|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Sept 1, 2015 17:58:36 GMT -5
It did sort of bring this adolescent self-seriousness into superhero comics that hadn't been there before. Like, Stan Lee and the writers of his generation didn't care about and even looked down on superheroes a little bit - "Confidentially, we in the comic biz refer to them as 'long underwear characters.' (From Amazing Fantasy # 15.)
This run of X-men were the first superhero comics that were written without any adult ironic distance.
I don't see this as a GOOD thing, per se. I think superheroes are pretty damn goofy and I think the last 35 years where creators do everything possible to ignore this have been ... well, just a little bit pathetic.
And they're the first superhero books where characterization was inarguably more important than plot, and THAT was really important and influential as well. And that signified a sea change where Byrne and Claremont had an investment in the characters (and in superheroes in general) that would have been impossible for an older generation that hadn't grown up on them. Obviously there's not a lot of thematic depth or nuance, especially compared to the stuff berk mentioned. But I have an incredibly low tolerance for breathless soap opera, but here it's done SO WELL that I kind of have to love it against my better judgement.
I totally agree with most everything shaxper, said, too. (Although Byrne was a hugely important contributor. Everything I've read indicates that the plotting was split 50/50, and Byrne alone and purposefully switched the focus of the book to Wolverine.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Sept 1, 2015 19:24:06 GMT -5
Having reread a large number of books from the 80s which I had always deemed to be classics I personally think this run holds up better today than most. Byrnes FF has been a huge disappointment along with Michelinie/Layton Iron Man and the Avengers. New Teen Titans Ive been unable to get back into as well. the work here was head and shoulders above most other team books at the time, but also seemed to pave the way for the big 2 to try some new writing blood, leading to Millers DD and Moore on Swamp-Thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 1, 2015 22:22:36 GMT -5
It did sort of bring this adolescent self-seriousness into superhero comics that hadn't been there before. Like, Stan Lee and the writers of his generation didn't care about and even looked down on superheroes a little bit - "Confidentially, we in the comic biz refer to them as 'long underwear characters.' (From Amazing Fantasy # 15.) This run of X-men were the first superhero comics that were written without any adult ironic distance. I don't see this as a GOOD thing, per se. I think superheroes are pretty damn goofy and I think the last 35 years where creators do everything possible to ignore this have been ... well, just a little bit pathetic. And they're the first superhero books where characterization was inarguably more important than plot, and THAT was really important and influential as well. And that signified a sea change where Byrne and Claremont had an investment in the characters (and in superheroes in general) that would have been impossible for an older generation that hadn't grown up on them. Obviously there's not a lot of thematic depth or nuance, especially compared to the stuff berk mentioned. But I have an incredibly low tolerance for breathless soap opera, but here it's done SO WELL that I kind of have to love it against my better judgement. I totally agree with most everything shaxper, said, too. (Although Byrne was a hugely important contributor. Everything I've read indicates that the plotting was split 50/50, and Byrne alone and purposefully switched the focus of the book to Wolverine.) Fully agree that there's an inherent goofiness to superheroes - which is why, to my taste, even the best of the live-action movies are never completely successful - but I don't think I'd go along with the idea that Claremont's lack of ironic distance was a new thing in superhero comics. I think a lot of the DC stuff was deadly serious, crazy as it was. And even at Marvel you had things like the Jim Shooter Avengers which are as lacking in self-awareness as anything Claremont did. In fact I see this approach in superhero writing as the rule more than the exception, even before Claremont came along. So when it appeared in X-Men I'd say it was more a regression than any kind of new innovation, good or bad. Again, though, I agree that Claremont did the soap-opera sub-plots so well - maybe the best since Stan himself? - I thoroughly enjoyed his best series (X-Men and Iron Fist, for me). |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 1, 2015 22:24:18 GMT -5
Having reread a large number of books from the 80s which I had always deemed to be classics I personally think this run holds up better today than most. Byrnes FF has been a huge disappointment along with Michelinie/Layton Iron Man and the Avengers. New Teen Titans Ive been unable to get back into as well. the work here was head and shoulders above most other team books at the time, but also seemed to pave the way for the big 2 to try some new writing blood, leading to Millers DD and Moore on Swamp-Thing. That's interesting - I haven't read the Michelinie Iron Man - never having liked the character much and not being a particular fan of Michelinie though I haven't read enough to say I actively dislike his stuff - but was under the impression it was still remembered fondly by most fans. What exactly disappointed you this time round? Byrne's FF and the Avengers of that era have never interested me at all. Didn't like the looks of either of them at the time and nothing I've seen or heard about them since has tempted me to give them a try. |
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Sept 2, 2015 2:58:56 GMT -5
In the 80s I read the Iron Man books from 120ish through 200 or so. The early books were Michelinie, Romita Jr and Layton, in various variations, and included the Demon in a Bottle and Doom time travel story in 150. Enjoyed them back then, loved Laytons inks on IM(made him look mettalic) but rereading them in the past few months has been painful. A few good solid books, but in general just average superhero 80s cut and paste rubbish.
Byrnes Ff was another rose tinted glasses memory. I still like his artwork, and there are a number of stories where he is above the average, but they are Claremont-talky... too damn many pages FULL of dialogue, though to be fare, way ahead of how FF had been treated for years.
As for the Avengers, well after the highs of the late 100s, 202 to 230 or so are damn ugly, and fairly pedestrian, though some do like the trial of Hank Pym. Things pick up soon after with the long Stern and Buscema run, but for a while there...
|
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Sept 2, 2015 4:07:45 GMT -5
Begrudgingly getting through the Lee/Kirby run so I can get to this.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Sept 2, 2015 4:17:05 GMT -5
The all too short Thomas/Adams run is still my favourite X-Men era, but the Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne run comes a close second. Though I still prefer Cockrum's art to Byrne's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Sept 2, 2015 15:02:30 GMT -5
It did sort of bring this adolescent self-seriousness into superhero comics that hadn't been there before. Like, Stan Lee and the writers of his generation didn't care about and even looked down on superheroes a little bit - "Confidentially, we in the comic biz refer to them as 'long underwear characters.' (From Amazing Fantasy # 15.) This run of X-men were the first superhero comics that were written without any adult ironic distance. I don't see this as a GOOD thing, per se. I think superheroes are pretty damn goofy and I think the last 35 years where creators do everything possible to ignore this have been ... well, just a little bit pathetic. And they're the first superhero books where characterization was inarguably more important than plot, and THAT was really important and influential as well. And that signified a sea change where Byrne and Claremont had an investment in the characters (and in superheroes in general) that would have been impossible for an older generation that hadn't grown up on them. Obviously there's not a lot of thematic depth or nuance, especially compared to the stuff berk mentioned. But I have an incredibly low tolerance for breathless soap opera, but here it's done SO WELL that I kind of have to love it against my better judgement. I totally agree with most everything shaxper, said, too. (Although Byrne was a hugely important contributor. Everything I've read indicates that the plotting was split 50/50, and Byrne alone and purposefully switched the focus of the book to Wolverine.) Fully agree that there's an inherent goofiness to superheroes - which is why, to my taste, even the best of the live-action movies are never completely successful - but I don't think I'd go along with the idea that Claremont's lack of ironic distance was a new thing in superhero comics. I think a lot of the DC stuff was deadly serious, crazy as it was. And even at Marvel you had things like the Jim Shooter Avengers which are as lacking in self-awareness as anything Claremont did. In fact I see this approach in superhero writing as the rule more than the exception, even before Claremont came along. So when it appeared in X-Men I'd say it was more a regression than any kind of new innovation, good or bad. Again, though, I agree that Claremont did the soap-opera sub-plots so well - maybe the best since Stan himself? - I thoroughly enjoyed his best series (X-Men and Iron Fist, for me). Oh yeah, good call on Shooter's Avengers. That was another book by a guy young enough that superheroes had always been part of his culture. (And that was only a year or so before the Byrne X-men anyway, right?) Still, even there, I think Shooter was trying to write stories with An Important Meaning, while Claremont or Byrne didn't really try to have any depth to their stories at all. (Note: This is isn't a criticism, exactly.) Still, I'm not seeing too much else published at the time that took superheroes completely seriously. Gerry Conway was (at least it seems) writing 98% of DC's superhero line, and he was always a little bit tongue in cheek. I assume that most of the '70s Marvel trained writers saw superhero stories as a fad, but the Marvel method of storytelling as an important development, so they didn't get too attached to their spandex charges. Oddly, I guess that Bob Haney's work - which was always cheerfully bonkers, plot-wise - never gave a sense of ironic distance in the storytelling. Although I suspect that was part of the joke.  |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Sept 2, 2015 15:40:41 GMT -5
I read maybe a half dozen issues that I borrowed from my younger brother back in the day.
I haven't read an X-Men comic since.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 22:09:46 GMT -5
I rate the Claremont/Byrne run among the highest defining series ever for me personally. And of course you have to understand this was the late 70's/1980 era, not a lot of variety at this point in terms of quality going on at Marvel. FF, ASM & Avengers were still ok, but the best runs of those series were already history. Uncanny X-Men stood out because it was different, the art was amazing, the writing was stellar, the characters were exciting and not just your typical average ALL AMERICAN super-team. No, we finally had characters who were more diverse in color and nationality & appealed to a more mass audience. Wolverine did not fit your typical mold of a classical super-hero, he was temperamental & prone to kill if necessary. The stories were epic, building gradually to the dark phoenix saga and then to days of future past.
Ok, I have a confession to make...I was 14 years old & purchased X-Men #135 at the local drug store...this was my first X-Men experience & I did not understand it at all. So after I bought it, read it & discovered it was a continued story so I took it back to the drug store and asked to exchange it for a Batman comic book. LOL, it was another year before I discovered & understood how truly amazing X-Men really was at that time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2015 0:20:46 GMT -5
Very, very good comics occasionally rising to the level of true excellence. Like them or not, they did change the face of the mainstream superhero comic, particularly team books, and that influence is still persistant today. And that Byrne sequence of Wolverine stalking through the sewers under the Hellfire Club is one of the finest sequences in comics of all time. That's what I immediately think about when I think Claremont/Byrne X-Men. Out of 5 stars, I'd give it 4.5. yep. agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Oct 10, 2015 3:09:51 GMT -5
Greatest Superhero Team run ever IMO Two masters working together at their peaks. I always favored the X-Men over the Fantastic Four, Avengers, Justice League, etc anyway. They were just more interesting, edgy and relatable IMO. And as a whole, more badass than any other Superhero team even though they weren't the most powerful or imposing. I agree with this. I'd give them a 5/5, or at least a 4.5/5. However, the last 30 years of X-Men comics has left a bad taste in my mouth, and tainted my love the X-Men, even of this historic run. At this point, I think that there are some runs on the Avengers and Legion of Super-Heroes that I love just as much. I can definitely relate. I personally still dug the Claremont/Lee run in the early 90's...but after that it was all downhill IMO. But then again, I haven't really been able to get into any superhero team-up over the last 15-20 years outside of Morrison's run on JLA. I know some liked Bendis' run on the Avengers...but I dropped out after the first 12 or so issues. Just not for me |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Oct 10, 2015 5:20:56 GMT -5
I rated it among my Top 5. I think its significant for being one of the first, and only, instances of later creators taking a Lee/Kirby concept and vastly improving it across the board. The only runs I'd put in front of it in terms of significance and influence are the first 100 issues or so of Fantastic Four and Amazing Spider-Man.
One thing that I noted while reading it as an adult (though it's been about ten years since I read the whole Claremont/Byrne/Cockrum run) is that it seemed to take the non-deconstructionist superhero story to its ultimate end. I really believe that 1977-1983 (roughly) saw the genre reach its ultimate potential before you get to the era of critical deconstruction (Watchmen), loving homage (Marvel's, Kingdom Come) or outright parody (Justice League, Lobo, etc.).
Another point regarding the inherent goofiness of superheroes; I totally agree. The thing is, this really only applies to the real world that we live in. Taking the conceit for what they are, there is obviously something psychologically different, across the spectrum, when dealing with universes where themed costumed vigilantes are a relatively common occurrence. It's not just that superheroes choose gaudy thematic costumes when this almost assuredly wouldn't happen if people gained superhuman powers in reality, its more interesting to me that comic book society itself views these choices far differently than they would in the real world. There really isn't much ridicule pointed at heroes and villains inside the comics themselves, and if it does occur, it's almost always in a "breaking the fourth wall" sort of way.
The closest thing I can point to in the real world as being analogous are those gaudy pre-WW1 military outfits that, by today's standards, look absurd and impractical. I think it's also fair to say that, taken out of the context of the sports themselves, that most sports teams wear brightly colored uniforms that would be seen as goofy divorced from the context of team sports or to an outside observer ignorant of such things.
|
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Oct 10, 2015 13:53:36 GMT -5
I agree with this. I'd give them a 5/5, or at least a 4.5/5. However, the last 30 years of X-Men comics has left a bad taste in my mouth, and tainted my love the X-Men, even of this historic run. At this point, I think that there are some runs on the Avengers and Legion of Super-Heroes that I love just as much. I can definitely relate. I personally still dug the Claremont/Lee run in the early 90's...but after that it was all downhill IMO. But then again, I haven't really been able to get into any superhero team-up over the last 15-20 years outside of Morrison's run on JLA. I know some liked Bendis' run on the Avengers...but I dropped out after the first 12 or so issues. Just not for me For me, the X-Men went downhill starting with John Romita jr.'s run, but I haven't read the small number of Jim Lee issues I've got in many years (in re-reading my Uncanny X-Men a couple of years ago, I stopped after #205 because they were no longer enjoyable), so I can't say if I liked the Lee/Claremont stuff at this point. Yeah, Morrison's JLA is one of the few things of the past 20 years (superhero team or otherwise) that I've been able to get into, though Abnett & Lanning's Guardians of the Galaxy was good. I agree about Bendis' Avengers. When I resumed collecting comics in 2008, I was collecting a lot of titles, and the two Bendis Avengers titles were the very first things I dropped. They were awful IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Oct 10, 2015 15:21:05 GMT -5
Probably somewhere around choice #2.
I think the truly great superhero comics are the more original, things like Amazing Spider-Man by Lee/Ditko. Plastic Man by Jack Cole. Batman by Finger/Robinson and assorted others with Kane taking credit. That type of thing.
But amongst the derivate superhero comic genre (where you come in to an existing series and tell really good stories with existing characters), I consider Claremont's X-Men a high mark, along with Moore's Swamp Thing, Starlin's Thanos stuff and Miller's Daredevil. And the Byrne era is the best of it. Dark Phoenix Saga is just some good old-fashioned high melodrama. And Days of Future Past is a heck of a little story.
|
|
