Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What team is more interesting, relatable, and better story development/villains/arcs



https://i.postimg.cc/ph0fgX9M/maxresdefault.jpg

X-men (at least they used to be, until they were turned into racist semi-villains).

Through the 70s and 80s, X-Men were easily the better written team. Then the 90s happened. While X-Men floundered, we started getting Justice League books by Giffen and DeMatteis, and in the late 90s, the titan that is Morrison's JLA came along. In the 00s, X-Men was up and down, as was JLA. Both have some good stuff, but both have really, really bad stuff too.

The last decade or so? It's a wash, imo.

I will say this, though: X-Men is a much, much harder book to get right than JLA. It relies far more on the dynamic between the characters and their relationships with each other. That's natural though, given that for the X-Men, the X-Men is their full-time job, whereas the League is a part-time thing.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Through the 70s and 80s, X-Men were easily the better written team. Then the 90s happened. While X-Men floundered, we started getting Justice League books by Giffen and DeMatteis, and in the late 90s, the titan that is Morrison's JLA came along. In the 00s, X-Men was up and down, as was JLA. Both have some good stuff, but both have really, really bad stuff too.

The last decade or so? It's a wash, imo.

I will say this, though: X-Men is a much, much harder book to get right than JLA. It relies far more on the dynamic between the characters and their relationships with each other. That's natural though, given that for the X-Men, the X-Men is their full-time job, whereas the League is a part-time thing.

Did you really just say the 90s happened and act like Jim Lee and Claremont didn't get busy with the x men?

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
Did you really just say the 90s happened and act like Jim Lee and Claremont didn't get busy with the x men?

The X-Men started the 90s strong, but even before the halfway point people like Claremont and Lee been mostly replaced by Nicieza and Kubert. And Nicieza has written some good comics in his time, but I would not consider his X-Men run to be part of that.

It isn't that it's terrible for the most part (though it is in places), but against the best of the JLA in that period? I would pick JLA.

Even when Claremont came back, it just wasn't the same for me.

X-Men was killing the game in the 90's up to the early 2000's where they floundered for half a storyline then Morrison came in and reignited the flame. Oddly enough I don't remember Grant Morrison's jla being all that hot, JSA was becoming the more solid book in DC until around the time dwayne McDuffie started writing the book.

yea PR you jumping over some of the dopest arcs from the x men. Ya might wanna revisit the 90s for them.

I honestly don't agree. After Claremont left, X-Men just wasn't the same until Morrison came along.

The Twelve? Onslaught? Crimson Dawn? I would suggest going back and re-reading them, because while they are fine in places, they are a definite decline in quality compared to Claremont before, and Morrison after.

At least we had Madureira on art. He was fantastic.

You don't like Morrison's JLA? Really? I don't know what to say to that at all.

Morrison's JLA was a critical and sales hit. I think I like it more than his X-Men run.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I honestly don't agree. After Claremont left, X-Men just wasn't the same until Morrison came along.

The Twelve? Onslaught? Crimson Dawn? I would suggest going back and re-reading them, because while they are fine in places, they are a definite decline in quality compared to Claremont before, and Morrison after.

At least we had Madureira on art. He was fantastic.

You don't like Morrison's JLA? Really? I don't know what to say to that at all.

Nothing out was touching Jim Lee or Todd Mcfarlane art in the 90s.

X Men/spiderman and Image ruled the 90s.

Morrison's JLA was garbage imo for the most part. He tried to do too much that just didn't fit to me. The 90's comics wise was a battle between marvel, image, valiant, and Malibu with DC sitting around in mediocrity. When each of the other comic companies started dying off marvel seemed to take more of a share until DC snatched wildstorm from them when marvel couldn't make a satisfying deal for it.

Most of the X-Men stories in the 90s weren't very good. Claremont and Onslaught arc was good though.

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
Nothing out was touching Jim Lee or Todd Mcfarlane art in the 90s.

X Men/spiderman and Image ruled the 90s.

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
Morrison's JLA was garbage imo for the most part. He tried to do too much that just didn't fit to me. The 90's comics wise was a battle between marvel, image, valiant, and Malibu with DC sitting around in mediocrity. When each of the other comic companies started dying off marvel seemed to take more of a share until DC snatched wildstorm from them when marvel couldn't make a satisfying deal for it.

I don't agree at all, and even putting my own preferences to the side, I can't imagine anyone thinking Morrison's JLA isn't several magnitudes better than anything X-Men put out after Claremont ****ed off to do other stuff.

meh Outside of Snyder's run (which honestly didn't focus on the league as a team so much as it just led into Death Metal) the League don't really have any good or great stories.

operation zero tolerance was way better than JLA at the time. There was a brief period where they had maggot on the team afterwards where it got a little lame for a few issues before thet got back to business. JLA was weak imo until the tower of Babel storyline came out.

Waids league was good too.

Originally posted by beatboks
These type of threads are ridiculous.
No one comic producer has better heroes or better stories.
No to mention its so subjective that no discussion made can actually come up with an imperically correct answer.

Never mind the fact that in many cases the same great creators have worked for both. I love the work of Roy Thomas, whether it was conan, The Avengers, The Invaders, or Defenders at Marvel or All Star Squadron, Arak son of Thunder, Inf Inc or Young All Stars at DC.

I love the work of Mike Grell whether its Green Arrow, Leguon of Super heroes at DC or Ironman, Xmen forever at Marvel.

I love the work of John Ostrander whether its Spectre, Suicide Squad, Firestorm at DC or Xmen, heroes for hire or Punisher at Marvel.

Quite frankly the idea of this thread is offensive, as comics are comics and the same crearive people work regularly for both companies

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
meh Outside of Snyder's run (which honestly didn't focus on the league as a team so much as it just led into Death Metal) the League don't really have any good or great stories.

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
operation zero tolerance was way better than JLA at the time. There was a brief period where they had maggot on the team afterwards where it got a little lame for a few issues before thet got back to business. JLA was weak imo until the tower of Babel storyline came out.

Most of the time I'm wondering if you mean what you say, or are just trolling.

Instead of assuming the latter, I'm just going to assume you have terrible taste.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85


Thats a good post.

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
meh Outside of Snyder's run (which honestly didn't focus on the league as a team so much as it just led into Death Metal) the League don't really have any good or great stories.

Did you just claim Synders run is good?

Originally posted by -Pr-
Most of the time I'm wondering if you mean what you say, or are just trolling.

Instead of assuming the latter, I'm just going to assume you have terrible taste.



Thats a good post.

it's different strokes for different folks I guess. Grant Morrison tends to do the same thing that Brian Bendis and Johnathan Hickman do and thats write themselves into a corner trying to do too much. That's not to say they are horrible Bendis was good with ultimate spiderman and powers but his X-Men and avengers runs were mostly lackluster shock value pieces that all ended flat. Morrison was overconceptual garbage with most of his stuff outside of the X-Men and even there he almost messed up with "here comes tomorrow" at the end. He JLA run didn't know if it wanted to be justice league or a psuedo religious story with the justice league as a side piece.

Originally posted by SquallX
Did you just claim Synders run is good?

yes, yes i did.

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
it's different strokes for different folks I guess. Grant Morrison tends to do the same thing that Brian Bendis and Johnathan Hickman do and thats write themselves into a corner trying to do too much. That's not to say they are horrible Bendis was good with ultimate spiderman and powers but his X-Men and avengers runs were mostly lackluster shock value pieces that all ended flat. Morrison was overconceptual garbage with most of his stuff outside of the X-Men and even there he almost messed up with "here comes tomorrow" at the end. He JLA run didn't know if it wanted to be justice league or a psuedo religious story with the justice league as a side piece.

Sounds like Smurph is right, tbh. So I have no need to repeat what he said.

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
yes, yes i did. [/QUO

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
Morrison's JLA was garbage imo for the most part.
No. Ure entitled to your own opinion, but "garbage"? Bro...


Morisson's JLA run is one of the best runs ever on any comic series. It was classic. Still give me chills whenever I revisit it.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Through the 70s and 80s, X-Men were easily the better written team. Then the 90s happened. While X-Men floundered, we started getting Justice League books by Giffen and DeMatteis, and in the late 90s, the titan that is Morrison's JLA came along. In the 00s, X-Men was up and down, as was JLA. Both have some good stuff, but both have really, really bad stuff too.

The last decade or so? It's a wash, imo.

I will say this, though: X-Men is a much, much harder book to get right than JLA. It relies far more on the dynamic between the characters and their relationships with each other. That's natural though, given that for the X-Men, the X-Men is their full-time job, whereas the League is a part-time thing.

Absolutely!!!

Originally posted by -Pr-

I will say this, though: X-Men is a much, much harder book to get right than JLA. It relies far more on the dynamic between the characters and their relationships with each other. That's natural though, given that for the X-Men, the X-Men is their full-time job, whereas the League is a part-time thing.


The amount of otherwise good writers that **** up when handling X-Men has to be a record or something.

But maybe that's what makes those quality X-Books so special. Reading a well-executed X-Men story is like--

https://media.giphy.com/media/537pv8mfArzLa/giphy.gif

Pr is right though about the late 70s and all through the 80s, x-men books were amazing.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Through the 70s and 80s, X-Men were easily the better written team. Then the 90s happened. While X-Men floundered, we started getting Justice League books by Giffen and DeMatteis, and in the late 90s, the titan that is Morrison's JLA came along. In the 00s, X-Men was up and down, as was JLA. Both have some good stuff, but both have really, really bad stuff too.

The last decade or so? It's a wash, imo.

I will say this, though: X-Men is a much, much harder book to get right than JLA. It relies far more on the dynamic between the characters and their relationships with each other. That's natural though, given that for the X-Men, the X-Men is their full-time job, whereas the League is a part-time thing.

Yeah it really depended on the era. I liked the 90's X-Men for the most part. They fell off around 2000-2010. I really enjoyed the Claremont era when Marc Silvestri, and later when Jim Lee sketched the title. Good times.

I quite like Jim Lee's art, but his early stuff was too....busy. Too much hatching everywhere.

I feel like PR's already said what needs to be said on the topic.

Morrison did good things, but early 00s X-men has its fair share of blunders.
There's always been a special room in my heart for Chuck Austen's run, but it is just plain disastrous when look at it objectively.

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
Morrison's JLA was garbage imo for the most part. He tried to do too much that just didn't fit to me. The 90's comics wise was a battle between marvel, image, valiant, and Malibu with DC sitting around in mediocrity. When each of the other comic companies started dying off marvel seemed to take more of a share until DC snatched wildstorm from them when marvel couldn't make a satisfying deal for it.
We get it, you're edgy. But calling Morrison JLA garbage? Dude, practically every team book after JLA is written in the same template now, huge cosmic threats, interconnected arcs and minimal character interactions other than their core personality traits.

X men in itself modeled on JLA after it for more than two decades now.

Originally posted by StyleTime


The amount of otherwise good writers that **** up when handling X-Men has to be a record or something.

But maybe that's what makes those quality X-Books so special. Reading a well-executed X-Men story is like--

https://media.giphy.com/media/537pv8mfArzLa/giphy.gif
I mean even Brubaker failed on X men. I mean seriously.

Are you fking serious abhi ?

It literally only got better AFTER Morrison left the book

t's a rinse and repeat, I honestly did not enjoy it at all
There are some cool arcs, but it only really gets better after Morrison leaves. Not disputable

. The Crucifer storyline?

Every arc follows the same formula, there's hardly an overarching story and characters are just written poorly
Every arc, the League gets laid out by one dude or the other and they get their asses saved by some outside body or via some level of teamwork and ingenuity. Outside of World War 3 and the Prometheus arc I didn't really enjoy the book very much.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
. The Crucifer storyline?

The what now?

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
Are you fking serious abhi ?

It literally only got better AFTER Morrison left the book

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
t's a rinse and repeat, I honestly did not enjoy it at all
There are some cool arcs, but it only really gets better after Morrison leaves. Not disputable


So edgy dude. Really kewl.

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
Every arc follows the same formula, there's hardly an overarching story and characters are just written poorly
Every arc, the League gets laid out by one dude or the other and they get their asses saved by some outside body or via some level of teamwork and ingenuity. Outside of World War 3 and the Prometheus arc I didn't really enjoy the book very much. Originally posted by abhilegend


So edgy dude. Really kewl.

Originally posted by meep-meep
Absolutely!!!



Originally posted by StyleTime


The amount of otherwise good writers that **** up when handling X-Men has to be a record or something.

But maybe that's what makes those quality X-Books so special. Reading a well-executed X-Men story is like--

https://media.giphy.com/media/537pv8mfArzLa/giphy.gif

Exactly. It's like breaking a world record. Not everyone can do it, but when someone does? You take notice.

Originally posted by Stoic
Yeah it really depended on the era. I liked the 90's X-Men for the most part. They fell off around 2000-2010. I really enjoyed the Claremont era when Marc Silvestri, and later when Jim Lee sketched the title. Good times.

That's the thing I want to clarify too. I like 90s X-Men. I was in my teens when Onslaught happened and I got to read it in trade form and I was in love with it. A crossover where Xavier and Magneto combine to make a new villain? The X-Men in shambles? ****ing Hank Pym ****ing headbutting sentinels (who are incidentally one of my favourite villains)? I loved that shit.

But when I re-read it now, I can see the obvious gap in quality between it and the likes of Claremont's work. It's a crossover, so some leeway has to be allowed, but even in the 90s, we were allowed to expect better from crossovers because writers were supposed to be that good.

And then Morrison came along and, as much as I hate Quitely's artwork, I consider Morrison's X-Men to be top five X-Men runs of all time. Definitely.

Then we got Whedon that, while short and a bit weird, was still really good imo.

Who else did X-Men get in the 00s?

-Brubaker? I liked his run, but let's be fair, it was largely hit and miss.
-Same goes for Gillen.
-Same goes for Carey.
-Fraction was god-awful.
-Kyle and Yost? They were okay I guess. As much as I might have enjoyed parts of the X-Force book, it is at least partially responsible for the character mauling Cyclops got.

There are X-Men arcs I've enjoyed since Whedon left. The vampire one. Uncanny X-Force. Hell, I was even starting to enjoy Hickman's one after having initial doubts, only to get turned off by Hickman being Hickman, and morphing the characters to fit the story in frankly ridiculous ways.

Originally posted by -Pr-

-Fraction was god-awful.


Funny thing is, he can write when he really wants to.

And who we got after Fraction? Oh, yeah. Bendis.

Originally posted by -Pr-




Exactly. It's like breaking a world record. Not everyone can do it, but when someone does? You take notice.



That's the thing I want to clarify too. I like 90s X-Men. I was in my teens when Onslaught happened and I got to read it in trade form and I was in love with it. A crossover where Xavier and Magneto combine to make a new villain? The X-Men in shambles? ****ing Hank Pym ****ing headbutting sentinels (who are incidentally one of my favourite villains)? I loved that shit.

But when I re-read it now, I can see the obvious gap in quality between it and the likes of Claremont's work. It's a crossover, so some leeway has to be allowed, but even in the 90s, we were allowed to expect better from crossovers because writers were supposed to be that good.

And then Morrison came along and, as much as I hate Quitely's artwork, I consider Morrison's X-Men to be top five X-Men runs of all time. Definitely.

Then we got Whedon that, while short and a bit weird, was still really good imo.

Who else did X-Men get in the 00s?

-Brubaker? I liked his run, but let's be fair, it was largely hit and miss.
-Same goes for Gillen.
-Same goes for Carey.
-Fraction was god-awful.
-Kyle and Yost? They were okay I guess. As much as I might have enjoyed parts of the X-Force book, it is at least partially responsible for the character mauling Cyclops got.

There are X-Men arcs I've enjoyed since Whedon left. The vampire one. Uncanny X-Force. Hell, I was even starting to enjoy Hickman's one after having initial doubts, only to get turned off by Hickman being Hickman, and morphing the characters to fit the story in frankly ridiculous ways.

X-Men excels in teamwork, character drama, character building, and team dynamics more than any group.
M-Day rolling into Utopia was quality for all X-Titles. Also I feel like Milligan gets a bad wrap. The Draco was trash but everything else was gold. The dementia of Golgotha and that purge arc? ****ing ASTONISHING?! Mwah. Then Bendis ruined them. All through to IvX was so-so at best. Blue, Red, that iteration of Astonishing. It was like Stockholm syndrome and we were getting better than what we used to. And now Hickman is giving them a much needed revamping in wide and wondrous ways.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Funny thing is, he can write when he really wants to.

And who we got after Fraction? Oh, yeah. Bendis.

I intentionally left him out because there's no need to mention that trainwreck at all. It would just get me depressed otherwise.

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
X-Men excels in teamwork, character drama, character building, and team dynamics more than any group.
M-Day rolling into Utopia was quality for all X-Titles. Also I feel like Milligan gets a bad wrap. The Draco was trash but everything else was gold. The dementia of Golgotha and that purge arc? ****ing ASTONISHING?! Mwah. Then Bendis ruined them. All through to IvX was so-so at best. Blue, Red, that iteration of Astonishing. It was like Stockholm syndrome and we were getting better than what we used to. And now Hickman is giving them a much needed revamping in wide and wondrous ways.

I agree with your first line. It's actually why bar none, X-Men is my favourite comic book "franchise", and apart from Superman basically creating the genre, X-Men is, for me, the single-greatest comic-book concept ever created.

M-Day? It was okay, but again, I never said all of the 00s was bad. I said it had ups and downs, which it did. Just like Justice League did.

As far as Milligan goes... I don't remember him being incredibly good or bad. He just got stuck following Morrison.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I intentionally left him out because there's no need to mention that trainwreck at all. It would just get me depressed otherwise.

Fraction + Land = some lulzcontent, at least.

Bendis + Bachalo = brain and eyes both bleeding at the same time.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Fraction + Land = some lulzcontent, at least.

Bendis + Bachalo = brain and eyes both bleeding at the same time.

True.

Now I'm just getting annoyed though, remembering all the times I tried to dive back in, telling myself "no, it's not as bad as you remember, give it a chance" only to get shat all over.

And I still remember how psyched I was for Ellis on Astonishing after Whedon left. And how disappointed I was after what, the first dozen pages of the first issue.

I liked Ellis' run.

But I admit he didn't have anything "epic" planned, just a few stories not connected with each other.

Whedon operated on a larger scale.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
I liked Ellis' run.

But I admit he didn't have anything "epic" planned, just a few stories not connected with each other.

Whedon operated on a larger scale.

I remember reading his interviews before the books came out, and how much hope I had for it. It just kinda fell flat for me. It was like he had good ideas, just... the execution lacked.

After Ellis was done with his arcs... Marvel decided it'd be a good idea to pick Way as the new Astonishing writer

...Eww.

Didn't Ellis have Cyclops straight up execute someone?
And turn Forge into a genocidal maniac?

Who? I only remember him wasting a Krakoa-like creature.

Forge likes to go insane every once in a while. He had good intentions, trying to find a way to make more mutants after the M-day, iirc.

Originally posted by abhilegend


So edgy dude. Really kewl.

X-Men has NEVER followed JLA storytelling it's always been its own lane which is why it's been consistently good so much so that marvel had to sabotage and damn near attempt to kill the book off just to slow it's profitability over it's showcase team, the avengers. Grant Morrison excels at odd ball grandiose storytelling which is why animal man, doom patrol, and new X-Men were some of his best writing. The rest of that shit was meh to garbage level.

You know, there are comics I have no love for. Comics I didn't particularly enjoy when I read them or, when re-reading them, found them to be unsatisfying. This includes stuff like Watchmen and Frank Miller's Batman.

But I'd never call them garbage.

If you didn't like Morrison's JLA, I'd think that was fine. But calling them objectively bad? FFS, that's lunacy.

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
X-Men has NEVER followed JLA storytelling it's always been its own lane which is why it's been consistently good so much so that marvel had to sabotage and damn near attempt to kill the book off just to slow it's profitability over it's showcase team, the avengers. Grant Morrison excels at odd ball grandiose storytelling which is why animal man, doom patrol, and new X-Men were some of his best writing. The rest of that shit was meh to garbage level.


Stay edgy.

Originally posted by -Pr-
You know, there are comics I have no love for. Comics I didn't particularly enjoy when I read them or, when re-reading them, found them to be unsatisfying. This includes stuff like Watchmen and Frank Miller's Batman.

But I'd never call them garbage.

If you didn't like Morrison's JLA, I'd think that was fine. But calling them objectively bad? FFS, that's lunacy.

The whole asmodel storyline was just extremely unimpressive to me and I wasn't too fond of them pushing Superman to the forefront in parts where zauriel should have been pushed more. Everything else about his run was just ok with nothing really memorable about it.

So we went from garbage to just ok?

Keep it up boys!

Is Bazie really our sole source of entertainment these days?

Pretty much. Carv is boring now. Even Wonder Man has stopped posting random crap. cdtm tries, but it's too low effort.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Even Wonder Man has stopped posting random crap.

Oh, I wouldn't be so sure...

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f77/t669780.html


http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=17220024&highlight=userid%3A13097#post17220024


http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=17220023&highlight=userid%3A13097#post17220023


http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=17220019&highlight=userid%3A13097#post17220019

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
The whole asmodel storyline was just extremely unimpressive to me and I wasn't too fond of them pushing Superman to the forefront in parts where zauriel should have been pushed more. Everything else about his run was just ok with nothing really memorable about it.

Again, that just sounds like you have a problem with how Justice League comics are written. There's nothing wrong with that, mind you, but there's a difference between disliking the concept or intent of something, and the execution.

X men are written better. They are more down to earth, so characters always have a potential for interesting scenarios that we can relate to


JL tend to be written as these god-like beings with little flaw.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Again, that just sounds like you have a problem with how Justice League comics are written. There's nothing wrong with that, mind you, but there's a difference between disliking the concept or intent of something, and the execution.

Nah, I like Mark waid's run, Dwayne McDuffie RIP had a really good run too. I enjoyed most of the new 52 story arcs also.

I can admit when it comes to DC super teams I've always been a JSA, outsiders, and teen Titans fan more than justice league

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
Nah, I like Mark waid's run, Dwayne McDuffie RIP had a really good run too. I enjoyed most of the new 52 story arcs also.

I can admit when it comes to DC super teams I've always been a JSA, outsiders, and teen Titans fan more than justice league

So you like McDuffie's run but not Morrison's.

Okay, fair enough... I don't understand why, but still, if you like it, you like it.

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
X-Men excels in teamwork, character drama, character building, and team dynamics more than any group.
M-Day rolling into Utopia was quality for all X-Titles. Also I feel like Milligan gets a bad wrap. The Draco was trash but everything else was gold. The dementia of Golgotha and that purge arc? ****ing ASTONISHING?! Mwah. Then Bendis ruined them. All through to IvX was so-so at best. Blue, Red, that iteration of Astonishing. It was like Stockholm syndrome and we were getting better than what we used to. And now Hickman is giving them a much needed revamping in wide and wondrous ways.
I agree on Hickman. Some personalities were altered a bit, but I think he's doing great job overall with it. He's managing a gigantic roster of mutants, so I cut him slack if some get "sacrificed" for a good story. Yeah, we can praise Claremont, but Claremont also had the benefit of having created a huge chunk of those characters, so he could define them however he wanted. If Hickman delivers on all the set up he's giving us, it has potential for being one of the greats.

Golgotha and Utopia though? Utopia suffered from on of the classic hurdles writers stumble over on X-Men books: super large cast. We got Second Coming out of it, which was exciting, but Hickman's Krakoa is what Utopia was trying to be the whole time. He's redeeming a few meh storylines tbh, like the Children of the Vault.

Golgotha was just bad.