Bore Us Claremont
Riedel
If you want to call Scott Lobdell a below par writer, thats fine.If you want
to say that he wrote lame issues,thats fine. If you want to call UNCANNY
#303 'Touched by an Angel' sentimentalist crap, thats fine also.
But if I want to call Chris Claremonts work boring, I hope thats alright.
Because that exactly what his work on the X-Men is.......boring. I really
don't care if he's considered the God of X-Men writers or not, because for
the most part, Claremont's work is boring.
Anytime I need a good nap I just pull out the old stand by......Uncanny #262
and 263. These two comics are the lamest comics I've ever read. Two boring
issues that seem like they go on for ever.
One of my biggest disappointments in all my years of collecting X-Men comics
was #266....the first Gambit appearance. Another boring comic with a lame
plot. The whole idea of a de-aged Storm is stupid. That stupid comic cost me
15 bucks. That was alot of money for me at the time.
Personnally I don't see what the big deal about Claremont is. His comics
will always rank as mediocre in my eyes......
Mark
Alleigh
>But if I want to call Chris Claremonts work boring, I hope thats alright.
Why is it boring?
>
>One of my biggest disappointments in all my years of collecting X-Men comics
>was #266....the first Gambit appearance. Another boring comic with a lame
>plot. The whole idea of a de-aged Storm is stupid. That stupid comic cost me
Ok- so you didn't like that story - but why was it stupid?
Have you read the early stuff - and I think the Gambit stuff came
around the time "art sells" and the artists were getting to help
influence the stories.
Chandre Darkstorm
> >was #266....the first Gambit appearance. Another boring comic with a lame
> >plot. The whole idea of a de-aged Storm is stupid. That stupid comic cost me
>
> Ok- so you didn't like that story - but why was it stupid?
When Gambit came out, Jim Lee was at the pencil. 'Nuff said? The whole
nanny thing was probably a forced continuity from the Fall of the
Mutants crossover.
>
> Have you read the early stuff - and I think the Gambit stuff came
> around the time "art sells" and the artists were getting to help
> influence the stories.
Probably hasn't read the infamous Dark Phoenix saga. I bought the trade
paperback, and have some of the classic series in a box at home... I
read it the other day... and it was still wonderful. Byrne picked up on
the emotions so well, if you just look at Jean's face... and see the
horrors and lust and fear that cross it... you will understand why
people worship Claremont.
Probably also hasn't read DOFPast, nor the Mutant Massacre (the best of
all crossovers, IMO). I also loved the Fantastic Four vs. the X-Men
limited series (immediate post-MM LS, excellent LS).
I advise going by a comic shop and picking up the Classic X-Men series.
Read/buy those, and you will understand why we care so much about the
characters. The X-Men weren't hot because of Gambit. The X-Men had a
strong, solid history and a depth to it that made the book not just
good, but great, LONG before anyone even dreamed of Remy LeBeau.
Chandre.
Soleil Lapierre
> If you want to call Scott Lobdell a below par writer, thats fine.If you want
> to say that he wrote lame issues,thats fine. If you want to call UNCANNY
> #303 'Touched by an Angel' sentimentalist crap, thats fine also.
Thanks, I will! (Though #303 is too badly written to be considered
sentimental in any way).
> But if I want to call Chris Claremonts work boring, I hope thats alright.
> Because that exactly what his work on the X-Men is.......boring. I really
> don't care if he's considered the God of X-Men writers or not, because for
> the most part, Claremont's work is boring.
You're entitled to your opinion.
> Anytime I need a good nap I just pull out the old stand by......Uncanny #262
> and 263. These two comics are the lamest comics I've ever read. Two boring
> issues that seem like they go on for ever.
You know, I'd forgotten that he was still writing the book that late. If
that's the only Claremont you've read, I can certainly understand your
viewpoint. The whole mid-to-late 200s section was one block of stories I
wish hadn't been written, or had been handled differently.
Now I'll pull the same trick I usually pull on Jim, and tell you to go
read the *real* Claremont issues. That is, pre-220ish UXM and New Mutants
up to #54 (excluding #51).
--
/* Soleil "Ra" Lapierre, Co-Maintainer of the Magik Timeline:
* http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~lapierrs/comics/
*
* "Dinsdale."
*/
malp...@my-dejanews.com
Chandre Darkstorm <cha...@aempires.com> wrote:
SNIP
> When Gambit came out, Jim Lee was at the pencil. 'Nuff said? The whole
> nanny thing was probably a forced continuity from the Fall of the
> Mutants crossover.
There are always excuses for a bad story written by a fan favorite.
"Oh the ditors made me do it! Loyal fans don't desert me!"
Come on. Storm's deaging had nothing to do with the Fall of the
Mutants. It had to do with bad story telling.
> > Have you read the early stuff - and I think the Gambit stuff came
> > around the time "art sells" and the artists were getting to help
> > influence the stories.
Yes it did, and interestingly, the art kind of sucks in that story.
Is the penciler one of our our boys from Image et. al.?
> Probably hasn't read the infamous Dark Phoenix saga. I bought the trade
> paperback, and have some of the classic series in a box at home... I
> read it the other day... and it was still wonderful. Byrne picked up on
> the emotions so well, if you just look at Jean's face... and see the
> horrors and lust and fear that cross it... you will understand why
> people worship Claremont.
The quality of the artwork has almost nothing to do with Claremont. It's
Byrne! Must Chris get credit for everything?!?
> Probably also hasn't read DOFPast, nor the Mutant Massacre (the best of
> all crossovers, IMO). I also loved the Fantastic Four vs. the X-Men
> limited series (immediate post-MM LS, excellent LS).
But he finds them boring. The dialogue is often contrived (although
clearly far superior to what we're being fed nowadays) make the
characterization a bit campy. I always thought Jean Grey read like a
bad Sue Ellen from Dallas during Dark Phoenix.
> I advise going by a comic shop and picking up the Classic X-Men series.
> Read/buy those, and you will understand why we care so much about the
> characters. The X-Men weren't hot because of Gambit. The X-Men had a
> strong, solid history and a depth to it that made the book not just
> good, but great, LONG before anyone even dreamed of Remy LeBeau.
Yes, yes it did. No one claimed that Gambit made the Xmen. However,
Claremont did make Gambit :)
> Chandre.
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Riedel
Resorting to name calling already? By the way, what exactly is a "infinite
monkey"?
>You know, I'd forgotten that he was still writing the book that late. If
>that's the only Claremont you've read, I can certainly understand your
>viewpoint. The whole mid-to-late 200s section was one block of stories I
>wish hadn't been written, or had been handled differently.
>
>Now I'll pull the same trick I usually pull on Jim, and tell you to go
>read the *real* Claremont issues. That is, pre-220ish UXM and New Mutants
>up to #54 (excluding #51).
Its funny that you mention #220, because I have every issue from #220 and
up. I have read issues before #220. I have several issues between #151 to
220.
I never bothered to feel in the gaps because it seemed to me the further I
went back the worse it got. I spent alot of money over the years collecting
the back issues I have, most of it was a waste of money. Why should I got
spend my money on a writer I don't enjoy just because you claim the *real*
Claremont issues are good.
You don't seem to be a fan of Lobdell's work. I can understand why some
people would hate his work. I've read the augments against him and will
admitt that there are some valid points made. But.....I don't think he's the
worse X-Writer. I judge a comic on its ability to entertain me, and when I
read Claremont's X-Men issues my eyes get heavy. I can't help it, I just
find Claremont's work boring.
Mark
AGr3691541
>In article <35C01862...@aempires.com>,
> Chandre Darkstorm <cha...@aempires.com> wrote:
>SNIP
>
>> When Gambit came out, Jim Lee was at the pencil. 'Nuff said? The whole
>> nanny thing was probably a forced continuity from the Fall of the
>> Mutants crossover.
>
>There are always excuses for a bad story written by a fan favorite.
>"Oh the ditors made me do it! Loyal fans don't desert me!"
>Come on. Storm's deaging had nothing to do with the Fall of the
>Mutants. It had to do with bad story telling.
I loved it, until it was revealed how it had happened. Nanny's cloned Storm
body was a bit shit I'll admit.
>> > Have you read the early stuff - and I think the Gambit stuff came
>> > around the time "art sells" and the artists were getting to help
>> > influence the stories.
>
>Yes it did, and interestingly, the art kind of sucks in that story.
>Is the penciler one of our our boys from Image et. al.?
Gambit slightly pre-dates art sells, which didn't really get going until Jim
Lee signed on as regular penciler.
>> Probably hasn't read the infamous Dark Phoenix saga. I bought the trade
>> paperback, and have some of the classic series in a box at home... I
>> read it the other day... and it was still wonderful. Byrne picked up on
>> the emotions so well, if you just look at Jean's face... and see the
>> horrors and lust and fear that cross it... you will understand why
>> people worship Claremont.
>
>The quality of the artwork has almost nothing to do with Claremont. It's
>Byrne! Must Chris get credit for everything?!?
Well, I don't think he created the Universe, but short of that, probably yes...
>> Probably also hasn't read DOFPast, nor the Mutant Massacre (the best of
>> all crossovers, IMO). I also loved the Fantastic Four vs. the X-Men
>> limited series (immediate post-MM LS, excellent LS).
>
>But he finds them boring. The dialogue is often contrived (although
>clearly far superior to what we're being fed nowadays) make the
>characterization a bit campy. I always thought Jean Grey read like a
>bad Sue Ellen from Dallas during Dark Phoenix.
She looked great, though...
>> I advise going by a comic shop and picking up the Classic X-Men series.
>> Read/buy those, and you will understand why we care so much about the
>> characters. The X-Men weren't hot because of Gambit. The X-Men had a
>> strong, solid history and a depth to it that made the book not just
>> good, but great, LONG before anyone even dreamed of Remy LeBeau.
>
>Yes, yes it did. No one claimed that Gambit made the Xmen. However,
>Claremont did make Gambit :)
Claremont created Gambit, but nearly all his background development took place
after he left. His name is a post-Claremont creation, and apparently no-ones
quite sure who at Marvel came up with it...
Lazy Line Painter Al
AGr3691541
(Soleil Lapierre) writes:
>An infinite monkey named Riedel wrote:
>
>> If you want to call Scott Lobdell a below par writer, thats fine.If you
>want
>> to say that he wrote lame issues,thats fine. If you want to call UNCANNY
>> #303 'Touched by an Angel' sentimentalist crap, thats fine also.
>
>Thanks, I will! (Though #303 is too badly written to be considered
>sentimental in any way).
>
>> But if I want to call Chris Claremonts work boring, I hope thats alright.
Is anyone stopping you?
>> Because that exactly what his work on the X-Men is.......boring. I really
>> don't care if he's considered the God of X-Men writers or not, because for
>> the most part, Claremont's work is boring.
Compared to sex, drugs and Rock n Roll, Claremont probably is boring.
Compared to Lobdell he's a genius.
>You're entitled to your opinion.
>> Anytime I need a good nap I just pull out the old stand by......Uncanny
>#262
>> and 263. These two comics are the lamest comics I've ever read. Two boring
>> issues that seem like they go on for ever.
Why?
>You know, I'd forgotten that he was still writing the book that late. If
>that's the only Claremont you've read, I can certainly understand your
>viewpoint. The whole mid-to-late 200s section was one block of stories I
>wish hadn't been written, or had been handled differently.
And I loved them. (well, most of them)
>Now I'll pull the same trick I usually pull on Jim, and tell you to go
>read the *real* Claremont issues. That is, pre-220ish UXM and New Mutants
>up to #54 (excluding #51).
You can't go far wrong with Essential X-men I & II, especially when John Byrne
and Claremont were working together...
Lazy Line Painter Al
MT
>
> >An infinite monkey named Riedel wrote:
>
> "infinite monkey"?
Soleil doesn't call people names. Look at any of her posts; that's just
her customized way of saying "So-and-so wrote:". An infinite monkey
is... well, you. And anybody Soleil's quoted.
> Its funny that you mention #220, because I have every issue from #220
> and up. I have read issues before #220. I have several issues between
> #151 to 220.
Several probably isn't enough. However, that middle era is where most
of my collection lies, and it's not that great.
> I never bothered to feel in the gaps because it seemed to me the
> further I went back the worse it got. I spent alot of money over the
> years collecting the back issues I have, most of it was a waste of
> money. Why should I got spend my money on a writer I don't enjoy just
> because you claim the *real* Claremont issues are good.
Yes! Exactly how I feel. I liked the last X-Men work he wrote. As you
go to the middle of his work, it's really directionless drivel. The
X-Men are stuck in a quagmire with no place to go, really, and he uses
that time to develop the characters. I can respect that, but I don't
have to like it. I'd rather go somewhere than sit in waist-high mud and
talk.
> You don't seem to be a fan of Lobdell's work. I can understand why
> some people would hate his work. I've read the augments against him
> and will admitt that there are some valid points made. But.....I don't
> think he's the worse X-Writer. I judge a comic on its ability to
> entertain me, and when I read Claremont's X-Men issues my eyes get
> heavy. I can't help it, I just find Claremont's work boring.
You echo my sentiments perfectly. However, I'll say one thing: I
listened to people and collected quite a bit of stuff before UXM #150.
It's good, very entertaining. It's not worth the money to buy the
original issues (I got reprints instead), but it's good.
Remember, though, they're just entertaining. It isn't necessary to
follow the orders of Claremont fans on this NG and chase everything
down. Especially since his God mode status on this NG would say
something about the overall quality of his work. If the last 100 or 150
issues were something people will admit were crap, then why is he
considered so great all the time?
Let's put it this way: Claremont focuses on the people. However, I like
to be entertained. Comic books are escapist fantasy. They're there for
entertainment. And for me entertainment involves something new and cool.
Sharing feelings and commenting on the weather is something real life
already has. I'd rather open up a comic book and enjoy something I
myself can never get to do.
In essence, I want a comic book, not a soap opera. This is the main
reason why I like Claremont's later and earlier stuff, as opposed to the
long block of material in the middle. Those bookends focus on a healthy
balance of both, leaning towards the action to keep me interested. If
all I get is an issue where I must scrutinize every word to get the
theme (Believe me, Claremont hides important facts in long blocks of
text), then my eyes won't cope. Snooze time.
I agree with Riedel completely, is all.
MT, who's looking forward to becoming an infinite monkey.
--
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
Grinding into Emptiness, industrial e-zine: http://www.emptiness.net.
MT
>
> In article <6ppu4u$i...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
> slap...@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca (Soleil Lapierre) writes:
>
> >
> >> really don't care if he's considered the God of X-Men writers or
> >> not, because for the most part, Claremont's work is boring.
>
> Compared to sex, drugs and Rock n Roll, Claremont probably is boring.
> Compared to Lobdell he's a genius.
Yes, but compared to Lobdell he's still boring. That's the man's point.
> >You know, I'd forgotten that he was still writing the book that late.
> >If that's the only Claremont you've read, I can certainly understand
> >your viewpoint. The whole mid-to-late 200s section was one block of
> >stories I wish hadn't been written, or had been handled differently.
>
> And I loved them. (well, most of them)
Yeah, I recall you enjoyed Australia. What was so good about it? It
went nowhere.
> >Now I'll pull the same trick I usually pull on Jim, and tell you to
> >go read the *real* Claremont issues. That is, pre-220ish UXM and New
> >Mutants up to #54 (excluding #51).
>
> You can't go far wrong with Essential X-men I & II, especially when
> John Byrne and Claremont were working together...
Yeah, that's the stuff I looked at. It's in much the same vein the rest
of his work is in, but at the same time it's entertaining. Everything
from #150 to #250 is... Ugh.
*Ducks*
Jade and Dan
> But if I want to call Chris Claremonts work boring, I hope thats alright.
> don't care if he's considered the God of X-Men writers or not, because
for
> the most part, Claremont's work is boring.
Well, most of Claremont's work was written in the 80s, when people still
had attention spans and could read something that wasn't a constant T&A
bloodfest.
His current work? Now THAT'S boring...
--m4
MT
Oh, brother. I do like action, but that doesn't mean I don't have an
attention span. Besides, there were people that didn't enjoy his work
then (Just as there are people who enjoy his work now). If people didn't
have attention spans now, then no one would like it. It's all TASTE.
Attention span, my ass...
...Where am I?
> His current work? Now THAT'S boring...
But it's so similar to his early work! Where do you draw the line!?
AGr3691541
>AGr3691541 wrote:
>>
>> In article <6ppu4u$i...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
>> slap...@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca (Soleil Lapierre) writes:
>>
>> >An infinite monkey named Riedel wrote:
>> >
>> >> Because that exactly what his work on the X-Men is.......boring. I
>> >> really don't care if he's considered the God of X-Men writers or
>> >> not, because for the most part, Claremont's work is boring.
>>
>> Compared to sex, drugs and Rock n Roll, Claremont probably is boring.
>> Compared to Lobdell he's a genius.
>
> Yes, but compared to Lobdell he's still boring. That's the man's point.
I thought we weren't making direct comparisons between Lobdell or Claremont...
Lobdell's work was unoriginal, poorly plotted, ill-conceived, event rather than
character driven drivel - and I find that more boring than Claremont - even at
his most long-winded.
>> >You know, I'd forgotten that he was still writing the book that late.
>> >If that's the only Claremont you've read, I can certainly understand
>> >your viewpoint. The whole mid-to-late 200s section was one block of
>> >stories I wish hadn't been written, or had been handled differently.
>>
>> And I loved them. (well, most of them)
>
> Yeah, I recall you enjoyed Australia. What was so good about it? It
>went nowhere.
Huh? And where exactly was the x-men going under Lobdell?
the whole point of the Australia period was it was continually moving and
continually changing - leading up to the return of Xavier and the original
x-men joining the team.
>> >Now I'll pull the same trick I usually pull on Jim, and tell you to
>> >go read the *real* Claremont issues. That is, pre-220ish UXM and New
>> >Mutants up to #54 (excluding #51).
>>
>> You can't go far wrong with Essential X-men I & II, especially when
>> John Byrne and Claremont were working together...
>
> Yeah, that's the stuff I looked at. It's in much the same vein the rest
>of his work is in, but at the same time it's entertaining. Everything
>from #150 to #250 is... Ugh.
*Throws something*
> *Ducks*
Shit, you avoided it...
Lazy Line Painter Al
malp...@my-dejanews.com
> >There are always excuses for a bad story written by a fan favorite.
> >"Oh the ditors made me do it! Loyal fans don't desert me!"
> >Come on. Storm's deaging had nothing to do with the Fall of the
> >Mutants. It had to do with bad story telling.
>
> I loved it, until it was revealed how it had happened. Nanny's cloned Storm
> body was a bit shit I'll admit.
I fear that you are becoming my mortal enemy :- )
I must admit that I actually stopped reading Xmen for a time
after Gambit arrived. I was disgusted, and I was really into
the Sandman at the time so comparisons with Gaimen were
frequent and Claremont always came up lacking. I was actually
unaware of the fact that Childe Storm was a clone.
SNIP
> >> Probably hasn't read the infamous Dark Phoenix saga. I bought the trade
> >> paperback, and have some of the classic series in a box at home... I
> >> read it the other day... and it was still wonderful. Byrne picked up on
> >> the emotions so well, if you just look at Jean's face... and see the
> >> horrors and lust and fear that cross it... you will understand why
> >> people worship Claremont.
> >
> >The quality of the artwork has almost nothing to do with Claremont. It's
> >Byrne! Must Chris get credit for everything?!?
>
> Well, I don't think he created the Universe, but short of that, probably yes...
Yes, you are my nemisis indeed. Perhaps I was a bit zealous in the
post, but still. It was Byrne's artwork.
SNIP
> >But he finds them boring. The dialogue is often contrived (although
> >clearly far superior to what we're being fed nowadays) make the
> >characterization a bit campy. I always thought Jean Grey read like a
> >bad Sue Ellen from Dallas during Dark Phoenix.
>
> She looked great, though...
Well she looked great when Jim Lee... oops, no she didn't she looked
stupid as all get out with that blue and tan suit. Who am I kidding, she
looked good as Phoenix, even if she spoke like a night time soap star.
SNIP
> >
> >Yes, yes it did. No one claimed that Gambit made the Xmen. However,
> >Claremont did make Gambit :)
>
> Claremont created Gambit, but nearly all his background development took place
> after he left. His name is a post-Claremont creation, and apparently no-ones
> quite sure who at Marvel came up with it...
While this is true, I can at least blame Chris for leaving Gambit's
background so open that it allowed for the ensuing mess. He
had a tendency to produce danglers more than most people
go produce shit (which I think is a nice analogy for danglers) and
Gambit was one big dangler waiting to happen. Not unlike a cerain
clawed Canadian hero. A "mysterious origin," a device of which
Chris was very fond, more often than not results in a confusing,
silly, poorly conceived background.
malphred
MT
>
> In article <35C0AB...@jps.net>, MT <mi...@jps.net> writes:
>
> >AGr3691541 wrote:
> >>
> >> Compared to sex, drugs and Rock n Roll, Claremont probably is
> >> boring. Compared to Lobdell he's a genius.
> >
> > Yes, but compared to Lobdell he's still boring. That's the
> >man's point.
>
> I thought we weren't making direct comparisons between Lobdell or
> Claremont...
Where did you get that idea? I recall someone saying it's like
comparing apples to oranges, which in a sense it is, but at the same
time I condone all comparisons.
> Lobdell's work was unoriginal, poorly plotted, ill-conceived, event
> rather than character driven drivel - and I find that more boring than
> Claremont - even at his most long-winded.
Unoriginality is based on the reader's experiences. To some people, he
may be a ripoff of each and every writer that came before him; to
others, he's the freshest thing going.
Personally, I think he's half-half in that respect. Obviously he'll be
repeating stuff, but at the same time he tried new things. Those new
things sometimes failed because he didn't go far enough with them, and
left obvious outs (Colossus didn't truly defect) so that he could pull
them back into control.
"Ill-conceived, event-rather-than-character driven drivel" obviously
relates to the individual. I agree it was event-driven; that's why I
liked it. ;)
The thing is, Lobdell kept me on my toes. With character-driven
stories, a good writer can do that. Claremont obviously didn't, which
may or may not be a fault of his own OR the fault of his preferred
writing genre's weakness (Obviously people-driven stuff won't feature a
whole lotta action).
So, for me, boredom means devoid of action and entertainment. When I
read a comic book, I want escapism. Escapism is something that life
obviously doesn't have too much of (Notice I say TOO MUCH OF). Hence, I
like the unbelievable action stuff more than anything else. I can get my
dose of life around the corner. So I'm just throwing away money to have
it in a 2-D format. Wooooow.
> > Yeah, I recall you enjoyed Australia. What was so good about
> >it? It went nowhere.
>
> Huh? And where exactly was the x-men going under Lobdell?
I'm not sure; I'd say it was directionless as well. But my point is, it
was entertaining.
> the whole point of the Australia period was it was continually moving
> and continually changing - leading up to the return of Xavier and the
> original x-men joining the team.
I'll give you the changing part. It seemed to me like a nebulous sort
of place that CC could pull his next new direction out of. And he did do
that, to some extent, though I wouldn't quite say he had that long,
drawn-out plot in mind when he conceived the return of Xavier.
But the reason I hated it was because it was so empty. I still don't
understand Wolverine's precognitive ability in UXM #251.
MT, who's distressed that he isn't an infinite monkey yet.
AGr3691541
>AGr3691541 wrote:
>>
>> In article <35C0AB...@jps.net>, MT <mi...@jps.net> writes:
>>
>> >AGr3691541 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Compared to sex, drugs and Rock n Roll, Claremont probably is
>> >> boring. Compared to Lobdell he's a genius.
>> >
>> > Yes, but compared to Lobdell he's still boring. That's the
>> >man's point.
>>
>> I thought we weren't making direct comparisons between Lobdell or
>> Claremont...
>
> Where did you get that idea? I recall someone saying it's like
>comparing apples to oranges, which in a sense it is, but at the same
>time I condone all comparisons.
>
>> Lobdell's work was unoriginal, poorly plotted, ill-conceived, event
>> rather than character driven drivel - and I find that more boring than
>> Claremont - even at his most long-winded.
>
> Unoriginality is based on the reader's experiences. To some people, he
>may be a ripoff of each and every writer that came before him; to
>others, he's the freshest thing going.
There also a creative side to it, but I'll always give ground on this, because
most good ideas Marvel writers have are vetoed by the editorial staff.
> Personally, I think he's half-half in that respect. Obviously he'll be
>repeating stuff, but at the same time he tried new things. Those new
>things sometimes failed because he didn't go far enough with them, and
>left obvious outs (Colossus didn't truly defect) so that he could pull
>them back into control.
The real problem I had was that Colossus leaving the X-men to join the Acolytes
was areally good idea and what happened...nothing. And then Colossus is back in
Excalibur.
> "Ill-conceived, event-rather-than-character driven drivel" obviously
>relates to the individual. I agree it was event-driven; that's why I
>liked it. ;)
The problem I had was that although Lobdell could always build up to an event
well, the climax was always a let down. If he's going to concentrate on events
- he should make them surprising, full of twists and original. Not, as seemed
the case, a bigger and nastier robo-human-sentinel mutant killing machine -
that gets destroyed by hitting it with everything they've got.
<<snipabit>>
>> > Yeah, I recall you enjoyed Australia. What was so good about
>> >it? It went nowhere.
>>
>> Huh? And where exactly was the x-men going under Lobdell?
>
> I'm not sure; I'd say it was directionless as well. But my point is, it
>was entertaining.
Wasn't it frustrating, though Lobdell he built up a storyline only to have it
end with a cop-out?
>> the whole point of the Australia period was it was continually moving
>> and continually changing - leading up to the return of Xavier and the
>> original x-men joining the team.
>
> I'll give you the changing part. It seemed to me like a nebulous sort
>of place that CC could pull his next new direction out of. And he did do
>that, to some extent, though I wouldn't quite say he had that long,
>drawn-out plot in mind when he conceived the return of Xavier.
I think the plan was to show the X-men split and slowly reunited before being
galvanised together by the return of the Prof. It was always going to be a long
drawn out plot -but that's one thing that characterised Claremont's X-men +
it's the only comic that has such an ability to run with a long and complicated
idea.
When Lobdell tried to emulate it - Joseph, Legacy Virus, Operation Zero
Tolerance - it didn't work because he never thought the idea through.
Simple escapist fantasy is found in almost every other big-hitter that Marvel,
DC and Image produce - so it's nice that one of the titles tries something
different.
> But the reason I hated it was because it was so empty. I still don't
>understand Wolverine's precognitive ability in UXM #251.
I remember being really caught up in it - and perhaps I like re-reading it
because of that. The way each of the X-men *returned* was a totally different
story and many of them were unique and original story-telling.
Lazy Line Painter Al
Is an infinite monkey better than an Ice Weasal?
AGr3691541
>Lazy Line Painter Al enscribed:
>
>> >There are always excuses for a bad story written by a fan favorite.
>> >"Oh the ditors made me do it! Loyal fans don't desert me!"
>> >Come on. Storm's deaging had nothing to do with the Fall of the
>> >Mutants. It had to do with bad story telling.
>>
>> I loved it, until it was revealed how it had happened. Nanny's cloned Storm
>> body was a bit shit I'll admit.
>
>I fear that you are becoming my mortal enemy :- )
>I must admit that I actually stopped reading Xmen for a time
>after Gambit arrived. I was disgusted, and I was really into
>the Sandman at the time so comparisons with Gaimen were
>frequent and Claremont always came up lacking. I was actually
>unaware of the fact that Childe Storm was a clone.
Well Claremont I think suffers in direct comparison with Gaimen...
But just after Gambit and the X-tinctio Agenda weren't that good -but theyre
followed by 274-276 which are staggeringly good, before the build up to the big
showdown with the Shadow King...and then Claremont left.
BTW Child Storm wasn't a clone - she was the real Storm de-aged by Nanny (which
I can take) but it just so happened Nanny had a full sized Storm clone and a
dummy ship that she used to dummy the X-men into thinking Storm was dead (ie -
the body found by the X-men in 248 was a clone) - which is a bit shit...
>
>SNIP
>
>> >> Probably hasn't read the infamous Dark Phoenix saga. I bought the trade
>> >> paperback, and have some of the classic series in a box at home... I
>> >> read it the other day... and it was still wonderful. Byrne picked up on
>> >> the emotions so well, if you just look at Jean's face... and see the
>> >> horrors and lust and fear that cross it... you will understand why
>> >> people worship Claremont.
>> >
>> >The quality of the artwork has almost nothing to do with Claremont. It's
>> >Byrne! Must Chris get credit for everything?!?
>>
>> Well, I don't think he created the Universe, but short of that, probably
>yes...
>
>Yes, you are my nemisis indeed. Perhaps I was a bit zealous in the
>post, but still. It was Byrne's artwork.
It was one of the greatest periods in any comics history, the Claremont/Byrne
period. I really believe more comic creators who don't get on should be force
to work together if this is the result.
>SNIP
>
>> >But he finds them boring. The dialogue is often contrived (although
>> >clearly far superior to what we're being fed nowadays) make the
>> >characterization a bit campy. I always thought Jean Grey read like a
>> >bad Sue Ellen from Dallas during Dark Phoenix.
>>
>> She looked great, though...
>
>Well she looked great when Jim Lee... oops, no she didn't she looked
>stupid as all get out with that blue and tan suit. Who am I kidding, she
>looked good as Phoenix, even if she spoke like a night time soap star.
Who would you go for, Dark Phoenix or Goblin Queen (you're allowed the Raney
Goblin Queen if you want)?
>SNIP
>
>> >
>> >Yes, yes it did. No one claimed that Gambit made the Xmen. However,
>> >Claremont did make Gambit :)
>>
>> Claremont created Gambit, but nearly all his background development took
>place
>> after he left. His name is a post-Claremont creation, and apparently
>no-ones
>> quite sure who at Marvel came up with it...
>
>While this is true, I can at least blame Chris for leaving Gambit's
>background so open that it allowed for the ensuing mess. He
>had a tendency to produce danglers more than most people
>go produce shit (which I think is a nice analogy for danglers) and
>Gambit was one big dangler waiting to happen. Not unlike a cerain
>clawed Canadian hero. A "mysterious origin," a device of which
>Chris was very fond, more often than not results in a confusing,
>silly, poorly conceived background.
The thing was Claremont normally had a good idea how to end such mysterious
plotline he started - compared to Lobdell who hadn't a clue.
Lazy Line Painter Al
MT
>
> In article <35C0CA...@jps.net>, MT <NOSPA...@jps.net> writes:
>
> > Personally, I think he's half-half in that respect. Obviously
> >he'll be repeating stuff, but at the same time he tried new things.
> >Those new things sometimes failed because he didn't go far enough
> >with them, and left obvious outs (Colossus didn't truly defect) so
> >that he could pull them back into control.
>
> The real problem I had was that Colossus leaving the X-men to join the
> Acolytes was areally good idea and what happened...nothing. And then
> Colossus is back in Excalibur.
I'm inclined to agree, sort of. I thought the idea was great, unlike
some other people. However, the only good thing to come out of it was
#315. And that was a great way of showing that Piotr was questioning his
decision.
> > "Ill-conceived, event-rather-than-character driven drivel"
> >obviously relates to the individual. I agree it was event-driven;
> >that's why I liked it. ;)
>
> The problem I had was that although Lobdell could always build up to
> an event well, the climax was always a let down. If he's going to
> concentrate on events - he should make them surprising, full of twists
> and original. Not, as seemed the case, a bigger and nastier
> robo-human-sentinel mutant killing machine - that gets destroyed by
> hitting it with everything they've got.
Ooooh. Bastion was killed by one energy blast or so? I think I'm glad I
missed O:ZT. On the other hand, I thought Onslaught was a great buildup
and all, but that's partly Mark Waid's talent there. The ending was kind
of cool, what with the heroes sacrificing themselves to soak up the
psionic energy (I'm blindly reiterating because I might have gotten this
story wrong and hopes someone corrects me).
> >> > Yeah, I recall you enjoyed Australia. What was so good
> >> >about it? It went nowhere.
> >>
> >> Huh? And where exactly was the x-men going under Lobdell?
> >
> > I'm not sure; I'd say it was directionless as well. But my
> >point is, it was entertaining.
>
> Wasn't it frustrating, though Lobdell he built up a storyline only to
> have it end with a cop-out?
On some of them, yes. Overall, though, there are very few endings that
truly surprise me these days. Lobdell was hit or miss; if he surprised
me, he did so greatly; in the cases that he didn't, I could have written
the piece.
> >> the whole point of the Australia period was it was continually
> >> moving and continually changing - leading up to the return of
> >> Xavier and the original x-men joining the team.
> >
> > I'll give you the changing part. It seemed to me like a
> >nebulous sort of place that CC could pull his next new direction out
> >of. And he did do that, to some extent, though I wouldn't quite say
> >he had that long, drawn-out plot in mind when he conceived the return
> >of Xavier.
>
> I think the plan was to show the X-men split and slowly reunited
> before being galvanised together by the return of the Prof. It was
> always going to be a long drawn out plot -but that's one thing that
> characterised Claremont's X-men + it's the only comic that has such an
> ability to run with a long and complicated idea.
Which, in some cases, is rather mythical. If he truly planned that far
in advance and ran the storyline so smoothly, then I've got to give him
a lot of credit for that (Even if I didn't like it all).
> When Lobdell tried to emulate it - Joseph, Legacy Virus, Operation
> Zero Tolerance - it didn't work because he never thought the idea
> through.
Agreed on this. I loved his ideas from the start, but by the end even
he got tired of them and it showed. If he had the long-range talent
Claremont did, then his great action sequences/inventive ideas would be
so much greater.
> Simple escapist fantasy is found in almost every other big-hitter that
> Marvel, DC and Image produce - so it's nice that one of the titles
> tries something different.
Well, that's true there. However, I like the X-Men and I'd like to see
some escapism there.
I did like X-Factor a lot during its PAD days, and I don't qualify that
as full escapism nor full action. It, to me, is held in as high regard
for the title as a whole as Claremont's work is for you with UXM.
> > But the reason I hated it was because it was so empty. I still
> >don't understand Wolverine's precognitive ability in UXM #251.
>
> I remember being really caught up in it - and perhaps I like
> re-reading it because of that. The way each of the X-men *returned*
> was a totally different story and many of them were unique and
> original story-telling.
So that's what you like about it! The way the X-Men split through the
Siege Perilous was unentertaining to me, and I just hated the way some
people came back (Colossus, Psylocke). And I never understood anything
about what happened to Wolverine in those times. For you, an enticing,
dramatic read, but for me, hazy gibberish.
> Lazy Line Painter Al
> Is an infinite monkey better than an Ice Weasal?
Damn straight. Can't wait for my circumcision.
Soleil Lapierre
> >An infinite monkey named Riedel wrote:
> Resorting to name calling already? By the way, what exactly is a "infinite
> monkey"?
It's just a message header. And surely you've heard the old saying about
an infinite number of monkey and Shakespeare's works? Usenet very often
seems like the room containing those monkeys.
Besides, it ties in with my previous message header, which was "(name)
hit these random keys:"
> >Now I'll pull the same trick I usually pull on Jim, and tell you to go
> >read the *real* Claremont issues. That is, pre-220ish UXM and New Mutants
> >up to #54 (excluding #51).
> Its funny that you mention #220, because I have every issue from #220 and
> up. I have read issues before #220. I have several issues between #151 to
> 220.
Ok then. At least I know now you've probably read some of the better ones.
Although personally I find the "Lifedeath" stories really dull. Some
people rave over them. I guess I just don't like romances.
> I never bothered to feel in the gaps because it seemed to me the further I
> went back the worse it got. I spent alot of money over the years collecting
> the back issues I have, most of it was a waste of money. Why should I got
> spend my money on a writer I don't enjoy just because you claim the *real*
> Claremont issues are good.
Well, whatever turns your crank I guess. As I said, you're entitled to
your opinion.
> You don't seem to be a fan of Lobdell's work.
WARNING! UNDERSTATEMENT!! UNDERSTATEMENT, Will Robinson!!
> I can understand why some
> people would hate his work. I've read the augments against him and will
> admitt that there are some valid points made. But.....I don't think he's the
> worse X-Writer.
Oh heck no. Raab's much worse. Liefeld was worse. Even Simonson was
sometimes worse than Lobdell.
> I judge a comic on its ability to entertain me, and when I
> read Claremont's X-Men issues my eyes get heavy. I can't help it, I just
> find Claremont's work boring.
Huh. I use the same criterion, but I found his books enthralling.
I can see what you're getting at in a way though. I've only read Lord of
the Rings once and found it a real task to finish, yet some people love
it. I could see that it was very well-written, but it was too long-winded
for me.
--
/* Soleil "Ra" Lapierre, Co-Maintainer of the Magik Timeline:
* http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~lapierrs/comics/
*
* "You are false data." - Bomb #20
*/
Soleil Lapierre
> Riedel wrote:
> > >An infinite monkey named Riedel wrote:
> > Resorting to name calling already? By the way, what exactly is a
> > "infinite monkey"?
> Soleil doesn't call people names. Look at any of her posts;
^^^
Stop that. Are you trying to give me some kind of weird reputation or
something? If so, I appreciate it. :) Just stop making me out to be some
kind of transsexual.
> > Its funny that you mention #220, because I have every issue from #220
> > and up. I have read issues before #220. I have several issues between
> > #151 to 220.
> Several probably isn't enough. However, that middle era is where most
> of my collection lies, and it's not that great.
I've tried that argument on Cannonball-hatin' Jim, and even though it's
true it doesn't seem to work. You have to give specific issue numbers
that you consider good and force the person to read them.
> Yes! Exactly how I feel. I liked the last X-Men work he wrote. As you
> go to the middle of his work, it's really directionless drivel. The
> X-Men are stuck in a quagmire with no place to go, really, and he uses
> that time to develop the characters. I can respect that, but I don't
> have to like it. I'd rather go somewhere than sit in waist-high mud and
> talk.
No! Exactly how I don't feel. I liked the character development, and I
don't feel it dragged to the point of becoming a soap opera. I really,
really, really hated the whole dark, confused and gritty section that
surrounded the Genosha, Australia and Brood Part Deux things.
> down. Especially since his God mode status on this NG would say
> something about the overall quality of his work. If the last 100 or 150
> issues were something people will admit were crap, then why is he
> considered so great all the time?
You realize that half the reason he has "god" status here is because of
reactionaries who overinflate and misrepresent the feelings of us
Claremont fans? :)
Sure he's turned out some crap. But I like him because he turned out what
are to me the canonical examples of good comic book writing.
> Let's put it this way: Claremont focuses on the people. However, I like
> to be entertained. Comic books are escapist fantasy. They're there for
> entertainment. And for me entertainment involves something new and cool.
> Sharing feelings and commenting on the weather is something real life
> already has. I'd rather open up a comic book and enjoy something I
> myself can never get to do.
I can't discuss the weather with superpowered mutants, can you?
> long block of material in the middle. Those bookends focus on a healthy
> balance of both, leaning towards the action to keep me interested. If
Be careful, for down that road lies Lobdell and madness. :)
> all I get is an issue where I must scrutinize every word to get the
> theme (Believe me, Claremont hides important facts in long blocks of
> text), then my eyes won't cope. Snooze time.
Cool, complete disagreement. I *love* the detail Claremont worked in. I
think he did a good job of adding several layers of subplot without
becoming overly long-winded, and there was still lots of action.
But then, I have an attention span. <-- not to be taken personally!!
> MT, who's looking forward to becoming an infinite monkey.
Congrats, you made it! Now back to your typewriter. :)
--
/* Soleil "Ra" Lapierre, Co-Maintainer of the Magik Timeline:
* http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~lapierrs/comics/
*
* "'It was the best of times, it was the *blurst* of times'?!? You
* stupid ape!" - Burns
*/
Soleil Lapierre
> Well, most of Claremont's work was written in the 80s, when people still
> had attention spans and could read something that wasn't a constant T&A
> bloodfest.
Here, here. It's all the school system's fault.
> His current work? Now THAT'S boring...
Hey! I'll give you S7 if that's what you mean, though I liked parts of
it. But so far his FF kicks assneck[0].
Oh, and I'll grant that Lobdell also did a great job on the first few
issues of FF. <ducks hesitantly>
[0] STR.
--
/* Soleil "Ra" Lapierre, Co-Maintainer of the Magik Timeline:
* http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~lapierrs/comics/
*
* Captain Janeway is a criminal.
*/
Soleil Lapierre
> Lazy Line Painter Al
> Is an infinite monkey better than an Ice Weasal?
Yes, because I only want to hurt some infinite monkeys a little whereas I'm
working to exterminate *all* the ice weasels. :)
--
/* Soleil "Ra" Lapierre, Co-Maintainer of the Magik Timeline:
* http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~lapierrs/comics/
*
* "I wasn't gonna cut ya. I only wanted ta hurt ya a little."
*/
AGr3691541
>AGr3691541 wrote:
>>
>> In article <35C0CA...@jps.net>, MT <NOSPA...@jps.net> writes:
>>
>> > Personally, I think he's half-half in that respect. Obviously
>> >he'll be repeating stuff, but at the same time he tried new things.
>> >Those new things sometimes failed because he didn't go far enough
>> >with them, and left obvious outs (Colossus didn't truly defect) so
>> >that he could pull them back into control.
>>
>> The real problem I had was that Colossus leaving the X-men to join the
>> Acolytes was areally good idea and what happened...nothing. And then
>> Colossus is back in Excalibur.
>
> I'm inclined to agree, sort of. I thought the idea was great, unlike
>some other people. However, the only good thing to come out of it was
>#315. And that was a great way of showing that Piotr was questioning his
>decision.
But we never saw the shade of grey - the Colossus the idealistic Acolyte,
trying to make a Mutant Homeland genuinely work. Instead he left, and the next
time we saw him, he wished he hadn't. No development, nothing - just Marvel and
Lobdell not having a clue what they were doing.
>
>> > "Ill-conceived, event-rather-than-character driven drivel"
>> >obviously relates to the individual. I agree it was event-driven;
>> >that's why I liked it. ;)
>>
>> The problem I had was that although Lobdell could always build up to
>> an event well, the climax was always a let down. If he's going to
>> concentrate on events - he should make them surprising, full of twists
>> and original. Not, as seemed the case, a bigger and nastier
>> robo-human-sentinel mutant killing machine - that gets destroyed by
>> hitting it with everything they've got.
>
> Ooooh. Bastion was killed by one energy blast or so? I think I'm glad I
>missed O:ZT.
It was worse than that, Bastion stopped because ...erm...SHIELD told him to
stop being so naught. And he did.
But then Lobdell had probably found out he'd been sacked from the X-books and
was probably in no mind to break his back writing an epic ending.
> On the other hand, I thought Onslaught was a great buildup
>and all, but that's partly Mark Waid's talent there. The ending was kind
>of cool, what with the heroes sacrificing themselves to soak up the
>psionic energy (I'm blindly reiterating because I might have gotten this
>story wrong and hopes someone corrects me).
It looked impressive - but was poorly constructed. And in the end makes no real
sense, why, for example were mutants not able to sacrifice themselves.
It's points like this that make me so annoyed about the writing.
>> >> > Yeah, I recall you enjoyed Australia. What was so good
>> >> >about it? It went nowhere.
>> >>
>> >> Huh? And where exactly was the x-men going under Lobdell?
>> >
>> > I'm not sure; I'd say it was directionless as well. But my
>> >point is, it was entertaining.
>>
>> Wasn't it frustrating, though Lobdell he built up a storyline only to
>> have it end with a cop-out?
>
> On some of them, yes. Overall, though, there are very few endings that
>truly surprise me these days. Lobdell was hit or miss; if he surprised
>me, he did so greatly; in the cases that he didn't, I could have written
>the piece.
When did Lobdell surprise you?
>> >> the whole point of the Australia period was it was continually
>> >> moving and continually changing - leading up to the return of
>> >> Xavier and the original x-men joining the team.
>> >
>> > I'll give you the changing part. It seemed to me like a
>> >nebulous sort of place that CC could pull his next new direction out
>> >of. And he did do that, to some extent, though I wouldn't quite say
>> >he had that long, drawn-out plot in mind when he conceived the return
>> >of Xavier.
>>
>> I think the plan was to show the X-men split and slowly reunited
>> before being galvanised together by the return of the Prof. It was
>> always going to be a long drawn out plot -but that's one thing that
>> characterised Claremont's X-men + it's the only comic that has such an
>> ability to run with a long and complicated idea.
>
> Which, in some cases, is rather mythical. If he truly planned that far
>in advance and ran the storyline so smoothly, then I've got to give him
>a lot of credit for that (Even if I didn't like it all).
Well I'll admit the story didn't always run smoothly, but he was working under
similar conditions as Lobdell regarding marketable commdities and hyped
crossovers which is going to restrict ANY writer.
>> When Lobdell tried to emulate it - Joseph, Legacy Virus, Operation
>> Zero Tolerance - it didn't work because he never thought the idea
>> through.
>
> Agreed on this. I loved his ideas from the start, but by the end even
>he got tired of them and it showed. If he had the long-range talent
>Claremont did, then his great action sequences/inventive ideas would be
>so much greater.
>
>> Simple escapist fantasy is found in almost every other big-hitter that
>> Marvel, DC and Image produce - so it's nice that one of the titles
>> tries something different.
>
> Well, that's true there. However, I like the X-Men and I'd like to see
>some escapism there.
> I did like X-Factor a lot during its PAD days, and I don't qualify that
>as full escapism nor full action. It, to me, is held in as high regard
>for the title as a whole as Claremont's work is for you with UXM.
I've not got the whole Peter David X-Factor run, although I remember it being
the only title worth reading when Marvel were putting the X-men out by
committee.
>> > But the reason I hated it was because it was so empty. I still
>> >don't understand Wolverine's precognitive ability in UXM #251.
>>
>> I remember being really caught up in it - and perhaps I like
>> re-reading it because of that. The way each of the X-men *returned*
>> was a totally different story and many of them were unique and
>> original story-telling.
>
> So that's what you like about it! The way the X-Men split through the
>Siege Perilous was unentertaining to me, and I just hated the way some
>people came back (Colossus, Psylocke). And I never understood anything
>about what happened to Wolverine in those times. For you, an enticing,
>dramatic read, but for me, hazy gibberish.
Well wolverine bores me anyway, but it was more than that, it was Colossus
returning and linking up with a shape-changed Callisto, it was Psylocke's
alteration bythe Hand, it was Eric Beale chasing Dazzler thru the studio trying
to kill her, it was the final showdown between Rogue and Ms Marvel ... with the
ever growing Shadow King in the background.
Lazy Line Painter Al
Freshie
Lapierre) wrote:
>An infinite monkey named Jade and Dan wrote:
>
>> Well, most of Claremont's work was written in the 80s, when people still
>> had attention spans and could read something that wasn't a constant T&A
>> bloodfest.
>
>Here, here. It's all the school system's fault.
>
>> His current work? Now THAT'S boring...
>
>Hey! I'll give you S7 if that's what you mean, though I liked parts of
>it. But so far his FF kicks assneck[0].
well his 4 issue stint on wolverine was pretty bad also.
>Oh, and I'll grant that Lobdell also did a great job on the first few
>issues of FF. <ducks hesitantly>
I like his work on FF also, but it seems to be maligned by alot of
people.
>[0] STR.
>
>--
>/* Soleil "Ra" Lapierre, Co-Maintainer of the Magik Timeline:
> * http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~lapierrs/comics/
> *
> * Captain Janeway is a criminal.
> */
paranoia: the choice of a tech generation
http://www.silly.com/~tang
malp...@my-dejanews.com
agr36...@aol.com (AGr3691541) wrote:
> In article <6pqktc$shb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, malp...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> >Lazy Line Painter Al enscribed:
>
> Well Claremont I think suffers in direct comparison with Gaimen...
> But just after Gambit and the X-tinctio Agenda weren't that good -but theyre
> followed by 274-276 which are staggeringly good, before the build up to the big
> showdown with the Shadow King...and then Claremont left.
Good, yes. Staggeringly so? Perhaps.
> BTW Child Storm wasn't a clone - she was the real Storm de-aged by Nanny (which
> I can take) but it just so happened Nanny had a full sized Storm clone and a
> dummy ship that she used to dummy the X-men into thinking Storm was dead (ie -
> the body found by the X-men in 248 was a clone) - which is a bit shit...
Yes, yes it is. But it provides an explanation for what an item I had
forgotten all about - the body. (a small detail, I know)
> It was one of the greatest periods in any comics history, the Claremont/Byrne
> period. I really believe more comic creators who don't get on should be force
> to work together if this is the result.
Ah, our fundamental difference rears its ugly head. I just don't think
it was a great PERIOD. It was a decent period with some great spots,
but I think Claremont is very uneven in the quality of his work. Still,
some good work is better than no good work - which we have gotten
a lot of lately.
SNIP
> Who would you go for, Dark Phoenix or Goblin Queen (you're allowed the Raney
> Goblin Queen if you want)?
I'm an Inferno Goblin Queen man myself. Something about all that
delicious anger and rage just screams dominitrix :- )
SNIP
> The thing was Claremont normally had a good idea how to end such mysterious
> plotline he started - compared to Lobdell who hadn't a clue.
>
I think I can concede this point.
Strax
>
>Yes, yes it did. No one claimed that Gambit made the Xmen. However,
>Claremont did make Gambit :)
>
>> Chandre.
>>
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Well, you know for some people, Gambit did make the X-men....which is
why I only pick it up infrequently after 350...not everyone hates
Gambit, but not everyone is an extremist fan-boy freak. Maybe it's
just cause I'm from Louisiana and am glad to have a character from
there besides the female Captain Marvel (whatever happned to her
anyway, wasn't she an Avenger once?) Anyway, I started collecting
Uncanny at 250 and really liked the concept and style of Gambit,
unfortunately, the writers forgot what they wanted to do with him
somewhere along the way I think...he and Rogue should have kept the
Unresolved Sexual Tension (tm) and never went any further and I think
things would have been a lot better. I guess what I'm trying most to
say is that if not for Gambit, I wouldn't have kept reading it for so
long...and yeah I get a little defensive with the all the claptrap
around here, but I can take it..just take it in stride because I agree
with a lot of what people say about Gambit during the Lobdell
run...but Claremont, I think, had some ideas of where he wanted to go
with Gambit, but never had the time to do anything with him really...
Guess I'll shut up nowand wait for the flames to start rising....
And to keep this a little more on topic of discussion, I don't think
Claremont is the greatest writer in the world, either, but out of
those who have written X-men, yes, he did have the greatest handle on
the X-Men and although he was the Dangler King..at least his stories
made sense....
Strax
Strax
>Jade and Dan wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > But if I want to call Chris Claremonts work boring, I hope thats
>> > alright. Because that exactly what his work on the X-Men
>> > is.......boring. I really don't care if he's considered the God of
>> > X-Men writers or not, because for the most part, Claremont's work is
>> > boring.
>>
>> Well, most of Claremont's work was written in the 80s, when people
>> still had attention spans and could read something that wasn't a
>> constant T&A bloodfest.
>
> Oh, brother. I do like action, but that doesn't mean I don't have an
>attention span. Besides, there were people that didn't enjoy his work
>then (Just as there are people who enjoy his work now). If people didn't
>have attention spans now, then no one would like it. It's all TASTE.
>
> Attention span, my ass...
>
> ...Where am I?
>
>> His current work? Now THAT'S boring...
>
> But it's so similar to his early work! Where do you draw the line!?
>
>--
MT,
That's what I was thinking. I collected Soveriegn 7 when it started
and it seemed like an interesting concept...interesting
characters..but at the end I'm still confused about the direction and
idea behind the whole series, more so than when it started...Does this
sounds familiar to anyone else?
Strax
AGr3691541
>.. a unch of coked up yuppies with more money than
>they knew what to do with...
>
Are we back with Image again?
Lazy Line Painter Al
MT
>
> An infinite monkey named MT wrote:
> > Riedel wrote:
> > > >An infinite monkey named Riedel wrote:
> > > Resorting to name calling already? By the way, what exactly is a
> > > "infinite monkey"?
> >
> > Soleil doesn't call people names. Look at any of her posts;
> ^^^
> Stop that. Are you trying to give me some kind of weird reputation or
> something? If so, I appreciate it. :) Just stop making me out to be
> some kind of transsexual.
I'm genuinely sorry if I made a mistake, but I thought Soleil was a
girl's name. If I'm wrong, I'll correct it on my typewriter.
> > > Its funny that you mention #220, because I have every issue from
> > > #220 and up. I have read issues before #220. I have several issues
> > > between #151 to 220.
> >
> > Several probably isn't enough. However, that middle era is
> > where most of my collection lies, and it's not that great.
>
> I've tried that argument on Cannonball-hatin' Jim, and even though
> it's true it doesn't seem to work. You have to give specific issue
> numbers that you consider good and force the person to read them.
But the problem is that Claremont is regarded as a great writer
overall. Very few people admit he had a long run (150+) of weak comics;
rather, they say his entire run on UXM was thrilling and unbelievable.
Therefore, it should stand to reason that you can take several of these
thrilling and unbelievable comics and enjoy them. It isn't fair to
pretend Claremont didn't have lots of weaknesses otherwise.
> > Yes! Exactly how I feel. I liked the last X-Men work he wrote.
> > As you go to the middle of his work, it's really directionless
> > drivel. The X-Men are stuck in a quagmire with no place to go,
> > really, and he uses that time to develop the characters. I can
> > respect that, but I don't have to like it. I'd rather go somewhere
> > than sit in waist-high mud and talk.
>
> No! Exactly how I don't feel. I liked the character development, and I
> don't feel it dragged to the point of becoming a soap opera. I really,
> really, really hated the whole dark, confused and gritty section that
> surrounded the Genosha, Australia and Brood Part Deux things.
There was a 2nd Brood story? I don't have that one. See, everything in
the Australia section before the Siege Perilous is what I would call a
soap opera. Everything after #260 was entertaining. A lot of stuff
before #150 was good, too. But from #150 to Australia, there weren't too
many good moments. All that character interaction may float your boat,
but it's redundant to life, and in that case it's boring.
> > down. Especially since his God mode status on this NG would say
> > something about the overall quality of his work. If the last 100 or
> > 150 issues were something people will admit were crap, then why is
> > he considered so great all the time?
>
> You realize that half the reason he has "god" status here is because
> of reactionaries who overinflate and misrepresent the feelings of us
> Claremont fans? :)
Really? It seems like a lot of the people I've talked to enjoy
Claremont's work period (Especially the people who keep whining about
wanting to have him back on the X-Books).
> Sure he's turned out some crap. But I like him because he turned out
> what are to me the canonical examples of good comic book writing.
I think you're one of the few people I know who will admit Claremont
has his ups and downs like that.
> > Let's put it this way: Claremont focuses on the people.
> > However, I like to be entertained. Comic books are escapist fantasy.
> > They're there for entertainment. And for me entertainment involves
> > something new and cool. Sharing feelings and commenting on the
> > weather is something real life already has. I'd rather open up a
> > comic book and enjoy something I myself can never get to do.
>
> I can't discuss the weather with superpowered mutants, can you?
No. ;) You know what I meant. Character interaction would be different
with the added bonus of mutant powers, but what good are those powers if
you don't use them? That's what I'm looking for (But I'm not throwing
characterization out the window, as it BOOSTS believability and makes
escapism easier to grasp).
> > long block of material in the middle. Those bookends focus on a
> > healthy balance of both, leaning towards the action to keep me
> > interested. If
>
> Be careful, for down that road lies Lobdell and madness. :)
But I like Lobdell. That's my point here; both writers have their ups
and downs, and I won't speak of each writer as excellent.
> > all I get is an issue where I must scrutinize every word to get the
> > theme (Believe me, Claremont hides important facts in long blocks of
> > text), then my eyes won't cope. Snooze time.
>
> Cool, complete disagreement. I *love* the detail Claremont worked in.
> I think he did a good job of adding several layers of subplot without
> becoming overly long-winded, and there was still lots of action.
No, not subplot. That's good, because as I said to Lazy Line Painter Al
it keeps the seires from being completely linear. It makes the history
more cohesive.
What I mean is his tell-not-show problem. There might be some important
fact that's not covered in the art, but rather in the text (Long blocks
of it). I never liked Claremont's dialogue stuff, so I skip it and
usually miss something later.
> But then, I have an attention span. <-- not to be taken personally!!
How else should I take it!?
It's not the attention span, it's the taste or preference. I regard
comic books as escapism, and thus treat them as such. When I regard
something (Classic works of literature) as something beyond
entertainment (Morally fulfilling books, I guess), I treat them as such.
I can sit and read The Iliad and enjoy it, because I believe that's how
it's meant to be enjoyed.
> > MT, who's looking forward to becoming an infinite monkey.
>
> Congrats, you made it! Now back to your typewriter. :)
I just finished writing the All-New, All-Deadly X-Men story! What more
do you want?
Paul O'Brien
writes
>In article <35C01862...@aempires.com>,
> Chandre Darkstorm <cha...@aempires.com> wrote:
>SNIP
>
>> When Gambit came out, Jim Lee was at the pencil. 'Nuff said? The whole
>> nanny thing was probably a forced continuity from the Fall of the
>> Mutants crossover.
No, it isn't. Gambit was originally intended as a supporting
character, but he was always going to be there. Had Claremont got
to do what he wanted, apparently we'd have had another thrilling
couple of years of Australia stories, and let's not pretend that
people were clamouring for that.
>> > Have you read the early stuff - and I think the Gambit stuff came
>> > around the time "art sells" and the artists were getting to help
>> > influence the stories.
>
>Yes it did, and interestingly, the art kind of sucks in that story.
>Is the penciler one of our our boys from Image et. al.?
The art IS bad, but that's because it's a last minute fill-in. Even
the penciller admits it's not his finest hour.
Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/
My faith in anaesthetic is restored.
de Designers, Consul
> Soleil Lapierre wrote:
> > An infinite monkey named MT wrote:
> > > Riedel wrote:
> > > > >An infinite monkey named Riedel wrote:
> > > > Resorting to name calling already? By the way, what exactly is a
> > > > "infinite monkey"?
> > > Soleil doesn't call people names. Look at any of her posts;
> > ^^^
> > Stop that. Are you trying to give me some kind of weird reputation
> > or something? If so, I appreciate it. :) Just stop making me out to
> > be some kind of transsexual.
> I'm genuinely sorry if I made a mistake, but I thought Soleil was a
> girl's name. If I'm wrong, I'll correct it on my typewriter.
It is! But I went to his webpage before, so I know he's a he. :D Of course, the
Soleil that I fondly remember was Punky Brewster, to which she just ...
blossomed ;D to my hearts joy.
> There was a 2nd Brood story? I don't have that one.
I think there is even a semi-third story, in Excaliber. With mutant Brood.
--
de Designers,
[Jameson Stalanthas Yu, Shade and Sweet Water, mes amis and Edgerunners]
[Link at http://www-scf.usc.edu/~jamesony -X- ICQ 10208399]
[Joint Educational Project http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/JEP]
[Mutatis mutandis, strive to be humane, not human]
MT
>
> In article <35C105...@jps.net>, MT <NOSPA...@jps.net> writes:
>
> > I'm inclined to agree, sort of. I thought the idea was great,
> >unlike some other people. However, the only good thing to come out of
> >it was #315. And that was a great way of showing that Piotr was
> >questioning his decision.
>
> But we never saw the shade of grey - the Colossus the idealistic
> Acolyte, trying to make a Mutant Homeland genuinely work. Instead he
> left, and the next time we saw him, he wished he hadn't. No
> development, nothing - just Marvel and Lobdell not having a clue what
> they were doing.
Exactly. I completely agree here; the idea was great in theory, but not
in execution. Had we seen the idealistic Acolyte in Piotr, then #315
would have been a lot better to read. As it is, it's still the only good
thing to come out of that, and I do enjoy it.
> >> The problem I had was that although Lobdell could always build up
> >> to an event well, the climax was always a let down. If he's going
> >> to concentrate on events - he should make them surprising, full of
> >> twists and original. Not, as seemed the case, a bigger and nastier
> >> robo-human-sentinel mutant killing machine - that gets destroyed by
> >> hitting it with everything they've got.
> >
> > Ooooh. Bastion was killed by one energy blast or so? I think
> >I'm glad I missed O:ZT.
>
> It was worse than that, Bastion stopped because ...erm...SHIELD told
> him to stop being so naught. And he did.
LOL!! ROFLMAO!!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha....
*Sniff* Ah...
> But then Lobdell had probably found out he'd been sacked from the
> X-books and was probably in no mind to break his back writing an epic
> ending.
As in, he did it for revenge. Personally, I believed that when
Claremont and Lobdell found out they were being sacked, they took as
many things with them as they could. That could be just me, or not.
This is how I explain Claremont's attempt at killing Magneto (Though
Marvel forced Lobdell to write UXM #299). And why #350 was so
out-of-character and why it took out the X-Men's most sellable commodity
(Gambit is quite popular amongst the chromium-cover buying legions).
> > On the other hand, I thought Onslaught was a great buildup and all,
> >but that's partly Mark Waid's talent there. The ending was kind of
> >cool, what with the heroes sacrificing themselves to soak up the
> >psionic energy (I'm blindly reiterating because I might have gotten
> >this story wrong and hopes someone corrects me).
>
> It looked impressive - but was poorly constructed. And in the end
> makes no real sense, why, for example were mutants not able to
> sacrifice themselves. It's points like this that make me so annoyed
> about the writing.
Hmm... I was curious about that as well, but only mildly. I guess this
shows that I'm not really recognizing my small criticisms of various
stories.
> >> Wasn't it frustrating, though Lobdell he built up a storyline only
> >> to have it end with a cop-out?
> >
> > On some of them, yes. Overall, though, there are very few
> >endings that truly surprise me these days. Lobdell was hit or miss;
> >if he surprised me, he did so greatly; in the cases that he didn't, I
> >could have written the piece.
>
> When did Lobdell surprise you?
I have a few gaps in my collection, so bear with me on this.
UXM #302: Even the cover didn't tip me off to the fact that Colossus
would beat the crap out of Fitzroy. I thought it would be Forge or
Bishop.
#304: I didn't look at the back, and therefore had no idea Magneto was
coming back. And I expected them to kill him once and for all.
#308: I know this doesn't really count, but I thought this was an
awesome, laid-back sort of issue. It was about time Cyclops and Jean got
married, and after such a long line of failure I never expected it to
happen.
#309: The revelation that Magneto was alive in XMU #1, and Charles'
immoral use of his powers.
#311: Call me naïve, but I didn't expect Jubilee to rebound and take
out Sabretooth.
#315: Did you genuinely believe Exodus would let the Neophyte live (My
guess is he killed him anyway, as he hasn't been seen since)?
(I'm skipping Legionquest since I knew all about AoA beforehand.)
#322: Putting Juggernaut down? 'Nuff said.
#325: Could be out-of-character for Storm to kill Marrow.
#330: They saved Psylocke without defeating Tar.
And that's basically where my collection ends. I own most of the stuff
in between, though, and it wasn't surprising if it was left out.
> >> I think the plan was to show the X-men split and slowly reunited
> >> before being galvanised together by the return of the Prof. It was
> >> always going to be a long drawn out plot -but that's one thing that
> >> characterised Claremont's X-men + it's the only comic that has such
> >> an ability to run with a long and complicated idea.
> >
> > Which, in some cases, is rather mythical. If he truly planned
> >that far in advance and ran the storyline so smoothly, then I've got
> >to give him a lot of credit for that (Even if I didn't like it all).
>
> Well I'll admit the story didn't always run smoothly, but he was
> working under similar conditions as Lobdell regarding marketable
> commdities and hyped crossovers which is going to restrict ANY writer.
Really? Around that time he didn't seem to have too many crossovers to
deal with. Besides, it seemed as if he knew the crossover was coming,
and he began to weave that into his regular plotline all during that
time.
> >> Simple escapist fantasy is found in almost every other big-hitter
> >> that Marvel, DC and Image produce - so it's nice that one of the
> >> titles tries something different.
> >
> > Well, that's true there. However, I like the X-Men and I'd
> >like to see some escapism there.
> > I did like X-Factor a lot during its PAD days, and I don't
> >qualify that as full escapism nor full action. It, to me, is held in
> >as high regard for the title as a whole as Claremont's work is for
> >you with UXM.
>
> I've not got the whole Peter David X-Factor run, although I remember
> it being the only title worth reading when Marvel were putting the
> X-men out by committee.
I basically caught him at the end of his run (#89) and spent time
gathering the back issues up. Right now, I still think it's better than
anything around the Lobdell era in ANY X-Title.
> > So that's what you like about it! The way the X-Men split
> >through the Siege Perilous was unentertaining to me, and I just hated
> >the way some people came back (Colossus, Psylocke). And I never
> >understood anything about what happened to Wolverine in those times.
> >For you, an enticing, dramatic read, but for me, hazy gibberish.
>
> Well wolverine bores me anyway, but it was more than that, it was
> Colossus returning and linking up with a shape-changed Callisto, it
> was Psylocke's alteration bythe Hand, it was Eric Beale chasing
> Dazzler thru the studio trying to kill her, it was the final showdown
> between Rogue and Ms Marvel ... with the ever growing Shadow King in
> the background.
I thought #260 was a clever issue, especially Beale's insanity.
But how was Psylocke altered by the Hand? She was merged into another
body, I guess, but I still don't understand any of it. It was a rather
abstract, confusing move that I still hate to this day.
And didn't she have purple hair before she became Asian? She was
normally a British blonde, right? So how did this all happen?
MT
>
> MT,
>
> That's what I was thinking. I collected Soveriegn 7 when it started
> and it seemed like an interesting concept...interesting
> characters..but at the end I'm still confused about the direction and
> idea behind the whole series, more so than when it started...Does this
> sounds familiar to anyone else?
It does, actually. I recall buying Sovereign Seven when it first began;
it was so hyped up because THE Claremont was writing it. I went out of
my way to find something to like about the characters and the story, but
10 issues got me nowhere. In some cases, 10 issues might not do a series
justice, but it appears I wasn't too off-base anyway.
AGr3691541
>Everything after #260 was entertaining.
Come on! If you're going to attack Claremont fans for seeing everything he did
through rose-tinted specs, then you can't expect a line like this to go
unchallenged.
Everything?
It was ALL entertaining??
Lazy Line Painter Al
AGr3691541
> But how was Psylocke altered by the Hand? She was merged into another
>body, I guess, but I still don't understand any of it. It was a rather
>abstract, confusing move that I still hate to this day.
>
> And didn't she have purple hair before she became Asian? She was
>normally a British blonde, right? So how did this all happen?
>
Well to deal with this point - the Hand discovered Psylocke after she entered
the Siege Perilous. They used telepaths to rebuild her psyche into that of a
loyal servant. It was also the introduction of her psychic knife, which seemed
pretty crap even then. The Hand then tried to use Psylocke to do the same to
Wolverine, who, surprise, surprise, was so strong willed it didn't work and it
knocked some sense into Psylocke.
Even at the time, the new *ninja* Psylocke was meant to look like a slightly
asianified Psylocke (Wolverine recognises her face as that of Psylocke) and her
hair had been purple since she joined the X-men.
The two bodies merges explanation was a ret.con introduced years later and is
best forgotten (I know I've forgotten the details - it was that good) - At the
time Claremont wrote it, it was simply Psylocke remoulded.
Lazy Line Painter Al
AGr3691541
<snip>
>> But we never saw the shade of grey - the Colossus the idealistic
>> Acolyte, trying to make a Mutant Homeland genuinely work. Instead he
>> left, and the next time we saw him, he wished he hadn't. No
>> development, nothing - just Marvel and Lobdell not having a clue what
>> they were doing.
>
> Exactly. I completely agree here; the idea was great in theory, but not
>in execution. Had we seen the idealistic Acolyte in Piotr, then #315
>would have been a lot better to read. As it is, it's still the only good
>thing to come out of that, and I do enjoy it.
I enjoyed it for a similar reason, it was but a glimpse of what could have been
a great storyline.
<<asnippin'>>
>
>> But then Lobdell had probably found out he'd been sacked from the
>> X-books and was probably in no mind to break his back writing an epic
>> ending.
>
> As in, he did it for revenge. Personally, I believed that when
>Claremont and Lobdell found out they were being sacked, they took as
>many things with them as they could. That could be just me, or not.
> This is how I explain Claremont's attempt at killing Magneto (Though
>Marvel forced Lobdell to write UXM #299). And why #350 was so
>out-of-character and why it took out the X-Men's most sellable commodity
>(Gambit is quite popular amongst the chromium-cover buying legions).
Well, I think Claremont walked out which left Marvel completely in the lurch,
with the result that the next few issues (including the end of the Shadow King
saga) read like such a mess. For example the straight contradiction between 280
and 281 or the fact that Tarot dies on panel twice.
Lobdell's big plan for O:ZT had been vetoed by the X-editors and given his
subsequent sacking (albeit with the promise of FF) I doubt he could be bothered
for the usual fight in getting editors to accept his storylines and just wrote
a bland issue in which nothing happens.
<<even more snip>>
>> >> Wasn't it frustrating, though Lobdell he built up a storyline only
>> >> to have it end with a cop-out?
>> >
>> > On some of them, yes. Overall, though, there are very few
>> >endings that truly surprise me these days. Lobdell was hit or miss;
>> >if he surprised me, he did so greatly; in the cases that he didn't, I
>> >could have written the piece.
>>
>> When did Lobdell surprise you?
>
> I have a few gaps in my collection, so bear with me on this.
>
> UXM #302: Even the cover didn't tip me off to the fact that Colossus
>would beat the crap out of Fitzroy. I thought it would be Forge or
>Bishop.
Again I quite liked the change of emphasis, Forge and Mystique (a great
pairing) vs Fitzroy. The problem is after those issue, if we want to find out
what happens next to any of those characters and the storyline built, they're
not in X-men - they're not even hinted at in any subsequent title.
> #304: I didn't look at the back, and therefore had no idea Magneto was
>coming back. And I expected them to kill him once and for all.
Well, I too quite like this issue - but that's not a popular thing to say round
here...
> #308: I know this doesn't really count, but I thought this was an
>awesome, laid-back sort of issue. It was about time Cyclops and Jean got
>married, and after such a long line of failure I never expected it to
>happen.
Wasn't keen on it, although the John Romita Jr art was nice...
> #309: The revelation that Magneto was alive in XMU #1, and Charles'
>immoral use of his powers.
Years since I read that issue...
> #311: Call me naïve, but I didn't expect Jubilee to rebound and take
>out Sabretooth.
Yes, but how did she do it? With the GREAT BIG ENERGY BLAST..
> #315: Did you genuinely believe Exodus would let the Neophyte live (My
>guess is he killed him anyway, as he hasn't been seen since)?
No, that did surprise - that and the Joseph origin issue are the two I like.
> (I'm skipping Legionquest since I knew all about AoA beforehand.)
> #322: Putting Juggernaut down? 'Nuff said.
Come on, X-men defeat Juggernaut is hardly a surprise...
> #325: Could be out-of-character for Storm to kill Marrow.
It was alright, but we've been here before when Storm stabbed Callisto. Storm
will kill if absolutely necessary, we know that...
> #330: They saved Psylocke without defeating Tar.
Again, what did they do with the storylines of the Crimson Dawn? Not much and I
doubt Lobdell did either.
>> And that's basically where my collection ends. I own most of the stuff
>in between, though, and it wasn't surprising if it was left out.
>
>> >> I think the plan was to show the X-men split and slowly reunited
>> >> before being galvanised together by the return of the Prof. It was
>> >> always going to be a long drawn out plot -but that's one thing that
>> >> characterised Claremont's X-men + it's the only comic that has such
>> >> an ability to run with a long and complicated idea.
>> >
>> > Which, in some cases, is rather mythical. If he truly planned
>> >that far in advance and ran the storyline so smoothly, then I've got
>> >to give him a lot of credit for that (Even if I didn't like it all).
>>
>> Well I'll admit the story didn't always run smoothly, but he was
>> working under similar conditions as Lobdell regarding marketable
>> commdities and hyped crossovers which is going to restrict ANY writer.
>
> Really? Around that time he didn't seem to have too many crossovers to
>deal with. Besides, it seemed as if he knew the crossover was coming,
>and he began to weave that into his regular plotline all during that
>time.
But so did Lobdell - he wielded some influence on the direction of the X-men
(the reason IIRC that Waid walked out) and must of known that every summer he
would be asked to deliver a crossover.
Lazy Line Snippin' Al
Anthony M. Soto
>> working under similar conditions as Lobdell regarding marketable
>> commdities and hyped crossovers which is going to restrict ANY
>> writer.
>
> Really? Around that time he didn't seem to have too many crossovers to
> deal with. Besides, it seemed as if he knew the crossover was coming,
> and he began to weave that into his regular plotline all during that
> time.
Well, off the top of my head I can think of these crossovers that
Claremont had to live through:
Mutant Massacre
Fall of the Mutants
Inferno
Acts of Vengance
I'm pretty sure he was still around for Extintion Agenda
These all occured during X-Men 210-250 or so. So that was 5 crossovers
in 40 issues.
Of course before that there was Secret Wars I & II. You know if doesn't
surprise me too much that people generally believe that this period was
the dregs of Claremont's X-Men. He was in cross-over hell. However, I
DO thing that the X-Men's portions of the Mutant Massacre and Fall of
the Mutants was excellent, but of course that's IMHO.
Tony
--
Tony Soto
Motorola, Inc.
1501 W. Shure Dr.
Alleigh
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6pq065$url$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, malp...@my-dejanews.com
>writes
>>In article <35C01862...@aempires.com>,
>> Chandre Darkstorm <cha...@aempires.com> wrote:
>>SNIP
>>
>>> When Gambit came out, Jim Lee was at the pencil. 'Nuff said? The whole
>>> nanny thing was probably a forced continuity from the Fall of the
>>> Mutants crossover.
>
>No, it isn't. Gambit was originally intended as a supporting
>character, but he was always going to be there. Had Claremont got
>to do what he wanted, apparently we'd have had another thrilling
>couple of years of Australia stories, and let's not pretend that
>people were clamouring for that.
I liked the Australian issues.
Justin Samuels
>
>
> Yes, but how did she do it? With the GREAT BIG ENERGY BLAST..
>
> > #315: Did you genuinely believe Exodus would let the Neophyte live (My
> >guess is he killed him anyway, as he hasn't been seen since)?
>
> No, that did surprise - that and the Joseph origin issue are the two I like.
>
neophyte has been in the avengers since.
JMcgin1007
As did I.
MT
> >another body, I guess, but I still don't understand any of it. It was
> >a rather abstract, confusing move that I still hate to this day.
> >
> > And didn't she have purple hair before she became Asian? She
> >was normally a British blonde, right? So how did this all happen?
>
> psychic knife, which seemed pretty crap even then. The Hand then tried
> to use Psylocke to do the same to Wolverine, who, surprise, surprise,
> was so strong willed it didn't work and it knocked some sense into
> Psylocke.
Believe it or not, I actually *have* the issues that this appears in;
it's from like #255 to #258 (I have the entire #250's). Wolverine was
actually *crazy*, and that psychosis made Psylocke return to normal (Two
wrongs make a right, basically).
It's just that I understand none of it (Tho' I get it now).
> Even at the time, the new *ninja* Psylocke was meant to look like a
> slightly asianified Psylocke (Wolverine recognises her face as that of
> Psylocke) and her hair had been purple since she joined the X-men.
Ah. Why was it purple anyway, out of curiosity?
> The two bodies merges explanation was a ret.con introduced years later
> and is best forgotten (I know I've forgotten the details - it was that
> good) - At the time Claremont wrote it, it was simply Psylocke
> remoulded.
I'll forget the retcon then, as well.
MT
>
> everything he did through rose-tinted specs, then you can't expect a
> line like this to go unchallenged.
>
> Everything?
> It was ALL entertaining??
Sorry... Everything that I own. I do have several (Um, lots) of gaps in
that range. I particularly enjoyed that Sh'iar thing and the two
crossovers (X-Tinction Agenda, the Shadow King Thing).
Paul O'Brien
> "Jade and Dan" <jade-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Well, most of Claremont's work was written in the 80s, when people still
>> had attention spans and could read something that wasn't a constant T&A
>> bloodfest.
Which of the current X-books is a T&A bloodfest? They've all been
showing admirable interest in plot and characterisation lately.
And I think your memory of the 1980s is more than a little rose-tinted.
mih...@my-dejanews.com
agr36...@aol.com (AGr3691541) wrote:
> In article <35C1F6...@jps.net>, MT <NOSPA...@jps.net> writes:
>
> > As in, he did it for revenge. Personally, I believed that when
> >Claremont and Lobdell found out they were being sacked, they took as
> >many things with them as they could. That could be just me, or not.
> > This is how I explain Claremont's attempt at killing Magneto (Though
> >Marvel forced Lobdell to write UXM #299). And why #350 was so
> >out-of-character and why it took out the X-Men's most sellable commodity
> >(Gambit is quite popular amongst the chromium-cover buying legions).
>
> Well, I think Claremont walked out which left Marvel completely in the lurch,
> with the result that the next few issues (including the end of the Shadow King
> saga) read like such a mess. For example the straight contradiction between
> 280 and 281 or the fact that Tarot dies on panel twice.
You "think" he walked out? I thought it was stated he was fired. Or are
you saying the facts are debatable?
> Lobdell's big plan for O:ZT had been vetoed by the X-editors and given his
> subsequent sacking (albeit with the promise of FF) I doubt he could be
> bothered for the usual fight in getting editors to accept his storylines and
> just wrote a bland issue in which nothing happens.
He had something else planned, and they rejected it? Now I'm really
beginning to feel insulted by the editors; they treat the X-Men as business,
and nothing makes it more evident.
> > I have a few gaps in my collection, so bear with me on this.
> >
> > UXM #302: Even the cover didn't tip me off to the fact that Colossus
> >would beat the crap out of Fitzroy. I thought it would be Forge or
> >Bishop.
>
> Again I quite liked the change of emphasis, Forge and Mystique (a great
> pairing) vs Fitzroy. The problem is after those issue, if we want to find out
> what happens next to any of those characters and the storyline built, they're
> not in X-men - they're not even hinted at in any subsequent title.
I wasn't too interested in them, which is why I didn't notice that loss. I
was curious as to why Forge never showed up as asked for in UXM #301-2.
> > #304: I didn't look at the back, and therefore had no idea Magneto was
> >coming back. And I expected them to kill him once and for all.
>
> Well, I too quite like this issue - but that's not a popular thing to say
> round here...
True. Especially when talking to Alara. ;)
> > #308: I know this doesn't really count, but I thought this was an
> >awesome, laid-back sort of issue. It was about time Cyclops and Jean got
> >married, and after such a long line of failure I never expected it to
> >happen.
>
> Wasn't keen on it, although the John Romita Jr art was nice...
You like JrJr? I'm disgusted by that thick style he has. All of his
characters are drawn in squares (Square arms, square legs, square torso).
> > #309: The revelation that Magneto was alive in XMU #1, and Charles'
> >immoral use of his powers.
>
> Years since I read that issue...
>
> > #311: Call me naïve, but I didn't expect Jubilee to rebound and take
> >out Sabretooth.
>
> Yes, but how did she do it? With the GREAT BIG ENERGY BLAST..
In that case, anything Claremont wrote can be reduced to a BIG VILLAIN
EXORCISM or GREAT BIG ENERGY BLAST. In Inferno, no matter the cases leading up
to it, N'astirh still died from a GREAT BIG ENERGY BLAST.
> > #315: Did you genuinely believe Exodus would let the Neophyte live (My
> >guess is he killed him anyway, as he hasn't been seen since)?
>
> No, that did surprise - that and the Joseph origin issue are the two I like.
I'm missing that Joseph issue. I guess I'll look around for it, as a
reminder of the excitement I had when there was a possibility the Joseph thing
would be resolved well...
> > (I'm skipping Legionquest since I knew all about AoA beforehand.)
> > #322: Putting Juggernaut down? 'Nuff said.
>
> Come on, X-men defeat Juggernaut is hardly a surprise...
Yeah, but not with three of them (Including Psylocke).
> > #325: Could be out-of-character for Storm to kill Marrow.
>
> It was alright, but we've been here before when Storm stabbed Callisto. Storm
> will kill if absolutely necessary, we know that...
And I never once considered it would be a case of absolute necessity.
> > #330: They saved Psylocke without defeating Tar.
>
> Again, what did they do with the storylines of the Crimson Dawn? Not much and
> I doubt Lobdell did either.
They did have that horrid Psylocke and Angel LS.
> > Really? Around that time he didn't seem to have too many crossovers to
> >deal with. Besides, it seemed as if he knew the crossover was coming,
> >and he began to weave that into his regular plotline all during that
> >time.
>
> But so did Lobdell - he wielded some influence on the direction of the X-men
> (the reason IIRC that Waid walked out) and must of known that every summer he
> would be asked to deliver a crossover.
And I've said before: Lobdell has a long-range planning problem (Cuz he
wrote each issue by the seat of his pants). He could have written this stuff
in better, but didn't. Which is one thing I liked about Claremont; I'd read
an issue, see the next one be a crossover, and NOT BE LOST. Lobdell is like,
here're Legion and Storm fighting, now today we have Xavier dead...
Did Waid really walk out because Lobdell had influence? I read that Waid
was mad because he (Waid) didn't have enough after writing six issues.
Soleil Lapierre
> On 31 Jul 1998 06:58:03 GMT, slap...@acs2.acs.ucalgary.ca (Soleil
> Lapierre) wrote:
> >> His current work? Now THAT'S boring...
> >
> >Hey! I'll give you S7 if that's what you mean, though I liked parts of
> >it. But so far his FF kicks assneck[0].
> well his 4 issue stint on wolverine was pretty bad also.
Having just finished reading that, I have to say it wasn't too hot. I
think if he had taken six issues, it would have been great. I would like
to have seen a whole issue just covering the part where Logan sets up the
special effects and puts the fear into the goons.
The first two issues were unsalvagable though.
> >Oh, and I'll grant that Lobdell also did a great job on the first few
> >issues of FF. <ducks hesitantly>
> I like his work on FF also, but it seems to be maligned by alot of
> people.
They're just jealous. :)
--
/* Soleil "Ra" Lapierre, Co-Maintainer of the Magik Timeline:
* http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~lapierrs/comics/
*
* Yeah, and retcons will fly outta my butt.
*/
Soleil Lapierre
> On Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:07:41 -0700, MT <mi...@jps.net> wrote:
> That's what I was thinking. I collected Soveriegn 7 when it started
> and it seemed like an interesting concept...interesting
> characters..but at the end I'm still confused about the direction and
> idea behind the whole series, more so than when it started...Does this
> sounds familiar to anyone else?
Yes.
--
/* Soleil "Ra" Lapierre, Co-Maintainer of the Magik Timeline:
* http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~lapierrs/comics/
*
* "The human race believes in not taking its problems seriously
* enough to solve them." - Celia Green
*/
Soleil Lapierre
> > > Soleil doesn't call people names. Look at any of her posts;
> > ^^^
> > Stop that. Are you trying to give me some kind of weird reputation or
> > something? If so, I appreciate it. :) Just stop making me out to be
> > some kind of transsexual.
> I'm genuinely sorry if I made a mistake, but I thought Soleil was a
> girl's name. If I'm wrong, I'll correct it on my typewriter.
No biggie. I should be used to it by now.
Typewriter? You're an antique collector? :)
> > I've tried that argument on Cannonball-hatin' Jim, and even though
> > it's true it doesn't seem to work. You have to give specific issue
> > numbers that you consider good and force the person to read them.
> But the problem is that Claremont is regarded as a great writer
> overall. Very few people admit he had a long run (150+) of weak comics;
> rather, they say his entire run on UXM was thrilling and unbelievable.
> Therefore, it should stand to reason that you can take several of these
> thrilling and unbelievable comics and enjoy them. It isn't fair to
> pretend Claremont didn't have lots of weaknesses otherwise.
A losing streak of 150?? When? That would he stayed on till issue #370,
which I don't think he did. :)
> > No! Exactly how I don't feel. I liked the character development, and I
> > don't feel it dragged to the point of becoming a soap opera. I really,
> > really, really hated the whole dark, confused and gritty section that
> > surrounded the Genosha, Australia and Brood Part Deux things.
> There was a 2nd Brood story? I don't have that one. See, everything in
Yeah. Somewhere around the Australia thing. Just a short one.
> the Australia section before the Siege Perilous is what I would call a
> soap opera. Everything after #260 was entertaining. A lot of stuff
> before #150 was good, too. But from #150 to Australia, there weren't too
> many good moments. All that character interaction may float your boat,
> but it's redundant to life, and in that case it's boring.
See, I like a lot of the stuff from 150ish to 220ish. The stuff from
Giant-Size to #150 was also fairly good IMO.
> > You realize that half the reason he has "god" status here is because
> > of reactionaries who overinflate and misrepresent the feelings of us
> > Claremont fans? :)
> Really? It seems like a lot of the people I've talked to enjoy
> Claremont's work period (Especially the people who keep whining about
> wanting to have him back on the X-Books).
Yeah, but few of us deify him to the point of denying he turned out a bum
issue here and there.
> > Sure he's turned out some crap. But I like him because he turned out
> > what are to me the canonical examples of good comic book writing.
> I think you're one of the few people I know who will admit Claremont
> has his ups and downs like that.
I'm surprised. I thought there were more of me around. :)
> > I can't discuss the weather with superpowered mutants, can you?
> No. ;) You know what I meant. Character interaction would be different
> with the added bonus of mutant powers, but what good are those powers if
> you don't use them? That's what I'm looking for (But I'm not throwing
> characterization out the window, as it BOOSTS believability and makes
> escapism easier to grasp).
Oh, OK. That's good. I will admit that a fight here and there adds
flavor, but I don't like it when it seems a major battle is required in
every issue. I also don't like the whole dark'n'gritty "strike force"
atmosphere that began a while after the Massacre.
> > Cool, complete disagreement. I *love* the detail Claremont worked in.
> > I think he did a good job of adding several layers of subplot without
> > becoming overly long-winded, and there was still lots of action.
> No, not subplot. That's good, because as I said to Lazy Line Painter Al
> it keeps the seires from being completely linear. It makes the history
> more cohesive.
> What I mean is his tell-not-show problem. There might be some important
> fact that's not covered in the art, but rather in the text (Long blocks
> of it). I never liked Claremont's dialogue stuff, so I skip it and
> usually miss something later.
Ah. You just like the pretty pictures, eh? <duck>
Claremont's dialogue always struck me as a funny thing: It seemed natural
to read, but if you step back you realize that only complete whackos talk
like that in real life, and the hang time in fights must be amazing for
the characters to fit in speeches like that. :)
> > But then, I have an attention span. <-- not to be taken personally!!
> How else should I take it!?
Um. Internally? You'd have to print it out first, mind...
> > > MT, who's looking forward to becoming an infinite monkey.
> > Congrats, you made it! Now back to your typewriter. :)
> I just finished writing the All-New, All-Deadly X-Men story! What more
> do you want?
The sequel. :)
--
/* Soleil "Ra" Lapierre, Co-Maintainer of the Magik Timeline:
* http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~lapierrs/comics/
*
* "You are false data." - Bomb #20
*/
Soleil Lapierre
> MT wrote:
> > Soleil Lapierre wrote:
> > > or something? If so, I appreciate it. :) Just stop making me out to
> > > be some kind of transsexual.
> > I'm genuinely sorry if I made a mistake, but I thought Soleil was a
> > girl's name. If I'm wrong, I'll correct it on my typewriter.
> It is! But I went to his webpage before, so I know he's a he. :D Of course, the
> Soleil that I fondly remember was Punky Brewster, to which she just ...
> blossomed ;D to my hearts joy.
Ugh. You will not remind me of that insipid waste of air time.
> > There was a 2nd Brood story? I don't have that one.
> I think there is even a semi-third story, in Excaliber. With mutant Brood.
Are you sure you're not thinking of the renegade furniture gang, or the
X-Men impersonators?
Oh, there was also that Gambutt and Ghost Writer book where they fought
the Brood. Little Trouble in the Big Easy, or something like that.
--
/* Soleil "Ra" Lapierre, Co-Maintainer of the Magik Timeline:
* http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~lapierrs/comics/
*
* I'm the best there is at what I do with the focused totality
* of my sorcerous might, which isn't pretty.
*/
AGr3691541
>In article <199807311912...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> agr36...@aol.com (AGr3691541) wrote:
>> In article <35C1F6...@jps.net>, MT <NOSPA...@jps.net> writes:
>>
>> > As in, he did it for revenge. Personally, I believed that when
>> >Claremont and Lobdell found out they were being sacked, they took as
>> >many things with them as they could. That could be just me, or not.
>> > This is how I explain Claremont's attempt at killing Magneto (Though
>> >Marvel forced Lobdell to write UXM #299). And why #350 was so
>> >out-of-character and why it took out the X-Men's most sellable commodity
>> >(Gambit is quite popular amongst the chromium-cover buying legions).
>>
>> Well, I think Claremont walked out which left Marvel completely in the
>lurch,
>> with the result that the next few issues (including the end of the Shadow
>King
>> saga) read like such a mess. For example the straight contradiction between
>> 280 and 281 or the fact that Tarot dies on panel twice.
>
> You "think" he walked out? I thought it was stated he was fired. Or
>are
>you saying the facts are debatable?
Here in a nutshell, is what I've read, and if anyone knows better, please post
a correction.
Claremont was objecting to the way Jim Lee was completely re-drawing his
initial stories - often with very little resemblance to what he'd written. He
complained that he was being turned into little more than a scripter to the
title.
Much protestation didn't do much good, so Claremont stated either get rid of
Jim Lee or I walk .. the editorial team, who'd felt Claremont had been writing
difficult stories for years and realising Jim Lee was the reason X-men was hot
again, called his bluff - and Claremont walked out.
So, it was more a case of jumping before pushed I suppose.
>> Lobdell's big plan for O:ZT had been vetoed by the X-editors and given his
>> subsequent sacking (albeit with the promise of FF) I doubt he could be
>> bothered for the usual fight in getting editors to accept his storylines
>and
>> just wrote a bland issue in which nothing happens.
>
> He had something else planned, and they rejected it? Now I'm really
>beginning to feel insulted by the editors; they treat the X-Men as business,
>and nothing makes it more evident.
That's the most frightening thing I've discovered about the Lobdell era. When I
first read the issue I saw his name, thought this is crap and blamed him. While
I still think he's not a great writer - the real reason this period is such a
mess belongs in part to the editorial team - who exist, as far as I'm aware, to
produce the most sellable X-men comics.
Lazy Line Painter Al
Burn! Burn! Burn! The House of Lords
Brian Fried
with the original poster: Claremont, at great lengths of time, is a bore.
Lobdell did have his faults, I will grant that immediately. But for those
who just put him down and claim Claremont was infinitely better I have to
tell you to get those socks out from your nostrils.
Lobdell could never have had the omnipotent power that Claremont had.
Claremont took a dead title, stuck in reprints, and ran with it. ALONE.
When the first sequel was created, THE NEW MUTANTS, he wrote it as well.
There was no enforced continuity with the rest of the Marvel Universe,
even in the Secret Wars storyline, and so the two X-books ran together.
Lobdell inherited 1/2 of a flagship title, and was one of 8 writers with 5
editors. Continuity and crossovers were the name of the game then as Marvel
wanted to cash in on the influx of interest.
What's worse is that Lobdell wrote story to story, wanting to see what
happens next just as much as the fan. Claremont plotted and plotted, and
then had to alter everything when the editors wanted something.
Claremont's biggest crossover event was what? Acts of Vengeance?? Maybe it
was Mutant Massacre, since he didn't write POWER PACK or THOR. But he was
in control of all the other parts in some way.
Claremont does bore me in many places. For one thing, we don't see the
total transformation of Scott Summers after #201. The Massacre was
excellent, but the followup wasn't. Storm and Wolverine go looking for
Sarah Grey, but when they don't find her at home they pack up? The Fall of
the Mutants wasn't spectacular, and as a result we had a pathetic set of
Australia storylines with some occassional highlights. Bad was the
attempts to give Longshot a personality, the return home of Colossus, the
whole Reavers don't kill Wolverine thing, the Nanny's attack, the Savage
Land story. Worse, we got the Hardcase & the Harriers issue, we got the
uneventful chase of Storm (which suddenly ends??), we have the taking of
Val Cooper but not the realisation she's been switched, etc. etc. etc.
Lobdell's Colossus defection was: (a) a forced issue from the editors,
since Magneto's Fatal Attractions gambit needed some force, and (b) OK by
Lobdell, who didn't really like Colossus.
What I like about the Lobdell era are:
(1) He didn't bring the Hellions back from the dead.
(2) The reworking of Emma Frost and Iceman. He never completed that relation-
ship, but it was interesting. I don't think Claremont would have handled
it that way.
(3) Jean asking Scott for marriage. Claremont married him off after an
adventure. Lobdell does everything by introspection.
(4) Having Jubilee deal with Illyana's death. I feel that Claremont's top
period would have seen her die in sacrifice like the Inferno story did
with Illyana and Maddie.
(5) The Dark Beast/someone is a traitor/Xavier becomes evil: There were
enough clues.
(6) The Archangel-Psylocke thing: an understandable relationship.
(7) The taking of the mansion. Editorial contraints reduced the threat,
but still it was a gutsy move.
(8) UNCANNY X-MEN #325. We got a marker to see how much the X-Men had
changed. That was the point of the issue: that even Storm has had
to stop laughing as the world gets darker.
(9) The opening of Generation X. It was well handled. Too bad Larry Hama
has ignored the original concept.
(10) The whole Forge-Storm-Mystique relationship. This is much better than
the forced Rogue-Gambit-Belladonna question and the pathetic Cable-
Storm-Domino idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fried bfr...@chat.carleton.ca Carleton U., Ottawa, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"What do you say? Will the human race be run in a day?
Or will someone save this planet we're playing on?"
Paul McCartney, 'Pipes Of Peace', 1983
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MT
>
> An infinite monkey named MT wrote:
> >
> > I'm genuinely sorry if I made a mistake, but I thought Soleil
> > was a girl's name. If I'm wrong, I'll correct it on my typewriter.
>
> No biggie. I should be used to it by now.
Whoo! You should see me try to help people pronounce my name. I point
to myself ("Me") and then to the ground ("Here").
> Typewriter? You're an antique collector? :)
Nope. Infinite monkey. ;)
> > But the problem is that Claremont is regarded as a great
> > writer overall. Very few people admit he had a long run (150+) of
> > weak comics; rather, they say his entire run on UXM was thrilling
> > and unbelievable. Therefore, it should stand to reason that you can
> > take several of these thrilling and unbelievable comics and enjoy
> > them. It isn't fair to pretend Claremont didn't have lots of
> > weaknesses otherwise.
>
> A losing streak of 150?? When? That would he stayed on till issue
> #370, which I don't think he did. :)
Well, I should have been more exact in my math. I personally think
nothing after #150 is very exciting or noteworthy, and he goes till
about #300 (#280 or so, actually). That's where I got my number (And
it's wrong, since I enjoy a lot of his last work). However, I can be
convinced to include only most things after #220.
> > the Australia section before the Siege Perilous is what I would call
> > a soap opera. Everything after #260 was entertaining. A lot of stuff
> > before #150 was good, too. But from #150 to Australia, there weren't
> > too many good moments. All that character interaction may float your
> > boat, but it's redundant to life, and in that case it's boring.
>
> See, I like a lot of the stuff from 150ish to 220ish. The stuff from
> Giant-Size to #150 was also fairly good IMO.
And you obviously like the characters more than I do, which is why
you'd enjoy stories that focus on them as people.
> > > You realize that half the reason he has "god" status here is
> > > because of reactionaries who overinflate and misrepresent the
> > > feelings of us Claremont fans? :)
> >
> > Really? It seems like a lot of the people I've talked to enjoy
> > Claremont's work period (Especially the people who keep whining
> > about wanting to have him back on the X-Books).
>
> Yeah, but few of us deify him to the point of denying he turned out a
> bum issue here and there.
True, but I'm referring to the people that admit he had a few weak
issues but was awesome on everything else.
> > > Sure he's turned out some crap. But I like him because he turned
> > > out what are to me the canonical examples of good comic book
> > > writing.
> >
> > I think you're one of the few people I know who will admit
> > Claremont has his ups and downs like that.
>
> I'm surprised. I thought there were more of me around. :)
There probably are, only hiding. ;)
> > > I can't discuss the weather with superpowered mutants, can you?
> >
> > No. ;) You know what I meant. Character interaction would be
> > different with the added bonus of mutant powers, but what good are
> > those powers if you don't use them? That's what I'm looking for (But
> > I'm not throwing characterization out the window, as it BOOSTS
> > believability and makes escapism easier to grasp).
>
> Oh, OK. That's good. I will admit that a fight here and there adds
> flavor, but I don't like it when it seems a major battle is required
> in every issue.
Neither do I, actually. I believe, like Shatterstar, that "every battle
should change a man." Battles are necessary to break the (What I feel
is) boredom, but a fight every single issue would be counterproductive
as well. Claremont's on one side of the scale, and this example is on
the extreme other side. I'm in the middle, but closer to battles.
> I also don't like the whole dark'n'gritty "strike force" atmosphere
> that began a while after the Massacre.
*Shrug* I enjoyed it. When I first got the X-Men, I was pretty
satisfied with what I was reading. I didn't have any other experiences
to compare against, except for X-Factor, and I held that in such high
regard it would be useless to try. I liked what I saw in Lobdell's work,
and continued to enjoy it without any serious problems through his run.
He's my idea of a canonical X-writer, from everything to
characterization to atmosphere to crossovers to battles.
> > > Cool, complete disagreement. I *love* the detail Claremont worked
> > > in. I think he did a good job of adding several layers of subplot
> > > without becoming overly long-winded, and there was still lots of
> > > action.
> >
> > No, not subplot. That's good, because as I said to Lazy Line
> > Painter Al it keeps the seires from being completely linear. It
> > makes the history more cohesive.
> > What I mean is his tell-not-show problem. There might be some
> > important fact that's not covered in the art, but rather in the text
> > (Long blocks of it). I never liked Claremont's dialogue stuff, so I
> > skip it and usually miss something later.
>
> Ah. You just like the pretty pictures, eh? <duck>
Damn straight. ;) As I said before, comics are an escapist medium to
me. Just entertainment. I'd rather enjoy simplicity (Best exemplified
when the art tells most of the story) than scream at the book, "She
doesn't LOVE you, Gambit! You're chasing rainbows!"
So, I think the art's more important to my style of enjoyment than the
dialogue is.
> Claremont's dialogue always struck me as a funny thing: It seemed
> natural to read, but if you step back you realize that only complete
> whackos talk like that in real life, and the hang time in fights must
> be amazing for the characters to fit in speeches like that. :)
I'm constantly looking for that, which may be my problem. It's too
sententious to meet my idea of a good comic book. Also, the comics
aren't that self-contained (I have to read entire arcs to get the story)
whereas I could jump into Lobdell's run, pull out an issue and get the
gist of the story right away.
> > I just finished writing the All-New, All-Deadly X-Men story!
> > What more do you want?
>
> The sequel. :)
Hmm... I got one! The.. Return... Of... Magneto... by Infinite Monkey
#18564.
MT
>
> In article <6pu04e$e6e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mih...@my-dejanews.com
> writes:
>
> >fired. Or are you saying the facts are debatable?
>
> please post a correction.
> Claremont was objecting to the way Jim Lee was completely re-drawing
> his initial stories - often with very little resemblance to what he'd
> written. He complained that he was being turned into little more than
> a scripter to the title.
This coincides with what I've heard, as well.
> Much protestation didn't do much good, so Claremont stated either get
> rid of Jim Lee or I walk .. the editorial team, who'd felt Claremont
> had been writing difficult stories for years and realising Jim Lee was
> the reason X-men was hot again, called his bluff - and Claremont
> walked out. So, it was more a case of jumping before pushed I suppose.
This is sort of how I heard it, only differently. Around that time, the
editors began to treat the X-Men as sellable commodities. When Claremont
attempted to keep them that way... He got fired.
> > He had something else planned, and they rejected it? Now I'm really
> >beginning to feel insulted by the editors; they treat the X-Men as
> >business, and nothing makes it more evident.
>
> That's the most frightening thing I've discovered about the Lobdell
> era. When I first read the issue I saw his name, thought this is crap
> and blamed him. While I still think he's not a great writer - the real
> reason this period is such a mess belongs in part to the editorial
> team - who exist, as far as I'm aware, to produce the most sellable
> X-men comics.
And lately they've managed to combine market interest with devotion to
fans, right? Or have they decided to drop market share from their list
of priorities?
Paul O'Brien
cs2.acs.ucalgary.ca> writes
>
>Having just finished reading that, I have to say it wasn't too hot. I
>think if he had taken six issues, it would have been great. I would like
>to have seen a whole issue just covering the part where Logan sets up the
>special effects and puts the fear into the goons.
>
>The first two issues were unsalvagable though.
The first two issues were the ones written when he didn't know the
series was being compressed, though...
shaung
Brian Fried wrote:
> Compared to Lobdell, Claremont is not a god. Not in the least. And I agree
> with the original poster: Claremont, at great lengths of time, is a bore.
>
Yes, Claremont is not a god. But he was infinitely better than Lobdell.
> Lobdell did have his faults, I will grant that immediately. But for those
> who just put him down and claim Claremont was infinitely better I have to
> tell you to get those socks out from your nostrils.
>
Lobdell was average at best. For every good story he wrote (which werefew)
there were plenty of clunkers.
> Lobdell could never have had the omnipotent power that Claremont had.
> Claremont took a dead title, stuck in reprints, and ran with it. ALONE.
> When the first sequel was created, THE NEW MUTANTS, he wrote it as well.
> There was no enforced continuity with the rest of the Marvel Universe,
> even in the Secret Wars storyline, and so the two X-books ran together.
>
There really wasn't any 'enforced continuity with the rest of the Marvel
Universe' during Lobdell's stint because the X-Men rarely interacted with
non-mutant
titles. The only time they really did was during Onslut.
> What's worse is that Lobdell wrote story to story, wanting to see what
> happens next just as much as the fan. Claremont plotted and plotted, and
> then had to alter everything when the editors wanted something.
>
This is the main reason I didn't like Lobdell. He wrote from story tostory.
Although Claremont left a lot of danglers, his stories made sense
and even if you didn't agree with the outcome, he put some thought into
his stories.
> Claremont's biggest crossover event was what? Acts of Vengeance?? Maybe it
> was Mutant Massacre, since he didn't write POWER PACK or THOR. But he was
> in control of all the other parts in some way.
>
> The Fall of the Mutants wasn't spectacular, and as a result we
> had a pathetic set of Australia storylines with some occassional highlights.
> Bad was the attempts to give Longshot a personality, the return home
> of Colossus, the whole Reavers don't kill Wolverine thing, the Nanny's attack,
> the Savage Land story.
The time from the Nanny attack to X-Men #1-3 is better than anything Lobdellhas
ever written. The Australia storyline was weak but the period before that
was better than anything Lobdell has ever written.
> What I like about the Lobdell era are:
> (1) He didn't bring the Hellions back from the dead.
And Claremont did? Claremont didn't even kill the Hellions.
> (2) The reworking of Emma Frost and Iceman. He never completed that relation-
> ship, but it was interesting. I don't think Claremont would have handled
> it that way.
I will give credit to Lobdell for his handling of Iceman.
> (3) Jean asking Scott for marriage. Claremont married him off after an
> adventure. Lobdell does everything by introspection.
Lobdell does everything by introspection? And the proof of this is?
> (4) Having Jubilee deal with Illyana's death. I feel that Claremont's top
> period would have seen her die in sacrifice like the Inferno story did
> with Illyana and Maddie.
Jubilee didn't even know Illyana so what was the big deal? Everytime
Lobdellsupporters talk about his positives they only bring up this ONE ISSUE
STORY!
How many issues did Lobdell write?
> (5) The Dark Beast/someone is a traitor/Xavier becomes evil: There were
> enough clues.
The whole Dark Beast/Sugar Man retcon was stupid. The Dark Beastis in this
Marvel Universe for years and years and he NEVER NOTICES that
there is another Beast running around? Please.
> (6) The Archangel-Psylocke thing: an understandable relationship.
A boring relationship that went nowhere. And Claremont is boring?
> (7) The taking of the mansion. Editorial contraints reduced the threat,
> but still it was a gutsy move.
Gutsy? Gutsy is taking an established heroine, slowing turning her evil,and
having her eat a star, killing billions of people. Operation Zero
Consequences was a good idea but it ended badly. The last issue of that
storyline was the worst thing Lobdell ever wrote. Oh, that's right
it was the Editors fault not Lobdell's.
> (8) UNCANNY X-MEN #325. We got a marker to see how much the X-Men had
> changed. That was the point of the issue: that even Storm has had
> to stop laughing as the world gets darker.
Uncanny X-Men #325 is a direct rip off of the first Morlock Story. Stormstabs
Callisto. Storm stabs Marrow. What's the difference. Storm had
changed way before this issue. Back when X-Men characters had character.
> (9) The opening of Generation X. It was well handled. Too bad Larry Hama
> has ignored the original concept.
How has Hama ignored the original concept? Lobdell's Generation X wasgood the
first year, after that it faded.
> (10) The whole Forge-Storm-Mystique relationship. This is much better than
> the forced Rogue-Gambit-Belladonna question and the pathetic Cable-
> Storm-Domino idea.
Claremont created the Storm-Forge relationship. Claremont created the
ideathat Forge and Mystique might have a relationship. Belladonna was introduced
after Claremont had left. Cable-Storm was introduced after Claremont had left.
Rogue-Gambit became the pathetic angst-fest after Claremont had left. What
is your point?
Is Claremont a god? No, but he is a better writer of the X-Men than Lobdell
was. Claremont is the main reason the X-Men are as popular as they are (with
help from others), not Lobdell. Under Claremont the characters were strong
individuals with depth, under Lobdell they were either characterized badly
(Rogue)
or not at all (Storm). Name any X-Men story that Lobdell wrote and I can name
a better Claremont story.
Peace,
Shaun G.
Rogan Gosh
>Lobdell could never have had the omnipotent power that Claremont had.
Yeah, i never understood why folks around here ignore that to the extent that
they do. I'm no great Lobdell fan, i didn't even really read the books for
very long after he took over, but it was obvious to me from the start that his
problems as a writer were magnified infinitely by Marvel's attitude. I knew
Lobdell was really just a facilitator for the editors' ideas, and though i
never granted him much integrity for it, i knew what was going on behind the
scenes and i just had to shrug and say, "X-Men, i knew thee well," and get on
with the business of living. Lobdell can write some clever stories now and
then. i liked the first few GENERATION X issues up through the end of
GENERATION NEXT--although i was really in it for the Bachalo/Buckingham
art--it's not like Lobdell's totally without merit. Besides, Lobdell was
always really nice to me back in the days of Prodigy, and i always apprecitated
him for that.
>What's worse is that Lobdell wrote story to story, wanting to see what
>happens next just as much as the fan. Claremont plotted and plotted, and
>then had to alter everything when the editors wanted something.
...and this is why Claremont's stories hung together better than Lobdell's.
Claremont could pace his stories better than any other superhero writer--still
can, although that WOLVERINE story he just did took an unfathomably irrelevant
turn--and even in his quieter issues it always seemed like something important
was going on. Claremont's X-Men played for higher stakes than Lobdell's did.
Under Claremont the X-Men really seemed to go out and do productive stuff for
the world, but under Lobdell all they did was hash out their own problems in
the comfort of their mansion. I can't recall the X-Men doing anything relevant
to any non-X-men in any of the Lobdell issues i stuck around for.
>What I like about the Lobdell era are...
>(3) Jean asking Scott for marriage. Claremont married him off after an
> adventure. Lobdell does everything by introspection.
This goes back to pacing. Lobdell devoted an entire issue to Jeannie
convincing Scott to marry her. That was it. What else did the X-Men do in
that issue? Play football? When Claremont married Cyke off, he had every bit
as compelling and convincing a reason--even moreso, perhaps. He'd just come
off of a situation in which he nearly lost the woman he loved--again--and,
realizing that they wouldn't live forever or maybe even into next week, he
married her shortly after. Carpe diem and all that. Why waste time showing
all the wedding preparations and such? How much different would they be for
the X-Men than for anyone else? Lobdell spent something like four issues on
that stuff. BORING.
I thought Lobdell's X-Men were morbidly self-obsessed and indulgent. The X-Men
always had some element of soap opera under Claremont, but under Lobdell it
graduated into parody.
>4) Having Jubilee deal with Illyana's death. I feel that Claremont's top
> period would have seen her die in sacrifice like the Inferno story did
> with Illyana and Maddie.
Back to stakes. Claremont's X-Men were more noble than Lobdell's. I could see
Lobdell's point with that issue, but it was so heavy-handed and overdone that
it was almost a farce. His X-Men always seemed so helpless and... amateur,
really, like they had no clue what they were doing. Because Lobdell had no
idea what he was doing. Comics can't be written the way Lobdell wrote the
X-Men, because readers can smell lack of direction like sharks smell blood, and
the reaction is the same.
>(6) The Archangel-Psylocke thing: an understandable relationship.
Agreed.
Although i don't understand why people are so hard on Lobdell, i also don't
understand how some people can rag on Claremont like they do. Why do these
people like the X-Men? Claremont built the foundation that the X-Men stand on,
and that can't be ignored.
The X-Men didn't just come out of nowhere, after all...
Rogan Gosh
"These Baptists are stupid, stupid, STUPID!" Ed Wood, from "Ed Wood"
Riedel
> Yes, Claremont is not a god. But he was infinitely better than Lobdell.
Thats a matter of opinion.
> This is the main reason I didn't like Lobdell. He wrote from story
tostory.
>Although Claremont left a lot of danglers, his stories made sense
>and even if you didn't agree with the outcome, he put some thought into
>his stories.
His stories made sense?? Don't make me laugh. Personally I don't think
Claremont plotted anything out in advance. Look at the crappy time the
X-Men spent in Australia ...... would he admitt to plotting that shit out in
advance??
>The time from the Nanny attack to X-Men #1-3 is better than anything
Lobdellhas
>ever written. The Australia storyline was weak but the period before that
>was better than anything Lobdell has ever written.
Better than anything Lobdell has ever wriiten?? Really?? Again that is a
matter of opinion. But just for the sake of augment, take issues 262 and
263. This two issues are better than anything Lobdell ever wrote?? I don't
think so. These two issues are with out a doubt the two lamest comics I
have ever hade the misfortune of reading.
> Jubilee didn't even know Illyana so what was the big deal?
Perhaps if you took the time to read the issues leading up to Illyana's
death you'd understand why Jubillee was so hurt over it. But than again it
has Lobdell's name on it so it must be trash....
> The whole Dark Beast/Sugar Man retcon was stupid. The Dark Beastis in
this
>Marvel Universe for years and years and he NEVER NOTICES that
>there is another Beast running around? Please.
The issue where the Dark Beast realizes that theres another Beast running
around was written by Mark Waid, so don't try to blame Lobdell for that one.
> How has Hama ignored the original concept? Lobdell's Generation X
wasgood the
>first year, after that it faded.
Larry Hama is an idiot for the shit ass job he did on Gen X.
> Is Claremont a god? No, but he is a better writer of the X-Men than
Lobdell
>was. Claremont is the main reason the X-Men are as popular as they are
(with
>help from others), not Lobdell.
No one is denying that Claremont is the main reason for the X-men's
popularity. But he's an overrated writer. Look at Hulk Hogan......he is one
of the main reasons for wrestlings popularity. Hogan was the biggest star in
wrestling during the 80's, but does that make him a good wrestler?? Nope. In
fact he's a horrible wrestler. Watching Hogan wrestle is like trying to read
a Chris Clamemont comic...... they both put me to sleep.
Mark
Soleil Lapierre
> Soleil Lapierre wrote:
> > An infinite monkey named MT wrote:
> > > I'm genuinely sorry if I made a mistake, but I thought Soleil
> > > was a girl's name. If I'm wrong, I'll correct it on my typewriter.
> > No biggie. I should be used to it by now.
> Whoo! You should see me try to help people pronounce my name. I point
> to myself ("Me") and then to the ground ("Here").
Heh. Usually the only time I meet someone who pronounces my name right
the first time, they speak French and immediately ask if I do to, often
in French.
> > A losing streak of 150?? When? That would he stayed on till issue
> > #370, which I don't think he did. :)
> Well, I should have been more exact in my math. I personally think
> nothing after #150 is very exciting or noteworthy, and he goes till
> about #300 (#280 or so, actually). That's where I got my number (And
> it's wrong, since I enjoy a lot of his last work). However, I can be
> convinced to include only most things after #220.
Oh, OK. I get it.
> > See, I like a lot of the stuff from 150ish to 220ish. The stuff from
> > Giant-Size to #150 was also fairly good IMO.
> And you obviously like the characters more than I do, which is why
> you'd enjoy stories that focus on them as people.
Yup. I find that kinda strange, since I'm definitely not a "people"
person and I can't stand soap operas.
> > Yeah, but few of us deify him to the point of denying he turned out a
> > bum issue here and there.
> True, but I'm referring to the people that admit he had a few weak
> issues but was awesome on everything else.
That's kinda me. I still think he was terrific back in the good ole days,
but I admit he hasn't done much for me lately. Any more detail would
require discussion of specific issues.
> > > I think you're one of the few people I know who will admit
> > > Claremont has his ups and downs like that.
> > I'm surprised. I thought there were more of me around. :)
> There probably are, only hiding. ;)
It never hurts to have a backup clone.
> to compare against, except for X-Factor, and I held that in such high
> regard it would be useless to try.
You liked X-Factor? Huh. See, that's one book I found a real yawner right
from the start. It had a good story here and there, but most of the time
it was uninteresting and/or boring for me. Then the writing started
getting crappy, and I dropped it.
> I liked what I saw in Lobdell's work,
> and continued to enjoy it without any serious problems through his run.
> He's my idea of a canonical X-writer, from everything to
> characterization to atmosphere to crossovers to battles.
Perhaps we should avoid talking about UXM #303 then.
> > Claremont's dialogue always struck me as a funny thing: It seemed
> > natural to read, but if you step back you realize that only complete
> > whackos talk like that in real life, and the hang time in fights must
> > be amazing for the characters to fit in speeches like that. :)
> I'm constantly looking for that, which may be my problem. It's too
> sententious to meet my idea of a good comic book. Also, the comics
> aren't that self-contained (I have to read entire arcs to get the story)
> whereas I could jump into Lobdell's run, pull out an issue and get the
> gist of the story right away.
Another difference between us: Although I don't mind single-issue
stories, I really love multi-issue arcs (*not* mega-crossovers),
especially if they start or resolve a long-running subplot.
--
/* Soleil "Ra" Lapierre, Co-Maintainer of the Magik Timeline:
* http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~lapierrs/comics/
*
* Captain Janeway is a criminal.
*/
AGr3691541
(Brian Fried) writes:
>Compared to Lobdell, Claremont is not a god. Not in the least. And I agree
>with the original poster: Claremont, at great lengths of time, is a bore.
>
>Lobdell did have his faults, I will grant that immediately. But for those
>who just put him down and claim Claremont was infinitely better I have to
>tell you to get those socks out from your nostrils.
The thing is I read Claremont's X-men and I find it genuinely entertaining.
I read Lobdell and most of the time it's annoying and frustrating how bad the
title is.Therefore Clarmont is infintely better than Lobdell.
>Lobdell could never have had the omnipotent power that Claremont had.
>Claremont took a dead title, stuck in reprints, and ran with it. ALONE.
>When the first sequel was created, THE NEW MUTANTS, he wrote it as well.
>There was no enforced continuity with the rest of the Marvel Universe,
>even in the Secret Wars storyline, and so the two X-books ran together.
>
>Lobdell inherited 1/2 of a flagship title, and was one of 8 writers with 5
>editors. Continuity and crossovers were the name of the game then as Marvel
>wanted to cash in on the influx of interest.
Decent writers gain influence. If Marvel editors trusted Lobdell to write
freely and creatively, they would have allowed him to.
Case in point DC re-launched the JLA stating that this was a big-hitters title
and they would absoltely, positively not dilute the team. It's a success,
mainly because of Grant Morrison's writing. He turns and asks DC if he can beef
up the line-up with *lesser* DC heroes - and they let him. Why? Because of
Morrison's clout as a writer.
>What's worse is that Lobdell wrote story to story, wanting to see what
>happens next just as much as the fan. Claremont plotted and plotted, and
>then had to alter everything when the editors wanted something.
It's a poor way of writng that Lobdell used, and he was a poor writer.
If he started with an idea not 100% sure how he'd finish it, I still wouldn't
mind if he eventually finished it - but he never did, got bored with it, and
moved on to the next big thing.
>Claremont's biggest crossover event was what? Acts of Vengeance?? Maybe it
>was Mutant Massacre, since he didn't write POWER PACK or THOR. But he was
>in control of all the other parts in some way.
Claremont was told to provide Marvel with a cross-over every summer - and he
managed it. Lobdell can't claim he was surprised if every April the Marvel
editors turn up and ask for a big cross-over to hype.
>Claremont does bore me in many places. For one thing, we don't see the
>total transformation of Scott Summers after #201. The Massacre was
>excellent, but the followup wasn't. Storm and Wolverine go looking for
>Sarah Grey, but when they don't find her at home they pack up? The Fall of
>the Mutants wasn't spectacular, and as a result we had a pathetic set of
>Australia storylines with some occassional highlights. Bad was the
>attempts to give Longshot a personality, the return home of Colossus, the
>whole Reavers don't kill Wolverine thing, the Nanny's attack, the Savage
>Land story. Worse, we got the Hardcase & the Harriers issue, we got the
>uneventful chase of Storm (which suddenly ends??), we have the taking of
>Val Cooper but not the realisation she's been switched, etc. etc. etc.
A poor Claremont story was just a bad idea well written - even the Hardcase And
The Harriers issues has a clever twist at the end.
A poor Lobdell issue is ill-conceived with the heroes all acting out of
character and finishing with the villain defeated by a hitting it with
everything they've got. It's obvious that very little thought or care has gone
into it, and it's difficult to then ask the reader to care.
>Lobdell's Colossus defection was: (a) a forced issue from the editors,
>since Magneto's Fatal Attractions gambit needed some force, and (b) OK by
>Lobdell, who didn't really like Colossus.
The idea is sound - I don't mind the idea. But Lobdell's execution of it was
poor and was completely unable to run with the storyline- because as a writer
he could only manage good guys and baddies, never characters somewhere
in-between.
>What I like about the Lobdell era are:
>(1) He didn't bring the Hellions back from the dead.
Why would he? The Hellions relate to X-Force not the X-men anyway.
He did kill Callisto and The Morlocks, realise his mistake and brought them
back, retconning that they'd been in another dimension, so he was perfectly
capable of succumbing to the 'resurrection' bug.
>(2) The reworking of Emma Frost and Iceman. He never completed that relation-
> ship, but it was interesting. I don't think Claremont would have handled
> it that way.
It was an interesting idea, but guess what he never completed it! But
conversely - he turned Emma Frost into just another heroine - as with Mystique
he couldn't handle females who aren't snarling evil vixens or good old super
women.
His Iceman was hit and miss - I liked the background detail he filled in, but
then he made the character all pompous and Cyclops-like. So much so that people
now complain that Bobby Drake's currently wisecracking...
>(3) Jean asking Scott for marriage. Claremont married him off after an
> adventure. Lobdell does everything by introspection.
Any time Lobdell tries to explore the characters, he needs a whole issue to do
it. The strength of Claremont is that he could reveal more about a character by
their behaviour in an adventure than Lobdell could. Take any Lobdell romp and
you can change the X-men involved without it changing the story much at all -
and that's poor writing.
>(4) Having Jubilee deal with Illyana's death. I feel that Claremont's top
> period would have seen her die in sacrifice like the Inferno story did
> with Illyana and Maddie.
Well that's poor conjecture. Lobdell is better than Claremont because *if*
Claremont had written 303 it would have been worse?
The fact is the death of Illyana lasted one issue and was in the background of
#304 and then it's back to normal. None of the storylines it opened up were
explored (Legacy Virus, Colossus' defection, the effect on the X-men who had
known Illyana for years) and the long term effects on characters who'd been
close to Illyana (who's been at the mansion since before UXM150) just was never
explored, because Lobdell had moved onto his next idea and couldn't be bothered
dealing with the consequences of the old one.
>(5) The Dark Beast/someone is a traitor/Xavier becomes evil: There were
> enough clues.
The Dark Beast I liked but in his period with the X-men what does he do?
Nothing, just worry that the others might find him out. If Lobdell wants to
replace the Beast with hte Dark Beast for a while at least have a decent story
to tell - as for Xavier becoming evil, that's always overshadowed the guy since
UXM110 (or thereabouts)
>(6) The Archangel-Psylocke thing: an understandable relationship.
A terrible relationship, poorly written.
>(7) The taking of the mansion. Editorial contraints reduced the threat,
> but still it was a gutsy move.
And it's happened dozens of times before. There's nothing gutsy about it, since
they always build it again.
>(8) UNCANNY X-MEN #325. We got a marker to see how much the X-Men had
> changed. That was the point of the issue: that even Storm has had
> to stop laughing as the world gets darker.
It's a copy of the first Morlock story - in that isse the fact that Storm was
willing to kill Callisto if forced to was a genuine shock because it showed the
character changing. Doing exactly the same thing 15 years later is hardly
original or a shock.
>(9) The opening of Generation X. It was well handled. Too bad Larry Hama
> has ignored the original concept.
Gen X started brilliantly, before it got bogged down with all the plot ideas
Lobdell had started and didn't have a clue how to finish.
>(10) The whole Forge-Storm-Mystique relationship. This is much better than
> the forced Rogue-Gambit-Belladonna question and the pathetic Cable-
> Storm-Domino idea.
But the Forge-Storm-Mystique relationship pre-dates Lobdell by a long time -
and all he did was split up Forge and Storm (because Forge suddenly becomes the
marrying kind...) and send him off with Mystique. No development of the
complicated relationship - he ends it because he can't handle it and makes both
Mystique and Storm women who can only really be happy if they have a big strong
man to protect them - and that shows a poor understanding of both characters
and a poor ability to write female characters in general. The other
relationships occured well into the Lobdell era, and were probably editorial
decrees.
Lazy Line Painter Al
AGr3691541
>> > He had something else planned, and they rejected it? Now I'm really
>> >beginning to feel insulted by the editors; they treat the X-Men as
>> >business, and nothing makes it more evident.
>>
>> That's the most frightening thing I've discovered about the Lobdell
>> era. When I first read the issue I saw his name, thought this is crap
>> and blamed him. While I still think he's not a great writer - the real
>> reason this period is such a mess belongs in part to the editorial
>> team - who exist, as far as I'm aware, to produce the most sellable
>> X-men comics.
>
> And lately they've managed to combine market interest with devotion to
>fans, right? Or have they decided to drop market share from their list
>of priorities?
>
I think they've realised that more people will buy a well-written X-book than a
shoddily written heavily hyped crossovered one.
All the current relaunches are attempts to get all the comics higher sales by
concentrating on writers and artists producing 'Back To Basics' good
storylines, without messing it up with convoluted continuity references or
forced summer crossovers.
Lazy Line Painter Al
AGr3691541
>Shaun G. wrote:
>
>> Yes, Claremont is not a god. But he was infinitely better than Lobdell.
>
>
>Thats a matter of opinion.
An opinion that's entirely justified, though
>> This is the main reason I didn't like Lobdell. He wrote from story
>tostory.
>>Although Claremont left a lot of danglers, his stories made sense
>>and even if you didn't agree with the outcome, he put some thought into
>>his stories.
>
>
>His stories made sense?? Don't make me laugh. Personally I don't think
>Claremont plotted anything out in advance. Look at the crappy time the
>X-Men spent in Australia ...... would he admitt to plotting that shit out in
>advance??
I liked the Australia issue simply because they deviated from the superhero
norm of fly out, defeat villian, return to base that crappy comic writers
resort to.
>>The time from the Nanny attack to X-Men #1-3 is better than anything
>Lobdellhas
>>ever written. The Australia storyline was weak but the period before that
>>was better than anything Lobdell has ever written.
>
>
>Better than anything Lobdell has ever wriiten?? Really?? Again that is a
>matter of opinion. But just for the sake of augment, take issues 262 and
>263. This two issues are better than anything Lobdell ever wrote?? I don't
>think so. These two issues are with out a doubt the two lamest comics I
>have ever hade the misfortune of reading.
Well that's your opinion...
>> Jubilee didn't even know Illyana so what was the big deal?
>
>Perhaps if you took the time to read the issues leading up to Illyana's
>death you'd understand why Jubillee was so hurt over it. But than again it
>has Lobdell's name on it so it must be trash....
It was poorly written. Within a year, none of the x-men were acting any
different and Lobdell completely failed to show the effects on the team that
the death would have. He wrote a sentimental, overdone issue and completely
failed to address any of the storylines that the death opened up.
<<snip>>
>> Is Claremont a god? No, but he is a better writer of the X-Men than
>Lobdell
>>was. Claremont is the main reason the X-Men are as popular as they are
>(with
>>help from others), not Lobdell.
>
>No one is denying that Claremont is the main reason for the X-men's
>popularity. But he's an overrated writer. Look at Hulk Hogan......he is one
>of the main reasons for wrestlings popularity. Hogan was the biggest star in
>wrestling during the 80's, but does that make him a good wrestler?? Nope. In
>fact he's a horrible wrestler. Watching Hogan wrestle is like trying to read
>a Chris Clamemont comic...... they both put me to sleep.
That whole argument fallls down on the simple point that wrestling is
fundamentally shit while comics are fabulous...
Lazy Line Painter Al
shaung
Riedel wrote:
> Shaun G. wrote:
>
> > Yes, Claremont is not a god. But he was infinitely better than Lobdell.
>
> Thats a matter of opinion.
I never said it wasn't.
> His stories made sense?? Don't make me laugh. Personally I don't think
> Claremont plotted anything out in advance. Look at the crappy time the
> X-Men spent in Australia ...... would he admitt to plotting that shit out in
> advance??
>
Using your logic, what you just said was a matter of opinion.
Claremont'sstories made more sense to me that Lobdell's IMO.
> Better than anything Lobdell has ever wriiten?? Really?? Again that is a
> matter of opinion. But just for the sake of augment, take issues 262 and
> 263. This two issues are better than anything Lobdell ever wrote?? I don't
> think so. These two issues are with out a doubt the two lamest comics I
> have ever hade the misfortune of reading.
Ok I made a generalization. EVERYTHING Claremont wrote was not great.But a
majority of Claremont's run is better than Lobdell's. By the way, I don't
have all of my X-Men's collection with me currently, what were issues 262 and
263 about?
> > Jubilee didn't even know Illyana so what was the big deal?
>
> Perhaps if you took the time to read the issues leading up to Illyana's
> death you'd understand why Jubillee was so hurt over it. But than again it
> has Lobdell's name on it so it must be trash....
I think that the story would have been better if they emphasized Peter
andKitty's dealing with her death. I never said that the book was trash.
Actually,
that was one of Lobdell's better stories. He is good at one issue stories. My
point was that when people try to argue that Lobdell was good, they rarely
mention anything more than this storyline. It was good but Claremont's done
better.
> The issue where the Dark Beast realizes that theres another Beast running
> around was written by Mark Waid, so don't try to blame Lobdell for that one.
>
I stand corrected. But can you say with certainty that Lobdell had nothingto
do with the whole concept of characters coming to the normal universe
from AOA. If they wanted them to come over from AOA fine, but did it have
be 10 years or whatever it was in the past. Then by doing that they change
the origin of the Morlocks and Genosha for no particular reason. It was a
stupid
retcon regardless of whoever thought of it.
> Larry Hama is an idiot for the shit ass job he did on Gen X.
I ask again, how did Hama mess up the original concept?
> No one is denying that Claremont is the main reason for the X-men's
> popularity. But he's an overrated writer. Look at Hulk Hogan......he is one
> of the main reasons for wrestlings popularity. Hogan was the biggest star in
> wrestling during the 80's, but does that make him a good wrestler?? Nope. In
> fact he's a horrible wrestler. Watching Hogan wrestle is like trying to read
> a Chris Clamemont comic...... they both put me to sleep.
My argument is that Chris Claremont is a better writer than Lobdell when it
comes to writing the X-Men. That's it. During Claremont's reign he received
critical and popular acclaim for the writing he did from fans and his peers.
You find him boring. I have
no problem with that. It's all opinion. You think he's overrated. I have no
problem with that. When people say that Lobdell was better than Claremont,
that I have a problem with.
Peace,
Shaun G.
Alleigh
wrote
>Lobdell, who didn't really like Colossus.
>
>What I like about the Lobdell era are:
>(1) He didn't bring the Hellions back from the dead.
Didn't he kill them?
>(2) The reworking of Emma Frost and Iceman. He never completed that relation-
> ship, but it was interesting. I don't think Claremont would have handled
> it that way.
He liked Iceman at the time at developed him - he would of moved on to
a different character in a short period
>(3) Jean asking Scott for marriage. Claremont married him off after an
> adventure. Lobdell does everything by introspection.
Jean and Scott became the JeanScott entity during Lobdell. They
couldn't be seperated or they would die. Jean reverted to the
"Incredible Wimp-Girl" when Scott was near. She could take Sabes out
by herself but couldn't handle him when Scott was near. And why would
Jean marry an asshole that left his wife, the same person she said
"no" to in X-Factor because she didn't know if she would say yes or if
it would be Phoenix and Maddie pushing her into it. And since issues
around that time at been mentioned by Lobdell as months ago Jean
changed her mind like that so she could marry someone that de-aged and
is a royal stick-in-the-mud
>(4) Having Jubilee deal with Illyana's death. I feel that Claremont's top
> period would have seen her die in sacrifice like the Inferno story did
> with Illyana and Maddie.
Instead of Illyana's best friend - made no sense. Then he had Magneto
crash her funeral - Magneto like 'Yana and no matter what wouldn't of
done that. I notice that is always left out of the try and show how
Lobdell did good by using Jubilee as the "cry-baby" of the issue.
>(5) The Dark Beast/someone is a traitor/Xavier becomes evil: There were
> enough clues.
Too many clues that Chuck was Onslaught - some of us like surprises
>(6) The Archangel-Psylocke thing: an understandable relationship.
And the motivation behind this affair is - I think I get Angel wants
Jean and Betts wanted Scott couldn't get them so decided to go for
each other
>(7) The taking of the mansion. Editorial contraints reduced the threat,
> but still it was a gutsy move.
The Mansion as been destroyed before - so they don't have their tech.
They can always get more
>(8) UNCANNY X-MEN #325. We got a marker to see how much the X-Men had
> changed. That was the point of the issue: that even Storm has had
> to stop laughing as the world gets darker.
Remember Mohawk Storm
>(9) The opening of Generation X. It was well handled. Too bad Larry Hama
> has ignored the original concept.
>(10) The whole Forge-Storm-Mystique relationship. This is much better than
> the forced Rogue-Gambit-Belladonna question and the pathetic Cable-
> Storm-Domino idea.
Storm/Forge./Mystique was Claremont - the others were Lobdell and
others
mih...@my-dejanews.com
>
> An infinite monkey named MT wrote:
> >
> > Whoo! You should see me try to help people pronounce my name. I point
> > to myself ("Me") and then to the ground ("Here").
>
> the first time, they speak French and immediately ask if I do to, often
> in French.
And I'm guessing you do...?
> > And you obviously like the characters more than I do, which is why
> > you'd enjoy stories that focus on them as people.
>
> Yup. I find that kinda strange, since I'm definitely not a "people"
> person and I can't stand soap operas.
I'm a "people" person, but I can't stand soaps either. That's probably my
reason right there. . .
> > True, but I'm referring to the people that admit he had a few weak
> > issues but was awesome on everything else.
>
> That's kinda me. I still think he was terrific back in the good ole days,
> but I admit he hasn't done much for me lately. Any more detail would
> require discussion of specific issues.
And I don't feel like getting into those. ;)
> > There probably are, only hiding. ;)
>
> It never hurts to have a backup clone.
Tell that to Spiderman.
> > to compare against, except for X-Factor, and I held that in such high
> > regard it would be useless to try.
>
> You liked X-Factor? Huh. See, that's one book I found a real yawner right
> from the start. It had a good story here and there, but most of the time
> it was uninteresting and/or boring for me. Then the writing started
> getting crappy, and I dropped it.
I'm referring to the current team, really. Well, not quite. I started the
book at the very end of PAD's run, and from there I got everything he did.
Then I collected the book, going forward (I still enjoy everything from #71 -
#105, which are the best comics I ever read). Being zealous, I went ahead and
got the entire series as well, and to tell you the truth I didn't enjoy it
too much. Again, being zealous, I sold the entire thing to someone some time
ago (Around #137's release).
> > I liked what I saw in Lobdell's work,
> > and continued to enjoy it without any serious problems through his run.
> > He's my idea of a canonical X-writer, from everything to
> > characterization to atmosphere to crossovers to battles.
>
> Perhaps we should avoid talking about UXM #303 then.
I guess so.
> > I'm constantly looking for that, which may be my problem. It's too
> > sententious to meet my idea of a good comic book. Also, the comics
> > aren't that self-contained (I have to read entire arcs to get the story)
> > whereas I could jump into Lobdell's run, pull out an issue and get the
> > gist of the story right away.
>
> Another difference between us: Although I don't mind single-issue
> stories, I really love multi-issue arcs (*not* mega-crossovers),
> especially if they start or resolve a long-running subplot.
But that's because you like comics in general, or the X-Men in
particular. I was never an avid X-Men fan until Lobdell hooked me. Even now, I
still consider myself a PAD-Factor fanboy (Even though I don't own the issues
anymore).
mih...@my-dejanews.com
> agr36...@aol.com (AGr3691541) wrote:
> In article <35C365...@jps.net>, MT <NOSPA...@jps.net> writes:
>
> > And lately they've managed to combine market interest with devotion to
> >fans, right? Or have they decided to drop market share from their list
> >of priorities?
>
> I think they've realised that more people will buy a well-written X-book than
> a shoddily written heavily hyped crossovered one.
Don't bet on it. I don't consider the present series to be well-written
at all (Mildly entertaining at best) and you have to remember that Lobdell
pulled in more numbers than Claremont (At least towards the beginning). I
personally am tired of the current comics in general, and probably will be
avoiding the core X-titles.
> All the current relaunches are attempts to get all the comics higher sales by
> concentrating on writers and artists producing 'Back To Basics' good
> storylines, without messing it up with convoluted continuity references or
> forced summer crossovers.
I agree on this part; I hated all those looped retcons and summer crap.
Summer is the time when I don't have as much pressure on me, so you'd think
that I would buy a lot of books during this time and enjoy them. Not so,
since the summer crap (Psi-War in mind) is what keeps pushing me away.
AGr3691541
writes:
> By the way, I don't
>have all of my X-Men's collection with me currently, what were issues 262 and
>263 about?
(slight spoiler)
Basically Forge, Banshee and Jean Grey up against the remnants of the Morlocks,
now led by Masque. Colossus (still amnesiac) turns up, and it's revealed that
the beautiful model he's been chasing is Callisto, who's face has been changed
by Masque.
I liked it, but then the issues rather depend on whether you like Forge as a
character or not, since it mostly centres around him.
Lazy Line Painter Al
AGr3691541
>In article <199808021444...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>> agr36...@aol.com (AGr3691541) wrote:
>> In article <35C365...@jps.net>, MT <NOSPA...@jps.net> writes:
>>
>> > And lately they've managed to combine market interest with devotion to
>> >fans, right? Or have they decided to drop market share from their list
>> >of priorities?
>>
>> I think they've realised that more people will buy a well-written X-book
>than
>> a shoddily written heavily hyped crossovered one.
>
> Don't bet on it. I don't consider the present series to be
>well-written
>at all (Mildly entertaining at best) and you have to remember that Lobdell
>pulled in more numbers than Claremont (At least towards the beginning). I
>personally am tired of the current comics in general, and probably will be
>avoiding the core X-titles.
Even if you don't think the current series is well-written, the fact is Marvel
have hired two writers expressly for their writing skills and what they can
bring creatively to the books. This is a big change to most of the early
nineties when Marvel just wanted hacks who could churn out stories to editorial
decree.
Even if they're obviously failing to you, the intent at Marvel is for X-men to
grow through word of mouth and favourable reviews - something that does seem to
be happening.
As for figures, the comics sales seem to have held pretty firm at just over
half a million - which considering this was the boom years of comics does seem
a bit strange. Certainly I quit the X-men due to Lobdell, or to be fair the new
editorial committee style of writing, and I knew others who were doing
likewise, but it seems the cartoons and hype was enough to bring new readers
in.
>
>> All the current relaunches are attempts to get all the comics higher sales
>by
>> concentrating on writers and artists producing 'Back To Basics' good
>> storylines, without messing it up with convoluted continuity references or
>> forced summer crossovers.
>
> I agree on this part; I hated all those looped retcons and summer crap.
>Summer is the time when I don't have as much pressure on me, so you'd think
>that I would buy a lot of books during this time and enjoy them. Not so,
>since the summer crap (Psi-War in mind) is what keeps pushing me away.
But again, it's all part of an attempt by Marvel to remarket the X-men as a
well-written title, not as some hyped monstrosity. That said, no writer, no
matter how good he is can please everyone.
Lazy Line Painter Al
...and speaking of good writing, wasn't Green Lantern and the Lord of Dreams
conversation in this months JLA one of THE comic moments of 1998.
Lazy Line Painter Al
mutapump
> You don't seem to be a fan of Lobdell's work. I can understand why some
> people would hate his work. I've read the augments against him and will
> admitt that there are some valid points made. But.....I don't think he's the
> worse X-Writer. I judge a comic on its ability to entertain me, and when I
> read Claremont's X-Men issues my eyes get heavy. I can't help it, I just
> find Claremont's work boring.
You are not alone, infinite monkey. Claremont's actual work on UNCANNY
X-MEN (though often not his story ideas and character concepts) was
boring. Though his FANTASTIC FOUR is different. It just plain sucks. . .
mutapump
_______________________________________________________________________________
"The Secret Decoding Shield of Doctor Doom now commands my Doom Platoon --
by land and sea, by sun and moon -- to make the earth a living TOOOOOMB!"
- Doctor Doom, Mattel "Secret Wars" toy advertisement
"Remembered flavor will explode in your mouth like a BOMB!" - Crazy Joe
mutapump
> In article <35c41...@news.eatel.net>, "Riedel" <rie...@eatel.net> writes:
>
> >Shaun G. wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, Claremont is not a god. But he was infinitely better than Lobdell.
> >
> >
> >Thats a matter of opinion.
>
> An opinion that's entirely justified, though
"Infinitely better"? I don't agree. Some of Claremont's best stuff (like
the stories reprinted in the ASGARDIAN WARS trade paperback) was
definitely better than the body of Lobdell's work on the X-Men books.
You could even convince me that most of Claremont's storylines were better
than Lobdell's. But you could never have me believe that Claremont's
dialogue, techniques of characterization, and narrative style on the X-Men
books were "infinitely" better than Lobdell's. In fact - unless through
some magical curse or bizarre twist of fate I happened to read only the
"not as good" Claremont issues - you're going to have a very hard time
convincing me that he was better than Lobdell at these things _at all_.
> >> This is the main reason I didn't like Lobdell. He wrote from story
> >tostory.
> >>Although Claremont left a lot of danglers, his stories made sense
> >>and even if you didn't agree with the outcome, he put some thought into
> >>his stories.
> >
> >
> >His stories made sense?? Don't make me laugh. Personally I don't think
> >Claremont plotted anything out in advance. Look at the crappy time the
> >X-Men spent in Australia ...... would he admitt to plotting that shit out in
> >advance??
>
> I liked the Australia issue simply because they deviated from the superhero
> norm of fly out, defeat villian, return to base that crappy comic writers
> resort to.
Hey, it's possible to write a good book with that formula, believe it or
not. Try reading Kurt Busiek's AVENGERS. Or Giffen & DeMatteis' JUSTICE
LEAGUE. Or. . .ah, forget it.
And the only thing the Australia issues managed to accomplish was the
initiation of the mangling of Longshot's characterization and backstory.
<Rest snipped. That's entirely justifiable, though.>
MT
>
> Brian Fried wrote:
[Lots of snippage]
> > Lobdell did have his faults, I will grant that immediately. But for
> > those who just put him down and claim Claremont was infinitely
> > better I have to tell you to get those socks out from your nostrils.
>
> Lobdell was average at best. For every good story he wrote (which
> werefew) there were plenty of clunkers.
Ho ho... For a second I thought you were talking about Claremont, to
whom this statement applies as well.
> > What's worse is that Lobdell wrote story to story, wanting to see
> > what happens next just as much as the fan. Claremont plotted and
> > plotted, and then had to alter everything when the editors wanted
> > something.
>
> This is the main reason I didn't like Lobdell. He wrote from story
> tostory.
Agreed on this issue. An amalgamation of Lobdell's action with
Claremont's planning range would be, as I've said before, my perfect
writer. Where's PAD now, anyway?
> Although Claremont left a lot of danglers, his stories made sense
So did Lobdell's.
> and even if you didn't agree with the outcome, he put some thought
> into his stories.
True. However, both Lobdell and Claremont wrote some pretty bad
copouts.
> > The Fall of the Mutants wasn't spectacular, and as a result we
> > had a pathetic set of Australia storylines with some occassional
> > highlights. Bad was the attempts to give Longshot a personality, the
> > return home of Colossus, the whole Reavers don't kill Wolverine
> > thing, the Nanny's attack, the Savage Land story.
>
> The time from the Nanny attack to X-Men #1-3 is better than anything
> Lobdellhas ever written.
Disagreed. I enjoy the stuff I own from #260 to X-Men #3, but it isn't
"better than anything Lobdell has ever written." It compares favorably,
but the stuff I like is before UXM #150.
> The Australia storyline was weak but the period before that was better
> than anything Lobdell has ever written.
Nope. Everything before UXM #150 was.
> > What I like about the Lobdell era are: (1) He didn't bring the
> > Hellions back from the dead.
>
> And Claremont did? Claremont didn't even kill the Hellions.
*Sigh*
> > (3) Jean asking Scott for marriage. Claremont married him off after
> > an adventure. Lobdell does everything by introspection.
>
> Lobdell does everything by introspection? And the proof of this is?
I tell ya, read UXM #308. If that isn't introspection on Scott and
Jean's ENTIRE HISTORY together, I don't know what is. Brian's right,
Claremont didn't have the best setup for Scott's original marriage.
> > (4) Having Jubilee deal with Illyana's death. I feel that
> > Claremont's top period would have seen her die in sacrifice like the
> > Inferno story did with Illyana and Maddie.
>
> Jubilee didn't even know Illyana so what was the big deal?
The fact that she responded how she did.
> Everytime Lobdellsupporters talk about his positives they only bring
> up this ONE ISSUE STORY!
Um, no. I can name at least a dozen, off-hand, that I enjoyed.
> How many issues did Lobdell write?
A bunch, but not as much as Claremont. Therefore, you can't expect him
to have the same amount of good issues and bad ones (But you can compare
proportionately).
> > (5) The Dark Beast/someone is a traitor/Xavier becomes evil: There
> > were enough clues.
>
> The whole Dark Beast/Sugar Man retcon was stupid. The Dark
> Beastis in this Marvel Universe for years and years and he NEVER
> NOTICES that there is another Beast running around? Please.
Where did you get the idea that DB never knew that Beast was running
around? Besides, this guy is busy making the Morlocks.
> > (6) The Archangel-Psylocke thing: an understandable relationship.
>
> A boring relationship that went nowhere. And Claremont is boring?
In most cases, yes. His Storm/Forge was a boring relationship that went
nowhere.
> > (7) The taking of the mansion. Editorial contraints reduced the
> > threat, but still it was a gutsy move.
>
> Gutsy? Gutsy is taking an established heroine, slowing turning her
> evil,and having her eat a star, killing billions of people.
Then killing her and bringing her back from the dead not only as
herself, but as a clone.
There are different ways of being gutsy. And I think Brian is partly
referring to the risk Lobdell was in not only with the fans, but with
the editors. Things are always needed to shake things up once in a
while, so it's not the action itself that's the big deal.
> > (8) UNCANNY X-MEN #325. We got a marker to see how much the X-Men
> > had changed. That was the point of the issue: that even Storm has
> > had to stop laughing as the world gets darker.
>
> Uncanny X-Men #325 is a direct rip off of the first Morlock Story.
> Stormstabs Callisto. Storm stabs Marrow. What's the difference.
I'm assuming you haven't read UXM #170, or missed out on #325.
> Storm had changed way before this issue. Back when X-Men characters
> had character.
Oh, brother. She'd changed, yes, but the X-Men were still optimistic
about the world. Nothing hit home to Storm that the world had changed
more than a repetition of one of the defining moments of her life, only
with way different circumstances.
> > (10) The whole Forge-Storm-Mystique relationship. This is much
> > better than the forced Rogue-Gambit-Belladonna question and the
> > pathetic Cable-Storm-Domino idea.
>
> Claremont created the Storm-Forge relationship. Claremont created
> the ideathat Forge and Mystique might have a relationship.
So? Lobdell created Marrow and Maggott, but he doesn't get credit among
the fans for that. It's the writer who developed it that counts.
> Is Claremont a god? No, but he is a better writer of the X-Men than
> Lobdell was. Claremont is the main reason the X-Men are as popular as
> they are (with help from others), not Lobdell.
I don't think so. The X-Men today sell way more books than they did
when Claremont was on the title. Claremont got the book an established
fanbase, but Lobdell raked more in with his editor-forced $$$ tactics.
The X-Men today are more popular after Lobdell than they were after
Claremont (Who also gained a lot of fans because of Jim Lee).
> Under Claremont the characters were strong individuals with depth,
> under Lobdell they were either characterized badly (Rogue) or not at
> all (Storm).
Rogue was a whiner, but that's the only problem I see with
characterization.
> Name any X-Men story that Lobdell wrote and I can name a better
> Claremont story.
And you realize this method wouldn't be effective because this is a
matter of opinion, right?
mih...@my-dejanews.com
agr36...@aol.com (AGr3691541) wrote:
> In article <6q2cmk$i7k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mih...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> > Don't bet on it. I don't consider the present series to be
> >well-written at all (Mildly entertaining at best) and you have to remember
> >that Lobdell pulled in more numbers than Claremont (At least towards the
> >beginning). I personally am tired of the current comics in general, and
> >probably will be avoiding the core X-titles.
>
> Even if you don't think the current series is well-written, the fact is Marvel
> have hired two writers expressly for their writing skills and what they can
> bring creatively to the books. This is a big change to most of the early
> nineties when Marvel just wanted hacks who could churn out stories to
> editorial decree.
Oh, come on. When Marvel hired Lobdell, Nicieza, and Waid, they didn't
hire them just to make the X-Books sell. They hired them because they figured
they would be good writers; Lobdell's lack of a spine was a bonus.
> Even if they're obviously failing to you, the intent at Marvel is for X-men to
> grow through word of mouth and favourable reviews - something that does seem
> to be happening.
Not quite. Look at Wizard, which gave UXM a "B," which doesn't seem to be
much better than the one they got when Lobdell was writing (A "3," I
believe). It's Marvel's intent to make the series grow, but that was exactly
the same thing they wanted with Lobdell (Because if it didn't grow, then it
wouldn't sell).
> As for figures, the comics sales seem to have held pretty firm at just over
> half a million - which considering this was the boom years of comics does seem
> a bit strange.
It isn't the boom year of comics, actually. The people on RACMX are
generally the ones who support comics strongly, with a few stragglers like
myself tossed in. Most people I know were hooked onto comics thanks to my
prodding. They left after I did, and all of us are just kind of depressed
about the situation. We're not really picking up the series anymore. Now,
this isn't something that I dictated, believe it or not. ;) Nor is this a
guaranteed representation of everyone, but this group, like almost the whole
comics-buying public in general, seems to have a point of view opposite that
of RACMX users. This is probably the most common POV found among comics
readers, and believe it or not, it isn't perpetuated by just Lobdell. I think
it's just the whole "regression" feeling; the characters are back to where
they were before the "hacks" took over, and there's a lot of history to
rewrite. I'm not sure I care about the books anymore.
> Certainly I quit the X-men due to Lobdell, or to be fair the new editorial
> committee style of writing, and I knew others who were doing likewise, but it
> seems the cartoons and hype was enough to bring new readers in.
And at the same time, figures suggest enough readers left to counteract
that. All the hype in the world won't change an honest first impression.
> > I agree on this part; I hated all those looped retcons and summer crap.
> >Summer is the time when I don't have as much pressure on me, so you'd think
> >that I would buy a lot of books during this time and enjoy them. Not so,
> >since the summer crap (Psi-War in mind) is what keeps pushing me away.
>
> But again, it's all part of an attempt by Marvel to remarket the X-men as a
> well-written title, not as some hyped monstrosity. That said, no writer, no
> matter how good he is can please everyone.
That's true. However, I would be satisfied by the X-Writers if they would
give more credit to Lobdell's characterization. They've ignored quite a bit
of it, and that's really depressing (Goes a long way towards making me laugh
at the words "well-written" in conjunction with "X-Men").
> Lazy Line Painter Al
> ...and speaking of good writing, wasn't Green Lantern and the Lord of Dreams
> conversation in this months JLA one of THE comic moments of 1998.
Yes. I think JLA is an awesome book, perhaps the best on the market right
now. I wish Grant Morrison would write the X-Men. Or, at least, a makeover
would be quite good (All-New crap aside). Morrison's characterization is dead
on all the time, and if KellySeagle could duplicate even half of that (The
JLA characters have had WAY more bad writers than the X-Men ever did), I'd
buy fifteen copies of every issue.
mih...@my-dejanews.com
<A85C4DDF6998684B.75C22B30...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, rog...@REMOVETHISairmail.net wrote:
> On 1 Aug 1998 14:47:00 GMT, bfr...@chat.carleton.ca (Brian Fried)
> wrote
>
> >(5) The Dark Beast/someone is a traitor/Xavier becomes evil: There were
> > enough clues.
>
> Too many clues that Chuck was Onslaught - some of us like surprises
Just jumping in here... I had no idea that Xavier would turn into
Onslaught... At all. I saw the posters, the issues leading up to it...
Nothing. Not that I was surprised when the issue came out, because I managed
to get the info a week early (Oooh). But I was surprised. Don't act as if no
one was.
> >(8) UNCANNY X-MEN #325. We got a marker to see how much the X-Men had
> > changed. That was the point of the issue: that even Storm has had
> > to stop laughing as the world gets darker.
>
> Remember Mohawk Storm
"Mohawk Storm" (Sounds like a Barbie doll thing) was created because
Storm began to feel more human, instead of a goddess. Her clothes and attitude
were a reflection of that.
Alleigh
>In article
><A85C4DDF6998684B.75C22B30...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>>, rog...@REMOVETHISairmail.net wrote:
>
>> On 1 Aug 1998 14:47:00 GMT, bfr...@chat.carleton.ca (Brian Fried)
>> wrote
>>
>> >(5) The Dark Beast/someone is a traitor/Xavier becomes evil: There were
>> > enough clues.
>>
>> Too many clues that Chuck was Onslaught - some of us like surprises
>
> Just jumping in here... I had no idea that Xavier would turn into
>Onslaught... At all. I saw the posters, the issues leading up to it...
>Nothing. Not that I was surprised when the issue came out, because I managed
>to get the info a week early (Oooh). But I was surprised. Don't act as if no
>one was.
Ok -lets just say most people on the newsgroup at the time knew - I
think it was rather obvious.
Soleil Lapierre
> In article <6q182g$9...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, lapi...@cuug.ab.ca wrote:
> > Heh. Usually the only time I meet someone who pronounces my name right
> > the first time, they speak French and immediately ask if I do to, often
> > in French.
> And I'm guessing you do...?
No, I don't. I only speak Canajan, eh?
> > > There probably are, only hiding. ;)
> > It never hurts to have a backup clone.
> Tell that to Spiderman.
Well, of course it's no good if your clone goes bad and turns on you.
> > Another difference between us: Although I don't mind single-issue
> > stories, I really love multi-issue arcs (*not* mega-crossovers),
> > especially if they start or resolve a long-running subplot.
> But that's because you like comics in general, or the X-Men in
> particular. I was never an avid X-Men fan until Lobdell hooked me. Even now, I
> still consider myself a PAD-Factor fanboy (Even though I don't own the issues
> anymore).
I don't see your point. I don't like all comics. In fact, very little
Marvel stuff outside the X-Books has ever appealed to me.
--
/* Soleil "Ra" Lapierre, Co-Maintainer of the Magik Timeline:
* http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~lapierrs/comics/
*
* "Do not run! We are your friends!" - Mars Attacks
*/
Troymeister
>> This is the main reason I didn't like Lobdell. He wrote from story
>> tostory.
>
> Agreed on this issue. An amalgamation of Lobdell's action with
>Claremont's planning range would be, as I've said before, my perfect
>writer. Where's PAD now, anyway?
>
He's writing Supergirl, and the new series Young Justice for DC.
Which has had the unfortunate effect of making me buy a DC book, something
I've not done since I realized just how ridiculous the whole JLA thing is
a few months ago.
Young Justice seems to be pretty cool though (based on just one
issue). But I hope PAD is going to write a Marvel title again soon.
Soleil Lapierre
> So? Lobdell created Marrow and Maggott, but he doesn't get credit among
> the fans for that. It's the writer who developed it that counts.
Actually, I credit Lobdell for coming up with a couple of really
interesting character concepts there, though as you say it's how they're
handled over time that matters.
I also credit Lobdell for getting FF v3 off to a good start, and writing
the occasional good story for What The.
But that's about all. :)
> > Name any X-Men story that Lobdell wrote and I can name a better
> > Claremont story.
> And you realize this method wouldn't be effective because this is a
> matter of opinion, right?
When it comes right down to it, aren't all racmx threads about opinions?
--
/* Soleil "Ra" Lapierre, Co-Maintainer of the Magik Timeline:
* http://www.cuug.ab.ca/~lapierrs/comics/
*
* "It's more fun to compute." - Kraftwerk
*/
Brian Fried
let me point out that from the early interviews with Grant Morrison it
was he who suggested to DC that they return the title back to the basic
seven and ignore the lower level filler. DC found it such a success that
even Wizard has had enough of the JLA crossovers, one-shots and mini-series.
Now, onto Lobdell.....
When I refer to introspection, it means that the character development
always occurs in Lobdell's period during quiet time of reflection. Gambit
sits on the roof and sulks, wondering if people can change or not. Jean
uses Thanksgiving -- a time when the X-Men can relax and be a family -- to
think about Scott Summers and evaluate their relationship.
In particularly let's talk about UNCANNY X-MEN #303. Claremont would have
made Illyana's sacrifice mean something -- in battle. That way, when the
bad guy showed up again the X-Men would be royally pissed. Instead, Lobdell
shows us the vulnerability of the child that was taken and the vulnerability
of the closest person to her age in the mansion. Jubilee has never seen
Xavier fail up to this point. She has never really seen the X-Men fail.
And yet, here they do.
Piotr ran away from his problems and refused to acknowledge them. This
Ellis dealt with in EXCALIBUR. Lobdell had Kitty deal with her emotions in
EXCALIBUR, doubting herself after the recent losses. Beast devoted himself
to the virus study, as did Moira and Charles.
What other reaction were you looking for? Storm to stop every so issues
and go "Gee, I feel sorry about losing Illyana?" Look how much the X-Men
mourned the loss of Thunderbird: one issue! And in that issue, they also
battled the N'Garai and met Moira MacTaggart. Lobdell showed us the death
after the fact and the emotions associated with those final moments which
had been built up, and then there was an issue of X-MEN where Sean and
Moira arrive and have to help Charles through his grief. Having been to
family funerals I can tell you that period of mourning was better handled
in the post-Claremont era.
As for the FATAL ATTRACTIONS issue, again I think it was the push from the
editors for a Magneto-based story and a big one that Lobdell adapted. You
claim Claremont did a big summer crossover all the time? I remember the
Asgard bit with Alpha Flight and New Mutants (1 of which was a Claremont
title, the other a Claremont creation) around #200. Then there was the
Mutant Massacre around #210. Then there was Fall of the Mutants (#225).
But what happened around #240?
To me, Lobdell had a harder time because he didn't rely on putting X-Men
with Generation X. He had to write, say, in the Phalanx Covenant only 1/2
of one chapter (Generation Next) while others handled the CABLE-WOLVERINE
and X-FACTOR-X-FORCE-EXCALIBUR arcs. In Onslaught, Lobdell wrote UNCANNY
X-MEN and X-MEN, not AVENGERS, FANTASTIC FOUR, IRON MAN, CABLE, X-FACTOR,
X-MAN, X-FORCE, SENSATIONAL SPIDER-MAN, GREEN GOBLIN, PUNISHER, or PETER
PARKER.
When it comes to Bastion's taking of the mansion, no other person has
*seized* the mansion. The closest they got was Sinister, and they blew up
the mansion during the battle (Inferno, though X-Force did similar during
Onslaught). The mansion was damaged but never taken by force when nobody
was there.
Lobdell's plan was to strip the X-Men of everything, something Kelly and
Seagle saw great logic in. Also, when Bastion does it it isn't during a
fight, it's during a coup. Sinister entered the mansion during Inferno,
but it wasn't to steal it. And most of Inferno wasn't really Sinister's
fault, whereas Bastion was taking the mansion and all the information
about these mutants just as his forces were taking the X-Men: Cyclops,
Jean Grey, Cannonball, Storm, Wolverine, Xavier and Jubilee were taken.
Iceman, Banshee, Reyes, Frost, Penance, M, Husk, Skin, Chamber, Tores --
they were on the run.
And as for UNCANNY X-MEN #325, where is the similarity? Storm fought
Callisto to save Angel and prevent the Morlocks from becoming a major
problem. Gene Nation massacred a disco full of people and were holding a
subway train full of passengers. Storm fought Callisto and would not kill.
In UX #325, she had to kill. In UX #170, the X-Men just accept it for the
most part. In UX #325, the whole point was Wolverine asking when the last
time was that they laughed. Gene Nation was created because the X-Men were
too busy to handle the Morlocks. They forgot about the Morlocks. Their
missions have become more dire and grim, and they have to keep pushing the
envelope so much that where as Storm, the ultimate optimist of the team,
used to be able to draw the line in the sand, now even she had to deal
with killing to save. It's a heavy burden on them all, something Claremont
would not really have dealt with because his X-Men were adventurers. You
got the impression during X-Tinction Agenda that the X-Men would work out
their problems very soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fried bfr...@chat.carleton.ca Carleton U., Ottawa, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"What do you say? Will the human race be run in a day?
Or will someone save this planet we're playing on?"
Paul McCartney, 'Pipes Of Peace', 1983
----------------------------------------------------------------------
James S. Galinski
<A85C4DDF6998684B.75C22B30...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
> >
> >(1) He didn't bring the Hellions back from the dead.
>
That happened in the chaos just following Claremont's departure. Byrne was
scripting (I think), Portacio was pencilling -- I don't think we can blame
Scooter for this one.
> >(2) The reworking of Emma Frost and Iceman. He never completed that
relation-
> > ship, but it was interesting. I don't think Claremont would have
handled
> > it that way.
I did like that an X-Men writer finally did something with Iceman, but...
> He liked Iceman at the time at developed him - he would of moved on to
> a different character in a short period
He worked on Iceman for like two issues, and then dropped him like a hot
infinite monkey. He had that one issue where Iceman asked Storm to train
him in his powers (both deal with elements - which was surprisingly good
logic from Lobdell, I might add) but then did we see any training? No!
Nothing. Bobby got some decent "screen time" in O:ZT, but I don't see that
the character has changed any. IMO, Lobdell dropped the ball on the Bobby
storyline...
> >(3) Jean asking Scott for marriage. Claremont married him off after an
> > adventure. Lobdell does everything by introspection.
>
> Jean and Scott became the JeanScott entity during Lobdell. They
> couldn't be seperated or they would die. Jean reverted to the
> "Incredible Wimp-Girl" when Scott was near. She could take Sabes out
> by herself but couldn't handle him when Scott was near. And why would
> Jean marry an asshole that left his wife, the same person she said
> "no" to in X-Factor because she didn't know if she would say yes or if
> it would be Phoenix and Maddie pushing her into it. And since issues
> around that time at been mentioned by Lobdell as months ago Jean
> changed her mind like that so she could marry someone that de-aged and
> is a royal stick-in-the-mud
Yes. What you said. All of it. I couldn't agree more. Especially the
line where you called Scott an asshole...
> >(4) Having Jubilee deal with Illyana's death. I feel that Claremont's
top
> > period would have seen her die in sacrifice like the Inferno story
did
> > with Illyana and Maddie.
>
> Instead of Illyana's best friend - made no sense. Then he had Magneto
> crash her funeral - Magneto like 'Yana and no matter what wouldn't of
> done that. I notice that is always left out of the try and show how
> Lobdell did good by using Jubilee as the "cry-baby" of the issue.
I agree again. Magneto has more class than to crash the funeral of someone
he used to call a friend and a student. Maybe the Magneto that's showing
up in X-Men in 1999 is the real Magneto, who has been missing since X-Men
3, and that guy who crashed the funeral is some nutcase who now thinks he's
named Joseph. Two Magnetos. That might explain away Lobdell's mishandling
of Magnus...
> >(5) The Dark Beast/someone is a traitor/Xavier becomes evil: There were
> > enough clues.
>
> Too many clues that Chuck was Onslaught - some of us like surprises
And the only good Dark Beast story was X-Men Unlimited 10, written by Waid.
DB had sooooo much potential. He coulda been a contender...
> >(6) The Archangel-Psylocke thing: an understandable relationship.
>
> And the motivation behind this affair is - I think I get Angel wants
> Jean and Betts wanted Scott couldn't get them so decided to go for
> each other
The motivation is simple. In the minds of The Powers That Were, mutants
can't be with humans at all. That's why Warren broke up with Charlotte
Jones, and got together with Nimbo for no reason. That's why Bobby broke
up with Opal, and almost got together with Emma (?!) for no good reason.
That's why Stevie Hunter isn't around. That's why Tom Corsi and Sharon
Friedlander are dead. What I don't understand is why Beast doesn't tell
Trish Tilby to shove it, once and for all (that would make sense). Taking
the X-Men away from humanity diminishes their struggle. I think this was
probably the worst mistake of the Lobdell era...
> >(7) The taking of the mansion. Editorial contraints reduced the threat,
> > but still it was a gutsy move.
>
> The Mansion as been destroyed before - so they don't have their tech.
> They can always get more
Maybe they can go to the Reavers old barn in Australia for a few years -
there's still some tech down there. No, forget I said that... ;)
> >(8) UNCANNY X-MEN #325. We got a marker to see how much the X-Men had
> > changed. That was the point of the issue: that even Storm has had
> > to stop laughing as the world gets darker.
>
> Remember Mohawk Storm
>
> >(9) The opening of Generation X. It was well handled. Too bad Larry Hama
> > has ignored the original concept.
The first issue was okay. After that, nothing useful happened for a
billion years. And have the kids ever gone to a class? I count one.
> >(10) The whole Forge-Storm-Mystique relationship. This is much better
than
> > the forced Rogue-Gambit-Belladonna question and the pathetic Cable-
> > Storm-Domino idea.
>
> Storm/Forge./Mystique was Claremont - the others were Lobdell and
> others
One of the first storylines after Claremont left was the breaking up of
Storm and Forge. A perfect waste, IMHO -- these two made some sense
together, which is more than I can say for Warren/Nimbo.
-James G.
Alleigh
wrote:
>
>In particularly let's talk about UNCANNY X-MEN #303. Claremont would have
>made Illyana's sacrifice mean something -- in battle. That way, when the
And the way Lobdell killed her had no meaning - except to set up
Piotr's defection and Magneto's retconned personality. He would not of
crashed a little girl's funeral especially 'Yana's. He liked her and
was the one adult that actually reached out to her and she reached
back.
>bad guy showed up again the X-Men would be royally pissed. Instead, Lobdell
>shows us the vulnerability of the child that was taken and the vulnerability
>of the closest person to her age in the mansion. Jubilee has never seen
>Xavier fail up to this point. She has never really seen the X-Men fail.
And having Wolvie on a cross and the rest of the X-Men fleeing wasn't
seen as a failure to Jubilee?
>And yet, here they do.
>Piotr ran away from his problems and refused to acknowledge them. This
>Ellis dealt with in EXCALIBUR. Lobdell had Kitty deal with her emotions in
>EXCALIBUR, doubting herself after the recent losses. Beast devoted himself
>to the virus study, as did Moira and Charles.
It was a stupid story - all of the sudden Illyana had to come back to
the mansion so she could die, this after that stupid lets kill Peter,
Illyana, and Mikhail's parents story, have some evil Russian people
try and force Illyana's powers to start (who wrote that retarded stary
was that Lobdell or Nicieza)
>What other reaction were you looking for? Storm to stop every so issues
>and go "Gee, I feel sorry about losing Illyana?" Look how much the X-Men
>mourned the loss of Thunderbird: one issue! And in that issue, they also
They knew John for maybe a month - they knew Illyana a lot longer -
they failed her twice (almost three or four) - once when Belasco got
her and the Russian bad guys tried to jumpstart her powers, then her
parents were killed, and then they couldn't save her. (BTW wasn't the
purpose of a little child getting the virus to show how it could
infect anyone and supposedly affect the X-Men. - so yes it should have
been touched upon for more than a total of two friggin' issues)
>As for the FATAL ATTRACTIONS issue, again I think it was the push from the
>editors for a Magneto-based story and a big one that Lobdell adapted. You
So instead of having Magneto lets say come after the funeral the next
day - he crashes it - so basically your saying Lobdell is a "yes-man"
and its not his fault that he continued to write bad stories because
he liked the knowledge he was writing the X-Men, huh?
>When it comes to Bastion's taking of the mansion, no other person has
Oh - he seized the mansion when nobody was home -
>*seized* the mansion. The closest they got was Sinister, and they blew up
>the mansion during the battle (Inferno, though X-Force did similar during
>Onslaught). The mansion was damaged but never taken by force when nobody
>was there.
How that happened is beyond me - the X-Men had security from the
Shi'ar Empire which is probably a lot better than what Bastion had
James S. Galinski
<6q2cmk$i7k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <199808021444...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> > agr36...@aol.com (AGr3691541) wrote:
> > In article <35C365...@jps.net>, MT <NOSPA...@jps.net> writes:
> >
> > > And lately they've managed to combine market interest with devotion
to
> > >fans, right? Or have they decided to drop market share from their list
> > >of priorities?
> >
> > I think they've realised that more people will buy a well-written
X-book than
> > a shoddily written heavily hyped crossovered one.
>
well-written
> at all (Mildly entertaining at best)
I disagree. Marvel has come full circle on many of its titles. They
learned that better writing fosters and keeps the long term fans. That's
why Busiek is there. That's why Waid is back. That's why Seagle, Kelly,
Moore, and Casey are writing the X-titles. Sure, there are some glitches
in the system (PAD) but I think things are looking up for the quality of
product output at Marvel. We'll see, I guess. So, what do you find to be
entertaining?
> and you have to remember that Lobdell
> pulled in more numbers than Claremont (At least towards the beginning).
Well, that's simply not true. Claremont's numbers at the end of his run
were staggering, and X-Men 1 holds the single-issue record for most sales
ever. After Lobdell's foul butchery, it's a miracle to sell 250000 copies.
> I
> personally am tired of the current comics in general, and probably will
be
> avoiding the core X-titles.
Go for it. So, what don't you like about them? Incidentally, I recommend
LOSH from just after Zero Hour. They're in the bargain bin, and they're
fantastic. Great team book.
> > All the current relaunches are attempts to get all the comics higher
sales by
> > concentrating on writers and artists producing 'Back To Basics' good
> > storylines, without messing it up with convoluted continuity references
or
> > forced summer crossovers.
>
> I agree on this part; I hated all those looped retcons and summer crap.
> Summer is the time when I don't have as much pressure on me, so you'd
think
> that I would buy a lot of books during this time and enjoy them. Not so,
> since the summer crap (Psi-War in mind) is what keeps pushing me away.
Again, why don't you like Psi-War? I liked it because it took away the
Nimbo, and gave every psi the massive depowering they deserved... but
that's just my opinion...
-James G.
mih...@my-dejanews.com
lapi...@cuug.ab.ca wrote:
> An infinite monkey named mih...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > And I'm guessing you do...?
>
> No, I don't. I only speak Canajan, eh?
I speak Americanese, mon.
> > > It never hurts to have a backup clone.
> >
> > Tell that to Spiderman.
>
> Well, of course it's no good if your clone goes bad and turns on you.
I didn't know that happened to him (Kaine, maybe). Anyway, Havok's clone
(Skippy) will be killed in the Mutant X universe so the real Alex can come
back.
> > But that's because you like comics in general, or the X-Men in
> > particular. I was never an avid X-Men fan until Lobdell hooked me. Even now,
> > I still consider myself a PAD-Factor fanboy (Even though I don't own the
> > issues anymore).
>
> I don't see your point. I don't like all comics. In fact, very little
> Marvel stuff outside the X-Books has ever appealed to me.
Well, you said you like subplot resolutions, especially in multi-arc
stories. I thought that you either liked comics in general to enjoy that kind
of technique at all, but just liking the X-Men is enough to enjoy them.
Lobdell rarely used that subplot kinda-stuff, so he's new-reader friendly.
de Designers, Consul
> On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 01:43:52 GMT, mih...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
((about Xavier was Onslaught))
> >Nothing. Not that I was surprised when the issue came out, because I
> >managed to get the info a week early (Oooh). But I was surprised.
> >Don't act as if no one was.
> Ok -lets just say most people on the newsgroup at the time knew - I
> think it was rather obvious.
Well, a lot of people brought it up, so some knew, but we also got every week
someone posting that "they figured it out!" I think it was a good mystery. What
got most people upset here was that the writers made it "a demon from Magneto"
that caused Onslaught, instead of good-ole-fashioned "I am pissed-off Chuck,
hear me roar!" Most of the folks at my store liked it though.
But here, we deal with nuances, so we are a finiky lot.
--
de Designers,
[Jameson Stalanthas Yu, Shade and Sweet Water, mes amis and Edgerunners]
[Link at http://www-scf.usc.edu/~jamesony -X- ICQ 10208399]
[Joint Educational Project http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/JEP]
[Mutatis mutandis, strive to be humane, not human]
de Designers, Consul
> >nobody was there.
> Shi'ar Empire which is probably a lot better than what Bastion had
Well, presumably, the GenX homeland has a similar one, and it was easily
circumvented by folks, "Forgetting to turn it on" That was crap in of itself.
de Designers, Consul
> An infinite monkey named Freshie wrote:
> > well his 4 issue stint on wolverine was pretty bad also.
> Having just finished reading that, I have to say it wasn't too hot. I
> think if he had taken six issues, it would have been great. I would
> like to have seen a whole issue just covering the part where Logan
> sets up the special effects and puts the fear into the goons.
I don't know, I think it would have been too ... Macguyverish ... I jus get the
feeling that the extra issues wouldn't have dealt with that. I hoped it would
have expounded more on the dreams and Viper relationship.
James S. Galinski
> An infinite monkey named MT wrote:
>
> > So? Lobdell created Marrow and Maggott, but he doesn't get credit
among
> > the fans for that. It's the writer who developed it that counts.
>
> interesting character concepts there, though as you say it's how they're
> handled over time that matters.
Exactly. Lobdell gave us the new Acolytes (yes, Claremont gave us the
first set, but they all died), Blink, all of GenX except Jubilee, Graydon
Creed, and many others. All of these characters had the potential to be
great, well-developed characters who could enter and affect the X-Men's
world. However, he dropped the ball every time. It's too bad, too. The
Acolytes by themselves could have been a reasonable alternative to Xavier's
dream, leading to many potential stories. Lobdell's run was a monument to
wasted potential, and it lasted about four years too long. Maybe five.
> I also credit Lobdell for getting FF v3 off to a good start, and writing
> the occasional good story for What The.
Well, I thought FF was okay, but I would have liked to see the characters
move in some direction. Then again, if Scott had actually written the damn
book on time, maybe we would have...
> > > Name any X-Men story that Lobdell wrote and I can name a better
> > > Claremont story.
X-Men Unlimited 4. That was fantastic.
> > And you realize this method wouldn't be effective because this is a
> > matter of opinion, right?
>
> When it comes right down to it, aren't all racmx threads about opinions?
Yep, except for the X-Movie thread. That's just idiocy.
-James G.
James S. Galinski
Alleigh <rog...@airmail.net> wrote in article
<C9D53579223C46A8.1EF9C33E...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
> On 3 Aug 1998 14:32:35 GMT, bfr...@chat.carleton.ca (Brian Fried)
> wrote:
> It was a stupid story - all of the sudden Illyana had to come back to
> the mansion so she could die, this after that stupid lets kill Peter,
> Illyana, and Mikhail's parents story, have some evil Russian people
> try and force Illyana's powers to start (who wrote that retarded stary
> was that Lobdell or Nicieza)
That was Fabe. And it was really really bad.
> >What other reaction were you looking for? Storm to stop every so issues
> >and go "Gee, I feel sorry about losing Illyana?"
No. She doesn't have to stop to do that. If an event occurred that
reminded her of Illyana's "tragic" death, then she could say or think
something like that. However, Lobdell never did anything like that. He
needed an entire actionless issue at the mansion in order to look inside
the characters' heads. However, as soon as the action started up, the
characters lost what little personality they had. On the other hand,
Claremont could tell us something about the character on the fly, during
the action, anywhere, anytime. So could Peter David, Louise Simonson, and
well, anyone else with talent...
> >As for the FATAL ATTRACTIONS issue, again I think it was the push from
the
> >editors for a Magneto-based story and a big one that Lobdell adapted.
You
Wow. More excuses. You really do respect his writing, don'tcha?
> >When it comes to Bastion's taking of the mansion, no other person has
Give Cain Marko's lawyer about six months... ;)
> How that happened is beyond me - the X-Men had security from the
> Shi'ar Empire which is probably a lot better than what Bastion had
Well, Bastion is Nimrod/Master Mold, which is about 70 years ahead of our
technology. Then again, Shi'ar technology is about 1000 years ahead of us.
So, something about that just doesn't equate. Therefore, I'd say it's
time to sound the ** Bad Writing Alarm!! **
-James G.
AGr3691541
(Brian Fried) writes:
>Before I reply to those who found fault in my 10 things Lobdell did right,
>let me point out that from the early interviews with Grant Morrison it
>was he who suggested to DC that they return the title back to the basic
>seven and ignore the lower level filler. DC found it such a success that
>even Wizard has had enough of the JLA crossovers, one-shots and mini-series.
The most controversial descision regarding the JLA was the recent expansion of
the lineup -that was Morrison's idea, and DC opposed to it, relented because
they wanted to keep Morrison writing the title.
>Now, onto Lobdell.....
>
>When I refer to introspection, it means that the character development
>always occurs in Lobdell's period during quiet time of reflection. Gambit
>sits on the roof and sulks, wondering if people can change or not. Jean
>uses Thanksgiving -- a time when the X-Men can relax and be a family -- to
>think about Scott Summers and evaluate their relationship.
>
>In particularly let's talk about UNCANNY X-MEN #303. Claremont would have
>made Illyana's sacrifice mean something -- in battle.
I hate this way of arguing. It's like me saying Lobdell is a bad writer because
if he'd written the Dark Phoenix saga, he'd have made Jean Grey survive because
of her desperate need for Cyclop's love to make her a complete woman. It
wouldn't be a fair criticism of Lobdell -- just as a criticism of Claremont
based on how he might of written it is hardly fair.
> That way, when the
>bad guy showed up again the X-Men would be royally pissed. Instead, Lobdell
>shows us the vulnerability of the child that was taken and the vulnerability
>of the closest person to her age in the mansion. Jubilee has never seen
>Xavier fail up to this point. She has never really seen the X-Men fail.
>And yet, here they do.
>
>Piotr ran away from his problems and refused to acknowledge them. This
>Ellis dealt with in EXCALIBUR. Lobdell had Kitty deal with her emotions in
>EXCALIBUR, doubting herself after the recent losses. Beast devoted himself
>to the virus study, as did Moira and Charles.
>
>What other reaction were you looking for? Storm to stop every so issues
>and go "Gee, I feel sorry about losing Illyana?" Look how much the X-Men
>mourned the loss of Thunderbird: one issue! And in that issue, they also
>battled the N'Garai and met Moira MacTaggart.
But they didn't know Thunderbird - meanwhile his brother, who did is still
haunted by the loss.
It's not much to expect the X-men to spend time mourning someone who's been in
the mansion since before UXM150 meaning fundamental changes in characters and
the interplay between characters. That didn't happen.
And were are the consequences? Colossus' character is back where he was, Kitty
hows no signs that she lost her once best friend, the Legacy Virus has gone
nowhere and Jubilee's attitude to the X-men's apparent failure was ... nothing.
> Lobdell showed us the death
>after the fact and the emotions associated with those final moments which
>had been built up, and then there was an issue of X-MEN where Sean and
>Moira arrive and have to help Charles through his grief. Having been to
>family funerals I can tell you that period of mourning was better handled
>in the post-Claremont era.
And I found it trite and sentimental. Ororo's one line 'I miss your laughter'
when Nightcrawler's in a coma is more tragic and *real* than the scmaltz of
UXM303.
>As for the FATAL ATTRACTIONS issue, again I think it was the push from the
>editors for a Magneto-based story and a big one that Lobdell adapted. You
>claim Claremont did a big summer crossover all the time? I remember the
>Asgard bit with Alpha Flight and New Mutants (1 of which was a Claremont
>title, the other a Claremont creation) around #200. Then there was the
>Mutant Massacre around #210. Then there was Fall of the Mutants (#225).
>But what happened around #240?
Then there was Inferno, then there was the X-tinction Agenda. Every X-writer
has to accept that they'' have to write cross-overs. Lobdell's crossovers were
poorly written and never suggested he'd put that much thought into it.
>To me, Lobdell had a harder time because he didn't rely on putting X-Men
>with Generation X. He had to write, say, in the Phalanx Covenant only 1/2
>of one chapter (Generation Next) while others handled the CABLE-WOLVERINE
>and X-FACTOR-X-FORCE-EXCALIBUR arcs. In Onslaught, Lobdell wrote UNCANNY
>X-MEN and X-MEN, not AVENGERS, FANTASTIC FOUR, IRON MAN, CABLE, X-FACTOR,
>X-MAN, X-FORCE, SENSATIONAL SPIDER-MAN, GREEN GOBLIN, PUNISHER, or PETER
>PARKER.
But his issues are still poor. He wasn't some special case victim of crossovers
- every X-writer, indeed virtually every Marvel writer has to accept the fact
that they'' write crossovers - an if they write poor crossovers, then they can
be criticised for it.
>When it comes to Bastion's taking of the mansion, no other person has
>*seized* the mansion. The closest they got was Sinister, and they blew up
>the mansion during the battle (Inferno, though X-Force did similar during
>Onslaught). The mansion was damaged but never taken by force when nobody
>was there.
Sinister had been using the mansion as his basis of operation for some time.
That's stated in the text.
>Lobdell's plan was to strip the X-Men of everything, something Kelly and
>Seagle saw great logic in. Also, when Bastion does it it isn't during a
>fight, it's during a coup. Sinister entered the mansion during Inferno,
>but it wasn't to steal it. And most of Inferno wasn't really Sinister's
>fault, whereas Bastion was taking the mansion and all the information
>about these mutants just as his forces were taking the X-Men: Cyclops,
>Jean Grey, Cannonball, Storm, Wolverine, Xavier and Jubilee were taken.
>Iceman, Banshee, Reyes, Frost, Penance, M, Husk, Skin, Chamber, Tores --
>they were on the run.
But it wasn't new. Bastion took the mansion, stripped it of infomation - for
what reason. I would put money on the statement that Lobdell did not have a
clue where it was heading.
>And as for UNCANNY X-MEN #325, where is the similarity? Storm fought
>Callisto to save Angel and prevent the Morlocks from becoming a major
>problem. Gene Nation massacred a disco full of people and were holding a
>subway train full of passengers. Storm fought Callisto and would not kill.
Have you read the issue? The whole point of the issue is Storm accepts the fact
that she sometimes has to kill. And she *kills* Callisto. It was a major
development for a character who had spent years stating she could never take
the life of another.
>In UX #325, she had to kill. In UX #170, the X-Men just accept it for the
>most part.
The X-men are shocked! It's the first stage in Storms progression to a
character that deeply and profoundly disturbs Kitty.
You're copies must be missing pages.
> In UX #325, the whole point was Wolverine asking when the last
>time was that they laughed. Gene Nation was created because the X-Men were
>too busy to handle the Morlocks. They forgot about the Morlocks.
No, the Morlocks were thought to be dead. Then Lobdell retconned his own story,
claiming they'd been in another dimension and brought them back.
> Their
>missions have become more dire and grim, and they have to keep pushing the
>envelope so much that where as Storm, the ultimate optimist of the team,
>used to be able to draw the line in the sand, now even she had to deal
>with killing to save.
She dealt with that in the earlier story. She's lived with the knowledge that
sometimes you *have* to kill and her character has behaved accordingly since
then.
If Lobdell wishes to ignore the development and let it happen *again* - then
some of us find it valid criticism of him as a writer.
> It's a heavy burden on them all, something Claremont
>would not really have dealt with because his X-Men were adventurers.
His X-men were well-drawn out developing characters. Lobdell's were
fundamentally static.
> You
>got the impression during X-Tinction Agenda that the X-Men would work out
>their problems very soon.
And the X-men during Lobdell's run never faced a problem that couldn't be
solved by hitting it hard and fast with everything they've got.
Lazy Line Painter Al
AGr3691541
<muta...@grove.ufl.edu> writes:
>On 2 Aug 1998, AGr3691541 wrote:
>
>> In article <35c41...@news.eatel.net>, "Riedel" <rie...@eatel.net> writes:
>>
>> >Shaun G. wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes, Claremont is not a god. But he was infinitely better than
>Lobdell.
>> >
>> >
>> >Thats a matter of opinion.
>>
>> An opinion that's entirely justified, though
>
>"Infinitely better"? I don't agree. Some of Claremont's best stuff (like
>the stories reprinted in the ASGARDIAN WARS trade paperback) was
>definitely better than the body of Lobdell's work on the X-Men books.
>You could even convince me that most of Claremont's storylines were better
>than Lobdell's. But you could never have me believe that Claremont's
>dialogue, techniques of characterization, and narrative style on the X-Men
>books were "infinitely" better than Lobdell's.
Simple fact is something that is very entertaining is infinitely better than
something that isn't because there isn't really an objective continous grading
to it.
But I can see how such a statement could be misleading.
> In fact - unless through
>some magical curse or bizarre twist of fate I happened to read only the
>"not as good" Claremont issues - you're going to have a very hard time
>convincing me that he was better than Lobdell at these things _at all_.
The bottom line to me is the body of work Claremont produced is worth
re-reading. Lobdell's isn't.
>> >> This is the main reason I didn't like Lobdell. He wrote from story
>> >tostory.
>> >>Although Claremont left a lot of danglers, his stories made sense
>> >>and even if you didn't agree with the outcome, he put some thought into
>> >>his stories.
>> >
>> >
>> >His stories made sense?? Don't make me laugh. Personally I don't think
>> >Claremont plotted anything out in advance. Look at the crappy time the
>> >X-Men spent in Australia ...... would he admitt to plotting that shit out
>in
>> >advance??
>>
>> I liked the Australia issue simply because they deviated from the superhero
>> norm of fly out, defeat villian, return to base that crappy comic writers
>> resort to.
>
>Hey, it's possible to write a good book with that formula, believe it or
>not. Try reading Kurt Busiek's AVENGERS. Or Giffen & DeMatteis' JUSTICE
>LEAGUE. Or. . .ah, forget it.
I don't doubt it BUT writers should try and fuck with the formula because
sometimes it can really work, producing an original piece of work and I admire
any comics writer that tries it.
But conversely crappy writers do resort to the standerd formula detailed above,
and it leads to depressing reading.
Lazy Line Painter Al
AGr3691541
>> > Don't bet on it. I don't consider the present series to be
>> >well-written at all (Mildly entertaining at best) and you have to remember
>> >that Lobdell pulled in more numbers than Claremont (At least towards the
>> >beginning). I personally am tired of the current comics in general, and
>> >probably will be avoiding the core X-titles.
>>
>> Even if you don't think the current series is well-written, the fact is
>Marvel
>> have hired two writers expressly for their writing skills and what they can
>> bring creatively to the books. This is a big change to most of the early
>> nineties when Marvel just wanted hacks who could churn out stories to
>> editorial decree.
>
> Oh, come on. When Marvel hired Lobdell, Nicieza, and Waid, they didn't
>hire them just to make the X-Books sell. They hired them because they figured
>they would be good writers; Lobdell's lack of a spine was a bonus.
Exactly, Waid walked out because he couldn't stand the way the editorial team
in charge and Scott Lobdell would mangle all his ideas. (or so I here). The
fact is most of the writers on most of the X-titles were hacks (Mackie on
X-Factor, Richard whatever on Excalibur, Loeb on X-Force) who'd churn out
stories to editorial decree without much care as to how good or original they
were.
>> Even if they're obviously failing to you, the intent at Marvel is for X-men
>to
>> grow through word of mouth and favourable reviews - something that does
>seem
>> to be happening.
>
> Not quite. Look at Wizard, which gave UXM a "B," which doesn't seem to be
>much better than the one they got when Lobdell was writing (A "3," I
>believe). It's Marvel's intent to make the series grow, but that was exactly
>the same thing they wanted with Lobdell (Because if it didn't grow, then it
>wouldn't sell).
But when Lobdell was in charge they tried to make it sell by hyping crossovers
and events.
Now they're trying to sell it on the fact they've hired two *credible* writers
- and that's a massive sea-change.
>> As for figures, the comics sales seem to have held pretty firm at just over
>> half a million - which considering this was the boom years of comics does
>seem
>> a bit strange.
>
> It isn't the boom year of comics, actually.
No, sorry I wasn't clear originally - Lobdell took over during the boom years
of comics -we're now in a severe recession. Out of sheer desperation Marvel
have decided to try crediting decent writers and artists on their titles to try
and kick some life in the market.
> The people on RACMX are
>generally the ones who support comics strongly, with a few stragglers like
>myself tossed in. Most people I know were hooked onto comics thanks to my
>prodding. They left after I did, and all of us are just kind of depressed
>about the situation. We're not really picking up the series anymore. Now,
>this isn't something that I dictated, believe it or not. ;) Nor is this a
>guaranteed representation of everyone, but this group, like almost the whole
>comics-buying public in general, seems to have a point of view opposite that
>of RACMX users. This is probably the most common POV found among comics
>readers, and believe it or not, it isn't perpetuated by just Lobdell. I think
>it's just the whole "regression" feeling; the characters are back to where
>they were before the "hacks" took over, and there's a lot of history to
>rewrite. I'm not sure I care about the books anymore.
But I felt the same when Lobdell came on the book. The hacks were in charge and
the X-title was poorly written. I left then, and I'm only just returning
because of the quality of Kelly's writing.
>> Certainly I quit the X-men due to Lobdell, or to be fair the new editorial
>> committee style of writing, and I knew others who were doing likewise, but
>it
>> seems the cartoons and hype was enough to bring new readers in.
>
> And at the same time, figures suggest enough readers left to
>counteract
>that. All the hype in the world won't change an honest first impression.
In the long term, no. hence the current comics recession.
>> > I agree on this part; I hated all those looped retcons and summer crap.
>> >Summer is the time when I don't have as much pressure on me, so you'd
>think
>> >that I would buy a lot of books during this time and enjoy them. Not so,
>> >since the summer crap (Psi-War in mind) is what keeps pushing me away.
>>
>> But again, it's all part of an attempt by Marvel to remarket the X-men as a
>> well-written title, not as some hyped monstrosity. That said, no writer, no
>> matter how good he is can please everyone.
>
> That's true. However, I would be satisfied by the X-Writers if they would
>give more credit to Lobdell's characterization. They've ignored quite a bit
>of it, and that's really depressing (Goes a long way towards making me laugh
>at the words "well-written" in conjunction with "X-Men").
I don't think Lobdell really moved the character on that much anyway. Certainly
many of his storyline developments were so convoluted that to recap them in
atitle would take all twenty pages anyway.
>> Lazy Line Painter Al
>> ...and speaking of good writing, wasn't Green Lantern and the Lord of
>Dreams
>> conversation in this months JLA one of THE comic moments of 1998.
>
> Yes. I think JLA is an awesome book, perhaps the best on the market right
>now. I wish Grant Morrison would write the X-Men. Or, at least, a makeover
>would be quite good (All-New crap aside). Morrison's characterization is dead
>on all the time, and if KellySeagle could duplicate even half of that (The
>JLA characters have had WAY more bad writers than the X-Men ever did), I'd
>buy fifteen copies of every issue.
I don't know Morrison works as a JLA writer because he seriously cares about
the title being a good one. I doubt he cares to much about the X-men.
Plus the styles are too different, the JLA are iconic, the X-men more *human*
But that line 'Fear, You will surpass him'
Wow
Lazy Line Painter Al
Riedel
Claremont had written the same exact issue in #303 there would be many
people calling it the greatest thing since sliced bread. But because its got
Lobdell's name on it it must be bad.
You can deny it if you want but you know their are some people who
generalize things by saying things like....."Claremont=good, Lobdell=bad".
Some will even go as far as saying that everything Claremont wrote was
better that anything Lobdell wrote. Also I notice that many of the Lobdoll
bashers are repeating the same tired augments over and over. As the lyrics
to Natalie Imbruglia's song Don't You Think? goes "and second hand opinions
don't make you look any smarter".
Anyway, I'd like to thank everyone who's responded my orininal post. I can't
believe how big this thread has gotten. I'm not much of a poster, as I spent
most of my time reading other peoples opinions.
AGr3691541
>The one thing I find amusing about this whole debate about is that if
>Claremont had written the same exact issue in #303 there would be many
>people calling it the greatest thing since sliced bread. But because its got
>Lobdell's name on it it must be bad.
That's hardly fair. The people who like CLaremont and dislike Lobdell do so
because of the obvious difference in their styles. - and the reverse is true.
From #303 I can pick out the worst elements of Lobdell's writing style, but I
can appreciate that people who like that style may in turn like the issue.
BUT there is definitely a different style of writing there.
>You can deny it if you want but you know their are some people who
>generalize things by saying things like....."Claremont=good, Lobdell=bad".
Because Claremont is a good comics writer and Lobdell is a bad comics writer.
>Some will even go as far as saying that everything Claremont wrote was
>better that anything Lobdell wrote. Also I notice that many of the Lobdoll
>bashers are repeating the same tired augments over and over.
Like what?
> As the lyrics
>to Natalie Imbruglia's song Don't You Think? goes "and second hand opinions
>don't make you look any smarter".
Why do many (but not all) Lobdell fans insist on *making up* reasons why
Claremont fans don't like Lobdell and then repeating it over and over?
It's either just plain nostalgia ("everything old has to be good" -which is
just isn't true which is why many of the Claremont fans (although I appreciate
not all) welcomed Kelly and Seagle to the title) or wholesale opposition to
change (Claremont fans love change, change and development - something Lobdell
just couldn't do) or close-minded (most Claremont fans have given Lobdell the
benefit of many doubts - but after 5+ years of his hap-hazard, ill-thought out
writing we have to face the fact -WE DON'T LIKE HIS WRITING)
Lazy Line Painter Al
Harlaquin1
anything but his writing and treatment of the characters were amazing while
Lobdell's wasn't
.>>In particularly let's talk about UNCANNY X-MEN #303. Claremont would have
>>made Illyana's sacrifice mean something -- in battle.
Personally I feel this was the worst written issue of the X-Men, not because
Illyana died or what she died from, but because of how he showed it. I'm sorry
but Kitty was Illyana's best friend this could have been an amazing story yet
they decided to show this story from a character who really had no emotional
connections with Illyana. It would have been like if Cyclops died and we saw
the story through let's say Meggan eyes. I'm sorry but I would be pissed not to
see what Jean was going through.
Harlaquin1
>Claremont had written the same exact issue in #303 there would be many
>people calling it the greatest thing since sliced bread. But because its got
>Lobdell's name on it it must be bad
Not so, I beleive Al mentioned the line earlier about what happened to
Nightcrawler when he was in a coma, Storm stood over him in the midst of
everything going wacko at the mansion and said one poignant some may say heavy
handed line of "I miss your laughter" that one line made me cry I couldn't
beleive it whereas when Illayana died in issue 303 I completley forgot about it
other than "Why the hell didn't they focus on Kitty". Then I blocked the issue
from my mind and actually forgot that Illayana died, it was no biggie, the
issue didn't even sir one emotional response from me, and hey I cry at the drop
of a hat. I don't think Lobdell is a horrible writer because he's not
Claremont. I just think he's a horrible writer. Craig
Danny Miller
not going to change anyone's minds on the subject -- and don't want to,
either -- but I feel compelled to comment, anyway. :)
In article <C9D53579223C46A8.1EF9C33E2684566B.DFF0D36705795CA5@library-
proxy.airnews.net>, rog...@REMOVETHISairmail.net <Alleigh> wrote:
> On 3 Aug 1998 14:32:35 GMT, bfr...@chat.carleton.ca (Brian Fried) wrote:
>
> >In particularly let's talk about UNCANNY X-MEN #303. Claremont would have
> >made Illyana's sacrifice mean something -- in battle. That way, when the
>
> And the way Lobdell killed her had no meaning - except to set up Piotr's
> defection and Magneto's retconned personality. He would not of crashed a
> little girl's funeral especially 'Yana's. He liked her and was the one
> adult that actually reached out to her and she reached back.
Well, not to denigrate your dislike of UXM #303, but, standing alone and
notwithstanding the admittedly terrible next issue, I liked #303. I
reacted the way I think Lobdell meant it to -- it tugged at my heartstrings
_just_ _enough_. IMHO, it was one of Lobdell's better efforts.
And before anyone jumps on me, I will also agree with Alleigh that
Magneto's personality got run roughshod over big-time around then. And, if
it helps, while I'm willing to accept that Piotr, too, had some
psychological problems circa Fatal Attractions, it still didn't "feel
right."
> >Instead, Lobdell shows us the vulnerability of the child that was taken
> >and the vulnerability of the closest person to her age in the mansion.
> >Jubilee has never seen Xavier fail up to this point. She has never really
> >seen the X-Men fail.
>
> And having Wolvie on a cross and the rest of the X-Men fleeing wasn't seen
> as a failure to Jubilee?
In a way, no. That scene -- while I've never actually seen it -- was early
in Jubilee's relationship with the X-Men, when she didn't know them well,
and they didn't know about her, period. Perhaps what Brian's trying to say
is that this is the first time she saw her team -- emphasis on "her" -- and
her adopted mentor fail *off the battlefield*. I'm sure even Jubilee knew
that sometimes in war, people lose -- as did Wolvie when he was crucified
and the X-Men when they left him. Illyana, however, died in complete
peacetime...and Xavier could do nothing to save her. He failed.
> >Piotr ran away from his problems and refused to acknowledge them. This
> >Ellis dealt with in EXCALIBUR. Lobdell had Kitty deal with her emotions
> >in EXCALIBUR, doubting herself after the recent losses. Beast devoted
> >himself to the virus study, as did Moira and Charles.
>
> It was a stupid story - all of the sudden Illyana had to come back to the
> mansion so she could die, this after that stupid lets kill Peter, Illyana,
> and Mikhail's parents story, have some evil Russian people try and force
> Illyana's powers to start (who wrote that retarded stary was that Lobdell
> or Nicieza)
I don't know, but I am willing to buy the...oddness of the "Let's screw
over Piotr" movement. :)
> >What other reaction were you looking for? Storm to stop every so issues
> >and go "Gee, I feel sorry about losing Illyana?" Look how much the X-Men
> >mourned the loss of Thunderbird: one issue! And in that issue, they also
>
> They knew John for maybe a month - they knew Illyana a lot longer - they
> failed her twice (almost three or four) - once when Belasco got her and
> the Russian bad guys tried to jumpstart her powers, then her parents were
> killed, and then they couldn't save her.
In a way, maybe this set of X-Men didn't know this Illyana all that well.
Many of the X-Men at the time -- such as all the original five minus
Cyclops, perhaps -- were not there when Belasco stole Illyana, and had
precious little contact with her for much of her tenure as adult-Illyana,
much less child-Illyana.
Also, when Belasco stole Illyana, I seem to recall that there _was_ some
mourning, but it was muted by the fact that the X-Men were immediately
granted a "replacement", albeit older, about whose horrifying life they
could not possibly know. That muted mourning was offset by the thoroughly
shocked, numb mourning that (again) I seem to recall after child-Illyana
died of Legacy. I'm not sure the X-Men quite knew how to react, in other
words.
You do make an interesting point, though.
> (BTW wasn't the purpose of a little child getting the virus to show how it
> could infect anyone and supposedly affect the X-Men. - so yes it should
> have been touched upon for more than a total of two friggin' issues)
No comment; I've never even seen, much less read and/or seen discussed, all
the issues of reference.
> >As for the FATAL ATTRACTIONS issue, again I think it was the push from
> >the editors for a Magneto-based story and a big one that Lobdell adapted.
>
> So instead of having Magneto lets say come after the funeral the next day
> - he crashes it - so basically your saying Lobdell is a "yes-man" and its
> not his fault that he continued to write bad stories because he liked the
> knowledge he was writing the X-Men, huh?
Well, it certainly was a boner on Lobdell's part, as truly excellent
writers *can* overcome most dross given them, but we might want to take
into account that the comics business is often very tenuous -- as Keith
DeCandido, et al. have mentioned on this group -- so possibly Lobdell, who
didn't necessarily have the standing that Claremont did when he left in '91
or so, would rather have capitulated and kept his job, no questions asked,
than fought. It's not a complete excuse, however.
--
I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it. -- Jack Handey
Danny Miller, har de har-har-har
dami...@bu.edu
Riedel
AGr3691541 wrote in message
<199808032004...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>The one thing I find amusing about this whole debate about is that if
>>Claremont had written the same exact issue in #303 there would be many
>>people calling it the greatest thing since sliced bread. But because its
got
>>Lobdell's name on it it must be bad.
>
>That's hardly fair. The people who like CLaremont and dislike Lobdell do so
>because of the obvious difference in their styles. - and the reverse is
true.
Different styles indeed. Lobdell kind of reminds me of one of the best
wrestling in WCW today.... Cris Benoit. He matches have lots of actions and
always leave me wanting more. But because Benoit isn't a big name in
wrestling he's put on the Job squad. On the other hand, we have Claremont
who reminds me of Hulk Hogan..... Two tired old men living off their names.
Hogan matches put me to sleep just like Claremont's comics does.
>From #303 I can pick out the worst elements of Lobdell's writing style, but
I
>can appreciate that people who like that style may in turn like the issue.
Thats funny because form the time the X-Men where in Australia untell
Claremont left the comic(or fired or whatever) I can can pick out the worst
elements of Claremonts style. Thats alot more issues than #303.....
>>You can deny it if you want but you know their are some people who
>>generalize things by saying things like....."Claremont=good, Lobdell=bad".
>Because Claremont is a good comics writer and Lobdell is a bad comics
writer.
The whole point I was making is that there are people out there who make
genaralizations about things. And you just proved my point. Its like saying
"Republicans=bad Democrats=good"or "Bill Clinton=bad Bob Dole=good".
>>Some will even go as far as saying that everything Claremont wrote was
>>better that anything Lobdell wrote. Also I notice that many of the Lobdoll
>>bashers are repeating the same tired augments over and over.
>
>Like what?
Like yours.....
>> As the lyrics
>>to Natalie Imbruglia's song Don't You Think? goes "and second hand
opinions
>>don't make you look any smarter".
>
>Why do many (but not all) Lobdell fans insist on *making up* reasons why
>Claremont fans don't like Lobdell and then repeating it over and over?
I'm not sure, considering this is only my 5th maybe 6th post on this messege
board;I really can't anwser that question.
>It's either just plain nostalgia ("everything old has to be good" -which is
>just isn't true which is why many of the Claremont fans (although I
appreciate
>not all) welcomed Kelly and Seagle to the title) or wholesale opposition to
>change (Claremont fans love change, change and development - something
Lobdell
>just couldn't do) or close-minded (most Claremont fans have given Lobdell
the
>benefit of many doubts - but after 5+ years of his hap-hazard, ill-thought
out
>writing we have to face the fact -WE DON'T LIKE HIS WRITING)
Ill-thought thought out writing?? For a minute there,I thought you were
talking about the time the X-Men spent in Australia......
Mark
shaung
MT wrote:
> Ho ho... For a second I thought you were talking about Claremont, to
> whom this statement applies as well.
IMO the percentage of clunkers above total output was higher for Lobdell thanfor
Claremont.
> Agreed on this issue. An amalgamation of Lobdell's action with
> Claremont's planning range would be, as I've said before, my perfect
> writer. Where's PAD now, anyway?
I'm curious, leaving Claremont out of the equation completely,what makes
Lobdell's action sequences so good?
> > Although Claremont left a lot of danglers, his stories made sense
>
> So did Lobdell's.
My argument is a little weak so I will concede this point.
> > and even if you didn't agree with the outcome, he put some thought
> > into his stories.
>
> True. However, both Lobdell and Claremont wrote some pretty bad
> copouts.
Can I get an example of a bad copout by Claremont? I don't havemy entire X-Men
collection (from Uncanny #126 on) with me.
> Disagreed. I enjoy the stuff I own from #260 to X-Men #3, but it isn't
> "better than anything Lobdell has ever written." It compares favorably,
> but the stuff I like is before UXM #150.
We will have to agree to disagree.
> > The Australia storyline was weak but the period before that was better
> > than anything Lobdell has ever written.
>
> Nope. Everything before UXM #150 was.
We will have to agree to disagree again. Correct me if I'm wrong on thisone, but
you don't like the Paul Smith, and Romita Jr. run more than
Lobdell's.
> > Lobdell does everything by introspection? And the proof of this is?
>
> I tell ya, read UXM #308. If that isn't introspection on Scott and
> Jean's ENTIRE HISTORY together, I don't know what is. Brian's right,
> Claremont didn't have the best setup for Scott's original marriage.
He said Lobdell does EVERYTHING by introspection. I'll ask again, andthe proof
of this is?
> > Everytime Lobdellsupporters talk about his positives they only bring
> > up this ONE ISSUE STORY!
>
> Um, no. I can name at least a dozen, off-hand, that I enjoyed.
>
Please name them. I'm willing to bet that the majority are one-issuestories,
one thing I do give Lobdell credit for. His one issue stories
were his best stories.
> > How many issues did Lobdell write?
>
> A bunch, but not as much as Claremont. Therefore, you can't expect him
> to have the same amount of good issues and bad ones (But you can compare
> proportionately).
That's what I meant, but I wasn't clear on that, so I apologize.
> Where did you get the idea that DB never knew that Beast was running
> around? Besides, this guy is busy making the Morlocks.
The Unlimited story. If DB was making the Morlocks he was in the'normal' Marvel
Universe for a significant (years Marvel time) amount
of time. He just discovered the Beast in that story and went to see his
parents.
> > Gutsy? Gutsy is taking an established heroine, slowing turning her
> > evil,and having her eat a star, killing billions of people.
>
> Then killing her and bringing her back from the dead not only as
> herself, but as a clone.
IMO Jean Grey returning from the dead was a mistake. Claremonthad nothing to do
with that. To make things fair neither did Lobdell.
> > > (8) UNCANNY X-MEN #325. We got a marker to see how much the X-Men
> > > had changed. That was the point of the issue: that even Storm has
> > > had to stop laughing as the world gets darker.
> >
> > Uncanny X-Men #325 is a direct rip off of the first Morlock Story.
> > Stormstabs Callisto. Storm stabs Marrow. What's the difference.
>
> I'm assuming you haven't read UXM #170, or missed out on #325.
You really shouldn't assume. In both cases Storm had to kill to savelives. The
only reason Callisto lived was because the Morlocks had
a healer mutant. Storm stabbed Callisto in the heart to save the lives of
the X-Men. Storm ripped out Marrow's heart to save the lives of innocent
humans. Both stories were related to the Morlocks. The only difference
was that Claremont's story affected Storm's character for a significant
amount of time while Lobdell's really didn't because Claremont did the story
years before.
> Oh, brother. She'd changed, yes, but the X-Men were still optimistic
> about the world. Nothing hit home to Storm that the world had changed
> more than a repetition of one of the defining moments of her life, only
> with way different circumstances.
The X-Men were still optimistic after the Massacre? The quote aboveonly rings
true if you ignore Claremont's tenure on the book. Please
give me an example on how Storm changed after #325. Please?
> So? Lobdell created Marrow and Maggott, but he doesn't get credit among
> the fans for that. It's the writer who developed it that counts.
Claremont has done most of the developing so he should get the credit.I will
give credit to Lobdell for creating Maggot, Cecilia, most of the
Gen X crew, giving Iceman a lot of development, and his work on making
Prof X a little less than heroic (although he didn't originate the concept).
I don't like Marrow. Tell me, what characterization has Lobdell done for the
rest of the X-Men?
Rogue became a whiner.
Gambit became an angst fest higher than the rest of the X-Men combined.
Cyclops and Jean became connected at the hip.
Magneto was totally mishandled.
The rest of the X-Men haven't changed at all.
> > Is Claremont a god? No, but he is a better writer of the X-Men than
> > Lobdell was. Claremont is the main reason the X-Men are as popular as
> > they are (with help from others), not Lobdell.
>
> I don't think so. The X-Men today sell way more books than they did
> when Claremont was on the title. Claremont got the book an established
> fanbase, but Lobdell raked more in with his editor-forced $$$ tactics.
> The X-Men today are more popular after Lobdell than they were after
> Claremont (Who also gained a lot of fans because of Jim Lee).
I would like proof of this. The X-Men was the number one comic bookduring a
large part of Claremont's tenure. How could the X-Men's sales
rise without Claremont gaining 'an established fanbase'. Lobdell had help
from a popular cartoon, where a lot (not all) of the characters were either
created or made popular by Claremont. At best, Lobdell kept the train
rolling, it became popular before him.
> > Under Claremont the characters were strong individuals with depth,
> > under Lobdell they were either characterized badly (Rogue) or not at
> > all (Storm).
>
> Rogue was a whiner, but that's the only problem I see with
> characterization.
>
I'm tired of replying, so I'll let this one slide. We agree to disagree.
> > Name any X-Men story that Lobdell wrote and I can name a better
> > Claremont story.
>
> And you realize this method wouldn't be effective because this is a
> matter of opinion, right?
Every comment you've made is opinion too. So what's your point?
Peace,
Shaun G.
MT
>
> > Agreed on this issue. An amalgamation of Lobdell's action with
> >Claremont's planning range would be, as I've said before, my perfect
> >writer. Where's PAD now, anyway?
> >
>
> DC.
Not to be rude, but I was aware of this already. :) I merely asked
where PAD was as an indirect way of saying he's the perfect writer in my
opinion.
> Which has had the unfortunate effect of making me buy a DC book,
> something I've not done since I realized just how ridiculous the whole
> JLA thing is a few months ago.
How is the JLA thing ridiculous? Besides that, why would you talk as if
buying DC comics is a sin?
> Young Justice seems to be pretty cool though (based on just
> one issue). But I hope PAD is going to write a Marvel title again
> soon.
YJ IS cool. And I wish Marvel would get PAD to write the people left
over from X-Factor.
It'll never happen, though.
*Sigh*.
--
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
Grinding into Emptiness, industrial e-zine: http://www.emptiness.net.
MT
>
> An infinite monkey named MT wrote:
>
> > credit among the fans for that. It's the writer who developed it
> > that counts.
>
> interesting character concepts there, though as you say it's how
> they're handled over time that matters.
And it is for this reason that no one faults KellySeagle for writing
Maggott and Marrow out of character. ;)
> I also credit Lobdell for getting FF v3 off to a good start, and
> writing the occasional good story for What The.
Agreed. I always liked Lobdell's humor, which is understandable since
he used to be a stand-up comic.
> But that's about all. :)
Cheapskate. :)
> > > Name any X-Men story that Lobdell wrote and I can name a better
> > > Claremont story.
> >
> > And you realize this method wouldn't be effective because this
> > is a matter of opinion, right?
>
> When it comes right down to it, aren't all racmx threads about
> opinions?
Dammit, man, you're spoiling my whole argument!
Alleigh
>The one thing I find amusing about this whole debate about is that if
>Claremont had written the same exact issue in #303 there would be many
>people calling it the greatest thing since sliced bread. But because its got
>Lobdell's name on it it must be bad.
No I would call it bad - it was stupid plain in simple - same as with
Inferno - the retcon that was done to make Scott not look like an
asshole
Alleigh
wrote:
>
>Well, it certainly was a boner on Lobdell's part, as truly excellent
>writers *can* overcome most dross given them, but we might want to take
>into account that the comics business is often very tenuous -- as Keith
>DeCandido, et al. have mentioned on this group -- so possibly Lobdell, who
>didn't necessarily have the standing that Claremont did when he left in '91
>or so, would rather have capitulated and kept his job, no questions asked,
>than fought. It's not a complete excuse, however.
>
Bob Harras basically fired Claremont and "graciously" allowed him to
write the first 3 X-Men issues as a "severance" (sp ?) pay so to
speak. SO when Claremont left he was deemed unncessary (sp ?) and that
art was more important.
I am having spelling problems at the moment.
Alleigh
Referring to Jean - and the fact that MT is wrong about how Jean came
back.
> Then killing her and bringing her back from the dead not only as
>herself, but as a clone.
Where have you been - the editors forced her death and return.
Claremont wanted her to live without her powers - Jim Shooter said she
must die. John Bryne wrote her return story in Fantastic Four. And
then after Simsonson ( I think it was Louise) in X-Factor #1 had Scott
leave his wife a child for Jean - Maddie wasn't Jean's clone until
they retconned her so Scott didn't look like the royal asshole he was
for abandoning his wife and child.
Pick up Phoenix the Untold Story to see the interview with Shooter,
Claremont, Byrne... and other about Jean's death.