What went wrong?
>>82541351
marvel sold the movie rights to Fox
>>82541351
First name Chris second name Claremont.
>>82541351
Claremont let his fetishes and his increasing dislike for Cyclops ruin his creativity.
>>82541423
I'm talking about the comic book series X-Men Forever (Vol. 2) and X-Men Forever 2, both written by British-born American comic book writer Christoper Claremont.
>>82541351
x-men had too many titles, they should have stuck with uncanny, and just x-men. not new x-men, x-men legacy, x-men forever, x-men first class, x-men annuals, new x-men, and on to infinity it seems
>>82541351
Claremont was a god because he just kept rolling. He was "in the zone". He felt the pulse of the cape scene and eventually his work began to set the beat. Trying to go back and capture that magic years later is like trying to write fan fiction that doesn't suck.
>>82541531
X-Men Legacy WAS "just X-Men"
They just renamed the book when "Astonishing" became the marquee book.
Claremont in 2009 wasn't the same writer as he as in the 70's - 80's
>>82541578
Hell, he was shit by the time they brought him back the first time in the late 90s.
Children of the Vault >>>>>>> Shit > The Neo.
>>82541569
yeah that bugs my ocd for how i organize my floppies. kind of like how its journey to mystery, then thor then back, or when they go from issue #234 to ISSUE#1 for 20 issues then its issue #246, i hate that shit
>>82541644
Well, the good news now is that it goes #1 - #(n<12) - #1.
Finally, a numbering system that makes sense.
>>82541351
A lack of creative tension and restraint.
Claremont did his best work on the X-titles when he had somebody to bounce ideas of off while ratcheting down his excesses as a writer, whether it was an artist like John Byrne or an editor like Louise Simonson or Jim Shooter.
When he returned to the X-books in the late 1990s/early 2000s, Marvel tried to make up for the classless way he got booted off the X-Men comic in 1991 by giving him the title of Editorial Director or something like that and carte blanche to indulge his proclivities as a creator. That relative lack of creative and editorial accountability rarely results in a creator's best work.
>>82541351
Absolutely nothing
>>82541528
I don't know, I don't read comics, but I bet the answer still has something to do with movie rights.
>>82542166
>I don't read comics
See, if you read comics, you'd know that X-Men Forever was it's own self contained nostalgia product that would never have anything to do with the movies.
Also, you'd know it sucked pretty fucking hard.
>>82541351
Not enough Rogue/Spider-Man
>>82541503
>dislike for Cyclops
If he hated Cyclops, it didn't show in this series with making him a family man free of Jean Grey's doompussy that got both Wolverine and Beast killed. I liked a lot of things in that series like Colossus being Russia's premier superhero and fucking black Widow
>>82541553
Honestly Claremont was already starting to show cracks in his final years on Uncanny during the late 80s early 90s. The way he was taken off the book was very unglamorous, but it would have been unavoidable.
Honestly though, I like parts of his his second return to X-men. It had some great character moments (Nightcrawler and Wolverine sharing drinks in Paris stand out especially).
>>82542166
Kid, you don't read the fucking comics, what the fuck are you doing in this thread? Not everything has to do with movie rights, faggot.
