|
|
Post by uberwolf on Oct 13, 2006 22:09:36 GMT -5
I have to admit, I haven't collected comics in years but it seems from all I'm seeing... Marvel hates comics and they hate you. They found a new medium that makes them more money... films. There's a ton of Marvel characters hitting and re-hitting the silver screen. "Here's another crappy Bendis book fan boy, now don't bother me I need to find a lead for a Sci Fi original Rom Spaceknight, the Movie." The sad fact is the movies aren't that great either. Spiderman was good but the others... ugh.
While I don't buy comics other than a graphic novel here and there, I do play City of Heroes, a good super hero mmorpg. Marvel sued NC Soft because players were making up characters based on Marvel heroes. It's not like it's NC Soft's fault, they just created a huge costume creator for the game and players who liked the Marvel characters came as close as they could so they could play their favorite. Marvel didn't like that. They said "NO! You can not do that!" Why? Because they saw how well City of Heroes is doing and wanted a piece of the pie. They wanted to make their own mmorpg. So if you want to play a Marvel hero, you have to go to their game. So after all the court fees and winning the case I hear they gave up on the game and the company that was developing the Marvel game is now working on a DC mmorpg... wth.
Is it just me or does it seem Marvel is alienating their fans? I was all Marvel back in the day. I didn't buy anything else except some early Spawn so don't say I'm a Marvel hater,heh.
A not so interesting side note... My main Hero is named American Avenger a not so subtle Cap clone. I got a team invite one time and there was an Iron Avenger on the team. I got to the mish and he was a very not subtle Iron Man clone. We laughed.... Guess you had to be there.
|
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Oct 13, 2006 23:56:38 GMT -5
I think there is more than a little truth there.
I do believe that the current editorial regime has fostered the perception that they do not respect the fans. You could argue whether this was really the case, and how to prove it if it was -- but as the old saying goes, perception is reality.
I personally believe that Marvel editorial has gone too far towards an attitude of condescension.
The example of Bendis has been beaten to death, but it's relevant.
Here's a guy who is a lightning rod for criticism among some segments of fans, and who gives the appearance of purposefully antagonizing fans who don't care for his product.
And for this he is rewarded with a second Avengers title. And the editor says: "If you don't like it, go read back issues." That to me was an absolute slap in the face.
I don't know that it's everywhere in Marvel since I don't read outside the Avengers family of titles, but I certainly notice that within the realm of my Marvel interest.
RSC
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Oct 14, 2006 0:47:30 GMT -5
Time to switch to the Distinguished Competition (And believe me, never before could I imagine myself saying this words, not even in my wildest dreams...!!!).
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 14, 2006 10:33:13 GMT -5
But even at DC with their recent overhaul, there would be a lot to learn. Perhaps if one were a total DC novice that would "be a great jumping on spot" as the retailers like to say. For those of us with a few decades of DC background, it looks more challenging.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 14, 2006 21:11:42 GMT -5
Marvel’s comics today are, of course, a reflection on Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada—both in successes and in failures. In my opinion, Quesada relies too much on other media in his decisions. But I don’t mean that he considers the comics line mere support for the “main” movie business. Rather, I’m talking about decisions about storytelling based on things Quesada observes in other media. While it’s good to take a look around and pick up some ideas, I feel that too often he makes choices that don’t take into account the differences between comics and other media. For example, a while back Marvel’s approach to covers changed such that most were portraitlike and captions and word balloons were very seldom used. (Since then, the portraiture has eased up, but captions and balloons remain rare.) Quesada’s explanation was that Marvel’s new approach mirrored that generally used by bestselling magazines (better selling than Marvel’s comics), but I think the analogy fails because of differences in the products those covers are intended to sell (portraiture often works for magazines that contain interviews or other kinds of personality profiles, but Marvel’s comics usually contain action-oriented narratives [or at least, they used to]; word balloons and captions are usually not part of the magazine experience, but they are typical of what you’ll find in a comic book [well, captions are now uncommon inside Marvels, but that’s fodder for another tangent]).
In my opinion, Quesada also presents a rather brash, sometimes acerbic public persona. In my opinion, he also shows signs of being enthusiastic about comics, and he often does make an effort to explain his decisions, like the covers I griped about above. Still, his rough edges may be setting an unfortunate example for other Marvel personalities to adopt.
To be fair, Quesada (along with Bill Jemas) inherited a very troubled Marvel, and it was and remains his duty to make changes. Even a comfortably successful Marvel should experiment. Not all experiments will work. And some might generally succeed but nevertheless irritate some fans. That’s life. And I certainly wouldn’t say he’s always wrong. But I question Quesada’s grounding in the successes of Marvel past. The troubled Marvel whose reins he took had already been veering away from the basics, and Quesada’s régime seems to have largely steered clear of returning to them. It’s also notable that Quesada is Marvel’s first editor-in-chief whose career background is primarily in artwork, not writing and editing (though he had done both), and I wonder if he consequently lacks an appropriate perspective.
One final observation: Quesada’s editorship is getting long in the tooth (as compared to his predecessors’). Whatever his flaws or merits, it may simply be time, as a matter of course, for Marvel to hand the reins to a new driver. And we might like that person, and then again we might not!
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 15, 2006 5:57:44 GMT -5
Well I certainly disagree. I think honestly anyone who can say that Marvel TODAY is obsessed with making money moreso than Marvel of the 90s needs to take a much closer look. Marvel respects the fans, in my opinion, and quite honestly Joe Q really seems very enthusiastic about the characters and about the comics.
I think Marvel are trying the very hard task of trying to cater to longtime fans AND new readers. On the other hand, I think the Distinguished Competition, who I used t read a bit and have now gone off completely, are going the opposite path. They are so blindly determined to prove that they are faithful to their fans that they are alienating new readers completely, and yet simultaneously they aren't doing anything new with their characters. For example, DC suffers hugely, in my opinion, from their refusal to use 'Story So Far' pages.
It's down to each individual, but I will swear at any mom,ent that we have a better and more caring Marvel than the 90s.
|
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Oct 15, 2006 11:47:21 GMT -5
This "better and more caring" Marvel just gave carte blanche for Mark Millar to throw 40 years of Iron Man and Reed Richards into the trash can.
If I was a bigger FF or IM fan I'd be apoplectic right now, as those characters have been utterly destroyed. Even as someone who's not a particular FF or IM fan I'm disgusted with what's happened.
Marvel also is showing an unfortunate habit of "p*ssing down my neck and telling me it's raining." If you are familiar with Millar, Quesada, and Brevoort's "spin" (that's a kind term -- outright lies is more accurate) on Civil War you will understand what I mean here.
RSC
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 15, 2006 13:19:22 GMT -5
For those of you who have access to the various ROM's of Avengers, FF, X-Men, etc. why don't you check out the letters pages and Bullpen Bulletins. Go back and read a run of any book through, say, 1972-75 and see what a caring company is all about. There was a TOTALLY different air about Marvel then as compared to now.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 15, 2006 13:51:12 GMT -5
For those of you who have access to the various ROM's of Avengers, FF, X-Men, etc. why don't you check out the letters pages and Bullpen Bulletins. Of course, feel free to check out actual back issues. Face your papyrophobia—or osmophobia! |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 15, 2006 14:51:39 GMT -5
This "better and more caring" Marvel just gave carte blanche for Mark Millar to throw 40 years of Iron Man and Reed Richards into the trash can. If I was a bigger FF or IM fan I'd be apoplectic right now, as those characters have been utterly destroyed. Even as someone who's not a particular FF or IM fan I'm disgusted with what's happened. Marvel also is showing an unfortunate habit of "p*ssing down my neck and telling me it's raining." If you are familiar with Millar, Quesada, and Brevoort's "spin" (that's a kind term -- outright lies is more accurate) on Civil War you will understand what I mean here. RSC I'm extremely familiar with their disucssion of Civil War and nope, I completely disagree. Oh yeah, and as a MASSIVE fan of Reed Richards, I CAN agree (reluctantly) that he may be a little OOC in Civil War, but I refuse point blank to acknowledge the lie being perpetuated that he is radically OOC. In fact, all character development for a while now has logically led to his current state of mind. My only former experience of Tony is through the Avengers so I reserve my judgement. |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 15, 2006 15:52:52 GMT -5
Phantom, you kill me...
WHAT I MEANT was that if one happened to have the ROMs, it's just a little bit more convenient that all that plastic and tape...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 15, 2006 17:31:06 GMT -5
Always glad to be of service. ;D Who says this isn’t the Magnificent Marvel Age of Philanthropically Philological Phobia-Phraseology Phantasmagoria?!! Like (apparently) everything else on this board, that’s subject to debate. (Personally, I don’t use the tape—I just tuck the flap in!) |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 15, 2006 19:21:54 GMT -5
What? And let the caustic over-industrialized ozone-depleting air in?!?!?
Nah, I'm not as good a wordsmith as you are.
I use tape....
|
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 15, 2006 21:13:25 GMT -5
What? And let the caustic over-industrialized ozone-depleting air in?!?!? Nah, I'm not as good a wordsmith as you are. I use tape.... Who says this isn’t the Amazing Marvel Age of Acid-Free Atmosphere-Proof Anti-Oxidizing Antique Avengers Archive Adhesive?!! |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 15, 2006 22:11:39 GMT -5
I exalted you for creativity, Captain Thesaurus!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 16, 2006 20:25:51 GMT -5
I exalted you for creativity, Captain Thesaurus!!! Excellent, thou effervescently exalting effendi! Excelsior!! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Engage on Oct 17, 2006 13:41:58 GMT -5
I think Marvel tries pretty hard to be good to people, they just look a lot worse than they really are because everyone remembers how they spun messages from the bullpen in the era of Stan Lee.
They have to run a business to stay a float, and right now nothing will make them as much money as movies and the toys that go with them. It would be insane for the company to abandon that with the comics selling with such low numbers.
As for Bendis, I'm not his biggest fan but he earned a shot at the Avengers with his other work. While I don't think its panned out its not like he's going to write the book forever. But what I do know is that he's one of the more popular writers Marvel has and his run on New Avengers has sold well and secured the fact that the Avengers is a title that can sell.
The unpopular changes of the last few years are being phased out as Disassembled is slowly reversed with the return of the Vision, the impending return of Hawkeye and the return of the Scarlet Witch.
As to the stuff about the games, while its a pretty assy move I guess Marvel needs to make sure that when they put out a game in that market it'll be relevant. Its not the nicest move but it does make sense from a money standpoint.
I think that Marvel hated us in the 90's. Now they seem to be trying to tell good stories while they make money, meaning that at least Civil War as a plot that you can have an opinion about, unlike previous insane crossovers.
|
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Oct 17, 2006 15:09:54 GMT -5
My main problem is Marvel is trying to have it both ways.
Look, make money. By all means, make money. marvel needs to make money. I understand that wholly. If a segment of the audience will buy ten different covers of the latest miniseries, then by God give 'em what they want.
If they reward you with six figure sales when you kill off Joe Blow and darken up every hero you've run for forty years with a questionable miniseries that seems to have exploded out of nowhere, then do it and be happy about it.
If Joe don't make money, Joe don't have a job. I get it.
But then stop trying to convince me that this is the best thing ever. I'm a man in my late thirties; you're not going to snow me with your over the top proclamations that this is the best marvel comics ever.
Joe, you don't get to determine that.
We do.
It's pointless to keep making comparisons to stan lee, like this is the 60s marvel reborn. It absolutely is not. the thunderbolts when Busiek created the book came out of an organic idea; a group of villains who fought the Avengers tried to replace them.
Now the book is going to be "who are the villains who'll spur the most sales?"
that's giving the audience what it wants, which is not the best thing. that kind of thinking gave us Joe Millionaire on TV, gave us the backstreet boys in music, gave us larry the cable guy in his own feature film...
joe knows there's not one good creative reason to have wolverine the Avengers.
but he also knows it'll help the book fly off the shelves, which is a good enough reason when he needs to make money.
sometimes though, you want to raise the expectations of the audience and give them something good, something great, not just what they want.
I want good comics, not by the numbers, put big name author here, big name artist there, big event over here. Good comics.
Alan Moore didn't need crossovers and gimmicks to move books. Neither did Miller, Waid, Busiek or any other top flight writer in the last few years.
This period of Marvel is completely tied to marketing much like the 90s speculator boom. It's irrelevant to guess which period was worse. Two piles of crap both stink; if one smells worse than the other, how truly relevant is it? You're still faced with a pile of crap regardless.
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 17, 2006 16:12:00 GMT -5
Rex, I just say "wow". If I could have exalted you twice, I would have. That's good stuff you just wrote!
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 17, 2006 16:42:32 GMT -5
I think Marvel tries pretty hard to be good to people, they just look a lot worse than they really are because everyone remembers how they spun messages from the bullpen in the era of Stan Lee. They have to run a business to stay a float, and right now nothing will make them as much money as movies and the toys that go with them. It would be insane for the company to abandon that with the comics selling with such low numbers. As for Bendis, I'm not his biggest fan but he earned a shot at the Avengers with his other work. While I don't think its panned out its not like he's going to write the book forever. But what I do know is that he's one of the more popular writers Marvel has and his run on New Avengers has sold well and secured the fact that the Avengers is a title that can sell. The unpopular changes of the last few years are being phased out as Disassembled is slowly reversed with the return of the Vision, the impending return of Hawkeye and the return of the Scarlet Witch. As to the stuff about the games, while its a pretty assy move I guess Marvel needs to make sure that when they put out a game in that market it'll be relevant. Its not the nicest move but it does make sense from a money standpoint. I think that Marvel hated us in the 90's. Now they seem to be trying to tell good stories while they make money, meaning that at least Civil War as a plot that you can have an opinion about, unlike previous insane crossovers. I agree with most of this. Except about Vision. The new Vision isn't the same. Honestly, I came away from Disassmebled going "OMG! THEY KILLED VISION!" I then went off to complain about it and instead found everyone in uproar about the death of Hawkeye and Vision relegated to the level of Scott Lang. Now he's dead, we have a new character who is frankly not the same in his place, and no-one seems to care! As far as I was concerned, Vision was part of the soul of the Avengers. Hawkeye was the little guy who pranced around like a wannabe Robin Hood  I don't understand- it seems Bendis is now hugely building up the minor relationship between Clint and the Scarlet Witch- who (dun dun dun) killed him! WHAT ABOUT VISION, damnit!? (Note: I do in fact like Hawkeye. It's just that Vision was better ) Anyway, to return from my off-topic rant, I agree with this post. |
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 17, 2006 17:08:03 GMT -5
Now the book is going to be "who are the villains who'll spur the most sales?" that's giving the audience what it wants, which is not the best thing. Or giving the audience what it says or thinks it wants—for even the audience doesn’t always know what it would really want! Yeah, I have trouble relating to the defense of the Quesada era as an improvement in both quality and commercial viabilty over the immediately preceding era. I’m not saying persons who argue thus are wrong. Perhaps a lot of them have little experience with the Marvel of earlier eras and can’t reasonably figure those eras into their analysis. And of course not everyone’s going to share my tastes. In my view, the notion that the current era is “better”, even if true, is not a sufficient defense, let alone a sufficient basis for praise. With all due respect to Blammo!, better than bad is not necessarily good! |
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Oct 17, 2006 19:13:24 GMT -5
Rex,
I couldn't agree more with what you said. I too completely understand why Marvel would put Wolverine in the Avengers or have Spider-man publicly unmask. However, that doesn't mean I like it or that it doesn't make me feel cheated by the company I've invested a small fortune in over the past 30 years. If we long-time fans complained and were told "Sorry, we have to make money and this is what sales. Doing what you want just wasn't proving as marketable," I wouldn't like it, but I could understand. When they respond with "We're doing this for the good of the team and because it's a big improvement over anything you've ever read," or "You people just don't like change" I don't accept it as well.
|
|
steed
Reservist Avenger
Posts: 215
|
Post by steed on Oct 18, 2006 10:14:04 GMT -5
I don't think Marvel hates us as much as they have no respect for us. They don't care what we think or feel about these characters and their history. Marvel is going to do what ever they want whenever they want with any character they want.
Wolverine in the Avengers proves it.
Major characters who have long standing histories being written OOC just for the sake of the Civil War prove it.
The New Avengers prove it.
Bucky comes back from the dead proves it.
Reed and Tony's prison in the Phantom Negative Zone (how aptly named. I couldn't possibly feel more negative about this) proves it.
Joe Q's interviews in Newsarama more than proves it.
|
|
steed
Reservist Avenger
Posts: 215
|
Post by steed on Oct 18, 2006 10:19:04 GMT -5
Well said.
I remember back in the early days of the Avengers fans would write in and ask Stan to put Spider-Man on the team and Stan's reply was always "SM is a loner. Putting him in a team wouldn't work."
I wish we had Stan's sensibility around the Marvel offices today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 18, 2006 10:58:21 GMT -5
I don't think Marvel hates us as much as they have no respect for us. They don't care what we think or feel about these characters and their history. Marvel is going to do what ever they want whenever they want with any character they want. Wolverine in the Avengers proves it. Major characters who have long standing histories being written OOC just for the sake of the Civil War prove it. The New Avengers prove it. Bucky comes back from the dead proves it. Reed and Tony's prison in the Phantom Negative Zone (how aptly named. I couldn't possibly feel more negative about this) proves it. Joe Q's interviews in Newsarama more than proves it. The problem with this is that everything you listed is liked, and in some cases, adored, by many fans. Almost every viewpoint available is felt by SOME fan SOMEwhere, and so it's really impossible to say he doesn't respect all the fans when many agree with his decisions. New Avengers continues to sell consistently, and I'll bet lots of people buy it for Wolverine. Interestingly, a poll on ComicBookResources showed that about a 2/3 majority were in favour of Bucky's resurrection AFTER the fact- as in, hated the diea but loved the stories and now think it could only have worked with a master. I am one of these. Sorry, but that is a pretty huge base there and I honestly don't think that proves that Joe Q does not respect the fans. (runs from redstatecap) |
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Oct 18, 2006 12:03:33 GMT -5
I don't think Marvel hates us as much as they have no respect for us. They don't care what we think or feel about these characters and their history. Marvel is going to do what ever they want whenever they want with any character they want. Wolverine in the Avengers proves it. Major characters who have long standing histories being written OOC just for the sake of the Civil War prove it. The New Avengers prove it. Bucky comes back from the dead proves it. Reed and Tony's prison in the Phantom Negative Zone (how aptly named. I couldn't possibly feel more negative about this) proves it. Joe Q's interviews in Newsarama more than proves it. The problem with this is that everything you listed is liked, and in some cases, adored, by many fans. Almost every viewpoint available is felt by SOME fan SOMEwhere, and so it's really impossible to say he doesn't respect all the fans when many agree with his decisions. New Avengers continues to sell consistently, and I'll bet lots of people buy it for Wolverine. Interestingly, a poll on ComicBookResources showed that about a 2/3 majority were in favour of Bucky's resurrection AFTER the fact- as in, hated the diea but loved the stories and now think it could only have worked with a master. I am one of these. Sorry, but that is a pretty huge base there and I honestly don't think that proves that Joe Q does not respect the fans. (runs from redstatecap) That poll of course takes its results from readers who are still buying. To explain further, if I'm turned off by what Marvel does then I'm far less likely to visit comic related websites, go to comic shops and discuss comics in general. If I like it, I'm far more likely to partake in discusssions. And give favorable feedback. I happen to like this site, and Avengers is my favorite Marvel title. However I don't buy the book anymore, I only read it at the comic shop just so I can discuss it here. But 90% of Marvel's other titles I no longer have a single clue about. Plus, before Civil War wasn't Cap selling about mid 40K? www.newsarama.com/marketreport/Oct05charts.htmlAs Joe has so often pointed out, isn't that a mandate all by itself? People stayed away from the Winter Soldier storyline in droves. I hated the idea in theory and execution, because it gives Cap an out. Bucky is no longer dead; sure he was an assassin, but against his will; and it's not like he wasn't killing people before... (and the retcon of Bucky's real mission was the silliest thing I've ever read.) There's hope for Bucky now; he could settle down, marry Barb a realtor from Muskogee, have two kids and own a pipe fitting business in Arizona. Will it happen? Likely not, but it easily could. Does Bucky carry guilt and shame? Sure, but no more so than any other soldier who's ever been captured and tortured/brainwashed by the enemy (which does happen in war, all the time...) cap no longer has to feel guilty about it at all. Bucky his best friend, partner, younger brother is alive. What a weight it is to have failed someone you loved, especially like family. To then no longer have that guilt and have hope instead is great in life, but terrible in fiction. What's next? Will Bru go to Batman's book and save bruce's parents? Ra's Al Ghul took the bodies to the lazarus pit a hour after the alley confrontation... no need for the story, except you could write some interesting confrontations between Bruce and his parents aghast at what he's become. It would weaken batman's origin and very reason for existence, but if it's well written won't that excuse it? Cap no longer has that blemish on his career. That one thing that made him fallible. One time he failed his best friend. Now, he didn't. I'm not saying Brubaker didn't write a good story. Bru's story is fine, but did it add more to Cap than it took away? I don't think so. Cap became inherently less driven to me as a result of this story and I hope it's done away with as soon as possible... Here's another interesting take on the Winter Soldier story prettyfakes.com/?p=591Again I think Quesada just does things to shake stuff up; the old "write whatever you want just get the name right" theory of publicity. And he knows full well if it pisses people off, we'll all buy retcons, so there's a safety net. Anybody can do what he's been doing. Yet here's where it gets sticky and this struck me as interesting. My nephew was a big Spider Man cartoon fan. Loved the one during the nineties. Then MTV came out with a Spidey cartoon three years back. He wouldn't watch it. When I asked why, he said "nobody looks the same." This was an 11 year old kid and they lost him because nothing was consistent. Just because you can make changes doesn't mean you should. |
|
steed
Reservist Avenger
Posts: 215
|
Post by steed on Oct 18, 2006 12:44:09 GMT -5
Hey, I know that guy! That explains so much.  |
|
steed
Reservist Avenger
Posts: 215
|
Post by steed on Oct 18, 2006 12:59:59 GMT -5
I love this site. I would never in a million years have found something like prettyfakes.com without you guys.
I never read Nomad but it sounds and looks like Winter Soldier is a copy of Nomad. And this article brings up a great point. Well maybe more but the one I like best is that bringing back Bucky does nothing for Cap but sell a few more books.
Great post, Rex.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yellowjacket on Oct 19, 2006 8:03:16 GMT -5
For those of you who have access to the various ROM's of Avengers, FF, X-Men, etc. why don't you check out the letters pages and Bullpen Bulletins. Go back and read a run of any book through, say, 1972-75 and see what a caring company is all about. There was a TOTALLY different air about Marvel then as compared to now. You´re really right about that. Reading those letters pages you can almost feel how Marvel cared about what the readers did think. Today, there are (almost) not even letters pages. |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 20, 2006 7:38:40 GMT -5
If you didn't get the chance (take the time, see it at all...) to read the story below, please do. It speaks volumes to this conversation, particularly to the care of creators for history, characterization and the like. Especially note the conversation on the third page. twomorrows.com/media/BI18Goblin.pdf |
|
