Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 109
  1. #76
    Mighty Member Hybrid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,535

    Default

    Not really "too big and complicated". Look at how many Spider-titles we have, or have many Avenger-adjacent titles. For that matter, notice how the '10s saw a push were it seemed like everyone became an Avenger at some point. X-Men wasn't too big and complicated, and if they felt that way genuinely, they were wrong.

  2. #77
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hybrid View Post
    Not really "too big and complicated". Look at how many Spider-titles we have, or have many Avenger-adjacent titles. For that matter, notice how the '10s saw a push were it seemed like everyone became an Avenger at some point. X-Men wasn't too big and complicated, and if they felt that way genuinely, they were wrong.
    They didn't feel that way genuinely at all. Believe me if they had the rights to X-Men then, they would be singing a different tune.

  3. #78
    Latverian ambassador Iron Maiden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Latverian Embassy
    Posts
    14,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BroHomo View Post
    I doubt Hickman even remembers Doom is around in the 616

    I've met Hickman several times at C2E2 in Chicago, just recently this past spring. In fact it was on the say it was announced he was going to do the current titles he's doing.

    He hasn't forgotten Doom. We talked a bit about Val and her Uncle Doom and he autographed my copy of the Secret Wars TPB. I did once get a sketch of Doom from him too but that was at another convention a couple of years ago.

    But I do doubt he'll use Doom in the X-Men stuff. Doom is going to be in his own title and he'll be tied up in that. But if he does I hope he remember the suggestion I gave him


  4. #79
    Sun of the Mourning Montressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    782

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain M View Post
    Depends on what kind of change you're talking about.

    X-Men will go back to their regular status quo soon enough
    I do wonder about this, if we'll ever see Sinister or Pocky as bad guys again with one of their insane plots, Charles back in his wheelchair, etc. Part of me says 'lol of COURSE we will' but these changes are pretty major.
    Read my free superhero webcomic, The Ill!

    http://theill.thecomicseries.com/comics/540/

  5. #80
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Montressor View Post
    I do wonder about this, if we'll ever see Sinister or Pocky as bad guys again with one of their insane plots, Charles back in his wheelchair, etc. Part of me says 'lol of COURSE we will' but these changes are pretty major.
    I like the more complicated Apocalypse we've recently had. Even in Age of X-Man, he came off as being much morre than just the Big Bad he always was before.

    I mean, the guy was gone for almost a decade, since I got into comics, and so it's been interesting to see him in action. That being said, I think he and Sinister are two bad guys here, especially Sinister, who Hickman has made very, very clear can't be trusted. If Hickman writes Magneto as trusting one Sinister just because it has the X-gene, then that isn't meant to be a good thing.

    The X-Men books are complicated. It isn't the number of them so much as it is just how complicated they were. So, yes, I do believe that not having the film rights had a lot to do with it, but was it really a bad thing for Marvel to not center their world around them?

    Marvel comics is stronger because of the focus on other books.

  6. #81
    Extraordinary Member Mike_Murdock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    7,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Claremont, Hickman and others have all said numerous times that X-Men have been handicapped by Marvel to stick-it-to-Fox.
    My recollection is that Hickman said it about the Fantastic Four, not the X-Men but, either way, neither of them is privy to Marvel's top-level editorial decisions - especially Claremont. He's commenting as an observer same as us.
    Matt Murdock's cooler twin brother

    I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
    Thomas More - A Man for All Seasons

    Interested in reading Daredevil? Not sure what to read next? Why not check out the Daredevil Book Club for some ideas?

  7. #82
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike_Murdock View Post
    My recollection is that Hickman said it about the Fantastic Four, not the X-Men
    He said when promoting Hox/Pox that he wanted to restore the X-Men to its prominent place, and as per HOX#2, the entire period since House of M is called "the lost decade".

    And in any case, what's true for the goose is true for the gander. If Marvel stiffed Fantastic Four then it stands to reason they did the same to X-Men.

    ...but, either way, neither of them is privy to Marvel's top-level editorial decisions - especially Claremont.
    By that logic, the words and actions of editorial (and actually financial/marketing) can never be challenged because "we aren't privy". And most people there also sign NDA which prevents them from talking honestly about stuff like this. Just because we aren't privy doesn't mean that the public actions can't be scrutinized and highlighted.

    The fact is Marvel undermined the X-Men since House of M. It was done for the sole purpose of downplaying the X-Men in favor of properties whose licenses they hadn't sold. That's the plain basic truth of it. Does that mean X-Men comics weren't published? Of course not. Yes we had X-Men comics and the title didn't get cancelled outright and Wolverine showed up everywhere. Like he always does. Some of the X-Men comics published in that time were also good (Aaron's Wolverine and the X-Men, Cullen Bunn's Magneto, Tom Taylor's X-Men Red). But the fact is that it just wasn't the same...and it was the second lowest point for the title (lowest being the time they got cancelled and went into reprints just before Len Wein's Giant Size X-Men).
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 09-24-2019 at 04:24 AM.

  8. #83
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosebunse View Post
    The X-Men books are complicated. It isn't the number of them so much as it is just how complicated they were.
    The fact is the X-Men were popular and sold well. So the complicated nature wasn't a barrier of entry. And every other title is equally complicated.

    So, yes, I do believe that not having the film rights had a lot to do with it, but was it really a bad thing for Marvel to not center their world around them?
    Yes.

    Marvel comics is stronger because of the focus on other books.
    No it isn't. You could have focused on other titles with the X-Men. The X-Men broke big in the 80s a decade which had Michelinie on Iron Man, Miller on Daredevil, Simonson on Thor, Byrne (former artist-co-plotter on X-Men) on FF. X-Men being prominent has never meant other titles suffered.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 09-24-2019 at 04:22 AM.

  9. #84
    Incredible Member Force de Phenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosebunse View Post
    [...] was it really a bad thing for Marvel to not center their world around them?

    Marvel comics is stronger because of the focus on other books.
    There's no denying it. People are complaining about Marvel wanting to give time to characters who aren't X-Men because that benefits them how?

  10. #85
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Force de Phenix View Post
    There's no denying it. People are complaining about Marvel wanting to give time to characters who aren't X-Men because that benefits them how?
    Again the issue is time is being given to them at the expense of X-Men. Go back to the '80s, the era of Jim Shooter and you will find that the golden years of Claremont co-existed with the best Avengers run of all time (Roger Stern), with the second best FF run (Byrne's FF), best Daredevil (Miller), best Thor (Simonson) and as good as Iron Man is likely to get (Michelinie's Iron Man). So there's no excuse for this kind of thing. Let's not forget too that Carol Danvers owes tremendously to Chris Claremont and his run on X-Men for making her into a prominent character, especially after the mess of Avengers #200 (Carol telling the Avengers to get bent and choosing to stay in X-Men is a pretty telling moral statement as it is).

    You could give spotlight to Guardians of the Galaxy and others without undermining the X-Men. The defining run of Black Panther (Priest's) happened in the late 90s when X-Men were still top. And Christopher Priest has declared himself to be a huge admirer of Claremont and cited his take on X-Men as an inspiration for trying to make Black Panther work as an ongoing.

    So that stuff could have happened without throwing a chair at the back of the head of the X-Men.

    All we have is the Avengers getting to be the biggest team in the Marvel and they didn't do it by earning it, and not by good stories (CIVIL WAR being a pretty bad story). but by cheating and editorial putting the thumbs on the scales. Which they did again with the Inhumans, and we again got pretty sub-par and boring stories out of that.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 09-24-2019 at 04:36 AM.

  11. #86
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,072

    Default

    But how were the Avengers supposed to "earn it"?

  12. #87
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosebunse View Post
    But how were the Avengers supposed to "earn it"?
    Having actually good and interesting stories that are actually respected by everyone. The last time the Avengers had that was Hickman's run and even then, that was the Illuminati Story and mainly a Fantastic Four story since it was about Reed Richards, T'Challa, Namor (characters prominently associated with the FF).

    CIVIL WAR isn't a good story, it committed sundry character assassinations, had ham-handed metaphors and most of the stuff there had to be ignored or downplayed, in Tony's case in particular.

  13. #88
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,645

    Default

    Civil War was not an Avengers only story and frankly, any X-Men fan should be grateful they weren't involved in it. And it wasn't just Civil War that shot the Avengers to prominence. Interest in the franchise had grown thanks to Millar's take on them in Ultimates as well as Bendis' run. Both of them were critically acclaimed. Civil War (and I don't say this to defend the story's quality) also sold well. There was no cheating involved. Marvel saw there was an audience for the Avengers and proceeded to cater to them.

  14. #89
    Incredible Member Force de Phenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Again the issue is time is being given to them at the expense of X-Men. Go back to the '80s, the era of Jim Shooter and you will find that the golden years of Claremont co-existed with the best Avengers run of all time (Roger Stern), with the second best FF run (Byrne's FF), best Daredevil (Miller), best Thor (Simonson) and as good as Iron Man is likely to get (Michelinie's Iron Man). So there's no excuse for this kind of thing. Let's not forget too that Carol Danvers owes tremendously to Chris Claremont and his run on X-Men for making her into a prominent character, especially after the mess of Avengers #200 (Carol telling the Avengers to get bent and choosing to stay in X-Men is a pretty telling moral statement as it is).

    You could give spotlight to Guardians of the Galaxy and others without undermining the X-Men. The defining run of Black Panther (Priest's) happened in the late 90s when X-Men were still top. And Christopher Priest has declared himself to be a huge admirer of Claremont and cited his take on X-Men as an inspiration for trying to make Black Panther work as an ongoing.

    So that stuff could have happened without throwing a chair at the back of the head of the X-Men.

    All we have is the Avengers getting to be the biggest team in the Marvel and they didn't do it by earning it, and not by good stories (CIVIL WAR being a pretty bad story). but by cheating and editorial putting the thumbs on the scales. Which they did again with the Inhumans, and we again got pretty sub-par and boring stories out of that.
    Marvel had just dodged becoming bankrupt. They had to focus on the company as a whole. It wasn't the 80's anymore.

    The X-Men never suffered because of more Avengers titles.You can see it as undermining one team (eventhough they were everywhere), or expanding the Marvel Universe.

  15. #90
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    242

    Default

    Frankly from how I see people act it keeps looking like X-Men fans just don't the idea of other Marvel properties being as prominent and relevant and would rather everyone else stay D-listers.
    At least that's the impression people keep giving me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •