Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvilMorrison and Bendis are not at all similar. This sounds more like a critique of superhero comics as a genre - the need to constantly pump out new high-octane sci fi stories guarantees that all major writers will take big swings and have big misses. Maybe that’s the only thing that Morrison and Bendis have in common.
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.
And this sentence basically says that a story about the Justice Leage can only be that, and not also explore broader themes.
Insert whynotboth.gif
Your issue is with the JLA as a concept, and not the quality of the writing.
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 -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--
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.
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.
X men in itself modeled on JLA after it for more than two decades now.
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 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.