"All-New, All-Different" Marvel Comics or "All-Derivative, All-Rehashed" Marvel Comics?

[CSTowle]

Superhero comics are silly, that's why I love them (and hate some of them). I can't say I actually hate characters, but I'll use that word when there's a concept or character that either annoys me or I feel takes up too much panel time when they bring nothing (or at least not as much as their panel time warrants) to the story.

As to Fal-Cap, I thought it was a bad idea when they announced it because I think it just firmly establishes him as Rogers' #2. I'd rather see him go the Nightwing route, go to his own city/do his own thing (even if it's a pretty similar thing, this being the world of superhero comics). Putting on the bat-tights/shield is a nice distraction, but it's not helping develop the character. To have him put on the costume/pick up the shield and then go straight to this terrible "Inversion" storyline where he comes off like the world's biggest d##k (making USAgent look like Rogers) hamstrung him out of the gate. I ended up feeling sorry for him. That said, the image on Colbert and announcement did the job they were trying to do and the rest here is just filler. I'd like to see him take on a bigger role in the movies so they might think about a solo film, or at least a Netflix series.

[The Sword is Drawn]

While there is the vague possibility that this title may be a let down, I am interested to read it.

Even despite the existence of Sam Alexander.

[ijacksparrow]

I think I came to the realization of something I haven't noticed before. The Marvel's main writers brain trust is getting old. Other than Tom Taylor and G. Willow Wilson I can't think of anyone around 35-30 years old writing for Marvel right now, at least no one that I'm remind me of. I'll just post what I've just said on the other thread since I think that it's a continuation of my train of thought that started this thread:

Perhaps it's not always that easy to find the "right" writers to new, hot properties like these?

I imagine established writers with a great resumes might not always be keen to take over them and look like they are "stealing" what someone else came up with. Probably prefer to write their own new stuff instead.

(Writing long-established franchise properties like Avengers, Batman, X-Men etc. is something else entirely and likely seen as a gig to pickup a regular pay check every now and then.)

It's not easy, and I'd suspect that more than the right writers, they'd need the right editors. It's easier for Marvel to place Miles Morales into Spider-Man shoes instead of creating organic well fleshed out characters that don't seem as much contrived as Spider-Man's clone saga stories, because that's their bread and butter: bad and contrived stories with a heavy editorial hand dictating what is new and fresh. It's harder to create characters unforgettable like Nico, Molly, Gert, Karolina, Chase, Victor Mancha and so on. And I'd suspect that it's even harder for the editorial to give the kind of creative freedom that the writers would need to actually make something worthwhile with these characters. What I suspect is that Marvel will eventually get back to them, one year or two before they have a film lined up for them.

Something special like Runaways could literally be this generation's X-Men. A new concept and a great allegory about rebelling against the status quo, a great allegory for adolescence, but instead of new Runaways, we get... Inhumans: hope you survive the experience. That's my biggest beef with Marvel's "minority initiative", it's no different that their worst more contrived stories, basically because it's clear to me that they don't know what they are doing when the subject is making fresh and vibrant takes on new characters. Marvel can't afford a writer like BKV, and while BKV is brilliant, his creations could thrive, survive and evolve on their own, if only Marvel would find the right talent to helm them.

When you look at who created Sam Alexander's Nova and Miles Morales Spider-Man and Kamala Khan's Ms. Marvel you start to understand why people can't stand two of them while LOVING one of them to death. The three of them at face value are legacy characters, but are they really legacy characters in the true sense of the word? No. Kamala Khan could EASILY be a member of Runaways, but I wouldn't say the same about Miles or Sam, and why is that? G. Willow Wilson gets it. It's not a simple answer like "she writes a great Muslim teenager character because she is a Muslim", no, it's because she is a LOT younger than either Brian Michael Bendis (the creator of Miles Morales that has been on record of been inspired on his daughters and Donald Glover for his creation) or Jeph Loeb (the creator of Sam Alexander that named the kid after his lost son).

Kamala Khan is loved because she is a great character, created by a great writer. The name Ms. Marvel isn't the selling point of her book, Kamala and her creator is. She understands what makes Kamala to tick and the same could be said about BKV and Whedon. I don't want to be blunt, and that's not the case of "only minority writers should write minority characters", because that's not about been a minority or not, it's not about been an "ally" like Whedon likes to say. It's about talent and having a fresh and new perspective on what these characters are and how they should act. I think that a lot of resistance that Miles Morales and Sam Alexander face have a lot to do with why they were created and who created them.

I sincerely think that Marvel could find a LOT more success if they broaden their horizons thinking outside the box with their writers and editors. Brian Michael Bendis is still their go-to writer, and he has been since the beginning of the century. Mark Waid is quite possibly one of my all time favorite writers, and Daredevil proves that he still got it, but he ISN'T a fresh and new voice like BKV, Whedon or newcomers like Wilson. I'm not saying that they should give the keys of the House of Ideas for the first new talent writer that shows up, but it's obvious to me that instead of letting the editorial dictate which Avenger will get replaced by a minority character next month, that they should maybe start working with fresh new voices looking for new concepts and stories, exactly like Ms. Marvel and Runaways was back then. What I'm saying is, while I love Bendis older stuff, it's time Marvel understand that he isn't an "all-new, all-different" voice anymore, he isn't one of their "young guns" writers anymore, if they want to use the term they used back in the 00's.

And now that I think of, the biggest problem of the brand of diversity that Marvel is creating is that it's been made by people that might even be engaged into bringing diversity into comics and would love to see diversity in comics - but those people doing it aren't particularly good at it, not because they aren't good writers or because they them can't "learn", but everytime that Marvel or DC made any kind of "revolution" with their comics, it involved a LOT of fresh and vibrant new voices. It was like that back in the eighties, it was like that in the beginning of the 00's when Marvel was saved of going bankrupt, and what is actually LACKING right now is diverse new voices.

I can literally remember just G. Willow Wilson and Tom Taylor as Marvel's "young" Marvel writers. And both actually prove my point: their books are great and fresh, and while I'm not preaching for the unemployment of Mark Waid, Brian Michael Bendis, Jason Aaron and all the other main writers in the Marvel's staple, we need a lot more than Wilson and Taylor running around as the "young guns". Talent is hard to find, but I'm sure Marvel would have no problem getting some new young talent that could give Marvel the next Runaways or the next Kamala Khan. What we need is diversity from people that actually have a grasp on what that means, and instead of blaming the audience for disliking bad creations written by people that are clearly not in touch with what they are trying to tell, regardless if they are black, white, woman, lesbian, trans or people from all kinds of origins.

I think that writing this I've finally understood one of the Marvel's biggest problems: it's about new blood. It's about fresh and new writers getting to write bold and fresh stories and concepts. Instead of trying to push Miles Morales again and again, written by respected writers that are well intentioned but can't completely have a grasp about what they are writing simply because they are too old to understand what this generation of fans actually see when they look through the window to paraphrase Tom Brevoort - they should be looking for what writer could give them the next Runaways, their next Kamala Khan. One of the biggest ingredients in every Marvel's "revolution" was new blood. Chris Claremont and John Byrne were young when they made a revolution with the X-Men. Frank Miller and Allan Moore were young when they changed the landscape for comics in the 80s. Some of the best DC stories of all time were written by a young Mark Waid, in both Kingdom Come and his The Flash run. In the 00's, Brian Michael Bendis and Mark Millar started the Ultimate Universe, Joe Quesada was a young EIC back then, Bendis Daredevil was blowing everyone away. Flash forward to 2015 and the main writers of the Marvel Universe are mostly the same writers that were writing their comics and defining Marvel's future since the beginning of the century.

Regardless my love for Mark Waid's writing, regardless the fact that he has never written an Avengers comic, I'd be much more excited if Marvel would give the reigns of their flagship book to someone that could inject a new blood and a new perspective in the new team, hopefully someone that would be a fresh new voice for The Avengers. Who I'd have in mind? Well, there isn't a lot of options, but fortunately Marvel has the guy on their payroll: Injustice's Tom Taylor, he has proven himself writing an assemble weekly book before and is next to Wilson quite possibly Marvel's hottest new talent. New talent writing for a new generation of fans is what has always kept this industry from going stale. So yes, before starting their big "revolution", I feel Marvel should have gone looking for their new and fresh voices first.

[ijacksparrow]

Basically, what I'm saying is that the reason some of these characters face isn't based only on the fact that comic book readers are against change, but there's also a lot to do with who is doing these changes and who is actually calling the shots. Imagine if the Ultimate line, the Marvel Knights line and others that redefined the Marvel Universe moving forward in the beginning of the century was runned by... Chris Claremont, Dan Jurgens and JM DeMatteis. I love these three writers to death, they wrote stories that shaped up my adolescence and childhood, but just stop and think for a moment: would that all-new, all-different Marvel actually feel new and different if it was written by the same old gang? Isn't it fair to say that it would look a lot different, and those writers while they are great, wouldn't be in touch with their audience as they were back then? Because I sincerely think that's the exact case of what's happening here: a revolution that feels dated and old because it's been made by the old gang, instead of the old gang giving space for the new gang. The irony of the All-New, All-Different isn't just that they are all legacy characters, it's that while Mark Waid never wrote an Avengers book, while his Daredevil is brilliant and I have no doubts that he could write a great Avengers team if given the creative freedom for that, he isn't a Marvel's young gun anymore, like he was a long, long time ago, before Marvel committed "Heroes Reborn", replacing him with Rob Liefeld.

In fact, I'd argue that Marvel is in serious need of looking for young writers, especially minority talented writers, or those with a great grasp on what minorities are in real life and how to write them, like BKV and Whedon did for them in the first half of the 00's. The "All-Derivative, All-Rehashed" Marvel Comics is a symptom of Marvel's staple of writers lack of renovation. Maybe even I'd dare to say lack of editorial renovation. Regardless how acid and crazy Stephen Wacker could get, I do think that he was a fresh voice that made some very interesting books happen, like Ms. Marvel, Agent Venom and Hawkeye, beyond running the Spider-Man editorial line, arguably the most stable and commercial and critical successful line of comics since he took over. I don't want Marvel to not give job to these talented writers that have been shaping up the Marvel Comics in the last 15 years, but if we start paying attention, there's a great flux of great artists coming and going, but other than Wilson and Taylor, we don't have a Scott Snyder running around, and Marvel just kind of splitted with Matt Fraction over editorial interference in his Inhumans storyline. The biggest irony is that Marvel is pushing for innovation and a new "revolution" using basically the same staple of editors and writers that have been shaping up their comics since the beginning of the century. I'm not saying that Marvel should hire every young writer out there, but they should be looking for the young talent, especially one of the new "best" talents seems to be stuck at DC (Scott Snyder). Now that I think of it, I blame a lot of people's resistance to either Sam Alexander or Miles Morales on the shoulders of the writers and editors that created them. Once good writers get to "run wild" with their creations like G. Willow Wilson's Kamala Khan and BKV's Runaways, magic happens. And maybe, just maybe, before Marvel thinking about "ending the 616 universe", they should have thought on looking for new editors and writers to give this new universe a brand new perspective and outlook.

What I'm posting here will hopefully sprinkle some legit and interesting debate about the future of Marvel Comics and the next of actually becoming "all-new, all-different", and not just selling themselves that way.

[UltimateTy]

Oh, so we are back to saying women don't count in a conversation about diversity.


Here's some more definitions:

And when did I say that you quoted meanings of Minority groups not minorities which are two different things

Errrr... Ty, women are a minority. Minority status is about power, not number (SEE: white South Africans). You don't need to throw women under the bus to make excellent points about diversity. They are a minority. Saying otherwise won't gain you any supporters (and does nothing but divide and conquear).

When in any of my posts did I throw women under the bus?

[Mark]

Cap isn't dead

Even if he was it really wouldn't matter, death is a vacation for most comic book characters.

[Kieran_Frost]

When in any of my posts did I throw women under the bus?

Maybe "throwing them under the bus" was a little too strong, but by discounting them as a minority (which is about power, not population) you discounted their struggle. Do you not consider black South Africans a minority???

[UltimateTy]

Maybe "throwing them under the bus" was a little too strong, but by discounting them as a minority (which is about power, not population) you discounted their struggle. Do you not consider black South Africans a minority???

I'm talking about the meaning of a word I never discounted their struggle. Holy crap I give up before I get accused of something else now.

[Kieran_Frost]

I'm talking about the meaning of a word I never discounted their struggle. Holy crap I give up before I get accused of something else now.

Do you consider black South Africans a minority?

[Cloudman]

Do you consider black South Africans a minority?

South Africa is 80% black, 9% white. In order to say black South Africans are a minority, you would have to change the entire meaning of the word. If you want to argue about oppression go ahead, but don't change the meaning of words and then criticise others for not following your new definition.

[UltimateTy]

Do you consider black South Africans a minority?

They were a minority group as seen in Reviresco definition of the term during the apartheid but they aren't a minority there now. They don't even call themselves that there, they call themselves the black majority.

There are still wealth inequalities because of the effects of the apartheid though.

[Gaveedra]

South Africa is 80% black, 9% white. In order to say black South Africans are a minority, you would have to change the entire meaning of the word. If you want to argue about oppression go ahead, but don't change the meaning of words and then criticise others for not following your new definition.

just curious, but where is or who are the 1% remaining?

[Kieran_Frost]

They were a minority group as seen in Reviresco definition of the term during the apartheid but they aren't a minority there now. They don't even call themselves that there, they call themselves the black majority.

There are still wealth inequalities because of the effects of the apartheid though.

Why were they a minority group during the apartheid????

[McRantington]

Two minority replacements for white heroes, two child soldiers, an an android, and someone in ironman armor against what looks like radioactive man, an asian villian. For a team that's supposed to be about diversity, there sure is lacking asian representation. That better be Amadeus Cho in the the armor.

[UltimateTy]

Why were they a minority group during the apartheid????

Go look it up yourself. I shouldn't have to do that for you.