#1 Edited by time (4841 posts) - - Show Bio

I would like to know who are the most popular X-Men writers. Who would appear in the top 10 or top 20.

In order to find that out. I would like people to list there favourite Writers. Please list your top 6 X-Men writers. You can give reasons why. there your favourite writers.

Mine is

1) Fabian Nicieza

Is number one on my list, cause he wrote some of my favourite story arcs. Most of his stories center around the Blue Team of the 90's, but he also wrote some stories for the Gold team and the original X-Force from the 90's.

2) Scott Lobdell

Most of Scott Lobdell stories center around the Gold team of the 90's, that's why he makes my list. He told some good stories.

3) Chris Claremont

Chris Claremont is one of X-Men most popular writers and he wrote some good stories and he introduce me to the X-Men.

4) Christopher Yost & Craig Kyle

I put these two writers together, cause I couldn't imagine one without the other. I loved there work on the X-Force and on the Messiah Saga.

5) Mike Carey

Mike makes my list, cause he wrote some good Rogue stories.

6) Peter David/ Brian Michael Bendis

Peter David makes my list, cause he good writer and he made me like characters such as Madrox and Monet. He also made me like Laylar Miller.

Bendis makes my list, cause made me love X-Men comics again. He made me like Uncanny X-Men again after hated the series for 6 years. He also returned Jean Grey.

Bendis also wrote some good stories for Ultimate X-men as well.

Honourable Mentions: Ed Brubaker, Mark Millar, Daniel Way, Larry Hama, Rob Liefeld, Brian Wood, Stan Lee and Brian K. Vaughan.

So there my top 6, please list yours. Your favourite writers.

#2 Edited by cattlebattle (12579 posts) - - Show Bio

Claremont, Claremont Claremont and Claremont.....

Whedon Morrison and Stan Lee....and maybe Roy Thomas. I think it was his storyline at the very end of the original run that sparked Claremonts interest.

no one else matters.

#3 Posted by HAWK2916 (1582 posts) - - Show Bio

My favorite writers in no particular order are: Chris Claremont, Joss Whedon, Kyle &Yost, Mike Carey, Rick Remender, Ed Brubaker, Peter David, Morrison, Stan Lee, Fabian Nicieza, Scott Lobdell

#4 Posted by cwatz (20 posts) - - Show Bio

Claremont is the backbone of the whole series and told some of the best stories, so hes first.

Morrison had the second best run in my opinion, though planet x put a bit of a stain on the otherwise brilliant stories.

After that there is a bit of a gap, but I would probably go with Whedon. It never achieved greatness in any fashion like the other two, but it was constantly entertaining.

#5 Posted by cwatz (20 posts) - - Show Bio

Claremont is the backbone of the whole series and told some of the best stories, so hes first.

Morrison had the second best run in my opinion, though planet x put a bit of a stain on the otherwise brilliant stories.

After that there is a bit of a gap, but I would probably go with Whedon. It never achieved greatness in any fashion like the other two, but it was constantly entertaining.

#6 Posted by adamTRMM (1283 posts) - - Show Bio

Face it guys, Bendis is an X-architect, whether we like it or not.

#7 Posted by Koays (1209 posts) - - Show Bio

@adamtrmm: I opened this just to throw that idea out there. He's done more to create concepts and change the status quo then any one in the last 10 years. And arguably, despite a few slips execution, has actually succeeded with his storys being the most interesting.

Though I think he'll be scene as a new Lobdell in terms of work, since we have to include him despite it not always being up to par.

#8 Posted by devilsgrin81 (535 posts) - - Show Bio

is there really anyone else other than Claremont?

but seriously, there are a couple of great writers besides him.

Nicieza, Whedon, Kyle and Yost, Greg Pak is showing promise as an X-writer too.

Have to say tho, i never really enjoyed Lobdell's work. The artwork in the 90s made the writing seem better than it was... just ihmo.

#9 Posted by AgeofHurricane (7259 posts) - - Show Bio

@adamtrmm said:

Face it guys, Bendis is an X-architect, whether we like it or not.

Lol no. Haha.

As much as Marvel would have us believe, no. No, he is not. He has done nothing. Absolutely nothing for the franchise, its characters and development of the mythos. Nadda. Zilch. Nooooothing. He is not an X-architect or an X-writer for that matter, despite the facade that they're trying to uphold. I respect him as a person and all, but his writing leaves much to be desired. He doesn't get the X-Men. He gets good artists to make his shoddy stories look really purdy so the tumblrettes and tumblroes can go gaga over the image sets, but that's about it. Literally it.

#11 Posted by THUNDERBOLT30 (9965 posts) - - Show Bio

Agreed with AoH on Bendis :-/

  1. Claremont
  2. Yost
  3. Ellis
  4. Chuck Kim
  5. Pak
  6. Scott Gray
  7. Lobdell
  8. Remender
  9. Hama
  10. Wood
#12 Posted by oldnightcrawler (4243 posts) - - Show Bio

As much as Marvel would have us believe, no. No, he is not. He has done nothing. Absolutely nothing for the franchise, its characters and development of the mythos. Nadda. Zilch. Nooooothing. He is not an X-architect or an X-writer for that matter, despite the facade that they're trying to uphold. I respect him as a person and all, but his writing leaves much to be desired. He doesn't get the X-Men. He gets good artists to make his shoddy stories look really purdy so the tumblrettes and tumblroes can go gaga over the image sets, but that's about it. Literally it.

I disagree.

While I consider it more of an Avengers story than an X-men story, House of M was a wonderful series, had a lot of impact on the X-men stories that came after it, and illustrated a great understanding of many of the central X-men characters and themes.

While I have no great love for his All-New X-Men, especially BotA, I still think his Uncanny X-Men is one of if not the best X-men books to come out in years. I get that both the style of the series and his writing in general are not to everyone's tastes, but to say he's done nothing with the X-men and doesn't understand them is just simply not true.

#13 Posted by oldnightcrawler (4243 posts) - - Show Bio

@time: okay, top 10 X-men writers..

1. Chris Claremont, of course. Despite probably writing more mediocre X-men comics than any other writer, he's still the king for his classic '80-'86 run. Besides stories like the Dark Phoenix Saga, Days of Future Past, and God Loves, Man Kills which basically redefined both the X-men and the genre, Claremont was really the first mainstream comic writer to pen female and POC characters as more than one dimensional archetypes or plot points, and really I don't think anyone has surpassed him for characterization in general. In his original X-men run, his work on Excalibur, and his wonderful back-up stories in Classic X-Men, this was the guy who made the X-men great in the first place.

2. Joss Whedon. Though he only wrote 25 issues of Astonishing X-Men, those 25 issues are still some of the most solid and entertaining X-men stories that have ever been printed. Easily criticized for not being the most original stories in the X-men's cannon, having been both an homage to Claremont's classic run and a significant nod to Morrison's, his run was still the most well executed and consistent run the X-men have ever had. The definitive X-men of the contemporary age.

3. Grant Morrison. While I don't think Morrison is as good of a writer as Whedon, his run on New X-Men probably had just as many good issues and was far more original overall. E is for Extinction through to Riot at Xavier's are contemporary X-men classics if there are any. If he'd stopped before he got to Planet X I might have even ranked him as #2, but for the year and a half that he turned the X-men into an awful self parody he'll have to settle for #3.

4. Peter David. The only reason I don't rank David higher is that he's never actually written X-men, but I feel like his work on various versions of X-Factor over the years have proved him to be one of the best writers to ever contribute to the X-men's characters and mythos.

5. Stan Lee. Despite not seeming to be able to write women, teenagers, or anyone who wasn't criminally insane realistically, Lee still wrote good stories with amazingly creative characters. X-men may not have been his best example of this, but I still have to admire his creativity in establishing so much of the X-men's world. It's hard to compare him to any other writer, really, since he really established how all Marvel comics were supposed to be written (which was for a much younger audience) until Claremont came along, but I still think he's one of the best.

6. Scott Lobdell. his stuff from the 90's still stands out as some of the better written X-men stories of that era, especially his arc running through Legacies, Fatal Attractions, Phalanx Covenant, and the beginning of Generation X.

7. Brian Bendis. Probably the most polarizing X-men writer since Morrison, arguably also one of the best X-men writers in the same time. As I said above, While I have no great love for his All-New X-Men, especially BotA, I still think his Uncanny X-Men is one of if not the best X-men books to come out in years. And while I consider it more of an Avengers story than an X-men story, House of M was a wonderful series that had a lot of impact on the X-men stories that came after it, and illustrated a great understanding of many of the central X-men characters and themes.

8. Fabian Nicieza. Though he's not a writer that's written the most memorable or classic X-men stories, his character work and plots in the early 90's are still a large part of what I liked about the era. He did for Gambit and Psylocke what Lobdell did for Bishop and Jubilee; he made me like and care about characters I thought were stupid, and for that he gets a spot on the list.

9. Joe Casey. While I wasn't a big fan of Casey's work on Uncanny X-men, he makes this list for his X-men: Children of the Atom mini-series, which was just wonderful.

10. Ed Brubaker. Brubaker makes it onto the list for being able to write like Claremont but with less words. I still think his Divided arc was just perfect.

#14 Posted by cattlebattle (12579 posts) - - Show Bio

@time: okay, top 10 X-men writers..

1. Chris Claremont, of course. Despite probably writing more mediocre X-men comics than any other writer, he's still the king for his classic '80-'86 run.

His run lasted from 1975 to 1991.

#15 Edited by oldnightcrawler (4243 posts) - - Show Bio

@cattlebattle said:

@oldnightcrawler said:

@time: okay, top 10 X-men writers..

1. Chris Claremont, of course. Despite probably writing more mediocre X-men comics than any other writer, he's still the king for his classic '80-'86 run.

His run lasted from 1975 to 1991.

I know, I just don't hold the weaker parts of it against him.

For me he doesn't get especially good until around Proteus (1979), and after the Mutant Massacre (1986) the only really great stories were the original Genosha story (The Uncanny X-Men #235 - 238, 1988) and maybe X-Men #1 -3, but nothing that really compares to his early 80's stuff.

#16 Edited by cattlebattle (12579 posts) - - Show Bio

His run lasted from 1975 to 1991.

I know, I just don't hold the weaker parts of it against him.

For me he doesn't get especially good until around Proteus (1979), and after the Mutant Massacre (1986) the only really great stories were the original Genosha story (The Uncanny X-Men #235 - 238, 1988) and maybe X-Men #1 -3, but nothing that really compares to his early 80's stuff.

Ok, but just because you think its weaker doesn't mean it is or anyone else thinks that...unless of course someone dubbed you the president of X-Men lore or something. I personally love the Outback stuff just as much as anything he did, as a matter of fact, it is, in some ways better than his early 80s stuff

#17 Posted by AgeofHurricane (7259 posts) - - Show Bio

@ageofhurricane said:

As much as Marvel would have us believe, no. No, he is not. He has done nothing. Absolutely nothing for the franchise, its characters and development of the mythos. Nadda. Zilch. Nooooothing. He is not an X-architect or an X-writer for that matter, despite the facade that they're trying to uphold. I respect him as a person and all, but his writing leaves much to be desired. He doesn't get the X-Men. He gets good artists to make his shoddy stories look really purdy so the tumblrettes and tumblroes can go gaga over the image sets, but that's about it. Literally it.

I disagree.

While I consider it more of an Avengers story than an X-men story, House of M was a wonderful series, had a lot of impact on the X-men stories that came after it, and illustrated a great understanding of many of the central X-men characters and themes.

While I have no great love for his All-New X-Men, especially BotA, I still think his Uncanny X-Men is one of if not the best X-men books to come out in years. I get that both the style of the series and his writing in general are not to everyone's tastes, but to say he's done nothing with the X-men and doesn't understand them is just simply not true.

HoM receives unsubstantiated positive recognition because it's the only event of its epoch that actually managed to deliver on the "And nothing will ever be the same" regurgitated slogan that Marvel's slapped on the subsequent events that've come after. But remember, the only reason for its long lasting consequential implications is because of the editorial mandate behind its meager execution. Quesada/Axel wanted rid of the booming mutant population that Morrison ingeniously ushered in and he got around to doing just exactly that. And who better to use than their very own private bum chum? I mean, ngl, i did thoroughly enjoy it, but not because of the interactions or pertinent themes relating the X-Men--but because of the dramatic narrative and consequence. The resolution was pretty formulaic as was the formation.

I mean...seriously, what has he actually done for them? How has he actually proven astute understanding of the mythos and its rich history? Explain, please.

#18 Posted by oldnightcrawler (4243 posts) - - Show Bio

Ok, but just because you think its weaker doesn't mean it is or anyone else thinks that...unless of course someone dubbed you the president of X-Men lore or something. I personally love the Outback stuff just as much as anything he did, as a matter of fact, it is, in some ways better than his early 80s stuff

no, you're right, it's just my opinion that the early 80's stuff is his best.

and it's just your opinion that the replacement era was better (as in, not a matter of fact).

#19 Edited by oldnightcrawler (4243 posts) - - Show Bio

@ageofhurricane said:

HoM receives unsubstantiated positive recognition because it's the only event of its epoch that actually managed to deliver on the "And nothing will ever be the same" regurgitated slogan that Marvel's slapped on the subsequent events that've come after. But remember, the only reason for its long lasting consequential implications is because of the editorial mandate behind its meager execution.

be that as it may, critical acclaim isn't going to sway my opinion one way or the other; if I like a story, it's for it's own merit. To my mind, my own positive recognition of the story is based wholly on my enjoyment of it. And to me the execution of the story, and the story itself, was just wonderful.

It was a rare and perfect storm of a crossover series: it was essentially an X-men story, in the vein of DPS or Proteus, but also in an alternate reality like An Age Undreamed Of or AoA, but in a way that centered on mostly Avengers characters who are generally absent from the threats to reality that the X-men so often face. It's one of the reasons I consider it more of an Avengers story; other than Emma, all of the central characters were Avengers characters, even if they were also X-men characters. By having the Scarlet Witch as the tragic antagonist, it was like watching a time bomb that had been ticking for decades finally go off, with all of the shared history between the two teams finally coming to a head.

Quesada/Axel wanted rid of the booming mutant population that Morrison ingeniously ushered in and he got around to doing just exactly that. And who better to use than their very own private bum chum? I mean, ngl, i did thoroughly enjoy it, but not because of the interactions or pertinent themes relating the X-Men--but because of the dramatic narrative and consequence. The resolution was pretty formulaic as was the formation.

Really? I mean, I get that the story structure was pretty formulaic, but for me it's the character moments that really make it great. Firstly in how he uses the distinct perspectives of each character to give the main subjects a well-rounded sense of depth and give a sense of shared history, but even more so how he depicts each character's reaction to the HoM world; from the smaller nods like Beast lording over Hank Pym, or Colossus at peace in a world where he needn't be a hero, to the more devastating effects it has on characters like Spider-man, Wolverine, or Magneto, every character seems very well considered.

To me, those are the real strengths of the story, and it's something that simply could not be pulled off by someone who didn't understand the characters, themes, and history on an intuitive level.

What I'm saying is Bendis may not be the greatest X-men writer ever, and I totally get how his style (especially for dialogue) is not to everyone's tastes; but I do think he's a good writer, I do think he gets the characters and the themes of the X-men, and I do think that between House of M and most of what he's done in Uncanny X-Men he's written some of the better X-men stories of the last decade.

#20 Edited by adamTRMM (1283 posts) - - Show Bio

@ageofhurricane said:

HoM receives unsubstantiated positive recognition because it's the only event of its epoch that actually managed to deliver on the "And nothing will ever be the same" regurgitated slogan that Marvel's slapped on the subsequent events that've come after. But remember, the only reason for its long lasting consequential implications is because of the editorial mandate behind its meager execution. Quesada/Axel wanted rid of the booming mutant population that Morrison ingeniously ushered in and he got around to doing just exactly that. And who better to use than their very own private bum chum? I mean, ngl, i did thoroughly enjoy it, but not because of the interactions or pertinent themes relating the X-Men--but because of the dramatic narrative and consequence. The resolution was pretty formulaic as was the formation.

I mean...seriously, what has he actually done for them? How has he actually proven astute understanding of the mythos and its rich history? Explain, please.

While I agree with your statement about "editorial mandate", it was still his story that changed the course of the X-mythos and their books. We cannot even imagine what other writer would've written, maybe another mass genocide in a classic definition of it? But it seems to me like a Bendis' idea to shut down the X-gene and all its sequent events.

As for "he doesn't get the X-men" I would agree, but searching around the internet, reading forums and all, made me realize - he is the perfect X-writer o_o He and his, I must say, quality trolling make boards explode, the X-fandom with their petty obsessions feel alive like never before, which is a sad truth realizing how it was ignited.

Why is he the best selling writer right now? Not PAD, not anybody else, but Bendis.

They absolutely deserve him.

#21 Posted by time (4841 posts) - - Show Bio

@adamtrmm Can you list your top 6 X-Men writers.

@ageofhurricane I notice you hate Bendis, Can I ask who is your top 6 X-Men writers.

#22 Posted by adamTRMM (1283 posts) - - Show Bio

@time:

I learned the harsh truth all writers mess up from time to time, I'd say K/Y are the ones who tend to disappoint me lesser than others.

#23 Edited by time (4841 posts) - - Show Bio

@adamtrmm said:

@time:

I learned the harsh truth all writers mess up from time to time, I'd say K/Y are the ones who tend to disappoint me lesser than others.

They are good writers, those are the only ones you liked.

#24 Edited by adamTRMM (1283 posts) - - Show Bio

@time:

It's really depends on a story, Claremont, Lobdell, Gillen, Spurrier, Carey, Brubaker, Nicieza, PAD, even Fraction, Bendis and Remender have all told some good or great stories, but sadly no one remains up there for long. I'd say Morrison is the best storyteller, yet his ideas are the embodiment of everything I DON'T want to see and read about (besides the essential "change" between the lines).

#25 Posted by oldnightcrawler (4243 posts) - - Show Bio

@adamtrmm said:

@time:

  1. It's really depends on a story, Claremont, Lobdell, Gillen, Spurrier, Carey, Brubaker, Nicieza, PAD, even Fraction, Bendis and Remender have all told some good or great stories, but sadly no one remains up there for long.
  2. I'd say Morrison is the best storyteller, yet his ideas are the embodiment of everything I DON'T want to see and read about (besides the essential "change" between the lines).

1. yeah, almost everyone who's written the X-men (or any superheroes) has written some mediocre and/or bad stories, but without the writers you named here, we wouldn't have any of the best stories either. I think that's more what Time's looking for.

2. and, see, I'm of the opposite mind on Morrison. I don't think he's that great at storytelling, but I loved his ideas. Well, I loved his ideas in the first half; he came in and rejuvenated the X-men with an interesting new direction and a bunch of intriguing new characters, then he just seemed to give up and say all the X-men would ever be was Magneto, the Phoenix, and dystopian futures, all written pretty poorly.

#26 Posted by AgeofHurricane (7259 posts) - - Show Bio

@adamtrmm: I just wish he would go back to the Avengers or some other franchise that need ruining at this point. His X-Work is just plain awful and uninspiring.

@oldnightcrawler:

Really? I mean, I get that the story structure was pretty formulaic, but for me it's the character moments that really make it great. Firstly in how he uses the distinct perspectives of each character to give the main subjects a well-rounded sense of depth and give a sense of shared history, but even more so how he depicts each character's reaction to the HoM world; from the smaller nods like Beast lording over Hank Pym, or Colossus at peace in a world where he needn't be a hero, to the more devastating effects it has on characters like Spider-man, Wolverine, or Magneto, every character seems very well considered.

To me, those are the real strengths of the story, and it's something that simply could not be pulled off by someone who didn't understand the characters, themes, and history on an intuitive level.

What I'm saying is Bendis may not be the greatest X-men writer ever, and I totally get how his style (especially for dialogue) is not to everyone's tastes; but I do think he's a good writer, I do think he gets the characters and the themes of the X-men, and I do think that between House of M and most of what he's done in Uncanny X-Men he's written some of the better X-men stories of the last decade.

Yeah, but any banal boob can have characters ostensibly freak the fack out over a sudden change of setting. All it takes is a concise ingestion of their respective wiki bios and voila, there you have it. Something that's pretty basic and treads the same old tedious trudges of the past. And it's par for the course that people are freaking out with triple exclamation marks in a Bendis comic--as in, it always happens. That's him just capitalizing on his stock-in-trade whilst on center stage. It scratches the surface but refrains from digging deeper: Bendis' X-Men 101.

HoM was an editorial mandate so with preordained ending like that it'd look good from anyone's penmanship and Uncanny's been meandering on fluff for the past couple of issues. His characters are devoid of palpable depth and his stories lack intrigue. It's just the same and the same and the same. Nothing different. Nothing special. It's repetitive drivel for the easily appeased. He's got to X-Books under his belt and nothing of significance has happened in either of them despite their vaunted critical acclaim.

#27 Edited by adamTRMM (1283 posts) - - Show Bio

@ageofhurricane said:

I just wish he would go back to the Avengers or some other franchise that need ruining at this point. His X-Work is just plain awful and uninspiring.

Oh but I agree. I will always compare Gillen's "a great what if?" run on a post AVX:Consequences UXM with Bendis. I know people on this forum don't tend to appreciate his work on the X-men, but I've read an interview with him where his admitted his whole Uncanny vol.2 run was one big tie-in for then upcoming AVX. Seeing what he achieved with just several issues of a book that was doomed at its premise makes me wonder, how groundbreaking his actual run could be. Think about it, the path that was settled long ago with the Twelve crossover, the path that has confidently taken the course in Messiah Complex, where generic boy-scout starts walking the path to become his own, unique kind of a character, (that to me, was almost Magneto's background level of development, which is a damn LOT), was perfectly ALMOST executed by nobody else, but Gillen. Once an idealist that ends laughing after murdering his father-like mentor, that orders to scar X's on faces, dam.. that was the f@cking culmination, the apogee, the crescendo of this long-awaited development. And I'm not even touching all the other little elaborations, like turning Colossus' repetitive and stagnant world upside down, or this incredible team that maybe for a short time, but took the X-men to another level. I can still continue this list, the point is - these absolutely great achievements were all gained by nothing, but a run that was a big tie-in (of course I haven't forgot pretty terrible Breakworld and Tabula Rasa arcs). After that.... comes Bendis, that erases all of these beautiful parts that were so naturally and harmonically developed, with just a directionless writing that for being so full of inter-trolling has never (and I'm afraid never will) dared to leave a petty comfort-zone developments, leaving Cyclops broken, full of denial and possessing zero gravitas, the opposite of what he was meant to become. I'm not even talking about Emma and these unnecessary, 100% expendable kids. I mean, f@ck, you scar marks on people faces and you take kids on this kind of trip? It's called continuity, Mr. Bendis, which we know you like to exploit your own way.

I've said it before, and will say it again, Bendis on the X-men is a disappointment for those who look for deep, uncommon or thought-provoking themes, but those who like typical "omg it's Jean she's with us again! omg Mystique and Xavier have a child! omg omg omg" will find his run constructive, which, let's face it, are at least half of the X-fandom.

I'm kinda sure the Controversial-clops was idiotorially (it's like idiots and editors inosculation, Marvel's real life super-powers) c@ck-blocked, but I don't believe Bendis has ever meant to take him that direction anyway. And it's not just about Cyclops, it's about the whole premise and foundation.

#28 Posted by AgeofHurricane (7259 posts) - - Show Bio

@adamtrmm said:

@ageofhurricane said:

I just wish he would go back to the Avengers or some other franchise that need ruining at this point. His X-Work is just plain awful and uninspiring.

Oh but I agree. I will always compare Gillen's "a great what if?" run on a post AVX:Consequences UXM with Bendis. I know people on this forum don't tend to appreciate his work on the X-men, but I've read an interview with him where his admitted his whole Uncanny vol.2 run was one big tie-in for then upcoming AVX. Seeing what he achieved with just several issues of a book that was doomed at its premise makes me wonder, how groundbreaking his actual run could be. Think about it, the path that was settled long ago with the Twelve crossover, the path that has confidently taken the course in Messiah Complex, where generic boy-scout turns starts walking the path to become his own, unique kind of a character, (that to me, was almost Magneto's background level of development, which is a damn LOT), was perfectly ALMOST executed by nobody else, but Gillen. Once idealist that ends laughing after murdering his father-like mentor, that orders to scar X's on faces, dam.. that was the f@cking culmination, the apogee, the crescendo of this long-awaited development. And I'm not even touching all the other little elaborations, like turning Colossus' repetitive and stagnant world upside down, or this incredible team that maybe for a short time, but took the X-men to another level. I can still continue this list, the point is - these absolutely great achievements were all gained by nothing, but a run that was a big tie-in (of course I haven't forgot pretty terrible Breakworld and Tabula Rasa arcs). After that.... comes Bendis, that erases all of these beautiful parts of that were so naturally and harmonically developed, with just a directionless writing that for being so full of inter-trolling has never (and I'm afraid never will) dared to leave a petty comfort-zone developments, leaving Cyclops broken, full of denial and possessing zero gravitas, the opposite of what he was meant to become. I'm not even talking about Emma and these unnecessary, 100% expendable kids. I mean, f@ck, you scar marks on people faces and you take kids on this kind of trip? It's called continuity, Mr. Bendis, which we know you like to exploit your own way.

I've said it before, and will say it again, Bendis on the X-men is a disappointment for those who look for deep, uncommon or thought-provoking themes, but those who like typical "omg it's Jean she's with us again! omg Mystique and Xavier have a child! omg omg omg" will find his run constructive, which, let's face it, are at least half of the X-fandom.

I'm kinda sure the Controversial-clops was idiotorially (it's like idiots and editors inosculation, Marvel's real life super-powers) c@ck-blocked, but I don't believe Bendis has ever meant to take him that direction anyway. And it's not just about Cyclops, it's about the whole premise and foundation.

Fully agreed. Whilst i will openly confess that i found Gillen's run a complete snooze-fest after issue 1 (i mean, there were some good bits here and there but overall, i just wasn't a fan) i do very much appreciate the elevation of status and command that he instilled into the Extinction Team--had they been given tenure till this very day i do believe they'd be an unequivocal force to be reckoned with. They were something different an they were an incongruous team rich with intertwining history now faced with pressing tasks.

And, yeah, i surprisingly found myself very much interested in Cyclops post-AvX and following Gillen's Consequences arc i was eager to see where his story would lead. In Gillen's hands, it seemed we were readying ourselves for something big. Something spectacular. Something Uncanny...LOL. Anyhow, Bendis comes along and all the sought after promise, in one fell swoop, is squandered in place of a false Revolution and antiquated tactics that set the X-Men back a couple decades. Issue in and issue out, lots of people talking and some forgettable fights here and there. Just...how have things gotten to this level?

#29 Posted by oldnightcrawler (4243 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah, but any banal boob can have characters ostensibly freak the fack out over a sudden change of setting. All it takes is a concise ingestion of their respective wiki bios and voila, there you have it. Something that's pretty basic and treads the same old tedious trudges of the past. And it's par for the course that people are freaking out with triple exclamation marks in a Bendis comic--as in, it always happens. That's him just capitalizing on his stock-in-trade whilst on center stage. It scratches the surface but refrains from digging deeper: Bendis' X-Men 101.

HoM was an editorial mandate so with preordained ending like that it'd look good from anyone's penmanship and Uncanny's been meandering on fluff for the past couple of issues. His characters are devoid of palpable depth and his stories lack intrigue. It's just the same and the same and the same. Nothing different. Nothing special. It's repetitive drivel for the easily appeased. He's got to X-Books under his belt and nothing of significance has happened in either of them despite their vaunted critical acclaim.

so, since I like it I must not be looking at it critically?

is it so hard to just admit that significance is in the eye of the beholder, or do you just simply not believe so?

or, to put it another way, do you think his work is so objectively bad that anyone who appreciates it must be wrong?

#30 Posted by HAWK2916 (1582 posts) - - Show Bio

@ageofhurricane: @adamtrmm: agree with both of these points of view. Bendis goes for shock value but the content is weak. He has some ideas but the execution is lacking.

I want him gone from the X-books and for me it cant happen soon enough. Some try to defend him and love his writing and thats fine, good for them because his fans are having a field day and getting what they want, so enjoy. Its just hard to take people seriously when they cant be objective about different perspectives. If a premise is weak ans stupid it just is, if an idea is good it just is. I happen to find it very interesting that most Avengers fans I've seen on the forums or talked to are happy Bendis is gone and most Xmen fans that i come across want him out as well. It just baffles me that All new Xmen continues to lead in sales. I suspect that its mostly newbies that cant afford to go back and buy the high priced original volumes and cant stand the old art and dialogue. Not for nothing though in the last sales numbers that were released there was no x-book in the top 10. Is it really such a great time for x-fans?

#31 Posted by AgeofHurricane (7259 posts) - - Show Bio

@oldnightcrawler: Heart-felt adoration for his work is your prerogative and that's all well and good for personal enjoyment, but to say he's one of the best X-Writers based on one event and two ham-fisted series is a bit of a stretch. We can enjoy what and who we want, that's perfectly fine. It's the indulgent superseding of taste over factual evidence that i have a problem with.

I'll ask again, what has he done? I'd like to know so i can see things from your perspective.

#32 Edited by adamTRMM (1283 posts) - - Show Bio

@oldnightcrawler:

yeah, almost everyone who's written the X-men (or any superheroes) has written some mediocre and/or bad stories, but without the writers you named here, we wouldn't have any of the best stories either. I think that's more what Time's looking for.

The problem is, Only a few (actually 3, with maybe some other with their own style) writers wrote their own X-men, others pretty much just continued the what was settled.

I don't think he's that great at storytelling

Really? -_- You see, all of you know how I hate his ideas, I never hid it. Yet, I can't even think about hating him as writer. The uniqueness, the dialogs, the hidden twists that followed the WHOLE run and the final execution, it was just f@ckin great, levels above most of the X-stories. I was reading EIFE and while being angry, almost offended I found myself interested in reading further, I even found myself at a point "Why? Why do I hate this so much I want to love it!". You see, I call this a damn talented writer. To bad his ideas where actually awful and one-dimensional. Yeah, I know, this whole situation is kinda bizarre.

but I loved his ideas. Well, I loved his ideas in the first half; he came in and rejuvenated the X-men with an interesting new direction and a bunch of intriguing new characters, then he just seemed to give up and say all the X-men would ever be was Magneto, the Phoenix, and dystopian futures, all written pretty poorly.

What was so interesting in idiotic mutations and mutants themselves as pretty much sub-humans (that somehow still call themselves Homo Superior) and then turning the school into embodiment of it? I understand he was trying to be creative and unique, but Mumudrai from Sh'iar folklore that was actually Xavier's twin-sister? 0_o And then she was turned into an overpowered villain-sue, 100% one-dimensional and 100% uninteresting, sorry.

Planet X, I won't even start.

#33 Posted by oldnightcrawler (4243 posts) - - Show Bio

@oldnightcrawler: Heart-felt adoration for his work is your prerogative and that's all well and good for personal enjoyment, but to say he's one of the best X-Writers based on one event and two ham-fisted series is a bit of a stretch. We can enjoy what and who we want, that's perfectly fine. It's the indulgent superseding of taste over factual evidence that i have a problem with.

it's no more indulgent to find a story interesting than to not.

I never said I thought he was one of the best X-men writers, I said that I thought he was a good writer who's written some X-men stories that I liked; but you act as though the stories he's done have no merit whatsoever, that they're all just so objectively bad that anyone who likes them must have less discerning tastes and be more easily entertained than you, rendering whatever value they see in the work of less value than your own opinions. So when you say something like

I'd like to know so i can see things from your perspective.

why would I believe you? obviously my perspective is that of some ignorant rube, so easily placated by whatever scam lands on the shelf this week that you don't even bother answering my questions, let alone giving any actual consideration to my points.

#34 Edited by adamTRMM (1283 posts) - - Show Bio

@ageofhurricane:

Whilst i will openly confess that i found Gillen's run a complete snooze-fest after issue 1 (i mean, there were some good bits here and there but overall, i just wasn't a fan)

Why? :( I think Sinister egocentric-hive-race was the apex of his arrogance and narcissism, it was a great development! And Uncanny X-Men #4 convinced me this guy has his own style and a vision, which are essential for an X-writer.

i do very much appreciate the elevation of status and command that he instilled into the Extinction Team--had they been given tenure till this very day i do believe they'd be an unequivocal force to be reckoned with. They were something different an they were an incongruous team rich with intertwining history now faced with pressing tasks.

Makes me want to cry :'( One of the biggest missed opportunities.

And, yeah, i surprisingly found myself very much interested in Cyclops post-AvX and following Gillen's Consequences arc i was eager to see where his story would lead. In Gillen's hands, it seemed we were readying ourselves for something big. Something spectacular. Something Uncanny...LOL. Anyhow, Bendis comes along and all the sought after promise, in one fell swoop, is squandered in place of a false Revolution and antiquated tactics that set the X-Men back a couple decades. Issue in and issue out, lots of people talking and some forgettable fights here and there. Just...how have things gotten to this level?

Maybe "the bosses" didn't want to allow "terroristzzzz" have their own title? I really have no idea why couldn't this direction be green-lighted. To be honest, I think they figured status-quos work better than risky and controversial almost novelties.

#35 Edited by adamTRMM (1283 posts) - - Show Bio
@hawk2916 said:

I want him gone from the X-books and for me it cant happen soon enough. Some try to defend him and love his writing and thats fine, good for them because his fans are having a field day and getting what they want, so enjoy. Its just hard to take people seriously when they cant be objective about different perspectives. If a premise is weak ans stupid it just is, if an idea is good it just is. I happen to find it very interesting that most Avengers fans I've seen on the forums or talked to are happy Bendis is gone and most Xmen fans that i come across want him out as well. It just baffles me that All new Xmen continues to lead in sales. I suspect that its mostly newbies that cant afford to go back and buy the high priced original volumes and cant stand the old art and dialogue. Not for nothing though in the last sales numbers that were released there was no x-book in the top 10. Is it really such a great time for x-fans?

The problem with sales, they really do lie about quality. It is actually a pretty complicated science, IIRC Gillen's run was terrible in sales, but for that I think we have to thank his predecessor Fraction lol

Anyway, even Original Sin #0 sold pretty bad, I wonder how will the first issue deal, seems like only Spider-man and Deadpool sell good these days.

#36 Posted by WestfriesianMan (233 posts) - - Show Bio
  1. Claremont
  2. Whedon
  3. Stan Lee
  4. Morrison
  5. Lobdell
  6. Bendis
  7. Wood
  8. Necieza
  9. Brubaker
  10. Fraction

I also love David and Remender but they never wrote X-men titels, just X-factor and Uncanny X-Force

#37 Posted by MOWQLI (8 posts) - - Show Bio

Claremont, Lobdell, Carey and Whedon are my favorites. Gillen was pretty good too imo.

#38 Edited by McKlayn (1069 posts) - - Show Bio

Claremont

Lobdell

Whedon

David

Bendis

Morrison

I also greatly enjoyed Kyle & Yost, Carey and Brubaker

#39 Edited by PhoenixoftheTides (3449 posts) - - Show Bio

Claremont (up until X-Treme, which is my least favorite X-series) and Morrison were my favorite writers - Claremont had an unprecedented run and I think he really built the foundation of what made the series so popular, and I think Morrison was able to bring the series a bit farther and made the X-Men act like young professionals, even if I hated the rehash of Phoenix Dying. I don't think any others really get on my list. I didn't like Whedon's run, so I'm in the minority there, but I recognize that Kitty just never worked for me, so bringing her and Peter back didn't have the impact it could have. I'd just say the rest occupied a similar neutral area where the series continued, but nothing particularly new or innovative happened.

#40 Posted by walkertrot (1 posts) - - Show Bio

Thanks so much for this thread! I am planning on re-reading my favorite runs and this is a nice refresher of names to look out for. I agree with many already listed - the obvious choices (claremont, morrison, whedon); The less obvious but still mentioned (David, Remender, Carey, Hama, Moore). I would also add a couple I haven't seen listed but I love:

Milligan's X-Statix Run - off the wall and polarizing but I love it!

Defillippis and Weir - New Mutants - I think this is underrated. Not an action book but it includes great character development. When done well I can enjoy a run of characters sitting around talking as much as strong action.

I'd love to see more people's thoughts on this as I get ready to re-read everything!

#41 Posted by AgeofHurricane (7259 posts) - - Show Bio


Defillippis and Weir - New Mutants - I think this is underrated. Not an action book but it includes great character development. When done well I can enjoy a run of characters sitting around talking as much as strong action.

I'd love to see more people's thoughts on this as I get ready to re-read everything!

Thanks so much, man. Hardly ever do i see X-Fans overtly give the actual creators of the NXM as much praise as they do Kyle and Yost, which is a bit annoying, but w.e. And yeah, i too enjoyed the Weird-Defillippis run more than i did Kyle and Yost. It just felt right and organic.

#42 Edited by time (4841 posts) - - Show Bio

So far these are the leading writers in the X-Men universe.

1) Chris Claremont (11 fans)

2) Joss Whedon (8 Fans)

3) Grant Morrison (7 fans) / Scott Lobdell( 7 fans)

4) Kyle & Yost(6 fans)

5) Fabian Nicieza (5 fans), Brian Michael Bendis(5 fans), Ed Brubaker(5 fans).

6) Mike Carey (4 fans), Peter David(4 fans), Stan Lee(4 Fans).

7) Rick Remender (3 fans)

8) Larry Hama(2 fans), Greg Pak (2 fans), Brian Wood(2 fans)

Other writers that have only one fan : Mark Millar, Daniel Way, Rob Liefeld, Roy Thomas, Ellis Warren, Chuck Kim, Scott Gray, Kieron Gillian, Matt Fraction, Peter Milligan, Nunzo Defilippis, Christina Weir & Brian K. Vaughan.

@westfriesianman I think you can include writers like Peter David and Rick Remender, cause they have written for X-Men characters. Psylocke, Wolverine and Archangel are in uncanny X-Force. Gambit is in All New X-Factor.

#43 Posted by Aquaneto (124 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm including all X-Universe Writers

  1. Grant Morrison
  2. Peter David
  3. Joss Whedon
  4. Scott Lobdell/Fabian Nicieza
  5. Rick Remender
  6. Chris Claremont
  7. Brian Michael Bendis
  8. Jason Aaron
  9. Christopher Yost
  10. Ed Brubaker
#44 Posted by Roddy010 (5135 posts) - - Show Bio
  1. Chris Claremont
  2. Chris Yost
  3. Brian Wood
  4. Joss Wheddon
  5. Grant Morrison
  6. Brian Wood
  7. Warren Ellis
  8. Chuck Kim
  9. Humphries
  10. Bendis
#45 Posted by THUNDERBOLT30 (9965 posts) - - Show Bio

@roddy010 said:
  1. Chris Claremont
  2. Chris Yost
  3. Brian Wood
  4. Joss Wheddon
  5. Grant Morrison
  6. Brian Wood
  7. Warren Ellis
  8. Chuck Kim
  9. Humphries
  10. Bendis

I wouldn't mind seeing them come and join the main X-verse writers. All could work wonders on X-Men once Wood departs (and if Guggenheim doesn't remain as the writer after his story arc completes)

#46 Posted by Bubba_Hyde (67 posts) - - Show Bio

Claremont

Kyle+Yost

Ellis (even though he ruined Boom-Boom....jerk.)

Lobdell

Nicieza

Whedon

Hopeless

Stan Lee

#47 Edited by Veitha (2883 posts) - - Show Bio

Mmm, this is a difficult one. I may be saying bullshit, but anyway:

1) Morrison(the best, he introduced Emma into the mainstream marvel comics and I loved the strange stories he wrote, he got the X-Men into modernity);

2) Claremont(he stayed for the longest on the X-titles, there must be a reason lol);

3) Whedon(the first X-Men comics I read were from his Astonishing run. He's a bit cinematrographic in the way he writes or organises the plot, and I love this. He was also able to give a unique voice to characters such as Kitty, Emma or Abigail Brand);

4) David(his X-Factor runs were the only runs you could never grow tired of. I slowly fell in love with each of the characters he wrote and he's kept creating new ways to look at mutants, from the investigation team to the private corporation, his runs have always been great. And he also created Spiderman 2009!);

5) Remender(best X-Force run, best version of Psylocke I've ever read, complex plot with great introspection, this was the best title a writer could have written about a team of mutant killers. I also like Uncanny Avengers);

6) Carey(I loved Legacy and I loved his Rogue);

7) Bendis(may we like it or not, he's reastablished the X-Men fame which had been fading over the last years. At first I loved All New X-Men and didn't mind Uncanny, now I dislike All New(if you remove Immonen from it you'll get a bad comic) but Uncanny's storyline is very interesting. The main problem with him is that he doesn't care about details and about giving the good voice to some characters);

Special mentions to: Warren Ellis(I love each of his not-mutant comics, I mean, Authority and Planetary are some of the best comics I've ever read, and I think that with the few mutant comics he wrote he's been able to create great stories. If he'd started to be a mainstream mutant writer he'd be on a higher position on my chart); Spurrier(he's new, but I like his X-Force); Bunn(have you guys read his Magneto? It's perfect) and Gillen(without AvX he would have built a great X-Men run, it's a shame that it got ruined because of the event imo).

Online
#48 Edited by spidermonkey2099 (614 posts) - - Show Bio
  1. Chris Claremont (Uncanny X-men, and he also wrote at least a few issues of just about every other X-title that came out during his long run, and did it well)
  2. Joss Whedon (Astonishing X-Men)
  3. Grant Morrison (New X-Men- Love the first half of his run... not crazy about his portrayal of Magneto in the 2nd half, but it's still a good read)
  4. Rick Remender (Uncanny X-Force)
  5. Peter David (Wolverine, X-Factor- I've only read his first stint on the title in the 90s, but I'm looking forward to catching up on his current run)
  6. Larry Hama (Wolverine in the 90s)
  7. Greg Rucka (Wolverine in the early 2000s)
  8. Frank Tieri (Wolverine in the late 90s/early 2000s)
  9. Mark Millar (Ultimate X-Men & Wolverine)
  10. Paul Jenkins (Wolverine: Origin)

I know my list is a little Wolverine-heavy, but he's always been one of my faves, so my collection of X-books over the years has always been a little Wolverine-heavy too. I considered knocking one of the Wolverine writers off my top 10 in favor of Christopher Yost/Craig Kyle, Scott Lobdell, Fabian Nicieza, Warren Ellis (Excalibur), or Brian Michael Bendis (for his Ultimate X-Men run, I haven't gotten to his current X-Men run, though I'm looking forward to it), but I just couldn't do it.