claremont is my fav run thats the X-men i grew up with.

Whedon made those characters truly breath again, in my opinion.

Was it groundbreaking or revolutionary? No. What was it? Utterly brilliant storytelling and characterization.

Claremont, I used to like. What wasn't to like? However, when he came back to write recently... his things just seemed... off. Like he was either forcing them, or in some cases, did things just to stir the pot or out of spite. His X-Men Forever run, I abhor. Though, I did enjoy GeNEXT.

@ApatheticAvenger said:

His run gets rated so highly by fans and critics because it's considered to be the epitome of modern X-Men storytelling. It took all the elements that made Claremont's X-Men great, and gave them 21st century flair. Everything about his work is top notch. The storytelling, the characters, the smart and witty dialogue, everything. Not to mention, John Cassaday's brilliant artwork. It truly is the best X-Men title of the last decade.

Whedon LOVES the X-Men (Buffy wouldn't have existed if not for Kitty Pryde and Cyclops), and that adoration shows through in his work the same way Grant Morrison's love for Superman shows in the magnificent All-Star Superman.

Stan Lee created the X-Men, though it wasn't some of his best writing. The title struggled before Claremont entered.

Chris Claremont is unarguably the best X-writer, and not just because he wrote the title longest. He is responsible for crafting all the elements that we all know and love about Marvel's merry mutants (civil rights issues, soap opera drama etc.), and for the most iconic characterization of the most popular X-Men (not mention making the title into Marvel's first, and most popular, franchise). His more recent work is hit or miss, but his classic X-Men will always be the greatest.

Grant Morrison single-handedly ushered the X-Men into the new millennium, returning the title to it's former glory, and Whedon's Astonishing X-Men wouldn't have been possible without his marvelous New X-Men.

Scott Lobdell is hit or miss, but for better or worse he has the most contributions to the X-Men lore after Claremont.

But having more contributions to the X-Men doesn't mean you're automatically better. You know who wrote more X-Men issues than Whedon? Chuck Austen. You know who is widely considered to be the worst X-writer? Chuck Austen.

yeah, I pretty much agree with all of this. Whedon's run, much like Morrison's All-Star Superman, may not have been the longest or most revolutionary take on the characters, but that doesn't keep it from being one of the best.

He made the characters go beyond the paper, when I read his stories I perceive them as people, not as comic characters. Kitty Pryde, Emma Frost, Scott Summers and even the Beast wouldn't be like the one we know today without his work, he made them grow more than many others have done.

@Rabbitearsblog said:

@Veitha said:

He made the characters go beyond the paper, when I read his stories I perceive them as people, not as comic characters. Kitty Pryde, Emma Frost, Scott Summers and even the Beast wouldn't be like the one we know today without his work, he made them grow more than many others have done.

I definitely agree with this. It felt like all the characters were actually maturing in his storyline, which I really enjoyed seeing.

yeah, pretty much.

@cattlebattle: well, I agree that Claremont was the king, as long as you only look at his original run, and that Morrison had the best run following that, but I tend to put Whedon's run just ahead of Morrison's for two reasons;

1) Whedon's run serves better as a contemporary introduction to the characters/concepts in my opinion.

2) the end of Morrison's run (actually, most everything after Xorn removes his helmet) was pretty contrived and self indulgent, where as Whedon's run, though shorter, was far more consistent all the way through. Though, again, this is only my opinion, but I have re-read both runs several times, and I still think Whedon's holds up better in it's entirety.

His run gets rated so highly because its so freaking good.

@ApatheticAvenger: yeah, Dangerous may have been the weakest arc of that run, but it was a really cool way to bring the younger characters like Armor, Blindfold, and Elixir into the story. And Xavier's role was as bad ass as it was heart breaking.

And, even the weakest part of this run is better than a lot of the best parts of other runs.

@cattlebattle: it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges, though.

Morrison is an ideas man, as original as the day is long, but at the end of the day, he doesn't always have the chops to do the best by his own ideas. Whedon, on the other hand, is an artisan, a master craftsman; his ideas may not be the most original, but they cut to the core of the concept, concisely and with great skill.

In terms of their approach, they are nearly opposites, and yet they are two of the writers who have done the best by these characters/concepts; if their strengths could be combined, well, I'd never be satisfied by the X-men ever after..

..is really why I could never put one strictly above the other..

@Rabbitearsblog: I don't. He made Kitty the main character again, just like she was in the X-men's heyday (say, 1980-1986), but he did no less (and actually more) for Cyclops, Emma, and the Beast. It's his run that made me love Cyclops, Emma, and especially the combination of the two. In my mind, that took some first class writing, and that's what it was.

Eh... the books had started growing a bit stale. The characterizations that Whedon brought and the way he worked to develop the characters, their inetraction, etc is just incredible.

The only thing of Whedon that I liked outside of his comics forray was Firefly. I didn't like Buffy or Angel. Wasn't my thing. The man, as a whole, is not gold to me. I like his work in certain areas.

The fact is, Whedon is a character writer, not an Event or Milieu writer. It was something sorely needed in the X-Books for the core characters that had been lacking.

Things were stereotyped, in my opinion, and Whedon came in and gave the characters importance again--from delving into Emma's actual feelings and issues involving Cyclops, to Cyclops' revelation that he didn't control his powers because he didn't want to (as part of an external coping device--which happens, and I appreciated from a psych standpoint), to Kitty and Piotr... even to making Armor interesting.

His take on the characters was great, imo. And, honestly, most X-Writers outside of Claremont were pretty much meh and bleh to the point that I don't even know who wrote what arc.

There are three X-Men writer teams that stand out to me: Claremont, Whedon, and Kyle & Yost (for New X-Men & X-Force), the rest I don't even bother to know, to be honest. Why? Because a lot of the stories just blurred together and nothing truly 'awesome' stands out.

@cattlebattle said:

Well, All people keep saying is that he gave life to the characters that haven't been given in a long time and just keep praising his shoes off over and over. I just don't see it, if you watch a show like Buffy or Firefly you will find the way characters personalities are written kind of manifest as the X-Mens personalities. Artisan?? I don't know about that, he wrote a good story thats easily accessible and adaptable but in retrospect the characters have been written better with their own identities and other stories have been more pioneering than anything thats in that run. Once again, I can not stress this enough, haha, I don't dislike Whedon, I just find this run on way to high of a pedestal.

I'm not trying to say that Whedon's something that he's not. He's an adequate writer, who wrote a few really good X-men stories. I haven't read or watched a lot of what he's done besides that, but I've read enough to know that most of what he does doesn't really interest me.

Maybe I do put his X-men run on a pedestal, but only compared to other X-men stories. And I've read almost all of those. A lot of them are mediocre, and a lot of them are bad, and Whedon's run stands out for me as being not only actually good, but a good example of the themes, concepts, and characters that I actually like about the X-men.

It's not ground breaking, but it does stand out as being especially exemplary , and I don't see any reason not to acknowledge that.

@cattlebattle said:

I do acknowledge it.I just wouldn't put it as number one of anything...not even the top 5, see, I feel like people keep saying the same things....like you said he said he wrote great examples of the themes and characters you like....but, haven't a ton of writers dealt with the material in his run already? The only character I can see being written more strongly than usual is Shadowcat.

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

@DarkxSeraph said:

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.

yeah! well put.

@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.

@cattlebattle said:

@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.

I didn't really feel like any character was out of character, in fact, I feel quite the opposite. In at least a few cases, he made me more interested in characters I'd never been that into, without it feeling forced or against type.

You do bring up a good point about the Beast, but that was a theme actually started by Morrison after Beast's most recent mutation, and Whedon simply decided to incorporate it into his cure story. Maybe Rogue might have made more sense for the role, but by the end of the run, he's given Beast a new reason to be happy with himself, which may have been more complicated with another character. As you'll probably note, this is not a new story for the X-men, but it is a major theme, and I believe it was handled quite believably.

@cattlebattle: Your OP doesn't explain what you wanted at all, you used it to make a comparison with other artist's rather than make a further analyse of what is not good about his writing, the only complain I see you making is about is the lack of inovation in the series. well that is a good point, but the other point is that the reason he is so "loved" is because of whedon's fanboys witch makes no sense to me, because he did create a good and enjoyable arc and that really made character's grow and change. personally Claremont is my favorite but I did liked whedon's writing as well.

@cattlebattle said:

@DarkxSeraph said:

....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.

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.

@AgeofHurricane said:

@cattlebattle said:

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.

@dangallant984 said:

@AgeofHurricane said:

@cattlebattle said:

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.

@AgeofHurricane said:

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.

Absolutely. I can't disagree with that.

But I still think at least a bit of what you're say is that he isn't as good because he came after Morrison, and Morrison basicly swept the table off and started new, and that hardly seems fair.

I still maintain that Whedon wrote the characters better, and I still think his stories were more consistently good. I know you think his run's overrated for not being as original, but, for me, I still put their runs on equal footing because Whedon was so good at all the things that Morrison wasn't.