Brian Wilkinson
Apr 19, 2002, 04:37 pm
In what is to be the first of many, X-FAN PROUDLY PRESENTS:
<center><a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/temp/roundtable2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/temp/roundtable2.jpg" align=middle width=250 alt="X-Fan Roundtable Logo"></a></center>
The X-Fan Roundtable is an organized conversation between the staff, moderators, and posters. The goal is to highlight important events both in the X-Men series of comic books as well as important issues dealing with the comics industry today. Though the main topic of conversation (as well as the participants) will vary with each instalment, fans can look forward to interesting and insightful comments and thoughts about the books we have all come to love.
Look for future installments of the X-Fan Roundtable to include guest appearances by artists, writers, editors, and the many wonderful people who contribute to the ongoing success of X-Fan!
Remember, all of the following discussions are the opinions of the individual X-Fan Roundtable members and do not necessarily reflect that of X-Fan. Feel free to respond to the board, but keep your comments and opinions respectful as the X-Fan Roundtable members themselves have done.
For our first X-Fan Roundtable discussion, we will be focusing on the three core X-Men titles, namely New X-Men, Uncanny X-Men, and X-Treme X-Men and the impact the latest ‘evolution’ of the titles has had on its audience. Created in 1963, the X-Men was not the biggest sensation to have come out of comic books. Overshadowed by series such as Spider-Man, The Fantastic Four, and The Avengers, X-Men was a series that barely avoided cancellation over the years. It wasn’t until a young writer named Chris Claremont came onto the series and introduced the All-New, All-Different Uncanny X-Men in 1974 featuring characters such as Colossus, Nightcrawler, Storm, and Wolverine that the comic world really began to sit up and take notice. Over the next 17 years, Chris Claremont would introduce many of the characters who are still the foundation on which the New X-Men of today stand. Since Claremont left the series in 1991, writers such as Scott Lobdell, Fabian Niceiza, Steven Seagle, Alan Davis, Joe Casey, and Grant Morrison have teamed up with artists like Adam Kubert, Andy Kubert, Chris Bachalo, Joe Madureira, and Lenil Francis Yu have all helped keep X-Men at the top of the sales charts month after month, and year after year. Less than one year ago, a revamp of the two core titles was made to help the X-Men evolve into a comic book more suitable for the audiences now reading it. A third core title, X-Treme X-Men by legend Chris Claremont was introduced and millions of fans the world over got their first glimpse of the X-Men of today.
Still, one can’t help but wonder if this latest revamp is truly an evolution of the series. True, the situations are different, the costumes have improved, and the storytelling has greater depth, but how far can the series have truly evolved if it features the same characters that it has had since 1963? In a medium that allows its characters to age one year for every five in production, can the X-Men ever truly hope to evolve?
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/xtxmen010.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/xtxmen010t.jpg" align=left alt="X-Treme X-Men #10"></a>Our first panel of speakers includes X-Fan Staff writer/journalist, Brian E. Wilkinson, X-Fan co-Administrator Tom Toner a.k.a 2TUM, X-Fan Message Board Moderator Al Harahap aka Doop, X-Fan Reviewer Anthony Zisa, and regular X-Fan Message board poster, Neal Matthews aka Monolith.
As of this date (April 19, 2002), the creative teams for each series are: Joe Casey and Sean Phillips on Uncanny X-Men, Grant Morrison, Frank Quitely, Igor Kordey, and Ethan Van Sciver on New X-Men, and Chris Claremont and Salvador Larroca on X-Treme X-Men.
Without further ado, join the audience of the X-FAN ROUNDTABLE!
Question 1:
For a series that uses the word ‘evolution’ constantly in describing both the attributes of its characters as well as their role in the world around them, the cast is surprisingly stagnant. No serious line-up changes have been made in the 39 years The X-Men have been in existence. Revamps, creative team changes, and editorial decisions all revolve around maintaining the status quo. Is this a contradiction to the idea of evolution, or merely good marketing strategy? Conversely, would the series survive if an all-new cast were brought in to replace the current characters? Would it still have the same appeal?
Anthony: The books (and their central premise) claim to be about evolution, certainly. But for books about evolution, they have indeed remained rather stagnant over the years; even from the beginning of the first Chris Claremont run, when the weak Dark Phoenix retcon was forced on the creative team (*Dark Phoenix was at the time meant to be Jean Grey, but Marvel editorial liked the character too much and wanted a way to bring her back from the dead. Claremont had no intention of bringing her back to life*). The idea that characters can't die because it's bad business sense makes for bad creative sense. Books which couldn't stand for the main character to die are called solo books so I feel that ‘team’ books should not be held to certain line-ups. It invariably stifles creativity and the ability for a good story to be well told. Creative teams should not have to shy away from impactful, meaningful deaths.
The recent death of Colossus in Uncanny X-Men #390 is a prime example. He died saving mutant kind from the Legacy virus by injecting himself with a cure that required a living host to act as a catalyst and as a result his death was the culmination of a character arc put into motion almost eight years earlier. Meaningful. Even Psylocke's death in X-Treme X-Men #2, despite its shock trappings, was worthwhile as a wake-up call to teams which had been too complacent. Personally, I'd be more than happy if every character in the books and limbo took a nice, long dirt nap, because there's got to be an evolution of the books. The characters in the X-Men movie will always be available in back issues, trades and now in Ultimate X-Men (*which, for those of you who don’t know, is a new series that delivers a completely new take on the X-Men without the thirty-some years worth of continuity*). Let's see some new ideas, not the same stuff we've been force-fed ad nauseam for years.
Neal: The problem nowadays is indeed that too many characters are left bouncing around in Limbo. Every mutant is somebody's favorite, and they would prefer the Limbo character over some new face. The problem is that creator’s tend to tailor-make mutants to fit their writing style, and once the creator leaves their pet project does as well. Characters like Lifeguard (X-Treme X-Men), Stacy X (Uncanny X-Men), and Xorn (New X-Men) don't have a clear future in the event of a creative team upheaval. Without new characters getting a solid foothold, writers must fall back on the staple characters: the original cast and the All-New, All-Different. Some members of the original roster DO need to be eliminated for good this time. Cyclops’s ‘death’ at the end of the Twelve storyline last year was a joke, and confusion still abounds as to why the X-Men thought him dead at all. The rumour is that Psylocke died because she became.... "too complicated" to effectively write. What does that make a character like Jean Grey who has been around for nearly forty years? If not for a preoccupation with the movie, Jean should be killed off for no other reason than to avoid the current confliction about whether to undo or simply ignore her history. In order to move forward and evolve the past needs to be cut off forcing new writers to think of lasting new characters instead of the flash-in-the-pan mutants currently being focused on.
And for God's sake, would someone kill Xavier already?
Al: Neal makes a valid point about the willingness of oncoming creative teams in letting go--or even ignoring--any relatively new characters introduced to the X-fold. Yes, the burden then lies on the older, more established characters to keep the torch lit but if they were done away in the first place there would be no old, tired, characters to fall back on. I think the problem slapped on X-editors lies in maintaining a balance between creative integrity and bringing in financial results to keep the company afloat--after all, the X-stable is Marvel's golden child. However, as the characters barely age, even the older characters are still fairly fresh. To new readers especially, these characters still are.
At times, it seems to me as if the established characters are being used more for marketing purposes rather than to appease fans as they seem to keep other books or companies from stealing the limelight of the comic industry.
There is also the aforementioned creative integrity to maintain. If what happens now on a regular basis (such as) recycled plots or continuity mix-ups then the characters involved should be killed off, or at the very least, retired. Since killing off fan favourites too frequently has proven to cause fan uproar (which is often bad for business), then retiring characters would be a logical move as it conforms to the "live happily ever after" cliché of any narrative form--thus allowing the exit of these characters to be more satisfying for loyal long-time readers.
Tom: I’m gonna have to disagree with Al on his point of retirement. Scott and Jean tried to retire, but were quickly brought back. There never truly is "retirement" for the X-Men. As the old saying goes, "once you’re X, you're always X". For a creator, he or she could do two things: either uses the former creator's new character, OR get someone out of retirement and bring him or her back. As for me personally, I think the ‘Fab Five’ (Cyclops, Phoenix, Beast, Archangel, and Iceman… the original group of X-Men who debuted in 1964) need to go away. There can never truly be evolution if they are constantly being brought back into the fold. The whole basis of evolution is to change, to move on, and to adapt to the world around you. You can't do that if you use the same characters over and over, especially when these characters have been created back in the 60s. I think they need to follow the path of the one true X-Men role model, Thunderbird, and die and never be brought back to life like the way that they have had three members of the Fab Five die and come back. (*Thunderbird died shortly after the monumental Giant-Size X-Men #1 in 1974*)
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/previews/0602/uxmen_407.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/previews/0602/uxmen_407t.jpg" align=right alt="Uncanny X-Men #407 preview"></a>Brian: In regards to Tom’s question, would it perhaps help if the original X-Men were to actively start families with their children becoming the ‘New X-Men’? That would just seem to make more sense to me.
When I read the X-Men, it’s largely because I’ve come to identify with the characters and their ‘lives’ much in the same way people follow soap operas on a daily basis. I have certain expectations of the stories, what the characters will do, and faith that each story will leave them all relatively unharmed. Now this idea makes sense in a world that has come to love and support super-heroes as the thought of failure against evil becomes unbearable. Superman, for instance, was a creation of a post-World War I depression era in which people all over the world needed an icon of strength and hope to look up to. Superman, for his part, could not very well fail the people he protects so he must always win against evil. He is an icon of strength, solidarity, and freedom. Superman had to be (and still is) a constant part of daily life.
Now we get into the subject of evolution, and comic history has shown that in order for a hero to be relevant that character must be a reflection of the needs of society today. Superman, for instance, would be laughed at if introduced the same way he was 70 years ago as the culture today is vastly different. The X-Men, on the other hand, are a community of characters all fighting for the same goal, and are therefore not an individual icon but a collective. So why the SAME five to ten characters? From a marketing perspective, the X-Men are a well-oiled money making machine, but from the reader perspective, it becomes borderline ridiculous to expect them all to have survived all these years, much less with the rather stagnant structure the team has embraced. Why not yet ANOTHER all-new, all-different team? Isn’t it about time? Have someone like Cannonball lead, with Husk, Jubilee, Sunspot, Longshot, Maverick, or any other combination of characters new and old? Why not have an X-Men Evolution? Are the X-Men even relevant to this culture, as they stand today?
Anthony: Money. It's just simply money.
Brian: Boiled down to the essentials, I guess it is.
Anthony: But to tell the same stories with the same characters with all the back story is silly and obtuse to new readers. They need to Smallville (*a new tv series featuring the early days of Clark Kent before he became Superman*) it up.
Start from the ground up every ten years or so. New volume, perhaps same characters, different permutations and styles.
Brian: So, you think the answer lies in a series such as Ultimate X-Men?
Anthony: Yes, I do.
Tom: The problem is, people like what they are used to. You can't have an "all new all new all different X-Men" team. Its just not gonna work. People just don't like change.
Al: It's not just money. It's fear—fear of letting go what has been comfortable for a long time.
Anthony: I'd prefer for the Ultimate Universe to supersede the 616 Universe. (*616 is the numerical designation that Marvel Comics has given to the universe in which its characters reside. The number is a product of an old storyline that no one really remembers*)
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/uxmen404.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/uxmen404t.jpg" align=left alt="Uncanny X-Men #404"></a>Anthony: The 616 is a joke, because they have characters like Chamber (Uncanny X-Men) who is missing half of his face and chest due to an accident he had when his powers first manifested themselves and who is the perfect teenage experience analogue, and he's not being focused on in his book. He's just the newbie, essentially. That's a shame. The base idea of the book is a school teaching the ultimate analogue for the strangeness of teens and the hatred of human nature should be focused on. New students as characters, with older characters in teacher roles.
Question 2:
It is the necessity of evolution that these books change to remain relevant for those reading them today. But have the X-Men titles become better for the change, or have they lost the magic that millions of fans have come to embrace over the years?
Death, sex, and strife have come front and centre in a realistic way, but does this mean the idea of the super-hero has become archaic? Are the X-Men still heroes?
Neal: Super-heroes will never become archaic. They, as a group, are cultural icons. I found it absurd when rumours flew around a few months ago about de-costuming heroes like Spider-Man. That's an anathema to me: it's just not a conceivable course of action. A lot of "modern day" comic writers bring comic characters TOO close to reality. Super-heroes and super villains should remain larger-than-life icons. Certainly, we should be able to identify with them: that's part of the magic. But hitting to close to reality isn't following how comic books should work. Writer David Tischman's Cable run personifies that. His use of REAL terrorist organizations and situations is wrong in my opinion. No matter how close to "reality" comics get, some lines shouldn't be crossed. Comic books are still fantasy. Stick with your AIMs, your Hydras, and your Secret Empires. Let the heroes battle the villains. Let the real world deal with reality.
The current X-Titles are trying too hard to appeal to new audiences, whether they are the youngest innocents or the most seasoned fiends of sex and violence. Instead of trying to appeal to a variety of tiny groups, they should concentrate more on telling stories well-written enough to appeal to a mass audience.
Al: {Slaps Neal} I disagree with the sentiment that comics should remain a purely fantastical narrative. Yes, as an average fan boy, what drew me to comics was the extraordinary and out-of-this-world. However, I think Marvel's venture into the more realistic aspects of a superhero (i.e. their private lives and real life problems) is ultimately what keeps the average reader from dumping colourful spandex-wearing characters when he/she matures. I think the current evolution of comics is a natural one because of two reasons: from a canonical perspective, superheroes grew out of a need to battle the enemies of war, not only as propaganda, but more importantly to build morale of anyone willing to read. This function of comics--especially super-heroes--has rescinded almost into obsoletion. What they stand for now, if anything, is to set examples of the personal lives of the readers--hence the need for them to evolve into something more realistic and relatable. Secondly, from the point of view of those in the industry, especially readers, it's a natural progression for comics to move from an niche hobby for "geeks" into something that's less ignominious.
Tom: I think Neal has a point. I think the point of comic books is to stay in the fantasy aspect and not touch up on reality. If Marvel messes with the wrong person, they may be looking at a lawsuit for defamation of character (I hope that’s it). And none of us want Marvel to go down, especially when they are trying to get back up after fighting bankruptcy for the past few years. For me, I think they are overdoing it with all the sex, violence, gore, death, etc. that permeates the books today. I think the books were doing fine on their own without all the sex that has been brought into titles like X-Force, New X-Men and Uncanny X-Men. Problem is, Marvel can use the money and we've all learned in Economics that SEX SELLS. As for the Death/gore/violence issue? Sure, i like it as much as the next guy, but sometimes they go a little too far (such as the mass extinction of the population of Genosha). There's a certain line i think that does not need to be crossed to sell comics, and Marvel seems to have jumped over that line.
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/uxmen405.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/uxmen405t.jpg" align=right alt="Uncanny X-Men #405"></a>Brian: What I miss, in a bizarre way, are the costumes. Yeah, they were ridiculous, they would look terrible in real life, and were likely cumbersome to work in. Yet something in the colours and all the flair represented heroism. While it is true that heroes walk among us (fireman, police, teachers, etc) those gaudy outfits were something that set the heroes apart from the crowd. The uniform is a symbol to uphold, much like spandex is a way for a hero to stand apart in the crowd. The X-Men are more realistic, gritty, and ‘adult’ now than they have ever been. Part of this is the result of a culture where nudity and sexuality are thrust into our faces at every turn, and part of it is that this kind of thing sells. Another part of it is that in abandoning the costumes, the X-Men have come about as close to ‘real life’ as they can without leaving the page. They lack the heroic look that sets them apart. They save the world, true, but the individual lives are lost in the shuffle. Spider-Man still captures muggers, the Avengers work crowd control, and the police put away the bad guys. What do the X-Men REALLY contribute to the world? They want peace and acceptance, and for that they fight tirelessly, but they are hidden in shadows so much that people barely know they exist. Are the X-Men really heroes in this regard?
Anthony: Okay. This topic has drifted a little further away from the origination point than I expected. So let me address that first.
First off, I believe, firmly, that the evolution of the X-Men books is necessary to their survival. The superhero, in the original conception, is essentially obsolete. Not the idea of fighting for a better world -- that's timeless. However, many of the trappings of the superhero genre are outmoded. The spandex. The diabolical super villians. The super-powered fantasy. It's not connecting anymore. That's why the medium is dying.
There are certain primal forces within the superhero narrative that do work with the public and mainstream. Look at the success of The Matrix, which co-opted some of the fetishism, the violence, the fight for a finer world, and made it relevant. I think books like Cable are a step in the right direction. The battle Marvel needs to fight is for the teen audience. They need to hook a new audience, and the numbers just aren't there for simplistic bash’em-up romps through Midtown New York anymore.
Teens are cerebral. They're plugged in. They care about what's happening in the world. They require stimuli, be it visual or cerebral. They don't want to be talked down to, and if they are, they'll leave. Shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer are wonderful at taking what makes superheroes work, and putting it into a context that teens identify with. The isolation. The angst. The metaphor. Teens want to see superheroes fighting for a finer world, but they don't want to see the umpteenth invasion from another dimension. Look what does well in the market place -- it's all much, much more down to earth. Treating comics as essentially a children's medium and never evolving the meaning and definition of super-hero beyond the earliest definition is what is going to destroy the medium.
Brian: Teens are also tricky to hook as their interests change weekly. How do you hook an audience on a month-by-month medium that costs more than they might be willing to spend? Could Marvel perhaps employ better marketing strategies?
Anthony: Yes. Definately.
Brian : TV ads? Internet ads? Ads before movies based on their properties? Ads mixed in with their cartoon shows? More comics in mainstream book stores?
Al : More comics in any stores.
Anthony : See, the problem is that comics ARE expensive. And they're small. Charts show that graphic novels and trade paperbacks do well in books stores. The industry needs to start moving to an all trade paperback model.
Brian : That's true, but who is buying these trades? Pretty much the same people buying the ongoing stuff as well. I know I have been buying both lately, but I've been hooked for almost twenty years. They don't need to market to me.
Anthony : I know the prices come out the same in the end, but people want more story, not piecemeal. Piecemeal only really works on television, and that's because it's free.
Brian : So, do you think the solution Joe Quesada (Marvel’s Editor-In-Chief) has come up with to expand these books to as much as 24 issues a year is a way to keep interest high?
Neal : No, that's the way to lose readers by the thousands who have limited budgets.
Tom : i like the idea of 24 issues...but it will kill readership in the long run. That’s just too much money to spend in a year to follow a comic.
Anthony : Not to mention that the impact is diluted. Marvel needs to start trail blazing, and the way might be to stop with the singles, slowly but surely. Start with not okaying any more ongoing series, and turning ideas for mini's into original graphic novels.
Al : I agree, but the "ongoing epic" feel of any comic book would be hampered. Not that I think that's a bad thing--it's just a lot more difficult to convey some sort of timeline through a set of graphic novels rather than a monthly.
Question 3:
Each team is touted as being distinct from one another. How do you compare their objectives in general, and specifically? How do you compare the tone or "feel" between each book? Do each of their respective directions and tone fit into place (ie. connect)?
Al: I’d say that New X-Men has obviously taken the role left void by the cancellation of Generation X. You might even blame New X-Men for the cancellation, if you were so inclined. The educating aspect of the X-Men as a central theme cannot be disregarded; it's an ongoing part, mostly as a breeding farm for any potential main characters to be used in the future. X-Treme X-Men, on the other hand, has split off from the main team and can't even be called a part of Xavier's posse anymore. I don't even know how it's justified as a core book, if not for the main characters calling themselves ‘X-Men’ and featuring staple characters from the series. Nevertheless, it has a distinct direction and purpose. And then we have Uncanny X-Men, which for all purposes and intent, I do not see the need for. To me, it's a book that lets us know what is happening to the characters involved, but I don't see how they place in the big picture, especially with the main cast of New X-Men doubling responsibility as teachers AND as a "strike force" when needed. To compare their contribution as a whole, in the past, the X-books were never that much different compared to what we're getting now. Ever since the reboot and mass shuffling of characters, they've certainly set out on their own. I see the X-lore as complementary parts of a single whole, yet I just don't see how Uncanny X-Men really fits into it. Is it a great book? Does it have great characterization and stories? Yes, on both accounts. I just don't see how it pays its dues to the overall epic.
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/uxmen402.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/uxmen402t.jpg" align=left alt="Uncanny X-Men #402"></a>Tom: I agree with all the points that Al has pointed out in the they are very different books. BUT to me they are all the same. In each of the core books, it’s a group of X-Men that battle an enemy. In each of the books, they've recruited at least one new original character as a member and the villains that the X-Men have faced are all new x-villains. So for me, the inside in the core books is showing that they are all essentially the same book. Different characters, yes, but the same structures and similar plots.
Brian: Each book has a different feel, a different ‘tone’ if you will yet none of them seem to be fully the ‘X-Men’ I know and love. X-Treme X-Men has the bright colors, the vibrant villains, and the classic good vs. evil angle… New X-Men (finally) employs the idea that Xavier’s is a SCHOOL where mutants are meant to be trained in order to be safe for their own benefit and the larger society. Uncanny X-Men is fairly gritty (though that may just be the art style used) and tackles mutant issues on a global scale.
Boiled down to the essentials, here is how I feel. New X-Men is shocking, disturbing, and dark… and I’m surprised at how compelling it is. I am totally drawn in by the characters, events, and premise. The only thing I dislike is how Wolverine more resembles his ‘movie’ counterpart and is more aloof than ever. X-Treme X-Men is classic X-Men at its best and brightest. Claremont writes these characters with an energy and caring that is often missing from comics these days. Yet when you compare it to the ‘realistic’ version Grant Morrison offers, you see that there is still room for growth. To make the perfect X-Men book, have Claremont and Morrison get married and have a child. Uncanny X-Men, on the other hand, is not doing much for me. Granted, Joe Casey brought back a bevy of characters from limbo, but none of them are doing anything really interesting, nor have there been any personal developments amongst the characters. The goal of this squad isn’t clear, their ties to the X-Men almost non-existent, and the inconsistent art month after month makes this a mess of a title. I won’t lay the blame on any one person, but I will say that this has suffered the worst treatment of the ‘evolution.’
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/xtxmen012.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/xtxmen012t.jpg" align=right alt="X-Treme X-Men #12"></a>Anthony: I personally think that it's wonderful that they've finally split the X-Men into teams with their own distinct feel and objective. For too many years, it was essentially just X-Men bi-monthly. The books had no reason for existing separately.
Now, there's a distinct raison d'être for each book. The tones have been discussed already, and I agree with each assessment. They broke the three books into parts of what the X-Men stood for -- school, strike force, soap opera. On the other hand, I think there is no need for three core books. There's not even a reason for two core books save for the ultimate deciding factor: money. It's easy to reap the benefits of milking your cash cow bone dry, but I think that in the end, this business practice is what's going to destroy the books. There should be one book: Uncanny X-Men. It should focus on the mission statement of the original book, which was a school for the "strangest teens of all.” The soap opera aspect is fine, and so is the strike force aspect, but they should never super-cede the main school aspect. The book has to move even more away from the twenty year old story models and styles, and update for the new. Change or die.
Neal: I agree with Brian that despite the variety of concepts being used by the core titles today, none of them feels like the one, "true" X-Men. X-Treme X-Men is nothing more than an attempt to give the readers Claremont, no matter what he does. His stated purpose for getting Storm's team out of the mansion was a search for the diaries, something that has barely been touched on throughout the last year of stories. Stuff happens, but nothing seems to further his goal, besides the random appearance of a diary here and there, through no effort of the team.
New X-Men is interesting in theory, but the execution comes across a little flat to me. The idea of secondary mutations is interesting, yet it currently feels like nothing more than an excuse to give Emma (aka The White Queen) a random new power. Beast's transformation and his coping with the situation is handled brilliantly, yet the ‘litter box’ he was shown to have had was a joke of a plot point. Morrison is trying for too much too fast with Cassandra Nova, the devastation of Genosha, the U-Men, the Shi'ar Empire, the school, and everything else he has on the fire. I refuse here to even acknowledge the Jean/Phoenix fiasco taking root (*Morrison has hinted that the missing ‘Phoenix Force’ may be returning to once again take root in Jean’s body*). Morrison's ideas, while intriguing, are beginning to dull in this "shock after shock" style.
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/xtxmen011.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/xtxmen011t.jpg" align=left alt="X-Treme X-Men #11"></a>One thing you can say about Uncanny X-Men for sure is that it exists. The idea of a leadership team has been impossible for some people to conceive, yet I find it refreshing. The presence of so many Limbo characters (from the ‘X-Corps’ story arc) is nice as well. However, the problem I have with Uncanny X-Men, indeed with all the core titles, is an utter lack of characterization. The X-Corps are defined by little more than a power and a personality trait. X-Treme X-Men is flat-out horrible when it comes to characterization, made all the worse by the fact that half the cast (Sage, Thunderbird III, Lifeguard, Slipstream, and Red Lotus) are completely devoid of any character at all. New X-Men does a little better than the others in terms of dealing with personalities, if you ignore the 150 cast members in the background. These larger casts end up being nothing more than two or three characters in the spotlight, with the rest just being window dressing, so the writer can lay claim on the mutant in case they get an idea later on.
Brian: My feeling is, not so much that the books need the same goal or purpose, but they should at least share a sense of unity or ‘awareness’ of what the other parts of the team is doing. Is Claremont the only one who pays attention?
Neal: I don't think unity between the core titles is necessary at all. In order to survive as separate titles, they need to remain separate.
Anthony: I don’t like that he keeps trying to tie Grant's ideas into his book, via Destiny’s diaries (*which are used to fortell the future events the X-Men are likely to face*).
Brian: Separate goals, separate casts, separate characters, yes, but they are part of the SAME team. Shouldn't they show a degree of awareness?
Tom: Well, Joe and Grant went through that whole thing about "superconsistency" and about not bumping into each other's book. If they go back on their word, then what does their word mean? Nothing.
Anthony: Let Morrison explain his plot points, don't feel the need to explain them for him. He's a big boy.
Brian: You don't have to work in all the details or any of the story elements, but even a box of dialogue lets readers know that they are connected.
Neal: But why should they be connected? Core titles can remain apart while still all dealing with the central theme of "The X-Men".
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/previews/XXM013_COV.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/previews/XXM013_COVt.jpg" align=right alt="X-Treme X-Men #13 cover"></a>Brian: Well, they are all X-MEN. Uncanny X-Men and New X-Men both supposedly operate out of the same home base. X-Treme X-Men is essentially an extended field trip. They are ONE team. Shouldn’t the MAJOR events in one mildly affect the characters in another?
Neal: The teams do NOT operate out of the same base. This was established when Stacy X got a room at the mansion in Uncanny X-Men, but it was said by Archangel that they wouldn't be spending much time there. I think they are based out of Worthington Industries
Anthony: The books have to disconnect because otherwise, they're just one book. With the three distinct tones, that would be one disjointed book.
Al: I think what's pulling fans into a demand of more continuity between the three X-books is the existing relationships between the characters. If it were only, say, Storm to have gone out on her own and recruited newbies, there wouldn't be a demand for it.
Anthony: True, but let's face it. X-Treme X-Men exists on a large suspension of disbelief that the world's greatest telepath with an amped up Cerebra (a mutant locating device) can’t manage to locate the away team.
Question 4:
The Final Vote… which title is the best, and why?
Tom: The art in both New X-Men and Uncanny X-Men are really bad (Uncanny X-Men especially). And story wise, New X-Men and X-Treme X-Men are neck and neck. So the deciding factor on those books is in the art, which X-Treme X-Mendoes a better job of. So for me, it’s X-Treme X-Men.
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/newxmen-123.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/newxmen-123t.jpg" align=left alt="New X-Men #123"></a>Brian: The best art goes to Salvador Larroca. He has never missed an issue of X-Treme X-Men (including the annual), and the lack of inks makes his visuals stand out against the crowd. The best writing is a toss up between Morrison and Claremont as I like elements in both books... but overall, I'd say that for pure enjoyment that X-Treme X-Men gets my vote.
Anthony: Morrison's work on New X-Men has been paired with three artists who "get" his plots, and are with actual technical storytelling skills. Each has a knack for panel composition, whereas Casey ran out of the gate on Uncanny X-Men with an artist like Ian Churchill who really only seemed to know how to pose his characters. That really bugged me because Casey is such a talented writer. In other words, New X-Men is my favorite.
Neal: I'd have to say New X-Men is the best title at the moment, but only by default. I was never a big fan of Claremont's classic X-Men. It was the early 90's stuff that got me interested in the series in the first place. His stuff nowadays is very unappealing. Claremont seems to be a very prideful and stubborn writer: he has had great difficulty acknowledging anything he didn't do himself. This causes many problems, considering he's been gone for ten rather eventful years. As a writer, Claremont is out of touch with the way the industry has developed, both within the Marvel Universe and without. Larroca might get my vote for best art, except that art has TWO purposes: to look good AND to tell the story properly. Uncanny X-Men is the most flat in characterizations, and of the three major story arcs, only ‘X-Corps’ has been appealing to me.
Al: I don't mean to be difficult (*yes, he does*), but I just can't choose one single book over the other two. Plot-wise, I'd say New X-Men hands down. Grant Morrison brings in an unpredictable edge to the storylines and events (bar the Phoenix resurgence). On the front of characterization, however, I'm surprising myself by saying Joe Casey has done the best job. And as stated by Neal, Claremont isn't really advancing the older characters, nor doing justice to the newer. Whereas Casey has done a great job with both the main cast, and the supporting cast. As for art, I have to go with X-Treme X-Men, but NOT because I think Larroca is the best artist. On the contrary, I find his work a little cartoony, albeit dynamic compared to the others. So, I guess I’m split fairly evenly three ways.
Well, there you have it. By a slim margin, New X-Men is the favorite of this X-Fan Roundtable debate, with X-Treme X-Men hot on its heels as Uncanny X-Men waits in the wings for its chance to shine!
We, the members of the X-Fan Roundtable would like to thank you all for joining us today and we hope to hear some feedback so please don’t hesitate to reply! Join us next time for another in-depth look at your favorite x-titles and the men and women responsible for creating them!
Look for future installments of the X-Fan Roundtable to include guest appearances by artists, writers, editors, and the many wonderful people who contribute to the ongoing success of X-Fan!
Remember, your donations via PayPal (http://www.paypal.com) and your purchases of any of these titles through X-World Comics (http://x-worldcomics.com) can all help to ensure the continued success of X-Fan!
<center><a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/temp/roundtable2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/temp/roundtable2.jpg" align=middle width=250 alt="X-Fan Roundtable Logo"></a></center>
The X-Fan Roundtable is an organized conversation between the staff, moderators, and posters. The goal is to highlight important events both in the X-Men series of comic books as well as important issues dealing with the comics industry today. Though the main topic of conversation (as well as the participants) will vary with each instalment, fans can look forward to interesting and insightful comments and thoughts about the books we have all come to love.
Look for future installments of the X-Fan Roundtable to include guest appearances by artists, writers, editors, and the many wonderful people who contribute to the ongoing success of X-Fan!
Remember, all of the following discussions are the opinions of the individual X-Fan Roundtable members and do not necessarily reflect that of X-Fan. Feel free to respond to the board, but keep your comments and opinions respectful as the X-Fan Roundtable members themselves have done.
For our first X-Fan Roundtable discussion, we will be focusing on the three core X-Men titles, namely New X-Men, Uncanny X-Men, and X-Treme X-Men and the impact the latest ‘evolution’ of the titles has had on its audience. Created in 1963, the X-Men was not the biggest sensation to have come out of comic books. Overshadowed by series such as Spider-Man, The Fantastic Four, and The Avengers, X-Men was a series that barely avoided cancellation over the years. It wasn’t until a young writer named Chris Claremont came onto the series and introduced the All-New, All-Different Uncanny X-Men in 1974 featuring characters such as Colossus, Nightcrawler, Storm, and Wolverine that the comic world really began to sit up and take notice. Over the next 17 years, Chris Claremont would introduce many of the characters who are still the foundation on which the New X-Men of today stand. Since Claremont left the series in 1991, writers such as Scott Lobdell, Fabian Niceiza, Steven Seagle, Alan Davis, Joe Casey, and Grant Morrison have teamed up with artists like Adam Kubert, Andy Kubert, Chris Bachalo, Joe Madureira, and Lenil Francis Yu have all helped keep X-Men at the top of the sales charts month after month, and year after year. Less than one year ago, a revamp of the two core titles was made to help the X-Men evolve into a comic book more suitable for the audiences now reading it. A third core title, X-Treme X-Men by legend Chris Claremont was introduced and millions of fans the world over got their first glimpse of the X-Men of today.
Still, one can’t help but wonder if this latest revamp is truly an evolution of the series. True, the situations are different, the costumes have improved, and the storytelling has greater depth, but how far can the series have truly evolved if it features the same characters that it has had since 1963? In a medium that allows its characters to age one year for every five in production, can the X-Men ever truly hope to evolve?
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/xtxmen010.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/xtxmen010t.jpg" align=left alt="X-Treme X-Men #10"></a>Our first panel of speakers includes X-Fan Staff writer/journalist, Brian E. Wilkinson, X-Fan co-Administrator Tom Toner a.k.a 2TUM, X-Fan Message Board Moderator Al Harahap aka Doop, X-Fan Reviewer Anthony Zisa, and regular X-Fan Message board poster, Neal Matthews aka Monolith.
As of this date (April 19, 2002), the creative teams for each series are: Joe Casey and Sean Phillips on Uncanny X-Men, Grant Morrison, Frank Quitely, Igor Kordey, and Ethan Van Sciver on New X-Men, and Chris Claremont and Salvador Larroca on X-Treme X-Men.
Without further ado, join the audience of the X-FAN ROUNDTABLE!
Question 1:
For a series that uses the word ‘evolution’ constantly in describing both the attributes of its characters as well as their role in the world around them, the cast is surprisingly stagnant. No serious line-up changes have been made in the 39 years The X-Men have been in existence. Revamps, creative team changes, and editorial decisions all revolve around maintaining the status quo. Is this a contradiction to the idea of evolution, or merely good marketing strategy? Conversely, would the series survive if an all-new cast were brought in to replace the current characters? Would it still have the same appeal?
Anthony: The books (and their central premise) claim to be about evolution, certainly. But for books about evolution, they have indeed remained rather stagnant over the years; even from the beginning of the first Chris Claremont run, when the weak Dark Phoenix retcon was forced on the creative team (*Dark Phoenix was at the time meant to be Jean Grey, but Marvel editorial liked the character too much and wanted a way to bring her back from the dead. Claremont had no intention of bringing her back to life*). The idea that characters can't die because it's bad business sense makes for bad creative sense. Books which couldn't stand for the main character to die are called solo books so I feel that ‘team’ books should not be held to certain line-ups. It invariably stifles creativity and the ability for a good story to be well told. Creative teams should not have to shy away from impactful, meaningful deaths.
The recent death of Colossus in Uncanny X-Men #390 is a prime example. He died saving mutant kind from the Legacy virus by injecting himself with a cure that required a living host to act as a catalyst and as a result his death was the culmination of a character arc put into motion almost eight years earlier. Meaningful. Even Psylocke's death in X-Treme X-Men #2, despite its shock trappings, was worthwhile as a wake-up call to teams which had been too complacent. Personally, I'd be more than happy if every character in the books and limbo took a nice, long dirt nap, because there's got to be an evolution of the books. The characters in the X-Men movie will always be available in back issues, trades and now in Ultimate X-Men (*which, for those of you who don’t know, is a new series that delivers a completely new take on the X-Men without the thirty-some years worth of continuity*). Let's see some new ideas, not the same stuff we've been force-fed ad nauseam for years.
Neal: The problem nowadays is indeed that too many characters are left bouncing around in Limbo. Every mutant is somebody's favorite, and they would prefer the Limbo character over some new face. The problem is that creator’s tend to tailor-make mutants to fit their writing style, and once the creator leaves their pet project does as well. Characters like Lifeguard (X-Treme X-Men), Stacy X (Uncanny X-Men), and Xorn (New X-Men) don't have a clear future in the event of a creative team upheaval. Without new characters getting a solid foothold, writers must fall back on the staple characters: the original cast and the All-New, All-Different. Some members of the original roster DO need to be eliminated for good this time. Cyclops’s ‘death’ at the end of the Twelve storyline last year was a joke, and confusion still abounds as to why the X-Men thought him dead at all. The rumour is that Psylocke died because she became.... "too complicated" to effectively write. What does that make a character like Jean Grey who has been around for nearly forty years? If not for a preoccupation with the movie, Jean should be killed off for no other reason than to avoid the current confliction about whether to undo or simply ignore her history. In order to move forward and evolve the past needs to be cut off forcing new writers to think of lasting new characters instead of the flash-in-the-pan mutants currently being focused on.
And for God's sake, would someone kill Xavier already?
Al: Neal makes a valid point about the willingness of oncoming creative teams in letting go--or even ignoring--any relatively new characters introduced to the X-fold. Yes, the burden then lies on the older, more established characters to keep the torch lit but if they were done away in the first place there would be no old, tired, characters to fall back on. I think the problem slapped on X-editors lies in maintaining a balance between creative integrity and bringing in financial results to keep the company afloat--after all, the X-stable is Marvel's golden child. However, as the characters barely age, even the older characters are still fairly fresh. To new readers especially, these characters still are.
At times, it seems to me as if the established characters are being used more for marketing purposes rather than to appease fans as they seem to keep other books or companies from stealing the limelight of the comic industry.
There is also the aforementioned creative integrity to maintain. If what happens now on a regular basis (such as) recycled plots or continuity mix-ups then the characters involved should be killed off, or at the very least, retired. Since killing off fan favourites too frequently has proven to cause fan uproar (which is often bad for business), then retiring characters would be a logical move as it conforms to the "live happily ever after" cliché of any narrative form--thus allowing the exit of these characters to be more satisfying for loyal long-time readers.
Tom: I’m gonna have to disagree with Al on his point of retirement. Scott and Jean tried to retire, but were quickly brought back. There never truly is "retirement" for the X-Men. As the old saying goes, "once you’re X, you're always X". For a creator, he or she could do two things: either uses the former creator's new character, OR get someone out of retirement and bring him or her back. As for me personally, I think the ‘Fab Five’ (Cyclops, Phoenix, Beast, Archangel, and Iceman… the original group of X-Men who debuted in 1964) need to go away. There can never truly be evolution if they are constantly being brought back into the fold. The whole basis of evolution is to change, to move on, and to adapt to the world around you. You can't do that if you use the same characters over and over, especially when these characters have been created back in the 60s. I think they need to follow the path of the one true X-Men role model, Thunderbird, and die and never be brought back to life like the way that they have had three members of the Fab Five die and come back. (*Thunderbird died shortly after the monumental Giant-Size X-Men #1 in 1974*)
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/previews/0602/uxmen_407.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/previews/0602/uxmen_407t.jpg" align=right alt="Uncanny X-Men #407 preview"></a>Brian: In regards to Tom’s question, would it perhaps help if the original X-Men were to actively start families with their children becoming the ‘New X-Men’? That would just seem to make more sense to me.
When I read the X-Men, it’s largely because I’ve come to identify with the characters and their ‘lives’ much in the same way people follow soap operas on a daily basis. I have certain expectations of the stories, what the characters will do, and faith that each story will leave them all relatively unharmed. Now this idea makes sense in a world that has come to love and support super-heroes as the thought of failure against evil becomes unbearable. Superman, for instance, was a creation of a post-World War I depression era in which people all over the world needed an icon of strength and hope to look up to. Superman, for his part, could not very well fail the people he protects so he must always win against evil. He is an icon of strength, solidarity, and freedom. Superman had to be (and still is) a constant part of daily life.
Now we get into the subject of evolution, and comic history has shown that in order for a hero to be relevant that character must be a reflection of the needs of society today. Superman, for instance, would be laughed at if introduced the same way he was 70 years ago as the culture today is vastly different. The X-Men, on the other hand, are a community of characters all fighting for the same goal, and are therefore not an individual icon but a collective. So why the SAME five to ten characters? From a marketing perspective, the X-Men are a well-oiled money making machine, but from the reader perspective, it becomes borderline ridiculous to expect them all to have survived all these years, much less with the rather stagnant structure the team has embraced. Why not yet ANOTHER all-new, all-different team? Isn’t it about time? Have someone like Cannonball lead, with Husk, Jubilee, Sunspot, Longshot, Maverick, or any other combination of characters new and old? Why not have an X-Men Evolution? Are the X-Men even relevant to this culture, as they stand today?
Anthony: Money. It's just simply money.
Brian: Boiled down to the essentials, I guess it is.
Anthony: But to tell the same stories with the same characters with all the back story is silly and obtuse to new readers. They need to Smallville (*a new tv series featuring the early days of Clark Kent before he became Superman*) it up.
Start from the ground up every ten years or so. New volume, perhaps same characters, different permutations and styles.
Brian: So, you think the answer lies in a series such as Ultimate X-Men?
Anthony: Yes, I do.
Tom: The problem is, people like what they are used to. You can't have an "all new all new all different X-Men" team. Its just not gonna work. People just don't like change.
Al: It's not just money. It's fear—fear of letting go what has been comfortable for a long time.
Anthony: I'd prefer for the Ultimate Universe to supersede the 616 Universe. (*616 is the numerical designation that Marvel Comics has given to the universe in which its characters reside. The number is a product of an old storyline that no one really remembers*)
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/uxmen404.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/uxmen404t.jpg" align=left alt="Uncanny X-Men #404"></a>Anthony: The 616 is a joke, because they have characters like Chamber (Uncanny X-Men) who is missing half of his face and chest due to an accident he had when his powers first manifested themselves and who is the perfect teenage experience analogue, and he's not being focused on in his book. He's just the newbie, essentially. That's a shame. The base idea of the book is a school teaching the ultimate analogue for the strangeness of teens and the hatred of human nature should be focused on. New students as characters, with older characters in teacher roles.
Question 2:
It is the necessity of evolution that these books change to remain relevant for those reading them today. But have the X-Men titles become better for the change, or have they lost the magic that millions of fans have come to embrace over the years?
Death, sex, and strife have come front and centre in a realistic way, but does this mean the idea of the super-hero has become archaic? Are the X-Men still heroes?
Neal: Super-heroes will never become archaic. They, as a group, are cultural icons. I found it absurd when rumours flew around a few months ago about de-costuming heroes like Spider-Man. That's an anathema to me: it's just not a conceivable course of action. A lot of "modern day" comic writers bring comic characters TOO close to reality. Super-heroes and super villains should remain larger-than-life icons. Certainly, we should be able to identify with them: that's part of the magic. But hitting to close to reality isn't following how comic books should work. Writer David Tischman's Cable run personifies that. His use of REAL terrorist organizations and situations is wrong in my opinion. No matter how close to "reality" comics get, some lines shouldn't be crossed. Comic books are still fantasy. Stick with your AIMs, your Hydras, and your Secret Empires. Let the heroes battle the villains. Let the real world deal with reality.
The current X-Titles are trying too hard to appeal to new audiences, whether they are the youngest innocents or the most seasoned fiends of sex and violence. Instead of trying to appeal to a variety of tiny groups, they should concentrate more on telling stories well-written enough to appeal to a mass audience.
Al: {Slaps Neal} I disagree with the sentiment that comics should remain a purely fantastical narrative. Yes, as an average fan boy, what drew me to comics was the extraordinary and out-of-this-world. However, I think Marvel's venture into the more realistic aspects of a superhero (i.e. their private lives and real life problems) is ultimately what keeps the average reader from dumping colourful spandex-wearing characters when he/she matures. I think the current evolution of comics is a natural one because of two reasons: from a canonical perspective, superheroes grew out of a need to battle the enemies of war, not only as propaganda, but more importantly to build morale of anyone willing to read. This function of comics--especially super-heroes--has rescinded almost into obsoletion. What they stand for now, if anything, is to set examples of the personal lives of the readers--hence the need for them to evolve into something more realistic and relatable. Secondly, from the point of view of those in the industry, especially readers, it's a natural progression for comics to move from an niche hobby for "geeks" into something that's less ignominious.
Tom: I think Neal has a point. I think the point of comic books is to stay in the fantasy aspect and not touch up on reality. If Marvel messes with the wrong person, they may be looking at a lawsuit for defamation of character (I hope that’s it). And none of us want Marvel to go down, especially when they are trying to get back up after fighting bankruptcy for the past few years. For me, I think they are overdoing it with all the sex, violence, gore, death, etc. that permeates the books today. I think the books were doing fine on their own without all the sex that has been brought into titles like X-Force, New X-Men and Uncanny X-Men. Problem is, Marvel can use the money and we've all learned in Economics that SEX SELLS. As for the Death/gore/violence issue? Sure, i like it as much as the next guy, but sometimes they go a little too far (such as the mass extinction of the population of Genosha). There's a certain line i think that does not need to be crossed to sell comics, and Marvel seems to have jumped over that line.
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/uxmen405.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/uxmen405t.jpg" align=right alt="Uncanny X-Men #405"></a>Brian: What I miss, in a bizarre way, are the costumes. Yeah, they were ridiculous, they would look terrible in real life, and were likely cumbersome to work in. Yet something in the colours and all the flair represented heroism. While it is true that heroes walk among us (fireman, police, teachers, etc) those gaudy outfits were something that set the heroes apart from the crowd. The uniform is a symbol to uphold, much like spandex is a way for a hero to stand apart in the crowd. The X-Men are more realistic, gritty, and ‘adult’ now than they have ever been. Part of this is the result of a culture where nudity and sexuality are thrust into our faces at every turn, and part of it is that this kind of thing sells. Another part of it is that in abandoning the costumes, the X-Men have come about as close to ‘real life’ as they can without leaving the page. They lack the heroic look that sets them apart. They save the world, true, but the individual lives are lost in the shuffle. Spider-Man still captures muggers, the Avengers work crowd control, and the police put away the bad guys. What do the X-Men REALLY contribute to the world? They want peace and acceptance, and for that they fight tirelessly, but they are hidden in shadows so much that people barely know they exist. Are the X-Men really heroes in this regard?
Anthony: Okay. This topic has drifted a little further away from the origination point than I expected. So let me address that first.
First off, I believe, firmly, that the evolution of the X-Men books is necessary to their survival. The superhero, in the original conception, is essentially obsolete. Not the idea of fighting for a better world -- that's timeless. However, many of the trappings of the superhero genre are outmoded. The spandex. The diabolical super villians. The super-powered fantasy. It's not connecting anymore. That's why the medium is dying.
There are certain primal forces within the superhero narrative that do work with the public and mainstream. Look at the success of The Matrix, which co-opted some of the fetishism, the violence, the fight for a finer world, and made it relevant. I think books like Cable are a step in the right direction. The battle Marvel needs to fight is for the teen audience. They need to hook a new audience, and the numbers just aren't there for simplistic bash’em-up romps through Midtown New York anymore.
Teens are cerebral. They're plugged in. They care about what's happening in the world. They require stimuli, be it visual or cerebral. They don't want to be talked down to, and if they are, they'll leave. Shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer are wonderful at taking what makes superheroes work, and putting it into a context that teens identify with. The isolation. The angst. The metaphor. Teens want to see superheroes fighting for a finer world, but they don't want to see the umpteenth invasion from another dimension. Look what does well in the market place -- it's all much, much more down to earth. Treating comics as essentially a children's medium and never evolving the meaning and definition of super-hero beyond the earliest definition is what is going to destroy the medium.
Brian: Teens are also tricky to hook as their interests change weekly. How do you hook an audience on a month-by-month medium that costs more than they might be willing to spend? Could Marvel perhaps employ better marketing strategies?
Anthony: Yes. Definately.
Brian : TV ads? Internet ads? Ads before movies based on their properties? Ads mixed in with their cartoon shows? More comics in mainstream book stores?
Al : More comics in any stores.
Anthony : See, the problem is that comics ARE expensive. And they're small. Charts show that graphic novels and trade paperbacks do well in books stores. The industry needs to start moving to an all trade paperback model.
Brian : That's true, but who is buying these trades? Pretty much the same people buying the ongoing stuff as well. I know I have been buying both lately, but I've been hooked for almost twenty years. They don't need to market to me.
Anthony : I know the prices come out the same in the end, but people want more story, not piecemeal. Piecemeal only really works on television, and that's because it's free.
Brian : So, do you think the solution Joe Quesada (Marvel’s Editor-In-Chief) has come up with to expand these books to as much as 24 issues a year is a way to keep interest high?
Neal : No, that's the way to lose readers by the thousands who have limited budgets.
Tom : i like the idea of 24 issues...but it will kill readership in the long run. That’s just too much money to spend in a year to follow a comic.
Anthony : Not to mention that the impact is diluted. Marvel needs to start trail blazing, and the way might be to stop with the singles, slowly but surely. Start with not okaying any more ongoing series, and turning ideas for mini's into original graphic novels.
Al : I agree, but the "ongoing epic" feel of any comic book would be hampered. Not that I think that's a bad thing--it's just a lot more difficult to convey some sort of timeline through a set of graphic novels rather than a monthly.
Question 3:
Each team is touted as being distinct from one another. How do you compare their objectives in general, and specifically? How do you compare the tone or "feel" between each book? Do each of their respective directions and tone fit into place (ie. connect)?
Al: I’d say that New X-Men has obviously taken the role left void by the cancellation of Generation X. You might even blame New X-Men for the cancellation, if you were so inclined. The educating aspect of the X-Men as a central theme cannot be disregarded; it's an ongoing part, mostly as a breeding farm for any potential main characters to be used in the future. X-Treme X-Men, on the other hand, has split off from the main team and can't even be called a part of Xavier's posse anymore. I don't even know how it's justified as a core book, if not for the main characters calling themselves ‘X-Men’ and featuring staple characters from the series. Nevertheless, it has a distinct direction and purpose. And then we have Uncanny X-Men, which for all purposes and intent, I do not see the need for. To me, it's a book that lets us know what is happening to the characters involved, but I don't see how they place in the big picture, especially with the main cast of New X-Men doubling responsibility as teachers AND as a "strike force" when needed. To compare their contribution as a whole, in the past, the X-books were never that much different compared to what we're getting now. Ever since the reboot and mass shuffling of characters, they've certainly set out on their own. I see the X-lore as complementary parts of a single whole, yet I just don't see how Uncanny X-Men really fits into it. Is it a great book? Does it have great characterization and stories? Yes, on both accounts. I just don't see how it pays its dues to the overall epic.
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/uxmen402.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/uxmen402t.jpg" align=left alt="Uncanny X-Men #402"></a>Tom: I agree with all the points that Al has pointed out in the they are very different books. BUT to me they are all the same. In each of the core books, it’s a group of X-Men that battle an enemy. In each of the books, they've recruited at least one new original character as a member and the villains that the X-Men have faced are all new x-villains. So for me, the inside in the core books is showing that they are all essentially the same book. Different characters, yes, but the same structures and similar plots.
Brian: Each book has a different feel, a different ‘tone’ if you will yet none of them seem to be fully the ‘X-Men’ I know and love. X-Treme X-Men has the bright colors, the vibrant villains, and the classic good vs. evil angle… New X-Men (finally) employs the idea that Xavier’s is a SCHOOL where mutants are meant to be trained in order to be safe for their own benefit and the larger society. Uncanny X-Men is fairly gritty (though that may just be the art style used) and tackles mutant issues on a global scale.
Boiled down to the essentials, here is how I feel. New X-Men is shocking, disturbing, and dark… and I’m surprised at how compelling it is. I am totally drawn in by the characters, events, and premise. The only thing I dislike is how Wolverine more resembles his ‘movie’ counterpart and is more aloof than ever. X-Treme X-Men is classic X-Men at its best and brightest. Claremont writes these characters with an energy and caring that is often missing from comics these days. Yet when you compare it to the ‘realistic’ version Grant Morrison offers, you see that there is still room for growth. To make the perfect X-Men book, have Claremont and Morrison get married and have a child. Uncanny X-Men, on the other hand, is not doing much for me. Granted, Joe Casey brought back a bevy of characters from limbo, but none of them are doing anything really interesting, nor have there been any personal developments amongst the characters. The goal of this squad isn’t clear, their ties to the X-Men almost non-existent, and the inconsistent art month after month makes this a mess of a title. I won’t lay the blame on any one person, but I will say that this has suffered the worst treatment of the ‘evolution.’
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/xtxmen012.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/xtxmen012t.jpg" align=right alt="X-Treme X-Men #12"></a>Anthony: I personally think that it's wonderful that they've finally split the X-Men into teams with their own distinct feel and objective. For too many years, it was essentially just X-Men bi-monthly. The books had no reason for existing separately.
Now, there's a distinct raison d'être for each book. The tones have been discussed already, and I agree with each assessment. They broke the three books into parts of what the X-Men stood for -- school, strike force, soap opera. On the other hand, I think there is no need for three core books. There's not even a reason for two core books save for the ultimate deciding factor: money. It's easy to reap the benefits of milking your cash cow bone dry, but I think that in the end, this business practice is what's going to destroy the books. There should be one book: Uncanny X-Men. It should focus on the mission statement of the original book, which was a school for the "strangest teens of all.” The soap opera aspect is fine, and so is the strike force aspect, but they should never super-cede the main school aspect. The book has to move even more away from the twenty year old story models and styles, and update for the new. Change or die.
Neal: I agree with Brian that despite the variety of concepts being used by the core titles today, none of them feels like the one, "true" X-Men. X-Treme X-Men is nothing more than an attempt to give the readers Claremont, no matter what he does. His stated purpose for getting Storm's team out of the mansion was a search for the diaries, something that has barely been touched on throughout the last year of stories. Stuff happens, but nothing seems to further his goal, besides the random appearance of a diary here and there, through no effort of the team.
New X-Men is interesting in theory, but the execution comes across a little flat to me. The idea of secondary mutations is interesting, yet it currently feels like nothing more than an excuse to give Emma (aka The White Queen) a random new power. Beast's transformation and his coping with the situation is handled brilliantly, yet the ‘litter box’ he was shown to have had was a joke of a plot point. Morrison is trying for too much too fast with Cassandra Nova, the devastation of Genosha, the U-Men, the Shi'ar Empire, the school, and everything else he has on the fire. I refuse here to even acknowledge the Jean/Phoenix fiasco taking root (*Morrison has hinted that the missing ‘Phoenix Force’ may be returning to once again take root in Jean’s body*). Morrison's ideas, while intriguing, are beginning to dull in this "shock after shock" style.
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/xtxmen011.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/xtxmen011t.jpg" align=left alt="X-Treme X-Men #11"></a>One thing you can say about Uncanny X-Men for sure is that it exists. The idea of a leadership team has been impossible for some people to conceive, yet I find it refreshing. The presence of so many Limbo characters (from the ‘X-Corps’ story arc) is nice as well. However, the problem I have with Uncanny X-Men, indeed with all the core titles, is an utter lack of characterization. The X-Corps are defined by little more than a power and a personality trait. X-Treme X-Men is flat-out horrible when it comes to characterization, made all the worse by the fact that half the cast (Sage, Thunderbird III, Lifeguard, Slipstream, and Red Lotus) are completely devoid of any character at all. New X-Men does a little better than the others in terms of dealing with personalities, if you ignore the 150 cast members in the background. These larger casts end up being nothing more than two or three characters in the spotlight, with the rest just being window dressing, so the writer can lay claim on the mutant in case they get an idea later on.
Brian: My feeling is, not so much that the books need the same goal or purpose, but they should at least share a sense of unity or ‘awareness’ of what the other parts of the team is doing. Is Claremont the only one who pays attention?
Neal: I don't think unity between the core titles is necessary at all. In order to survive as separate titles, they need to remain separate.
Anthony: I don’t like that he keeps trying to tie Grant's ideas into his book, via Destiny’s diaries (*which are used to fortell the future events the X-Men are likely to face*).
Brian: Separate goals, separate casts, separate characters, yes, but they are part of the SAME team. Shouldn't they show a degree of awareness?
Tom: Well, Joe and Grant went through that whole thing about "superconsistency" and about not bumping into each other's book. If they go back on their word, then what does their word mean? Nothing.
Anthony: Let Morrison explain his plot points, don't feel the need to explain them for him. He's a big boy.
Brian: You don't have to work in all the details or any of the story elements, but even a box of dialogue lets readers know that they are connected.
Neal: But why should they be connected? Core titles can remain apart while still all dealing with the central theme of "The X-Men".
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/previews/XXM013_COV.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/previews/XXM013_COVt.jpg" align=right alt="X-Treme X-Men #13 cover"></a>Brian: Well, they are all X-MEN. Uncanny X-Men and New X-Men both supposedly operate out of the same home base. X-Treme X-Men is essentially an extended field trip. They are ONE team. Shouldn’t the MAJOR events in one mildly affect the characters in another?
Neal: The teams do NOT operate out of the same base. This was established when Stacy X got a room at the mansion in Uncanny X-Men, but it was said by Archangel that they wouldn't be spending much time there. I think they are based out of Worthington Industries
Anthony: The books have to disconnect because otherwise, they're just one book. With the three distinct tones, that would be one disjointed book.
Al: I think what's pulling fans into a demand of more continuity between the three X-books is the existing relationships between the characters. If it were only, say, Storm to have gone out on her own and recruited newbies, there wouldn't be a demand for it.
Anthony: True, but let's face it. X-Treme X-Men exists on a large suspension of disbelief that the world's greatest telepath with an amped up Cerebra (a mutant locating device) can’t manage to locate the away team.
Question 4:
The Final Vote… which title is the best, and why?
Tom: The art in both New X-Men and Uncanny X-Men are really bad (Uncanny X-Men especially). And story wise, New X-Men and X-Treme X-Men are neck and neck. So the deciding factor on those books is in the art, which X-Treme X-Mendoes a better job of. So for me, it’s X-Treme X-Men.
<a href="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/newxmen-123.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://comixfan.com/xfan/images/covers/newxmen-123t.jpg" align=left alt="New X-Men #123"></a>Brian: The best art goes to Salvador Larroca. He has never missed an issue of X-Treme X-Men (including the annual), and the lack of inks makes his visuals stand out against the crowd. The best writing is a toss up between Morrison and Claremont as I like elements in both books... but overall, I'd say that for pure enjoyment that X-Treme X-Men gets my vote.
Anthony: Morrison's work on New X-Men has been paired with three artists who "get" his plots, and are with actual technical storytelling skills. Each has a knack for panel composition, whereas Casey ran out of the gate on Uncanny X-Men with an artist like Ian Churchill who really only seemed to know how to pose his characters. That really bugged me because Casey is such a talented writer. In other words, New X-Men is my favorite.
Neal: I'd have to say New X-Men is the best title at the moment, but only by default. I was never a big fan of Claremont's classic X-Men. It was the early 90's stuff that got me interested in the series in the first place. His stuff nowadays is very unappealing. Claremont seems to be a very prideful and stubborn writer: he has had great difficulty acknowledging anything he didn't do himself. This causes many problems, considering he's been gone for ten rather eventful years. As a writer, Claremont is out of touch with the way the industry has developed, both within the Marvel Universe and without. Larroca might get my vote for best art, except that art has TWO purposes: to look good AND to tell the story properly. Uncanny X-Men is the most flat in characterizations, and of the three major story arcs, only ‘X-Corps’ has been appealing to me.
Al: I don't mean to be difficult (*yes, he does*), but I just can't choose one single book over the other two. Plot-wise, I'd say New X-Men hands down. Grant Morrison brings in an unpredictable edge to the storylines and events (bar the Phoenix resurgence). On the front of characterization, however, I'm surprising myself by saying Joe Casey has done the best job. And as stated by Neal, Claremont isn't really advancing the older characters, nor doing justice to the newer. Whereas Casey has done a great job with both the main cast, and the supporting cast. As for art, I have to go with X-Treme X-Men, but NOT because I think Larroca is the best artist. On the contrary, I find his work a little cartoony, albeit dynamic compared to the others. So, I guess I’m split fairly evenly three ways.
Well, there you have it. By a slim margin, New X-Men is the favorite of this X-Fan Roundtable debate, with X-Treme X-Men hot on its heels as Uncanny X-Men waits in the wings for its chance to shine!
We, the members of the X-Fan Roundtable would like to thank you all for joining us today and we hope to hear some feedback so please don’t hesitate to reply! Join us next time for another in-depth look at your favorite x-titles and the men and women responsible for creating them!
Look for future installments of the X-Fan Roundtable to include guest appearances by artists, writers, editors, and the many wonderful people who contribute to the ongoing success of X-Fan!
Remember, your donations via PayPal (http://www.paypal.com) and your purchases of any of these titles through X-World Comics (http://x-worldcomics.com) can all help to ensure the continued success of X-Fan!