Guest The Last Free Voice Report post Posted June 2, 2004 Okay, who has done the best job of writing the CORE X titles since 1990? I'd have to say Morrison. I mean, they had to change the TITLE of the book for pete's sake. His story's were awesome through and through. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Goodear Report post Posted June 2, 2004 Morrison's stuff was fun as long as you never stopped to think about was really going on and how much sense nothing was making in regards to the characters. Consider the whole Magneto as Xorn storyline and explain to me how Magneto managed to survive the attack of the Sentinels on Genosha but didn't stop the slaughter of his entire country. I know the guy doesn't like the X-Men, but you'd think he would be more interested in keeping his powerbase together. You'd also wonder why he would have a anti-Mutant cabal living on Asteroid M. Morrison's run is full of head scratchers like those that simply don't add up. Granted the nineties blew from a X-Men perspective, so he might end up winning by default. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbondrage99 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 Granted the nineties blew from a X-Men perspective, so he might end up winning by default. I wouldnt say that at all, if you look back at it X-Men or Uncanny X-Men were consistantly #1 on the diamond sales charts for most of the 90s. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steviekick 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 The early 90s weren't bad at all. XTinction Agenda is one of the few major multipart stories from that time that holds up. I'd give a little credit to Claremont up till the new X-Men launched, and even a little to Scott Lobdell, as his reign on the X wasn't that bad. Overall, the X books were kinda forgettable through the 90s. Very popular and a little entertaining, but now WOW moments that showed brilliant storytelling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krankor 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 I enjoyed both Grant Morrison and Chris Claremont. If anyone likes Chuck Austen I hope you are ripped apart by animals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
starvenger 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 I enjoyed both Grant Morrison and Chris Claremont. If anyone likes Chuck Austen I hope you are ripped apart by animals. Heh. Austen is competent enough, but certainly he's not been the greatest writer ever. He tends to be the guy who gets to do the editorial dirty work though, and with Whedon and Claremont following their own agendas, you can see why he's still writing an X-Book. Morrison's run is incredibly overrated. I think that the "E is for Extinction" arc was pretty good, but everything else was only ok, or horrid (the last two arcs, although I give the guy credit for trying to use a somewhat lame Byrne plotline from Avengers West Coast). When it comes down to it, he was really not a whole lot better than Austen, but since Morrison's is a fanboy's favourite, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Lobdell and Nicieza wrote some good stories, but suffered from having to work during the crossover/big event-wacky Harras era. That, combined with the fact that they wrote just about every Marvel title, gave us a decent, if unspectacular run on the title. Also, I'd say that Nicieza put a little bit more effort into his babies, New Warriors and X-Force. The best is still the end of Claremont's first run. Yes, the stories were getting staler, but they were still damn good stories. So my pick: Claremont. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Edwin MacPhisto 0 Report post Posted June 2, 2004 The thing that puts Morrison miles ahead of Austen is how he actually writes and the character dynamics he manages to create. When he did end up with something rushed (i.e. the entire Planet X arc), the fact that he's a marvelous writer of character and scene helped pare down the vaster problems of the arcs as a whole. You still get deliciously snarky stuff among Magneto's minions, for example. Austen flounders and really has no idea what he's doing, ever. For Morrison, the arcs might get silly, but the characters always stay true to how he's shaped them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krankor 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 The main problem I have with Austen is that his stories seem so random. It's like he has 100 ideas throws them into a hat and pulls out 2 or 3 and forms them together and thats his story. Usually after I get done reading his stories I'm angered/confused at how nothing useful happened and the fact that I just spent $3 on something that is poorly written. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bobobrazil1984 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 I liked Grant Morrison, as far as the 90s go. I know Mark Waid wrote a few issues around the AoA era which I liked also. Though we're only one issue in, something tells me Joss Whedon will be on this list within a few months Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
starvenger 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 When he did end up with something rushed (i.e. the entire Planet X arc), the fact that he's a marvelous writer of character and scene helped pare down the vaster problems of the arcs as a whole. You still get deliciously snarky stuff among Magneto's minions, for example. Austen flounders and really has no idea what he's doing, ever. For Morrison, the arcs might get silly, but the characters always stay true to how he's shaped them. Honestly? Whedon and Austen both do the snarky stuff quite well (check out their first reloaded issues), and Nicieza and Lobdell have done tongue-in-cheek humour just as well also. And if you're excusing Morrison's last two arcs, why not just excuse most of Austen and Joe Casey's runs then? The problem is that Morrison put a lot of stock in the shock value of Magneto being Xorn, and taking over the world, but didn't have anything beyond that. So what we then got is two arcs where nothing really happens, and the stuff that does is inane enough that the writers and editors are already undoing it. Basically, that one thing managed to turn me off of his entire run. That was his attempt at making his mark on the X-books, and quite simply, it didn't work. And I'm not saying that Austen is a great writer either. He's a decent journeyman, and he CAN write a good story, but - as hehateme2k2 pointed out - he seems to manage to fuck them up by juxtaposing good ideas with bad ones. For instance, he's the first person other than Peter David to make Havok interesting, but manages to involve him with a character more annoying and hated than Stacy X. He brings in Northstar, and then doesn't use him. He gives Nightcrawler the spotlight, and churns out The Draco. He adds Juggernaut to the team... actually he hasn't screwed that up yet, amazingly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 Morrison, no question. The 90s wasn't kind to the X-Titles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Ghost of bps21 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 I vote for Morrison...just becuase he writes New X-Men...which is the only X-Men I read. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 Morrison, by quite a large margin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pochorenella 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 My two favorite X-Men stories since the 90's have been "X-tinction Agenda" and "E is for Extinction" by Claremont and Morrison, respectively. But whereas I found Morrison's run to be quite enjoyable and quality consistent, I found Claremont's work rather spotty after "Agenda", including that horrible run when Cyclops was dead/missing and Cable was pat of the team. So I'll have to give the edge to Morrison. Lobdell and Kelly had some decent runs, IMO (barring that stupid mutant with the living intestines, I forgot his name). Still, if there's a SINGLE X-Men issue that always comes to mind as being extremely well-written, is the issue where Colossus sacrifices himself to stop the Legacy Virus. I'm not sure who wrote that but a terrific issue for sure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
starvenger 0 Report post Posted June 3, 2004 My two favorite X-Men stories since the 90's have been "X-tinction Agenda" and "E is for Extinction" by Claremont and Morrison, respectively. But whereas I found Morrison's run to be quite enjoyable and quality consistent, I found Claremont's work rather spotty after "Agenda", including that horrible run when Cyclops was dead/missing and Cable was pat of the team. So I'll have to give the edge to Morrison. Lobdell and Kelly had some decent runs, IMO (barring that stupid mutant with the living intestines, I forgot his name). Still, if there's a SINGLE X-Men issue that always comes to mind as being extremely well-written, is the issue where Colossus sacrifices himself to stop the Legacy Virus. I'm not sure who wrote that but a terrific issue for sure. Yeah, Claremont's second run was rather uninspired. The mutant you're thinking of is Maggot, who got killed off over in Weapon X. I don't think that any other character has been drawn as inconsistently as Maggot. But then again, I don't think that there's been an X-Man/New Mutant who's had a lamer power. At least Cypher could hack into computers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2004 Still, if there's a SINGLE X-Men issue that always comes to mind as being extremely well-written, is the issue where Colossus sacrifices himself to stop the Legacy Virus. I'm not sure who wrote that but a terrific issue for sure. He's still dead, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted June 15, 2004 Still, if there's a SINGLE X-Men issue that always comes to mind as being extremely well-written, is the issue where Colossus sacrifices himself to stop the Legacy Virus. I'm not sure who wrote that but a terrific issue for sure. He's still dead, right? For now. They are always talking about bringing him back. Shit like that is why nobody takes comics seriously. If a character is clearly dead, they shouldn't come back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Last Free Voice Report post Posted June 26, 2004 I don't think that there's been an X-Man/New Mutant who's had a lamer power El Guapo in X-Statix. He can TALK TO HIS SKATEBOARD. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Hmmm.......my X-Men knowledge has always been sketchy. I'm just now reading every comic involved in the "Age of Apocalypse" story arc and trying to sort through that. But I still don't know anything about who Mr. Sinister really is and his motivations, or the Executioners Song story arc, or Phoenix or any of that. Anyone here know of a good history webpage? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Man in Blak 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 Still, if there's a SINGLE X-Men issue that always comes to mind as being extremely well-written, is the issue where Colossus sacrifices himself to stop the Legacy Virus. You know, as great as that issue is, I actually think the issue that follows later, where Kitty Pryde retires from the X-Men because of his death, is just that much better. I think that one goes to Lobdell. As far as the writers go, it's Grant Morrison by a landslide, though Lobdell's quiet issues (like the one following X-Cutioner's Song where Jubilee rollerblades with Professor X) are up there with any other issue in the franchise. I absolutely adore Claremont's earlier material with the X-books, but the tail-end of his first run was fairly mediocre and his second run with the Neo is some of the worst stuff I've ever read. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
starvenger 0 Report post Posted July 12, 2004 As far as the writers go, it's Grant Morrison by a landslide, though Lobdell's quiet issues (like the one following X-Cutioner's Song where Jubilee rollerblades with Professor X) are up there with any other issue in the franchise. I absolutely adore Claremont's earlier material with the X-books, but the tail-end of his first run was fairly mediocre and his second run with the Neo is some of the worst stuff I've ever read. When Lobdell and Nicieza were on, they were ON. But writing every single Marvel book seemed to burn them out. Can't imagine why... As I've said before, early Morrison arcs were good, later ones not very good. Still, he's been the best post-Claremont, although after 2 issues Whedon's been doing pretty good (i.e. he hasn't gotten burnt out yet). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steviekick 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2004 I've always wondered why Mark Waid never wound up with a run on X-Men...he's been given a shot with pretty much every other title. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JasonX 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2004 Hmmm.......my X-Men knowledge has always been sketchy. I'm just now reading every comic involved in the "Age of Apocalypse" story arc and trying to sort through that. But I still don't know anything about who Mr. Sinister really is and his motivations, or the Executioners Song story arc, or Phoenix or any of that. Anyone here know of a good history webpage? Sinister is an evil Dr Mengella-type scientist who is obsessed with studying mutantkind. His obsession with Jean and Scott breeding comes from him needing a super-strong mutant to kill his former boss Apocalypse, who gave Sinister his powers only to get backstabbed in return. X-Cutioner's Song was supposed to be the arc that revealed who Cable and Stryfe were as well as being the first meeting between the X-Men and X-Force. Sadly editorial stopped Lobdell from getting the original ending (which had Stryfe revealed to be Cyclop's son) from being published. At the end of the arc Stryfe died but not before a container (which was said to contain a collection of Summers Family DNA from the future) was opened by Mr Sinister, unleashing a deadly plague upon mutantkind that was called the Legacy Virus... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JasonX 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2004 I've always wondered why Mark Waid never wound up with a run on X-Men...he's been given a shot with pretty much every other title. Waid actually did write the X-Men. He wrote X-Men #51-57 and two issues of X-Men Unlimited (XMU #10 and 11, which are UBER-RARE BTW) that are required reading since they have major league impact towards the events of the X-Books at the time and make for confusing reading if you read the core X-Books without having read them.... He ultimately quit the book do to editorial problems but not before being the one who came up with the notion of Onslaught being Professor X.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steviekick 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2004 I was not aware of that. Figures that Waid would wind up quitting do to interoffice politics. It seems he can't do anything without getting into an argument. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JasonX 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2004 BTW I'm utterly mortified that there is no Steve Seagle and Joe Kelly-love in this thread. They produced some extremely great X-Books durng their brief stint on the titles... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
starvenger 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2004 BTW I'm utterly mortified that there is no Steve Seagle and Joe Kelly-love in this thread. They produced some extremely great X-Books durng their brief stint on the titles... That's the problem - they were in and out before you could blink. Kelly wrote a great Deadpool though... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2004 I'm liking reading about the Behind the Scenes stuff. Reading about how every title had a revolving door of writers or just plain bad writers that made 90's Marvel fill up with so many confusing story arcs and such. I know for me X-Men always had the most confusing stories with Spider Man following close behind when the clone stuff got started. Did any other Marvel comics share the same fate as X-Men in sheer head scratching stories? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
starvenger 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2004 I'm liking reading about the Behind the Scenes stuff. Reading about how every title had a revolving door of writers or just plain bad writers that made 90's Marvel fill up with so many confusing story arcs and such. I know for me X-Men always had the most confusing stories with Spider Man following close behind when the clone stuff got started. Did any other Marvel comics share the same fate as X-Men in sheer head scratching stories? Look for the names "Mackie" or "Kavanaugh" and you'll find a book that's been FUBAR'ed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pochorenella 0 Report post Posted July 13, 2004 Look for the names "Mackie" or "Kavanaugh" and you'll find a book that's been FUBAR'ed Wasn't that Kavanaugh son of a bitch the one who messed up Iron Man with that young "Tony from the Past" crap? Fuck him, how dare he? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
