@dangallant984: That's the Siege Courageous to you, and Bradshaw's art is absolutely horrible. I cannot stand it, at all. It's just disgusting. Composition, style, everything. Most probably why he fits the title so much, but yeah, his art is nasty.
@chasereis: And you shouldn't let your evident bias towards Morrison cloud your judgement, Chase. I think it's a bit of a stretch to straight out say that the aforementioned writers' runs apparently sucked a**. I for one don't think they did, some of the Davis issues were a bit nonsensical but i think the Seagle/Kelly run is highly unappreciated, overlooked and underrated, it brought out some great stories while also somewhat shifting the X-Men in a completely different direction, obviously not as drastic as Morrison's but they did so nonetheless, and i think that's probably because unlike Morrison or Whedon, they weren't given #1s to kickstart their new stories, they had to follow on and build from...digression.
I cannot really comment on Whedon flourishing in any other environment because i only know him for his AXM work, in addition to his movies/tv series, but i don't think that's a lot to go off of.
Read the OP...and other posts. I was looking to know why its rated so highly in fans opinions other than the reason that Whedons name is on it. Most of the responses I get are people keep praising Whedon and saying things like "he gave the best characterizations of the characters ever!!", which doesn't explain anything to me...compared to what?? Claremont basically made these characters in the first place. Morrison made these characters deeper and wrote stories that changed the staus quo of the X-books for a new millennium. Whedon wrote a good story but I don't understand why the high praise....and its "high praise" is an understatement, people revere this thing like a religous fanatic protects their holy texts.
Which is why Morrison will always be better than Whedon.
That's one way of looking at it; I personally don't think either is better than the other based on their contributions to the X-men. Morrison may have had more original ideas starting out, but I don't think his stories were better written than Whedon's.
I also don't think Morrison wrote the characters any "deeper" than Whedon. It was Whedon who made Cyclops and Emma relatable, and therefore relevant, to me, not Morrison.
All of Whedon's initial material was a follow up from Morrison's. You wouldn't have quite a lot of the marvelous things spewing out of his run had it not been for Morrison's. I think people forget that without Morrison, you wouldn't have so much Whedon, as you've already admitted that the majority of his ideas weren't so original to begin with.
Seriously... Is Storm going to have a part in AoU?
And More importantly--- Will adjectiveless X-men have a book that focuses on AoU? (Unlike AvX)
Well, Wood did confirm that adjectiveless X-men will be in the present continuaty with the other X-books, unlike how it use to take part in some unmarked past event.
And this is quite the unfortunate, because Wood's previous X-Men was a breathtaking shelter during last summer's tragedy.
Agreed, but only somewhat. The books taking part in the present should make it more relevant and popular, and that is something Storm needs right now more than ever in the X-Books.
Eh, i think Wood's X-Men's getting quite a lot of publicity as is, it's probably the most anticipated Marvel NOW! title to date and she's the leader of the team featured within the title, not to mention she's also co-headlining Uncanny X-Force. I don't really think her current endeavors need more popularity than they've already received. Which is more than i, personally, could wish for. And the event itself isn't something the majority are anticipating, it just looks like fan-fic. I also don't see why Storm's team specifically would feel the need to combat such a threat, or what relevance they'll gain from it, other than being strictly female.
Not that i feel the same way necessarily about Whedon (although i never hesitate to state that his run IS in fact, overrated) but it's the same way i feel about Gillen's entire run, starting from wresting penmanship over Fraction till the end of UXM Vol.2. Critically acclaimed by many and i saw absolutely nothing substantially good come out of it.
....but, haven't a ton of writers dealt with the material in his run already? There's dealing with the material and doing it well. Any mediocre writer can 'deal' with a team book. Some just excel better. Take Bendis. Not bad at a team book, but not great. Freaking incredible on Daredevil, though.Whedon, however, is very, very good at writing for a team cast. And it shows. What is getting me on your take on this is that you're essentially sayng: 'yeah, well, he wrote alright, but people already wrote for these characters before,' and seem to be downplaying the importance that characterization, dynamic interplay between characters, and a natural flow of story. These things are critical to the proper execution of a team book. Whedon did this very, very well.
Other writers have done it well. I am not taking away any of the positive aspects of the book, I have said multiple times that I do enjoy it, I never said "it sucks" or anything like that, the point I am driving at is that its a twenty issue run that doesn't bring anything new to the table.....I mean, like I mentioned before, other writers were capable delivering great characterizations and great stories. Bottom line....Whedons run is great , but it also has flaws, IMO. Don't get why its rated so highly.
@dangallant984 said:
what if I explained it this way..
his interpretation of, and what he did with, the characters in his run came to be a big part of what I like about many of those characters. He gave some of my favourite moments to practically every character in the story
You really didn't feel like anyone was written out of character? For instance, Beast after decades of proclaiming how proud he is of his mutantcy and his abilities and his dual membership of both X-Men and Avengers wants to get a cure after some insane "being" makes a remark to him about devolving and every character just remains snarky comment after comment. I just can't help but feel like this book is a Whedon fan fiction that got published. Again, good read, nothing phenomenal.
@UltraBiel said:
@cattlebattle: what you want us to say about whedon's run?
I'm just curious because everything people say, you answer "I know that, but..."
Please try to explain the points you want to discuss on whedon's writing.
Read the OP...and other posts. I was looking to know why its rated so highly in fans opinions other than the reason that Whedons name is on it. Most of the responses I get are people keep praising Whedon and saying things like "he gave the best characterizations of the characters ever!!", which doesn't explain anything to me...compared to what?? Claremont basically made these characters in the first place. Morrison made these characters deeper and wrote stories that changed the staus quo of the X-books for a new millennium. Whedon wrote a good story but I don't understand why the high praise....and its "high praise" is an understatement, people revere this thing like a religous fanatic protects their holy texts.
Which is why Morrison will always be better than Whedon.
@dangallant984: Domino and Warpath...and Elixir, that one-shot issue of himself and Wolverine going over to track some monster down was phenomenal, came out like last August from his series, but it the story was set some time before Necrosha, so it wasn't current Josh, still. They had a bond going on, especially with his involvement in X-Force and all. It was nice.
I'd actually rather Wolverne's solo series to feature some kids from the New X-Cast instead of the same old rehashed villains to give the title some substantial credibility, because that issue showed that it does have the potential to be more than just a 'Wolverine title for the sake of having one'. Cause right now that title's crap, and i don't even read it.
Log in to comment