Any way to improve "coherence" of the Marvel Universe?

[Kusanagi]

At this point for Marvel or DC, no there's not much that can be done. I wouldn't say this applies to comics or superhero comics as a whole, but to make things with solid coherent world it needs to be built from the ground up with a solid tone/genre focus.

If Marvel were to do that they would have to severely alter or limit what they can publish, and they would have zero incentive to do so.

[El Diego]

For the life of me I cannot figure out why Captain America doesn't have a super suit (I don't know if he ever did in any version of Cap, but I've never seen it), and I mean a non-meta answer.

Suspension of disbelief is fine in the idea that I will suspend disbelief about super soldier serums and super suits existing. It is hard to suspend disbelief about super soldiers not having super suits in this setting. Suspension of disbelief should not mean the internal logic of the fiction is bad. It doesn't mean accepting characters and entire worlds as plain stupid.

[Prof. Warren]

To paraphrase a great man, repeat to yourself it's just a comic. I should really just relax.

Yup.

If anyone's actually troubled by such questions as "Gee, how can Hawkeye and Captain America be in so many battles and still be ok?" then they really just don't get superhero comics or the entire concept of suspension of disbelief.

Here's the shocking answer - these characters can keep fighting in one pitched battle after another, month in and month out for years and decades on end because they're fictional creations. They're not real. In real life, someone like Punisher or Batman or Daredevil would see their war against criminals ended in about a week - either at the hands of criminals, law enforcement, by fatal accident, or they would physically be forced to retire after taking one too many savage beatings.

This is all just make believe. Enjoy the fantasy.

[JackDaw]

There's no substitute for actually owning the material in question, IMHO.

As a guy who used to get enormous pleasure from collecting as well as reading comics I can relate to that.

But my “thirst” for collection waned, but still enjoy reading super hero comics from time to time. The extra ease of getting stuff digitally has kept me in the hobby probably.

It’s good to have both, personal preferences on physical v physical vary, by providing both it keeps more people reading, keeps more money in the business which pays for better writing and art.

I do sometimes “worry” (it doesn’t keeep me awake at night!) that if sales of mainstream super hero comics fell much further, we might see less choice in market. I certainly wouldn’t want to see most comics become available in digital format only...though that might realise big cost savings.

I sometimes suspect that in ten years time I might view “now” with nostalgia, as the last hurrah of Marvel physical comics. Hope not!

[JKtheMac]

I think the present story telling conventions that Marvel and DC use tend to severely limit the scope and breadth of their mainstream comics.

It’s just about become impossible..for example..to tell a convincing death story, a convincing retirement story in mainstream Marvel or D.C. or a story about a new hero becoming apprentice to another and replacing the main hero. D.C. showed in practice that could be done..but then backtracked by bringing Hal Jordan and Barry Allen back.

A large slug of the super hero conventions result from a calculated decision by both main publishers to preserve “selling power” of big brand icons. But there’s nothing in super hero stories by itself that makes those conventions inevitable, or without question the best way to get super hero stories.

The first hundred or so issues of the Lee/Kirby Fantastic Four showed characters maturing, going to college, having kids, etc. That could have continued..characters could have died, retired, be replaced by others, etc.

Things could have gone that way. And there’s at least a reasonable chance it would have led to better stories. But..of course..they might not have sold as well. And easier to recycle similar stuff endlessly.

Now you seem to be conflating lots of entirely different issues. There is nothing about the early F4 that relates to the verisimilitude of a comic line. The F4 existed at the same time as the almost incompatible X-Men the entirety different genre conventions of Thor and the very different tone of Avengers.

Comic deaths and ressurections have nothing whatsoever to do with verisimilitude. What you consider 'superhero conventions' are not just a single set of rules and never have been. Present storytelling is more similar to the Lee/Ditko/Kirby days than at any time in the intervening period.

[Alan2099]

For the life of me I cannot figure out why Captain America doesn't have a super suit (I don't know if he ever did in any version of Cap, but I've never seen it), and I mean a non-meta answer.

He had one in the 90s.

[CentralPower]

What I mean by "realistic" in this sense is that once writer has made his initial fictional assumptions, he works out what might reasonably happen if those assumptions are true. For example, in Patrick O'Brians fictional naval battles...a first rate ship with say 78 guns doesn't lose a gun battle to a frigate with 8 light guns...if the frigate captain is daft enough to allow his ship to be trapped in still air, his ship gets blown to smithereens. He doesn't win because he's a tough dude with attitude! Equally the frigate can outrun a first rate, in most sea conditions

I would suggest you read Kieron Gillen's "Uber". But, that is an Avatar Press series, and it spends a fair amount of time wallowing in dumb shock-value. But, it has moments of pure brilliance based on the premise you are seeking.

Can anything be done to improve overall setting? If so, what??

Or does it have to stay more or less as it is now, and all the mishmash excused with the ever-popular phrase "That's comics."? (NB...No, it's the way Marvel...one very successful purveyor of some comics decides to operate!)

DC is just as guilty. They just have formalized resets that make it seem more deliberate and planned.

Marvel has prioritized for stasis quo as a way to maintain sales. And, given the way most comic fans react to change, I think that Marvel's policy is (objectively) the right one. Casual readers will want to skip runs (without even knowing what skipping a run means) and find the characters as they were year or decades earlier.

I would like to see an ongoing series with changes over time. But, that is not going to happen. I just settle for good runs (like Hickman's Avengers) and jump around from series to series.

[JackDaw]

I would suggest you read Kieron Gillen's "Uber". But, that is an Avatar Press series, and it spends a fair amount of time wallowing in dumb shock-value. But, it has moments of pure brilliance based on the premise you are seeking.




DC is just as guilty. They just have formalized resets that make it seem more deliberate and planned.

Marvel has prioritized for stasis quo as a way to maintain sales. And, given the way most comic fans react to change, I think that Marvel's policy is (objectively) the right one. Casual readers will want to skip runs (without even knowing what skipping a run means) and find the characters as they were year or decades earlier.

I would like to see an ongoing series with changes over time. But, that is not going to happen. I just settle for good runs (like Hickman's Avengers) and jump around from series to series.

The last series I read featuring Marvel characters that showed characters developing over time, including “convincing” ageing was Garth Ennis’s Fury Max.

That was, I think, an impressive piece of writing and art...by establishing support characters that were worth caring about, then ageing them while Fury effectively remained immortal Garth produced a surprisingly moving story.

I’ll try Uber out next time it comes up in comiXology sales...it does from time to time.

[Haquim]

Getting rid of Bendis was a step in the right direction...

Edit:

Unlike DC, the Marvel Universe used to be really strong on continuity and building a shared, coherent universe. Things changed after Quesadaphisto took over and introduced the notion that continuity was some sort of monster hindering authors' creativity. In trut continuity helps telling great stories, but it requires a modicum of effort and most "indy talents" cannot be bothered with effort...

[vitruvian]

Yup.

If anyone's actually troubled by such questions as "Gee, how can Hawkeye and Captain America be in so many battles and still be ok?" then they really just don't get superhero comics or the entire concept of suspension of disbelief.

I get the concept of suspension of disbelief just fine. It is this: to paraphrase Coleridge, if the author wants willing suspension of disbelief for the moment from the readers, then the author must procure it by providing in turn 'a human interest and a semblance of truth' sufficient to that purpose. The suspension of disbelief towards fantastic or implausible elements of the story does not and cannot be expected to come 'free', it must always be earned by a serious effort at providing verisimilitude in other aspects of the fiction. Common elements that help provide a 'semblance of truth' include plausible or at least relatable character reactions even to the implausible (i.e., 'human interest'), and internal consistency as to how the fantastic elements work and interact with the more realistic ones.

Another way of formulating this is by reference to Tolkien's concept, not of suspension of disbelief (which he considered a misnomer because readers rarely believe in the literal truth of the story), but rather of 'secondary belief' in the 'secondary creation' of an internally consistent fictional world.

Of course, depending on the genre of fantastic fiction, a lot of this work has already been done for new authors by the establishment of well-accepted patterns or 'tropes' concerning how things tend to work in certain types of fictional worlds, and while deconstructing those patterns with an eye either to absurdity by way of commentary (e.g., Last Action Hero, One-Punch Man), or to providing an even more internally consistent and plausible if not precisely realistic world (e.g., Moore's Watchmen, Martin et al's Wild Cards, original stated purpose of New Universe) can be one way to tell a story, just using those tropes in a genre-consistent and unironic way also remains a valid choice.

[JackDaw]

I get the concept of suspension of disbelief just fine. It is this: to paraphrase Coleridge, if the author wants willing suspension of disbelief for the moment from the readers, then the author must procure it by providing in turn 'a human interest and a semblance of truth' sufficient to that purpose. The suspension of disbelief towards fantastic or implausible elements of the story does not and cannot be expected to come 'free', it must always be earned by a serious effort at providing verisimilitude in other aspects of the fiction. Common elements that help provide a 'semblance of truth' include plausible or at least relatable character reactions even to the implausible (i.e., 'human interest'), and internal consistency as to how the fantastic elements work and interact with the more realistic ones.

Another way of formulating this is by reference to Tolkien's concept, not of suspension of disbelief (which he considered a misnomer because readers rarely believe in the literal truth of the story), but rather of 'secondary belief' in the 'secondary creation' of an internally consistent fictional world.

Of course, depending on the genre of fantastic fiction, a lot of this work has already been done for new authors by the establishment of well-accepted patterns or 'tropes' concerning how things tend to work in certain types of fictional worlds, and while deconstructing those patterns with an eye either to absurdity by way of commentary (e.g., Last Action Hero, One-Punch Man), or to providing an even more internally consistent and plausible if not precisely realistic world (e.g., Moore's Watchmen, Martin et al's Wild Cards, original stated purpose of New Universe) can be one way to tell a story, just using those tropes in a genre-consistent and unironic way also remains a valid choice.

Yes. You've put a large part of the way I feel in a more careful and thoughtful manner than I could.

[milton75]

The problem with Marvel and DC is that their universes can't evolve beyond a certain point, but the power scale and tech keep going up. So even with Thor and Sentry at Marvel, and Superman and Orion at DC, those publishers can not just admit that popular characters like Captain America and Batman wouldn't be effect and would probably die on the first alien invasion.

Totally agree. The continual "topping" of power level just seems silly. It's a childish fanboy (or girl) conceit; "the character in my story is just so great", etc. I'm not saying that they're always going for the Mary Sue angle, but it sometimes seems that way.

You either have established characters (who were usually just fine imo) having their power levels increased (the whole Omega-level mutant thing being a great example), or you have new characters being inserted at the top of the tree. Does anyone really await with bated breath to see which new character will be more intelligent than Moon Girl, or more powerful than Sentry?
What's the point? Unless you're a 10-year-old playing Top Trumps superheroes in the playground, it's a facile dynamic.

[milton75]

Getting rid of Bendis was a step in the right direction...

Edit:

Unlike DC, the Marvel Universe used to be really strong on continuity and building a shared, coherent universe. Things changed after Quesadaphisto took over and introduced the notion that continuity was some sort of monster hindering authors' creativity. In trut continuity helps telling great stories, but it requires a modicum of effort and most "indy talents" cannot be bothered with effort...

Again, agree completely. And it's no real surprise that it's folks like Mark Millar who come out with nonsense like "why should new readers have to understand the history of a character?". They don't have to. It's a choice. At no point is the only sensible solution to a long continuity that lazy writers should be able to just wash it away because they have a conceited notion that they can take a character in a fresh new direction, unhindered by the blood, sweat and tears of all who have written them before.
If the continuity of a character annoys you so much, go write a different one instead.

[Ra-El]

The last series I read featuring Marvel characters that showed characters developing over time, including “convincing” ageing was Garth Ennis’s Fury Max.

That was, I think, an impressive piece of writing and art...by establishing support characters that were worth caring about, then ageing them while Fury effectively remained immortal Garth produced a surprisingly moving story.

I’ll try Uber out next time it comes up in comiXology sales...it does from time to time.

I only saw characters evolve and/or die permanently twice on a main superhero universe, both of them on DC, the first was Hitman by Garth Ennis and the other was Starman by James Robinson. Those two are some of my favorite comic series of all time. Unfortunately I don't know any other on neither Marvel or DC that comes even close to have that kind of sense of importance or conclusion, people talk about the 90's as if it was the worst period of comics but in truth it produced some of the best stories ever.

[JackDaw]

I only saw characters evolve and/or die permanently twice on a main superhero universe, both of them on DC, the first was Hitman by Garth Ennis and the other was Starman by James Robinson. Those two are some of my favorite comic series of all time. Unfortunately I don't know any other on neither Marvel or DC that comes even close to have that kind of sense of importance or conclusion, people talk about the 90's as if it was the worst period of comics but in truth it produced some of the best stories ever.

Yes. Two of the great series of the last 30 years.

A fair number of reasons, of course, why they were so good. But both bucked the traditional Marvel/ DC "groundhog day" model of storytelling...they actually had a start, a middle, and an ending.

In one the main character (and many close friends) died and didn't come back. In the other the lead character permanently retired. I think that was at least a small part of what made them outstanding.