|
Post by bobc on Apr 2, 2009 13:27:16 GMT -5
I agree freedomfighter, I think you can evolve a character over time, as Tana points out above, and that's cool. And yes, after nearly 50 years of continuity, it is hard to come up with fresh stories and ideas--but that's what these guys get paid to do, or at least they used to. As I work in a related field, I have friends who work on and off for Marvel and they all say that a few years ago it was decided writers could just write stories with these characters anyway they cared to. Continuity and history are completely off the radar and it's not by accident. So what we are seeing these days are basically what we used to see in "What If?" years ago--just random stories that may or may not have any connection to Marvel history.
You see the biggest problem Marvel has been seeing in the past decade or two, is that young kids stopped buying and reading comics. One theory was that Marvel Continuity had become so complicated that the stories were confusing to kids unfamiliar with Marvel history. So Marvel more or less just chucked their own history to make stories less imposing I guess. From what I can tell it hasn't made much of a difference. When I go to the comic store, I rarely see kids. It's all late twenties to fifties. Granted kids' attention spans get shorter with each generation, but that is never going to change. If I were Marvel, I'd be more concerned about losing diehards.
Man I think Jeff Loeb has just surpassed Bendis as my most hated writer. He is everywhere these days and everything he writes is just so lame and tacky. Yuck. His version of Hawkeye is dreadful. Zero charm, zero likeability, zero nobility.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Apr 2, 2009 16:18:27 GMT -5
The sad thing is that Marvel has done away with continuity and that hasn't increased the kids who read the books because, as has been the case a lot since Joe Q came on board, they have completely missed the boat. Kids have a limited amount to spend. The stories they put out are far too complex for them to get involved with. You can't follow any single book or you get lost. References to stories from years ago were never the problem. Spending 3-4 bucks and only getting a small fraction of the story is. It is offputting to older fans as well. You can tell a story that fits in with continuity without necessarily reading every issue that the characters have appeared in. You can simply reference the important details through flashback or on the splash page. A story like "Secret Invasion" is far more difficult to follow than, for example, an Ultron story that references his creating the Vision or having once created a version that thought of himself as Hank Pym's son. I wish someone would slap some sense into those people.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Apr 2, 2009 16:52:55 GMT -5
That is a great point, SW--I never thought of that but you are right. Marvel traded the complexity of its own history for the complexity of fifty million current crossovers. So maybe that suggests that the change at Marvel had more to do with making quick money by forcing readers to buy twenty books a month to understand what the hell is going on, than shedding decades of continuity. ahhhh welcome to Fastfood Nation America!
I know I'm getting old, but it seems like nothing is meant to be permanent anymore. It's sad.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 2, 2009 20:58:11 GMT -5
Although I often enjoy JMS' work, "Sins Past" was just terrible, completely unnecessary, and editorial should have vetoed it immediately. Poor Gwen. I don't remember if I read it here or on the mail page of the Italian Spider-Man book, but the decision wasn't JMS'. In fact, he wanted the twins to be Peter and Gwen's children. However the editorial board agreed it would have aged Peter too much to have children, so instead they forced Strac to make them become Norman's. Ugh! Now that you mention it, I do seem to recall hearing that (the memory is obviously going...). Well, neither idea was good - but at least one could understand Gwen becoming pregnant by Peter (although why she would run off and not tell him would make no sense). But her getting involved with Osborn is completely ridiculous - there's no precedent for it.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Hank Pym on Apr 2, 2009 22:15:46 GMT -5
Although I often enjoy JMS' work, "Sins Past" was just terrible, completely unnecessary, and editorial should have vetoed it immediately. Poor Gwen. Agreed 110%. Seriously, did ANYONE think that was a good idea? Better yet, did ANYONE think it made sense? I don't even think Gwen was 20 yet, and they just go "Let's have her sleep with a guy that is almost three times her age." STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. It's obvious that whoever thought it was a good idea had NEVER read a friggin' Spidey book with Gwen in it, EVER. If it were up to me, I'd just say "screw it" and retcon everything from before OMD, and start over again.
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Apr 3, 2009 15:57:28 GMT -5
The sad thing is that Marvel has done away with continuity and that hasn't increased the kids who read the books because, as has been the case a lot since Joe Q came on board, they have completely missed the boat. Kids have a limited amount to spend. The stories they put out are far too complex for them to get involved with. You can't follow any single book or you get lost. References to stories from years ago were never the problem. Spending 3-4 bucks and only getting a small fraction of the story is. It is offputting to older fans as well. You can tell a story that fits in with continuity without necessarily reading every issue that the characters have appeared in. You can simply reference the important details through flashback or on the splash page. A story like "Secret Invasion" is far more difficult to follow than, for example, an Ultron story that references his creating the Vision or having once created a version that thought of himself as Hank Pym's son. I wish someone would slap some sense into those people. Yeah, this topic reminds me of a thread I was gonna start but got side-tracked. My point was--- I believe it takes greater writing skills to write comics with issue by issue stories, rather than the new writing style of 3- or more issue arcs. I think coming up with plots that could be told in one or two issues takes more creativity. And developing back-stories or ancillary plotlines that would be addressed in future issues would take more ingenuity and creativity, too. And the Avengers, with rotating casts and etc., was a great book to experience this kind of writing skills, for the most part. I realize that writers are less likely to have multi-year runs on books these days. I also realize that multi-issue arcs are better for selling trade paperbacks. But it would take a very good argument to convince me that the old writers couldn't write circles around these new guys. (if that makes any sense)
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 3, 2009 16:06:01 GMT -5
I realize that writers are less likely to have multi-year runs on books these days. I also realize that multi-issue arcs are better for selling trade paperbacks. But it would take a very good argument to convince me that the old writers couldn't write circles around these new guys. (if that makes any sense) I'd encourage anyone to read a John Byrne-written title from the 1980's -- Fantastic Four, Superman, Avengers West Coast, Next Men -- and see the master of the subplot at work. While much of Byrne's output has been collected in tpb form, my guess is that there are plenty of dangling plotlines when the book finishes as he certainly wrote in an ongoing manner. While I sometimes found it to be too much going on at one time, it was a writing method that made the reader come back for each succeeding issue.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Apr 4, 2009 15:13:47 GMT -5
On a different note, I would also include Flash Thompson among the ruined characters. He went from being more or less a mainstay of the cast to virtually disappear, end up in permanent comatose state and now as a war veteran who lost both his legs
|
|
|
Post by Ignore Me! on Apr 5, 2009 13:27:52 GMT -5
You see the biggest problem Marvel has been seeing in the past decade or two, is that young kids stopped buying and reading comics. One theory was that Marvel Continuity had become so complicated that the stories were confusing to kids unfamiliar with Marvel history. So Marvel more or less just chucked their own history to make stories less imposing I guess. From what I can tell it hasn't made much of a difference. When I go to the comic store, I rarely see kids. It's all late twenties to fifties. Granted kids' attention spans get shorter with each generation, but that is never going to change. If I were Marvel, I'd be more concerned about losing diehards. I'm surprised Doom hasn't posted a list of facts and figures that proves children have increased spending on comic books and now far surpass "older" readers. You never see kids in a comic shop? They don't have time to go to the comic shop! They're too busy texting while sitting in front of the TV playing Resident Evil on the X-Box! It's internet now! They can just 'click-click' and get all the comics they want delivered to their doors. Ahhh comic stores. Really haven't been to one in over 2 years now.... I do gaze longingly at the spin rack of books at the grocery store but just don't have the interest to spend my hard earned money on the stories coming out these days.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 5, 2009 17:13:32 GMT -5
As long as we're surveying comic shop behavior, I will echo the above statements that rarely if ever do I see customers under the age of 30 at either of the two shops I regularly frequent. And as an additional point of information, both are within a short walking distance of large high schools and one of them is also within a mile of a 3,000 student college.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 5, 2009 21:47:08 GMT -5
About the only time I see kids at our local store is on "Yo Yo Night" - usually every Friday - and the place is packed with them! But they are all doing tricks with their yo yos, not paying any attention to the comics.
Is our hobby a dying one? Will these characters only exist in movies and video games at some point?
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Apr 5, 2009 23:23:57 GMT -5
Is our hobby a dying one? Will these characters only exist in movies and video games at some point? I don't think that comics as such are dying, but I believe that Marvel itself thinks that they are. Everything Marvel is doing right now is done with the intent of leveraging their properties (the characters) out of the comic medium and into new media like the internet and movies. Marvel continues to pump out movies that are much more hit than miss. Why? Because the critical and commercial success of any particular movie isn't nearly as important to Marvel as the exposure of the wider audience to their product. It's basically a big ad campaign. Marvel is going to keep doing that until they bankrupt themselves (again) and have to retrench, or they find traction in new media. When and if that happens, kiss your Marvel comic books goodbye. It will take a revolution in Marvel's consciousness to save the medium in the long-term. What do I think Marvel should do to address the issue? QUALITY! QUALITY! QUALITY!The art today is often prettier than ever, but across the board, the writing BLOWS. A team of chimps with typewriters could produce superior product without breaking a sweat. Unfortunately, the "completist" and the "fanboy" have rewarded (or at least refused to punish) Marvel for poor writing quality for far too long. So it isn't entirely Marvel's fault. Regardless of fault, any mature, intelligent individual outside the hard-core fanbase need only take only one look at the steaming pile of dung that passes for "writing" at Marvel and walk away. And rightly so! There is a world of stuff out there to spend ones' entertainment dollar on. Marvel is looking at ever-declining comic sales and drawing the conclusion that "comics are dying." I look at Marvel's ever-declining sales and draw the conclusion that Marvel's product sucks. It's extremely difficult for an organization to take a hard look at itself and realize that it -- not the customer -- needs to improve. It's that much harder when the people in power in that organization are part of the problem and have everything to lose by the solution. And since the fanbase is part of the problem -- fans have to be more willing to punish Marvel financially for poor product than they have been historically. RSC
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Apr 6, 2009 8:40:22 GMT -5
"The art today is often prettier than ever, but across the board, the writing BLOWS."
Redstatecap--Unfortunately, truer words have never been spoken. I picked up Ultimatum last week and was struck by how good Finch's art was, and the coloring was good as well--but the STORY was just lying there like a bored hooker. Flat, dull, cheap shock value, zero chartacter interaction. To sum it all up, The Blob eats the Wasp, then Hank Pym bites the head off the Blob and then blows himself up.
If the bitchball is firmly in my court, let me also say that Mystique taking on the Scarlet Witch's likeness served no purpose other than to bring up the tragedy of all that happened during Disassembled. How much longer will that dead horse be flogged? Is Wanda dead or is she alive? Does anyone care anymore? It's so hard to tell with the complete chaotic mess that Marvel has become.
Thank God for Mark Millar.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Apr 6, 2009 19:48:02 GMT -5
And back to ruined characters -- make no mistake, this is just another strategy for a fast buck. Marvel is looking for every last penny right now and they understand that shock has selling value. If it means that Gwen Stacy retroactively porked Norman Osborne, so what? If it means that Wand is suddenly a murderous, raving lunatic, so what? If it means that Bucky was retroactively not blown to smithereens, so what? If it means that Iron Man and Reed Richards are now fascist pigs, so what? Marvel might think they are boosting sales in the short run, but I think they are costing themselves customers in the long run.
RSC
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 7, 2009 10:58:57 GMT -5
The art today is often prettier than ever, but across the board, the writing BLOWS. A team of chimps with typewriters could produce superior product without breaking a sweat. Unfortunately, the "completist" and the "fanboy" have rewarded (or at least refused to punish) Marvel for poor writing quality for far too long. So it isn't entirely Marvel's fault. Regardless of fault, any mature, intelligent individual outside the hard-core fanbase need only take only one look at the steaming pile of dung that passes for "writing" at Marvel and walk away. And rightly so! There is a world of stuff out there to spend ones' entertainment dollar on. Marvel is looking at ever-declining comic sales and drawing the conclusion that "comics are dying." I look at Marvel's ever-declining sales and draw the conclusion that Marvel's product sucks. It's extremely difficult for an organization to take a hard look at itself and realize that it -- not the customer -- needs to improve. It's that much harder when the people in power in that organization are part of the problem and have everything to lose by the solution. And since the fanbase is part of the problem -- fans have to be more willing to punish Marvel financially for poor product than they have been historically. RSC To be honest, I don't really think that the writers today are all terrible writers. There are a few I personally don't care for, but then I could say that about writers in my beloved '70s as well. Many of the current writers are quite talented (Brubaker, Abnett and Lanning, Parker, Fraction, etc), I just think in many cases they are going in directions I am not interested in. As for overall quality, that's always in the eye of the beholder, but I can think of worse times - the 1990s anyone?
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Apr 7, 2009 16:08:30 GMT -5
" Thank God for Mark Millar. And thanks for Abnett/Lanning, and a few others who write for the true comic book fans (NOT fanboys). And I agree with Tana, the 90s really sucked, mostly because of the lack of quality, all in the name of the almighty dollar. The good thing is, the coloring and much of the art looks better than the horrible 90s stuff (but I still can't get into the manga-influenced stuff, or the cartoony art, like, say Humberto Ramos). The realism of Alex Ross or Greg Land has brought comic book art to a new level, and the "cinematic" writing style of Millar, these things keep me reading comics. And of course, the popularity of comic book movies has brought new life to the comic book franchise, even more than recent comics, IMO. But for all my love of comics, I have'nt been impressed by MOST of the movies. (Ghost Rider???WTF???) But my problem with Marvel and DC is the abundance of total (ahem) SH*T that is produced today, much like the 90s. It's all about the dollars again, thanks to shysters like Quesada. I feel like right now, comics are just as crappy as the dreadful 90s were, with the exception of a few titles, many of which are penned by Millar (but 1985 was crap). Mr. Quesada, I know Stan Lee, and you, sir, are no Stan Lee. A good idea for a comic book would be Jack Kirby and some other deceased "masters" returning from the grave and kicking the $#%& out of Quesada for ruining a great tradition.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Apr 7, 2009 16:52:23 GMT -5
Tana you are ruining our lynch-mob fun with your reasoned arguments!
I have to grudgingly agree with you that there are some good writers still around these days and yeah most of the 90's sucked.
|
|
|
Post by badgermaniac on Apr 8, 2009 0:35:28 GMT -5
The stories they put out are far too complex for them to get involved with. You can't follow any single book or you get lost. References to stories from years ago were never the problem. Spending 3-4 bucks and only getting a small fraction of the story is. It is offputting to older fans as well. Bingo. I have noted this before. I have the entire 500 copy run of the orginal Avengers title plus the entire run of the Avengers West Coast Series. I have disposable income that I would gladly plunk down for one consistent title, but as I look into getting back into the hobby, I realize that storylines are spread throughout many titles and frankly, it is too hard to keep track of. As a result, I have enjoyed the Ulitmates series, simply because I know where it begins and where it ends and it generally doesn't diverge off all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 9, 2009 8:27:48 GMT -5
I think the fundamental problem is marketing. Creators today are constantly trying for that "big event" that will hopefully become a classic. It's no secret that in addition to a per page rate, creators today have royalty contracts based on overall sales, and that can be additionally augmented through the sale of -- you guessed it, the trade paperback.
If you think of two of the classic Silver Age titles, how many "big events" or life-changing moments for the characters were present? In the FF, there was the wedding of Reed and Sue and then a few years later the birth of Franklin. Everything else was just a linear story, moving from one earth-saving adventure to the next. No real changes in the status quo. Over in Amazing Spider-Man, of course you start with the death of Uncle Ben, but that's the impetus for the entire series (certainly akin to what befell Bruce Wayne, et al.). After that, one could argue that the next major event in Spidey's life was the death of Gwen Stacy, in ASM #121. Again, new characters appear, there's a few minor events like Peter going to college, Flash going to Viet Nam, etc. -- but overall, it remains a nice linear story of character development.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... did I just say "character development"?? Hmmmm....
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Apr 9, 2009 10:25:32 GMT -5
Well Hawkeye has been "developed." He apparently isn't Hawkeye anymore--he is some grade Z character named Ronin and uses swords. Remember our Lord and Saviour Bendis said "every team needs a ninja--you gotta have a ninja." Doesn't matter who it is. Even if they aren't a ninja. Even if their ninja sword skills have been craftily hidden from Marvel readers for 40 years. You MUST have a ninja.
|
|
|
Post by scottharris on Apr 9, 2009 17:36:21 GMT -5
I actually don't mind Clint as Ronin. I mean, in theory, that is; I have all the usual problems with the way Bendis has actually executed it, since he is almost all set up with no payoff. But the set up wasn't half bad, in terms of the sort of melancholy, adrift Hawkeye that was kind of lost because of his own death and resurrection. That had some promise, and the fact that he decided to become Ronin to sort of work out his issues and distance himself from Hawkeye -- okay, I can buy it. Nothing actually developed from this, of course, but the idea wasn't bad.
I think a far more damaging mistake in terms of Clint's character development is the return of Mockingbird. It basically nullifies any possible development from Ronin and House of M and everything that Bendis was supposedly setting up. In fact, I really don't have the first idea why they brought her back, because it really resets Hawkeye, nullifies everything they had set up while bringing back a character nobody really liked that much and that wasn't really handled well to begin with. This one is a real head scratcher. I wish they had left her dead.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Apr 9, 2009 18:53:19 GMT -5
I actually don't mind Clint as Ronin. I mean, in theory, that is; I have all the usual problems with the way Bendis has actually executed it, since he is almost all set up with no payoff. But the set up wasn't half bad, in terms of the sort of melancholy, adrift Hawkeye that was kind of lost because of his own death and resurrection. That had some promise, and the fact that he decided to become Ronin to sort of work out his issues and distance himself from Hawkeye -- okay, I can buy it. Nothing actually developed from this, of course, but the idea wasn't bad. Agreed. I wouldn't want it as a permanent thing, but I don't see it as any better or worse than him becoming Goliath years ago. The Reunion #2 also had a nice bit of insight, with Clint explaining that his new weapons are not random, but a homage to what he has lost in his past. The sword is a not to his first tutor, the Swordmaster, while the nunckakus (that can combine in a bo) are in memory of Mockingbird's short staffs. Becoming the leader of the New Avengers is interesting and has potential, but I fear it won't lead to anything. Better him than Cage though.
|
|
Doctor Bong
Reservist Avenger
Master of belly dancing (no, really...)!
Posts: 167
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 10, 2009 5:54:58 GMT -5
I actually don't mind Clint as Ronin. I mean, in theory, that is; I have all the usual problems with the way Bendis has actually executed it, since he is almost all set up with no payoff. But the set up wasn't half bad, in terms of the sort of melancholy, adrift Hawkeye that was kind of lost because of his own death and resurrection. That had some promise, and the fact that he decided to become Ronin to sort of work out his issues and distance himself from Hawkeye -- okay, I can buy it. Nothing actually developed from this, of course, but the idea wasn't bad. Agreed. I wouldn't want it as a permanent thing, but I don't see it as any better or worse than him becoming Goliath years ago. The Reunion #2 also had a nice bit of insight, with Clint explaining that his new weapons are not random, but a homage to what he has lost in his past. The sword is a not to his first tutor, the Swordmaster, while the nunckakus (that can combine in a bo) are in memory of Mockingbird's short staffs. Becoming the leader of the New Avengers is interesting and has potential, but I fear it won't lead to anything. Better him than Cage though. So, if his weapons as Ronin are homages to the important people in his life... where's his shield...? Where's his homage to Cap...? Of all the people who influenced Clint and touched his life as the hero Hawkeye, I would argue nobody left a deeper mark than Captain America.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Apr 10, 2009 6:11:34 GMT -5
Good point, it shows that the explanation given by the Reunion's writer is one in retrospect, and not what Bendis originally had in mind.
Trying to patch it up, I suppose that rather than with a shield, he is *trying to* homage Cap with his behaviour. We have seen a more mature, level-headed Clint recently, a bit like the one who was leading the Thunderbolts years ago. The television speech and accepting the team's leadership could be read in this way.
It would be also interesting to see how his relationship with Bucky progresses and if he tries to become a mentor figure for him, but once again with Bendis writing I'm not very hopeful.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on May 4, 2009 19:05:22 GMT -5
... where's his shield...? Where's his homage to Cap...? Of all the people who influenced Clint and touched his life as the hero Hawkeye, I would argue nobody left a deeper mark than Captain America. Trying to patch it up, I suppose that rather than with a shield, he is *trying to* homage Cap with his behaviour. We have seen a more mature, level-headed Clint recently, a bit like the one who was leading the Thunderbolts years ago. Bong and Shiryu (and anyone else), along somewhat similar lines: You may be interested in Fallen Son #3, in which Tony tries to convince Clint to take on the identity of Captain America. Clint handles the shield pretty well; after all, as he puts it, it's "all about accuracy" and "that's what a marksman does." The story came out in 2007, but I just read it some weeks ago in the Fallen Son tpb. Touching story and in keeping with Clint's character.
|
|