I miss Mark Guggenheim and Cullen Bunn.

[zvrk]

Now is the time for change and I'm excited X-Men are talked about again and are handled with care. They are finally climbing out of the gutter post AvX.

[Killerbee911]

Yes, the books are allowed to be relevant again. ResurrXion had good stories but Marvel wasn't telling everyone in videos that those stories were as important as Claremont and Morrison.

Stories Like?

Now I don't expect you to go through all those links but they are list of variety listing their best X-men stories, You know who is on the list Morrison and Hickman, You know who isn't on the list pretty much stories from the era I was talking about. Marvel didn't put a gun to these people head and make do a list.

https://www.gamesradar.com/best-x-men-stories/
https://www.polygon.com/comics/2019/...stories-marvel
http://www.comicsbackissues.com/best...s-of-all-time/
https://www.cbr.com/xmen-best-comic-...s-ever-ranked/
https://screenrant.com/xmen-comics-best-ever-marvel/

Yeah it overharsh to call bunch of era bad they might some good stuff in it, but internet arguments tend to have hyperbole in it. But those eras had no series/franchise defining stories and ton of stuff which can be called not good this had nothing to do with "The Complex". Marvel not pushing the overall line meant supplemental books being horrible, low effort or canceled quickly has nothing to do with flagship books and events not being very good. Marvel not pushing the X-men didn't make Apocalypse War a bad story. Marvel not pushing the X-men didn't make Bendis crossover event or his Matthew Malloy story average. Heck Marvel pushing X-men now did make X of Swords any less mediocre.

[Adam-X]

but Gold was BAD... like worse than Chuck Austen.

Those are bold words. Because to me there's been nothing more damaging that Chuck Austen. Morrison comes in close. But Chuck Austen to me wrecked the X-Men books.

Where as Gold, sure it called back to the 80s/90s era of the X-Men; but that is admittedly the peak of the X-Men. This is when the X-Men had VHS tapes that you could get from Pizza Hut. They had a successful cartoon that ran for five seasons on FOX.

The X-Men broke out beyond just the "comic book" spectrum of the medium.

Yes, we have "X-Men movies" now - but those are horribly done.

I myself do really enjoy Hickman's writing on the main X-Men title and the event issues. I mean yeah, I wish he would involve more characters in a consistent fashion, but I love the world he's creating. It's new and exciting. It would be a disservice to keep everything so static, especially with how much the world has changed in the last twenty years.

Yes, the world has changed - and comics change with them.

I've been re-reading Avengers since Avengers #1 (back in the 60's) - currently on about issue #90 - and you can see how the characters have progressed and moved with the times. And as an avid Avengers and X-Men fan (these were the books that got me into comics in the mid 70s) - I know the path these books take. But what I can say is - the world changed, the characters evolved - but the core concepts of these characters were still the same. Captain America is still the "good ol' American boy", Iron Man is still a playboy, Thor is still honorable warrior, etc. etc.

I, speaking for myself, feel like many of these characters in Hickman's "era" feel like card board cut outs. Yes, there's characters that have relationships with one another - and I love the same sex relationships are being represented. But no one sticks out anymore. Wolverine - well, he's still Wolverine. But Nightcrawler compared to Northstar? No difference. They both feel the same. And they shouldn't. Nightcrawler was the wise, religious and sometimes flirtatious one. Northstar was arrogant. And often times, quite rude. Looked down at everyone as if they were inferior to him. I don't see any differences in their personality anymore. You could almost swap characters and it not matter who is speaking the lines anymore.

[Adam-X]

Okay we have found the one person who likes Guggenheim, Maybe in this thread the person who likes Ink will also show up.

I mean, I like Adam-X (obviously) - does that count?

[Kitty&Piotr<3]

Stories Like?

Now I don't expect you to go through all those links but they are list of variety listing their best X-men stories, You know who is on the list Morrison and Hickman, You know who isn't on the list pretty much stories from the era I was talking about. Marvel didn't put a gun to these people head and make do a list.

https://www.gamesradar.com/best-x-men-stories/
https://www.polygon.com/comics/2019/...stories-marvel
http://www.comicsbackissues.com/best...s-of-all-time/
https://www.cbr.com/xmen-best-comic-...s-ever-ranked/
https://screenrant.com/xmen-comics-best-ever-marvel/

Yeah it overharsh to call bunch of era bad they might some good stuff in it, but internet arguments tend to have hyperbole in it. But those eras had no series/franchise defining stories and ton of stuff which can be called not good this had nothing to do with "The Complex". Marvel not pushing the overall line meant supplemental books being horrible, low effort or canceled quickly has nothing to do with flagship books and events not being very good. Marvel not pushing the X-men didn't make Apocalypse War a bad story. Marvel not pushing the X-men didn't make Bendis crossover event or his Matthew Malloy story average. Heck Marvel pushing X-men now did make X of Swords any less mediocre.

No one was allowed to swing for the fences before Hickman. I guess it's arguable that Marvel was somewhat supportive of Bendis early on but supposedly he started to see interference as well.

Hickman isnt the only person in the writing world with ideas or interest in doing big new things with X-Men. Marvel simply wasn't soliciting anyone to go big with X-Men until after Disney got into serious talks about a deal that included X-Men movie rights.

[superjosh]

Those are bold words. Because to me there's been nothing more damaging that Chuck Austen. Morrison comes in close.

Sorry you already lost me lol

[Purplevit]

I miss Cullen Bunn.

[superjosh]

Those are bold words. Because to me there's been nothing more damaging that Chuck Austen. Morrison comes in close. But Chuck Austen to me wrecked the X-Men books.

Where as Gold, sure it called back to the 80s/90s era of the X-Men; but that is admittedly the peak of the X-Men. This is when the X-Men had VHS tapes that you could get from Pizza Hut. They had a successful cartoon that ran for five seasons on FOX.

The X-Men broke out beyond just the "comic book" spectrum of the medium.

Yes, we have "X-Men movies" now - but those are horribly done.



Yes, the world has changed - and comics change with them.

I've been re-reading Avengers since Avengers #1 (back in the 60's) - currently on about issue #90 - and you can see how the characters have progressed and moved with the times. And as an avid Avengers and X-Men fan (these were the books that got me into comics in the mid 70s) - I know the path these books take. But what I can say is - the world changed, the characters evolved - but the core concepts of these characters were still the same. Captain America is still the "good ol' American boy", Iron Man is still a playboy, Thor is still honorable warrior, etc. etc.

I, speaking for myself, feel like many of these characters in Hickman's "era" feel like card board cut outs. Yes, there's characters that have relationships with one another - and I love the same sex relationships are being represented. But no one sticks out anymore. Wolverine - well, he's still Wolverine. But Nightcrawler compared to Northstar? No difference. They both feel the same. And they shouldn't. Nightcrawler was the wise, religious and sometimes flirtatious one. Northstar was arrogant. And often times, quite rude. Looked down at everyone as if they were inferior to him. I don't see any differences in their personality anymore. You could almost swap characters and it not matter who is speaking the lines anymore.

Sorry I was being a little flippant with my previous response! I owe you some discourse since you took the time to write out your thoughts!

I admit I was exaggerating regarding Chuck Austen. He really did have the worst run in X-Men history. But Morrison... this debate is old so just to put it as succinctly as possible... I didn’t love everything about his run, but I cannot deny the POSITIVE, LASTING impact he had on the X-universe. What he did set the course for which they are still on to this day. Even Emma alone... coming in like a meteor to wreak havoc on the status quo is an example of his contribution (I know he didn’t create her). Plus opening up the whole damn school was big.

But as for characterization... we’re just not going to agree there. Yeah some characters might not be getting a ton of development and seeming a bit cardboard (as you say), but that comes with the scope of this story and I’m ok with that. I don’t think characters have been interchangeable for the most part, but concede that some writers are awful at writing in a character’s voice. Hickman is not one of those, but Howard and Williams are very much so. Duggan a bit too.

I love the concept of Krakoa. Do I want that for the X-Men forever? No, probably not. But I don’t want to rip apart my comics (albeit digital...) and burn some sage like I did whenever I read an issue of X-Men Gold.

[Killerbee911]

No one was allowed to swing for the fences before Hickman. I guess it's arguable that Marvel was somewhat supportive of Bendis early on but supposedly he started to see interference as well.

Hickman isnt the only person in the writing world with ideas or interest in doing big new things with X-Men. Marvel simply wasn't soliciting anyone to go big with X-Men until after Disney got into serious talks about a deal that included X-Men movie rights.

I can go further back but I will do it from 2009

Utopia
Necrosha
Second Coming
Curse of the Mutants
Age of X
Dark Angel Saga
Schism
Battle of Atom
Apocalypse Wars
Mojo World Wide
Inhumans vs X-men

I guess the X-men editors and Marvel Management are diabolical geniuses how they force every writer except for Rick Remender to do big stories that were awful or had mediocre endings. I am done nobody can deny Marvel minimized the impact of the X-men line with certain moves. But it is nobody fault but the writers for executing stories that are not very good. The X-men weren't relevant well every one can see why the X-men was not relevant.

[rhaenylis]

I understand the hatred for Austen's run but I can't help but appreciate his X-Men just for the way he's given Lorna the attention she deserved for decades

[Killerbee911]

So just out of curiosity what is the best Mark Guggenheim X-men story arc and what is the best Cullen Bunn arc?

[zvrk]

I understand the hatred for Austen's run but I can't help but appreciate his X-Men just for the way he's given Lorna the attention she deserved for decades

Me too. Her wedding was wedding of the decade.

[sunofdarkchild]

So just out of curiosity what is the best Mark Guggenheim X-men story arc and what is the best Cullen Bunn arc?

X-Men Gold 25 was Guggenheim's best story by quite a wide margin, the issue where they fought the god Scythian. It wasn't even that good. It's just that a basic level of competence in writing was shocking given how terrible Guggenheim's previous 24 issues were and how bad the rest of his run would be, as was the fact that characters other than Kitty were treated with some level of respect. It's the law of averages. You let a bad writer write enough issues and eventually there will be one issue that isn't total crap., even if it's by complete accident.

[jwatson]

I'd rather bendis and Austin before Bunn and Guggenheim. Guggenheim was the worse. He offered nothing imo. If I want to read stories from 30 years ago I'll go buy them. And prestige, wtf kind of nickname is that. And Kurt and Rachel? I almost threw up in my mouth.

Bunn easily the best writer of the four but who takes on xmen in 20 whatever and literally every character is white until blood storm showed up. Then the story wasn't relevant it never made sense to me past versions of the o5 are trying to stop their own future future selfs.

Austin I just loved his run. Lorna was the breakout for me and I just enjoyed it. It was a more aggressive version of the xmen and I think people didn't like that.

Bendis I don't know I just feel he of anybody never got to tell the story he was writing. And he gave me traige who no cares about but me it seems.

Oh and I like ink, well the potential but how he was written was garbage.

[nandes]

Yes, the world has changed - and comics change with them.

I've been re-reading Avengers since Avengers #1 (back in the 60's) - currently on about issue #90 - and you can see how the characters have progressed and moved with the times. And as an avid Avengers and X-Men fan (these were the books that got me into comics in the mid 70s) - I know the path these books take. But what I can say is - the world changed, the characters evolved - but the core concepts of these characters were still the same. Captain America is still the "good ol' American boy", Iron Man is still a playboy, Thor is still honorable warrior, etc. etc.

I, speaking for myself, feel like many of these characters in Hickman's "era" feel like card board cut outs. Yes, there's characters that have relationships with one another - and I love the same sex relationships are being represented. But no one sticks out anymore. Wolverine - well, he's still Wolverine. But Nightcrawler compared to Northstar? No difference. They both feel the same. And they shouldn't. Nightcrawler was the wise, religious and sometimes flirtatious one. Northstar was arrogant. And often times, quite rude. Looked down at everyone as if they were inferior to him. I don't see any differences in their personality anymore. You could almost swap characters and it not matter who is speaking the lines anymore.

When has Hickman written Northstar? And why would even say they are interchangeable taking in how Hickman has writen Kurt in this era? Would Northstar give a beautiful speech to Logan before their deaths? Would Northstar be in the same position that Kurt was in X-Men 7, trying to reconcile his faith with the new Krakoan culture? How are these characters even remotely similar?