I think its important in general to remember to keep an open mind to things that are unknown to you and to respect other people's opinions. Also remember your taste might change over time. Presumably, the majority of those of us posting in this thread for example are fans of some part or more of the X-men story, so we might as well remember some of the core seeming tenets of X-Men lore and not be full of hatred and fear. Learning from what we interact with even if its comics or movies etc, can make us better people imo.
It's amazing how many ways people have been able to remix "It wasn't what I grew up with, therefore it sucks" for all of these decades. With absolutely no self-awareness about how dangerously self-absorbed and petulant they are. Your childhood hasn't gone anywhere. You can re-read Claremont's run (it's my second fav, personally, after Morrison but before Hickman) as many times as you like and pretend the world hasn't changed since then.
I actually agree with what you are saying in that a tantrum about "newness" is silly and it didn't 'ruin' the older thing that exists, since that thing still exists.
It's unfortunate that my lack of reverence for Morrison's run on the book is being seen that way - although I understand why in the framework of this particular argument. Please understand that I very much enjoyed Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-Men, I quite liked much of Hickman's run on the books. There were things I liked about Brubaker's time on the titles.
The fact that I don't venerate Morrison as the best the book has ever been isn't because I'm incapable of liking anything different or new. I just don't like Grant Morrison's writing nearly as much as many people do. I've read plenty of his work and while I can acknowledge his skill level I have never honestly vibed much with his tone and attitude. I've had people telling me how amazing he is for decades and I've always just kind of given a benign shrug. My favorite work by him was probably the first two years of the JLA relaunch - but his Batman and Superman stories didn't energize me. I get what people saw in the Invisibles and Doom Patrol - but they weren't my cuppa' so to speak. I had a friend rave to me about Skrull Kill Krew and I thought that was hot garbage.
Just because I don't venerate Grant Morrison's X-Men doesn't mean I'm some old fogey pining for the good old days. It just means I didn't enjoy his direction with the book and I thought the art was shit. That's all it means.
Grant Morrison is my favorite comic writer of all time, but I realize they aren’t for everyone. And their work on X-Men isn’t exactly “modern” anymore, twenty years or so down the line.
I think it’s cool folks can have their own specific eras to love.
As for figures of the costumes: like I said, Grant is my favorite writer, and their X-run is also my favorite. And also I tend to prefer the X-Men in uniforms as opposed to costumes, so I am here for it. Do we need two versions of Logan, one with the undershirt from basically every other artist, and one greasy hairy shirtless-under-the-jacket version a la Quitely? I say yes.
It's amazing how many ways people have been able to remix "It wasn't what I grew up with, therefore it sucks" for all of these decades. With absolutely no self-awareness about how dangerously self-absorbed and petulant they are. Your childhood hasn't gone anywhere. You can re-read Claremont's run (it's my second fav, personally, after Morrison but before Hickman) as many times as you like and pretend the world hasn't changed since then.
I actually agree with what you are saying in that a tantrum about "newness" is silly and it didn't 'ruin' the older thing that exists, since that thing still exists.
It's unfortunate that my lack of reverence for Morrison's run on the book is being seen that way - although I understand why in the framework of this particular argument. Please understand that I very much enjoyed Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-Men, I quite liked much of Hickman's run on the books. There were things I liked about Brubaker's time on the titles.
The fact that I don't venerate Morrison as the best the book has ever been isn't because I'm incapable of liking anything different or new. I just don't like Grant Morrison's writing nearly as much as many people do. I've read plenty of his work and while I can acknowledge his skill level I have never honestly vibed much with his tone and attitude. I've had people telling me how amazing he is for decades and I've always just kind of given a benign shrug. My favorite work by him was probably the first two years of the JLA relaunch - but his Batman and Superman stories didn't energize me. I get what people saw in the Invisibles and Doom Patrol - but they weren't my cuppa' so to speak. I had a friend rave to me about Skrull Kill Krew and I thought that was hot garbage.
Just because I don't venerate Grant Morrison's X-Men doesn't mean I'm some old fogey pining for the good old days. It just means I didn't enjoy his direction with the book and I thought the art was shit. That's all it means.
I think Morrison's best work is Animal Man. I read it for the first time this year and it fucked me up. It's Watchmen-level shit.
I adore Whedon's run, but it is funny to me that you think Morrison spits in the face of canon when you look at what Whedon did to Kitty. He infantilized her and erased decades of character development so she could go back to being '80s teen Kitty. She even got her old teenage boyfriend back
I adore Whedon's run, but it is funny to me that you think Morrison spits in the face of canon when you look at what Whedon did to Kitty. He infantilized her and erased decades of character development so she could go back to being '80s teen Kitty. She even got her old teenage boyfriend back
. He set the character back literal decades.SpoilerAstonishing X-Menso Whedon could vicariously fuck her through Colossus
Careful now... you're attributing to me positions I did not take.
I said "I very much enjoyed Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-Men" (full stop)
You followed with "I adore Whedon's run"
Those are the same sentiment's expressed. We have said the same thing.
You then go on to add an editorial about Whedon's treatment of Kitty Pryde - a subject I didn't discuss and expressed no opinion on, so you are assuming a position from me here. Obviously Whedon gets viewed now through a lens that includes a litany of problematic behavior and his use of Kitty Pryde in Astonishing can certainly be seen as additional evidence in a pattern. Obviously it's possible to feel his treatment of Kitty is sub-optimal and still "adore Whedon's run", as you yourself do. Not sure why you wouldn't believe I'd fall in that same camp.
And I don't think it's hypocritical of me to enjoy Whedon's overall X-Men story arc much more than I did Morrison's.
But it's all good. I've acknowledged that Morrison is a talented writer. It's undeniable that many people like what he does. The fact that his run isn't among my favorites doesn't harm or diminish anyone else's enjoyment of that. We don't have dissect it any further in a thread about action figures.
And my distaste for Quietly's god awful x-uniform designs doesn't mean they won't show up in the Legends line as figures.
@panthercult TBH I was referring more so to JTMarsh's childishly hyperbolic comments rather than yours; I think it's perfectly acceptable not to jive with a particular writer's take on things. There are plenty of X-Runs I thought were shitty (Rosenberg, Howard, Duggan) or not worth the hype (Liefeld, Nicieza) but I wouldn't argue that they were desecrations of a sacred franchise. I just didn't like them, so I tuned out until they were replaced by writers I thought had a better grasp of storytelling and character work.
I personally love Morrison's run because it was subversive, stylish, quirky, high-concept, not trying to be (or look like) a generic superhero book, officially added Emma to the team, and established an actual mutant subculture that made mutants as a whole feel like a specific demographic independent of the X-Men. As always though YMMV.
@panthercult TBH I was referring more so to JTMarsh's childishly hyperbolic comments rather than yours; I think it's perfectly acceptable not to jive with a particular writer's take on things. There are plenty of X-Runs I thought were shitty (Rosenberg, Howard, Duggan) or not worth the hype (Liefeld, Nicieza) but I wouldn't argue that they were desecrations of a sacred franchise. I just didn't like them, so I tuned out until they were replaced by writers I thought had a better grasp of storytelling and character work.
I personally love Morrison's run because it was subversive, stylish, quirky, high-concept, not trying to be (or look like) a generic superhero book, officially added Emma to the team, and established an actual mutant subculture that made mutants as a whole feel like a specific demographic independent of the X-Men. As always though YMMV.
If you're going to deride other folks justifications as merely cover for not liking something which you venerate, you're essentially summing up my point of "mischaracterizing other folks statements in your attempt to defend it." It smacks of sanctimony and the childish hyperbole you claim.
My justifications were pretty reasoned and spelled out as to what I specifically found lacking about the supposed contributions of Morrison's run to the show. Likewise stating that everyone's entitled to their opinions on whether they like Morrison's take. He was in fact brought in to overhaul the X-Men, so much so that he became known for overhauling them and received offers to overhaul other titles for DC. He's stated before in interviews that he doesn't particularly like superheroes and in the case of the character Magneto, found him to be beyond redemption. Lo and behold he turned him back into a one dimensional villain as we see in his stories. None of this implies a fondness for "what came before." Quite honestly he didn't use much of what came before and chose to remake it to his own liking, which Marvel was fine with at first. It's fairly evident in how he deconstructed essentially every character he used for his stories aside from Wolverine. Eventually all his desired changes ran afoul of editorial who wouldn't allow him to change certain things and he abruptly left vowing never to work with Marvel again. The glut of his work since has been with DC.
You're free to feel as if Morrison's writings are rarefied ambrosia and I'm free to view it more as ambrosia salad. But do try to be civil about how you portray others, particularly when you're displaying what you're accusing them of.
If you do say so yourself.
@panthercult TBH I was referring more so to JTMarsh's childishly hyperbolic comments rather than yours; I think it's perfectly acceptable not to jive with a particular writer's take on things. There are plenty of X-Runs I thought were shitty (Rosenberg, Howard, Duggan) or not worth the hype (Liefeld, Nicieza) but I wouldn't argue that they were desecrations of a sacred franchise. I just didn't like them, so I tuned out until they were replaced by writers I thought had a better grasp of storytelling and character work.
I personally love Morrison's run because it was subversive, stylish, quirky, high-concept, not trying to be (or look like) a generic superhero book, officially added Emma to the team, and established an actual mutant subculture that made mutants as a whole feel like a specific demographic independent of the X-Men. As always though YMMV.
If you're going to deride other folks justifications as merely cover for not liking something which you venerate, you're essentially summing up my point of "mischaracterizing other folks statements in your attempt to defend it." It smacks of sanctimony and the childish hyperbole you claim.
My justifications were pretty reasoned and spelled out as to what I specifically found lacking about the supposed contributions of Morrison's run to the show. Likewise stating that everyone's entitled to their opinions on whether they like Morrison's take. He was in fact brought in to overhaul the X-Men, so much so that he became known for overhauling them and received offers to overhaul other titles for DC. He's stated before in interviews that he doesn't particularly like superheroes and in the case of the character Magneto, found him to be beyond redemption. Lo and behold he turned him back into a one dimensional villain as we see in his stories. None of this implies a fondness for "what came before." Quite honestly he didn't use much of what came before and chose to remake it to his own liking, which Marvel was fine with at first. It's fairly evident in how he deconstructed essentially every character he used for his stories aside from Wolverine. Eventually all his desired changes ran afoul of editorial who wouldn't allow him to change certain things and he abruptly left vowing never to work with Marvel again. The glut of his work since has been with DC.
You're free to feel as if Morrison's writings are rarefied ambrosia and I'm free to view it more as ambrosia salad. But do try to be civil about how you portray others, particularly when you're displaying what you're accusing them of.
I'd still appreciate if you could state how I mischaracterized what anyone said, which you threw out at me specifically.
Whenever I see this thread get a bump I check hoping it's someone reporting BBTS got wave 1 back in stock. Alas........
I mean.... this is what happens any time there's going to be nearly a year between waves in a line.
Heck, in the G.I. Joe Classified thread there's only a lull of a few weeks between releases and we got a full page diversion of discussion about the Lord of the Rings...
Heck, in the G.I. Joe Classified thread there's only a lull of a few weeks between releases and we got a full page diversion of discussion about the Lord of the Rings...
I need to check that out.
I need to re-read Morrison's run. This summer I've gone back to Knightfall, Hush, Death of Superman, and I've been trying to decide what's next. Yes, I do believe it will be Morrison's X-Men. Honestly, I don't recall many of the details of his run to comment, but I know I have them all in single issue format.
His run came at a time in Marvel history when they were trying to shake everything up for shaking-things-up sake. They blew up Avengers' mansion stating the Bendis era, they erased Spider-Man's marriage and reset his status quo (you want to talk middle fingers.....), Marvel did a lot of experimenting in the early 2000's.
If you're looking for an X-Men run that's really egregious, look no further that Chuck Austin's Uncanny run that was going parallel to Morrison's. So cringe that it made me drop Uncanny for the first time.
If you're looking for an X-Men run that's really egregious, look no further that Chuck Austin's Uncanny run that was going parallel to Morrison's. So cringe that it made me drop Uncanny for the first time.
Yeah, I may not love the direction of Morrison's X-Men, but I can appreciate the talent and skill in his writing. Chuck Austen's work is just garbage - borderline unreadable. Criminal that they gave him that gig.
I'm not insane enough not to know the difference.
If you're looking for an X-Men run that's really egregious, look no further that Chuck Austin's Uncanny run that was going parallel to Morrison's. So cringe that it made me drop Uncanny for the first time.
Yeah, I may not love the direction of Morrison's X-Men, but I can appreciate the talent and skill in his writing. Chuck Austen's work is just garbage - borderline unreadable. Criminal that they gave him that gig.
I'm not insane enough not to know the difference.
This feels like a fine common ground for us to all agree on to finish this discussion.
Though I do kinda want a figure of Sammy Squid-Boy.
Latest Post: DC Animated Figures Our newest member: TravisDus Recent Posts Unread Posts
