How does the Hickman run compare?

[nose norton]

It's been long enough for people to read, re-read the entire run. How favorable is the general opinion?

I'm picking just two runs to compare it with with, to keep it simple. I you prefer another, check "other" or comment on you preferred choice. Or both.

[kcekada]

I know Byrne gets more credit for X-Men than Cockrum -- largely because of his long run on the title, but I think the original run should be referred to as Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne or Claremont/Byrne/Cockrum -- since so many of Cockrum's concepts were instrumental to that run.

[yogaflame]

Ultimately, no one will compare to Claremont's run. It is untouchable. And while Byrne helped a lot, so did Cockrum, and the many other talented artists over the course of the run, so it's weird to add his name, but not add artists to Morrison's or Hickman's.

For me it's Claremont>>>>>>>>>>>Morrison>Hickman. If Hickman had completed his run as he originally intended, its possible he could have overtaken Morrison, but, he didn't. His highs may be higher than Morrison, but he was wildly uneven, whereas Morrison's was pretty solid all the way through. It's obvious all three of them had problems with Marvel to one extent or another, especially towards the ends of their runs. I don't think any of them ended all that well, to be frank. But ultimately there wouldn't be an X-Men to speak of without Claremont's epic run back in the day, and as clever as both Morrison and Hickman can be, their X-runs wouldn't have a leg to stand on without building on Claremont's foundations, so it's not even close. I applaud both Morrison and Hickman for bringing interesting angles to the franchise, but they just can't compete with the work of Claremont.

[Alex_Of_X]

"Is Hickman's run the best in 20 years or in 50?" is a hell of a conversation starter but damn if it isn't true!

The man got that special sauce.

[Agent Grayson]

Claremont defined the X-Men as a team and a concept, not just an era. Anything that's come after him draws on the foundations he built, so I think he's very difficult to beat.

I haven't read Morrison's run in a long time. I've been reading through the X-titles from Giant-Size X-Men onwards and am currently around 1994 - just before "Phalanax Covenant" - so I'll be refreshing myself on that soon.

I think Hickman's run was irreparably harmed by the fact that he didn't get to bring his plan to fruition. This was a bizarre editorial decision - it would have been like cutting off his Avengers run during "Time Runs Out" because they wanted to drag out the Illuminati-SHIELD conflict. Inferno felt like a rush job that didn't align with his original vision. That being said, he introduced some great new concepts and no matter what you think of Krakoa, it can't be argued that he revitalised the line after it had languished for so long.

[charliehustle415]

Claremont defined the X-Men as a team and a concept, not just an era. Anything that's come after him draws on the foundations he built, so I think he's very difficult to beat.

I haven't read Morrison's run in a long time. I've been reading through the X-titles from Giant-Size X-Men onwards and am currently around 1994 - just before "Phalanax Covenant" - so I'll be refreshing myself on that soon.

I think Hickman's run was irreparably harmed by the fact that he didn't get to bring his plan to fruition. This was a bizarre editorial decision - it would have been like cutting off his Avengers run during "Time Runs Out" because they wanted to drag out the Illuminati-SHIELD conflict. Inferno felt like a rush job that didn't align with his original vision. That being said, he introduced some great new concepts and no matter what you think of Krakoa, it can't be argued that he revitalised the line after it had languished for so long.

This is so true it hurts my heart

[davetvs]

Claremont will always be the #1 X-Men writer for sheer tenure and breadth. That said, Morrison's run is my personal favorite, and I haven't enjoyed a run nearly as much until Hickman's. He also gets more credit from me for overseeing a line of books that included stunning work by Ewing, Wells, Gillen, LaValle, and Williams (X-Factor, not the rest.)

[Steroid]

Claremont's original run can't be surpassed IMO as it laid the groundwork for everything I love about the X-Men. The other 2 choices occupy 2 completely different ends of the spectrum for me. Morrison's run pretty much was the catalyst for me dropping the X-books for several years as I just didn't enjoy what he was doing with the franchise. Hickman on the other hand managed to bring me back to this franchise and made me fall back in love with the X-Men. Hickman also gets bonus points for bringing back my absolute favorite character in Synch.

So for me it's Claremont followed by Hickman and Morrison.

[nose norton]

Ultimately, no one will compare to Claremont's run. It is untouchable. And while Byrne helped a lot, so did Cockrum, and the many other talented artists over the course of the run, so it's weird to add his name, but not add artists to Morrison's or Hickman's.

The Byrne run was my first contact with the X-Men and I didn't like Cockrum's return. At all. I haven't read his first stint, but I doubt I'd like it any better. That said, it's clear many people like it as much (if not more) than Byrne's. And surely there are PMS fans out there, and JRJR's, and Lee's... am I forgetting someone? It could be stuff for another question/poll.

[yogaflame]

I mean, even before Claremont took over, Cockrum was heavily involved in designing the All New team members with Len Wein, and illustrated their debut in Giant Size. I would say that Byrne's art is cleaner/sharper, but Cockrum deserves all the accolades for designing Storm, Nightcrawler, Colossus, Thunderbird, and the Shi'Ar(including all the original Imperial Guard), to name but a few. I also love the Brood Saga, which he did much of.

Ultimately, I find the limiting of Claremont's run to Byrne's time sort of insulting, especially if you don't break down the various arcs within Morrison's or Hickman's runs by artist. I mean, each artist obviously brings a lot to the table during their collaborations(and you're definitely forgetting a few notables, such as Silvestri, Adams, and Smith), but ultimately each writer carries the story across many artists, so why divide?

[IN-a-Synch]

Fabian and Lobdell gets my vote
Along with Claremont and Lee, third would be Whedon and Cassidy so i guess Im going "others"

[nose norton]

Fabian and Lobdell gets my vote
Along with Claremont and Lee, third would be Whedon and Cassidy so i guess Im going "others"

I almost included the Whedon/Cassidy option. But it looks like it doesn't get much traction. Distinguishing among Claremont's collaborators could be interesting, though.

[Celestialbodies]

I adore both Claremont and Morrison, but I do feel Hickman might have ranked higher if his vision was seen completely through.

[Nicoclaws]

I almost included the Whedon/Cassidy option. But it looks like it doesn't get much traction. Distinguishing among Claremont's collaborators could be interesting, though.

Whedon/Cassidy was a real good story, but I don't think it's on the level of game-changing as the three other runs.
I would even rate Lobdell's X-run higher for the franchise, as it expanded and built a whole big world, while Whedon's run was pretty self contained. Lobdell would be below the other threes, obviously.

[Hi-Fi]

Hickman doesn't even break TOP 3 to me.

Claremont >>> Carey >>> Morrison