Marvel Universe >> View Thread

Author
Stuart




Is why Marvel is not appealing to me anymore.

I mean I grew up in the late 70's and early 80's. Marvel constantly changed then...Tony got drunk and stopped being Iron Man, Bruce Banner takes over the Hulk, losses control and gets banished as a mindless creature, then separated into Banner and Hulk, then Rick Jones takes over, then turns grey, Donald Blake is killed off, Cap becomes the Captain, West Coast get their own branch of Avengers, my fav late 70's Avengers line up disbands, Defenders stop being Defenders, Jean Grey dies, old x-men leave, new x-men come back, Vision goes mad.

There was just as much change then, as there is now, but, it's down to two things:
1) I'm either just too old and need to pass the baton to the kids
2) it's just way too forced, Rhodey was the most obvious choice to be Iron Man, Sam, I'm not sure of, that seems more dictated by editorial need for a black cap. I think Elijah Bradley would have been a better choice

I personally think it's a mixture of both


Posted with Apple iPad 601.1.46
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Location: Paragon City, RI
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


I think Sam's the most logical choice-- much, much more logical than Bucky ever was.

Elijah's a kid. No thanks. There are too many of them as it is.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 41.0 on Windows 8
Dz




Real life stress


Posted with Apple iPad 601.1.46
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,139



    Quote:
    Is why Marvel is not appealing to me anymore.



    Quote:
    I mean I grew up in the late 70's and early 80's. Marvel constantly changed then...Tony got drunk and stopped being Iron Man, Bruce Banner takes over the Hulk, losses control and gets banished as a mindless creature, then separated into Banner and Hulk, then Rick Jones takes over, then turns grey, Donald Blake is killed off, Cap becomes the Captain, West Coast get their own branch of Avengers, my fav late 70's Avengers line up disbands, Defenders stop being Defenders, Jean Grey dies, old x-men leave, new x-men come back, Vision goes mad.


A lot of that stuff I didn't like. But my answer has always been to buy the books I like and drop the rest.


    Quote:
    There was just as much change then, as there is now, but, it's down to two things:
    1) I'm either just too old and need to pass the baton to the kids
    2) it's just way too forced, Rhodey was the most obvious choice to be Iron Man, Sam, I'm not sure of, that seems more dictated by editorial need for a black cap. I think Elijah Bradley would have been a better choice


Elijah Bradley? I would never have come up with that name as the obvious choice. Sam Wilson, to me, is beyond being the obvious choice. He's the only choice. If Old Man Steve weren't in the book, I might even read it.

Right now I have no interest in some of what Marvel is publishing. So I don't buy those books. Meanwhile, Invincible Iron Man is pleasing to me, as are Ant Man, Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Squirrel Girl, so I'm buying those, and I have plans to sample a bunch of other books, including Red Wolf, Weirdworld, Howard the Duck, Hercules, and the Black Knight.

This is what I've always done. Buy what I like and drop the rest.

My biggest irritation has been the Hulk. I've been largely unable to read new stories about the real Hulk, the 70s talking savage unintelligent Hulk, for decades now. I loved that guy. But I've purchased the first six Essentials and am reading them with pleasure.








Posted with Google Chrome 46.0.2490.80 on Windows NT 4.0
Reverend Meteor





    Quote:
    Is why Marvel is not appealing to me anymore.



    Quote:
    I mean I grew up in the late 70's and early 80's. Marvel constantly changed then...Tony got drunk and stopped being Iron Man, Bruce Banner takes over the Hulk, losses control and gets banished as a mindless creature, then separated into Banner and Hulk, then Rick Jones takes over, then turns grey, Donald Blake is killed off, Cap becomes the Captain, West Coast get their own branch of Avengers, my fav late 70's Avengers line up disbands, Defenders stop being Defenders, Jean Grey dies, old x-men leave, new x-men come back, Vision goes mad.



    Quote:
    There was just as much change then, as there is now, but, it's down to two things:
    1) I'm either just too old and need to pass the baton to the kids
    2) it's just way too forced, Rhodey was the most obvious choice to be Iron Man, Sam, I'm not sure of, that seems more dictated by editorial need for a black cap. I think Elijah Bradley would have been a better choice


eh...Sam was the logical choice. But they already did the replacement Cap thing with Bucky who was even less logical. Now Sam looks like a johnny come lately.

But that said...I agree with the rest. Marvel has become down right turgid this year. I was more optimistic after Civil War and Onslaught than I am now....and I hated those stories.



    Quote:
    I personally think it's a mixture of both





Posted with Mozilla Firefox 35.0 on Windows 7
USAgentfan


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,623


Not enough time is spent just trying to write great stories anymore. Marvel has become a big corporation so they are always looking for the next big thing, the latest cash-cow, or how they can cut a bigger slice of the demographics pie.

The product has become all about marketing - gimmicks, hyperbole, and change not for the sake of the story or the character but to try and reel in one audience or another.

The product is also becoming frighteningly haemogenised. Weve gone from a state where the comics influenced the direction of the movies and are rapidly approaching a time when the movies will decide what appears in the comics, primarily because Marvel are desperate to get those millions of movie-goers to buy comics. We'll eventually arrive at a place where you cant distinguish the one from the other.

Marvel doesnt even value its rich comicbook history anymore. Secret Wars was Marvel saying 'we dont care about history or continuity anymore, were wiping the slate clean and sarting again because thats easier than trying to manage 75 years of work.' It happened, but it happened in another reality so doesnt matter now.

Explaining why there is a white Nick Fury with a long and rich history in the marvel universe to new fans too complicated, so we'll simply erase him from that history and introducing a vastly inferior character. It doesnt matter that he lacks any of the gravitas, depth or presence of the original - because he superficially resmbles the famous actor who played the character in a few movies, so thats okay.

On a smaller scale they cant even get the little things right. Starting their 'next big thing' (the current reboot) MONTHS before they even finished their last big thing (Secret Wars) is unforgivable. They dont even know how long Secret Wars is going to be! They announced it would run for the extra issue then retracted saying they didnt know how many issues it would run. They dont know whats going on in their own house!

I'm also a child of the 70's and 80's, which means i was used to comics that were availible at pocket money prices, containing hugely entertaining stories with compelling characters - not a bunch of miserable political angst - that most importantly came out on time.

I felt that I was part of another world. Now I just feel like the victim of a marketing scam most of the time.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 41.0 on Windows NT 4.0
steve




i still check out the marvel and dc websites every Monday morning to see what's coming out, but it's been years since I've seen anything that made me want to run out and buy a new comic book. they're marketing to a totally different audience these days. that and the absolutely insane price of current comics have pretty much alienated me.

but that's ok. I've got boxes of silver and bronze age comics at home and I still buy the occasional back issue if the price is right. so I still enjoy my hobby ;\)


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
plastic_soul




It's funny how people can see the same thing so differently. I started reading Marvel comics in the late '80's and by the end of the 90's my interest in them had been killed off nearly completely.


    Quote:
    Not enough time is spent just trying to write great stories anymore. Marvel has become a big corporation so they are always looking for the next big thing, the latest cash-cow, or how they can cut a bigger slice of the demographics pie.

    The product has become all about marketing - gimmicks, hyperbole, and change not for the sake of the story or the character but to try and reel in one audience or another.


I feel like Marvel has gotten a fair bit better in that respect (seriously!). I mean first of all, it's always been a company that exists to make money. But leaving that aside: is today's Marvel really more about "marketing - gimmicks, hyperbole" than the 90's marvel of chromium covers and poly-bagged issues and collectable cards?


    Quote:
    The product is also becoming frighteningly haemogenised. Weve gone from a state where the comics influenced the direction of the movies and are rapidly approaching a time when the movies will decide what appears in the comics, primarily because Marvel are desperate to get those millions of movie-goers to buy comics. We'll eventually arrive at a place where you cant distinguish the one from the other.


I'm not sure whether you mean that A) Marvel's comics lineup has been homogenised across publishing line, or that B) the comics resemble the movies too closely. In both cases I disagree. A) the titles that marvel is putting out now look/feel very distinctly different from each other in a way that hasn't always been the case. The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl or Howard the Duck books feel like they are leagues apart from the Punisher or Moon Knight titles, for instance. B) The only moves Marvel has made to accommodate the MCU really have been in terms of what they've done with SHIELD. I'll concede your point on Fury, but on the other hand Marvel has been completely unafraid of veering off from the movies: in the current books, Captain America, Thor, and Hulk are all completely different characters, there are two Hawkeyes, and Iron Man just spent the past year or so as a villain.


    Quote:
    Marvel doesnt even value its rich comicbook history anymore. Secret Wars was Marvel saying 'we dont care about history or continuity anymore, were wiping the slate clean and sarting again because thats easier than trying to manage 75 years of work.' It happened, but it happened in another reality so doesnt matter now.


Secret Wars hasn't wiped the slate clean.


    Quote:
    Explaining why there is a white Nick Fury with a long and rich history in the marvel universe to new fans too complicated, so we'll simply erase him from that history and introducing a vastly inferior character. It doesnt matter that he lacks any of the gravitas, depth or presence of the original - because he superficially resmbles the famous actor who played the character in a few movies, so thats okay.

    On a smaller scale they cant even get the little things right. Starting their 'next big thing' (the current reboot) MONTHS before they even finished their last big thing (Secret Wars) is unforgivable. They dont even know how long Secret Wars is going to be! They announced it would run for the extra issue then retracted saying they didnt know how many issues it would run. They dont know whats going on in their own house!


Well, yeah, this delay in publishing the main SW books really sucks.


    Quote:
    I'm also a child of the 70's and 80's, which means i was used to comics that were availible at pocket money prices, containing hugely entertaining stories with compelling characters - not a bunch of miserable political angst - that most importantly came out on time.


I started in on the X-men at right about the time of the 'Mutant Massacre' storyline, so "miserable" and "angst" basically define what I think of with my 80's comics. \:\-\)


    Quote:
    I felt that I was part of another world. Now I just feel like the victim of a marketing scam most of the time.


Nothing makes us feel the way it did when we were kids. *shrug*


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
USAgentfan


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,623



    Quote:
    I feel like Marvel has gotten a fair bit better in that respect (seriously!). I mean first of all, it's always been a company that exists to make money. But leaving that aside: is today's Marvel really more about "marketing - gimmicks, hyperbole" than the 90's marvel of chromium covers and poly-bagged issues and collectable cards?


I both agree and disagree.

I think that Marvels smaller, more niche titles - those not so strongly connected to the larger Marvel Universe - are places where creativity still runs free off the leash.

The larger, more mainstream books however very much feel like marketing tools to me, and the non-stop procession of 'big events' is exhausting and - after more than ten years of them - has finally driven me away from them.

Theres no doubt whatsoever that there are more gimmicks now than there were in the 90's. Yeah, you may have got a foil cover back then, but you didn't have to endure an 'unmissable' event every six months, a new #1 on all your favourite books every year, a dozen Avengers books all as mundane as each other, 'celebrity' teams composed not of characters that actually fit together or make sense but those with the highest profile and guaranteed to make the biggest sales, 'exclusive' or novelty cover variants are now a monthly norm instead of something that occurred every couple of years. The internet meanwhile has definitely ramped the amount of hyperbole up to eleven.


    Quote:
    I'm not sure whether you mean that A) Marvel's comics lineup has been homogenised across publishing line, or that B) the comics resemble the movies too closely. In both cases I disagree. A) the titles that marvel is putting out now look/feel very distinctly different from each other in a way that hasn't always been the case. The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl or Howard the Duck books feel like they are leagues apart from the Punisher or Moon Knight titles, for instance. B) The only moves Marvel has made to accommodate the MCU really have been in terms of what they've done with SHIELD. I'll concede your point on Fury, but on the other hand Marvel has been completely unafraid of veering off from the movies: in the current books, Captain America, Thor, and Hulk are all completely different characters, there are two Hawkeyes, and Iron Man just spent the past year or so as a villain.


Its admittedly quite early days for this, but the writing is clearly on the wall.

Weve seen characters adopt costumes that are more akin to their movie versions. Some characters have been replaced with others more similar to those seen in other media (Nick Fury, Sam Alexander and the new Vision for example). Weve had titles like 'Avengers Assemble' - a comic book that deliberately apes the movies.

I only see this continuing because theres no doubt that dragging those millions of movie goers (or at least their kids) into spending their money on Marvels comics is the goose that laid the golden egg.


    Quote:
    Secret Wars hasn't wiped the slate clean.


Marvels pitch for Secret Wars was that everything that happened before would come to an end, and the world we were left with would be one that was similar to what occurred before but essentially a different reality. All those famous stories you read as a kid still happened, but they happened in a universe that no longer exists.

That said, the company are sending out confusing messages with some of their relaunched titles. Cap America #2 for example has Maria Hill referring directly to the 'incursions', which she shouldn't have any recollection of if this were now a different reality.

This confusion I suppose is a side effect of making such a mess of Secret Wars. No one knows what happened to the Marvel universe in the end because they haven't finished the damn story yet!


    Quote:
    I started in on the X-men at right about the time of the 'Mutant Massacre' storyline, so "miserable" and "angst" basically define what I think of with my 80's comics. \:\-\)


'Angst' is fine every so often, but not all the time.

The likes of Alan Moore and Frank Miller have a lot to answer for - its because of them that writers seem to think that every story has to be Watchmen. You've got Daredevil fans complaining because the last series wasn't miserable enough.

Mutant Massacre was a rarity in the 80's - generally comics were a little more upbeat than that. Now it seems like the objective of every writer is to make you want to self-harm by constantly reminding you what a horrible place the world is and giving you characters who are unlikable arseholes.


    Quote:
    Nothing makes us feel the way it did when we were kids. *shrug*


True, but only a few years ago I still used to RUN to the comic shop. A fully grown man running across town because he was that excited to pick up his comics.

Far too often over the last year or so however I've had to force myself to travel to pick my comics up. I have to drive nearly 20 miles to my nearest large city, which never seemed like a chore to me in the past, but now I find myself struggling to see the point in doing so. Additionally Secret Wars has seem me reduce the number of Marvel comics I collect by so much that its not even worth the mileage going in every week because theres only three or four books waiting for me.





Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows 7
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Location: Paragon City, RI
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    It's funny how people can see the same thing so differently. I started reading Marvel comics in the late '80's and by the end of the 90's my interest in them had been killed off nearly completely.

I think there's a correlation there, and I agree you on at least this much. Most of what is going on right now is a carbon copy of what was going on in the 90s. Every event of the past decade, with the exceptions of WWH and Annihilation, has been little more than a gimmick.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 41.0 on Windows 8
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Location: Paragon City, RI
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Secret Wars hasn't wiped the slate clean.



    Quote:
    Marvels pitch for Secret Wars was that everything that happened before would come to an end, and the world we were left with would be one that was similar to what occurred before but essentially a different reality. All those famous stories you read as a kid still happened, but they happened in a universe that no longer exists.

    That said, the company are sending out confusing messages with some of their relaunched titles. Cap America #2 for example has Maria Hill referring directly to the 'incursions', which she shouldn't have any recollection of if this were now a different reality.

    This confusion I suppose is a side effect of making such a mess of Secret Wars. No one knows what happened to the Marvel universe in the end because they haven't finished the damn story yet!

The confusion seems to be between Battleworld and the restarted "616" universe. For the period of Battleworld, the universe no longer existed. That's it. After Battleworld is destroyed and the universe restarts, things are exactly the same as they were, with just a few more veggies added to the stew (like Niles and The Maker and Weirdworld, etc.).

Whatever happens at the end of Secret Wars #9 (we'll see next month), people are able to recreate a perfect 616. Maybe someone finds a saved backup stored on a universal hard drive. Who knows. Maybe Franklin does it.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 41.0 on Windows 8
plastic_soul






Posted with Google Chrome 46.0.2490.80 on MacOS X
plastic_soul





    Quote:
    I both agree and disagree.

    I think that Marvels smaller, more niche titles - those not so strongly connected to the larger Marvel Universe - are places where creativity still runs free off the leash.

    The larger, more mainstream books however very much feel like marketing tools to me, and the non-stop procession of 'big events' is exhausting and - after more than ten years of them - has finally driven me away from them.

    Theres no doubt whatsoever that there are more gimmicks now than there were in the 90's. Yeah, you may have got a foil cover back then, but you didn't have to endure an 'unmissable' event every six months, a new #1 on all your favourite books every year, a dozen Avengers books all as mundane as each other, 'celebrity' teams composed not of characters that actually fit together or make sense but those with the highest profile and guaranteed to make the biggest sales, 'exclusive' or novelty cover variants are now a monthly norm instead of something that occurred every couple of years. The internet meanwhile has definitely ramped the amount of hyperbole up to eleven.


Okay, I'll largely agree with you here. I mostly don't care for the big crossovers, either, and the more niche books do seem to be given more creative leeway.

But I don't think that Marvel can be blamed for what "the internet" does in terms of hyperbole. I don't mind the variant covers, either, because they're entirely optional. I ignore them, and I'm completely able to buy the regular covers of the books I like (whereas if the only version of a book available to buy in the old days was a special cover, then I *had* to shill out the chromium/embossed/metallic/die-cut/holographic cover).

And I actually have no problem with all of the #1 issues. I like the idea of a seasonal approach to books; to recognizing that each new creative team represents a new iteration or vision of a particular character. But the new #1s for everything after Secret Wars is pretty goofy - props to the Squirrel Girl team for bragging that this month's issue is "Only our second #1 so far this year"!


    Quote:
    Its admittedly quite early days for this, but the writing is clearly on the wall.

    Weve seen characters adopt costumes that are more akin to their movie versions. Some characters have been replaced with others more similar to those seen in other media (Nick Fury, Sam Alexander and the new Vision for example). Weve had titles like 'Avengers Assemble' - a comic book that deliberately apes the movies.

    I only see this continuing because theres no doubt that dragging those millions of movie goers (or at least their kids) into spending their money on Marvels comics is the goose that laid the golden egg.


I actually have to disagree. I don't think that Marvel Films (which is, after all, a completely separate corporate entity) is almost entirely uninterested in driving viewers to read Marvel comics. And I don't think that Disney really cares too much, either. Comics are small potatoes compared to MCU film audiences. And if Marvel comics really thought that their best route to growing the business was pulling in movie viewers then they'd likely not want to confuse them by having books that feature a black Captain America and a female Thor.

Rather, I think that the moves to mirror some of the MCU's b-list and c-list characters are being made because Marvel knows that basically 100% of its readers will now be familiar with the MCU renditions of those supporting characters. I know that when someone says "Nick Fury" that *I* immediately think of Nick Fury. Marvel has shown that they're not afraid to change their established characters; my guess is that the changes you've described are being made for the benefit of crossover reader/viewers like me.


    Quote:
    'Angst' is fine every so often, but not all the time.

    The likes of Alan Moore and Frank Miller have a lot to answer for - its because of them that writers seem to think that every story has to be Watchmen. You've got Daredevil fans complaining because the last series wasn't miserable enough.

    Mutant Massacre was a rarity in the 80's - generally comics were a little more upbeat than that. Now it seems like the objective of every writer is to make you want to self-harm by constantly reminding you what a horrible place the world is and giving you characters who are unlikable arseholes.


That may be your impression, but it's certainly not the one I get from literally any of the Marvel books I've either picked up monthly since I started reading Marvel again in the last few years (Young Avengers, Thor: God of Thunder, Thor, Loki: Agent of Asgard, She-Hulk, Captain Marvel, Ms. Marvel, Storm, The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl) or the ones I've picked up in trades (Fraction's Hawkeye, Waid's Daredevil). So I don't know what to tell you.


    Quote:
    Quote:
    Nothing makes us feel the way it did when we were kids. *shrug*


    True, but only a few years ago I still used to RUN to the comic shop. A fully grown man running across town because he was that excited to pick up his comics.

    Far too often over the last year or so however I've had to force myself to travel to pick my comics up. I have to drive nearly 20 miles to my nearest large city, which never seemed like a chore to me in the past, but now I find myself struggling to see the point in doing so. Additionally Secret Wars has seem me reduce the number of Marvel comics I collect by so much that its not even worth the mileage going in every week because theres only three or four books waiting for me.


That's too bad. I know how you feel, probably: my interested dropped off and I ended up going 15+ years without buying any (superhero) comics. It might be worth checking out stuff from other companies? There's a lot of great work out there right now. \:\-\)


Posted with Google Chrome 46.0.2490.80 on MacOS X
plastic_soul





    Quote:
    Quote:
    It's funny how people can see the same thing so differently. I started reading Marvel comics in the late '80's and by the end of the 90's my interest in them had been killed off nearly completely.

    I think there's a correlation there, and I agree you on at least this much. Most of what is going on right now is a carbon copy of what was going on in the 90s. Every event of the past decade, with the exceptions of WWH and Annihilation, has been little more than a gimmick.


Ehh. The things that drove me away seem to have been somewhat mitigated: fewer characters with compound names that involve "blood" or "death"; less of a trying-to-be-badass post-Image vibe; fewer "bad girl" costume designs that look like softcore porn; a comics lineup that isn't 100% white dudes; fewer books written by Scott Lobdell or drawn by Rob Liefeld, etc etc.

I don't care for the big crossovers either, though.


Posted with Google Chrome 46.0.2490.80 on MacOS X
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Location: Paragon City, RI
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Quote:
      It's funny how people can see the same thing so differently. I started reading Marvel comics in the late '80's and by the end of the 90's my interest in them had been killed off nearly completely.



      Quote:
      I think there's a correlation there, and I agree you on at least this much. Most of what is going on right now is a carbon copy of what was going on in the 90s. Every event of the past decade, with the exceptions of WWH and Annihilation, has been little more than a gimmick.



    Quote:
    Ehh. The things that drove me away seem to have been somewhat mitigated: fewer characters with compound names that involve "blood" or "death"; less of a trying-to-be-badass post-Image vibe; fewer "bad girl" costume designs that look like softcore porn; a comics lineup that isn't 100% white dudes; fewer books written by Scott Lobdell or drawn by Rob Liefeld, etc etc.

Every new baddie is just an Image-esque "trying to be badass." Big deal if we don't see names like Lobdell and Liefeld; they've just been replaced by likes of Aaron, Remender, Hickman, et al.

To be brutally honest, Liefeld and Lobdell were tremendously more respectful to what came before than these guys. I consider them to have butchered the works of Lee, Kirby, Claremont, and a bunch of others.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 41.0 on Windows 8
plastic_soul





    Quote:
    Quote:
    Ehh. The things that drove me away seem to have been somewhat mitigated: fewer characters with compound names that involve "blood" or "death"; less of a trying-to-be-badass post-Image vibe; fewer "bad girl" costume designs that look like softcore porn; a comics lineup that isn't 100% white dudes; fewer books written by Scott Lobdell or drawn by Rob Liefeld, etc etc.

    Every new baddie is just an Image-esque "trying to be badass." Big deal if we don't see names like Lobdell and Liefeld; they've just been replaced by likes of Aaron, Remender, Hickman, et al.

    To be brutally honest, Liefeld and Lobdell were tremendously more respectful to what came before than these guys. I consider them to have butchered the works of Lee, Kirby, Claremont, and a bunch of others.


Well I don't really care for Remender's writing but I've enjoyed what I've read from Aaron and Hickman in the past few years (which is much more than I can say for the work of L & L).

Basically you've made two claims here:

- That "every new baddie is just an Image-esque 'trying to be badass'". Personally I don't see it. I can honestly say that this description wouldn't apply to any of the new antagonists introduced in any book I've bought since I returned to Marvel (circa issue #1 of the latest volume of Young Avengers). Maybe I'm not reading the right books? The new Guardians of the Galaxy villain with the skull shoulderpads looks pretty goofy.

- That the current crop of Marvel writers - specifically Aaron, Remender, and Hickman - are not sufficiently "respectful" of the work of their forebears, and also that they have "butchered" said work. This is two really two claims, I suppose. The first is just a question of opinion. I don't see how those writers have failed to be respectful of the work that was created before them. As for the claim that they've "butchered" said work? Frankly I don't see how this is possible. The work the Lee and Kirby and Claremont did still exists. Nothing that current Marvel writers have done can change that. If Marvel re-published those old issues and changed the dialogue or panels: *that* could result in a butchering of the original art. I'm guessing that you mean something different with this term than how I would use it?


Posted with Google Chrome 46.0.2490.80 on MacOS X
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,139



    Quote:
    The confusion seems to be between Battleworld and the restarted "616" universe. For the period of Battleworld, the universe no longer existed. That's it. After Battleworld is destroyed and the universe restarts, things are exactly the same as they were, with just a few more veggies added to the stew (like Niles and The Maker and Weirdworld, etc.).


Also some characters seem to have had their realities tweaked. For example, Deadpool's life is significantly different than it was, in certain key ways. And Iron Man doesn't seem to have to deal with any consequences from his Superior debacle, almost as if it never happened. Also, though I'm not positive since I haven't touched his comic or paid any attention to him for years now, I think Spider-Man's new status quo is different from what it was, in certain key ways, somewhat reminiscent to what Deadpool has undergone.







Posted with Google Chrome 46.0.2490.80 on Windows NT 4.0
USAgentfan


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,623



    Quote:
    And I actually have no problem with all of the #1 issues. I like the idea of a seasonal approach to books; to recognizing that each new creative team represents a new iteration or vision of a particular character. But the new #1s for everything after Secret Wars is pretty goofy - props to the Squirrel Girl team for bragging that this month's issue is "Only our second #1 so far this year"!


The problem you have with a new #1 every year is that it comes with yet another reinventing of the wheel, and usually a new creative team, and also a load more of that hyperbole I was talking about earlier. Personally I prefer a little continuity in both numbering, the direction of the character, and the creative input.


    Quote:
    I actually have to disagree. I don't think that Marvel Films (which is, after all, a completely separate corporate entity) is almost entirely uninterested in driving viewers to read Marvel comics. And I don't think that Disney really cares too much, either. Comics are small potatoes compared to MCU film audiences. And if Marvel comics really thought that their best route to growing the business was pulling in movie viewers then they'd likely not want to confuse them by having books that feature a black Captain America and a female Thor.


Well Marvel have pretty much said that this is what theyre doing.

They have commented that the problem with their product is that people who watch a movie or TV show are intimidated by the idea of picking up a comicbook because either the characters (such as Nick Fury) have no similarity to what they recognise, or titles have such a long and unwieldy histories that there is no natural jumping-on point for a new reader.

New #1's are predominantly for this reason. They are not for existing fans, they are for the benefit of potential new fans to make the transition easier and more natural for them. I can see the business sense in that, but as a long-time reader i find it very frustrating because everything seems geared towards dragging in new readers rather than retaining the existing ones.

You are right in one respect - comics ARE small potatoes at the moment - which is why Marvel are trying to better intergrate their product accross all mediums. Make no mistake, Marvel DO have the movie-goers in their sights. Marvel movies arent just about watching a film, they are about buying the T-shirt, getting the mobile game, buying your kids the playset or pajamas.....and picking up the comics book.

The tail is more and more wagging the dog.


    Quote:
    Rather, I think that the moves to mirror some of the MCU's b-list and c-list characters are being made because Marvel knows that basically 100% of its readers will now be familiar with the MCU renditions of those supporting characters. I know that when someone says "Nick Fury" that *I* immediately think of Nick Fury. Marvel has shown that they're not afraid to change their established characters; my guess is that the changes you've described are being made for the benefit of crossover reader/viewers like me.


And my issue with this as an existing fan is that those changes are in many ways superficial or inferior to what came before.

Nick Fury is the best example of this. Marvel have effectively erased a classic silver-age character from their history in order to replace him with a much less interesting character with ridiculous origin simply because he bears a superficial similarity to a famous actor who plays a character on the big screen, apparantly because they dont trust readers to be smart enough to understand how there can be a white and black Nick Fury in the Marvel Universe (In farness, the mess they made of Juniors origin story didnt make this any easier)

Thats the very definition of using a character as a 'marketing tool'


    Quote:
    That may be your impression, but it's certainly not the one I get from literally any of the Marvel books I've either picked up monthly since I started reading Marvel again in the last few years (Young Avengers, Thor: God of Thunder, Thor, Loki: Agent of Asgard, She-Hulk, Captain Marvel, Ms. Marvel, Storm, The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl) or the ones I've picked up in trades (Fraction's Hawkeye, Waid's Daredevil). So I don't know what to tell you.


And in fairness to yourself, the books you list fall into what I described earlier as 'smaller' or 'more niche', and I did give those types of books credit as the only place where creativity still runs unhindered.

It has been quite some time since anyone in an Avengers or X-Men title acted like a hero. For the most part they all spend their time being miserable, stabbing each other in the back or acting like arseholes.


    Quote:
    That's too bad. I know how you feel, probably: my interested dropped off and I ended up going 15+ years without buying any (superhero) comics. It might be worth checking out stuff from other companies? There's a lot of great work out there right now. \:\-\)


I read quite a bit from other publishers, but all that does is help confirm to me what a terrible job ?Marvel are doing with their product.

One of my favorites is IDW's Transformers franchise. In there 'More than Meets the Eye' book you have a title that has in the space of less than 50 issues managed to introduce compelling characters, gay relationships, interesting and capable female protagonists, and real world politics and absolutely nail it first time. Hell, the latest issue even manages to cover mental health.

The key to that titles success has been continuity in the creative team, not making a massive song and dance about the fact you have a gay robot or a female robot (if you just create a good character people will identify with it - you dont have to TELL them that youre trying to create a character they identify with), and trusting the reader. Its a 30 year old boys toy franchise that has all sections of the demographics pie falling over themselves to read, because people arent stupid - women, gays, ethnic minorities, the young - they know when theyre being patronized, when someones 'trying too hard' to please them, they know that 'diversity' isnt allowing a minority character the opportunity to wear an established characters duds for a few months. Meanwhile, white males like myself who have been reading Transformers since 1984 have no cause for complaint because the whole thing has been so well done.

Marvel have been fumbling these issues for years and cant seem to deal with any of them without patronizing the reader, forcing it in with a shoe-horn, or sounding like theyre preaching. Its ironic that a book about robots manages to do this in a much more 'organic' way.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 42.0 on Windows NT 4.0
Stuart




Having kids makes me feel like being a kid again...




Posted with Apple iPad 601.1.46
stupid baby




its funny you should say that ( and true ) in my mind, WWH and AANHILATION are the only good ones


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 42.0 on Windows XP
plastic_soul





    Quote:

    The problem you have with a new #1 every year is that it comes with yet another reinventing of the wheel, and usually a new creative team, and also a load more of that hyperbole I was talking about earlier. Personally I prefer a little continuity in both numbering, the direction of the character, and the creative input.


I'm guessing I'm in a definite minority on a site like this, but I *do* prefer to see the wheel reinvented (as opposed to an eternal, unchanging status quo). I like getting different creators takes. Different strokes, I suppose.


    Quote:
    Well Marvel have pretty much said that this is what theyre doing.


Where did they say this?


    Quote:
    They have commented that the problem with their product is that people who watch a movie or TV show are intimidated by the idea of picking up a comicbook because either the characters (such as Nick Fury) have no similarity to what they recognise, or titles have such a long and unwieldy histories that there is no natural jumping-on point for a new reader.

    New #1's are predominantly for this reason. They are not for existing fans, they are for the benefit of potential new fans to make the transition easier and more natural for them. I can see the business sense in that, but as a long-time reader i find it very frustrating because everything seems geared towards dragging in new readers rather than retaining the existing ones.


These are two totally separate issues, though:

#1 new readers being scared off because the characters in the comics don't resemble the characters in the films
#2 new readers being scared off because of the weight of in-universe history and continuity

To my mind Marvel is clearly more concerned about #2 than #1. If they were very worried about issue #1, then Thor wouldn't be a woman and Captain America wouldn't be black. Period. My guess as to why some minor* changes have been to resemble the MCU? The changes to the supporting cast of SHIELD characters allow Marvel to sell a SHIELD book to existing readers who want to see a SHIELD comic that involves the folks in the movies and TV show. Also, see my answer below about the relationships between the various Marvel companies as to why there are especially strong similarities between the way SHIELD is depicted on TV and in the comics...

*minor in the sense that, unlike Cap or Thor, Fury doesn't lead his own solo book and isn't on the active roster of the Avengers

On the other hand, addressing issue #2 gives new readers a chance to jump in AND tends to juice sales to existing readers who also jump on first issues. Traditional superhero comics are a uniquely weird phenomenon in entertainment. There is virtually no analogous form of shared-universe storytelling with so much backstory (aside from maybe Coronation Street?). Certainly there's nothing like this approach in Japanese comics. And that massive shared backstory is appealing in some senses but it also means that Marvel has to deal with the fact that they are constantly dis-incentivizing new readers. So yeah, they need to constantly worry about it.


    Quote:
    You are right in one respect - comics ARE small potatoes at the moment - which is why Marvel are trying to better intergrate their product accross all mediums. Make no mistake, Marvel DO have the movie-goers in their sights. Marvel movies arent just about watching a film, they are about buying the T-shirt, getting the mobile game, buying your kids the playset or pajamas.....and picking up the comics book.

    The tail is more and more wagging the dog.


Ahh, here's the thing - I don't think Marvel are really worried at all about better integrating their product across mediums (except in certain specific instances) because it's incorrect to talk about "Marvel" as if it's one business. Marvel's comics are produced by Marvel Entertainment. LLC (a corporate subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company) actually has relatively little to do with Marvel Studios LLC(which is a subsidiary of Walt Disney Studios, which is also a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company). Marvel Studios doesn't report to Marvel Entertainment (or vice versa) and they have totally separate governance structures. There's very little connection except for rights to the same intellectual properties. Otherwise they both report separately to Disney.

On the other hand, Marvel Entertainment *does* control Marvel Television, which produces the Agent Carter and Agents of SHIELD and Daredevil. So the fact that the depiction of SHIELD characters is very consistent across TV and the comics - compared to the hugely varying depictions of MCU film characters in the movies vs the comics - is really no shocker.

And I know I'm getting long-winded here, but honestly I doubt that Marvel Studios cares at all whether viewers read the comics published by Marvel Entertainment, because it makes literally no difference to the bottom line of Marvel Studios whether they do so or not. And certainly the box office will have taught them that far, far more people are rabid for MCU films than have ever bought a comic book.

The tail isn't wagging the dog. The dog is almost completely incidental to the tail.


    Quote:
    And my issue with this as an existing fan is that those changes are in many ways superficial or inferior to what came before.

    Nick Fury is the best example of this. Marvel have effectively erased a classic silver-age character from their history in order to replace him with a much less interesting character with ridiculous origin simply because he bears a superficial similarity to a famous actor who plays a character on the big screen, apparantly because they dont trust readers to be smart enough to understand how there can be a white and black Nick Fury in the Marvel Universe (In farness, the mess they made of Juniors origin story didnt make this any easier)

    Thats the very definition of using a character as a 'marketing tool'


I personally find both Nick Fury characters to be rather uninteresting, myself, so I'll recuse myself from arguing with you on this one.


    Quote:
    And in fairness to yourself, the books you list fall into what I described earlier as 'smaller' or 'more niche', and I did give those types of books credit as the only place where creativity still runs unhindered.

    It has been quite some time since anyone in an Avengers or X-Men title acted like a hero. For the most part they all spend their time being miserable, stabbing each other in the back or acting like arseholes.


Well, I'd quibble that Thor is hardly niche given that the current volume has been a regular top ten Marvel book (and Ms. Marvel is apparently their best seller digitally). But yeah, the X-men seem to have been defined by angst forever and New Avengers went to some pretty dark places. I far and away enjoyed New Avengers compared to Avengers and Avengers Assemble/Avengers World, which I didn't think really dwelled on the same kind of infighting until the time-jump just before Secret Wars.


    Quote:
    I read quite a bit from other publishers, but all that does is help confirm to me what a terrible job ?Marvel are doing with their product.

    One of my favorites is IDW's Transformers franchise. In there 'More than Meets the Eye' book you have a title that has in the space of less than 50 issues managed to introduce compelling characters, gay relationships, interesting and capable female protagonists, and real world politics and absolutely nail it first time. Hell, the latest issue even manages to cover mental health.

    The key to that titles success has been continuity in the creative team, not making a massive song and dance about the fact you have a gay robot or a female robot (if you just create a good character people will identify with it - you dont have to TELL them that youre trying to create a character they identify with), and trusting the reader. Its a 30 year old boys toy franchise that has all sections of the demographics pie falling over themselves to read, because people arent stupid - women, gays, ethnic minorities, the young - they know when theyre being patronized, when someones 'trying too hard' to please them, they know that 'diversity' isnt allowing a minority character the opportunity to wear an established characters duds for a few months. Meanwhile, white males like myself who have been reading Transformers since 1984 have no cause for complaint because the whole thing has been so well done.

    Marvel have been fumbling these issues for years and cant seem to deal with any of them without patronizing the reader, forcing it in with a shoe-horn, or sounding like theyre preaching. Its ironic that a book about robots manages to do this in a much more 'organic' way.


Not something I've read. Cool.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Location: Paragon City, RI
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


None of those changes are a result of Secret Wars.




City of Heroes is BACK!
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 42.0 on Windows 8
USAgentfan





    Quote:
    I'm guessing I'm in a definite minority on a site like this, but I *do* prefer to see the wheel reinvented (as opposed to an eternal, unchanging status quo). I like getting different creators takes. Different strokes, I suppose.


They always do it in the same way though. Grab your attention with a 'super star' creative team, then six months later replace them with a jobber who turns out middle of the road work but does it on schedule.

Personally I miss the sense of dedication and ownership that comes with a talented creator sticking with a title for a prolonged period of time. That gives me confidence as a fan - I know what to expect, what quality I'm going to get, and that the creator is sticking around because he has the same kind of affection for the book as I do as a fan.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Well Marvel have pretty much said that this is what theyre doing.



    Quote:
    Where did they say this?


An interview on Newsarama a couple of years back. Cant recall who, but one of the Marvel top-men talking about the difficulties in attracting new fans to their product.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      They have commented that the problem with their product is that people who watch a movie or TV show are intimidated by the idea of picking up a comicbook because either the characters (such as Nick Fury) have no similarity to what they recognise, or titles have such a long and unwieldy histories that there is no natural jumping-on point for a new reader.



      Quote:
      New #1's are predominantly for this reason. They are not for existing fans, they are for the benefit of potential new fans to make the transition easier and more natural for them. I can see the business sense in that, but as a long-time reader i find it very frustrating because everything seems geared towards dragging in new readers rather than retaining the existing ones.



    Quote:
    These are two totally separate issues, though:


Well no, theyre not. They are simply two different ways of dealing with the same problem - how do you convince a non comic-book fan to pick up a comic book? Firstly you make that book look like something he recognises, then you provide the person with a conveniant opportunity to start reading.


    Quote:
    To my mind Marvel is clearly more concerned about #2 than #1. If they were very worried about issue #1, then Thor wouldn't be a woman and Captain America wouldn't be black. Period. My guess as to why some minor* changes have been to resemble the MCU? The changes to the supporting cast of SHIELD characters allow Marvel to sell a SHIELD book to existing readers who want to see a SHIELD comic that involves the folks in the movies and TV show. Also, see my answer below about the relationships between the various Marvel companies as to why there are especially strong similarities between the way SHIELD is depicted on TV and in the comics...



    Quote:
    *minor in the sense that, unlike Cap or Thor, Fury doesn't lead his own solo book and isn't on the active roster of the Avengers


Fury hasnt had a solo book since the early 90's, but he has remained one of the most important characters in the Marvel Universe during that period as a result of the fact that SHIELD is a persistant presence and theme in pretty much ALL of Marvels books and big events. He is and always has been a very important character.

What major event of the last 20 years happened without Fury or SHIELD being heavily involved? They are the glue that connect all of the different parts and characters of the Marvel universe.

I also dont agree that changes to SHIELD in the comics are so that existing comic fans can read about the TV SHIELD guys.

At its peak the TV show had a viewership of about 10 million. It currently has somewhere in the region of 4-5 million viewers. the SHIELD book at its peak sold about 40K copies and is currently selling well below 20K copies per month.

Whilst it is fair to say that all comic fans probably watch TV, they are still the tiniest minority of the overall TV audience.

You have a comicbook with 20,000 readers, and a TV show with 5,000,000 viewers. It doesnt take a buisness minded person to see that you have a potential 4,880,000 more comicbook readers there if you can just figure a way to convince them that they would enjoy the book as much as they enjoy the TV show.

Whilst first and foremost the motivation behind any TV show is to get lots of viewers, I doubt very much that the opportunity to use the high profile of such shows to attract people to other Marvel products like comics would be ignored.

Lets be perfectly honest, if you were making a show based on what comic fans wanted, then you wouldnt pick SHIELD as the idea to back when you look at it poor publication rate over the past 20 years. Theres no evidence of enough interest amongst comic fans alone to justify a TV show.


    Quote:
    On the other hand, addressing issue #2 gives new readers a chance to jump in AND tends to juice sales to existing readers who also jump on first issues. Traditional superhero comics are a uniquely weird phenomenon in entertainment. There is virtually no analogous form of shared-universe storytelling with so much backstory (aside from maybe Coronation Street?). Certainly there's nothing like this approach in Japanese comics. And that massive shared backstory is appealing in some senses but it also means that Marvel has to deal with the fact that they are constantly dis-incentivizing new readers. So yeah, they need to constantly worry about it.


I agree, but where i have an issue is that where as Marvel used to religiously manage continuity through the likes of dedicated editors like Mark Gruenwald, they now prefer to dismiss continuity as being no longer important, or erase it altogether.

Cant recall who said it, but someone recently gave an interview stated that fans shouldnt worry too much about whether something makes sense in terms of continuity. Personally I disagree because one of the things Ive always loved about Marvel is that sense of investment, of being involved in something massive and interlinked, that sense of history. Marvel have decided that history just isnt such a big deal anymore.

Couple of years back Greg Rucka was good enough to reply to an e-mail i sent to him after he decided to change Frank Castle from a Vietnam War veteran to a Gulf I veteran. His argument was essentially 'a war, is a war, is a war'. I argued that not only was he wrong but that his attitude was insensitive as all wars are different, require different types of soldiers fight them, and the baggage those that fight them have to subsequently carry is very different today than it was in 1970 and 1945. A idealistic man like Steve Rogers could not have been produced by a 'dirty' conflict like vietnam. Likewise, a man like Frank Castle could not have been produced by a relatively clean conflict like Gulf I.

That shit matters. Tony stark could have been blown up in any foreign war zone - it didnt have to be Vietnam as was the case originally - but Frank Castle is defined by Vietnam in the same way Rogers is defined by WWII.

Ignoring that continuity because it is inconvenient to explain to new readers how a man who fought in the 1960's can still be kicking ass so well today (its actually quite easy to explain in reality, and anyone who has ever read a comic will accept those reasons without resistance) takes a lot away from the character and makes his motives a lot more difficult to understand or appreciate. In the long term you are diminishing what made the character a success in order to try and make him a success.


    Quote:
    Ahh, here's the thing - I don't think Marvel are really worried at all about better integrating their product across mediums (except in certain specific instances) because it's incorrect to talk about "Marvel" as if it's one business. Marvel's comics are produced by Marvel Entertainment. LLC (a corporate subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company) actually has relatively little to do with Marvel Studios LLC(which is a subsidiary of Walt Disney Studios, which is also a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company). Marvel Studios doesn't report to Marvel Entertainment (or vice versa) and they have totally separate governance structures. There's very little connection except for rights to the same intellectual properties. Otherwise they both report separately to Disney.


No successful multi-media organisation works without some kind of unified company direction, and Marvel/Disney would be fools if they werent interested in gearing their product to make the maximum of their situation.

Dont know what age you are but I was born in the 70's, so I was there in the 80's when companies like Hasbro realised that rather than just sell a toy to a kid, they could also sell a bed spread, wallpaper, a lunchbox, a pencil case, a computer game, a pair of pajamas, and yeah - a comic book. It was a marketing goldmine, so much so that the authorities (In the UK at least) changed the law to better control how companies like Hasbro could sell such products.

All those different products were produced and marketed by subsideries too. Hasbros comics - such as Transformers - were published by Marvel no less, and it is a well established fact (from the mouth of Simon Furman himself) that they were under intense pressure to only feature Transformers from that seasons catalogue of toys.

Marvel have successfully managed circumvented those barriers through the big screen, producing a product that as well as being insanely popular in its own right provides an amazing opportunity to help make more money accross all of the other mediums they invest in.

They would be lunatics if they didnt try to exploit that, but as an existing fan and a person who is a consumer primarily of just one of those mediums, accepting that something makes sound business sense is not the same as accepting that its a 'good' thing.


    Quote:
    And I know I'm getting long-winded here, but honestly I doubt that Marvel Studios cares at all whether viewers read the comics published by Marvel Entertainment, because it makes literally no difference to the bottom line of Marvel Studios whether they do so or not. And certainly the box office will have taught them that far, far more people are rabid for MCU films than have ever bought a comic book.


Marvel Studios probably dont care - I'm sure as a director or producer you just want to create a great film rather than one that helps sell lunch boxes - but Disney will likely care very much, and I am sure that there is someone who operates many levels above that of producer or director who's job it is to work out just how you get some of those literally billions of Marvel movie fans to spend their disposable income on other Marvel products.

Thats simply how the world works, and to think that Marvel would be any different just because they work in the creative arts would be very naive.

I dont really care about my employers 'corporate message' - I care about doing my job well - but my employer definately cares about figuring out ways for me to better sell their corporate message when doing my job. I expect your employer does too. so do Disney


    Quote:
    I personally find both Nick Fury characters to be rather uninteresting, myself, so I'll recuse myself from arguing with you on this one.


He's James Bond, George Patton and Mack Bolan all rolled into one. Whats not to like?


    Quote:
    Well, I'd quibble that Thor is hardly niche given that the current volume has been a regular top ten Marvel book (and Ms. Marvel is apparently their best seller digitally). But yeah, the X-men seem to have been defined by angst forever and New Avengers went to some pretty dark places. I far and away enjoyed New Avengers compared to Avengers and Avengers Assemble/Avengers World, which I didn't think really dwelled on the same kind of infighting until the time-jump just before Secret Wars.


New Avengers (prior to Hickmans run) and Mighty Avengers were still for the most part about a 'family' of heroes - 'teams' in the most traditional sense.

Hickman entire angle was pretty much exploring the idea of the Avengers as a franchise or a business - that they hire and fire based on their needs at any given moment.

It was an approach that runs contrary to the traditional attitude that to be an Avenger is to be the best of the best, a privilage granted to few, and the likes of Rogers supporting such an idea strikes me as bad characterisation for him (whilst such pragmatism would be perfectly normal for Stark). Manifold wasnt given Avengers status because he was one of 'Earths Mightiest Heroes', he was given it simply because they needed a teleporter...

Under Hickman all you need to be an Avenger is an in-demand set of skills. Bendis was the same when he took on Logan I suppose, but at least Rogers was uncomfortable with that.





Posted with Mozilla Firefox 42.0 on Windows NT 4.0
plastic_soul





    Quote:
    They always do it in the same way though. Grab your attention with a 'super star' creative team, then six months later replace them with a jobber who turns out middle of the road work but does it on schedule.

    Personally I miss the sense of dedication and ownership that comes with a talented creator sticking with a title for a prolonged period of time. That gives me confidence as a fan - I know what to expect, what quality I'm going to get, and that the creator is sticking around because he has the same kind of affection for the book as I do as a fan.


My ideal approach would be exactly what Marvel did with Young Avengers: a fifteen issue run from the same creative team who has a chance to tell their story before moving on. Concise and with a sense of narrative closure.


    Quote:
    Well no, theyre not. They are simply two different ways of dealing with the same problem - how do you convince a non comic-book fan to pick up a comic book? Firstly you make that book look like something he recognises, then you provide the person with a conveniant opportunity to start reading.


It looks like we won't agree on this.


    Quote:
    Fury hasnt had a solo book since the early 90's, but he has remained one of the most important characters in the Marvel Universe during that period as a result of the fact that SHIELD is a persistant presence and theme in pretty much ALL of Marvels books and big events. He is and always has been a very important character.


I'm gonna make a wild guess that you really like Nick Fury.


    Quote:
    You have a comicbook with 20,000 readers, and a TV show with 5,000,000 viewers. It doesnt take a buisness minded person to see that you have a potential 4,880,000 more comicbook readers there if you can just figure a way to convince them that they would enjoy the book as much as they enjoy the TV show.

    Whilst first and foremost the motivation behind any TV show is to get lots of viewers, I doubt very much that the opportunity to use the high profile of such shows to attract people to other Marvel products like comics would be ignored.


I don't disagree that there could be at least the possibility of new readers in that TV audience. I'm asserting that Marvel isn't making its comic universe line up with its TV/movie universe because it is not actually trying to create those new readers. Because really: what has Marvel done to try to get the TV audience to read the books? Really, what have they done? Have they aired commercials for their SHIELD book during Agents of SHIELD? Have they taken out ads in entertainment magazines, or bought adspace on websites that talk about the show? Have they used the show's twitter account to promo the comic? Maybe run contests for comic download codes? etc. Marvel Entertainment has expended virtual no effort or cash to even let TV viewers know that the SHIELD comic EXISTS as something for them to buy.


    Quote:
    Whilst first and foremost the motivation behind any TV show is to get lots of viewers, I doubt very much that the opportunity to use the high profile of such shows to attract people to other Marvel products like comics would be ignored.


You may doubt it - and I'm certainly not arguing that it makes sense - but the ONLY movie/comic tie-in promotional material that I've seen from Marvel is aimed squarely at the direct comic market. It's only sold in comic stores to people who are already readers.


    Quote:
    Lets be perfectly honest, if you were making a show based on what comic fans wanted, then you wouldnt pick SHIELD as the idea to back when you look at it poor publication rate over the past 20 years. Theres no evidence of enough interest amongst comic fans alone to justify a TV show.


100% agreed. Of course, I wasn't arguing that they made the show to appeal to comic readers. I was arguing that they made a SHIELD comic book that looks a lot like the show to appeal to viewers of the show who were already reading Marvel comics. They made the show to appeal to MCU movie fans.


    Quote:
    That shit matters. Tony stark could have been blown up in any foreign war zone - it didnt have to be Vietnam as was the case originally - but Frank Castle is defined by Vietnam in the same way Rogers is defined by WWII.


I actually agree with this whole-heartedly. It's one of the biggest problems with the shared-universe superhero genre - the characters are often resonant for reasons that are tied to distinct times and places, but then the fanbase insists that they never change or age and the narrative has to stretch to accommodate that basic dissonance over time. It's increasingly ridiculous that Magneto is still running around performing acts of super heroism/villainy the further that we get from WWII (he'd have to be at least, what, 75 now?). And let's not even get into Franklin Richards being a child for multiple decades now. At some point, a competent storyteller would realize that the characters need to age and retire or die... OR the alternative is to keep retconning everyone's origin. I'd prefer the former, usually.


    Quote:
    Dont know what age you are but I was born in the 70's


The '70's also, myself.


    Quote:
    so I was there in the 80's when companies like Hasbro realised that rather than just sell a toy to a kid, they could also sell a bed spread, wallpaper, a lunchbox, a pencil case, a computer game, a pair of pajamas, and yeah - a comic book. It was a marketing goldmine, so much so that the authorities (In the UK at least) changed the law to better control how companies like Hasbro could sell such products.

    All those different products were produced and marketed by subsideries too. Hasbros comics - such as Transformers - were published by Marvel no less, and it is a well established fact (from the mouth of Simon Furman himself) that they were under intense pressure to only feature Transformers from that seasons catalogue of toys.


Sure. But think about it: there's a natural overlap here that doesn't exist when we're comparing this situation with the issue at hand: Hasbro knew with certainty that virtual every child who watched their cartoon ALSO already liked playing with toys, and already slept in a bed, and wore pyjamas, etc. And Hasbro knew that virtually every kid reading the Transformers comic book already liked the toys, or at least liked toys.

On the other hand, Disney knows with certainty that the vast majority of people who buy a ticket to the MCU films does NOT read Marvel comic books (and likely doesn't read comics of any kind). There's a much bigger hill to climb, here, in terms of changing customer behaviour. And compared to spending advertising dollars on Marvel tie-in videogames or other Marvel movies, Disney has probably made a determination that there just isn't enough potential return on the investment. The comics industry, relatively, is peanuts to them.

Look, I don't disagree that it seems like there would be a natural marketing synergy here. It makes sense that someone who likes Marvel movies might like Marvel comics. But I've seen basically NO SIGN AT ALL that Disney is making any effort to leverage the Marvel films as a way to generate new readers. Like I said: they aren't even telling viewers that the comics exist.


    Quote:
    Marvel Studios probably dont care - I'm sure as a director or producer you just want to create a great film rather than one that helps sell lunch boxes - but Disney will likely care very much, and I am sure that there is someone who operates many levels above that of producer or director who's job it is to work out just how you get some of those literally billions of Marvel movie fans to spend their disposable income on other Marvel products.


We might guess that Disney would care, but the proof is in the pudding: what has Disney done to promote the comics to movie watchers? I'm not asserting that Disney/Marvel don't care about turning film viewers into comic readers because they are 'creative' companies that don't watch the bottom line; I'm asserting that the evidence shows that they haven't made any real effort for that to happen. I'm guessing that this is because they assume it isn't worthwhile. But in the absence of talking to the execs at Disney we can only look at the evidence on the ground.

That's not to say that Marvel Entertainment isn't making efforts to generate new readers, btw, just that Disney isn't trying to make new readers out of TV/film watchers.


    Quote:
    He's James Bond, George Patton and Mack Bolan all rolled into one. Whats not to like?


Well, I find James Bond boring (I've never managed to sit through an entire Bond film), I don't care at all either way about Patton (maybe because I'm not American?) and I'd never heard of Mack Bolan prior to right now, so...




Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Reverend Meteor





    Quote:

      Quote:
      I'm guessing I'm in a definite minority on a site like this, but I *do* prefer to see the wheel reinvented (as opposed to an eternal, unchanging status quo). I like getting different creators takes. Different strokes, I suppose.



    Quote:
    They always do it in the same way though. Grab your attention with a 'super star' creative team, then six months later replace them with a jobber who turns out middle of the road work but does it on schedule.



    Quote:
    Personally I miss the sense of dedication and ownership that comes with a talented creator sticking with a title for a prolonged period of time. That gives me confidence as a fan - I know what to expect, what quality I'm going to get, and that the creator is sticking around because he has the same kind of affection for the book as I do as a fan.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Well Marvel have pretty much said that this is what theyre doing.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Where did they say this?



    Quote:
    An interview on Newsarama a couple of years back. Cant recall who, but one of the Marvel top-men talking about the difficulties in attracting new fans to their product.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        They have commented that the problem with their product is that people who watch a movie or TV show are intimidated by the idea of picking up a comicbook because either the characters (such as Nick Fury) have no similarity to what they recognise, or titles have such a long and unwieldy histories that there is no natural jumping-on point for a new reader.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          New #1's are predominantly for this reason. They are not for existing fans, they are for the benefit of potential new fans to make the transition easier and more natural for them. I can see the business sense in that, but as a long-time reader i find it very frustrating because everything seems geared towards dragging in new readers rather than retaining the existing ones.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          These are two totally separate issues, though:



    Quote:
    Well no, theyre not. They are simply two different ways of dealing with the same problem - how do you convince a non comic-book fan to pick up a comic book? Firstly you make that book look like something he recognises, then you provide the person with a conveniant opportunity to start reading.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      To my mind Marvel is clearly more concerned about #2 than #1. If they were very worried about issue #1, then Thor wouldn't be a woman and Captain America wouldn't be black. Period. My guess as to why some minor* changes have been to resemble the MCU? The changes to the supporting cast of SHIELD characters allow Marvel to sell a SHIELD book to existing readers who want to see a SHIELD comic that involves the folks in the movies and TV show. Also, see my answer below about the relationships between the various Marvel companies as to why there are especially strong similarities between the way SHIELD is depicted on TV and in the comics...

      Quote:

        Quote:
        *minor in the sense that, unlike Cap or Thor, Fury doesn't lead his own solo book and isn't on the active roster of the Avengers



    Quote:
    Fury hasnt had a solo book since the early 90's, but he has remained one of the most important characters in the Marvel Universe during that period as a result of the fact that SHIELD is a persistant presence and theme in pretty much ALL of Marvels books and big events. He is and always has been a very important character.



    Quote:
    What major event of the last 20 years happened without Fury or SHIELD being heavily involved? They are the glue that connect all of the different parts and characters of the Marvel universe.



    Quote:
    I also dont agree that changes to SHIELD in the comics are so that existing comic fans can read about the TV SHIELD guys.



    Quote:
    At its peak the TV show had a viewership of about 10 million. It currently has somewhere in the region of 4-5 million viewers. the SHIELD book at its peak sold about 40K copies and is currently selling well below 20K copies per month.



    Quote:
    Whilst it is fair to say that all comic fans probably watch TV, they are still the tiniest minority of the overall TV audience.



    Quote:
    You have a comicbook with 20,000 readers, and a TV show with 5,000,000 viewers. It doesnt take a buisness minded person to see that you have a potential 4,880,000 more comicbook readers there if you can just figure a way to convince them that they would enjoy the book as much as they enjoy the TV show.



    Quote:
    Whilst first and foremost the motivation behind any TV show is to get lots of viewers, I doubt very much that the opportunity to use the high profile of such shows to attract people to other Marvel products like comics would be ignored.



    Quote:
    Lets be perfectly honest, if you were making a show based on what comic fans wanted, then you wouldnt pick SHIELD as the idea to back when you look at it poor publication rate over the past 20 years. Theres no evidence of enough interest amongst comic fans alone to justify a TV show.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      On the other hand, addressing issue #2 gives new readers a chance to jump in AND tends to juice sales to existing readers who also jump on first issues. Traditional superhero comics are a uniquely weird phenomenon in entertainment. There is virtually no analogous form of shared-universe storytelling with so much backstory (aside from maybe Coronation Street?). Certainly there's nothing like this approach in Japanese comics. And that massive shared backstory is appealing in some senses but it also means that Marvel has to deal with the fact that they are constantly dis-incentivizing new readers. So yeah, they need to constantly worry about it.



    Quote:
    I agree, but where i have an issue is that where as Marvel used to religiously manage continuity through the likes of dedicated editors like Mark Gruenwald, they now prefer to dismiss continuity as being no longer important, or erase it altogether.



    Quote:
    Cant recall who said it, but someone recently gave an interview stated that fans shouldnt worry too much about whether something makes sense in terms of continuity. Personally I disagree because one of the things Ive always loved about Marvel is that sense of investment, of being involved in something massive and interlinked, that sense of history. Marvel have decided that history just isnt such a big deal anymore.



    Quote:
    Couple of years back Greg Rucka was good enough to reply to an e-mail i sent to him after he decided to change Frank Castle from a Vietnam War veteran to a Gulf I veteran. His argument was essentially 'a war, is a war, is a war'. I argued that not only was he wrong but that his attitude was insensitive as all wars are different, require different types of soldiers fight them, and the baggage those that fight them have to subsequently carry is very different today than it was in 1970 and 1945. A idealistic man like Steve Rogers could not have been produced by a 'dirty' conflict like vietnam. Likewise, a man like Frank Castle could not have been produced by a relatively clean conflict like Gulf I.



    Quote:
    That shit matters. Tony stark could have been blown up in any foreign war zone - it didnt have to be Vietnam as was the case originally - but Frank Castle is defined by Vietnam in the same way Rogers is defined by WWII.



    Quote:
    Ignoring that continuity because it is inconvenient to explain to new readers how a man who fought in the 1960's can still be kicking ass so well today (its actually quite easy to explain in reality, and anyone who has ever read a comic will accept those reasons without resistance) takes a lot away from the character and makes his motives a lot more difficult to understand or appreciate. In the long term you are diminishing what made the character a success in order to try and make him a success.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Ahh, here's the thing - I don't think Marvel are really worried at all about better integrating their product across mediums (except in certain specific instances) because it's incorrect to talk about "Marvel" as if it's one business. Marvel's comics are produced by Marvel Entertainment. LLC (a corporate subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company) actually has relatively little to do with Marvel Studios LLC(which is a subsidiary of Walt Disney Studios, which is also a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company). Marvel Studios doesn't report to Marvel Entertainment (or vice versa) and they have totally separate governance structures. There's very little connection except for rights to the same intellectual properties. Otherwise they both report separately to Disney.



    Quote:
    No successful multi-media organisation works without some kind of unified company direction, and Marvel/Disney would be fools if they werent interested in gearing their product to make the maximum of their situation.



    Quote:
    Dont know what age you are but I was born in the 70's, so I was there in the 80's when companies like Hasbro realised that rather than just sell a toy to a kid, they could also sell a bed spread, wallpaper, a lunchbox, a pencil case, a computer game, a pair of pajamas, and yeah - a comic book. It was a marketing goldmine, so much so that the authorities (In the UK at least) changed the law to better control how companies like Hasbro could sell such products.



    Quote:
    All those different products were produced and marketed by subsideries too. Hasbros comics - such as Transformers - were published by Marvel no less, and it is a well established fact (from the mouth of Simon Furman himself) that they were under intense pressure to only feature Transformers from that seasons catalogue of toys.



    Quote:
    Marvel have successfully managed circumvented those barriers through the big screen, producing a product that as well as being insanely popular in its own right provides an amazing opportunity to help make more money accross all of the other mediums they invest in.



    Quote:
    They would be lunatics if they didnt try to exploit that, but as an existing fan and a person who is a consumer primarily of just one of those mediums, accepting that something makes sound business sense is not the same as accepting that its a 'good' thing.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      And I know I'm getting long-winded here, but honestly I doubt that Marvel Studios cares at all whether viewers read the comics published by Marvel Entertainment, because it makes literally no difference to the bottom line of Marvel Studios whether they do so or not. And certainly the box office will have taught them that far, far more people are rabid for MCU films than have ever bought a comic book.



    Quote:
    Marvel Studios probably dont care - I'm sure as a director or producer you just want to create a great film rather than one that helps sell lunch boxes - but Disney will likely care very much, and I am sure that there is someone who operates many levels above that of producer or director who's job it is to work out just how you get some of those literally billions of Marvel movie fans to spend their disposable income on other Marvel products.



    Quote:
    Thats simply how the world works, and to think that Marvel would be any different just because they work in the creative arts would be very naive.



    Quote:
    I dont really care about my employers 'corporate message' - I care about doing my job well - but my employer definately cares about figuring out ways for me to better sell their corporate message when doing my job. I expect your employer does too. so do Disney



    Quote:

      Quote:
      I personally find both Nick Fury characters to be rather uninteresting, myself, so I'll recuse myself from arguing with you on this one.



    Quote:
    He's James Bond, George Patton and Mack Bolan all rolled into one. Whats not to like?



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Well, I'd quibble that Thor is hardly niche given that the current volume has been a regular top ten Marvel book (and Ms. Marvel is apparently their best seller digitally). But yeah, the X-men seem to have been defined by angst forever and New Avengers went to some pretty dark places. I far and away enjoyed New Avengers compared to Avengers and Avengers Assemble/Avengers World, which I didn't think really dwelled on the same kind of infighting until the time-jump just before Secret Wars.



    Quote:
    New Avengers (prior to Hickmans run) and Mighty Avengers were still for the most part about a 'family' of heroes - 'teams' in the most traditional sense.



    Quote:
    Hickman entire angle was pretty much exploring the idea of the Avengers as a franchise or a business - that they hire and fire based on their needs at any given moment.


I'm kind of middle of the road when it comes to Hickman but nothing happens in a bubble. The Avengers hiring standards had gotten really lax in the years leading up to that. It's not Hickman's fault people like Wolverine got admitted.

I can see the rationale...well they already let that guy in...so they'll let anyone in. And if they let anyone in then they can be run like a business...it's not a sacred order of knights anymore. The Avengers no longer have a soul...they let ruthless mass murderers in, they endanger children by making them Avengers, they bend over backwards for SHIELD who are morally gray at best, many of their decisions are based on what the government (or world governments) think is politically advantageous not what is necessarily in the world's best interests, they aren't a family like most super teams....they leave Carol to run off with her mind controlling rapist, Wanda never gets the psychological help she needs, Vision gets disassembled and no one but Wanda bats an eye, Gilgamesh gets beaten to within an inch of his life and later gets murdered but no one cares, Bobbi gets raped and gets booted off the team for letting her rapist die (maybe she needs therapy like Wanda or Carol), Hank smacked Jan...the Avengers do lack a certain level of humanity as compared to other teams. Hickman didn't make them soulless...he just capitalized on their soullessness \:\)





    Quote:
    It was an approach that runs contrary to the traditional attitude that to be an Avenger is to be the best of the best, a privilage granted to few, and the likes of Rogers supporting such an idea strikes me as bad characterisation for him (whilst such pragmatism would be perfectly normal for Stark). Manifold wasnt given Avengers status because he was one of 'Earths Mightiest Heroes', he was given it simply because they needed a teleporter...


To me once you have Cap allowing Wolverine on the Avengers nothing Cap says or does after that will ever make sense again.



    Quote:
    Under Hickman all you need to be an Avenger is an in-demand set of skills. Bendis was the same when he took on Logan I suppose, but at least Rogers was uncomfortable with that.


No mistake...all of the Hickman Avengers were just awful. But to me that is what the organization had degenerated to and he was within his rights to showcase how ridiculous and meaningless Avengers membership had become by having all of these ciphers foisted upon the team.


    Quote:






Posted with Mozilla Firefox 35.0 on Windows 7

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software