Marvel needs a new universe

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

Then what's the point?

Of what? I'm not sure what you're expecting from Marvel.

Marvel and DC are akin to folklore and any public domain IP. They'll have many beginnings, endings and middles in between.

[CosmiComic]

Of what? I'm not sure what you're expecting from Marvel.

Marvel and DC are akin to folklore and any public domain IP. They'll have many beginnings, endings and middles in between.

I mean the point of constantly rebooting the origins instead of just keeping one and continuing from there

[Noek]

It would be fun but risky. Another alternative is to do a new generation of characters like 2099.

I say take the risk, since it is an alternate universe Marvel has a safety net of 'Don't worry main [INSERT CHARACTER HERE] is doing his own thing'. Allow some writers like Cates who is good but has a hard time playing nice with other people's things a chance to let loose a bit.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I say take the risk, since it is an alternate universe Marvel has a safety net of 'Don't worry main [INSERT CHARACTER HERE] is doing his own thing'. Allow some writers like Cates who is good but has a hard time playing nice with other people's things a chance to let loose a bit.

I get that but it didn't stop people from complaining about Ultimate Peter's death.

[CosmiComic]

I get that but it didn't stop people from complaining about Ultimate Peter's death.

People will complain any time their favorites aren't front and center. Sometimes those complaints are legit. Other times, those complaints are just 'why isn't the care the same forever.' Sometimes it's both

[Noek]

I get that but it didn't stop people from complaining about Ultimate Peter's death.

That's true, though these changes would be from the start so it is a level 1 introduction. Not an introduce a character by killing off a character. I mean Miles actually is a perfect example to why this idea would work, of everything from the Ultimate universe his story lasted the longest because it was something new and couldn't just get from the 616.

[John Venus]

How much can you keep updating the same origins over again, though?

It's worked well so far and they should keep doing it as long as it works.

[CosmiComic]

It's worked well so far and they should keep doing it as long as it works.

Has it, though?

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

In terms of reboots, I rather they go hard than soft. I prefer the Ultimate than the New 52. Reboots get mythologized as a fresh start but it's not free of mistakes or baggage. It's not the magical cure-all ills posters think it is.

[TheRay]

Marvel introducing the "What If?" concept is essentially this.

[80sForever]

With Marvel, "updating" origins has always been offensive to me. I hate feeling revised without an explanation, see Spider-Man Chapter One.
1960s Marvel characters were "pop art". Luke Cage is pure 1970s. Taking them out and putting their origins in a world raised by social media is...ugghhh.
Is making good new characters that hard?

I like the Life Story concept, and realized that was the way to go years ago when I first read Generations, Supreme, and Earth-X. I found Astro City's Crisis explanation to make much more sense and it wasn't insulting that even AC had reboots.

IMHO Marvel wants it both ways- a rich history dating back to the 1960s (or 1930s- also a retcon) yet heroes who started after 9/11 or whatever.

In many ways, Marvel is a paradox: things are cyclical and get reset every 5-10 years (back from dead, #1 relaunch, return of a legacy character, younger versions, etc.) yet it is also impossible for a reader to make heads and tails of the costume changes, clones, events, change of locations, villains becoming heroes, spin-off characters, etc. It's like leaving a simulation on and seeing how weird everything has evolved- until of course, a writer resets everything back. Like that time Spider-Man acted like an inexperienced teen again in the 2010s.

I think it's because fans are obsessed with canon and continuity with 616 and are attached to the one history, but the reality is, we have to deal with the sliding timescale/origin changes to even view 616 as a cohesive earth.

Marvel was fine from around 1961-1990(1). For the most part, in that time period I actually felt that Spidey, The Thing, Hulk, Dr. Doom, etc. actually lived in those time periods and aged appropriately. The Infinity Gauntlet would have been a great time to restart the universe- get the bad stuff out, resurrect characters, new team lineups, etc. And then around every 10 years thereafter.

There's a snobbery that "DC does that, and Marvel doesn't" yet 1) Marvel could have done it better; 2) Marvel continuity is currently a mess; 3) Who cares? Both companies copy each other anyway.

[Noek]

Marvel introducing the "What If?" concept is essentially this.

Ya but I want a whole universe of this. Not a bunch of one shots, or each being its own universe.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

That's true, though these changes would be from the start so it is a level 1 introduction. Not an introduce a character by killing off a character. I mean Miles actually is a perfect example to why this idea would work, of everything from the Ultimate universe his story lasted the longest because it was something new and couldn't just get from the 616.

Fair enough. I've seen some fan attempts on DeviantArt at reimagining Marvel so I'd be interested in a professional take.

[CosmiComic]

With Marvel, "updating" origins has always been offensive to me. I hate feeling revised without an explanation, see Spider-Man Chapter One.
1960s Marvel characters were "pop art". Luke Cage is pure 1970s. Taking them out and putting their origins in a world raised by social media is...ugghhh.
Is making good new characters that hard?

I like the Life Story concept, and realized that was the way to go years ago when I first read Generations, Supreme, and Earth-X. I found Astro City's Crisis explanation to make much more sense and it wasn't insulting that even AC had reboots.

IMHO Marvel wants it both ways- a rich history dating back to the 1960s (or 1930s- also a retcon) yet heroes who started after 9/11 or whatever.

In many ways, Marvel is a paradox: things are cyclical and get reset every 5-10 years (back from dead, #1 relaunch, return of a legacy character, younger versions, etc.) yet it is also impossible for a reader to make heads and tails of the costume changes, clones, events, change of locations, villains becoming heroes, spin-off characters, etc. It's like leaving a simulation on and seeing how weird everything has evolved- until of course, a writer resets everything back. Like that time Spider-Man acted like an inexperienced teen again in the 2010s.

I think it's because fans are obsessed with canon and continuity with 616 and are attached to the one history, but the reality is, we have to deal with the sliding timescale/origin changes to even view 616 as a cohesive earth.

Marvel was fine from around 1961-1990(1). For the most part, in that time period I actually felt that Spidey, The Thing, Hulk, Dr. Doom, etc. actually lived in those time periods and aged appropriately. The Infinity Gauntlet would have been a great time to restart the universe- get the bad stuff out, resurrect characters, new team lineups, etc. And then around every 10 years thereafter.

There's a snobbery that "DC does that, and Marvel doesn't" yet 1) Marvel could have done it better; 2) Marvel continuity is currently a mess; 3) Who cares? Both companies copy each other anyway.

And the problem is some kinds of storylines seem pointless to invest in if nothing ever really permanently changes. Not to mention the uphill battle new heroes face in becoming popular

[TheRay]

Ya but I want a whole universe of this. Not a bunch of one shots, or each being its own universe.

You kind of do get that and there is also the potential to expand upon whatever they want, whenever they want.