What are some good X-Men comics that have out this decade? Were there any?

[Triniking1234]

From 2009 -2019?

Probably Uncanny X-Men before Re:Genesis. Not sure how far back Messiah Complex, Second Coming and New Mutants Vol. 3 are for them to count.
There's also Wood's X-Men and Ultimate X-Men and Bunn's Uncanny and Blue.

Avoid Saladin Ahmed's Exiles. It's just the author covering up Javier Rodriguez's art with random crap talking. Laura shows up tho.

[Punch Dimension.]

I mean, if you reeeeeeeeally want me to go into it.

Three scenarios I can think of where I would've been fine and read it:

• each person seeing their own personal version of "Hell"/lock-up (concentration camp for Bishop, prison or mental asylum for Lorna, etc)
• it was a concentration camp setting
• in using THIS aesthetic it had Lorna as the main, while Bishop was main on another book

As it is, the aesthetic is very clearly taking from Gifted, then putting Bishop in the lead role while using Lorna as a supporting character. I would've just as easily understood a Bishop fan complaining if the situation were reversed, with it being a concentration camp setting very clearly modeled after what Bishop's been in, but with Lorna starring and Bishop supporting instead. I know I'm not the only person to pick up how its aesthetic took from Gifted. I'm just one of few willing to look at it in context of how Marvel's treated Lorna for most of her history, especially in the past few years.

But don't you think youre shooting yourself in the foot by constantly posting about wanting Marvel to push Polaris more then refusing to buy said Lorna stories for one arbitrary reason or another.

[Tycon]

wow the lack of taste. Exiles (2018) was supah good.

[salarta]

But don't you think youre shooting yourself in the foot by constantly posting about wanting Marvel to push Polaris more then refusing to buy said Lorna stories for one arbitrary reason or another.

It's only arbitrary in your opinion. In your view. It's not arbitrary in mine.

Of things published 2009 and after, I have bought (sometimes multiple copies) and read:

• Jeff Parker's Exiles volume 2
• Five Miles South of the Universe (X-Men Legacy #254-260)
• X-Men: Regenesis #1
• X-Factor #243 and #260
• Astonishing X-Men #62-65
• All-New X-Factor
• Savage Hulk #1-4
• Magneto volume 3 (started before Lorna was even set to appear)
• Secret Wars: House of M
• A bunch of Secret Wars stuff due to Lorna cameos (Inferno, M.O.D.O.K. Assassin, Star-Lord and Kitty Pryde)
• Deadpool & The Mercs For Money
• Phoenix Resurrection
• X-Men Blue #1 - 16, then apparently I checked out #23 and #29 too
• Mr. and Mrs. X #1, #6
• Uncanny X-Men #1, #4, and #5 (the event)

So what's changed? I don't know. Maybe me no longer believing in Marvel. Seeing the lies, hypocrisy, ego-based actions. Getting sick of excuses, and opportunities and moments denied or undermined. Marvel appearing to do something big for Lorna, then burying it, or excluding her from something more important she had a direct personal stake in (e.g. Axis), or throwing her into limbo for two years only to make her return into a Havok promotion fest.

I'm sick of the pattern, and after 10 years, I believe people at Marvel are more interested in trying to trick people into accepting that pattern than in changing it and doing and being better. And little stunts like forcing a Havok x Polaris image into Prisoner X, or a bait-and-switch cover that makes her look great only for the story inside to be Havok's intro issues where she's treated horribly, or having Lorna show up at the end of Uncanny just to ask where Havok is, only reaffirm how I see Marvel today. And why things you think are "arbritrary" mean much more to me.

[powerpax]

Let’s face it the X-Books have mostly churned the barrel for far too long recently. The characters have lurched from one direction to another since Bendis left with very little care taken. It is the editors’ job to protect IP so in theory they have been asleep at their post for a while, but this wasn’t the case back when Gillen was on the book.

The X-books have been flailing since Morrison quit. It's just been a matter of degrees ever since.

Decimation/House of M was always a horrible, reductive idea designed to make the books 'normal' again post-Morrison (even the main mini was bad, an early example of Bendis being utterly unsuited to major event crossovers) and was then used to keep them mired in nostalgia, spinning their wheels and finally in place for marginalization on behalf of corporate dictate - I say that as a big Avengers fan, not an Inhumans one. They have had a handful of decent, ultimately transitory books and runs since; Carey, Gillen, Remender, Aaron's fun on WATXM (IMO) but nothing that's left a lasting mark on the franchise's state of affairs. Messiah Complex, Hope, Utopia all went nowhere and meant nothing. Gillen's big ideas were always ultimately just an appetizer for AVX, which in turn (while I actually really enjoyed the event) put the X-Men back in their box at the end. Bendis' run came at the tail end of his Marvel tenure when he was clearly tired and bored; his inability to structure and play out large story had been well demonstrated during his Avengers run (a run I enjoyed but which was very flawed) and was worse here, with a lead balloon concept destined to go nowhere (O5), an inability to follow through on a 'X-Men as revolutionaries' concept, his well-known disinterest in character or continuity, and a rehash of several of his favorite pointless subplots, including the triple agent whose thread goes nowhere and does nothing but is in the books because Bendis likes the character (Dazzler, a.k.a. Spider-Woman when he did the exact same story in Avengers).

Anyway: Point is, for over 15 years everything in X-Men was at the mercy of editorial edict, massive crossovers and company policy status quo, more than perhaps ever before. At least in the '90s, when the books were often total dogshit, the X-books were still considered an A-franchise. Not so for the last decade-plus. That's only begun to change now.

[pandafarmer]

I'd say Red is appealing to those who didn't enjoy Blue or Gold at all. It features a bit more than the standard "action figure" team and having a book centered around Jean for the first time in ages that wasn't 100% phoenix based was refreshing. Was is one of the great runs of the era? No, and honestly you won't find anything past the Marvel Now runs that many people would consider CLASSIC.

[powerpax]

Put it this way: I like Tom Taylor's work, and I liked how he wrote Jean from what I saw, no mean feat for someone who has mostly hated St. Jean whenever she was alive since the '80s. I have no problem with Jean atm and part of that is how she was handled on Red. But even then I knew the book, its lineup, its scope meant nothing. At best it was going to be another Kieron Gillen holding run with great ideas and character spinning its wheels at the knee of editorial. It was just the best of a bad lot.

[spirit2011]

The X-books have been flailing since Morrison quit. It's just been a matter of degrees ever since.

Decimation/House of M was always a horrible, reductive idea designed to make the books 'normal' again post-Morrison (even the main mini was bad, an early example of Bendis being utterly unsuited to major event crossovers) and was then used to keep them mired in nostalgia, spinning their wheels and finally in place for marginalization on behalf of corporate dictate - I say that as a big Avengers fan, not an Inhumans one. They have had a handful of decent, ultimately transitory books and runs since; Carey, Gillen, Remender, Aaron's fun on WATXM (IMO) but nothing that's left a lasting mark on the franchise's state of affairs. Messiah Complex, Hope, Utopia all went nowhere and meant nothing. Gillen's big ideas were always ultimately just an appetizer for AVX, which in turn (while I actually really enjoyed the event) put the X-Men back in their box at the end. Bendis' run came at the tail end of his Marvel tenure when he was clearly tired and bored; his inability to structure and play out large story had been well demonstrated during his Avengers run (a run I enjoyed but which was very flawed) and was worse here, with a lead balloon concept destined to go nowhere (O5), an inability to follow through on a 'X-Men as revolutionaries' concept, his well-known disinterest in character or continuity, and a rehash of several of his favorite pointless subplots, including the triple agent whose thread goes nowhere and does nothing but is in the books because Bendis likes the character (Dazzler, a.k.a. Spider-Woman when he did the exact same story in Avengers).

Anyway: Point is, for over 15 years everything in X-Men was at the mercy of editorial edict, massive crossovers and company policy status quo, more than perhaps ever before. At least in the '90s, when the books were often total dogshit, the X-books were still considered an A-franchise. Not so for the last decade-plus. That's only begun to change now.

You really wrote down very well the problems of x-men franchise on the last 15 years. Bendis did a cool run but mostly of it is meaningless and it had a lot to do with editorial. The pay off of the run was uncanny #600 and marvel decided to bury it to do another 180º with another extiction event.
the teen O5 wasn't a good idea long term, Hope as character wasn't the best idea and it went nowhere after she fullfilled her messiah role.
Post Bendis was even worse that marvel decided to get smaller budget for x-books

[powerpax]

tbh I think Bendis' run would have stayed largely meaningless no matter what. I watched him at Marvel a long time, his routine and schtick got old. He was tired and he clearly had less curiosity and energy about the X-Men overall vs. other books he'd done, at least IMO. He has never been durable on team books or with big events; his initial Avengers revamp worked because he was thinking out of the box and the franchise desperately needed major change, but the month to month grind of plotting, etc. was never something he was great at. (To say nothing of many people's legitimate issues with Avengers Disassembled, which I enjoyed but which was not exactly a brilliantly plotted chess game) He was throwing stuff at the wall on X-Men even more than usual, as well as favoring his favorites, and writing everyone else in the stock ways he tends to write characters he doesn't care about with backstory and history he doesn't care about. Editorial let him do it because they never bothered to rein in Bendis much. It was his latter Avengers run but with 50% less personal investment.

Was the idea of dueling books with two factions of X-Men post-AVX a decent one? Sure. But Bendis, a man known for mimicking the work of David Mamet and using that surplus of dialogue to fill pages vs. build coherent story, was not the man to execute it. When you read his work (on big books, that is) in trade there's always at least a third of the overall story than you might have thought you were reading had you picked it up month to month.

[Zelena]

So what's changed? I don't know. Maybe me no longer believing in Marvel. Seeing the lies, hypocrisy, ego-based actions. Getting sick of excuses, and opportunities and moments denied or undermined. Marvel appearing to do something big for Lorna, then burying it, or excluding her from something more important she had a direct personal stake in (e.g. Axis), or throwing her into limbo for two years only to make her return into a Havok promotion fest.

I'm sick of the pattern, and after 10 years, I believe people at Marvel are more interested in trying to trick people into accepting that pattern than in changing it and doing and being better. And little stunts like forcing a Havok x Polaris image into Prisoner X, or a bait-and-switch cover that makes her look great only for the story inside to be Havok's intro issues where she's treated horribly, or having Lorna show up at the end of Uncanny just to ask where Havok is, only reaffirm how I see Marvel today. And why things you think are "arbritrary" mean much more to me.

I think I don't understand either… To make us believe in characters and their adventures, it's necessary to treat them like real persons, not plot devices. They should not be there just to be used in clever schemes, they are 'people', with hopes, feelings, heartbreaks. If not… why bothers? Claremont's strength is that he liked the characters he wrote (not all apparently, because he didn't give much background to Lorna…). Still there was enough love to like themÂ…

I liked Astonishing X-men (2017), the beginning. There were flaws but the drama, the emotions were there. Action, humour too. But what did they do of that? Nothing. The plot slowed and stopped.

I didn't read HoX but what I saw from the preview didn't convince me…

[spirit2011]

tbh I think Bendis' run would have stayed largely meaningless no matter what. I watched him at Marvel a long time, his routine and schtick got old. He was tired and he clearly had less curiosity and energy about the X-Men overall vs. other books he'd done, at least IMO. He has never been durable on team books or with big events; his initial Avengers revamp worked because he was thinking out of the box and the franchise desperately needed major change, but the month to month grind of plotting, etc. was never something he was great at. (To say nothing of many people's legitimate issues with Avengers Disassembled, which I enjoyed but which was not exactly a brilliantly plotted chess game) He was throwing stuff at the wall on X-Men even more than usual, as well as favoring his favorites, and writing everyone else in the stock ways he tends to write characters he doesn't care about with backstory and history he doesn't care about. Editorial let him do it because they never bothered to rein in Bendis much. It was his latter Avengers run but with 50% less personal investment.

Was the idea of dueling books with two factions of X-Men post-AVX a decent one? Sure. But Bendis, a man known for mimicking the work of David Mamet and using that surplus of dialogue to fill pages vs. build coherent story, was not the man to execute it. When you read his work (on big books, that is) in trade there's always at least a third of the overall story than you might have thought you were reading had you picked it up month to month.

Bendis seemed bored in the middle of his run. He is also the king of decompressed, so this combination makes the feeling of getting less stories. bendis got lost between two books

[pandafarmer]

Bendis seemed bored in the middle of his run. He is also the king of decompressed, so this combination makes the feeling of getting less stories. bendis got lost between two books

I would agree. I feel like midway through he lost focus and got derailed by "clever" side stories like "Last Will and Testament of Charles Xavier" and lost the point of what he started doing. I would say the first 8-12 issues of both of those books were REALLY entertaining though and remain in my favorite X-stories. Then everything afterward was just head scratching. I don't even know what the point of the inhumans stuff was.

[FUBAR007]

I am not trying to start an argument at all. I just don't see anyone actually explaining it and from my perspective its not great. At least there you make a case for it being modern. I will admit it started like that. It showed some early promise in that direction. I believe my only real comments in the relevant threads were defending the book. I didn't hate it, it just didn't stand out when all was said and done.

The love for X-Men Red stems from 1) affection for Jean's character and 2) the context of the X-franchise at the time.

Also, you've come across a divide within comics fans, and perhaps among fiction consumers in general: fans of characters vs. fans of concepts. For the former, it's all about sentimental investment in particular characters and empathizing with their feelings and experiences regardless of the quality of the storytelling craft. For the latter, it's all about ideas and presentation with the quality of the storytelling craft paramount, and it's more important that characters be novel and interesting than likable and sympathetic.

In terms of craft, X-Men Red was adequate to mediocre. But, it had heart, and Taylor's idealistic, empathetic take on Jean was a breath of fresh air after a decade-plus of grimdark nihilism.

[powerpax]

bendis got lost between two books

He almost always did that.

[powerpax]

In terms of craft, X-Men Red was adequate to mediocre. But, it had heart, and Taylor's idealistic, empathetic take on Jean was a breath of fresh air after a decade-plus of grimdark nihilism.

Agreed. Fandoms mean nothing to me, and I've hated live Jean for the better part of 30+ years so anything that gets me on sides with her is impressive to me. She's much more compelling this latest resurrection thus far.