From: petonak@chem.psu.edu (Paul Petonak)
Subject: Re: Wild C.A.T.S. = X-Men? NOT!
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:15:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.195729.704@urbana.mcd.mot.com>, asoto@dacapo.urbana.mcd.mot.com (Anthony Soto) writes:
|> I've noticed that there has been recent talks about how Wild C.A.T.S. by 
|> Jim Lee is the new X-Men. Sorry, but not even on his best day could Jim
|> Lee produce a comic that is close to the X-Men. No, I'm not talking about
|> the stuff that is printed in today's comics of X-Men and Uncanny X-Men. I'm
|> talking about the eras that put the X-Men on the map. I'm talking about
|> X-Men 1-30 (yes, the  ones that were put out in the late 60's); X-Men 55-65
|> (Neal Adams had his run in there; you want to see art, look at these); and
|> finally X-Men 94-210 (Chris Claremont did a majority of these and at this
|> time there was no better).

HERE, HERE!!! I agree, although I still would argue the pinnacle of the X-men
i unquestionably the Claremont/Byrne issues, the best being the mid 120's to 
130's. 

|> 
|> Now you might think that I'm one of the older crowd that reminisces about
|> the Kirby and Lee (Stan Lee that is) days, but actually, I'm not. I started
|> collecting comics just a few short years ago while in school. A friend of mine
|> showed me some of his X-Men (this was during the Fall of the Mutants). I
|> became interested and started looking around found some back issues and
|> was able to read the X-Men in their finest hours (Phoenix's birth, the
|> first Hellfire Club, Phoenix's death, Magneto's slide to the good side,
|> the Brood).
|> 
|> I guess what I'm trying to get to is that there is no way that Wild C.A.T.S.
|> or any other comic will appeal to me so much the way the X-Men had done to
|> me. This group of superheroes got me started in comics. I'm still collecting
|> them even though they've seen MUCH better days (old habits are hard to break).
|> Sure, I picked up Wild C.A.T.S; the art was nice, but it had no STORY. You
|> know, the stuff that the art is supposed to go with and enhance.
|> 

I tend to agree with you. New teams/comics don't hold much attraction for me as
the characters etc. have little substance. They just can't compare to characters
I have 'known' for years. 

However, I do have to say that Wild C.A.T.S. isn't all that bad. True, there
was very little in the line of a story, but since a 'new universe' is 
essentiaqlly being started, it's not easy to make stories right off the bat. 
Give them some time to develop a background, and then judge the stories. By
your manner of judgement none of the Image comics would be any good.

Actually, I think WC has many interesting ideas and approaches to 'heroes'
that have nor been explored in other books.

|> If you want nice pictures, pick up Wild C.A.T.S., but if you want nice
|> pictures and a decent story, look at the Neal Adams run of the X-Men; look
|> at the Claremont-Byrne run; and yes, look at the Claremont-Jim Lee run (I
|> never said I didn't like his art, plus his co-plotting revitalized the X-Men
|> briefly before Claremont left). Those were STORIES not pin-ups.

Again, give Jim time.

|> 					Tony

Paul
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics,talk.bizarre