|
Post by spiderwasp on Jan 29, 2007 20:21:13 GMT -5
Joe might have a plan, unmasking spiderman, decimating the mutants, bringing back Bucky, Thor and Captain Marvel, and even though we don't all agree on the exicution, one day we might look back and see that the man did have an ace up his sleeve. maybe. maybe he's sitting in a dark room somewhere sweating how he's going to fix things, but, that's probably what he hires writers and editors for. don't stress, things might turn out alright. I'm not opposed to optimism (Really, I'm not) and what your saying is actually why I've continued buying NA. I've been hoping there is a plan and it will get better. Every time I see something in there that's good, I start thinking "Maybe Bendis is getting on the right track." However, I think it may be pushing optimism too far to say "Don't worry about it. Things might turn out all right" I agree with the philosophy that we should be able to enjoy each and every issue as it comes out and not have to just hang in there until someday we'll see why it all happened. This isn't something new that started with Joe Q though. The huge crossovers that you had to buy many parts to enjoy began back in the 80s. Coincidentally, wasn't it shortly after that that the decline in comic book popularity began. I wonder if it had anything to with the fact that many readers gave up because they couldn't keep up without spending a fortune. I really think Marvel could do better with stories that, even though they add to the overall Universe, also stand alone or with a few other issues without having read everything that leads up to it in a zillion other books. It was working well in the 70s and it wasn't just us guys who are fast approaching or in the midst of middle age that appreciated them.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Jan 29, 2007 20:56:18 GMT -5
It's not just you, jkemble, only those versed on tibetan black magic can see the awesome avatar of Doom... and it's rumored that the few who were able have gone crazy...
|
|
jkemble
Reservist Avenger
the Cosmic Frog
Posts: 243
|
Post by jkemble on Jan 29, 2007 21:22:20 GMT -5
It's not just you, jkemble, only those versed on tibetan black magic can see the awesome avatar of Doom... and it's rumored that the few who were able have gone crazy... Ha! ;D
|
|
jkemble
Reservist Avenger
the Cosmic Frog
Posts: 243
|
Post by jkemble on Jan 29, 2007 21:50:41 GMT -5
...sorry, I meant to say: "Things might turn out alright for Captain Marvel." I said "Relax" because, really, what can you do at this point? I'm sure the book is already in some stage of production. it's up to the readers to decide if they buy it or not. I'm not. Joe might have a plan, unmasking spiderman, decimating the mutants, bringing back Bucky, Thor and Captain Marvel, and even though we don't all agree on the exicution, one day we might look back and see that the man did have an ace up his sleeve. maybe. maybe he's sitting in a dark room somewhere sweating how he's going to fix things, but, that's probably what he hires writers and editors for. don't stress, things might turn out alright. I'm not opposed to optimism (Really, I'm not) and what your saying is actually why I've continued buying NA. I've been hoping there is a plan and it will get better. Every time I see something in there that's good, I start thinking "Maybe Bendis is getting on the right track." However, I think it may be pushing optimism too far to say "Don't worry about it. Things might turn out all right" I agree with the philosophy that we should be able to enjoy each and every issue as it comes out and not have to just hang in there until someday we'll see why it all happened. This isn't something new that started with Joe Q though. The huge crossovers that you had to buy many parts to enjoy began back in the 80s. Coincidentally, wasn't it shortly after that that the decline in comic book popularity began. I wonder if it had anything to with the fact that many readers gave up because they couldn't keep up without spending a fortune. I really think Marvel could do better with stories that, even though they add to the overall Universe, also stand alone or with a few other issues without having read everything that leads up to it in a zillion other books. It was working well in the 70s and it wasn't just us guys who are fast approaching or in the midst of middle age that appreciated them.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jan 29, 2007 21:56:20 GMT -5
...sorry, I meant to say: "Things might turn out alright for Captain Marvel." I said "Relax" because, really, what can you do at this point? I'm sure the book is already in some stage of production. it's up to the readers to decide if they buy it or not. I'm not. Ah, got ya. Not what I interpreted.
|
|
jkemble
Reservist Avenger
the Cosmic Frog
Posts: 243
|
Post by jkemble on Jan 29, 2007 23:24:31 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not really against Joe, I just don't understand why all of the sudden he seems out of control. (oh my god, am I going to say this again...) it's like he's selling everything without really thinking it all the way thru. being an old school fan, I've seen this happen before: Avengers The Crossing, Spider-Man Clone Saga, and being an x-men fan I know all about storylines that really go no where. but, if I'm entertained, and it's worth the $2.99, I'll buy it. I might even buy the first Captain Marvel, I wont know until it comes out, but since I'm already reading about 10 monthlies mostly x-men, I doubt it. Captain Marvel never really jelled for me, always found him kinda stiff and boring. uh, no offense...
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on Jan 31, 2007 9:08:48 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not really against Joe, I just don't understand why all of the sudden he seems out of control. (oh my god, am I going to say this again...) it's like he's selling everything without really thinking it all the way thru. being an old school fan, I've seen this happen before: Avengers The Crossing, Spider-Man Clone Saga, and being an x-men fan I know all about storylines that really go no where. but, if I'm entertained, and it's worth the $2.99, I'll buy it. I might even buy the first Captain Marvel, I wont know until it comes out, but since I'm already reading about 10 monthlies mostly x-men, I doubt it. Captain Marvel never really jelled for me, always found him kinda stiff and boring. uh, no offense... This is exaclty what I am worried about, it seems that we are going through a repeat of the 90's, and in 10 years when we look back, we will wonder what the hell marvel was thinking, and why as fans we bought that stuff.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jan 31, 2007 12:37:40 GMT -5
There is a simple solution -- don't buy it.
RSC
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Feb 2, 2007 20:05:58 GMT -5
Early on in this thread I dropped a Quesada quote from November ’05 in which he said a new Captain Marvel “has been back for some time now, it's just that no one has noticed or figured it out yet”. In today’s New Joe Fridays Quesada confirms that the Captain Marvel plans he spoke of were altered: So, so much for trying to tie The Return in with the earlier claim. (It would have fit my theory that the “returned” Captain is actually an aspect of the Sentry…)
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Feb 2, 2007 22:50:17 GMT -5
Joe might have a plan, unmasking spiderman, decimating the mutants, bringing back Bucky, Thor and Captain Marvel, and even though we don't all agree on the exicution, one day we might look back and see that the man did have an ace up his sleeve. maybe. maybe he's sitting in a dark room somewhere sweating how he's going to fix things, but, that's probably what he hires writers and editors for. don't stress, things might turn out alright. I'm not opposed to optimism (Really, I'm not) and what your saying is actually why I've continued buying NA. I've been hoping there is a plan and it will get better. Every time I see something in there that's good, I start thinking "Maybe Bendis is getting on the right track." However, I think it may be pushing optimism too far to say "Don't worry about it. Things might turn out all right" I agree with the philosophy that we should be able to enjoy each and every issue as it comes out and not have to just hang in there until someday we'll see why it all happened. This isn't something new that started with Joe Q though. The huge crossovers that you had to buy many parts to enjoy began back in the 80s. Coincidentally, wasn't it shortly after that that the decline in comic book popularity began. I wonder if it had anything to with the fact that many readers gave up because they couldn't keep up without spending a fortune. I really think Marvel could do better with stories that, even though they add to the overall Universe, also stand alone or with a few other issues without having read everything that leads up to it in a zillion other books. It was working well in the 70s and it wasn't just us guys who are fast approaching or in the midst of middle age that appreciated them. Honestly it has nothing to do with optimism. Marvel is making a lot of choices I don't like. Now their best selling regular title is New Avengers, which prints let's say 150,000 copies, and 90% of those sell (which I think might be high, but let's go with it). That means they're making 135,000 people happy. Only another 10 or 15% of those are completists and investors who don't necessarily like the book, but are buying it anyway. So they're making 120,000 people happy. Well, that's not that many is it? It's an okay number in this market, but it's not some sort of overwhelming mandate. Marvel has found a core audience that enjoys these somewhat gloomy, dark and intrinsically downbeat stories. And that's all. Stan did the same thing in 63. He couldn't outwrite DC's heroes at their own game so he reinvented the wheel. They found that audience. Look back in the day, Marvel, DC, Archie, Harvey, Charlton and several other publishers stayed in business by finding their audiences. There wasn't a lot of crossover between Archie and Spider Man readers. Some kids bought Richie Rich and Justice League, but not a lot. Marvel has in 2007 found an audience and gives them what they want. This is planned, they hire writers who give them the stories this audience wants. The big issue is Quesada and bendis and all these other Marvel guys can't in this day say "we've thrown the tradition out." They can't. So they dance around it and they make jokes and annoying comments and do whatever else, but they won't just say it. Because they know there's a segment that'll still buy the books in hope that there's an occasional glimmer of the storytelling we grew up with. But to be honest, its like having bought Amazing Fantasy 1-14 and then hoping Spider Man will start having giant monsters every issue that get beaten in eight pages by scientists. But optimism isn't really called for. Marvel has a totally different paradigm and it is to entertain the audience that buys New Avengers and Civil War. And if you've read those and not liked them, then I can't see how the future is going to hold any happiness for you...
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Feb 3, 2007 1:05:15 GMT -5
Honestly it has nothing to do with optimism. Marvel is making a lot of choices I don't like. Now their best selling regular title is New Avengers, which prints let's say 150,000 copies, and 90% of those sell (which I think might be high, but let's go with it). That means they're making 135,000 people happy. Only another 10 or 15% of those are completists and investors who don't necessarily like the book, but are buying it anyway. So they're making 120,000 people happy. Well, that's not that many is it? It's an okay number in this market, but it's not some sort of overwhelming mandate. Marvel has found a core audience that enjoys these somewhat gloomy, dark and intrinsically downbeat stories. And that's all. Stan did the same thing in 63. He couldn't outwrite DC's heroes at their own game so he reinvented the wheel. They found that audience. Look back in the day, Marvel, DC, Archie, Harvey, Charlton and several other publishers stayed in business by finding their audiences. There wasn't a lot of crossover between Archie and Spider Man readers. Some kids bought Richie Rich and Justice League, but not a lot. Marvel has in 2007 found an audience and gives them what they want. This is planned, they hire writers who give them the stories this audience wants. The big issue is Quesada and bendis and all these other Marvel guys can't in this day say "we've thrown the tradition out." They can't. So they dance around it and they make jokes and annoying comments and do whatever else, but they won't just say it. Because they know there's a segment that'll still buy the books in hope that there's an occasional glimmer of the storytelling we grew up with. But to be honest, its like having bought Amazing Fantasy 1-14 and then hoping Spider Man will start having giant monsters every issue that get beaten in eight pages by scientists. But optimism isn't really called for. Marvel has a totally different paradigm and it is to entertain the audience that buys New Avengers and Civil War. And if you've read those and not liked them, then I can't see how the future is going to hold any happiness for you... Excellent post, Imperius. I agree with practically everything -- notably that there has been a "sea change" in Marvel's philosophy that Marvel editors decline to acknowledge. A few things I notice in particular: 1)A change of focus from character to creator. Previously, Marvel editors could and did crack the whip to protect the integrity of its characters. Now, Marvel seems content to let the creators run the show without oversight. 2)A change in attitude toward the fans. In the past, reading the letter page I got the impression that Marvel usually did care what the loyal, knowledgeable fans thought of their product. Now, it's more common to see a condescending "my way or the highway" attitude, and I find that highly insulting coming from people who want me to buy their product. 3)A sharp tilt toward the profit-end of the profit/integrity spectrum. Several events of recent vintage are blatant cash-ins that simply would not have happened prior to Mr. Quesada's tenure. The one thing I would differ on is the percentage of total sales represented by completists. I happen to think that the percentage of completists is more in the 30+%. Example: Captain America Vol. 4 was roundly despised, but was consistenly selling in the mid-30s. Cap Vol 5 is roundly praised as perhaps the best run ever, and yet only sells in the mid-40s. That's a mere 20-25% sales improvement from worst to best. This says to me (on the Cap title at least) that perhaps in fact a majority of customers are completists. RSC
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Feb 3, 2007 2:32:22 GMT -5
So, are we living, then, the day(s) the MU (as we knew it) died...?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Feb 3, 2007 7:18:06 GMT -5
It's funny, I could see many fair points in what Rex said... and then RSC "added" yet more ridiculously biased points.
Suffice to say I totally disagree with his 2) and 3)
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Feb 3, 2007 11:00:22 GMT -5
I don't know, Doom -- and again, here I go again with the whole generation gap thing. Let me just say that whether or not Stan and Roy, and subsequent EICs thought the fans were important or just pains-in-the-butt, I FELT IMPORTANT. When I read the letters pages in my favorite books, I read comments (praises and criticisms) from people who were feeling the same way I did. And even though I didn't always find the editorial answer satisfying, at least they justified what they were doing. And who knows? Sometimes a few issues down the road, or in a spin-off title (ie something complained about in FF might have been dealt with in Marvel Two-In-One) that criticism might have been dealt with. Looking around now, it just seems like Marvel thumbs its nose at the buyers -- the now-standard "if you don't like the new stuff, screw you and go buy the old stuff". Which brings to mind this thought... it is under the current regime that we have been able to obtain more, and more affordable, remnants of the old Marvel Universe than ever before. You think that's purposeful?? Essentials, Masterworks, tpbs, the DVD-ROM line (which is supposed to expand)... all of a sudden we older collectors can get our hands on material from our childhood for basically a song. That might seem to support the "screw you" stance of Bendis and Joe Q
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Feb 3, 2007 12:57:02 GMT -5
Lots of interesting comments here; some of the things I've read echo discussions I've had with my boyfriend and folks at the comic shop.
I can agree, as an old-timer, that I am beginning to feel somewhat alienated from the direction Marvel has been taking. But I don't know that there is any real intent on Marvel or Quesada's part to drive old fans away. What sense would that make? No, I don't think it's maliciousness, I think it's like Rex said, they've found a way and a readership that supports it. Marvel is number one, books like New Avengers and Civil War are making tons of money, so why mess with success?
That being said, I will say that I think the personalities of the EICs at both Marvel and DC do influence the direction of their respective lines. One of the most striking things I took away from last year's San Diego Comic Con was the huge difference in the way DC and Marvel ran their panels. The DC panels, with Didio at the helm, were a blast. At every DC panel, there was a real give and take with the fans. Every fan that asked a question was also asked a question by Didio, along the lines of what DC was doing right or wrong, and what the fans wanted to see more of. He seemed honestly interested in what the fan base had to say, and there were no put-downs or smart-ass remarks.
The Marvel panels on the other hand, were actually hard to sit through. We had to sit through endless slides, commentary that said less than what we had already read on most websites, and a lot of smart-ass comments by Quesada. His response to fans seemed much more confrontational. All in all, I got the impression that he wasn't interested in what the fans wanted. Since then, his comments have only reinforced that feeling for me.
I guess he can afford to behave this way; obviously Marvel is doing well. But I do miss the days when it felt like Marvel was really reaching out to its fans and building a sense of camaraderie. Maybe this is a by-product of being number one in their market - they no longer feel like they need to make that extra effort. Who knows? All I know is, the current direction Marvel is headed makes me think I will be buying very few current books, and working more on my want list.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Feb 3, 2007 13:26:38 GMT -5
The point I disagree with many of you is that Marvel should be happy with the current state of the industry and their own sales. Avengers in the 70´s were selling around 350 k, with no big crossovers, alternate covers or prima donas writers/artists. In the glory days of Jim Shooter as EiC Marvel was making much more money that today, and it didn´t had the exposure (movies, DVDs, games) that it has today. I think Joe Q and pals are slowly killing the industry, turning what could be (and has been in the past) a mass media into a niche market that only shrinks from year to year...
Tananile, I heard from some brazilian artists that DC is a much better place to work for than Marvel nowadays, so even the pros share your feelings.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Feb 3, 2007 15:42:50 GMT -5
You've been misinformed, Vonbek. The comics market is currently GROWING and has been for some time- thanks in no small part to the writers and administration so many of you despise so much.
|
|
jkemble
Reservist Avenger
the Cosmic Frog
Posts: 243
|
Post by jkemble on Feb 3, 2007 15:56:48 GMT -5
The point I disagree with many of you is that Marvel should be happy with the current state of the industry and their own sales. Avengers in the 70´s were selling around 350 k, with no big crossovers, alternate covers or prima donas writers/artists. In the glory days of Jim Shooter as EiC Marvel was making much more money that today, and it didn´t had the exposure (movies, DVDs, games) that it has today. I think Joe Q and pals are slowly killing the industry, turning what could be (and has been in the past) a mass media into a niche market that only shrinks from year to year... yeah, I know that the current comic market is up, due to Hollywood' s movie exposure, and I think that's what Joe want's, more mainstream media exposure to bring in new readers. I don't think it's a bad plan, maybe it will save comics as a whole (that's a bit of a stretch...) but what he is doing is alienating the long tim readers such as myself, but in comics, the longtime reader are the niche, and, unfortunately, the minority. ...we are alos the most vocal, because we are passionate about these charecters that we have basically grown up with. I can except change, I realise that is how we get charercter development, a good thing, but, what is bugging me is all the re-written history just to cater to a current stoyline. that's cheap.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Feb 3, 2007 17:50:16 GMT -5
You've been misinformed, Vonbek. The comics market is currently GROWING and has been for some time- thanks in no small part to the writers and administration so many of you despise so much. Well I think I'll disagree with your disagreement... I think even Quesada acknowledges that while sales are up (they're also up at DC about the same margin and I personally attribute it to the fact that internet purchasing has made it simple to order book globally, which could account for a bump in sales. It has made a difference in almost every other business that has a significant internet presence such as clothing,electronics, etc...), they are nowhere near compared to a few years back and also breakout books aren't what they were compared to a few years back. Do I really have to find links to sales figures for Claremont Lee X-Men and Liefeld X-Force and McFarlane's Spawn to show how many more copies they were selling? And even before that burst with the speculator boom, stuff like the original Secret Wars sold tons. Tons. I dunno. I believe Quesada has even explained at some point the current sales won't ever match those of the heyday and I may look them up during the week. Right now I'm gonna be having some pot roast. Here's one quote from Joe on the subject from Newsarama: NRAMA: Sales have been slowly but consistently rising the last several years, and there have been many creative successes, but nothing in the last six years (and to be fair, the 10-15 years before that) that have transcendental – like Watchman, Dark Knight, even Sandman to a degree. There also hasn’t been a pure out-and-out phenomenon like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, save for the speculator-driven sales of some titles in the 90’s.
Why do you think that is? Were all those works just so relatively innovative (of their times), or of such quality that nothing has quite matched them in all these years?
JQ: I think it’s a time and place thing. The work of Moore, Miller, and Gaiman was unlike anything we’d seen up till that time. They were playing at a whole other level. But, as I said previously, opportunities breed more opportunities. Having guys like Moore, Millar and Gaiman in the comics industry inspired and open the eyes of young writers who didn’t know of the potential of comics just as I’m sure guys like Stan Lee opened the eyes of guys like M,M&G.
Today’s quality of writing is a tribute to these guys and what they have attracted are writers who are playing at the level that they set. They were the first so the projects they did in that time period are seminal and were the opening salvos for what was to come.
Also, we have the luxury of time, it’s been many years since those projects came out and like all great things, they get greater with age and become classic. To be honest, I don’t know if we’ve had the next Watchmen or not, it may be right under our nose and we don’t even know it. But, I also think it’s a mistake to look for the next Watchmen. The reason it was so innovative was because no one was looking for it and Moore and Gibbons weren’t trying to be the next anything. When the next “thing” happens in comics, I suspect that it won’t be anything like anything at all.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Feb 7, 2007 23:23:35 GMT -5
Oh, and on the subject of Joe Q's promising that "Dead is dead." I agree that when handled properly, a return can be okay but when everyone returns it does kind of make you not care when someone dies. The main reason this issue with Joe annoys me isn't that I think he should not allow any returns just because he said it, but that he should be more honest in what he says in the first place. There was an interview not long after Colossus came back when he said that his opinion had changed on the matter. Is he not allowed to change his mind? Years passed between the first time he said that and now. It's not like he lied. He simply changed his mind. -------------------- I've been reading Marvel comics for 15 years (this month, too!), so would I be considered a long-time reader? I have felt zero alienation from Quesda at all. I feel as though the accusations of Quesda's alienation of long-time reader stems from when Bill Jemas was around. Jemas did one heckuva good job of acting like a real arrogant jerk. Quesda seems to be much more grounded than Jemas. Furthermore, I would not put all of the blame on him. According to reports, ideas mostly come from the writers during the creative conferences. "Disassembled" was (if I recall) originally Mark Millar's idea and Bendis just ended up picking it up. While Quesda may have the first and last word as to whether or not a project is a go, ideas and stories often come from the writers. His position is not something I would desire to have. There are long-time readers that need to be pleased, as well as newer readers that are looking to come aboard. The biggest problem (and I mean this as non-offensively as possible) with a lot of long-time readers is that the books seem to have to be written one certain way. If not that way, then they are immediately considered unreadable. "New Avengers" is the perfect example. I've mentioned it before, but if it wasn't called "Avengers," would the book be as so heavily critized? Probably not. Just because it's "Avengers," it has to be heavily compared to 44 years of Avengers stories. If itdoesn't make the cut, it's beaten down. Meanwhile, we have new fans coming in. They see Captain America, they see Iron Man, they see Spider-Man, they see Wolverine, all under the infamous "Avengers" title . . . and they jump in. The story continues into the next issue. They're curious, so they pick up the next issue. And the next and the next and so on and so on. Finding the balance between pleasing the oldies and leering in the newbies is probably next to impossible. I don't think Quesda is alienating the old-time fans. I think you may be feeling alienated, but surely he's not sitting in his office everyday thinking "hmmm, how can I get those fans of 70's 'Avengers' issues really riled up?" I also think that Quesda has shaken things up creatively. That's not to say that we've seen nothing but gold since 2000, but I've seen some of the best Marvel stories since he's become EiC. By the by, how was his old "Iron Man" run a few years ago? ~W~
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Feb 8, 2007 2:24:51 GMT -5
Oh, and on the subject of Joe Q's promising that "Dead is dead." I agree that when handled properly, a return can be okay but when everyone returns it does kind of make you not care when someone dies. The main reason this issue with Joe annoys me isn't that I think he should not allow any returns just because he said it, but that he should be more honest in what he says in the first place. There was an interview not long after Colossus came back when he said that his opinion had changed on the matter. Is he not allowed to change his mind? Years passed between the first time he said that and now. It's not like he lied. He simply changed his mind. -------------------- I've been reading Marvel comics for 15 years (this month, too!), so would I be considered a long-time reader? I have felt zero alienation from Quesda at all. I feel as though the accusations of Quesda's alienation of long-time reader stems from when Bill Jemas was around. Jemas did one heckuva good job of acting like a real arrogant jerk. Quesda seems to be much more grounded than Jemas. Furthermore, I would not put all of the blame on him. According to reports, ideas mostly come from the writers during the creative conferences. "Disassembled" was (if I recall) originally Mark Millar's idea and Bendis just ended up picking it up. While Quesda may have the first and last word as to whether or not a project is a go, ideas and stories often come from the writers. His position is not something I would desire to have. There are long-time readers that need to be pleased, as well as newer readers that are looking to come aboard. The biggest problem (and I mean this as non-offensively as possible) with a lot of long-time readers is that the books seem to have to be written one certain way. If not that way, then they are immediately considered unreadable. "New Avengers" is the perfect example. I've mentioned it before, but if it wasn't called "Avengers," would the book be as so heavily critized? Probably not. Just because it's "Avengers," it has to be heavily compared to 44 years of Avengers stories. If itdoesn't make the cut, it's beaten down. Meanwhile, we have new fans coming in. They see Captain America, they see Iron Man, they see Spider-Man, they see Wolverine, all under the infamous "Avengers" title . . . and they jump in. The story continues into the next issue. They're curious, so they pick up the next issue. And the next and the next and so on and so on. Finding the balance between pleasing the oldies and leering in the newbies is probably next to impossible. I don't think Quesda is alienating the old-time fans. I think you may be feeling alienated, but surely he's not sitting in his office everyday thinking "hmmm, how can I get those fans of 70's 'Avengers' issues really riled up?" I also think that Quesda has shaken things up creatively. That's not to say that we've seen nothing but gold since 2000, but I've seen some of the best Marvel stories since he's become EiC. By the by, how was his old "Iron Man" run a few years ago? ~W~ I don't disagree that Q has a right to change his mind. However, death in comics to me has become an overplayed hand. You know that if sales or a writer's whim deem it so, the death will be undone. And plus death does little for a character. having them experience some upheaval does far more. Disassembled is a bad story to me because it just kills off a lot of stuff without any follow-up. I mean what attachment did New Avengers have to the Avengers who died or were injured? Virtually none save for Cap and IM and they don't exactly wear their hearts on their sleeves during NA. The story doesn't resonate because nobody really feels anything. So my problem is much more with the poor way Marvel has been writing their stories as opposed to just using death as a dramatic tool. Also all ideas filter through Joe. Every EIC takes that blame. Shooter did, DeFalco did, Lee did. He hardly shies away from promoting a sales bump or getting new talent does he? Credit and blame go hand in hand... One thought that I have to take you to task on is the Avengers "long term" fans and their disgruntled nature. First point is if these long term fans don't embrace the book and love it and have an attachment to it and the storytelling then it goes the way of The Champions, or Fantastic Force, or The Inhumans and their dozen aborted launches. Joe seems to conveniently forget that Avengers was a top selling title under Busiek's run without the aid of numerous sales spikes such as Wolverine, Spider-Man and numerous crossovers. Law and order is a perfect example of a show that replaces cast members and writing talent but still resonates with long time fans. Now if the show suddenly added two strong box office draws like George Clooney and Cameron Diaz and digital effects and changed the story structure, so that things were never resolved no one would say "oh those fans are being stodgy" if they complained. Most sources would acknowledge that whatever gave the show its long term success is now gone and replaced with something that isn't like what preceded it. If it's cut or beaten down by some fans, well last time I checked we were allowed our opinions, despite what bendis and Quesada seem to think. And they do demean fans for their opinions, which is part of what I don't like about Bendis. he said and I quote "I just think that nostalgia is contempt for the future," when addressing fans who don't like his New Avengers. Now he doesn't allow for the fact that despite the sales (which aren't that amazing, given he has marvel's two most popular characters on his roster and the number of crossovers the book has been a part of), that his approach just might not be that good. that these fans might not have contempt for New Avengers, just bendis' New Avengers. I can't stand that hubris, that idea that we just can't be right and that he sucks, because last time I checked, Rob Liefeld still holds any number of sales records, so going by that barometer, X-Force #1 is better than 90% of what Marvel has published... And while Quesada doesn't sit there scheming against more traditional fans, he does something just as bad, if not worse. he treats many of us as disposable. he knows there's a percentage of collectors who'll buy regardless and he knows that despite the larger income of older fans, chasing the 14-24 year old reader is a better marketing ploy. And just by cursory evidence they seem to dislike the more established marvel storytelling and tend to enjoy a sort of post modern, grim, deconstructed storytelling. And since these relative new readers don't have a connection to the characters, they don't mind out of character action or seemingly ridiculous plots that don't resolve themselves smartly or even logically in the marvel u. They're more concerned with sturm und drang, and that's marvel is giving them. I've hated a good 80% of the marvel u since he took over and I await the end of his tenure. You can enjoy it for various reasons, but don't present the idea that we who don't like his editorial decisions have no basis for them, other than our stodginess. It does a severe injustice to a lot of smart and capable and loyal marvel readers.
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on Feb 8, 2007 9:02:24 GMT -5
Oh, and on the subject of Joe Q's promising that "Dead is dead." I agree that when handled properly, a return can be okay but when everyone returns it does kind of make you not care when someone dies. The main reason this issue with Joe annoys me isn't that I think he should not allow any returns just because he said it, but that he should be more honest in what he says in the first place. There was an interview not long after Colossus came back when he said that his opinion had changed on the matter. Is he not allowed to change his mind? Years passed between the first time he said that and now. It's not like he lied. He simply changed his mind. -------------------- I've been reading Marvel comics for 15 years (this month, too!), so would I be considered a long-time reader? I have felt zero alienation from Quesda at all. I feel as though the accusations of Quesda's alienation of long-time reader stems from when Bill Jemas was around. Jemas did one heckuva good job of acting like a real arrogant jerk. Quesda seems to be much more grounded than Jemas. Furthermore, I would not put all of the blame on him. According to reports, ideas mostly come from the writers during the creative conferences. "Disassembled" was (if I recall) originally Mark Millar's idea and Bendis just ended up picking it up. While Quesda may have the first and last word as to whether or not a project is a go, ideas and stories often come from the writers. His position is not something I would desire to have. There are long-time readers that need to be pleased, as well as newer readers that are looking to come aboard. The biggest problem (and I mean this as non-offensively as possible) with a lot of long-time readers is that the books seem to have to be written one certain way. If not that way, then they are immediately considered unreadable. "New Avengers" is the perfect example. I've mentioned it before, but if it wasn't called "Avengers," would the book be as so heavily critized? Probably not. Just because it's "Avengers," it has to be heavily compared to 44 years of Avengers stories. If itdoesn't make the cut, it's beaten down. Meanwhile, we have new fans coming in. They see Captain America, they see Iron Man, they see Spider-Man, they see Wolverine, all under the infamous "Avengers" title . . . and they jump in. The story continues into the next issue. They're curious, so they pick up the next issue. And the next and the next and so on and so on. Finding the balance between pleasing the oldies and leering in the newbies is probably next to impossible. I don't think Quesda is alienating the old-time fans. I think you may be feeling alienated, but surely he's not sitting in his office everyday thinking "hmmm, how can I get those fans of 70's 'Avengers' issues really riled up?" I also think that Quesda has shaken things up creatively. That's not to say that we've seen nothing but gold since 2000, but I've seen some of the best Marvel stories since he's become EiC. By the by, how was his old "Iron Man" run a few years ago? ~W~ Of course Joe Q is not out to alienate the old fans, but he is out to bring in younger new fans. (that has been his proclaimed goal since he took over). So instead of trying to find something even close to a happy medium, he has gone off in a totally different direction. In the process, comics like Avengers have so totally changed that many fans of it just don't like the comic anymore. It is not that it is not the Avengers we remember, it has no similarity to the Avengers we remember at all except the name. Heck I showed a picture of the New NA team to a friend of mine who has a passing idea of marvel comics (he knows the Avengers, X-Men, FF) stuff like that. I asked him, what team do you think this is. His answer was Defenders or Champions or maybe a whole new name. When I said nope it is the Avengers he laughed and asked what Marvel was smoking. Does this comic sell. Yep, thanks to hype, Wolverine, Spider-Man, the Avengers name and the hype on Bendis. Anyway, that is my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Feb 8, 2007 19:24:51 GMT -5
Oh, and on the subject of Joe Q's promising that "Dead is dead." I agree that when handled properly, a return can be okay but when everyone returns it does kind of make you not care when someone dies. The main reason this issue with Joe annoys me isn't that I think he should not allow any returns just because he said it, but that he should be more honest in what he says in the first place. There was an interview not long after Colossus came back when he said that his opinion had changed on the matter. Is he not allowed to change his mind? Years passed between the first time he said that and now. It's not like he lied. He simply changed his mind. -------------------- I've been reading Marvel comics for 15 years (this month, too!), so would I be considered a long-time reader? I have felt zero alienation from Quesda at all. I feel as though the accusations of Quesda's alienation of long-time reader stems from when Bill Jemas was around. Jemas did one heckuva good job of acting like a real arrogant jerk. Quesda seems to be much more grounded than Jemas. Furthermore, I would not put all of the blame on him. According to reports, ideas mostly come from the writers during the creative conferences. "Disassembled" was (if I recall) originally Mark Millar's idea and Bendis just ended up picking it up. While Quesda may have the first and last word as to whether or not a project is a go, ideas and stories often come from the writers. His position is not something I would desire to have. There are long-time readers that need to be pleased, as well as newer readers that are looking to come aboard. The biggest problem (and I mean this as non-offensively as possible) with a lot of long-time readers is that the books seem to have to be written one certain way. If not that way, then they are immediately considered unreadable. "New Avengers" is the perfect example. I've mentioned it before, but if it wasn't called "Avengers," would the book be as so heavily critized? Probably not. Just because it's "Avengers," it has to be heavily compared to 44 years of Avengers stories. If itdoesn't make the cut, it's beaten down. Meanwhile, we have new fans coming in. They see Captain America, they see Iron Man, they see Spider-Man, they see Wolverine, all under the infamous "Avengers" title . . . and they jump in. The story continues into the next issue. They're curious, so they pick up the next issue. And the next and the next and so on and so on. Finding the balance between pleasing the oldies and leering in the newbies is probably next to impossible. I don't think Quesda is alienating the old-time fans. I think you may be feeling alienated, but surely he's not sitting in his office everyday thinking "hmmm, how can I get those fans of 70's 'Avengers' issues really riled up?" I also think that Quesda has shaken things up creatively. That's not to say that we've seen nothing but gold since 2000, but I've seen some of the best Marvel stories since he's become EiC. By the by, how was his old "Iron Man" run a few years ago? ~W~ Okay, first off, I never said Joe Q. couldn't or shouldn't change his mind. What I suggested is that he should be more careful about what he says in the first place so that he doesn't have to change his mind. I mean, come on, could any comic book executive really have ever thought they were going to stick to a "Dead is dead" philosophy? He had to know he would later be backpedaling on the issue. The thing is, it made for a good statement at the time. I just think he needs to think through the statements he makes before he makes them. Also, on your point that if the New Avengers were another title such as Champions, it wouldn't be so widely criticized. I couldn't agree more. On the other hand, if the same book were published under another title, they probably wouldn't sell as well either. Bendis is treading on the reputation of the Avengers. If he is going to profit from that, he'll also reap the criticism. The truth is, your point is the very one many critics of the book have been making all along. It could just have easily have been the Champions, or the Defenders, or some new team altogether. It doesn't read like an Avengers book. Bendis could have just as easily pulled his favorite characters together, published a book about ninjas and the Sentry and the Avengers could have still been what we always loved.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Feb 8, 2007 20:22:17 GMT -5
Shifting back on topic a little bit, I was finally able to pick up "The Return" today. I found that the story wasn't too bad, but it was just kinda like "Hey! Captain Marvel's back! And he's running 42! Yay!"
Blah. I've loved most of "Civil War" thus far, but this was one issue really . . . meh . . . bogged it down.
~W~
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Feb 8, 2007 20:55:36 GMT -5
And plus death does little for a character. having them experience some upheaval does far more. Disassembled is a bad story to me because it just kills off a lot of stuff without any follow-up. I mean what attachment did New Avengers have to the Avengers who died or were injured? Virtually none save for Cap and IM and they don't exactly wear their hearts on their sleeves during NA. The story doesn't resonate because nobody really feels anything. So my problem is much more with the poor way Marvel has been writing their stories as opposed to just using death as a dramatic tool. Another excellent point which tends to receive little discussion. Let's pretend I don't know Bendis' work at all and that I am an old fan coming back to the title after say, 10 years away. I hear that this event happened, so I pick up the AD back-issues and read them. And maybe I even reserve judgement on whether the AD event was handled competently or not on its own merits. Then I pick up back issues of NA and begin reading them through, expecting that, wow, IM and especially Cap must be devastated. There'll be plenty of opportunity to show character development, adjusting to a new situation, conflicts with new members and a new way of doing things, etc. Like AD or not, there are possibilities to exploit. And I wait. And I wait. And I wait. And nothing happens. AD should be casting a shadow over some of these characters at least, and it isn't. After serving it's intended purpose of providing a quick reboot and a little gratuitous death, AD has been basically irrelevant to the two years of stories told by Bendis. RSC
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Feb 9, 2007 10:00:33 GMT -5
I've mentioned it before, but if it wasn't called "Avengers," would the book be as so heavily critized? Probably not. Just because it's "Avengers," it has to be heavily compared to 44 years of Avengers stories. If itdoesn't make the cut, it's beaten down. Even if the book would have been called "The New Defenders" I would still say it was crap. But hey, I´m a classic Defenders fan too, so...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Feb 9, 2007 14:01:36 GMT -5
Major props to you TehW and a karma point to you- I agree with you almost to a letter.
|
|
jkemble
Reservist Avenger
the Cosmic Frog
Posts: 243
|
Post by jkemble on Feb 9, 2007 20:27:01 GMT -5
There was an interview not long after Colossus came back when he said that his opinion had changed on the matter. Is he not allowed to change his mind? Years passed between the first time he said that and now. It's not like he lied. He simply changed his mind. -------------------- I've been reading Marvel comics for 15 years (this month, too!), so would I be considered a long-time reader? I have felt zero alienation from Quesda at all. I feel as though the accusations of Quesda's alienation of long-time reader stems from when Bill Jemas was around. Jemas did one heckuva good job of acting like a real arrogant jerk. Quesda seems to be much more grounded than Jemas. Furthermore, I would not put all of the blame on him. According to reports, ideas mostly come from the writers during the creative conferences. "Disassembled" was (if I recall) originally Mark Millar's idea and Bendis just ended up picking it up. While Quesda may have the first and last word as to whether or not a project is a go, ideas and stories often come from the writers. His position is not something I would desire to have. There are long-time readers that need to be pleased, as well as newer readers that are looking to come aboard. The biggest problem (and I mean this as non-offensively as possible) with a lot of long-time readers is that the books seem to have to be written one certain way. If not that way, then they are immediately considered unreadable. "New Avengers" is the perfect example. I've mentioned it before, but if it wasn't called "Avengers," would the book be as so heavily critized? Probably not. Just because it's "Avengers," it has to be heavily compared to 44 years of Avengers stories. If itdoesn't make the cut, it's beaten down. Meanwhile, we have new fans coming in. They see Captain America, they see Iron Man, they see Spider-Man, they see Wolverine, all under the infamous "Avengers" title . . . and they jump in. The story continues into the next issue. They're curious, so they pick up the next issue. And the next and the next and so on and so on. Finding the balance between pleasing the oldies and leering in the newbies is probably next to impossible. I don't think Quesda is alienating the old-time fans. I think you may be feeling alienated, but surely he's not sitting in his office everyday thinking "hmmm, how can I get those fans of 70's 'Avengers' issues really riled up?" I also think that Quesda has shaken things up creatively. That's not to say that we've seen nothing but gold since 2000, but I've seen some of the best Marvel stories since he's become EiC. By the by, how was his old "Iron Man" run a few years ago? ~W~ I don't disagree that Q has a right to change his mind. However, death in comics to me has become an overplayed hand. You know that if sales or a writer's whim deem it so, the death will be undone. And plus death does little for a character. having them experience some upheaval does far more. Disassembled is a bad story to me because it just kills off a lot of stuff without any follow-up. I mean what attachment did New Avengers have to the Avengers who died or were injured? Virtually none save for Cap and IM and they don't exactly wear their hearts on their sleeves during NA. The story doesn't resonate because nobody really feels anything. So my problem is much more with the poor way Marvel has been writing their stories as opposed to just using death as a dramatic tool. Also all ideas filter through Joe. Every EIC takes that blame. Shooter did, DeFalco did, Lee did. He hardly shies away from promoting a sales bump or getting new talent does he? Credit and blame go hand in hand... One thought that I have to take you to task on is the Avengers "long term" fans and their disgruntled nature. First point is if these long term fans don't embrace the book and love it and have an attachment to it and the storytelling then it goes the way of The Champions, or Fantastic Force, or The Inhumans and their dozen aborted launches. Joe seems to conveniently forget that Avengers was a top selling title under Busiek's run without the aid of numerous sales spikes such as Wolverine, Spider-Man and numerous crossovers. Law and order is a perfect example of a show that replaces cast members and writing talent but still resonates with long time fans. Now if the show suddenly added two strong box office draws like George Clooney and Cameron Diaz and digital effects and changed the story structure, so that things were never resolved no one would say "oh those fans are being stodgy" if they complained. Most sources would acknowledge that whatever gave the show its long term success is now gone and replaced with something that isn't like what preceded it. If it's cut or beaten down by some fans, well last time I checked we were allowed our opinions, despite what bendis and Quesada seem to think. And they do demean fans for their opinions, which is part of what I don't like about Bendis. he said and I quote "I just think that nostalgia is contempt for the future," when addressing fans who don't like his New Avengers. Now he doesn't allow for the fact that despite the sales (which aren't that amazing, given he has marvel's two most popular characters on his roster and the number of crossovers the book has been a part of), that his approach just might not be that good. that these fans might not have contempt for New Avengers, just bendis' New Avengers. I can't stand that hubris, that idea that we just can't be right and that he sucks, because last time I checked, Rob Liefeld still holds any number of sales records, so going by that barometer, X-Force #1 is better than 90% of what Marvel has published... And while Quesada doesn't sit there scheming against more traditional fans, he does something just as bad, if not worse. he treats many of us as disposable. he knows there's a percentage of collectors who'll buy regardless and he knows that despite the larger income of older fans, chasing the 14-24 year old reader is a better marketing ploy. And just by cursory evidence they seem to dislike the more established marvel storytelling and tend to enjoy a sort of post modern, grim, deconstructed storytelling. And since these relative new readers don't have a connection to the characters, they don't mind out of character action or seemingly ridiculous plots that don't resolve themselves smartly or even logically in the marvel u. They're more concerned with sturm und drang, and that's marvel is giving them. I've hated a good 80% of the marvel u since he took over and I await the end of his tenure. You can enjoy it for various reasons, but don't present the idea that we who don't like his editorial decisions have no basis for them, other than our stodginess. It does a severe injustice to a lot of smart and capable and loyal marvel readers. ... just wanted to quote a quote that contained a long quote, and now I did it! horray for me!
|
|
jkemble
Reservist Avenger
the Cosmic Frog
Posts: 243
|
Post by jkemble on Feb 9, 2007 20:28:48 GMT -5
...now I'm off to learn how to spell horray!
|
|