|
|
Post by coke & comics on Nov 27, 2014 0:53:18 GMT -5
Claremont's departure is the clear turning point. For the next decade it is rarely good and never great.
Fatal Attractions had a couple good bits but on the whole terrible execution. Nicieza had the odd decent issue. Lobdell wrote 100 issues. No more than 2 were worth reading. Joe Kelly was a bright spot. Age of Apocalypse was a cool concept, but on the whole a mess with art and writing ranging from terrible to good.
There is literally nothing to recommend those years until Morrison takes over. And I found Morrison's run pretty worthless.
|
|
fuzzyblueelf
Full Member
People of Color doesn't mean Red Plastic
Posts: 124 
|
Post by fuzzyblueelf on Nov 27, 2014 3:44:09 GMT -5
The only incarnation of the O5 I enjoyed was the First Class series.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 27, 2014 4:41:54 GMT -5
I think I'm fortunate as a reader that my very first extended exposure to the X-Men comic was The Dark Phoenix Saga trade. (It was probably the first or second printing. I THINK I first read it in 1989.) The same thing happened with Iron Man (Demon in a Bottle) so I found myself at 11 or 12 having my tastes shaped by things that were happening in the Marvel Universe around the time I was born in the late 70's. I bring it up because most readers form a bias for the new comics they were discovering when they were getting seriously into comics, and while I liked a many of them (PAD's Hulk being the classic run I grew up with contemporaneously.) I always identified with Claremont/Byrne X-Men, Byrne FF, Walt's Thor, etc., as the gold standard. (It helped that the late 80's saw Marvel start to get somewhat serious about collecting their classic material.)
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Nov 27, 2014 9:19:32 GMT -5
but I've always felt that other offices, like the Batman office, did a much better job at providing different books with out making you feel like you were forced to read them. Even events like Knight Fall were much more manageable with their tie ins, as they merely added to the story rather than integral parts. That's where you lost me. I could see your point with the rest, but for years on end prior to the Crisis, a story would regularly start in Batman and continue in Detective Comics. One of my favorite stories from that era, the one with The Monk, was particularly frustrating to follow because it would be in two issues of Batman back to back, then cross over into Detective, then back to Batman, etc. Then you had the opposite problem Post Crisis in which Batman and Detective were two entirely separate entities, even portraying a Jason Todd at two completely different ages in the two books, and handling characterization completely differently while building two different internal continuities. I think the X-titles hit a happier middle road than those two extremes. Post crisis, specifically the 90's is what I'm talking about in regards to Batman. If you were just reading Robin for instance, it gave you enough information to know that a character named Bane broke Batman and that a guy named John Paul Valley was now Batman but other than that the title was more or less its own thing with even the tie ins feeling like a Robin story and not just chapter 9 of Knightfall. And though Batman and Detective often crossed over it was just two books, but when you start needing to get two or three extra books to get your story it starts to feel like a burden. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 27, 2014 11:23:41 GMT -5
That's where you lost me. I could see your point with the rest, but for years on end prior to the Crisis, a story would regularly start in Batman and continue in Detective Comics. One of my favorite stories from that era, the one with The Monk, was particularly frustrating to follow because it would be in two issues of Batman back to back, then cross over into Detective, then back to Batman, etc. Then you had the opposite problem Post Crisis in which Batman and Detective were two entirely separate entities, even portraying a Jason Todd at two completely different ages in the two books, and handling characterization completely differently while building two different internal continuities. I think the X-titles hit a happier middle road than those two extremes. Post crisis, specifically the 90's is what I'm talking about in regards to Batman. If you were just reading Robin for instance, it gave you enough information to know that a character named Bane broke Batman and that a guy named John Paul Valley was now Batman but other than that the title was more or less its own thing with even the tie ins feeling like a Robin story and not just chapter 9 of Knightfall. And though Batman and Detective often crossed over it was just two books, but when you start needing to get two or three extra books to get your story it starts to feel like a burden. Ah, that does make sense. But I've read the New Mutants straight through, and I'm currently reading X-Factor straight through, and neither has really compelled me to pick up a book that intersects with those stories unless it's a major mutant X-over. Each time, the narration has caught me up on what I didn't read without me feeling like I missed out on much. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 11:24:37 GMT -5
for me, it all went horribly wrong around the time Byrne left and Cockrum came back - around #145 or thereabouts. There were peaks and troughs but it was definitely on a downwards trend from there, and by the time Paul Smith left in the 170s or so, it had run out of steam: crap like turning Kitty Pryde into a ninja were pretty sure signs.
FWIW, I like a lot of the more recent X-stuff, and find the Bendis books and the first run of Wolverine & X-Men to be pretty refreshing. It all seems to be grinding to a halt at the moment as the Mighty Marvel oil tanker is steered in the direction of the Secret Wars cross-over next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Nov 27, 2014 11:28:18 GMT -5
Post crisis, specifically the 90's is what I'm talking about in regards to Batman. If you were just reading Robin for instance, it gave you enough information to know that a character named Bane broke Batman and that a guy named John Paul Valley was now Batman but other than that the title was more or less its own thing with even the tie ins feeling like a Robin story and not just chapter 9 of Knightfall. And though Batman and Detective often crossed over it was just two books, but when you start needing to get two or three extra books to get your story it starts to feel like a burden. Ah, that does make sense. But I've read the New Mutants straight through, and I'm currently reading X-Factor straight through, and neither has really compelled me to pick up a book that intersects with those stories unless it's a major mutant X-over. Each time, the narration has caught me up on what I didn't read without me feeling like I missed out on much. I think of New Mutants as an '80s X-Book. It enters the '90s with X-Force. Try to read X-Force from beginning to end and see if it just makes sense without the crossovers. Also, see if it makes sense with the crossovers. |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Nov 27, 2014 11:30:35 GMT -5
for me, it all went horribly wrong around the time Byrne left and Cockrum came back - around #145 or thereabouts. There were peaks and troughs but it was definitely on a downwards trend from there, and by the time Paul Smith left in the 170s or so, it had run out of steam: crap like turning Kitty Pryde into a ninja were pretty sure signs. FWIW, I like a lot of the more recent X-stuff, and find the Bendis books and the first run of Wolverine & X-Men to be pretty refreshing. It all seems to be grinding to a halt at the moment as the Mighty Marvel oil tanker is steered in the direction of the Secret Wars cross-over next year. In something so long-running, it may never jump the shark per se, because it can always be revitalized. I think the decade of X-Men from after Claremont left until Morrison started is mostly a wasteland. But the last decade, which I've only read in snatches seems to have plenty to recommend it. Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-Men and Jeff Parker's X-Men First Class are highlights in my mind, but I believe there are plenty of others that I just haven't read. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 27, 2014 11:32:15 GMT -5
Ah, that does make sense. But I've read the New Mutants straight through, and I'm currently reading X-Factor straight through, and neither has really compelled me to pick up a book that intersects with those stories unless it's a major mutant X-over. Each time, the narration has caught me up on what I didn't read without me feeling like I missed out on much. I think of New Mutants as an '80s X-Book. It enters the '90s with X-Force. Try to read X-Force from beginning to end and see if it just makes sense without the crossovers. Also, see if it makes sense with the crossovers. Oh, you'll get no argument from me there. But thwhtguardian and I were specifically discussing when the X-Men title first branched off into spin-off books in the mid-1980s. |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Nov 27, 2014 11:42:35 GMT -5
I think of New Mutants as an '80s X-Book. It enters the '90s with X-Force. Try to read X-Force from beginning to end and see if it just makes sense without the crossovers. Also, see if it makes sense with the crossovers. Oh, you'll get no argument from me there. But thwhtguardian and I were specifically discussing when the X-Men title first branched off into spin-off books in the mid-1980s. In which case, I agree with you. There are infrequent crossovers, but they are mostly readable on their own. Mutant Massacre is a light crossover in that sense. Fall of the Mutants is more of a thematic crossover. Each title can be read separately. Inferno is the first story that makes a mess out of the crossover, and I think the beginning of bad things (possibly a contender for the jump-the-shark moment) but even then mostly in the other titles people are just fighting demons. You can read your comic if you accepted demons have invaded. X-Tinction Agenda is the first one that really I think requires you to read everything and even then won't be any good. And then the Muir Island Saga, but that arc, being the final arc with the original X-Factor, is basically the edge of the two eras which I'll call the "good era" and the "bad era". (I don't mean to imply I don't love Peter David's X-Factor. I do. It's just in general a poor era for the X-books). |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Nov 27, 2014 11:59:09 GMT -5
for me, it all went horribly wrong around the time Byrne left and Cockrum came back - around #145 or thereabouts. There were peaks and troughs but it was definitely on a downwards trend from there, and by the time Paul Smith left in the 170s or so, it had run out of steam: crap like turning Kitty Pryde into a ninja were pretty sure signs. FWIW, I like a lot of the more recent X-stuff, and find the Bendis books and the first run of Wolverine & X-Men to be pretty refreshing. It all seems to be grinding to a halt at the moment as the Mighty Marvel oil tanker is steered in the direction of the Secret Wars cross-over next year. In something so long-running, it may never jump the shark per se, because it can always be revitalized. I think the decade of X-Men from after Claremont left until Morrison started is mostly a wasteland. But the last decade, which I've only read in snatches seems to have plenty to recommend it. Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-Men and Jeff Parker's X-Men First Class are highlights in my mind, but I believe there are plenty of others that I just haven't read. I really enjoyed First Class and Astonishing X-Men, so even after jumping the shark there are still good stories to be had. |
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Nov 27, 2014 12:01:09 GMT -5
Morrison killed the franchise for me. Things like the death of Jean Grey and Scott/Emma crap are the reason the X-universe is in the state it is now.
|
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Nov 27, 2014 12:28:49 GMT -5
Morrison killed the franchise for me. Things like the death of Jean Grey and Scott/Emma crap are the reason the X-universe is in the state it is now. While I'm no fan of Morrison's X-Men, I find it hard to argue it's worse than previous 12 years of stories. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 12:38:07 GMT -5
Morrison killed the franchise for me. Things like the death of Jean Grey and Scott/Emma crap are the reason the X-universe is in the state it is now. While I'm no fan of Morrison's X-Men, I find it hard to argue it's worse than previous 12 years of stories. But that damn art. UGH. |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Nov 27, 2014 12:52:35 GMT -5
While I'm no fan of Morrison's X-Men, I find it hard to argue it's worse than previous 12 years of stories. But that damn art. UGH. Same comment applies to the art as well. |
|
