Welcome to unstablemolecules.com, the discussion home for mightyavengers.net, uncanon.com and uncannyxmen.net!

X-Writers Rushmore

Level 05: For discussion on the writers, artists, editors and chiefs that help create the comics you read.
User avatar
Nu-D
Posts: 2013
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 00:22
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: X-Writers Rushmore

Post by Nu-D » 26 Apr 2018, 22:38

I guess my point wasn’t that Lobdell (or Thomas) were bad, just that being the placeholder between two major X-writers doesn’t, by itself, make you a major x-writer in your own right.

But Lobdell (unlike Thomas) did make a lot of major contributions on his own. As much as I dislike his stories, there’s no dispute that they had lasting impact. I dislike AoA largely for the art, and for the fact that it represents the nadir of the bloated summer crossover. But the concept was great, and there’s no denying the impact it has had.

User avatar
Cyke
Posts: 1173
Joined: 29 Jun 2008, 00:26
Location: The Bright Sunny South

Re: X-Writers Rushmore

Post by Cyke » 27 Apr 2018, 17:32

Nu-D wrote:
26 Apr 2018, 22:38
I guess my point wasn’t that Lobdell (or Thomas) were bad, just that being the placeholder between two major X-writers doesn’t, by itself, make you a major x-writer in your own right.
In a similar way that I never really think of Kirby as an X-artist, Thomas & Adams seems to be oft overlooked in any type of discussion of this nature (not just here but elsewhere on the web that I've seen). I think you make some good points about why they shouldn't be considered for any legacy contributions (other than perhaps the beginning development of Havok) but to me, between the time of reprints and the rise of Wein's GSXM, they were the highlight of the franchise.

It's just unfortunate that they were sandwhiched between those two points in the franchise's history (much in the similar way that Denny O'Neill's wonderful run on Daredevil was unfortunately sandwhiched between Miller's original DD run and Born Again).
Verda Gildr- 'Become Worthy'

User avatar
Nu-D
Posts: 2013
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 00:22
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: X-Writers Rushmore

Post by Nu-D » 27 Apr 2018, 18:18

Cyke wrote:
27 Apr 2018, 17:32
I think between the time of reprints and the rise of Wein's GSXM, they were the highlight of the franchise.
Both the Thomas and O’Neil/Adams runs were before the reprint period. They were not “between” the reprints and GSXM.

I agree that Adams/O’Neil is under appreciated. I think if the title hadn’t been cancelled and they had a chance to publish another year or so, we’d look at that run like their run on GL/GA, as revolutionary. It was a real missed opportunity, IMO.

I’m less familiar with the Thomas run, but don’t hold it in particularly high regard. I think of. It as mostly Silver Age schlock.

Edit: Wait, I think I’ve been a little confused. I didn’t realize Thomas wrote most of the Adams-illustrated issues. Denny O’Neil only wrote the last one. Thomas had an earlier run on the the title, taking over for Stan Lee. It went:

Lee—>Thomas—>Friedrich—>Drake—>Thomas—>O’Neil—>reprints—>GSXM.

So yes, the Thomas/Adams run was quite good, and would have really taken off with Denny O’Neil if it hadn’t been cancelled. But it really doesn’t make the Rushmore because it never got a chance to really grow.

Gurney Halleck
Posts: 27
Joined: 19 Mar 2018, 16:01

Re: X-Writers Rushmore

Post by Gurney Halleck » 30 Apr 2018, 07:31

I'll put two posts, in order two reply at two different issues.

Somewhen around 1999, 2000, 2001 Hollywood made a change. Around then, it was decided that teenagers and adolescents were the most likely to watch movies in the cinema and therefore it was besttwo concentrarte on 'summer blockbusters'. And apparently, this demographic target group only liked two kinds of movies. On the one hand comedies with the type of humour as shown in 'American Pie' (released in 1999, if I recall correctly), which concentrarted on not so suntle jokes about seks and bodily watse products. The other type was super heroes/fantasy/SF (whoch might be three different genres, but many who like one might also like the other two and those who dislike any don't bother about the differences)

Hollywood ofcourse cannot be blmed for earning money, but befroe then, the total number of movies genres seemd to have been larger, so they could get more different types of audiences.

Keep in mind that around 1980 Hollywood als made 'juvenile' movies, like the 'Porky's' movies, but then, there were also lots of other movies. Some mobies where about action, others where comedies, other were dramas, other were movies for the entire family.

(it's almost as if the 'family movie' disappeared with the demise of John Candy)

the 2000s saw movie adaptions of both super hero comics as well as 80s cartoon. In al fairness, in its movie adaptions, Marvel avoided going 'American Pie'. Unfortunately, the same could not be said about 'Bayformers', which contain implausible scens like Devastator having balls and a Decepticon cassette going '#too' on the leg of Sam's girlfriend. By the way, who belives that teenagers actually are the way Michael Bay represents them?

My guess is that, because series like 'Buffy', 'Charmed' and 'Xena' - all created just a few years before above sketched trend became Hollywood standard', where particularly succesfulla among youngsters some Hollywood powers decided to direct the superhero/SF/fantasy movies directly (and, sometimes, exclusively) to that age group.
Marketing over creativity.

The tragedies:
- teenagers where never for 100% oriented on Porky's/Beavis and Butthead/American Pie etc. Some teenagers loved it, others liked it, others didn't care, others hated it.

- there have been lot's of teen movies unlike the kinds in the sentence above. 80s also had 'Back to the future' and 'Ferris Buelle's day of', 90s had 'Ten Things I hate about you', 'She's all that' and a few titles I'm sure I've watched but don't remember at the moment

- Sf and fantasy - two different genres, allthough a lot of fans like both - were never exclusively aimed at teenagers/adolescents. SF in particular started as in rather intellectual type of genre, extrapolating the possible outcomes of present day developments in society and technology.

With Marvel starting to make movies in 2000, they inevitably adopted some of the then current trends.
Marvel comics followed. Since then, a lot more dialogues have been about 'getting a room'. And what about Stacey X, with the mutnat power to create orgasms?

Seks wasn't absent before. But what was already annoying in Image's 'Gen 13', appears to have become the standard.

So even if GM was CHRONOLOGICALLY the first X-men writer to write to the visual - which is still odd, considering that the 'Marvel Method'xisted of a writer making a symopsis, the artist drawing the pictures and then the writer coming up with dialogues -, I very much doubt any other writer than him would have done it differently. It was a trend in fiction at the time, not the invention of a single individual.

Gurney Halleck
Posts: 27
Joined: 19 Mar 2018, 16:01

Re: X-Writers Rushmore

Post by Gurney Halleck » 30 Apr 2018, 07:52

Some people like GM's run, others don't. The same apllies to every writer.

On this forum, GM seems to be considered a game changer because apparently he wrote to the visual, instead like a novelist. I question that statement.

GM wrote from 2001 to 2004, if I recall correctly. In thoese years there were three monthly titles on the X-men themselves. One written by Claremont, one by GM and I don't recall the third writer.

Claremont wrote about a subteam lead by Storm on a golbal quest for the Destiny diaries. The other two titles were officially 'home based'. In practice, on title was about an 'away team' always on mission (Angel, Iceman, Nightcrawler and then Cmaber and Stacey X got added). GM's title was about those at the mansion training teenagers who survived the destruction of Genosha (Cyclops, Jean, Emma, Beast). For reasons of plausibility, Wolverine starred in both titles.

Back then, I only liked Claremont's title. The other two, I failed to see the difference in writing. Those titles revolved on a death rate so high it had no longer plausibility or emotional effect, had no character development and reduced intersting characters like Emma frost and Wolverine to úber-teenagers' (rebellious, Always being rude or making a pun).

Which was just the 'Ultimate Universe' reaching reality 616.

And Marvel's 'Ultimate' titles were just 'Image applied to Marvel titles'

Another thing atrributed to GM: X-men becoming a heard.
With 139 teenagers at once you couldn't get to know them, unlike New Mutants and Generatiuion X, true. And youd hardly cared if any got killed.

BUT: WHEN exactly did the X-men THEMSELVES form a heard?

I remember this issue, in 2004, when Havok went to Cyclop to put Iceman in another squad, to find out that just about anyone complained about the rosters, ending with Cyclops stating 'Teams stay the way they are. Period!'

That story took place AFTER the controversial 'Magnot attacks Manhattan'-story, which was GM's final story.

So 'the heard' started AFTER GM.

Finally: with Joe Quesada running Marvel just as authoritarian as Jim Shooter in the 80s and X-editor Bob Harras' in the 90s, how much can any development be attributed to a writer? Even J. Michael Stacinski - movie writer who did comics on the side - quit Spider-Man because of 'One More Day'.

Everything people praise GM would have taken place without him.
Leaving a gouy who wrote about uber-psychopaths killing lot's of people for thre years in a row.

Not a game changer, just a one-trick-pony.
Mount X-more deserves better.

User avatar
Blackcyclops
Posts: 17447
Joined: 12 Apr 2007, 21:03

Re: X-Writers Rushmore

Post by Blackcyclops » 30 Apr 2018, 10:38

Okay I have no idea what this herd thing is you’re talking about...like what exactly does that mean? A herd is generally a large of animals. Are you saying that we’re (cause I’m not lol) claiming Morrison expanded the X-Men at the X-mansion to a larger more expansive lineup? I mean you can plainly see that didn’t happen under Morrison. Morrison did expand the school concept, that’s a fact. You don’t have to like it but it happened. And you’re argument about not getting to know students isn’t true...just look at this very forum to see that lol

I think it’s kinda irrelevant to keep bringing up EIC we do and don’t like since it’s a writer rushmore lol

Otherwise your other point is about things you don’t like, which is fine (didagree so hard about your characterization of Emma Frost). Like as you say, different writers are liked by diffent writers but that’s irrelevant if your argument is that Morrison wasnt impactful.

As RingO said you can have any rules for what does and doesn’t go on your own personal Rushmore. But if you’re going to argue that Morrison doesn’t deserve to be on others folks Rushmore because he lacks impact, then you’re going to come harder lol...now if you think he doesn’t deserve it because you didn’t like his run, then nobody can argue with your own personal taste. As for impact, we’ve done a pretty good job pointing out what his impact was. Now if you want to talk about him from a whether his run was good or not, then There’s a really fascinating thread in this subforum reserved for that. I can find it and post a link...
I'm Team Remender, Waid, Hickman and Gillen

My X-Men Draft Picks:
Prof. X, Legion, Polaris, Quicksilver, Meggan, Deadpool, Pixie, and Danger

User avatar
Nu-D
Posts: 2013
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 00:22
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: X-Writers Rushmore

Post by Nu-D » 30 Apr 2018, 11:31

Gurney Halleck wrote:
30 Apr 2018, 07:52

On this forum, GM seems to be considered a game changer because apparently he wrote to the visual, instead like a novelist.
If you read what we wrote above I think you'll see this assertion is incorrect. The consensus on this forum appears to be that Morrison was NOT one of the writers writing in the widescreen style.

Post Reply