Proposal: Marvel Returns (soft reboot/line-wide relaunch of Marvel Comics)

[Midnight_v]

The only people this would please are the aging white men who refuse to let go of their twenties and Liefeld lithographs.

Well I mean... everybody's aging... and I'm not white but black so this statement is patently just untrue.

That being said:
General Changes

•Completely revamped creative talent. Many experienced creators from the past rejoin, and bring their skills to the task. Many promising newcomers are hired from sources that aren't Twitter fan art. The driving factor for hiring is not "woman writes woman", "black writes black", "gay writes gay" etc. but rather "how good they are as a creator", the way it should be.

I agree with this... I... Are we sure this is happening? That sounds like something that shouldn't be happening. Race based hiring sounds illegal af. but sure the goal should be creativity and NEVER quota's or whatever honestly we shouldn't even know the race/religion/creed/whatever of the person when we pick up a book.

Specific Changes
•Carol Danvers is now Ms. Marvel again with the iconic sexy look, with her genuinely flawed but much more likable personality.
•Same with Spider-Woman, She-Hulk, Psylocke and so on.
•Falcon never becomes Cap, X-23 doesn't become Wolverine, Amadeus Cho remains a brainy nerd but doesn't become Hulk. Their characters instead develop naturally.
•Miles Morales exists but has an all new identity and is written more like ITSV and PS4
•Same with Kamala Khan who is also given more depth as a character and less emphasis on her religion/race.
•Wolverine is now an R-rated action hero as a comic book character, like he should be.
•Spider-Man is portrayed like his better stories and not like in Dan Slott's run.
•Iceman is no longer forcibly made gay after decades of being straight.
•The Fantastic Four are the greatest team of the setting and treated as such.
•Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are now mutants and Magneto's children again.
•Jane Foster remains a civilian and never becomes Thor.
•X-Men are now back in Westchester.
•Other characters like Riri Williams, America Chavez, and a lot of the Champions are put on the backburner and HEAVILY reinvented if reintroduced. Characters like the New New Warriors and Children of the Atom no longer exist.

I...some of this is cool some of this is needless. The story of marvel has to be able to grow, even if slowly. more on that after giving it some thought

[WebSlingWonder]

What was the goal here? Surely, Hybrid you had to have known what would happen here?

[Drops Of Venus]

Again, movies don't translate to comics success. If that were the case, Iron Man 2020 would've been a massive hit. It wasn't. It failed. When you're running a comic book business, you should be thinking of comic book fans first and foremost. It's business.

So if it's business you're truly concerned about, what is your suggestions for these characters who are currently being outsold by Captain Marvel in the direct market?

- Doctor Doom
- Daredevil
- Deadpool
- Iron Man
- Ghost Rider
- Doctor Strange
- Punisher
- Winter Soldier
- Hawkeye

I mean, if Carol as Captain Marvel is really that damaging to Marvel Comics as you would have me believe, then those guys who can't even gather more ''paying customers'' than her surely are contributing to the downfall of the comic book business, right? So let's hear your suggestions about how they need to be ''fixed'' so comics can be great again!

Oh, and what about characters that had failed solo series in recent years like Sentry, Hyperion or Hercules? If I remember correctly, their books didn't even manage to last as long as Ironheart's and America Chavez's books (two characters who you think should be ''put on the backburner'' or ''heavily reinvented if reintroduced'')! Yikes. That surely means Marvel has to do the same with them, right?

[John Ossie]

Heh. I was thinking to myself that there hadn't been a reboot thread for a while and now we have one.

As for your idea OP, if the execution was done well I wouldn't be completely against it.

[babyblob]

I didn't mean have it removed or anything, but well balanced by character traits, like Daredevil and Catholicism. He's defined as more than that, yet whenever Marvel talks about Kamala, they go "Muslim superhero" and reading her comics she feels more like a statement than a character. Thus, she can't actually grow or develop like a human being would, because that would mean things like struggling and making mistakes. Yeah, I'd never want to take away a character's religion, I just want more depth. Hope that explained it well enough.

Yes you did. I et where you are going now.

[Blind Wedjat]

I'll start off with what I agree with:

• Marvel does need a company wide overhaul. I'm not reading a lot of their comics at the moment, but from what I have read lately and from what I've seen others say about other books, a lot of people aren't happy. Whether it's the frequency of self-important events, out-of-character writings, overused tropes and plot points, trying to play catch-up to the MCU, or a general lack of fresh ideas, Marvel Comics is doing a lot of things their readers don't like. There is a need for a new philosophy on how the company decides to tackle their characters and stories.
• I wasn't born in the 80s, so I don't know what politics or Marvel comics were like back then. However we are in the 2020s right now and I'm certain politics are very different from what it used to be in the 80s. So I don't agree that we need to go back to that writing style. I do however agree that politics has taken more of a precedent in some stories, which doesn't always make for a good read I guess.
• Marvel also needs to hire more people that write comics and understand how to write them, instead. Now as a Black Panther fan, this is something I've dealt with for 4 years now. Hiring writers that squarely have literary achievements and no experience in comics has led to multiple Black Panther books that do not read like comics should and feel more like someone writing prose. But because these writers were Black people, Marvel didn't seem to care whatever it was that they wrote (even if it turned out to be regressive instead of progressive, or out-of-character) because they allowed the company to boast diversity hires. I'm not against matching the demographic a writer belongs to to the character because it can work (see the Black Panther film for instance, or more specifically, Priest's Black Panther run), but there needs to be more to it than the perceived importance of the writer.
• I also agree with experimenting with new characters and more mature storytelling.

So it's your General Changes I mostly agree with, but the Specific Changes I have some problems with.

Carol Danvers is now Ms. Marvel again with the iconic sexy look, with her genuinely flawed but much more likable personality.

I do think there needs to be a new costume because while the intention behind the new one is good, it's a bit generic. I always thought some kind of happy medium between the two would be great. However, you have to realise that Carol is probably more recognisable with this new costume (which is why someone brought up her billion dollar grossing film and better selling books) and many will see it as a regression. Carol's Ms Marvel look and persona has been publicly used as a major example of how female characters are often oversexualised in how they are drawn and even written. Personally, I like the old costume because I think it's sexy and a lot more striking in its design. But as a guy, I have to recognise that some women might not like reading a female character that looks like that.

I also can't really say much about Carol's personality at the moment because I've never read her books, but you're doing a lot of assuming here. For starters, maybe some people do like her personality as it is now. Perhaps she can be written better, but from what I've seen (and I may be wrong here), it seems people don't like her super serious personality these days. The only thing I can sort of say about that is I don't think it's fair that female characters are often not allowed to be written this way, even though we let characters like Batman be. But I'll admit I may be wrong too in what I'm assuming here.

(I also think it's unfair to suggest that Captain Marvel only made a billion dollars because it was sandwiched between Infinity War and Endgame. If so, Ant-Man & the Wasp should have made a billion dollars too. And to also suggest it made that much at the box office because it was marketed as "required reading" for Endgame (which it really wasn't) is also unfair, considering that the MCU has been using the connectivity of their films as a sly marketing tactic for years before Infinity War and Captain Marvel were released. All this does is disregard the people that actually just liked the film for what it was and had a good time watching it, regardless of how you feel about the film (and I didn't particularly love it either). Maybe if you weren't so cynical about the film's success and its appreciation, people would actually want to discuss what they actually did like about Captain Marvel.)

Same with Spider-Woman, She-Hulk, Psylocke and so on.

I think there's room for female characters to be sexy and embrace their sexuality and femininity (because it's a big part of third-wave feminism), but I think there needs to be nuance in how it's visually represented and how its portrayed. For starters, if this is about reverting things back, are we make Betty Braddock possess Kwannon's body again? I think that's pretty problematic, and I think Kwannon deserves to own her own body and be her own character. Also, there needs to be diversity in this. Not every female character should be reverted back to their unnecessarily oversexualised past. I think this can work with a character like She-Hulk. Not just to make her look sexy, but I think smart writing can allow her character to be written as a commentary or exploration on female sexuality that is often times extremely confusing to women, as society both expects it and shuns it when a woman decides to own it.

Falcon never becomes Cap, X-23 doesn't become Wolverine, Amadeus Cho remains a brainy nerd but doesn't become Hulk. Their characters instead develop naturally.

What do you mean by "develop naturally" exactly? Perhaps this is something that you need to elaborate on before I make any assumptions.

[Blind Wedjat]

Same with Kamala Khan who is also given more depth as a character and less emphasis on her religion/race.

This is a very complex issue that requires a lot of reading and writing but I'll try and keep it short. Marvel Comics are an American publishing company that make stories about America and prided themselves as representing "the world outside your window." With all due respect, when we're talking about America that while being a melting pot of cultures, races and ethnic backgrounds, constantly reminds minorities and people of colour that their race and religion matters (usually in a very negative manner), I think it's pretty ignorant to say Kamala should be written in a way that ignores her background (even though I'm all up for more depth of character if she's lacking it).

Pakistani people cannot turn off their Pakistani-ness. Even if someone of Pakistani descent decided that they were no longer Pakistani but American, not every American would acknowledge that. Because to some Americans, being American is being White. More importantly, emphasising Kamala's race and religion can be a great way of showing readers that not all Muslim people are terrorists, or that Islam preaches violence. It can be a great way of demonstrating Pakistani and Desi culture without the ignorance. That's often why you need people who are of that demographic to write these stories. There's no amount of research I can do that will truly and accurately make me know what it's like to be Pakistani, or be a Muslim today, or be a woman every minute of every day, because I am none of those things. I can only understand so much, but I cannot experience it.

The goal of recognising and people's differences (be it their race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexuality) is to appreciate and respect them because we are all different. When this continues to happen, we can hopefully not let these differences matter in places and situations were they shouldn't (such as receiving basic human decency, and being given fair and equal opportunities in life).

Iceman is no longer forcibly made gay after decades of being straight.

I don't have any personal stakes in this, but I have one question for the people who have a problem with this: what else is wrong with Bobby being gay other than the fact that it goes against what was previously established? If I can get an answer to that which doesn't sound homophobic to me, I'm open to discussion about it. And like any form of discrimination, homophobia is a spectrum that ranges from being overt to covert.

But to further discuss this, why does he need to be reverted now to "fix a problem"? For starters it is not odd for someone everyone thought was straight, including the person in question, to actually turn out to be gay. Sexuality is a complex issue that many people spend years figuring out, getting wrong or sadly repressing because of societal expectations and centuries worth of imposed gender roles. It's entirely possible that Bobby thought he was straight until he discovered his sexuality for what it is. Also, he's an X-Men character so I don't know why this is a problem.

Secondly, shouldn't it be that Bobby's sexuality should be explored to further develop his character? Do you not think it's impossible to tell great stories about a character's identity (especially when you're calling for more mature storytelling)? I mean, Daredevil's identity as a Catholic is a huge part of his character and it motivates a lot of the things he does. Why can't this be extended to Kamala as a Muslim or to Bobby as a gay man? A problem I have with Marvel Comics is that while they create or make a character more progressive, they don't do anything interesting with it. One of the best examples that does it right is Negative Man from the Doom Patrol TV series. Without spoiling anything, Negative Man's sexuality isn't just treated as a footnote but as something that defines who he is because of the choices he made as a person. His powers are also related to his sexuality (without being offensive or stereotypical) and he's given a relatable love story of "the one that got away" which many people can relate to regardless of their sexuality. He's treated like an actual character and allowed to be complex instead of a point of meeting a diversity quota, and all of that allows him to be not only a great example of gay representation but a great character. In my opinion, Bobby can be given the same level of respect as a gay character, but it's gonna take great writing and experiences to do that.

Other characters like Riri Williams, America Chavez, and a lot of the Champions are put on the backburner and HEAVILY reinvented if reintroduced.

Again, instead of sidelining them we can try putting in real effort to exploring these characters and who they can be, instead of just letting them be statements of diversity. Get some people who want to tell great stories about these characters. See the above for elaboration.

Overall the idea behind it is sound but perhaps it's the finer details and how they are worded and presented that I and some others have an issue with.

[Triniking1234]

All Marvel needs to do is streamline their publishing line and stop pigeon-holing creators.

[Triniking1234]

Well I mean... everybody's aging... and I'm not white but black so this statement is patently just untrue.

That being said:
General Changes

I agree with this... I... Are we sure this is happening? That sounds like something that shouldn't be happening. Race based hiring sounds illegal af. but sure the goal should be creativity and NEVER quota's or whatever honestly we shouldn't even know the race/religion/creed/whatever of the person when we pick up a book.

If you look at the solicits for the big, you can see that there is some gender bias.

[staptik777]

[your_name_here]

The issue is some people can see 8 years of damage while others might have actually liked what happened.
Seeing the X-Men back at westchester after what Hickman is trying to create just seems silly.
It’s an age old debate of sticking to the roots and pushing them into the future. These franchises tend to bounce back and forth.

That being said, if we had some kind of soft reboot...I’d suggest something Beyonder related, so we can play with the multiverse as Hickman did and have these changes take place in that wiggle room.

[CaptCleghorn]

The issue is some people can see 8 years of damage while others might have actually liked what happened.
Seeing the X-Men back at westchester after what Hickman is trying to create just seems silly.
It’s an age old debate of sticking to the roots and pushing them into the future. These franchises tend to bounce back and forth.

That being said, if we had some kind of soft reboot...I’d suggest something Beyonder related, so we can play with the multiverse as Hickman did and have these changes take place in that wiggle room.

These are pretty much my sentiments. When we look at stuff the the traditional Marvel Zombie Fankid likes, every one of those concepts and ideas was a new change to status quo. Some look at Marvel (and DC) as companies whose output gets to a point they like and then should stay there forever. Marvel did get to where you liked it by doing that. Marvel also doesn't focus on selling everything it has to a specific customer. At no time in Marvel's history have I wanted to buy everything they put out in a month. I've also always found something I did want to buy and read.

Comics have always been about throwing stuff out there and seeing what sells. And even if it were possible to find an optimal point where content is optimized, the sudience and society changes, necessitating a tweak (or more) in material to take advantage of changing tastes like non-straight white male heroes.

[Digifiend]

Comics and outside media don't need to be in perfect sync, dude. Even the MCU knew that.

The MCU makes changes, but the comics often match them. How many times have comics (re)launched or characters been changed for movie synergy? Comics follow what other media does. Among the comics postponed from April are a whole bunch of Black Widow related stuff. The reason it hasn't yet been resolicited is because the movie was also postponed. It's actually pretty rare that they aren't in perfect sync. Jane being Thor when Ragnarok came out for example - and they still synergised by cutting Odinson's hair in that Unworthy Thor miniseries. Usually they are in sync, for instance, Vision got a new costume around the time of his MCU debut to match the movie version, and Nadia Van Dyne was created because of Hope in the Ant-Man movies. And Steve Rogers took back the shield from Bucky around the time First Avenger was released. It's not just Marvel either, this is why those DC Digital First/Giants Flash comics have a black Iris West. If they rebooted again, you can bet she'd become black in the main universe too - it's to match the TV series (which is partially based on the New 52 comic run, but made the West family African-American).

I won't be surprised if Jane Foster is a Thor again when Love and Thunder is released, because MCU Jane will become a Thor in that movie. And there is no chance of Kamala changing her codename in the near future. Carol won't be taking the Ms. Marvel mantle back.

[Cth]

Yep. Seems like Marvel's new direction is paying off for them with universal acclaim...

People who talk like that are exactly what's made comic books such a toxic medium. I mean, seriously, did you even read the OP or just assume the most negative stereotype rather than focusing on paying customers?

YouTube is hardly the metric I'd use. Easily manipulated, and views can be chalked up to autoplay, etc.

You'd have more of a case if you went by sales charts. Otherwise the entire post can easily be dismissed as an angry ComicsGate type post... If you didn't want to be associated with that group then leading off with all their key complaints won't encourage people to read further to where you have your female/non-white characters. Placing them in 2nd wave essentially state show you view their importance.

New Warriors, in any incarnation has stunk. Richard Ryder is a poor Green Lantern.

Hawkeye and She Hulk really can't sustain solo titles as it's been proven time and time again.

Marvel Team up and Marvel Two in One are basically the same book.

And Hulk, one of Marvel's top titles is an after thought in your list. You only mention it to complain about Cho which was thankfully undone years ago.

I like Carol as Ms. Marvel/Warbird etc, but I have absolutely no problem with her being Captain Marvel now. Marvel Comics has always been about growth and change. Attempts at regressing characters has ALWAYS backfired. That's not to say radical change is always sustainable, Peter getting some success and being an Avenger/CEO was a fun romp, but he'll always go back.. but to force him into being a loser that can't afford rent, etc is insulting. Hulk has been successful BECAUSE of the constant evolution. FF and Avengers' lineups always change.

Sorry, your proposal needs a LOT of work, IMO.

We get you don't like Snowflake and Safespace. To be honest, I'm not sold either, but I know they're likely someone's favorite. I don't have to read what I don't like.

I was born in the 70s and have been a fan of Marvel since. There's enough room for other versions. Imagine if Claremont didn't write his X-Men. That's essentially what you're arguing against.

[skyvolt2000]

Carol Danvers and all marvel women need to show more SKIN.

Marvel needs to stop with the diversity hires. So I guess Dwayne McDuffie, Deny Cowans, Christian Cooper, Fabian Nicieza, Jim Lee, Jae Lee, Christopher Priest, Billy Graham & Larry Hamma were diversity hires too.

Comic book stores are closing because of Marvel and Marvel ALONE. Because they DARE show POC doing more than sitting in the background. I mean Valiant, Vault, Scout, Boom, IDW, Image and OTHERS aren't doing that.

Every book Marvel has axed starred ONLY POC like Black Knight, Hercules, Slapstick, Foolkiller, Vision, Scarlet Witch, Solo, Starbrand and Sentry.

Now lets get back in reality.

When you do a SOLO book-you showcase that character's PRIVATE life. Ms Marvel can not turn off her religion. She can not turn off her parent's values or traditions based on the Muslim faith.
SAME with any Kitty Pride book. She is JEWISH. If you do a holiday issue-Hanukah will be shown.

What do you mean by "develop naturally" exactly? Perhaps this is something that you need to elaborate on before I make any assumptions.

In the past develop naturally had better meaning.

Falcon-starred in Cap America & Avengers. Sometimes had the B story in Cap America. Had a solo story in Avengers along with minis, one shots and guest spots in Marvel 2 in One and Marvel Comics Present.
You could sell a Falcon without compromising Cap America.

Now we can't get those Marvel Comic Present books because SOMEONE takes issues with them. Although they are needed.

New Warriors, in any incarnation has stunk. Richard Ryder is a poor Green Lantern.

Hawkeye and She Hulk really can't sustain solo titles as it's been proven time and time again.

Warriors held a 70 issue run and spawn 2 spinoffs. They almost got 4 spinoffs if Marvel didn't have money issues.
She Hulk has 150+ solo issues.
They have had success.

What I don't about these complainers-who target certain books, they ignore the straight white male books that fail or leave piles of unsold books...

Moon Girl last 47 issues and 9 trades.
Squirrel Girl lasted 50 and 10ish trades and a NYT best seller.

Rich Ryder doesn't have that.
Nor does Cyclops or most of the white guys they won't comment on.

The New Heroes:
Action Five
Gremlin
The Pretender
Quantum & Jynx
Suppressor
Warbird

WHY would I do these guys? When one of the MAJOR complaints folks have had is using who is already there. I rather give those slots to Sue Storm, Colossus, Storm, Sunfire and Quake.