a name? a rose by a different name..." and all that.

That's kind of relative, isn't it? Is *anything* on CBR really that big of a deal?

In the context of comic book discussion, the fact that titles that have nothing to do with Avengers have Avengers in their name -- while not a big deal -- is certainly as worth of debate as whether or not those red clouds should have been bent.

[Joecooler2u]

oh please one of the greatest "oh $hit" moments in comics history ever...

Xmen under Morrison was the greatest its ever been.

I'd argue that but it comes down to personal taste again. For me the top X-Men runs have been Claremont and someone else whether it be Claremont/Byrne, Claremont/Silvestri, Claremont/Lee. Then Morrison. To me a lot of what Morrison did in X-Men with Phoenix in his last issues was basically a reworking of the Dark Phoenix Saga. Nobody had an "Oh Shit" moment better than the original death of Phoenix imo. It was original at the time and a much beloved character. Morrison doing something along the same lines wasn't as original as people made it out to be but his run was memorable and long-lasting on the franchise. I loved it but a lot of what he did was shock-value stuff and his handling of Phoenix came off as a cheap remake of the Dark Phoenix Saga whereas Remender did a spectacular job reworking a long-range storyarc in the Dark Angel Saga that paid homage to Dark Phoenix but became it's own thing. Overall though I did love Morrison's run on X-Men just feel it's a tad overrated especially the ending. Killing Phoenix again? Wouldn't it have been more original killing Magneto (on-panel) for a change?

I stick with what I said; he doesn't come close. He does really high concept well, but they aren't informed by the characters (who largely come off as paper thin) and they tend to clog up the flow of the story instead of enhancing it. I don't doubt he'll improve over time since he's relatively new, but the hyperbole praise here deserves to be called out.



No, I don't "realize" what's nothing more than an opinion. For Tomorrow is flawed sure, but it has more character and poignancy than what you typically find in a Hickman book.

I stick with what I said too. Marvel seems to have a unified front on their brands by having one voice on their main titles in the brand - Hickman for Avengers and Bendis for X-Men. The other titles outside of Avengers/New Avengers have their own specific mission statements/purposes that don't go against what Hickman is doing but honoring it and the same for those outside of All-New and Uncanny X-Men. Morrison working on Batman Inc and Action Comics has come off very seperated from what the other writers do with those characters in the other titles in Batman and Superman franchises and almost to a degree like they got multiple personality disorders. Superman is a mess, just a complete mess including Morrison's Action run which I liked up to around issue 10 or 11. Batman? How many Robins did Batman have since New52? Was it 3 or 4? In a 5 year period he becomes Batman working solo for a time and has 3-4 Robins? How does he get a son who's 10 when he'd have to have met Talia when he was Batman but he was only Batman for 5 years. Bad planning. See a writer like Hickman would have had that all figured out but someone dropped the ball there namely the editors whose job is to keep those things straight. Hickman does it for me even though I usually prefer character-driven stories his focus on story-telling propelling the characters works as well because it feels like a movie about characters you know but you don't know what's coming at them next. His Fantastic Four and FF runs were superb in that the title is rarely seen as good outside of Lee/Kirby or Byrne's runs and in fact boring or lackluster in a lot of runs over the years. He made them adventurers again and made the universe a vast place for them to explore.

It all does come down to a matter of opinion. Was I harsh on DC? Yeah maybe. But I do have a point that it feels they are winging it for the large part. You see that in their cancellations and each wave they unleash feeling like they're throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks. It might be surprising to know but I do like what Johns is doing (more on JLA than JL and Aquaman than on Green Lantern) I like what Synder did so far on Batman, Morrison on Action until he got really wacky with Lois's niece and I gave up the title out of boredom. Just never got into Batman Inc and it feels seperate from what DC's doing in the other Bat-titles. Taste is just a matter of opinion. I collect DC as well as Marvel and I do admit as a more Marvel guy I do have some bias there but I do have some solid points as to Marvel's larger unified planning for their universe and DC's lack of direction to a degree outside of Johns and Snyder. And yes both companies have hacks.

Hickman vs Morrison can't be argued, it'll always come down to personal tastes. It's the same with any such debate. Personally, I prefer Hickman.

Yeah it does come down to personal tastes. I prefer Hickman. Most of my point was just that generally it feels like Marvel has an overall plan and DC is winging it. With Hickman in particular you know he has an overall plan. He (and others) state he has a plan and he shows it over time. Morrison doesn't do it for me like he once did. Batman Inc not my thing and his first so many issues of Action were nice but then it got really wacky. It's all a matter of what works for someone. You buy what you like and you like what you buy (hopefully). It's just funny that some people like to tell others what is better based on what they like (I do it sometimes as I did with Hickman vs DC writers but that was more of a personal opinion rather than saying Hickman IS better I meant to say that TO ME he is better) but that was a general arguement that Marvel seems to be more plotted out for the long-haul than DC who can't even get their story straight on how many years Batman was Batman and how many Robins there were. Drop the ball much? On a top-notch brand like Batman DC should have had major points like that worked out before the revamp. If he's Batman how does he have 3 (or 4) different Robins? That's where better planning comes into place. Someone like Hickman would have thought that through. To me the difference between Marvel and DC is that most Marvel main titles are based on one voice. Hickman is generally the voice on Avengers main titles and Bendis is the voice of the main X-Men titles. If DC had done this with Morrison on the Superman titles and Snyder the Batman titles and Johns the Justice League titles they might have a better vision in place but to me having Morrison on Action and Batman Inc along with writers telling very different stories with Superman and Batman leaves it feeling like the characters suffer from multiple personalities. To me Marvel is putting up a more unified front with their brands even when they have different voices the characters are generally going in the same direction in all the books. The only thing I have a problem with right now is Wolverine being in Savage land like 3 different instances around the same time (with the kids in W&TXM, in Savage Wolverine and I guess in Avengers coming up). Also Captain America spending like a year in Dimension Z in his solo while also being in Avengers titles. I just have to think ok the solo cap and solo Savage Wolverine and W&TXM took place between the end of AvX and the beginning of the Marvel Now timeline. Do I wish both companies have things more nice and neat? Yeah but sometimes those clashing ideas can be good as well. Bendis's X-Men and Brian Wood's might not be the same thing, for example, but I know I will love both.