Which decade produced the best Xmen story arcs-80s, 90s, or 2000s

  • 75 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by blazinasian112 (899 posts) - - Show Bio

1980s: Dark Phoenix Saga, Days of Future Past, Mutant Massacre, Fall of Mutants

1990s: X-Tinction Agenda, Muir Island Saga, X-Cutioner's Song, Fatal Attractions, Blood Ties, Phalanx Covenant, Age of Apocalypse, Onslaught Saga, Operation Zero Tolerance

2000s: Apocalypse the Twelve, Eve of Destruction, Messiah Trilogy, Utopia, Nation X, Necrosha

#2 Posted by judasnixon (6584 posts) - - Show Bio

The 80's with out a doubt......

#3 Posted by John Valentine (16310 posts) - - Show Bio

1980's, duh.

#4 Posted by Moonchilde (1601 posts) - - Show Bio

80's, easily.

#5 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

The early 2000s gave us Morrison, Carey and Whedon, however, the later 2000s gave us Fraction, Gillen, Aaron and Bendis. So you're comparing the very best and the very worst.

Nevertheless, I give it to the 2000s, because those good stories were just so damn good. Claremont's stuff is just good superhero comics, it's not the X-Men. Dark Phoenix Saga was a Fantastic Four story with X-Men.

#6 Posted by chasereis (794 posts) - - Show Bio

1980's all day, all nite. 2000's lose by default solely based on the fact that it had "The Twelve".

@FadeToBlackBolt: Not saying anything bad, but you realize X-Men have been and always will be superhero books with a "fitting in" angle right? The early 2K's only tried to make it seem like vertigo was publishing it, then ret-conning the bejeezus out of it, then having no direction at all winding up to now where they kinda sorta try to move towards its original core principles again. Anyway please don't be offended as I'm not trying to offend you, your comment just really strikes me funny. All good fun.

#7 Posted by Xwraith (18038 posts) - - Show Bio

I can't help but notice the stories you listed get worse as time goes on.

(And why no mention of Whedon's Astonishing?)

Online
#8 Posted by impossibilly (886 posts) - - Show Bio

The 80s, without a doubt, and not just for the crossovers like Mutant Massacre and Fall of the Mutants. Those late 100s, early 200s Uncanny issues are some of my favorite comics of all time.

#9 Edited by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@chasereis said:

1980's all day, all nite. 2000's lose by default solely based on the fact that it had "The Twelve".

@FadeToBlackBolt: Not saying anything bad, but you realize X-Men have been and always will be superhero books with a "fitting in" angle right? The early 2K's only tried to make it seem like vertigo was publishing it, then ret-conning the bejeezus out of it, then having no direction at all winding up to now where they kinda sorta try to move towards its original core principles again. Anyway please don't be offended as I'm not trying to offend you, your comment just really strikes me funny. All good fun.

Not offended at all :)

What I mean is that the X-Men were originally a group of outcast heroes operating out of school. The Claremont era really focused on the superhero aspect, to the degree that aside from Nightcrawler, the Mutants were basically all supermodels with powers that were only an advantage. Storm being the worst offender (she has full control of her infinite useful and ridiculously powerful abilities, and was worshipped as a goddess), what about that says "hated and feared" "a gift and a curse". My point is that the X-Men was about young people coming to terms with the changes they were experiencing, and learning to focus themselves for a greater good, while the rest of the world shouted them down.

The Claremont era was about fantastic, good looking people with helpful abilities doing superhero stuff. It was written well, it just wasn't the X-Men. Add to that the few times he examined humanity's hatred of mutants, it was always to extremes. Everything was about genocide. There was a lack of subtle hatred. Homosexuals, for example, aren't so much persecuted by crazy Reverends trying to kill them, but rather by the fact they are treated as fourth-class citizens in every day situations.

The 2000s had the right idea of returning to the school style, but unfortunately, they handled it in the worst possible way, and now we have the repugnant WatXM.

Morrison's X-Men was pure X-Men as it should be. Progressive, relevant and featured both the "teachers" (popular, established characters), and the new, suffering students (Beak, Angel Salvadore, Basilisk, No-Girl, Ernst, and to a lesser extent characters like Quentin Quire and Negasonic Teenage Warhead)). These were mutants that we could feel sorry for, who had gifts and curses, who were vilified by not only humans, but their own kind as well. It was a real return to what made the X-Men so appealing as a concept, while also bringing in amazing new ideas and venues to explore.

Then the mutants were all removed except for the sexy ones, and those who are blue. Great =T

#10 Posted by chasereis (794 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt: Excellent, I'm glad there was no offense there.

Regardless of their looks the X-Men have always been a super-team with the purpose of handling matters in the interest of mutants. Meaning in the over all, the concept is "If I save my fellow humans from harm then they eventually get over their irrational fear and accept me into society as one of their own." This is the X-Men, X-Factor, X-Force, New Mutants, Generation X, etc, you get my point. Morrison writes good stories but in the end he did far more damage than good. In fact from the very issue that he left they have been ret-conning and moving away from that as a whole because it is not X-Men, it was Mutant Soap Opera / reality show with a British flavor by Vertigo comics.

The going public angle was a huge mistake much akin to making Peter Parker unmask at a press conference, Grant created so MANY trash characters that were little more than story vehicles that no other writer really wanted to use after he left too, which actually (I imagine) lent more gravity to the de-powering of mutants as a whole. No-Girl and Beak are perfect examples of this, people like them as they are niche and nuance, but they are largely inaccessible as they are too far removed the readers as normal humans. That doesn't sound great, but that is the truth and part of life. Marvel is a business and they want to sell as many units as they can, and Beak and No-Girl will not be able to "put butts in seats" if you get the vernacular. That is why so many characters were deactivated. But again, you did feel sorry for them however; at the end of the day you didn't really "care" about them either. The reason why (as you stated) the more beautiful or handsome characters floated to the top is because people want to be like them. People project themselves on to that, it helps them engage the story to have a favorite character that is so similar to you that you can break that wall down and suspend your disbelief to the fact the story is not real. Additionally you had SO many characters to babysit it was largely unsustainable to write to.

I will definitely give you that during the New X-Men run the X-Men was more progressive but honestly neither you nor I could state it relevance as it needed a switch-up to be certain, but Morrison was not what the X-Men needed as he was utterly incapable of crafting a real "X-Universe" story. We'll never know at this point what the X-men really needed then as all we can do is hope the the current and future writers look at the whole, take note of what works and keep making stories that engage and entertain hopefully with some sense of f***ing continuity. I'm a stickler for that ( : holla)

#11 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@chasereis: Sorry, but I disagree completely. Characters like Beak and No-Girl injected much needed humility into the franchise. Sure, we all want to be like Colossus or Storm, look the way they do, have powers like them, but the reality is that most of us are the Beaks and No-Girls. Most of us rely on the fact we try to be good people (Beak) or use our intellect to get by (No-Girl). So no, they might not have been attractive characters, but they were the characters that people who read X-Men for more than just wish-fulfilment need. The reason that writers were unable to use these characters after Morrison is because most comic book writers write the kind of shallow, looks-only storytelling that can't support a character like Beak. Look at what Bendis did to the Sentry and he was only only mentally ill. If he had a physical deformity (other than being blue, for some reason blue characters are always liked o-O), then he'd have been mocked mercilessly, or treated in a way that's completely unrealistic.

Morrison's X-Men was simply too good for any other writer to follow. The outing may have seemed like a bad idea, but it had the right message, why should Xavier hide who he was? How can you achieve a form of harmony when you're lying to those you're trying to get to trust you? It was something that had been coming for a long time, not to mention it treated the Marvel Universe with a modicum of intelligence. If mutants were really that hated, if guys like Stryker were really that motivated, they wouldn't have found a way to out the school? Come on.

The X-Men aren't just another superhero comic. They were never meant to be, and when written to their best, they aren't. They can do superhero things, as they did in Morrison's work, but the crux of the matter if that they are more than that. If you (universal you, not you directly) want a superhero comic, read Avengers (it's full of X-Men now anyway). X-Men is a comic about people who are different, they're called mutants, but it's the most human of any comic book. It's not supposed to be about saving the world, as much as it is about trying to live in it. Morrison saw that. He took a concept that had lost its way and brought it back to a point where it actually meant something again. He made it a series about the X-Men, not Generic Super Team X.

The reason his work was all retconned is because writers don't want that. Marvel don't want that. They want the same thing as they've always had. They want to make money off wish-fulfilment rather than honesty. Rogue and Magneto being a prime example of writers living inside their own worlds. In comic books, less than gorgeous people don't exist, and when they do, they're evil. Or they die. Or they're retconned.

The X-Men has never meant more, been greater or been so honest as when it was written by Morrison.

#12 Posted by spinningbirdcake (1430 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

The early 2000s gave us Morrison, Carey and Whedon, however, the later 2000s gave us Fraction, Gillen, Aaron and Bendis. So you're comparing the very best and the very worst.

Nevertheless, I give it to the 2000s, because those good stories were just so damn good. Claremont's stuff is just good superhero comics, it's not the X-Men. Dark Phoenix Saga was a Fantastic Four story with X-Men.

You think so? You might be right, I haven't really gone back and read Claremont's stuff lately, and I do think my favorite X-Men run was Morrison's, but I thought Claremont did a good job of making things light hearted once in a while and making them seem like a real family instead of a team.

#13 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@spinningbirdcake said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

The early 2000s gave us Morrison, Carey and Whedon, however, the later 2000s gave us Fraction, Gillen, Aaron and Bendis. So you're comparing the very best and the very worst.

Nevertheless, I give it to the 2000s, because those good stories were just so damn good. Claremont's stuff is just good superhero comics, it's not the X-Men. Dark Phoenix Saga was a Fantastic Four story with X-Men.

You think so? You might be right, I haven't really gone back and read Claremont's stuff lately, and I do think my favorite X-Men run was Morrison's, but I thought Claremont did a good job of making things light hearted once in a while and making them seem like a real family instead of a team.

He did, and when I say that, I'm not bagging Claremont, I'm just saying that his stories were more about superheroes than mutant heroes.

#14 Posted by Billy Batson (58021 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt:

You sure you're not talking about Doom Patrol? :p
BB

#15 Posted by PhoenixoftheTides (3549 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@chasereis said:

1980's all day, all nite. 2000's lose by default solely based on the fact that it had "The Twelve".

@FadeToBlackBolt: Not saying anything bad, but you realize X-Men have been and always will be superhero books with a "fitting in" angle right? The early 2K's only tried to make it seem like vertigo was publishing it, then ret-conning the bejeezus out of it, then having no direction at all winding up to now where they kinda sorta try to move towards its original core principles again. Anyway please don't be offended as I'm not trying to offend you, your comment just really strikes me funny. All good fun.

Not offended at all :)

What I mean is that the X-Men were originally a group of outcast heroes operating out of school. The Claremont era really focused on the superhero aspect, to the degree that aside from Nightcrawler, the Mutants were basically all supermodels with powers that were only an advantage. Storm being the worst offender (she has full control of her infinite useful and ridiculously powerful abilities, and was worshipped as a goddess), what about that says "hated and feared" "a gift and a curse". My point is that the X-Men was about young people coming to terms with the changes they were experiencing, and learning to focus themselves for a greater good, while the rest of the world shouted them down.

The Claremont era was about fantastic, good looking people with helpful abilities doing superhero stuff. It was written well, it just wasn't the X-Men. Add to that the few times he examined humanity's hatred of mutants, it was always to extremes. Everything was about genocide. There was a lack of subtle hatred. Homosexuals, for example, aren't so much persecuted by crazy Reverends trying to kill them, but rather by the fact they are treated as fourth-class citizens in every day situations.

The 2000s had the right idea of returning to the school style, but unfortunately, they handled it in the worst possible way, and now we have the repugnant WatXM.

Morrison's X-Men was pure X-Men as it should be. Progressive, relevant and featured both the "teachers" (popular, established characters), and the new, suffering students (Beak, Angel Salvadore, Basilisk, No-Girl, Ernst, and to a lesser extent characters like Quentin Quire and Negasonic Teenage Warhead)). These were mutants that we could feel sorry for, who had gifts and curses, who were vilified by not only humans, but their own kind as well. It was a real return to what made the X-Men so appealing as a concept, while also bringing in amazing new ideas and venues to explore.

Then the mutants were all removed except for the sexy ones, and those who are blue. Great =T

Really great points. This may have been why I gravitated towards the original X-Men, the New Mutants, the Outback Era lineup and Morrison's New X-Men. I was never really drawn into the superhero aspects so much as I liked the human element. Mary Sues (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue) and Marty Stues (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartyStu) start to lose their lustre when you find perfection and clear author's favorites so boring. "Marvels" contains one of my favorite mutant stories, and the X-Men only appear in five or less panels.

#16 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@Billy Batson: Haha, his run on that is beyond brilliant too :P

Have you read it? I know you read a lot of Vertigo stuff. Certainly worth a look.

#17 Posted by Billy Batson (58021 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt:

Meant in general too :p Like you said the X-Men have been more often been supermodels with superpowers, while the Doom Patrol has always been the same.
I've read some of it but haven't finished it (issue #42 was the last one that I read IIRC). I'll get back to it eventually. It's my favorite works of his.
BB

#18 Edited by DarkxSeraph (672 posts) - - Show Bio

1980s. (Though 90s are very close)

As for Morrison... meh.

#19 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@Billy Batson: Mine too. My favourite series in general, tbh.

Still has some great stuff left, that arc you just finished is probably the worst.

But yeah, agreed on the Doom Patrol being too pretty at times. Morrison fixed that too. Good ol' Morrison.

#20 Posted by Billy Batson (58021 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt:

Wasn't that his Batman run?
Bah, I meant by being the same, Doom Patrol has always been about shunned outsiders :p
BB

#21 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@Billy Batson: Um, nah. His Batman run is superb, but I do think DP is better.

Oh right, sorry :P

#22 Posted by Blood1991 (8098 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarkxSeraph said:

1980s. (Though 90s are very close)As for Morrison... meh.
#23 Posted by chasereis (794 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt: Impasse, I believe is what they call where we are at, but good conversation nonetheless. The X-Men will return to being a hero group at some point which honestly they need as the X-Universe is so bleak it just needs the break. Also (alternatively) I have a host of writers who never touched "X" that would be good a good fit I think. Who do you think could do a good job but has not yet done a "true" X-Universe run?

#24 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@chasereis: Yeah, great discussion. Thanks for that :)

Honestly, I'm not sure. I was looking forward to Gillen but his run was abominable, to say the least. Honestly, I feel the X-Franchise has been in dire straits for a long time now. Legacy was very up and down, X-Factor was consistently awesome, but I don't know how David would go working on the main series. (Not to mention he still has to recover). Everything else has been pretty terrible since 500.

Maybe Gage? I know the poor guy did First X-Men, but that was clearly an editorial thing, not his own idea. He's done great work before, and outside of Sean McKeever, writes young people better than anyone.

#25 Posted by chasereis (794 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt: Actually one thing I've never seen but always wanted to...Alan Moore Wolverine. That would be SO good.

#26 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@chasereis: Prime Alan Moore, I agree. Current Alan Moore... Not so much lol

#27 Posted by chasereis (794 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt: That is what I meant. Alan is very ...apathetic now. I would not even consider asking him at this point. Just wishful thinking on my part anyway.

#28 Posted by dangallant984 (1282 posts) - - Show Bio

First off, there just won't ever be another era like X-men circa 1980-86, those are The classic X-men stories, everything great about the concept and characterization that defines the X-men can be traced back to that period. That's not to say there can't be new, interesting stories or concepts based on that, but that era is very much the foundation, and to my mind, always will be.

That said, the second half of the 80's (after the Mutant Massacre) is one of my least favourite periods for the X-men. Gone was the school, half of the best characters, and most of the things that made the X-men distinct. With the notable exception of the original Genosha story, the replacement X-men mostly just fought demons, cyborgs, and aliens; the fact that they were mutants, or had any particular mandate as a team, seemed to have very little to do with the stories. Oh, and the art became largely inconsistent and sloppy.

So, as much as the obvious answer to this should be the 80's, I feel fairly confident in saying that, between Morrison and Whedon, the 00's had just as many consistently good and influential runs as Claremont in his prime; it's just not really fair to compare because it was his work that laid the foundation in the first place.

#29 Posted by chasereis (794 posts) - - Show Bio

@DarkxSeraph said:

1980s. (Though 90s are very close)As for Morrison... meh.

You are a wise being.

@dangallant984: Ah come on. Wolverine vs the Reavers was good man. Come on

...but you are right they lost the "ultimate destination" direction in story around there. However I would argue that the fallout you speak of didn't occur at the post marauders story but actually summing in Inferno itself. Fall of the mutants was a crossover event but the events themselves did not fold into each other until Inferno then I agree it started a descent but came back up for air at UXM275+XF50up. (oh and the school thing was actually re-allocated from New Mutants to X-Factor in a round-a-bout kind of way, just FYI. X-terminators, remember?)

#30 Posted by evilvegeta74 (4529 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm going with the 80's

#31 Posted by dangallant984 (1282 posts) - - Show Bio

@dangallant984 said:

First off, there just won't ever be another era like X-men circa 1980-86, those are The classic X-men stories, everything great about the concept and characterization that defines the X-men can be traced back to that period. That's not to say there can't be new, interesting stories or concepts based on that, but that era is very much the foundation, and to my mind, always will be.

That said, the second half of the 80's (after the Mutant Massacre) is one of my least favourite periods for the X-men. Gone was the school, half of the best characters, and most of the things that made the X-men distinct. With the notable exception of the original Genosha story, the replacement X-men mostly just fought demons, cyborgs, and aliens; the fact that they were mutants, or had any particular mandate as a team, seemed to have very little to do with the stories. Oh, and the art became largely inconsistent and sloppy.

@chasereis said:

@dangallant984: Ah come on. Wolverine vs the Reavers was good man. Come on

...but you are right they lost the "ultimate destination" direction in story around there. However I would argue that the fallout you speak of didn't occur at the post marauders story but actually summing in Inferno itself. Fall of the mutants was a crossover event but the events themselves did not fold into each other until Inferno then I agree it started a descent but came back up for air at UXM275+XF50up. (oh and the school thing was actually re-allocated from New Mutants to X-Factor in a round-a-bout kind of way, just FYI. X-terminators, remember?)

Yeah, I remember all that, and Wolverine v.s. the Reavers was a good Wolverine story, and, yes, X-factor were basically the real X-men durring this era, but I stand by my original statement.

#32 Posted by chasereis (794 posts) - - Show Bio

@dangallant984: Ah snap. Ok you got me there DG. You win...

#33 Posted by dangallant984 (1282 posts) - - Show Bio

@chasereis said:

@dangallant984: Ah snap. Ok you got me there DG. You win...

when it comes to mediocre X-men comics, nobody wins, Chase'.

#34 Posted by chasereis (794 posts) - - Show Bio

@dangallant984: ...and now we know. And knowing is half the battle.

#35 Posted by Brazen_Intellect (1144 posts) - - Show Bio

80's - Wins on consistent quality alone

90's - Pretty weak overall

00's - I give them credit for being more ambitious in pushing for change, but the execution has ranged from pretty good to god awful

#36 Posted by AgeofHurricane (7297 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm taking the 2000s out of mine because this is the decade in which the mighty had fallen, and they're still falling imo. So anything before that.

#37 Posted by dangallant984 (1282 posts) - - Show Bio

@Brazen_Intellect said:

80's - Wins on consistent quality alone

90's - Pretty weak overall

00's - I give them credit for being more ambitious in pushing for change, but the execution has ranged from pretty good to god awful

I think you could say this about the 80's too, especially the second half; despite all the classic stories,overall they were nowhere near as consistently good as people seem to think they were.

#38 Posted by kiss_lamia (1247 posts) - - Show Bio

80's & 90's were the best

#39 Edited by Rabbitearsblog (5861 posts) - - Show Bio

The 80s, although I enjoyed Joss Whedon's run on Astonishing X-Men.

#40 Posted by John Valentine (16310 posts) - - Show Bio

@dangallant984 said:

@Brazen_Intellect said:

80's - Wins on consistent quality alone

90's - Pretty weak overall

00's - I give them credit for being more ambitious in pushing for change, but the execution has ranged from pretty good to god awful

I think you could say this about the 80's too, especially the second half; despite all the classic stories,overall they were nowhere near as consistently good as people seem to think they were.

So true.

I'm not sure how much people would like Inferno if it came out today. Then there's all the crap about Scott/Madelyne etc.

People look back on 80s and 90s with rose-tinted vision.

#41 Posted by dangallant984 (1282 posts) - - Show Bio

@John Valentine said:

So true.

I'm not sure how much people would like Inferno if it came out today. Then there's all the crap about Scott/Madelyne etc.

People look back on 80s and 90s with rose-tinted vision.

yeah, I think it's probably hard not to be nostalgic about X-men comics, since most people get into them when they're kids. It's one of the reasons that I went back and read them all from the beginning a couple of years ago, partially to see what still stood out at the end. It was a very weird month and a half.

#42 Posted by Brazen_Intellect (1144 posts) - - Show Bio

@dangallant984 said:

@Brazen_Intellect said:

80's - Wins on consistent quality alone

90's - Pretty weak overall

00's - I give them credit for being more ambitious in pushing for change, but the execution has ranged from pretty good to god awful

I think you could say this about the 80's too, especially the second half; despite all the classic stories,overall they were nowhere near as consistently good as people seem to think they were.

The 80's had their share of weak storylines, but IMO nowhere near as bad as the 00's and at least the characters were not butchered into looking like fools to serve the current event. A bad 80's story was just disappointing, a bad 00's story tends to be nearly insulting to the reader.

#43 Posted by Brazen_Intellect (1144 posts) - - Show Bio

@John Valentine said:

@dangallant984 said:

@Brazen_Intellect said:

80's - Wins on consistent quality alone

90's - Pretty weak overall

00's - I give them credit for being more ambitious in pushing for change, but the execution has ranged from pretty good to god awful

I think you could say this about the 80's too, especially the second half; despite all the classic stories,overall they were nowhere near as consistently good as people seem to think they were.

So true.

I'm not sure how much people would like Inferno if it came out today. Then there's all the crap about Scott/Madelyne etc.

People look back on 80s and 90s with rose-tinted vision.

I will not even try to defend Inferno, its among the weakest X-events in memory.

As for looking back at the 80's and 90's with rose tinted vision, I'll somewhat agree with you on the 90's, but I believe the 80's really earned its praise.

#44 Posted by chasereis (794 posts) - - Show Bio

@John Valentine said:

People look back on 80s and 90s with rose-tinted vision.

Don't see this. Sure today has better scripting and is more modernized, etc, etc. However the ideas that were present then were much better, I guess it boils down to whether or not you would prefer a overly simplistic good idea or a well documented bad one. Hell most modern events and story lines are based on nostalgic stories anyway. It is an inescapable trap.

#45 Posted by John Valentine (16310 posts) - - Show Bio

@Brazen_Intellect said:

@John Valentine said:

@dangallant984 said:

@Brazen_Intellect said:

80's - Wins on consistent quality alone

90's - Pretty weak overall

00's - I give them credit for being more ambitious in pushing for change, but the execution has ranged from pretty good to god awful

I think you could say this about the 80's too, especially the second half; despite all the classic stories,overall they were nowhere near as consistently good as people seem to think they were.

So true.

I'm not sure how much people would like Inferno if it came out today. Then there's all the crap about Scott/Madelyne etc.

People look back on 80s and 90s with rose-tinted vision.

I will not even try to defend Inferno, its among the weakest X-events in memory.

As for looking back at the 80's and 90's with rose tinted vision, I'll somewhat agree with you on the 90's, but I believe the 80's really earned its praise.

There's some stuff from the 80's that I do not think is worthy of praise. Conversely, some of the greatest X-stories are also from the 80s and, thankfully, these considerably outnumber the bad. Therefore, overall, the 80's wins.

@chasereis said:

@John Valentine said:

People look back on 80s and 90s with rose-tinted vision.

Don't see this. Sure today has better scripting and is more modernized, etc, etc. However the ideas that were present then were much better, I guess it boils down to whether or not you would prefer a overly simplistic good idea or a well documented bad one. Hell most modern events and story lines are based on nostalgic stories anyway. It is an inescapable trap.

Imagine so core, 80's ideas with modern writing and (more modern) characterisation?

#46 Posted by AgeofHurricane (7297 posts) - - Show Bio

@Brazen_Intellect said:

@John Valentine said:

@dangallant984 said:

@Brazen_Intellect said:

80's - Wins on consistent quality alone

90's - Pretty weak overall

00's - I give them credit for being more ambitious in pushing for change, but the execution has ranged from pretty good to god awful

I think you could say this about the 80's too, especially the second half; despite all the classic stories,overall they were nowhere near as consistently good as people seem to think they were.

So true.

I'm not sure how much people would like Inferno if it came out today. Then there's all the crap about Scott/Madelyne etc.

People look back on 80s and 90s with rose-tinted vision.

I will not even try to defend Inferno, its among the weakest X-events in memory.

As for looking back at the 80's and 90's with rose tinted vision, I'll somewhat agree with you on the 90's, but I believe the 80's really earned its praise.

Um, hyperbole. What exactly was so "weak" about it ?

#47 Posted by John Valentine (16310 posts) - - Show Bio

@AgeofHurricane said:

@Brazen_Intellect said:

@John Valentine said:

@dangallant984 said:

@Brazen_Intellect said:

80's - Wins on consistent quality alone

90's - Pretty weak overall

00's - I give them credit for being more ambitious in pushing for change, but the execution has ranged from pretty good to god awful

I think you could say this about the 80's too, especially the second half; despite all the classic stories,overall they were nowhere near as consistently good as people seem to think they were.

So true.

I'm not sure how much people would like Inferno if it came out today. Then there's all the crap about Scott/Madelyne etc.

People look back on 80s and 90s with rose-tinted vision.

I will not even try to defend Inferno, its among the weakest X-events in memory.

As for looking back at the 80's and 90's with rose tinted vision, I'll somewhat agree with you on the 90's, but I believe the 80's really earned its praise.

Um, hyperbole. What exactly was so "weak" about it ?

The gimp costumes, for a start.

#48 Posted by AgeofHurricane (7297 posts) - - Show Bio

@John Valentine: ...Those were weak ? I see.

#49 Posted by John Valentine (16310 posts) - - Show Bio

@AgeofHurricane said:

@John Valentine: ...Those were weak ? I see.

Weak = filmsy. When the hell fire wasn't around, poor Havok was probably really cold.

#50 Posted by AgeofHurricane (7297 posts) - - Show Bio

@John Valentine: I will admit that was a bit much, but Claremont's a fan of male degradation/female domination, so i guess it fit his bill, and he's a...freaky guy in his own respectable right, so yeah.

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.