House of X/Powers of X

[radiator]

Anybody read this?

I must say I'm a bit intrigued by all the buzz around it - it's even getting coverage in some fairly mainstream publications, and I gather the collection is out next week.

Bearing in mind I have almost no frame of reference - I think the only X comics I've ever read are Grant Morrison's New X Men run and some of Joss Whedon's Astonishing X Men - is it worth checking out? Will I be completely lost?

[Greg M.]

I've read it. Oh, I've read it all right.

Would I recommend it? I really don't know. It's very much a set-up for the new X-Men status quo rather than a stand-alone piece. If you're not interested in following any of the ongoing titles, I wouldn't bother. And on the one hand, if you're not well-versed in X-lore, I can imagine it being absolutely baffling at points. On the other hand, if you are well-versed in X-lore, you're going to wonder why everyone's so utterly out of character. (Well, to an extent – characterisation is not Hickman's strong point at the best of times, and the series only gives us insight into a handful of characters – most of the rest are wallpaper.)

But...

...there are some really interesting ideas in here. There is a sense of scope and scale. And there's a clear sense of direction, something the main X-Men line has lacked for about fifteen years. It all boils down to whether the ongoing titles can do anything to humanise Hickman's typically grand, dispassionate vision. And so far, the jury's out.

[radiator]

Fair enough - I'll probably give it a swerve, then.

I suspect that the reason it's getting so much attention is because it's apparently a fairly drastic reinvention or recalibration of the X Men status quo, and it's widely assumed that it will be a big influence on the eventual MCU iteration of them.

RE: Hickman, the only thing I've read of his was an issue or two of East of West (or was it West of East?) and all I remember about it was that it seemed more like a loose collection of ideas and visuals than an actual story. Just chalked him up as another of those big name comics writers like Brian K Vaughn that I just don't get the hype for.

[Tjm86]

the only X comics I've ever read are Grant Morrison's New X Men run and some of Joss Whedon's Astonishing X Men - is it worth checking out? Will I be completely lost?

TBH I've always been baffled by Morrison's reputation and his run.  Granted it came at a time when the title was struggling with some very poor writers and there were some interesting ideas.  Whedon's run was better for my money but both writers suffered from the x title's biggest problem for a loooooong time: way too many characters shoehorned into a single issue.

Clarememont's run is far more contained and seems to have an emotional core to it.  Granted he could sometimes get a little too clever for his own good and his last few years were not great but even so there was some good story telling going on, particularly around the 200 mark.  His run with John Romita jr was probably the peak, certainly for me.  The Mutant Massacre storyline was potentially the last decent crossover Marvel did on the titles, driven more by the story itself.

Hickman's run on Avengers / New Avengers worked reasonably well, particularly following it in hindsight.  It probably helps that the characters he was working with tend to be fairly two dimensional anyway so the characterisation issue is not a major problem

As for HoX/PoX itself, it is worth a look when they get round to doing it as a more cost-effective graphic novel but it isn't earth shattering.  For my money the greatest problem with it is the lack of an emotional core.  One of the ideas, seemingly lifted from the Battlestar reboot, strips the title of its sense of hazard.  Ultimately though there is little scope for connecting with a lot of the characters.

I know that the same criticism can be made of Dredd, Rogue Trooper or Strontium Dog to some degree but at the same time they are characters that are supposed to lack this depth.  Two of them are clones and completely institutionalised. 

I would agree with Greg as far as x-history is concerned.  It is so dramatically recast that new readers are not going to be massively disadvantaged compared to old readers.  In fact a lack of familiarity could be an advantage for precisely the reasons Greg mentions.

For my money it has done a better job than some of the recent writers.  The idea that the title has, as with FF, been run down a bit in recent years because of the cinematic rights squabbles is certainly understandable considering the dramatic quality reduction and repeated reboots of recent years.  Certainly it is helpful if you plan on following any of the x titles in coming months to see how the reboot shakes out.  Otherwise?  Well, if Hickman's reboot doesn't work out then its likely to end up as a footnote in the history of the title.

[Greg M.]

Hickman's ideas seem really impressive on a grand, sci-fi scale. I can see why many found HoXPoX's own conceits fresh. A mutant nation, multiple timelines, a character repeatedly reincarnating at the point of her own birth, functional immortality for the X-Men via cloned bodies and Cerebro-backed-up minds - there's a lot to play with. But to justify the embrace of these concepts, characters have to make decisions - mostly off-panel - that seem at odds with everything we know about them. As readers, we're expected to just go with it. And that's Hickman in a nutshell - plot stems from concept, not character.

As for this being a potential template for new movie X-Men - well, I'm as bored as the next man of endless Dark Phoenix rehashes, and I can kind of visualise mutant-island Krakoa on-screen. It wouldn't be the X-Men as most people know them - but maybe Marvel's screenwriters could inject some warmth into it all.

[Professor Bear]

Isn't this the one where Hickman was caught plagiarising an author's work?  I remember being amused that of all the possible iterations of the Groundhog Day trope that he could possible have went with, Hickman decided to copy and paste the plot from a novel that he'd name-dropped in interviews.

[karlos]

Very tempted to jump on board and pick this up.

What is everyone's thoughts on the titles that have spun out of HoX/PoX?

Isn't there 8 new titles or so?

[Greg M.]

Let's see...

X-Men (by Hickman himself): Kinda all over the place. Hickman has a surprisingly odd sense of humour - the most recent issue featured villains based on the Golden Girls - and it's been less momentous than one might expect.

New Mutants: (Co-authored by Hickman, for the first arc.) The New Mutants themselves seem to have de-aged a little, but the art is good, and there's at least a sense of fun to it. Fun, not logic, mind.

Excalibur: The mystical book. Finding its feet, with some unusual choices (Apocalypse is a wizard, Betsy is Captain Britain - didn't work out so well last time, did it, Betsy?) and plots that require characters to do daft things to get them into position. But... it's certainly interesting. There is potential here.

X-Force: Now the mutant nation's intelligence service. Things of major import are happening in this title, but it's all a bit grimdark.

Fallen Angels: Pretty drab and going on hiatus already.

Marauders: Kitty Pryde and friends, on a boat. The writer, Gerry Duggan, is a bit of a journeyman, but he can do character, so this one's all right.

The one that interests me most is the forthcoming title with Sinister, Scalphunter, Nanny, Orphan Maker, Havok and more.

[radiator]

TBH I've always been baffled by Morrison's reputation and his run.  Granted it came at a time when the title was struggling with some very poor writers and there were some interesting ideas.  Whedon's run was better for my money but both writers suffered from the x title's biggest problem for a loooooong time: way too many characters shoehorned into a single issue.

I absolutely love Morrison's run - it's so packed with great ideas and concepts - the secondary mutation thing, Xorn, Beak, Quentin Quire and the whole 'Magneto was Right' thing, the notion of mutants as their own subculture that is being co-opted by non-mutants with the U Men etc.

I think it delves fairly deep into X Men mythology while staying accessible enough for readers who are primarily familiar with the movies (as I say I've always found any other X Men stuff I've tried to read to be impenetrable). If only Frank Quitely had been able to draw the whole thing I think it would be remembered as an all time great run of comics. It's a shame that a lot of the fill-in art was so poor.

I didn't really get on with Whedon's run as well - it seemed a bit more conventional in comparison to what Morrison was doing. I think I only read half of it. Definitely up for going back to give it a reread though.

I recognise Claremont's run as iconic and important, but it's quite dated and stylistically it's pretty dense and hard for me to actually appreciate in and of itself.

[radiator]

It wouldn't be the X-Men as most people know them

That's what I think the MCU version of the X Men will want to go with. The established Fox universe movie versions are so played out now, the movies will want to go with something totally fresh and different.

[Greg M.]

I absolutely love Morrison's run - it's so packed with great ideas and concepts

Yes – I'm baffled that anyone's baffled by the reputation of Morrison's run. It's mostly superb, apart from the art that poor Igor Kordey was having to draw in an insanely short amount of time to try and get the series back on schedule. Morrison's take on Cyclops in particular is one of the best Slim's ever had – the aura of Zen-like calm Morrison imbued him with was inspired and so true to the character.

The Whedon run is good – the return of Colossus is a genuine highlight - but it's a step backwards into a safer (and rather decompressed) superhero world. However, it does really cement and define the Kitty / Emma 'frenemies' relationship in a manner that's still drawn on today. (See 'Marauders'.)

[karlos]

Thanks very much, Greg - there's certainly a lot of titles out there.

The Havok one sounds interesting, too - always liked that character.

Always seems weird to read of an Excalibur with no Claremont or Davis.

[Greg M.]

The Havok one sounds interesting, too - always liked that character.

The Havok title - Hellions - just got even more promising now the writer's been announced as Zeb Wells. He can be hit and miss, but on-form, he's pretty good, and the concept - Sinister's assigned to find a purpose for some of the worst mutants alive, and Havok's the one stuck dealing with them - sounds promising: a mutant Suicide Squad, effectively.

[karlos]

Yeah, that sounds cracking, Greg - "A mutant Suicide Squad"?! 

I'll definitely be picking that one up.

Thanks!

[Tjm86]

Yes – I'm baffled that anyone's baffled by the reputation of Morrison's run. It's mostly superb, ...

Perhaps it's because I find Morrison's work a bit hit or miss for me.  Zenith?  Absolutely.  Invisibles?  Definitely.  X-men, Batman etc  Nope, leaves me cold.  Each to their own I suppose.