Morrison VS NEW Claremont

I don't see how that can compare. Love him or hate him, Morrison's run on X-Men is far better than anything NEW Claremont has written. From dialogue to plotting, Claremont is just...uh...not a nice word, lol.

Claremont's Revolution X-Men was boring and pointless. His X-Treme X-Men and Uncanny run with Davis was a big improvement. I enjoyed a lot his run with some exceptions like, Storm: The arena and the dinosaur story, which were terrible. I haven't read all of the Genosha Excalibur but what I did read seemed alright, maybe because other than Magneto and Xavier he was working with new characters. New Excalibur and Exiles were terrible. X-Men Forever, I think is a fun what if series, where Wolverine can be killed off, Storm be turned into a villain and Rogue having Nightcrawlers powers. Sure the dialogue can be tiresome and it's really not worth spending money on, but it doesn't affect any other books and Claremont can play around with his pet characters as much has he wants.

In Morrison's run I liked the whole turnabout of mutants becoming the majority. I never read Generation X so I wasn't put off by Emma's characterisation. I quite liked the students, the Stepford Cuckoos, Beak, Angel, Dust and the rest of Xorn's special class. Magneto as crazy druggy works in some ways but I prefer him as written by Carey or classic Claremont.

Neither would be my favourite writers but I think Morrison wins over new Claremont.

I have to say that I thought that Morrison's run was far superior to anything that Claremont has produced in a very long time. I disagree with a lot of people that Emma's characterization was "off", because I personally think (as I stated in another thread) that while Emma warmed up to her charges and to her co-headmaster, it'd be unfair to automatically assume that she had fully warmed up to the entire world (particularly people like Jean Grey to whom most of her cattiness was directed, who did happen to crush her with a building once)l. Not only that, but Morrison's Emma's "b*tchiness" was generally benign. Most of the comments she made were just funny, and I feel like it'd take a real stiff to sit around and become offended by most of what Emma had to say rather than just laugh it off. I mean, for pity's sake, how many scenes were we exposed to where Jean and Emma were hanging out despite their disagreements? Clearly, the tension was not as explosive as people seem to think. At least, not until husband shaped line was crossed.

I actually liked Morrison's Jean because she was still likable while having many of her flaws addressed for the first time. That this Jean was mature and admitted to the fact that she had kind of a fiery personality and that she was the center of a lot of drama (this is highlighted in her speech about "being the first to fight when the X-Men came home") was very becoming. Her Phoenix elements were nicely introduced this time around, and I still feel that she had a very powerful showing as far as personality went during this run. Also, I liked that not everyone liked everything about Jean here. I mean, it was similar to when Psylocke and Jean had their scuffle, but for the first time it seemed, it was more than "the other woman" who was a bit skeptical of Jean--and the best part is, I still don't think Jean failed to be a good person. I liked her here.

I hated Morrison's Wolverine. Fell into the same trap as most writers, with all the "darlins" and "Bubs" and "snikts" and little else.

I liked Scott, although I do admit that Morrison did kind of shake off the "cool new" Cyclops that Claremont tried to introduce. Seeing that Fraction has brought "cool new" Cyclops back to terrible effect, I don't blame Morrison for scrapping that crappy idea one bit.

Loved Beast. Loved the Cassandra Nova story, even if I hated the idea of twins. Loved Charles. Loved this arc. I even liked the "freakish" and "useless" mutants that were highlighted in this series because despite being quite stupid, they had more personality than even most of the main characters in the X-books nowadays have currently.

Oh, and did I mention that I just think that Grant Morrison writes better dialogue than Claremont? To be fair, though, I think almost anyone does. I don't need a lifetime of exposition in every speech bubble.

I am a fan of Morrison's run. Sure there were some over the top moments and crazy stories that made you scratch your head in confusion sometimes but a lot of writers have those moments in some form. Morrison moved characters forward without basically s**ting on what came before so vehemently like Claremont seems to do sometimes. While like Grief I'd take Carey or PAD any day of the week over either (since a lot of Morrison's other work is just so insane that I can't even get it), I'd read Morrison's run over Claremont.

Clearemont's problem is that he's stuck in the 70's/80's. One can tell just by his dialogue and thought bubbles of everyone having to explain their powers or what their doing over and over. We know that Storm can use the wind to glow something away. Or that if Spidey doesn't snag the wall with his web quickly enough he'll plummet. Or that if Cyclops doesn't have his glasses on his powers can go out of control if eyes open. Yet Claremont feels the need to have them say these things or think them in bubbles over and over all the time. It distracts and takes away from the stories.

I also agree with Grief. Claremont starts off with promise or semi good stories that can be built upon, but then as he moves along things get just really bad and stupid in some cases. Dino Rachel was just better left never touched. The stuff with Jamie Braddock and such was just odd and not needed. The end arcs of New Excalibur. The direction of Exiles. The whole of New Exiles. They all just moved down these slippery slopes of bad bad stories. The mind control plot that has been over used. Psylocke saying every ten seconds she can shatter mountains. Bad dialogue. Just over and over again. Its' like he treats the readers like really slow newbs to the stories. Like a parody of his own work.

The other thing like mentioned in the X-Position is that Claremont's attitude about his work and others colors things to. He believes the X-Men are his. He made them what they were and no one else can ever be as good. In his mind like he has said Kitty should still be 16 and spunky and all these other things that he believes they should be cause it's how he would do it. The man is stuck in the past and has reached the crotchety old man stage to high levels.

Lol or no sided in cases of Grief lol. All the Claremont supporters must be sleeping or such.

Now grief...that I like...

They're both pretty bleak, but on the balance, I probably prefer new Claremont. I actually liked his New Excalibur run, and his Uncanny arcs weren't THAT bad. Morrison's, apart from Here Comes Tomorrow (I'm a sucker for post-apolcalypitc futures) was just eugh.

I'm assuming, by New Claremont, you mean Claremont after his return back in the late 90s. 

Well, you know where I stand.  I did see Grief say something about Mumbai, and to be honest, he's right about it.  His knowledge of alot of the secondary and tertiary characters was minimal.  In fact, I suspect he just flipped through a book and pointed at a few of them to include in his various X-Force offices.  His characterization of Monet St. Croix was way off too.  However, the plot has a clear direction and focus, it took the X-Men to places they hadn't been before, and it made them cool again.  Important.

Claremont, on the other hand, has had so many false starts and wasted chances, so many useless storylines, it's no wonder they gave the X-Men to Morrison.  They were a mess.  Look at them by the end of Revolution.  Piled on by wave after wave of vague, meaningless teams of bad-guys who the X-Men themselves barely gave half a damn about while they were fighting them.

And what did he do when he got them back from him?  Go right back to where he left off.  In fact, he never really stopped.  The only vaguely interesting villain he created in his entire time back was Vargas, and he spent thirty issues ignoring him after Rogue beat him, never to be mentioned again until he was one-offed by the Marauders (off-panel, no less).

I'm also going on record to say that the only reason he used X-23 was because she was a spunky teen bad-ass.  I mean, look what he did to Kitty in Forever.  If that's not at least halfway Laura Kinney, I must be out of my mind. 

On the subject of newly created characters, who actually used the ones either of them created after they left?  Well, Vargas was killed off-panel by Carey.  And... help me out here, 'cause I don't know any more.  On the other side of things, Beak played a role in Exiles.  Angel Salvadore was used multiple times.  Cassandra Nova played a big role in Astonishing.  Kid Omega has come back again and again.  The Stepford Cuckoos are now practically a X-Universe mainstay.  Kick/Sublime was revisited again and again.  I've never seen anyone bother drawing Slipstream, Thunderbird III, or Vange Whedon in the background on Utopia, but I've seen Ernst and Martha over and over. 

I agree with Blackcyclops re: The Dream. Claremont inherited the X-Men and ran with it, did some amazing things, but his time had long since come to a close when the 90's began. I liked a lot of his ideas during the last couple years of his run but this is not amazing stuff on a weekly basis. Claremont's work this past decade has been embarrassing across the board with the exception of X-Men Forever which as a whole is rather engaging for what it is.

I will never understand Morrison-bashing. He saved the X-Men. Nobody had done anything interesting with the team since Claremont took them to Australia. I'm inclined to say that when people say Morrison didn't write/get the X-Men, they mean he didn't write them like they were in the 80's or 90's. Good.

Originally posted by Sabin I will never understand Morrison-bashing. He saved the X-Men. Nobody had done anything interesting with the team since Claremont took them to Australia. I'm inclined to say that when people say Morrison didn't write/get the X-Men, they mean he didn't write them like they were in the 80's or 90's. Good.

That is pretty much what I take from it.  Some saw the changes he made as logical evolutions of the X-men, others saw it as a drastic departure from what they loved about the X-Men.   Morrison just wrote the X-Men differently for those fans who found themselves not caring about the X-Men anymore.

That's a pretty flamey statement, don't you think,JanO?  I think we all care about the X-Men here.  We're posting to UXM.net, right?  I certainly do; it's the only comic family I make sure I read every month.  I've read them since the mid-80s.  And I love what Morrison did for them.  We obviously have differing opinions, but I don't think it's fair for you to infer that one, our like of Morrison doesn't make sense, or two, we don't actually care about the X-Men.  Both are bullcrap statements to make.  

Originally posted by EphemeristX That's a pretty flamey statement, don't you think,JanO?  I think we all care about the X-Men here.  We're posting to UXM.net, right?  I certainly do; it's the only comic family I make sure I read every month.  I've read them since the mid-80s.  And I love what Morrison did for them.  We obviously have differing opinions, but I don't think it's fair for you to infer that one, our like of Morrison doesn't make sense, or two, we don't actually care about the X-Men.  Both are bullcrap statements to make.