![]() ![]() I don't see other writers working off his ideas all that much. Obviously that doesn't generate much influence. Hickman tends to tell a great story then put the toys back and move on like nothing happened (see secret wars - practically forgotten a few years later). His work on the avengers/new york city side with the disassembled -> siege line of events was also major. Like that storyline was a focus point of the entire franchise for what, 15 years? I don't love him as a writer but he certainly set the tone. I honestly have to say that Bendis and decimation/house of M are a bigger influence than Hickman on the x-men. Hickman's ideas are interesting but I'm like 90% sure a good half of them (if not more) won't even last 5 years much less 15. Hickman's x-men are like pod people half the time and the growth they show is pretty artificial (see, dad Cyclops, the thruple, Kurt's sudden desire to change religions, magneto going back to super-racist, xavier becoming radicalized off-screen, etc). ![]() What made Claremont's run brilliant was not only the many ideas that he introduced that became staples of the marvel universe/x-men, but the consistent character growth and behaviour over time that created a lot of memorable well-defined characters and relationships. But if we're going to:ĭo you guys think Hickman will unseat Claremont as the new godfather of X? It's not fair to compare 1 year against 17 in the first place. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |