Imagine such title would be announced, what would you expect from it? And no, something beyond nudity and cursing, but in terms of unlimited creativity. Imagine the world where censorship and political correctness will be almost irrelevant while thought-provoking and expressionism will know no bounds and its base would be a mutant/X metaphor/mythos/characters. How do you think it could work best?

@adamtrmm: didnt they have wolverine max and fantomex max

@hopesummersforthefuture:

They did, but I don't think there was ever a precedent to try and make mind-bending post-humanism allegories like I'm implying right here.

But judging by interest this thread is creating, I guess this thing is so "MAX" that I would be its only reader... lol

I don't think any of the MAX series sans Punisher were that well received.

I think what happens is when they try to do more serious, pragmatic, conscious material with the X-Men, it can end up something like Ultimate X-Men or like Morrisons run, which, oddly enough, a lot of X-Men fans don't like. Although, God Loves, Man Kills is always pretty well received and that story had a lot of social criticisms and and commentary, however, that was written by Claremont who is kind of a "writer's writer" and knows how to write a story that appeals to broader audiences

I don't think I would want to read a MAX X-Men series as I tend to like the X-Men connecting to the larger Marvel Universe, and I also don't really care if hard hitting issues like ethics and existentialism are presented in super hero comics....I will read some Camus if I want that. With super hero comics I just want good storytelling......and I don't want to sound simplistic-- having metaphors and commentaries and other provocative subtext is fine....I more than welcome that, but I think that story telling and characters should be first and foremost.

X-Men TURD.

Current Magneto is pretty MAX.

Joe Casey's Uncanny Run, Uncanny X-Force and Morrison's run (in parts) were all pretty MAX too.

Most MAX titles suck, though. Especially Fantomex MAX.

Wait.... there was a Wolverine MAX?!

@john_valentine: Yes, and it was awful.

I think X-Men works better as a sci-fi series that would jettison the faux moralism, and simply ask what IS the correct morals for someone born with the ability to read minds? That question is usually given a privacy-based argument, but how can a person with that power call themselves a superhero if they aren't out in the world scanning minds, preventing suicides, murders, sorting out psychotic issues, etc.

Morrison would be a perfect writer for that. I think that is where he was going with New X-Men. Most of the dialogue in the Riot at Xaviers' dealt with how some concepts that run baseline human society don't really apply to a world where you have these beings with superpowers. He'd also be the perfect writer to show the hypocrisy behind using powers to fight "bad guys" when they could be used for more "useful" purposes.

@cattlebattle:

I don't think any of the MAX series sans Punisher were that well received.

JMS' Supreme Power comes to mind, it sold good and was well-received AFAIK. One of the best cynical takes on JL concept and almost the closest thing I've seen to "what if our world had super beings" with already existing mythos incorporated in a more cynical, realistic way. It's actually a perfect example to what I am talking about here and that I know it could work if done right.

I think what happens is when they try to do more serious, pragmatic, conscious material with the X-Men, it can end up something like Ultimate X-Men or like Morrisons run, which, oddly enough, a lot of X-Men fans don't like. Although, God Loves, Man Kills is always pretty well received and that story had a lot of social criticisms and and commentary, however, that was written by Claremont who is kind of a "writer's writer" and knows how to write a story that appeals to broader audiences

I don't think I would want to read a MAX X-Men series as I tend to like the X-Men connecting to the larger Marvel Universe, and I also don't really care if hard hitting issues like ethics and existentialism are presented in super hero comics....I will read some Camus if I want that. With super hero comics I just want good storytelling......and I don't want to sound simplistic-- having metaphors and commentaries and other provocative subtext is fine....I more than welcome that, but I think that story telling and characters should be first and foremost.

Well maybe it has to do everything with the fact that their specific work was that questionable? There was just too much "writer's traits" for those of us who wanted to enjoy the story itself rather than these writer's individual expositions and expressions (Morrison and Millar). It's obvious that not all X-readers are suckers for pseudo-philosophical enforcements (seeing that ANXM is at the top sales), but I'm absolutely sure that there is also more than enough of those who would be happy to know that there's a serious X-book coming out (MAX or not MAX). Wouldn't you be?

@phoenixofthetides:

I think X-Men works better as a sci-fi series that would jettison the faux moralism, and simply ask what IS the correct morals for someone born with the ability to read minds? That question is usually given a privacy-based argument, but how can a person with that power call themselves a superhero if they aren't out in the world scanning minds, preventing suicides, murders, sorting out psychotic issues, etc.

And that's the exact reason why I think "mutants" work badly as a restricted minority metaphor. The questions they raise are much more... challenging for a basic humanism and thus are so compelling. And almost impossible to express and observe within the shared universe where for obvious reasons of meeting a backlash it can't fit since it may be a contradiction to another respective corner within the same world.

Morrison would be a perfect writer for that. I think that is where he was going with New X-Men. Most of the dialogue in the Riot at Xaviers' dealt with how some concepts that run baseline human society don't really apply to a world where you have these beings with superpowers. He'd also be the perfect writer to show the hypocrisy behind using powers to fight "bad guys" when they could be used for more "useful" purposes.

Well Morrison had his chance and we've seen how it played out. I'm absolutely subjective right here, but seeing certain writer's personal beliefs and mockeries expressed within the comic book, is a submission I wouldn't like the "X" potential to be wasted for.

x-men doesn't have to go overboard. there's too much going on in their lives already. what they need are new villains, more fight scenes, power upgrades and different use of their powers

Define what you mean by "serious", exactly. I mean something like Claremonts run was as serious as a heart attack in terms of character stuff, social commentaries on prejudice, abuse, morality, inequality etc......all the while X-Men battled magical demons, hung out with Power Pack, interacted with space aliens and super villains.

I think the real reason the Ultimate Universe and MAX titles get criticized is because it can have material that is pretty heavy handed, and people usually hate that.

@cattlebattle:

As much as I respect Claremont, you already pointed out how wacky and what not he might've been at times. You're asking what would I consider serious, or what do I think writers can successfully deliver? There's a difference, but it doesn't matter since whatever my idea is, it's just a fanfic at best. The only writer since Morrison that I feel was trying to do something new was Gillen and his more elitist take on mutant identity, which unlike Morrison's I endlessly appreciated cause reading about godlike "underdogs" becomes silly at some point without anything else going on. And here we are with franchise's undisputed godfather again, Chris Claremont. It's his absolutely successful and definitive take on the X-men, that today is obvious has enslaved the series and there's no one innovative enough to move past "hated and feared" to discover new dimensions and implications. I'm not dissing CC, the opposite. 90% of people who wrote after lacked his passion and will to make a point, to tell a story about humanity that "humans" could see only through an exterior ("mutant") paradigm.

(what is X-men if not an exciting story about humanity?)

That actually is a common problem among hardcore X-Men fans, in that Claremont was such a good writer and so good at writing those characters that nobody else can even remotely compare. It's quite a unique situation as there is many other franchises that have a single writer for many years but people are willing to accept other iterations of the characters from other writers. An anomaly I suppose.

@cattlebattle:

And I think they just lacked the will to innovate. Not like it's always ends well (Morrison), but at least things are being shaken and we get some very nice titles, or eras. I will always appreciate Decimation for its grey area and "minority issues" taken to the extremes. It's just the successors of this era sucked so much when they were given some of the most exciting tools at their most interesting, and that's the true anomaly I think.