From: jed@matilda.vut.edu.au (Jed Bowtell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Subject: Re: X-Problems?
Date: 26 Aug 92 09:06:02 GMT
Organization: Victoria University of Technology

msr@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Michael Rosenberg) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.085657.2014@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>>C'mon, the X-books aren't all that bad now.
>>  X-MEN - maybe the best of the bunch.  Fabian N. (won't even try to
>>write it) is one of Marvel's best writers.  Art Thibert and Andy
>>Kubert are great artists with good storytelling techniques.

>I disagree...the last issue was one of the worst yet.  While the art is fine
>(perhaps the best of the xbooks) the story was the worst.  While I have no
>problem with the concept of Prof X's father having a 'black' background and
>the search for the truth...NOTHING HAPPENED IN THIS BOOK!!!!!!!  It was a
>pointless excuse to draw a stupid fight scene.  The hilight of the book in my
>mind was the conversation between Rogue and Wolvering, and I didn't think it
>was done all that well.  I think they could have made the story interesting
>and worthwhile, but instead they created a fight for no other reason than to
>have one.  What happened to the good old days????

Well I'm dropping this one when Thilbert leaves unless they get
Byrne back (ie Harras leaves) which is very unlikely. I just 
don't like Niecieza's writing.

>>  UNCANNY - OK, this book is pitifully written (Scott Lobdell never
>>could write) and drawn even worse (Tom Raney-ugh!).  Our only hope is
>>for Lobdell to go to Image, or at least for Joe Queseda's art to make
>>up for his (numerous) shortcomings.

>Total agreement here.

Yeah again the art was the only thing keeping me here. That
is why I no longer get it. No art and no story.

>>  EXCALIBUR - man, can Alan Davis draw or what!
>Yes...and his scripting is better than has been for most of the other books. 
>While some of his stories have had major problems, at least he's been
>consistant, and quite often amusing and entertaining.  I'm curious to see what
>direction the book is going to travel in now that he's tied up most of the
>dangling plots and gotten rid of Phoenix.  

Yeah Alan Davis can draw and he can write. I don't really
like the characters all that much though. I got the first
five or six issues he did on returning. The art is nice
and consistent when Davis does it.

>>  X-FORCE - must be the art that makes this one as bad as it is. 
>>Pacella just cannot draw; he started out like a mediocre Liefield and
>>has just gotten worse from there.  Hope Capullo is better (won't be 
>>hard).
>I don't think X-Force is going to last much longer...it's probably going to
>end somewhere soon after the upcoming x-over, to make way for New Mutants II.

Blech! I admit I got suckered into buying the first issues
but one look at Liefeld's twin brother's pencilling and I
was out of there. I think that Pacella would have to be one
of the worst artists working in comics today. He is so
bloody inconsistent and derivative. I think X-Force will
last though.

>>  X-FACTOR - I like this book, especially the first few issues under
>>David and Stroman.  Now, if they could just keep him on every issue as
>>artist, and if some of the original humor can be brought back...
>I think PAD is by far the best X-writer right now, although some times his
>stories are almost too slow.  This is infinitely better than the lack of
>stories in the other books, though.  The art has a tendancy to get on my
>nerves, but isn't really bad...just an acquired taste.

While I hate the art, it is consistent. People don't change
size or dimensions on every second page. It is very neat and
uncluttered. I just don't like the work PAD is doing on
X-Factor so I stopped at about #74. I didn't give him much
chance.

>>  WOLVERINE - I love it!  Hama is bad on GI JOE, but great here.  Tex
>>is awesome.  But, there's really bad news - Pacella is coming! ARGH!
>I refuse to read this because Wolverine (like most of the x-characters) is a
>character who has been ruined by becoming too popular.  When he first appeared
>(or at least from X-Men #129 on which I have read) he was a good character (I
>don't mean good in the good/evil sense).  Because of his huge popularity
>they've completely torn him apart (how many origins now?) and removed any of
>the qualities that made his characterization interesting.  It's the same thing
>that's happening to Gambit, although he didn't have as long to develop before
>happened to him (On a side note, does anyone else remember that he originally
>had a 'persuasion' power, which has been completely forgotten by the writers)

I have never bought an issue of Wolverine either. The issues
Tex are doing LOOK alright but wasn't Sabretooth in the book
about 10 issues ago. I realise he is an important Wolverine
character but he is being overused in Wolverine. I guess it
is because the price of all his appearances in Wolverine are
going up. Speculators buy all the Tex Sabretooth Wolverines.
Gambit NEVER had a power of persuasion, it was just charisma.
I remember reading about it in a letter. One thing that has
changed though is the way he charges things with energy. It
used to be with his eyes but it is now with his hands.

>The moment the Marvel management gets a whiff of large popularity for one of
>their characters they immediately try to overcapitalize on it, and immediately
>destroy any value that charater had (other than monetary, I suppose :) (Cable
>doesn't count...he was destined for garbage from day 1).

Agreed

Jed
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.xbooks