Elijya said:
yeah, those two. And X-Factor, but X-Factor's too tied into the rest of the x-verse. Astonishing and Ulitmate are on thier own, for the most part
Which may be why those are the two I read most regularly.
The problem with the X-Men is the very fact that they are a franchise. Being a franchise limits how much they can grow as a character/story, but demands they their line be over-represented in the market because of the high sales (total) of the line itself. The amount of X-books per year, whether ongoings, mini's, or so on, seem to remain the same every year, and nearly every time someone in the company claims to be "cutting back", whatever books that are cancelled return within a few years. True, this isn't new for Marvel (SPIDER-MAN became a franchise a few years before the X-Men had their boom in the 90's, and even ran alongside them; remember how NEW WARRIORS was desperately shoehorned as a "Spider-book" towards the end?) or DC (there are no end of Batman or Superman books/minis/one-shots/appearences).
Perhaps it is a problem that unlike most franchises, the X-Men revolve around a cast of DOZENS of unique heroes instead of just ONE hero and their cast. Plus, the X-Men have an overall "agenda", basically an allegory about bigotry and relations amung different groups, whereas most solo heroes are pretty much about generic superheroing/soap opera. ULTIMATE X-MEN works for me because it reminds me of the X-Men at their strongest; as a team book, not a franchise.
Relying on the X-Line for, oh, a good ten years before DISASSEMBLED and Bendis jazzed up the Avengers have taken their toll. 5 years ago, nearly any X-book that was launched sold in the Top Ten, even BROTHERHOOD #1. But come 2006, not even titles starring "popular" X-Men like Nightcrawler, Gambit, or Rogue can survive longer than 2 years (recall that during the 90's boom, SLEEPWALKER managed to remain for 3 years). Even WOLVERINE doesn't usually sell in the Top 10 anymore. True, DC has stepped up its game and is competing a lot harder for the past 2 years, but the fact is that the more books that got tagged as X-books, the less strength the line held. Joe Q even claimed that DEADLY GENESIS was "underperforming" because it wasn't selling in the Top 10 (and still isn't; although any EIC who sees the Top 15 as a problem really needs to gain some perspective).
As for "inter-title coordination", I feel that ironically, it is easier to do than it has ever been, and thus isn't done as often as it should. Joe Q seems to feel this sort of stuff is best left to "niggling fanboys" and so on, but being defensive doesn't solve the problem. It's called stonewalling, and a company that publishes books that historically criticize topical political climates should know that.
Maybe the X-Franchise could benefit from a REALLY new idea for the staus quo, that is thought out, coordinated and maintained. But that would be a considerable thing to pull off, especially for a fanbase and franchise so used to "lather, rinse, repeat".
gildea said:
I agree with all most everything you said. Only minor quibble i have us that 2 A listers have lost their powers, (prof X and magneto).
Very true. I concede both are not C-Listers. But on the other hand, both Xavier and Magneto have exitted the stage for long periods of time, either via death, believed death, inprisonment, or whatever, and the books have proven to still fare well. Therefore, the loss of both yet again is hardly new. Heck, "losing powers" itself is hardly new to the X-Franchise. I'm sure we could make a list of at least a half dozen X-related characters who lost their powers at some point in a story (Storm being the most recognizable). Heck, "power loss" stories were common fodder for DC golden age Superman comics.
