-
[QUOTE=your_name_here;4194792]I actually don’t think the fanbase is tired of infighting, but more infighting for the SAKE of infighting. Civil War II came out of nowhere and was frankly ridiculously weak on plot. It could be event fatigue (moreso events without proper build up or reward) more than it was what was happening in them.
Civil War set off a chain of events that worked and told a rewarding story when we saw the heroes inevitably bounce back in Siege
Hickmans Avengers almost revolved around the team falling apart, but you could argue it worked as that was the story he was actually wanting to tell.
AvX is meh for me but could be argued it propelled X-Men into a different territory after (Cyclops especially).
I suppose my point is if there is a story there, then it should be told because it’s interesting. I agree it should never be about sheer shock value.[/QUOTE]
You're right, all Hickman's run and AvX took us to different places. They had a larger purpose.
Also, I liked AXIS. It was a good event.
-
I would not say that heroes fights are because of the Avengers.super heroes fighting each other was in many non related Avengers stories.The Thing vs Human Torch.Thing vs Hulk.Spider Man vs Human Torch...
-
[QUOTE=capandkirby;4193180]I will never, for the life of me, figure out why Marvel continued the hero vs. hero theme past the first Civil War. It's just not sustainable as a business model.
The first time they did it, it had the benefit of shock. The whole 'wow, these guys are going to kill each other'. Much like people used to listen to Howard Stern... because they wanted to hear what shocking thing he would say next. Eventually, though, people become desensitized to it. And after that, and history has shown this time and time again, in all forms of media, shock wears off and what are you left with? Declining sales. As we witnessed. First-hand. The drop in sales between 2016 and 2017 was around 16-17%. In business that is not at all insignificant. That's actually a huge red flag. Especially for a company like Disney, who is Marvel Comics parent company.
Because prior to Civil War there were probably more people buying both the Cap and Iron Man titles, to use a personal example. Afterwards, out of a sense of Marvel cultivated character loyalty in 'side choosing', that number probably declined, rapidly, and you get people only buying one title or the other. I admit that I, a Cap fan, cancel my subscription to Iron Man every time the fans of the character tick me off by generating post after post going after my dude. Whereas Marvel would probably have my extra $4 a month if they didn't keep fanning the embers of Civil War ad nauseum and then fans didn't pick up on it and run away with it, making book discussion toxic.
I wouldn't say 'the Avengers' or the 'X-Men' are responsible for conflict because, both are Marvel properties with no agency to do one thing or the other without divine intervention from their editors. I would say more that Marvel, as a company, misinterpreted why Civil War did well, and then, unfortunately, beat the theme to the ground.
And yes, it looks like the Avengers have been at the heart of it simply for the reason that they are, currently, the most recognizable characters in Marvel's catalog so of course Marvel is going to use them.
The problem is not the Avengers, which are proven to be profitable and actually rather extraordinary as intellectual properties go. The problem was (I use 'was', past-tense, only because Marvel did experience a slight increase in profit in 2018, so they appear to be on a course correction. Maybe. We'll see), well, not interpreting trends correctly and not having a good feel for what will sustain readership long-term and get the fanbase they already have buying more titles a month.[/QUOTE]
This pretty much sums up how I feel about all of it.
