How do you think the Hickman's X-Men "reboot" will impact the Marvel Universe?

[capandkirby]

Frankly from how I see people act it keeps looking like X-Men fans just don't the idea of other Marvel properties being as prominent and relevant and would rather everyone else stay D-listers.
At least that's the impression people keep giving me.

This is exactly the impression I get as well. Frankly, I'm not interested in the X-Men. At all. But I am a consumer. With money I'm willing to pour into the comics market. The Avengers titles are titles I'm willing to spend money on. I shouldn't be forced into considering X-Men as the only option because X-Men fans feel their team should be the 'one true comic team'. Supply and demand. Not every market has to be catered to one group and it's ridiculous to think it should.

[Rosebunse]

Having actually good and interesting stories that are actually respected by everyone. The last time the Avengers had that was Hickman's run and even then, that was the Illuminati Story and mainly a Fantastic Four story since it was about Reed Richards, T'Challa, Namor (characters prominently associated with the FF).

CIVIL WAR isn't a good story, it committed sundry character assassinations, had ham-handed metaphors and most of the stuff there had to be ignored or downplayed, in Tony's case in particular.

Well, I've enjoyed what we got. Bendis's run was fun, Dark Avengers is still one of my favorites, the focus on the Asfardian side of the MU has been awesome, and while I didn't care for the Inhumans too much, there was a chance that they could have been awesole too.

The X-Men were never even cancelled. They still had multiple books out and new mutants were created. They just were pushed back a bit, but never gone completely

[Agent Z]

Claremont, Hickman and others have all said numerous times that X-Men have been handicapped by Marvel to stick-it-to-Fox.

Wasn't Claremont also pushing that rumor that Disney wasn't allowing Marvel to create new mutant characters which ended up being debunked?

[Iron Maiden]

Having actually good and interesting stories that are actually respected by everyone. The last time the Avengers had that was Hickman's run and even then, that was the Illuminati Story and mainly a Fantastic Four story since it was about Reed Richards, T'Challa, Namor (characters prominently associated with the FF).

CIVIL WAR isn't a good story, it committed sundry character assassinations, had ham-handed metaphors and most of the stuff there had to be ignored or downplayed, in Tony's case in particular.

I don't like Civil War either but it is one of Marvel's evergreen properties in the TPB side of the ledger. It topped the charts in its first year of release in 2007 It's still has a way to go to equal Infinity Gauntlet's popularity in TPB sales or DC's Watchmen or Killing Joke. Infinity Gauntlet was recently was #1 on the top 100 GN's for 2018 and a re-release of Civil War charted at #4 in units and #1 in dollars for 2015

So Marvel went there again with Civil War II. With Bendis gone and Hickman on an X-Men kick the Avengers aren't as big and the success of the movies hasn't really boosted the title. Sometimes it's hard to figure out what will catch fire with the readers. But these things go in cycles and a lot depends on the creative team. Sometimes I think it would be a better title without relying on the Cap, Iron Man, Thor trinity.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I don't like Civil War either but it is one of Marvel's evergreen properties in the TPB side of the ledger. It topped the charts in its first year of release in 2007 It's still has a way to go to equal ry of Infinity Gauntlet popularity in TPB sales or DC's Watchmen or Killing Joke. Infinity Gauntlet was recently was #1 on the top 100 GN's for 2018 and a re-release of Civil War charted at #4 in units and #1 in dollars for 2015

So Marvel went there again with Civil War II. With Bendis gone and Hickman on an X-Men kick the Avengers aren't as big and the success of the movies hasn't really boosted the title. Sometimes it's hard to figure out what will catch fire with the readers. But these things go in cycles and a lot depends on the creative team. Sometimes I think it would be a better title without relying on the Cap, Iron Man, Thor trinity.

Maximum Carnage you know was also a big event but people don’t bring sales to bat away criticism for that being s bad story. Michael Bay isn’t going to be seen as a good filmmaker either.

Civil War sold well because it had gimmicks like Spider-Man being unmasked and the whole my hero can beat your hero thing. It was also a major event where practically every title had to tie into it. So that’s why it did well.

[Bloxer]

This is exactly the impression I get as well. Frankly, I'm not interested in the X-Men. At all. But I am a consumer. With money I'm willing to pour into the comics market. The Avengers titles are titles I'm willing to spend money on. I shouldn't be forced into considering X-Men as the only option because X-Men fans feel their team should be the 'one true comic team'. Supply and demand. Not every market has to be catered to one group and it's ridiculous to think it should.

Yeah, it always ends up looking like some X-Men fans can't comprehend the thought of someone wanting to read something else and not having everyone else be treated as secondary.

[Mike_Murdock]

He said when promoting Hox/Pox that he wanted to restore the X-Men to its prominent place, and as per HOX#2, the entire period since House of M is called "the lost decade".

Did he say that it was the "lost decade" because they were trying to "stick it to Fox" or is it just that it was generally directionless?

And in any case, what's true for the goose is true for the gander. If Marvel stiffed Fantastic Four then it stands to reason they did the same to X-Men.

I don't think they did it for either when it came to comics. I think other media and merchandise was demonstrably different, but I always question whether the ambiguity of merchandising was a contributing factor. Unlike with the Sony deal, Marvel could only make merch related to comics property but not movie property, which means that, if anything was ambiguous, they risked getting sued. Otherwise, no one can really explain why Spider-Man, Venom, Black Cat, etc. were not put in the same situation.

My point has always been that Hickman and Claremont were speculating or reporting the speculation they heard the same as everyone else. They had no inside knowledge of Marvel's intended direction for these characters. The official explanation for the reduced number of books in the All-New, All-Different era was that they wanted a smaller line to boost popularity. Hickman took that policy to the extreme and reduced it to a single mini-series. The official explanation for the cancellation of the Fantastic Four is that the book is a hard sell for people and it doesn't really have upside. Frankly, I'm not sure the relaunch has demonstrated to the contrary despite the hope that a hiatus would build interest.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The official explanation...

Okay this might be a crazy idea, so hear me out. Have you ever considered the possibility that the "official explanation" put out by any company is a lie? That it's just some petty maneuver and power move disguised by make-believe reasons that might almost get people to accept it.

That has happened in the Presidential level numerous times in the US Government. Why is it hard to believe that a corporation and comics company would be any different?

Tom Brevoort himself said back in 2014
https://brevoortformspring.tumblr.co...stion-why-isnt

about the fact that Marvel didn't do enough merchandise for XMen First Class and DOFP by saying, " If you had two things, and on one you earned 100% of the revenues from the efforts that you put into making it, and the other you earned a much smaller percentage for the same amount of time and effort, you’d be more likely to concentrate more heavily on the first, wouldn’t you?"

[Agent Z]

Okay this might be a crazy idea, so hear me out. Have you ever considered the possibility that the "official explanation" put out by any company is a lie? That it's just some petty maneuver and power move disguised by make-believe reasons that might almost get people to accept it.

That has happened in the Presidential level numerous times in the US Government. Why is it hard to believe that a corporation and comics company would be any different?

Tom Brevoort himself said back in 2014
https://brevoortformspring.tumblr.co...stion-why-isnt

about the fact that Marvel didn't do enough merchandise for XMen First Class and DOFP by saying, " If you had two things, and on one you earned 100% of the revenues from the efforts that you put into making it, and the other you earned a much smaller percentage for the same amount of time and effort, you’d be more likely to concentrate more heavily on the first, wouldn’t you?"

He also said,

"You’re talking about issues involving licensing and animation, and those are questions you’d need to ask to our people that oversee those areas."

and

"There are only so many hours in the day, and so many initiatives you can have going at once,. So you need to pick and choose where you want to spend your time and your efforts."

For crying out loud, the asker wanted to know why Goldballs didn't have any toys.

Maximum Carnage you know was also a big event but people don’t bring sales to bat away criticism for that being s bad story. Michael Bay isn’t going to be seen as a good filmmaker either.

Civil War sold well because it had gimmicks like Spider-Man being unmasked and the whole my hero can beat your hero thing. It was also a major event where practically every title had to tie into it. So that’s why it did well.

Maximum Carnage was a long and drawn out crossover event that had nothing meaningful to say and was viewed by many as the number one worst Spider-Man story until One More Day.

Civil War's story had repercussions that lasted for years in real time and actually did have an interesting premise to inspire debate (even if the execution was questionable). That is quite different from Maximum Carnage.

[BroHomo]

For crying out loud, the asker wanted to know why Goldballs didn't have any toys.

or ANY of theNEW X-Men

[Mike_Murdock]

Okay this might be a crazy idea, so hear me out. Have you ever considered the possibility that the "official explanation" put out by any company is a lie? That it's just some petty maneuver and power move disguised by make-believe reasons that might almost get people to accept it.

I think the official explanation absolutely should be viewed with a healthy amount of skepticism. But, even if you reject it, it doesn't make an alternative idea, based solely on unsourced rumors and speculation, true. The truth likely lies somewhere in between, but there would have to be some stronger evidence for me to believe it's all just some kind of petty cutting off one's nose to spite one's face when it comes to the X-Men.

[Agent Z]

or ANY of theNEW X-Men

And as Brevoort pointed out he is does not control who does and there is also the issue of limited resources for that sort of thing.

[BroHomo]

And as Brevoort pointed out he is does not control who does and there is also the issue of limited resources for that sort of thing.

Yeah and he wasn't trying to do anything about it

[Agent Z]

Yeah and he wasn't trying to do anything about it

What was he supposed to do about it? He's a comic book editor. He doesn't work in toy manufacturing.

[Rosebunse]

I'm just not sure why Marvel wasn't supposed to push the Avengers and other properties. I mean, there are too many X-Men for you to make a toy or series about all of them.