Why do people think New Mutants #98 had a "high print run"...? 0

[vaillant]

Or as Hepcat put it in another thread...

 

After all, it's a common trait for people to generalize from their own personal experience.

 

Yes, but while this element has never been much of a problem in the past, now it is exacerbated by the refusal to recognize objective elements while debating, even if they are really evident.

There is also a tendency to refuse acknowledgment of historical relevance of facts and thought, and of shared paradigms (in more scientific approaches).

 

And this is not good.

[Pete Marino]

i STILL cant find anyone to tell me (a newbie) WHY Deadpool is "popular" enough to warrant such a sum for NM98, other then he tells "fart jokes"

Me too... Do tell

 

I am not a huge Deadpool fan, but here's my guess as to why he's popular.

 

You can tell a lot of different stories with him that will appeal to a lot of different audiences,

 

Because he's deadly, funny, and odd.

 

There's the slapstick comics that he can do, the violent, and the 1 comic series I liked him in, Uncanny X-Force where he was somehow the comic relief / heart of the team,

 

When you have a character that is malleable to many different formats he'll get a varied fan base liking him for many different reasons.

[500Club]

Second, I never thought Claremont was "terrible" at dialogue. I was re-reading some New Mutants and dialogue is good. Why do you say that?

Also, how the presence of a "strong artist" can improve a story if it is not already decently good?

Claremont used a ton of expositional dialogue. Consider the following (I made up) as an example:

 

Nightcrawler: Oh, no! Sabretooth just slammed Wolverine into that wall! And now the wall is collapsing on top of him!

 

A strong artist, like John Byrne, was able to tell a great deal of story with well laid out panels, with good flow. Weaker artists didn't do that, which led Claremont to increase the amount of 'play-by-play' narrative dialogue like the example I offered.

[fastballspecial]

Second, I never thought Claremont was "terrible" at dialogue. I was re-reading some New Mutants and dialogue is good. Why do you say that?

Also, how the presence of a "strong artist" can improve a story if it is not already decently good?

Claremont used a ton of expositional dialogue. Consider the following (I made up) as an example:

 

Nightcrawler: Oh, no! Sabretooth just slammed Wolverine into that wall! And now the wall is collapsing on top of him!

 

A strong artist, like John Byrne, was able to tell a great deal of story with well laid out panels, with good flow. Weaker artists didn't do that, which led Claremont to increase the amount of 'play-by-play' narrative dialogue like the example I offered.

 

Makes sense as a younger collector I never understood how the writer that I grew up on with X-men could no longer write the book worth a hoot. I mean years of wonderful stories and then he just went to

 

I wondered for years what happened. He hasn't written anything decent in how many years now? He seems to suffer from the same affliction Byrne has to a lesser extent.

 

[slym2none]

Thanks, but what "Siege Perilous" refers to?

I restarted reading the X-Men as a young adult with issue #214 and I liked the various titles a lot, especially X-Factor, New Mutants and Power Pack.

 

 

I read these issues as they came out, and I didn't think they were so bad. Maybe if I re-read them now... :shrug:

 

http://marvel.wikia.com/Siege_Perilous

 

 

 

-slym

[slym2none]

Second, I never thought Claremont was "terrible" at dialogue. I was re-reading some New Mutants and dialogue is good. Why do you say that?

Also, how the presence of a "strong artist" can improve a story if it is not already decently good?

Claremont used a ton of expositional dialogue. Consider the following (I made up) as an example:

 

Nightcrawler: Oh, no! Sabretooth just slammed Wolverine into that wall! And now the wall is collapsing on top of him!

 

A strong artist, like John Byrne, was able to tell a great deal of story with well laid out panels, with good flow. Weaker artists didn't do that, which led Claremont to increase the amount of 'play-by-play' narrative dialogue like the example I offered.

 

Makes sense as a younger collector I never understood how the writer that I grew up on with X-men could no longer write the book worth a hoot. I mean years of wonderful stories and then he just went to

 

I wondered for years what happened. He hasn't written anything decent in how many years now? He seems to suffer from the same affliction Byrne has to a lesser extent.

 

I was sooo X-cited to see CC come back to writing the X-Men when "X-Treme X-Men" was announced.

 

I was SOOO disappointed by that title. Well, at least the writing... the LaRocca art was fantastic.

 

 

 

-slym

Edited November 14, 2013 by slym2none

[RockMyAmadeus]

Second, I never thought Claremont was "terrible" at dialogue. I was re-reading some New Mutants and dialogue is good. Why do you say that?

Also, how the presence of a "strong artist" can improve a story if it is not already decently good?

Claremont used a ton of expositional dialogue. Consider the following (I made up) as an example:

 

Nightcrawler: Oh, no! Sabretooth just slammed Wolverine into that wall! And now the wall is collapsing on top of him!

 

A strong artist, like John Byrne, was able to tell a great deal of story with well laid out panels, with good flow. Weaker artists didn't do that, which led Claremont to increase the amount of 'play-by-play' narrative dialogue like the example I offered.

Exactly.

 

And, on top of that, Claremont wrote some of the most groan inducing dialogue ever. Look at X-Men #132...the scene where Jean holds back Scott's eyeblasts?

 

Worse than As The World Turns.

 

Page layout is crucial to quality sequential art storytelling, just like the storyboardist on a movie is crucial to properly developing frame-by-frame shots in a film.

 

New Mutants' dialogue is pretty groan inducing, too.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Siege Perilous was the last dying gasp of Chris Claremont's coattails riding (yes I said it) X-Men career, and it was atrocious. He's very fortunate that Jim Lee came along and gave him a gracious ending to his run.

 

Literally, Nothing from issue #228-269 makes any sense. I dare anyone to string a coherent plot from that run.

 

Claremont had some wonderful plots...wonderful...but he was TERRIBLE at dialogue, and without a strong artist, he just rambles on and on, and goes nowhere. Plot elements introduced that are never resolved, plots that don't make sense, characters who behave differently one issue to another...ick.

 

Thanks, but what "Siege Perilous" refers to?

I restarted reading the X-Men as a young adult with issue #214 and I liked the various titles a lot, especially X-Factor, New Mutants and Power Pack.

 

But there are various thing I dont understand. First, while I can see your point about the second half of the run you mentioned, I seem to recall up to some point the stories were good.

Second, I never thought Claremont was "terrible" at dialogue. I was re-reading some New Mutants and dialogue is good. Why do you say that?

Also, how the presence of a "strong artist" can improve a story if it is not already decently good?

 

I also dont understand why you say that Jim Lee "gave him a gracious ending to his run" I think I stopped buying the title when Lee started to co-wrote, or at least that is what I got. What would be the gracious ending?

 

"Siege Perilous", at least as it applies to the X-Men, refers to the storyline in which the device of the same name would allow the X-Men to step through its portal and start new lives if they ever got weary of the burdens of their super hero lives.

 

Nice concept.

 

Unfortunately, an utter failure in execution. It was a total mess. Storm reverts to being a child, Rogue disappeared for nearly two years, and ended up hooking up with Magneto. Havok ends up being a Genoshan magistrate. Psylocke ended up having her body transferred and became Asian.

 

It was awful.

 

Jim Lee gave Claremont a gracious ending, because he focused him, and consolidated a lot of the storylines, which resulted in X-Tinction Agenda, which was the first exciting event in the mutant universe in nearly 3 years (since Fall of the Mutants.) That in turn led to X-Men #1-3, which, of course, made comics history.

[kimik]

Rogue disappeared for nearly two years, and ended up hooking up with Magneto.

 

This was the only part of the storyline I did not mind.

[Bosco685]

When you can't debate the issue on its merits, you focus instead on the person debating you and what you feel their "flaws" are. That is garbage debate, and unworthy of response.

 

We have been discussion the Liefeld New Mutants run, and especially the events related to 87 and 98. When sharing experiences, you attempt to discredit statements by stating the poster's details just did not happen. You even made this statement.

 

"The plural of anecdote is not evidence."

 

 

I have no problem with someone having a valid opposite opinion. So you made a statement that sounded like an approach you said you don't care for, and I asked for the facts.

 

In fact, Jon Warren, the editor of the Update at the time, did a better job of keeping track of things in this time period...when the Update went from once a year to every two months to every month...than at any other time during Overstreet's entire history, before or since.

 

So you had a strong opinion the Jon Warren period of more frequent updates may have been the most accurate than ever before. I respect that opinion. But to say it is a fact would take more analysis than you have presented.

 

THE END

[RockMyAmadeus]

When you can't debate the issue on its merits, you focus instead on the person debating you and what you feel their "flaws" are. That is garbage debate, and unworthy of response.

 

We have been discussion the Liefeld New Mutants run, and especially the events related to 87 and 98. When sharing experiences, you attempt to discredit statements by stating the poster's details just did not happen. You even made this statement.

 

"The plural of anecdote is not evidence."

 

 

I have no problem with someone having a valid opposite opinion. So you made a statement that sounded like an approach you said you don't care for, and I asked for the facts.

 

In fact, Jon Warren, the editor of the Update at the time, did a better job of keeping track of things in this time period...when the Update went from once a year to every two months to every month...than at any other time during Overstreet's entire history, before or since.

 

So you had a strong opinion the Jon Warren period of more frequent updates may have been the most accurate than ever before. I respect that opinion. But to say it is a fact would take more analysis than you have presented.

 

THE END

 

You're barking up the wrong tree, Bosco.

 

[Bosco685]

So, back to the discussion.

 

Comic Book Legends Revealed #201 (Cable history)

 

While Cable had the general “time traveler from the future” thing down, Stryfe was even MORE mysterious, and even more up in the air. Really, the creators were totally unsure of Stryfe’s origins. In fact, one idea Liefeld had was that, for a major twist, it would be revealed that Stryfe was really a woman under all that armor.

 

However, ultimately it was determined by Liefeld that Stryfe would BE Cable! That was the big revelation at the end of New Mutants #100.

 

Liefeld’s theory was that since Cable was a time-traveler, who knows “when” we are seeing Cable in HIS timeline. So we would then see him slowly descend into madness and become the nemesis of his own, younger self. It’s a clever approach.

 

That particular approach was sidetracked (not totally thrown off, but sidetracked, at least) when Liefeld learned that Bob Harras, along with Whilce Portacio and Jim Lee, had determined Cable’s origin on their own, apart from Liefeld, the creator of the character.

 

Harras, Portacio and Lee had come up with the idea that Nathan Summers, son of Cyclops and Madelyne Pryor, was going to be sent to the future and he would grow up to be Cable.

 

Amazing how many people had a hand in forming Cable's backstory, and the twists and turns involved.

[Bosco685]

Ten Years Later: Reflecting on "Kingdom Come" with Alex Ross

 

Now, wasn't Magog a character created as a response to all those characters that were popping up in the early '90s?

 

Yeah. That's a character that Mark Waid invented that was really just put to me like come up with the most God awful, Rob Liefeld sort of design that you can. What I was stealing from was - really only two key designs of Rob's - the design of Cable. I hated it. I felt like it looked like they just threw up everything on the character - the scars, the thing going on with his eye, the arm, and what's with all the guns? But the thing is, when I put those elements together with the helmet of Shatterstar -- I think that was his name -- well, the ram horns and the gold, suddenly it held together as one of the designs that I felt happiest with in the entire series.

 

Really?

 

Yeah. I don't think it ended up looking like a buffoonish character. In a way, that gold rams head affect took it to a new level of almost biblical metaphor that had a nice little touch to it. It's the kind of thing I should have been striving, but it was much more accidental.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

So, back to the discussion.

 

 

[Logan510]

Second, I never thought Claremont was "terrible" at dialogue. I was re-reading some New Mutants and dialogue is good. Why do you say that?

Also, how the presence of a "strong artist" can improve a story if it is not already decently good?

Claremont used a ton of expositional dialogue. Consider the following (I made up) as an example:

 

Nightcrawler: Oh, no! Sabretooth just slammed Wolverine into that wall! And now the wall is collapsing on top of him!

 

A strong artist, like John Byrne, was able to tell a great deal of story with well laid out panels, with good flow. Weaker artists didn't do that, which led Claremont to increase the amount of 'play-by-play' narrative dialogue like the example I offered.

Exactly.

 

And, on top of that, Claremont wrote some of the most groan inducing dialogue ever. Look at X-Men #132...the scene where Jean holds back Scott's eyeblasts?

 

Worse than As The World Turns.

 

Page layout is crucial to quality sequential art storytelling, just like the storyboardist on a movie is crucial to properly developing frame-by-frame shots in a film.

 

New Mutants' dialogue is pretty groan inducing, too.

 

This reminds me of when adults who never read Stan as a kid call his work "corny"..and it probably is to adult eyes. If you take Claremont's work in the context of when it was done, it was fairly sophisticated, especially for it's intended audience.

 

I do agree with and have always said it was no coincidence that CC did his best work when paired with a very strong artist ( and it didn't hurt if that artist was also co-plotting as well ).

[southerncross]

Here Is Comics value monthly oct 1992 prices for New Mutants

[Prince Namor]

Second, I never thought Claremont was "terrible" at dialogue. I was re-reading some New Mutants and dialogue is good. Why do you say that?

Also, how the presence of a "strong artist" can improve a story if it is not already decently good?

Claremont used a ton of expositional dialogue. Consider the following (I made up) as an example:

 

Nightcrawler: Oh, no! Sabretooth just slammed Wolverine into that wall! And now the wall is collapsing on top of him!

 

A strong artist, like John Byrne, was able to tell a great deal of story with well laid out panels, with good flow. Weaker artists didn't do that, which led Claremont to increase the amount of 'play-by-play' narrative dialogue like the example I offered.

Exactly.

 

And, on top of that, Claremont wrote some of the most groan inducing dialogue ever. Look at X-Men #132...the scene where Jean holds back Scott's eyeblasts?

 

Worse than As The World Turns.

 

Page layout is crucial to quality sequential art storytelling, just like the storyboardist on a movie is crucial to properly developing frame-by-frame shots in a film.

 

New Mutants' dialogue is pretty groan inducing, too.

 

This reminds me of when adults who never read Stan as a kid call his work "corny"..and it probably is to adult eyes. If you take Claremont's work in the context of when it was done, it was fairly sophisticated, especially for it's intended audience.

 

I do agree with and have always said it was no coincidence that CC did his best work when paired with a very strong artist ( and it didn't hurt if that artist was also co-plotting as well ).

 

As a KID I thought Stan's dialogue was corny.

Except in Amazing Spider-man. For some reason it worked for me in that.

In hindsight, the only characters I really think Stan's dialogue works for is Spider-man, Reed Richards, J. Jonah Jameson, and the Thing. They can blabber on in that Stan Lee style and it still works.

 

[Bosco685]

Here Is Comics value monthly oct 1992 prices for New Mutants

 

Thanks for sharing this. I think around this time Mile High Comics was also selling its own price guide ( ), and had New Mutants jacked up high by this time. How high would be interesting to see.

[southerncross]

Here Is Comics value monthly oct 1992 prices for New Mutants

 

Thanks for sharing this. I think around this time Mile High Comics was also selling its own price guide ( ), and had New Mutants jacked up high by this time. How high would be interesting to see.

 

Here is the other page with nm 87 from CVM oct 1992

[Bosco685]

 

I never had the chance to see New Mutants #87 for $75 at that time. Wow!