@koays, I fixed it.

Ah my dearest love back in her rightful place at #1....also did Claremont even make Rogue?

@koays: Yes.

Rogue first appeared in a Avengers annual written by Claremont.

While make the first pole, the one for Stan Lee, I was surprised by how few charecter he actually created. Claremont is the other way around. He created more than I thought. I knew he didn't create the ANAD line up.

@immolation: Who's your favorite?

Wasn't Moira around before Claremont?

No. She first appeared in the third issue Claremont wrote. X-Men #96.

@microsoft: I have lots of favorites. Rogue, Psylocke, Kitty, and Moonstar are my favorites. If I had to choose I would probably go with Rogue since she is the most consistently well written since Claremont left.

*Recommends post Claremont Excalibur

*Avidly defends Simonson's X-Factor

*Doesn't know who created Rogue

*Claims to be Mutant God-King

I can't even anymore....I'm done ;)

Rogue

Emma Frost

Mystique

Magik

Lmao! I asked because her first appearance was in Avengers and she was in an unpublished Ms. Marvel book before joining the team...it's confusing!

Also Simonson's X-Factor is awesome and Excalibur has like 3/4 of a run after Claremont so it's downright wrong to just stop after he's gone. *sigh* It's just so hard being a Mutant God-King surrounded by those that don't deserve or appreciate you.

@koays:

Claremont wrote Avengers Anual #10. Simonson's X-Factor was a colossal shit-show. Post-Claremont Excalibur was an irrelevant hodgepodge of bad ideas.

You are a false prophet. God is a superstition.

Back in the day Marvel used to have their writers write other series or work on one shots as well as the main title they were working on...mainly because comic books were a niche interest back then and not like today where every other person who you run into on the street these days is a neck bearded comic writer. Mystique and Deathbird originally debuted as Ms. Marvel villains when Claremont wrote that series, Sabertooth debuts in a Iron Fist book that Claremont and John Byrne did...part of the importance of the overlap of the Marvel Universe that is extinct these days.

Davis's stuff is ok. The problem with books that Claremont leaves is that the writers that succeed him usually just try to emulate him, an just use the ideas he had lying around. And what do you even consider Scott Lobdells run on Excalibur?? He didn't have a consistent run. He just wrote little clusters of stories here and there....he was more of a fill in writer for Ellis.

@cattlebattle: @sprior93: I'd like to start this off by saying your both flawed and have collectively pushed me from enjoying X-Factor and looking back at it fondly as one of my earliest reads...to considering it to be a work of pure character appreciation and a traditional comic, simply because i've had to reread it so many times to defend it for it's only crime "not being a Claremont book". Meanwhile the OP calls Claremont "Christmas" and nobody bats an eye. THIS is why I'm God-King around here..my perspective.

@cattlebattle Yea see that's my thing. I know Rogue had a couple of appearances outside of X-Men prior to debuting but she doesn't have a creator credit in some places and Claremont has ALOT of creator credits in books he co-wrote (not that I don't believe he was 100% behind things like say Mr. Sinister...just that sometimes even the artist isn't credited where he's concerned which is odd.)

I'm pretty sure there's a (minimum) 6 issue stretch with Lobdell writing and changing the focus, cast and dynamics, which pleasantly surprised me since I'm not a fan of his. I'll check and come back though. But the point I was trying to make is that Excalibur is essentially it's own series and maybe a few steps away from being it's own world. To stop at Claremont is too miss out on so much that the characters are doing and going through...so many events and arcs that it's almost crime. I feel like if you stop at Claremont and Davis' departure you can say "that was something fun that I'll never have to talk about" but the ups and downs in the book from start to finish made me feel really glad i read it and wish that it was brought up and discussed more. It's like your favorite tv show that was good for the 1st 2 seasons, sucky for season 3 and four and then pulled you back in from season 5 to the finale. It's worth the experience and is an important part of the stories and history of alot of X-Men characters we claim are fan favorites today.

@koays:

"to considering it to be a work of pure character appreciation and a traditional comic"

-__-

Kitty Pryde

You really have to let me know what kind of drugs you take when you go back and read this stuff....because I need some of that....

X-Factor had far, far more problems than simply "not being a Claremont book". The 1980s are home to some of the greatest, character redefining runs Marvel has ever had.....and they all sit a top my favorite material ever put out by Marvel--Stern's Captain America, even though I don't even like the character, Walt Simonson's Thor, John Byrnes run of Fantastic Four, Miller's Daredevil, Moore's work on Captain Britian, even Louise Simonson's Power Pack was fun because she was more suited for writing that. All those books weren't written by Claremont and I can admit how good they were.

X-Factor was completely bland in almost every aspect. Iceman and Beast, who had very interesting developments during their times with the Avengers and the Champions of LA respectively, had nothing going on other than power upgrades and some forgettable girlfriends they had met. Scott and Jean just had extremely prototypical people-in-a-realtionship interaction. The most interesting thing to be born out of that whole run was Archangel and Apocalypse, every other villain in that series was hot garbage.....unless Glowworm, Nanny and Orphan Maker, and the return of the most interesting villain of all time, The Locust, were some things to get excited about. A team of heroes are as only as good as their villains after all.

It was a spin off series created solely to cash in on X-Men fame with no artistic, creative merit like other X-Men spin offs (New Mutants, Excalibur). It's crap and mostly forgettable

Nope. Lobdell and other writers (it wasn't even him by himself) wrote some brief stints here and there. One contribution he had was the Douglock" story....which is funny, because Doug merging with Warlock via Transmode Virus was Claremonts original idea for the characters.....circling back to what I said before oddly enough about people just emulating Claremonts ideas after he leaves. The change in the teams dynamic, roster, outfits and taking them from an interdimensional super hero team to a more grounded mutant, X-Men related team was from Ellis....and as good as he is...even that stuff was just sort of generic.

Screw the so called God King. I am in revolt

I am pulling a Jaimie Lannister...

I thought Simonson did a decent job at writing the O5, but some of her villians were weak. She was terrible at writing teenagers. The bits with Rusty, Skids, and Boomers were some of the most awkward and silliest moments in the series. I thought the book became better after they left and joined New Mutants.

I thought Simonson had some good stories in X-Factor, but sometimes they seemed to be far in between the "meh" stories. Her New Mutants were pure garbage, though.

In general, Simonson's writing was kind of weak. She used a limited vocabulary and overused certain words. This was especially obvious in Inferno when comparing her issues side by side with Claremont's, but she was better in X-Tinction Agenda. I don't think the problem is that she's not Chris Claremont, but it is that she simply wasn't as good as most writers from that time period. Many bronze/copper age writers like Roger Stern, Ann Nocinti, David Michelinie, John Byrne, Peter David, Tom DeFalco, and Dennis O'Neill were more talented than Simonson was.

LMAO! I created this thread on my phone. I didn't notice the spellcheck error. For some reason it's not letting me edit it.

Those are some of the biggest names of the 80s. I can argue that Simonson was as good as some of them. Tom DeFalco didn't seem that much better, he had a simular style to Simonson. Ann Nocenti? The person who wrote Longshot and Typhoid Mary? She didn't seem better imo.

I agree with @koays, I really enjoyed Simonson's run on X-Factor. The writing has not aged as well as Claremont's, but I thought it was still good compared to stuff from the time period.

@cattlebattle: Groundbreaking character development it is not. However Simonson's run is constantly compared to other writers or books. Which is one of my points against the critique. It's slow and grueling especially in the intermediate parts between early arcs. However from about Fall of the Mutants to a little after Inferno the run definitely justifies it's existence. Underwhelming as the developments for Iceman may have been (and as uninspired as Beast story was) the books development for Cyclops, Jean, Battles against Apocalypse and his goons, Hodge and Psynapse....all of those confrontations were well written even if they sometimes lacked the X-men style year long building and hints to the resolution or confrontation.

What would otherwise be an OK run for its contributions to mythos seems like it's always vilified, not for its content, but for existing at all. I've said before it just doesn't deserve the hatedom and yet it has one....so I must be it's defender.

I honestly can't say till I check out Excalibur again....but I'm pretty sure he had a series of eventful issues. Though I'm just surprised that I got jumped on for saying read the whole thing. It's not like the book ever becomes unreadable by any standard. It's got highs and lows and is a pretty good example of a satellite book that's somewhere a bit further out then the usual X-sats that stay a bit closer to the mythos of the main series. Aside from Rachel's plots reminding you of it, it's like they're their own mythos and story. And as a mostly self contained work it's fun to read from start to finish and not nearly as tedious as reading X-men from the same period.

Kitty Pryde...I like a LOT of the others, but KP is the gold standard.

@cattlebattle: You see Cattle...this is the true power of the Mutant God-King of the X-board. I say something...one thing...it doesn't even have to be true. I just say "Simonson had a perfect run" and just like that people flock to agree as though it was always a fact.

You can be Jamie Lannister, slay the King....but I'm beyond that. On this board...well

Nocenti is one of the most underrated Daredevil writers, in my opinion. She is most famous for the stuff with Typhoid, but she started before that. Her run had a overlapping plot. Every issue would bring somthing new to the story and progress the plot forward. Simonson kind oflacked this on X-Factor and she definitely lacked it on New Mutants. A lot of her stories felt like monster of the week through aways. Doesn't necessarily mean they were bad, but they were not very memorable. Nocenti also wrote Wolverine for a little while. I think it was in Marvel Comics Presents, and not his solo. I think she might of written all of the comics that Typhoid Mary appeared in throughout the 90's.

I have not read very much of DeFalco, but he was good on Spider-Man. He's style was more young readers friendly, like Simonson's, but he used a better vocabulary and was better with long term plots.

There are better hills to die on.

@cattlebattle: lol get to the rest of my response later but... Psynapse isn't the name of the dude they fought who reactivated Jean's Tp? Wow I think I really need to go pick up a comic book...I'm getting way to comfortable with what I think I remember, that's like 3 in a row.

One person agreed with you.

And he shall have songs sung about him in the church of Koays about how he stood with his God-King and defended the Testament of Simonson from the heathens and infidels

Yeah, the Dark Riders, the group Psynapse was a part of, debut in a story by Claremont.

He agreed with you in a "benefit of the doubt" sort of manner.

It's like clinging to table scraps here.

• Psylocke
• Gambit
• Emma Frost
• Rogue
• Karma
• Magik
• Kitty

@cattlebattle: Lol yes(really needed a win for some semblance of my cred) and it was a great couple of Simonson issues where they fought X-Factor. Innovation may not be her strong suit but her villain Battles and confrontations were great...even with lame villains.

@invain: There...there's something wrong with you ain't there, boy? ;)

Wish we could pick more than one. My top 5-6 are:

Psylocke

Rogue

Callisto/Mystique

Gambit

Jubilee

your list is missing a certain God-Queen...

You say table scraps....I say New Testament.

Lol but yea I get what your saying about comparing the themes and tone of Excalibur Post-Christmas. It's the same as with main series X-Men and how it devolved (for better or worse) into action and mutant race politics and further away from the other superhero/adventurer themes it had.

But I think that the difference is that while X-men grew to sort of dug into what it had to forge it's mythos, Excalibur just kept trucking and branching out using multiple parts of it's characters to form plots. I mean reading it from the perspective of it being just another book...ignoring it's history as an X-spinoff. This book is something that you wanna stick with and needs to be read through ups and downs.

Idk how to phrase it, I just feel like it's an important piece of X-Men history, a VERY long running book that it seems alot of people just no nothing about. Like for as popular as Nightcrawler seems to be idk if any of them know what he was accomplishing over in Excalibur...his entire characterization from inception to now is almost written with only Claremont's X-Men run in mind and nothing else, though...I guess thats the magic of Christmas.

But Claremont didn't create you...

-_- We are officially at war, you and I.

You can't beat me. I remember your greatest fear!

@invain: You!!! Your dealing with Dark Forces you cannot control.

Rogue followed by Rachel.

Looking at this list really makes you remember how good Claremont was at writing women. I will be surprised if another male charecter besides Gambit gets a vote.