The Complex

[AcesX1X]

I don't understand this feeling of persecution from X-Fans. You have Brian Michael Bendis on two X-Men books. That guy is the modern day Chris Claremont as far as Marvel Comics is concerned. The attention shifted off of X-Men for more lucrative intellectual properties is natural for any business. This is what happens when something becomes mainstream. There is a huge refocus to revenue and profit. Brevoort's comment makes sense to me, speaking from my education in the Economic field. I minored in Economics.

fod nearly every post you make on this forum decries bendis in some way and say he is the ruination of the x-books as we know them.

[Beezzi]

fod nearly every post you make on this forum decries bendis in some way and say he is the ruination of the x-books as we know them.

Fod can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think his point was about whether Bendis is good or bad writer.

Fod was pointing out that in the eyes of Marvel Bendis, is one of their best writers - his name on a comic brings in the sales. If Marvel wanted to kill the X-Men, wouldn't they have hired some no name writer everyone hates? Wouldn't they be using the lowest tire of artist they could find? Why keep placing recognisable names on a book your trying to kill?

[AcesX1X]

to feign interest in the book from a business perspective for exactly this reason. notice that x-men is not the only egg in bendis basket.

[fod_xp]

Fod can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think his point was about whether Bendis is good or bad writer.

Fod was pointing out that in the eyes of Marvel Bendis, is one of their best writers - his name on a comic brings in the sales. If Marvel wanted to kill the X-Men, wouldn't they have hired some no name writer everyone hates? Wouldn't they be using the lowest tire of artist they could find? Why keep placing recognisable names on a book your trying to kill?

Beezzi is absolutely correct. This post ignores my opinion on Bendis or Claremont completely. In the eyes of Marvel Comics Bendis is their "superstar," "blockbuster," "big name," and so on. I think you'll find those quotations describing Bendis in every X-Men, Avengers, Company Wide Event, or Street Level Metahuman book he's ever written for Marvel. He's their Midas, and you don't put Midas on a franchise you want to cancel. If anything, that says Marvel Comics is trying their best to revitalize the X-Men Franchise by bringing in their biggest gun: Brian Michael Bendis.

[pro]

If Marvel wanted to kill the X-Men, wouldn't they have hired some no name writer everyone hates? Wouldn't they be using the lowest tire of artist they could find? Why keep placing recognisable names on a book your trying to kill?

Because they don't want to lose the readers. They want to lose the franchise. They need Quesada's fluffer to herald the new age.

[fod_xp]

fod nearly every post you make on this forum decries bendis in some way and say he is the ruination of the x-books as we know them.

to feign interest in the book from a business perspective for exactly this reason. notice that x-men is not the only egg in bendis basket.

Will you please act rational for two minutes. You don't put BRIAN MICHAEL BENDIS on a franchise you want to cancel. Thinking that is insanity. Stop being chicken little.

[fod_xp]

Because they don't want to lose the readers. They want to lose the franchise. They need Quesada's fluffer to herald the new age.

Quesada doesn't have any influence on the comics anymore. He hasn't for two or three years. Axel Alonso is the current EiC. Quesada now works with Marvel Entertainment on movie projects. Quesada has zero influence on comics, he's even said so in a CBR interview years ago when he officially stepped down from the EiC position and gave it to Axel Alonso.

[Beezzi]

to feign interest in the book from a business perspective for exactly this reason. notice that x-men is not the only egg in bendis basket.

This is hardly evidence of cancellation. Writing multiple titles isn't unique to Bendis or Marvel. As contracted freelancers most comic writers and artists do multiple projects at a time. The days of solo permanent gigs died with the birth of the modern media industry. Fraction, Hickman, Curnow and Waltz, just to name a few, are all juggling multiples titles.

Speaking as a freelancer - trust me - you take as many gigs as you can get.

[scusemeprincess]

it's really this simple: there were plenty of times in the past when i was picking up less xbooks, and they felt like they were in creative slumps.
what i see now looks like a healthy franchise that i'm enjoying. and it has only expanded and covered all the bases maybe more than ever before, with bendis books on one end, remender's co-franchise book, and a claremont nightcrawler solo and storm solo on the other end. and plenty in between.

i can't find anything to worry about, since i don't care at all about toys/cartoons/other merchandising.

[fod_xp]

This is hardly evidence of cancellation. Writing multiple titles isn't unique to Bendis or Marvel. As contracted freelancers most comic writers and artists do multiple projects at a time. The days of solo permanent gigs died with the birth of the modern media industry. Fraction, Hickman, Curnow and Waltz, just to name a few, are all juggling multiples titles.

Speaking as a freelancer - trust me - you take as many gigs as you can get.

Right as rain, as per usual. Comics are a business and all the comic book writers I have talked to, or read interviews addressing the subject of accepting gigs as they come, all agree; if it is offered, grab it. Writing comics isn't as lucrative as it sounds.

[Mikekerr3]

I don't understand this feeling of persecution from X-Fans. You have Brian Michael Bendis on two X-Men books. That guy is the modern day Chris Claremont as far as Marvel Comics is concerned. The attention shifted off of X-Men for more lucrative intellectual properties is natural for any business. This is what happens when something becomes mainstream. There is a huge refocus to revenue and profit. Brevoort's comment makes sense to me, speaking from my education in the Economic field. I minored in Economics.

With an increased revenue and profits from more lucrative investments such as the Avengers, Inhumans, and The Guardians of the Galaxy all that means is more money to spread around. So more expensive artists are courted back to Marvel Comics to draw their books, or high name writers get paid more to write comics for Marvel. This is a good thing. Even if the X-Men aren't getting the biggest push or the most promotion, it doesn't mean Marvel is going to replace the X-Men with the Inhumans or shrink the X-Franchise in any way.

More money from movies Disney/Marvel=more money to spread around to their smaller ventures.

I think much of it is residue for AvX and Children's crusade, Pissing on the X-men to make the Avengers look good, or at least trying to do so. that the main Avengers books dealing with mutants "Hobo Pisses' all over the X-men tropes and ethos is part of it also

[scusemeprincess]

I think much of it is residue for AvX and Children's crusade, Pissing on the X-men to make the Avengers look good, or at least trying to do so. that the main Avengers books dealing with mutants "Hobo Pisses' all over the X-men tropes and ethos is part of it also

there was never anything implied in those stories about the avengers looking good at the expense of the xmen

[Mikekerr3]

there was never anything implied in those stories about the avengers looking good at the expense of the xmen

then you were not paying attention, have you noticed that no Ave3nger had any consequences for their actions but X-men did? The jobbing of the X-men to the Avengers was pretty obvious also,

[cranger]

If anything, that says Marvel Comics is trying their best to revitalize the X-Men Franchise by bringing in their biggest gun: Brian Michael Bendis.

Why Marvel is treating the X-Men franchise in certain ways is ever changing. Of course Marvel is trying to make as much money on the X-Men comics as they can since the other brands have not been built up yet. While I am not decided as to whether there will be any book with X-Men in the title next year or resembling any of the line ups we have now, making the decision two years ago or so to let Bendis write two X-Men books does not mean that marketing strategies have not changed, regardless of the creators preferences, to make sure the comics line up better with the Disney branding of the MU.

[useridgoeshere]

More money from movies Disney/Marvel=more money to spread around to their smaller ventures.

Except that's not how business works. Resources are always limited, so you focus on your core business and what makes the most money. You cut things that aren't driving growth and use resources (time, talent, money) inefficiently. Disney could develop more movies, but they focus on the most profitable. P&G is selling off 100 brands to focus on the core brands that are driving most of their growth. It's not that Iams or Pringles or Folgers didn't make money for P&G, it's that they wanted to focus elsewhere.

If Disney doesn't see future growth potential in the X-Men, there's no point in devoting any resources there.