Magnus Family Appreciation 2020

[salarta]

Ran across this today, an edit someone made of that user's tweet.



Which leads me into another point continuing what I said before.

If the thinking of "only one can occupy this space" still applied today, you would mostly see fans fighting with each other about who counts as Magneto's kid. But that's not what we see. What we see is fans wanting the whole family together, annoyed by Marvel keeping them apart. They don't just want the twins or Lorna to interact with Magneto. They want to see the siblings spend time together too. Not much needs to be said on Wanda and Pietro as they've been a pair from inception. With Lorna, they wanna see her and Wanda form a badass female fighting sister duo. They wanna see Lorna and Pietro snark each other and be playfully combative, which Peter David did well. There's a Tumblr account called Keeping Up With The Magnus Family with fun posts like this:

Erik: what do you guys say when you answer the phone?

Wanda: hello?

Lorna: who the fuck is this?

Pietro: oh no he’s in jail this is his son.

Of course, this kinda stuff wouldn't happen in Marvel's comics (as it doesn't really fit the 616 versions of them), but it shows how much power and interest the family as a whole has among fans.

And now I'm imagining them as a mutant version of the Fantastic Four.

[AbnormallyNormal]

Agreed salarta. Magnus family is one of the prime examples of fans basically creating stuff way way way beyond the official canon, and the fan stuff is... a lot more interesting, often anyways

[Ferro]

I fail to see the importance of fan canon witout anything on page to support it and much more to tear it down

[salarta]

I fail to see the importance of fan canon witout anything on page to support it and much more to tear it down

Fan canon demonstrates fan interest. Is it precisely the same as what the company publishes? No. Does it show that fans really want to see more of the family? Yes.

Fan work also tends to take from what exists, catch particular elements, and focus and expand upon them. Maybe the family isn't as playfully snarky with each other in the comics as the KUWTMF quote above, but it is a dysfunctional family with a whole lot of issues.

To that extent, fan work also often exists to fill a void. I think this is especially true in the case of this family. Marvel keeps ignoring the family, or treating certain members like they "don't count," or treating one poorly for the benefit of another instead of granting all of them equal respect, so fans have to make for themselves what they want to see and Marvel won't provide. This is actually how I started writing fanfics, and often why I commission what I do. I wanted a comic focused on Lorna and Marvel won't do it, so I commissioned Mlad. Lorna's sister relationship with Wanda and history with Jean matter, but Marvel acts like they don't, so I commission art.

If Marvel wanted to be smart, they'd understand that people want what they want for a reason and try to meet that interest instead of trying to force people to accept things they don't want.

[juan678]

https://www.cbr.com/the-amalgam-magn...imated-series/

[Ferro]

Popular does not make it good, especially when the idea that fans latch on to has no canon evidence and would have to get hamfisted in a way that even if they tried wouldnt be as good as the idea fans want.
Because as many popular fan headcanons unfortunatly accepted as canon, its shallow and hollow the moment you start to pay attention to it.

[salarta]

Popular does not make it good, especially when the idea that fans latch on to has no canon evidence and would have to get hamfisted in a way that even if they tried wouldnt be as good as the idea fans want.
Because as many popular fan headcanons unfortunatly accepted as canon, its shallow and hollow the moment you start to pay attention to it.

I think this is ultimately a matter of whether you prefer to think of the rightsholding company and its employees as The Authority (TM), or if you see the fictional universe and its characters and concepts as belonging to the world and the rightsholding company simply has the legal right to profit off of it and dictate "acceptable" official usage.

Disney would prefer the former. It's why they keep screwing over public domain in order to maintain their copyright hold on Mickey Mouse, and why they've historically done things like force a daycare to remove Disney figures from its walls in the late 80s/early 90s. With the daycare, on grounds that other licensees would have grounds to object to payments if the daycare didn't have to pay.

I don't subscribe to that angle. Disney itself has profited greatly from taking classic tales from the public domain and making their own versions. Disney's versions are popular, and they deviate from the originals, the "canon" versions. Sometimes greatly. Should we dismiss them as shallow and hollow?

And, I think there are more downsides to taking the rightsholding company as The Authority (TM) and treating fandom as less valid. For one, it stifles creativity. Why innovate and improve if people have no other options? For another, it encourages bad behavior from within the company. People working there, particularly executives and editors, can feel more like they can get away with forcing whatever agendas they have in mind. Suddenly, a great and storied character is reimagined as scum of the earth that everyone should hate because one guy hates that character and wants everyone else to hate them too. Superman as a whipped government tool that Batman easily beats on all the time? Sure. Captain America becomes a Nazi? Why not. It's "canon," and in this scenario, fan work where Superman and Captain America are both bastions of excellence as their creators intended should be dismissed because the canon says they should be seen as something else now.

I know there's technically a difference between what I said above, about changing canon, and what you said about cases with "no canon evidence." But honestly, I see it as a very thin line. Something only "has no canon evidence" until the day someone at Marvel randomly decides to make it canon. Then all of a sudden it has canon evidence because someone who works for the company made it canon. Furthermore, the ideas fans have of the family are supported by the canon to some extent. The only question is how much. Maybe it comes from an alternate universe. Maybe it's taking some core quality of the characters and trying a different angle. But lastly, Marvel's been plenty guilty of making radical, out of nowhere changes to characters too.

Lorna being a good example. When Claremont had Zaladane steal Lorna's powers, what in any prior work supported the idea that Lorna would suddenly become tall, gain superhuman strength, etc? Why should I consider that more valid than a fan work doing things with Lorna I actually want to see, and that treats her more respectably?

Ultimately, the only differences between Marvel and fan work I see are that Marvel gets to make money off what they publish, and Marvel loves to greatly hinder themselves (and by extension hurt the characters) with office/corporate politics and personal biases. I have more respect for the random fan work eagerly exploring all that can be done with a character, than the random official product that insists a particular character is worthless because someone involved doesn't like that character.

One thing I do agree on is that Marvel wouldn't be able to make something as good as what fans want. However, my agreement comes from the fact that Marvel in its current state doesn't care. Marvel has to care first.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I think this is ultimately a matter of whether you prefer to think of the rightsholding company and its employees as The Authority (TM), or if you see the fictional universe and its characters and concepts as belonging to the world and the rightsholding company simply has the legal right to profit off of it and dictate "acceptable" official usage.

Disney would prefer the former. It's why they keep screwing over public domain in order to maintain their copyright hold on Mickey Mouse, and why they've historically done things like force a daycare to remove Disney figures from its walls in the late 80s/early 90s. With the daycare, on grounds that other licensees would have grounds to object to payments if the daycare didn't have to pay.

I don't subscribe to that angle. Disney itself has profited greatly from taking classic tales from the public domain and making their own versions. Disney's versions are popular, and they deviate from the originals, the "canon" versions. Sometimes greatly. Should we dismiss them as shallow and hollow?

Disney extending copyright law for its own gain and what's canon are two separate subjects. What Disney did with the daycare was out of line but they were within their rights to do so. That's the advantage of owning something's copyright legally you have the ultimate say in who uses it.

And, I think there are more downsides to taking the rightsholding company as The Authority (TM) and treating fandom as less valid. For one, it stifles creativity. Why innovate and improve if people have no other options? For another, it encourages bad behavior from within the company. People working there, particularly executives and editors, can feel more like they can get away with forcing whatever agendas they have in mind. Suddenly, a great and storied character is reimagined as scum of the earth that everyone should hate because one guy hates that character and wants everyone else to hate them too. Superman as a whipped government tool that Batman easily beats on all the time? Sure. Captain America becomes a Nazi? Why not. It's "canon," and in this scenario, fan work where Superman and Captain America are both bastions of excellence as their creators intended should be dismissed because the canon says they should be seen as something else now.

How does it stifle creativity? People can still do what they do with their characters, you don't need the company's permission to create art, but you can't sell it for profit. There never was going to be any outcome with fan art other than creators might get inspiration from it but even then will choose not to because that risks being sued. You can do everything you want right now it just won't be legally official. What is done with stories is subjective, you may hate x but others will love it.

Not all fan work is great but not all official work is, either. This isn't about quality, it's other something is a canon and canon has a specific meaning. There is no blurry lines with this, it's what the creators and owners say it is.

I know there's technically a difference between what I said above, about changing canon, and what you said about cases with "no canon evidence." But honestly, I see it as a very thin line. Something only "has no canon evidence" until the day someone at Marvel randomly decides to make it canon. Then all of a sudden it has canon evidence because someone who works for the company made it canon. Furthermore, the ideas fans have of the family are supported by the canon to some extent. The only question is how much. Maybe it comes from an alternate universe. Maybe it's taking some core quality of the characters and trying a different angle. But lastly, Marvel's been plenty guilty of making radical, out of nowhere changes to characters too.

It's not a thin line, it's one built on legal ownership and control. You're right, something isn't canon until it's not except the "it's not" isn't interpreted by fans doing something its when the owners do. The "or not" comes after the fact, not before it. Everything isn't canon in comics, and there are other official versions which aren't canon. Change does occur but only when the owners allow it.

Lorna being a good example. When Claremont had Zaladane steal Lorna's powers, what in any prior work supported the idea that Lorna would suddenly become tall, gain superhuman strength, etc? Why should I consider that more valid than a fan work doing things with Lorna I actually want to see, and that treats her more respectably?

Because Claremont's idea was green lit by Marvel and printed in comics. You don't have to like it but you can still make your art like that if you want.

Ultimately, the only differences between Marvel and fan work I see are that Marvel gets to make money off what they publish, and Marvel loves to greatly hinder themselves (and by extension hurt the characters) with office/corporate politics and personal biases. I have more respect for the random fan work eagerly exploring all that can be done with a character, than the random official product that insists a particular character is worthless because someone involved doesn't like that character.

It's about legality and the owners choosing what stories are "real." Money is a signifier, too. Can't make work of their properties without permission or you risk legal action. Not everything Marvel, and by extension, the creators and staff employed is bad. Quality varies and is subjective, of course. It's to you whether you think it has value, that's a personal opinion.

One thing I do agree on is that Marvel wouldn't be able to make something as good as what fans want. However, my agreement comes from the fact that Marvel in its current state doesn't care. Marvel has to care first.

Marvel has no opinions, it is a legal entity. However, the creators and editors do have opinions on what they make and I disagree that creators like Claremont and Hickman don't care about the X-men.

[teapartyofthedead]

Like opinions on fandom interpretations of canon, opinion on capitalism and its influence on creative works is fraught with subjectivity and personal bias. No solution is going to make everyone happy, and there are bound to be people who are disappointed either way. We can only remain open to listening to each other with respect and best intentions, even when we vehemently disagree on what’s best for our favorite family.

[GenericUsername]

While I don't want Wanda in the family so much, I do understand why others want it. Especially for the sibling interactions. I feel that most of what I want is Pietro back in comics. I feel he's lost the most from all the changes and needs some TLC.

[salarta]

I wasn't really feeling like digging into things for a few days, but up for it now.

Disney extending copyright law for its own gain and what's canon are two separate subjects. What Disney did with the daycare was out of line but they were within their rights to do so. That's the advantage of owning something's copyright legally you have the ultimate say in who uses it.

They're separate subjects but deeply linked in relevance to each other through the issue of public domain, and how a person interprets legitimacy of a particular take.

How does it stifle creativity? People can still do what they do with their characters, you don't need the company's permission to create art, but you can't sell it for profit. There never was going to be any outcome with fan art other than creators might get inspiration from it but even then will choose not to because that risks being sued. You can do everything you want right now it just won't be legally official. What is done with stories is subjective, you may hate x but others will love it.

Not all fan work is great but not all official work is, either. This isn't about quality, it's other something is a canon and canon has a specific meaning. There is no blurry lines with this, it's what the creators and owners say it is.

It's about monopolies. If you have a monopoly of something, you have no real incentive to innovate, and in some cases may even have opposition to innovation out of fear that change could "ruin something that works." We tend to only think of monopolies in terms of companies, but they apply just as well to fiction, which is where public domain comes into play. It's been well argued that we wouldn't have plenty of great fiction involving zombies if the concept of zombies as established in Night of the Living Dead was trapped behind copyright. Walking Dead would be dismissed as "fanfiction" today in such a scenario.

It's not a thin line, it's one built on legal ownership and control. You're right, something isn't canon until it's not except the "it's not" isn't interpreted by fans doing something its when the owners do. The "or not" comes after the fact, not before it. Everything isn't canon in comics, and there are other official versions which aren't canon. Change does occur but only when the owners allow it.

Because Claremont's idea was green lit by Marvel and printed in comics. You don't have to like it but you can still make your art like that if you want.

Again, it's only not a thin line if you have a POV of "copyright makes right." I reject that POV entirely.

Marvel has no opinions, it is a legal entity. However, the creators and editors do have opinions on what they make and I disagree that creators like Claremont and Hickman don't care about the X-men.

First, I said in my original comment that Marvel doesn't care about what fans want. That's different from whether or not people like Claremont and Hickman care about the X-Men. They can care about X-Men without caring what anyone else thinks or feels about it.

Second, people like Claremont and Hickman care about X-Men as far as their view of it. If something doesn't fit their view, they don't care. It's how Lorna can be treated like she offers nothing even in scenarios where her presence should be essential. If she doesn't fit their view of who and what has worth, then she's not treated like she has it.

Third, Marvel isn't merely a legal entity. It's the collective of people who work there and the culture they create, developed across decades. There's a tendency to presume that getting hired by a company is exclusively a matter of talent and work ethic, but that's not true. It's also a matter of "networking" - which here everyone knows means "connecting with others," but ultimately means "ability to fit into the existing corporate culture." That culture results in employees thinking and behaving in common ways either as a condition of hire, or as part of the give and take to remaining employed. Since if you think too differently, your pitches aren't going to get picked up, you won't get the work, and ultimately you won't be working there.

On that last point, I don't think the current Marvel culture is capable of giving Lorna proper treatment. Even if someone really, really wants to do something great with her, an editor is going to shoot it down cause they insist there isn't enough interest in her. No matter what evidence exists to the contrary. They keep ignoring what she offers and acting like she's a random D-lister or lower created in the 90s to be Havok's girlfriend. Fandom, however, has repeatedly done what Marvel can't or won't do. Therefore, I consider fandom to be a better, more legitimate authority than Marvel.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I wasn't really feeling like digging into things for a few days, but up for it now.



They're separate subjects but deeply linked in relevance to each other through the issue of public domain, and how a person interprets legitimacy of a particular take.

A matter which has been settled in Disney's favour in the courts. I don't like the copyright extension, but they are the law and the law is less malleable wth legitimacy than fan made materials like fanfic and fan art.

It's about monopolies. If you have a monopoly of something, you have no real incentive to innovate, and in some cases may even have opposition to innovation out of fear that change could "ruin something that works." We tend to only think of monopolies in terms of companies, but they apply just as well to fiction, which is where public domain comes into play. It's been well argued that we wouldn't have plenty of great fiction involving zombies if the concept of zombies as established in Night of the Living Dead was trapped behind copyright. Walking Dead would be dismissed as "fanfiction" today in such a scenario.

You don't think Krakoa or Claremont's X-men run was innovative? Considering that we're arguing about fiction a corporation produced I'd find it difficult to ignore that elephant in the room when it comes to X-men. I agree with you intent, but that doesn't alter the law creators have to abide to or what powers that gives Disney/Marvel in deciding what's canon. Of course even if they did lose their copyright they'd still retain their own official versions, like how if Superman becomes public domain it won't be the Superman DC Comics has in their pages it'll be Siegel and Shuster's Superman, with no Kryptonite or Lex Luthor. Please don't view my stance as unquestioning the law, I'm simply acknowledging its powers relating to copyrights and their control of "canon." It is what it is, we may not like it but that's not going to change what's legal about that. That happy accident worked out great for everyone wth NOTLD but just because that worked out ins't necessarily how other things being pubic domain would do so, like Superman above.

Again, it's only not a thin line if you have a POV of "copyright makes right." I reject that POV entirely.

Opinion won't trump the law or the powers of corporations/creators. You don't have to like it but it is what it is. Companies and creators aren't powerless in their domain, their powers and control over their properties are very real. That's why they get to be the ultimate judge of what is officially canon.

First, I said in my original comment that Marvel doesn't care about what fans want. That's different from whether or not people like Claremont and Hickman care about the X-Men. They can care about X-Men without caring what anyone else thinks or feels about it.

Except Marvel employs Hickman and Claremont, without their say so neither of them get any say in the comics. They serve at Marvel's pleasure. By saying Marvel doesn't care act fans want dismisses the fact that the fans did want those versions of the X-men. If Marvel fans truly felt the X-men were that mismanaged the series would have saved canceled instead X-men rivals Spider-man, and that is because of creators like Claremont rejuvenating the comics. X-men today owes a tremendous debt to Claremont and Byrne in shaping what it is.

Second, people like Claremont and Hickman care about X-Men as far as their view of it. If something doesn't fit their view, they don't care. It's how Lorna can be treated like she offers nothing even in scenarios where her presence should be essential. If she doesn't fit their view of who and what has worth, then she's not treated like she has it.

[quote]

But they work for Marvel, so someone at marvel must see eye to eye with them on how to approach X-men. If they didn't neither of them would have their freedom, and Hickman has exceptional freedom with X-men right now. If he wasn't able to convince Marvel to give him that control we wouldn't have Krakoa.

Third, Marvel isn't merely a legal entity. It's the collective of people who work there and the culture they create, developed across decades. There's a tendency to presume that getting hired by a company is exclusively a matter of talent and work ethic, but that's not true. It's also a matter of "networking" - which here everyone knows means "connecting with others," but ultimately means "ability to fit into the existing corporate culture." That culture results in employees thinking and behaving in common ways either as a condition of hire, or as part of the give and take to remaining employed. Since if you think too differently, your pitches aren't going to get picked up, you won't get the work, and ultimately you won't be working there.

What you say here is true, they have to do that since they're working for a corporation. Marvel is both a legal entity and the sum of its parts with its employers and their freelancers. Everyone there works on behalf of Marvel. It's not all terrible, Marvel's produced many great runs of comics in that environment in the past and today. Marvel's bene making progress experimenting with X-men, over the last few years they've changed the formula that eventially evolved into Krakoa. They wouldn't have done this 20 years ago, or 10 years ago.

On that last point, I don't think the current Marvel culture is capable of giving Lorna proper treatment. Even if someone really, really wants to do something great with her, an editor is going to shoot it down cause they insist there isn't enough interest in her. No matter what evidence exists to the contrary. They keep ignoring what she offers and acting like she's a random D-lister or lower created in the 90s to be Havok's girlfriend. Fandom, however, has repeatedly done what Marvel can't or won't do. Therefore, I consider fandom to be a better, more legitimate authority than Marvel.

Which is fine for fans to do that but the conflict is that what the fans make aren't canon. Liking what the fans do won't change that. Lorna's far from the only character in Marvel with this problem, or in the X-men. That comes with the territory of comic books.

[jmc247]

kirbyscomicart by dikeruan

Also.

Marvel Book of Villians

Marvel Book of Heroes

These two books will come out early next year. Magneto is in summary for the first book and his profile is already partially up on amazon. I will say one of the impacts of the Axis retcon is a reluctance for some merch to talk about him and his family period and other merch and video games just ignores it. Wanda will certainly be in the book of top 100 Marvel heroes as will be her twins which are getting a promotional boost. Quicksilver will be in the book of heroes as well as will Crystal. For Lorna she has a 50/50 chance. The character hasn't had much of a push in the comics and less of one outside so we will see.

[coveredinbees]

I was talking to a friend about HoM and Magneto killing Quicksilver as Wanda's motivation. I jokingly said, "She doesn't even like him!" I've been thinking about it seriously. They love each other, but how well do they get along? I can think of one major fight about Vision and they didn't interact a lot when she was an Avenger and he was in X-Factor that I remember. She was supportive during his divorce. They're in Dark Seduction together against Mangeto. Don't they fight again in Busiek's run?

[GenericUsername]

Wanda defended Pietro against anyone's critiques of him. Including her neighbor. They were very close until she married Vision. But the whole thing Englehardt did with Pietro was kind of bs. Because it didn't make sense being that he was a mutant and knew what it was to be discriminated against, to then be so against Vision. But they mended fences and Wanda never held it against him. They were never as close, but that was because they were adults then with their own homes and lives. Fully grown, not having to depend on each other for survival. They had a discussion about Mags in Busiek's run but it wasn't really a fight. So much as Wanda trying to make him understand her positioning on things. They are like real siblings. They get along most of the time, fight some of the time but most of all love each other and will stick up for each other when the chips are down. They did fight in Wanda's solo but that also didn't make sense, because Wanda had no part in CW II. It just seemed like a lame attempt to try and link the book to the event. When it had nothing to do with it. And while it does make sense for Wanda to stick up for Carol, it just wasn't the focused subject of the book. And I'd have liked for Pietro's time to have been with his parents they established there. Since Wanda got to talk to their mother and Pietro did not.