Tired of Marvel's direction causing a reader civil war

[Mah VM]

We've been over this before; it's not right for you to claim that comic fans should be silent when the iconic heroes never should have been taken off the shelves in the first place.

Saying people shouldn't be throwing tantrums like spoiled children because they found out the world doesn't revolve around them is a far cry from saying people should be silent.

I don't think there's something wrong with no caring about new characters/stories, though that really reduces your options and will keep you from reading many great, interesting and entertaining stories and meeting some great new characters. The problem here is how people react to changes and express their discontent. If people did what you said and simply didn't give a shit about these characters/stories (as in: being indifferent to them and not buying those titles) there wouldn't be a problem, or as the title puts it: "A reader civil war."

[Tiamatty]

We've been over this before; it's not right for you to claim that comic fans should be silent when the iconic heroes never should have been taken off the shelves in the first place. If Marvel wants to push new characters then give them new books and original mantles, don't steal those mantles and books from existing heroes. Anything less is just Marvel trying to get attention when they already know that these new characters would never survive on their own merit.

I've asked this before. You didn't answer. So I'll ask again.

In the '80s, when a story had Tony Stark descend into alcoholism, and Rhodey took over as Iron Man. Is that a story that never should have been done?

If Rhodey becoming Iron Man was OK, then Sam becoming Captain America was OK. Jane becoming Thor was OK. Amadeus becoming Hulk was OK.

They're the same situations. If it was OK with Rhodey, then it is, in fact, perfectly acceptable for classic characters to be replaced. You don't get to have it both ways, where it was OK in the '80s, but not OK now.

So. Are you going to say that classic story shouldn't have been told? Come on, tell us it was a mistake for the creators of the time to tell that story. That Rhodey should never ever ever under any circumstances have even been considered to become Iron Man.

(And that's setting aside the fact that heroes being replaced is an old and regular trope in superhero comics, and that arguing that it should never happen is like arguing superhero comics shouldn't have stories where villains are redeemed. Declaring that certain types of stories should just never be told seems pretty limiting.)

[dragonmp93]

Exactly.



I don't think there's something wrong with no caring about new characters/stories, though that really reduces your options and will keep you from reading many great, interesting and entertaining stories and meeting some great new characters. The problem here is how people react to changes and express their discontent. If people did what you said and simply didn't give a shit about these characters/stories (as in: being indifferent to them and not buying those titles) there wouldn't be a problem, or as the title puts it: "A reader civil war."



They have 40+ years worth of comics focusing on their favourite classic heroes that they can re-read until they are inevitably back in their titles, they'll be fine.

And people say that shut up and go and read old runs isnt being offered as a option.

Anyways, i dont think that im missing that much by not reading the Inhuman team books.

[dragonmp93]

I've asked this before. You didn't answer. So I'll ask again.

In the '80s, when a story had Tony Stark descend into alcoholism, and Rhodey took over as Iron Man. Is that a story that never should have been done?

If Rhodey becoming Iron Man was OK, then Sam becoming Captain America was OK. Jane becoming Thor was OK. Amadeus becoming Hulk was OK.

They're the same situations. If it was OK with Rhodey, then it is, in fact, perfectly acceptable for classic characters to be replaced. You don't get to have it both ways, where it was OK in the '80s, but not OK now.

So. Are you going to say that classic story shouldn't have been told? Come on, tell us it was a mistake for the creators of the time to tell that story. That Rhodey should never ever ever under any circumstances have even been considered to become Iron Man.

(And that's setting aside the fact that heroes being replaced is an old and regular trope in superhero comics, and that arguing that it should never happen is like arguing superhero comics shouldn't have stories where villains are redeemed. Declaring that certain types of stories should just never be told seems pretty limiting.)

Sure, because stories like OMD and two mutant genocides should totally be told.

[Redjack]

We've been over this before; it's not right for you to claim that comic fans should be silent when the iconic heroes never should have been taken off the shelves in the first place. If Marvel wants to push new characters then give them new books and original mantles, don't steal those mantles and books from existing heroes. Anything less is just Marvel trying to get attention when they already know that these new characters would never survive on their own merit.

Marvel owns the characters and the universes they inhabit. They're not "stealing" anything. They're doing what they want with their property.

Marvel is a business, not a charity, church or political party. No one knows which titles will thrive or fail, before they go to market. Nobody. THat's why its Art, not Science.

[Tiamatty]

Sure, because stories like OMD and two mutant genocides should totally be told.

Holy shit you just go on about the same shit all the time!

Fine, shitty stories have been told. Marvel hates the X-Men, hates everyone who likes the X-Men, and especially hates you, specifically, and all their decisions are made just to piss you off. The people who worked on those stories? They knew they were making garbage stories, and they did it intentionally, because they knew you would hate them, and your anguish is what they live for.

Christ. "Bad stories exist" is not the big world-shattering revelation you seem to think it is. The Clone Saga sucked. Onslaught sucked. Heroes Reborn sucked. Lots of comics have sucked. It's nothing new. It's not proof of any grand conspiracy, it's proof that sometimes, despite the best efforts of talented creators, they create stories that suck. Doesn't mean we ban those types of stories from being told. It just means we don't buy the stories that suck.

[Kintor]

Marvel owns the characters and the universes they inhabit. They're not "stealing" anything. They're doing what they want with their property.

Marvel is a business, not a charity, church or political party. No one knows which titles will thrive or fail, before they go to market. Nobody. THat's why its Art, not Science.

Funnily enough, the way that Marvel continues to keep unpopular books in print suggests they operate more like a charity or political party. Because clearly, replacing their most iconic characters with these new stand-ins hasn't worked out financially. It's only sheer bloody mindedness that keeps Marvel pushing a message instead of profits and it’s running the company into the ground. At least with Legacy it looks like Marvel is half-heartedly trying to reset the line and return the iconic superheroes to their proper books but it remains to be seen whether Marvel really means it or not.

[Tiamatty]

Funnily enough, the way that Marvel continues to keep unpopular books in print suggests they operate more like a charity or political party. Because clearly, replacing their most iconic characters with these new stand-ins hasn't worked out financially. It's only sheer bloody mindedness that keeps Marvel pushing a message instead of profits and it’s running the company into the ground. At least with Legacy it looks like Marvel is half-heartedly trying to reset the line and return the iconic superheroes to their proper books but it remains to be seen whether Marvel really means it or not.

All false. The books Marvel is publishing are making them money. That's why they're published. Books that don't make money are canceled. But of course, you don't give a damn about facts, you've got a narrative that you need to be true, so anything that runs counter to that narrative is simply ignored.

For example, I see you're still not answering my question about whether it was wrong for Rhodey to take over as Iron Man back in the '80s.

[Kintor]

All false. The books Marvel is publishing are making them money. That's why they're published. Books that don't make money are canceled. But of course, you don't give a damn about facts, you've got a narrative that you need to be true, so anything that runs counter to that narrative is simply ignored.

For example, I see you're still not answering my question about whether it was wrong for Rhodey to take over as Iron Man back in the '80s.

Books that don't make money should be cancelled but Marvel isn't operating like an efficient business at the moment. Many of Marvels books are below the 20k cancellation threshold. Heck, Marvel was giving away free copies of America #1 and #2 and it still didn't help sales. But for political reasons Marvel is going to keep pushing these unpopular books for as long as they can, even as it eats into the profits of those few books that are actually doing okay at the moment.

Anyway, in answer your question, I will simple refer you to what has been said many times in the past year. Rhodey would have made an acceptable replacement for Tony Stark at the moment, if not for the fact that he was also killed during the events of Civil War II. The whole thing stinks of a way to shore-horn the new character Riri into Marvel's flagship book without having to go through the hard work of making that character earn the mantle. It won't be much longer before Riri is removed from the pages of Invincible Iron Man and then this pointless experiment can finally come to an end.

[Drops Of Venus]

So the new diversity characters are not supposed to represent better super heroes than the classic white dominated heroes.

I can see a trend showing the classic super heroes in a very unflattering light. The Illuminati (the best of them) ruining the world by giving the Skrulls an opportunity to attack, causing Dark Reign, where the POTUS couldn't find one good man to lead Security, so he picked a super villain. Fury disobeyed the POTUS and assassinated the Latverian Prime Minister, the FF were ransacked for trying to defuse Latverian Tech, the Avengers killed themselves, because they had members who were nuts, and made mutants evaporate, the Government scared the Illuminati into sending the Hulk into space, and made Tony Stark betray his own kind. It goes on and on, showing the Illuminati betray and disrespect themselves right up to Secret Wars. Thor and Hyperion were shadows of themselves.

I suppose the diversity heroes have it good, in that they haven't been around long enough to make these kinds of mistakes, so give them time and they will be just as bad as the classics. But as of right now, the diversity are looking pretty ethical and self-assured compared to the classic heroes. Is that deliberate?

If classic heroes being portrayed in a bad light can be traced back to the creaton of the Illuminati, then you're answering your own question: no, this has nothing to do with the diversity/legacy push, because it started before said push even existed. You could say that the creation of those newer heroes as a beacon of hope for a new generation were a consequence of what Marvel was already doing with their old characters, but not the cause. If those characters hadn't been created, all of those events from Illuminati and so on would've still happened. It's much like what I was saying on this thread about how most of the legacy heroes weren't the cause for some of the original characters being gone. People can bitch about Laura as Wolverine or Cho as Hulk, but their original counterparts would've still been killed even if they hadn't taken their mantles, simply because those decisions were made on separate circumstances. Some people just keep focusing their hate on the wrong place and that's not going to take them anywhere, because, sure, let's pretend that Marvel would do what some fans want and get rid of all of their legacy/diverse heroes ONLY to publish classic material. When people start to realize their heroes are still going to be written and treated just as imperfectly as they were before, who are they gonna blame?

~~~

@ The whole topic of the direct market vs digital: Yeah, I'm also a digital reader, but mainly because I live in a non-english speaking country. You think the direct market sucks in Marvel's homeland? In some other countries it's WORSE. Books take ages to arrive here, and even so, not even all of them do. Some books that arrive are already cancelled in the US, so our contribution is basically useless. For people like me, the DM is just not an option at all if you actually want your support to count. And I have the advantage of being an english speaker, so I can buy digital comics straight from Marvel's online store, but many people are not, so their options are basically resorting to fan-made scans and/or spending the kind of money that won't matter to Marvel. I crave for the day we will have a ''Netflix'' for comics. Now THAT would be groundbreaking and would change the comic book industry.

[Carabas]

Books that don't make money should be cancelled but Marvel isn't operating like an efficient business at the moment. Many of Marvels books are below the 20k cancellation threshold. Heck, Marvel was giving away free copies of America #1 and #2 and it still didn't help sales. But for political reasons Marvel is going to keep pushing these unpopular books for as long as they can, even as it eats into the profits of those few books that are actually doing okay at the moment.

You have no idea what books do and do not make money.
The industry is a lot bigger now than singles sold in local comic book shops.

And if Marvel always immediately cancelled books that do not sell at all, but nevertheless show promise for the future, the X-Men would be a forgotten footnote from the 60's.

[Kintor]

You have no idea what books do and do not make money.
The industry is a lot bigger now than singles sold in local comic book shops.

And if Marvel always immediately cancelled books that do not sell at all, but nevertheless show promise for the future, the X-Men would be a forgotten footnote from the 60's.

The industry today never really recovered from the crash in the mid-90s. What could be regarded as a top selling book today would be deemed on the verge of cancellation not so long ago in the industry's heyday. Many of Marvel's books are below the new 20k cancelation threshold, well below that threshold, next to nobody on the planet is reading this stuff anymore and Marvel is just burning money by keeping them in print.

[Carabas]

The industry today never really recovered from the crash in the mid-90s. What could be regarded as a top selling book today would be deemed on the verge of cancellation not so long ago in the industry's heyday. Many of Marvel's books are below the new 20k cancelation threshold, well below that threshold, next to nobody on the planet is reading this stuff anymore and Marvel is just burning money by keeping them in print.

No. The industry never really recovered from being forced to switch to the direct market model.
And you have no idea how many people are reading a book below that outdated cancellation point outside of the direct market.

[Kintor]

No. The industry never really recovered from being forced to switch to the direct market model.
And you have no idea how many people are reading a book below that outdated cancellation point outside of the direct market.

I'm surprised that you'd try and downplay the significance of the mid-90s crash but at least you’re willing to acknowledge that the industry is not what it once was. It's frankly absurd that Marvel is allowing so many less then 20k books to stay in print. Marvel recently reduced the line from 80-something books down to 52 books and even this might not be enough. I'm starting to think that a line of only 10 or 20 books might be the sustainable limit for Marvel in today's industry.

[Username taken]

I'm surprised that you'd try and downplay the significance of the mid-90s crash but at least you’re willing to acknowledge that the industry is not what it once was. It's frankly absurd that Marvel is allowing so many less then 20k books to stay in print. Marvel recently reduced the line from 80-something books down to 52 books and even this might not be enough. I'm starting to think that a line of only 10 or 20 books might be the sustainable limit for Marvel in today's industry.

But that's the thing, only Marvel can say what's profitable to them.

We can't and don't know what makes them money or not. Or what there long terms plans are.

Besides, if we are talking about books being cancelled for low sales, then Iron Man, Hulk and Captain America should have been cancelled because they were in the 20k range before ANAD.

That's why we can't rely 100% on Diamonds estimates.