POLL: What was the best X-Men creative team?

[delekkerste]

I'm conducting this poll in honor of the upcoming X-Men movie and because I was laid up in bed all weekend and read the entire Essential Uncanny X-Men Vol. 1 (reprinting X-Men #1-24)...but more on that after the poll:

 

 

[Rickdogg]

Claremont and Byrne w/o a doubt!!!!

[LordRahl]

Is there even a question here? Claremont-Byrne with the runner up a mile behind.

[delekkerste]

Anyway, back to the reprinted X-Men #1-24 that I read this weekend...this was silly beyond belief! I give Stan and Jack credit for creating these great characters that other creative teams were later able to flesh out so well, but it was almost painful reading these goofy and formulaic stories. Just about every issue starts out with the X-Men in the Danger Room, Professor X sending the X-Men either directly on a dangerous mission or on a vacation that gets cut short by some new menace (usually against unmemorable, third-rate villains like "Lucifer", "The Stranger" or "The Locust"). Throw in the obligatory Stan Lee hackneyed dialogue like "how could I ever have thought Scott could care about me?" from Jean and "I have no right to date Jean while my eyes are such a menace to the ones I love!" complaints from Scott and you have the storyline to any one of these issues.

 

Anyway, you Silver Age fans crack me up...putting away market/valuation considerations for the moment, for pure reading pleasure, I'll take a good 1970s or 1980s book any day! My vote goes for the Claremont/Byrne team both for the quantity and quality of their run, though ol' Roy and Neal would've taken top honors if they had produced a larger body of work in my book (yeah, they had made great strides by the late Silver Age!) I also loved the Claremont/Smith run, particular #172-#175, which were instrumental in hooking me into the comics hobby.

 

Gene

[fantastic_four]

Yea...I've always figured the crappy stories in the early X-Men issues are the main reason they're not up there in the Spidey or FF stratosphere yet. I tried reading the early Lee/Kirby X-Men, but I kept falling asleep after the first few pages.

 

If there were an equal number of available copies of Giant-Size X-Men #1 and the original X-Men #1, I bet that GS X-Men #1 would be currently worth more, or that in 10-20-30 years it would be worth more. The new X-Men kick the old X-Men's booties.

[AlexH]

By far Claremont and Byrne.

 

Maybe this should be for who is second best

[Lofwyr]

I'm a long time reader of Uncanny X-men so I agree with everyone else here. The X-men were nothing before Claremont came onto the scene with his writing. Byrne drew some of the most memorable pages in Uncanny X-men history. It was the collaboration of the two that created the best marvel stories of all time. It's been 14 years since i've started collecting Uncanny (started when I was 11 i'm 25 now) and I still drag out my #94-250 issue run to read from time to time.

 

My favorite story arcs were the phoenix saga, early alpha flight encounters, and of course the "new" team interaction. They are truly immortal tales. Movie hype or not their place in comic history was cemented a long time ago. It seems that later writers tried their best to imitate claremont and failed.

 

 

 

[Crackandpresstoan11]

"Anyway, you Silver Age fans crack me up...putting away market/valuation considerations for the moment, for pure reading pleasure, I'll take a good 1970s or 1980s book any day!"

 

I think for the most part, silver age collectors in their late 20's, early 30's (like myself) collect for the art only. Most silver age stories are unreadable compared to today's comics. No artist on the planet can touch Kirby. Technically not the best artist (Adams rules in that area), but incredibly dynamic. Kirby covers are second to none.

[Lofwyr]

I never understood the Kirby elitism either. Kirby is without a doubt a great artist but his style is very retro and a throwback to the silver age. He draws interesting panels on a cosmic or mechanical scale but he's hardly the _best_. I think a lot of older collectors are simply nostalgic for that type of comic art. Modern day artists tend to have a more realistic visual style of art which appeals to people with a "cinematic" attatchment to reality. I'd take an Alex Ross or even a Jim Lee over a Kirby piece anyday of the week.

 

[blowout]

The Claremont/ Byrne team wins hands down for me. No one else did as much to make the X-Men what they are today.

The team were pretty much responsible for making characters such as Wolverine, Nightcrawler and Colossus so engaging and compeling.

The Byrne/ Claremont X-Men run is not only the greatest run on that book but also one of the greatest in comic book history.

 

As for Stan & Jacks X-Men run Gene, you are correct that it is not one of their finest moments. You have to remeber though that back then, these guys were working on about half a dozen books per month.

Pretty hard to keep a consistent level of quality vs. quantity with that kind of schedule. And it has to be said that the X-Men were pretty low in the priority in those days and the books suffered for it.

[blowout]

I'd take an Alex Ross or even a Jim Lee over a Kirby piece anyday of the week.

 

What you have to understand though is that without Kirby, there would never have been a Ross or Lee.

Kirby was a pioneer in the comics field, his dramatic storytelling, dynamic panels and sense of perspective were awesome.

Also remeber his workload. He was doing at least 5 x the work current artists produce. Considering that its surprising he managed the level of detail he did.

[Lofwyr]

What you have to understand though is that without Kirby, there would never have been a Ross or Lee.

 

That's purely speculative. Artists have been around ever since mankind figured out how to mash charcoal, bark, and clay to make paintings on walls. If Kirby didn't do it then someone else would have done it for comics. I'm surprised noone brought "realism" into comic art earlier than the last decade or so. Comic artists are merely a subgenre of the greater artist community. Ross and Lee don't owe their style to Kirby anymore than they owe it to Van Gogh or Rembrandt.

 

[blowout]

Ross and Lee don't owe their style to Kirby anymore than they owe it to Van Gogh or Rembrandt.

 

Read ANY interviews with either Ross or Lee talking about their influences and they will tell you a different story.

[Lofwyr]

Read ANY interviews with either Ross or Lee talking about their influences and they will tell you a different story.

 

Allright, well i'll continue to give props to that original primordial caveman who picked up a charcoal brick to make etchings while lightning flashed overhead that influenced everyone else. They may give respect but every artist has their own unique vision and style. Saying they would not exist without Kirby is ridiculous is all i'm saying. Art has been around forever and always will be no matter who pioneers a specific form.

 

[joe_collector]

Yo, they're just stating the obvious, that without Kirby, many current artists would still be doing their thing, just not in comics.

 

Maybe drawing posters, doing advertising or working for Disney?

[blowout]

All I am saying is that Kirby has had a HUGE influence on comic book artists since the 60's. You may not personaly like his style, and I agree that its is somewhat dated by todays standards, but he set that standard that others have subsequently followed.

[Lofwyr]

but he set that standard that others have subsequently followed.

I'll compromise and say that I see your point. However a lot of comics I see nowadays seem more cinematicly steeped in realism similar to modern movie directors rather than classic artists like Kirby. I notice paneling and perspective techniques that resemble camera angles. Maybe a lurking film major can chime in to put some technical detail into the comparison i'm talking about. It's evolved significantly since Kirby's time so that perceived influence isn't altogether apparent. Maybe if you could note some clearly "kirby" influences in modern comics i'll get a better grasp of your point of view.

 

 

 

 

 

[Zonker]

his style is very retro and a throwback to the silver age

 

! Kirby's style defined the Silver Age at Marvel!

 

Oh, and the complaint about no one doing photo-realism until Alex Ross overlooks what Neal Adams did from 1967-74 (see Bachelor of Comics current thread on the subject).

 

Cheers,

Z.

[Drummy]

I've gotta say I love all these creative teams, but there's just something about certain Kirby panels that are just downright impressive.

 

If anyone can find a picture to post of Avengers #3, about page 22, panel 6 (Sub-Mariner punching Iron Man in the chestplate, with the POV behind Sub-Mariner), you'll get a sense of what makes Kirby pretty cool. Simple, but so effective.

 

And all these other artists are amazing as well. I personally think Kirby did the most with the least, however.

 

Dan

[Crackandpresstoan11]

"I'm surprised none brought "realism" into comic art earlier than the last decade or so."

 

Holy [!@#%^&^]!!!! Last decade?? Your homework assignment for tonight is to visit http://www.nealadams.com/..... and tons and tons of clones followed after him.... OVER 30 YEARS AGO.