Will Marvel's reboot without being a reboot ever be undone.

[ijacksparrow]

I want new characters, but I want engaging stories, not because I have to follow a character because he has the same shade of skin color as me or shares my sexual orientation. I want new concepts, and not thinking how hillariously bad would be to have Spider-Man and Miles in the same room with people saying "Spider-Man". I want new stories of the old characters and new concepts and stories with new characters. It's a shame that Marvel don't pay creators well enough to create new characters for them, so we keep getting the same characters of the 60s and 70s or versions of them.

[ijacksparrow]

I do think that getting more non-white writers in there is an absolute necessity at this point. Right now, ANADM will have Greg Pak and . . . that's it. There's been hints that there's going to be a black writer for Black Panther, but until it's confirmed, it doesn't count. And even then, two minority writers out of a few dozen is still pretty damned pathetic.

Miles Morales is Ultimate Peter Parker with a paint job, not just right now, but for four years. The guy that should be writing Miles Morales and giving him his own alter ego and mythology is a young and up and coming comic artist and writer called Ronald Wimberly. Unfortunately, I don't think he'll be writing or drawing for Marvel anytime soon, because he dared to speak the truth about the "oh we are committed to diversity" policy going on at Marvel right now.

[Tiamatty]

I want new characters, but I want engaging stories, not because I have to follow a character because he has the same shade of skin color as me or shares my sexual orientation. I want new concepts, and not thinking how hillariously bad would be to have Spider-Man and Miles in the same room with people saying "Spider-Man". I want new stories of the old characters and new concepts and stories with new characters. It's a shame that Marvel don't pay creators well enough to create new characters for them, so we keep getting the same characters of the 60s and 70s or versions of them.

Everyone wants good stories. But if you can tell good stories with a character who isn't a straight white guy, why not do that?

Also, writers create plenty of new characters. They never get noticed. People ignore new characters. A writer could come up with the most amazing concept, get a fantastic artist, tell the best story in decades . . . but because it's not a character they know, readers won't give it a chance.

[ijacksparrow]

Everyone wants good stories. But if you can tell good stories with a character who isn't a straight white guy, why not do that?

Also, writers create plenty of new characters. They never get noticed. People ignore new characters. A writer could come up with the most amazing concept, get a fantastic artist, tell the best story in decades . . . but because it's not a character they know, readers won't give it a chance.

You clearly still have a very naive understanding of how creating new IPs for the big 2 actually work, mate. They don't create new IPs not just because "it won't sell", but if you believe that, that's fine. Ignorance is bliss, like they say. If you want to read great and fresh new characters that happen to be all kinds of things, you're looking the wrong place if all you lookng is at the big 2. All the big 2 does now is versions of their characters, and that's not really creating characters, neither representantion; it's creating new toys and variants. But hey. Be my guest and be a believer, true believer.

[Tiamatty]

You clearly still have a very naive understanding of how creating new IPs for the big 2 actually work, mate. They don't create new IPs not just because "it won't sell", but if you believe that, that's fine. Ignorance is bliss, like they say. If you want to read great and fresh new characters that happen to be all kinds of things, you're looking the wrong place if all you lookng is at the big 2. All the big 2 does now is versions of their characters, and that's not really creating characters, neither representantion; it's creating new toys and variants. But hey. Be my guest and be a believer, true believer.

Avengers Academy was all new characters, none of them versions of existing characters. No one read it. Secret Warriors was all new characters, none of them versions of existing characters. No one cared. Runaways? All new characters, none of them versions of existing characters. It was never more than a cult hit. Time and time again readers have proven that they don't want new characters. Time and time again they have proven that all they want is what they already know.

Writers keep trying. They really do. It's actually pretty rare for a team book not to have one new or relatively new character in it. And as soon as that writer is done, the character goes into limbo. You think Singularity will stick around after A-Force ends? Not likely. Pod's been rescued from limbo by Al Ewing, but if he ever stops using her, she'll be gone. The Avengers Academy kids may as well have never existed, and aside from Nico, no one seems in a rush to use any of the Runaways.

But we'll keep getting new characters. And those characters will immediately be ignored. Both by regular readers, and by people who like to bitch about Marvel not creating new characters.

[ijacksparrow]

Avengers Arena was all new characters, none of them versions of existing characters. No one read it. Secret Warriors was all new characters, none of them versions of existing characters. No one cared. Runaways? All new characters, none of them versions of existing characters. It was never more than a cult hit. Time and time again readers have proven that they don't want new characters. Time and time again they have proven that all they want is what they already know.

Writers keep trying. They really do. It's actually pretty rare for a team book not to have one new or relatively new character in it. And as soon as that writer is done, the character goes into limbo. You think Singularity will stick around after A-Force ends? Not likely. Pod's been rescued from limbo by Al Ewing, but if he ever stops using her, she'll be gone. The Avengers Academy kids may as well have never existed, and aside from Nico, no one seems in a rush to use any of the Runaways.

But we'll keep getting new characters. And those characters will immediately be ignored. Both by regular readers, and by people who like to bitch about Marvel not creating new characters.

Avengers Arena was a Hunger Games rip off. Avengers Academy was just teased on Age of Ultron, I'd love to read a comic book about that, and I'm sure a lot of new readers would do too. Marvel isn't very good at balancing continuity with new readers friendly books, so making the characters reflect what we see in the big screen would be the best way to get new readers and at same time satisfy new and old readers alike. Using poorly executed and written books isn't what I'm talking about, I'm talking about getting great writers to write great story concepts. Avengers Academy with a team of young Marvel stars and new characters with the right team and push would work. We actually never had an Avengers Academy book with dream team young Marvel characters. And it seems we'll have to wait some time to get that.

[TakoM]

I don't think merchandising is as much a problem as you (and admittedly probably Marvel) think.

First of all, you have to think about towards whom merchandising is marketed. Essentially, you have two consumer bases for merchandise: kids buying toys and older enthusiasts buying collectors items. For kids, brand loyalty doesn't really extend beyond what they think is cool at any given moment. Currently the classic Avengers are cool, not because the kids recognise them as a 50 year old brand, but because they have collectively starred in a bunch of blockbuster movies recently. However, you could ask for no greater proof that kids couldn't give a shit about name recognition that the phenomenal success of Guardians of the Galaxy and all related merchandise. As long as your characters feature in a popular cartoon or film, kids will lap up the merchandise too. It doesn't matter if they're established or not.

For the older enthusiasts, nostalgia and established characters will have a greater draw, but that's fine - just because the comics have moved on doesn't mean the merchandising has to! Case in point, there was a classic Phoenix statue released within the last year despite the fact Jean has been dead for years and hasn't warn that costume (I think?) for decades. You regularly see statues and other collectors items based on classic, defunct versions of characters and there's no reason to stop making them simply because they don't appear in the contemporary comics.

As for the difficulties with introducing new characters in the comics: yes it is hard, but the difficulty stems from the very fact that established characters never change or go away. How do you introduce new characters when the playing field is already flooded with characters who are never removed permanently? If you love Hero X, why invest in his replacement, emotionally or financially, when you know X will be back in a few years - sooner if you don't buy the series featuring his replacement? It is only because the classic characters have never gone away and barely changed over the years that their continued, unchanging existence has become an expectation, and in many cases a perceived entitlement. People don't expect characters in other forms of fiction to last forever because they never have, and they exist in fictional worlds where time actually passes so it would be impossible for the characters to last forever. If the sliding timescale didn't exist it would be much easier to introduce new characters because they would be not only expected but necessary for the story to continue - I've never heard of anyone complaining that a new soap character was replacing their favourite, or stopping reading the Lord of the Rings because Gandalf and Boromir died. If you need conclusive proof that is not in any way normal to place the continuing existence of a specific character over the actual story being told, consider the fact that Game of Thrones is one of the most popular TV shows right now and it trades on the very fact your favourite characters will probably meet a horrible end.

Finally, I think that the MCU, if anything, would be a reason to abolish the sliding timescale. You simply can't have a sliding time scale in the MCU, because you can't stop the actors aging. Inevitably, whether through contracts ending or the actors simply getting too old, the current lot of Marvel talent are no longer going to be suitable for the roles they are playing. At that point there are three options for Marvel: they can do a Bond and replace the actors but keep the characters, they can do a hard reboot, or they can introduce a new generation of heroes as the older ones retire, are killed or take on supporting roles as mentors and so on. Of the three options the latter seems like by far the most sensible, and the most likely to go down well with cinema audiences. This will mean the MCU is always pushed forwards, with no way - other than a hard reboot - to return to the status quo like the comics do. As you noted yourself, the comics tend to take a lot of cues from the MCU (since the MCU has a wider reach and is therefore the more recognizable). I think, and hope, that that might encourage the publishing side to abolish the hegemony of the older characters.

I think "nostalgia" isn't the right word. I think it is the biggest misunderstanding about why people complain. I had already made this Mickey Mouse example to show the difference. It so that most of the readers are long term fans which is inflicted by the fact that comic are usually published monthly, so you need patience. All other things built up on this including that those readers invest emotionally in those characters and become slightly obsessed with them. (different scale, different people). This is the reason why those switching caps of heroes never stick It can take 20 years until it will be undone but one day it will(Flash). The same goes for characterization of the figures because of this authors worked so long on the same title when it was successful in the past.

I think people can think my pattern to the end. Only even when Marvel had some big problems in the 90's the knew at least this, when they forgot it I don't know I suspect it had something to do with personal changes.

What Marvel(comics) do these days is creating small sale bursts by using the name of their most iconic figures .. but what is so iconic on some retired villainized ex-superhero with no common sense which do a massacre when you blink with your eyes ^^(okay a bit extreme again)

[dragonmp93]

From the X-board with love................

http://illuminatingcomics.tumblr.com...f-guardians-of

[Tiamatty]

Avengers Arena was a Hunger Games rip off. Avengers Academy was just teased on Age of Ultron, I'd love to read a comic book about that, and I'm sure a lot of new readers would do too. Marvel isn't very good at balancing continuity with new readers friendly books, so making the characters reflect what we see in the big screen would be the best way to get new readers and at same time satisfy new and old readers alike. Using poorly executed and written books isn't what I'm talking about, I'm talking about getting great writers to write great story concepts. Avengers Academy with a team of young Marvel stars and new characters with the right team and push would work. We actually never had an Avengers Academy book with dream team young Marvel characters. And it seems we'll have to wait some time to get that.

Shit, I actually meant Academy, not Arena. Academy was all new characters with no ties to any existing characters. Arena was actually mostly existing characters, a couple legacy characters, and, like, two characters not connected to anyone else. So it didn't fit the point I was making.

But Academy? Academy is solid proof of how few shits people give about new characters.

Are you saying the movie teased Academy? Because it didn't. It teased a different MCU Avengers line-up that wasn't just five white guys and a white chick. But none of the characters were new to the comics. Scarlet Witch? Vision? Falcon? War Machine? That's not an Academy.

As for a book with a "dream team" of young characters: First off, everyone's dream team will be different. Second, it would be mostly made up of legacy characters - exactly the kind of thing you were complaining about. You were saying Marvel doesn't make any actual new characters, and relies on legacies. I was saying Marvel does create new, non-legacy characters all the time, and no one pays any attention to them.

[dragonmp93]

Shit, I actually meant Academy, not Arena. Academy was all new characters with no ties to any existing characters. Arena was actually mostly existing characters, a couple legacy characters, and, like, two characters not connected to anyone else. So it didn't fit the point I was making.

But Academy? Academy is solid proof of how few shits people give about new characters.

Are you saying the movie teased Academy? Because it didn't. It teased a different MCU Avengers line-up that wasn't just five white guys and a white chick. But none of the characters were new to the comics. Scarlet Witch? Vision? Falcon? War Machine? That's not an Academy.

As for a book with a "dream team" of young characters: First off, everyone's dream team will be different. Second, it would be mostly made up of legacy characters - exactly the kind of thing you were complaining about. You were saying Marvel doesn't make any actual new characters, and relies on legacies. I was saying Marvel does create new, non-legacy characters all the time, and no one pays any attention to them.

Well, that sounds like the new students that get introduced every once in a while in the X-books.

[Tiamatty]

Well, that sounds like the new students that get introduced every once in a while in the X-books.

I feel like there is probably more acceptance of the students among the X-Men readers, though. Maybe because of the whole school concept, maybe because the X-Men have a very long history of having teen characters. New X-Men had really good sales until Guggenheim's poorly-written run, and Wolverine & the X-Men sold well. Spider-Man and the X-Men did poorly, but really, that was to be expected. If X-Men fans wanted to read Spider-Man, they would read Spider-Man.

The X-Men students run into two problems: First, writers all have their own ideas for new mutants they want to use, so they use new creations rather than existing X-students. Second, I don't know if there's any editorial support for the existing students. Do they actually want someone using Rockslide, or are they too focused on the '60s and '70s characters? That certainly seems to be the case right now. Of the three X-titles, there's one New Mutant (Illyana in Extraordinary), one member of Generation X (Monet in UXM), one New X-Man (Laura in ANXM) and two recent characters (Idie and Genesis, also both in ANXM). The X-office seems to have decided to just sweep aside virtually every single student created later than 1980, in favour of the damned '60s characters.

But I'm getting away from my point. The X-Men franchise has a long history of creating new characters, and the books they're in actually do sell well. That's not the case outside the X-Men franchise, though. Runaways, for all its critical acclaim, was never really more than a cult hit. Avengers Academy had weak sales for its entire run. The most recent volume of New Warriors actually had a mix of classic and new characters, and it sold poorly. People just don't care about new characters who aren't legacies. I mean, let's be completely honest here, if Miles Morales had an original identity, there would be no one reading him. If Kamala Khan wasn't using the Ms. Marvel name, she wouldn't have attracted as many readers as she did. Legacies work. Original concepts get completely ignored, but legacies get at least some attention.

[shgs]

I think "nostalgia" isn't the right word.

No, probably not. You are closer later in your post when you describe it as an obsession - often the type of 'I only want my favourite' obsession that, outside of these boards, I have only ever witnessed in children. And like children, the obsessive fans need to be weaned off their dependency. Occasionally you see TV programs about mothers who go on breast feeding their children for years. If you establish that breastfeeding is something finite, the child will move onto food relatively painlessly, but if you don't establish it as finite the child will keep returning to what it knows and finds comforting. Introducing the sliding timescale was Marvel's way of saying 'to hell with it, you can breast feed forever' - figuratively speaking, of course.

[TakoM]

No, probably not. You are closer later in your post when you describe it as an obsession - often the type of 'I only want my favourite' obsession that, outside of these boards, I have only ever witnessed in children. And like children, the obsessive fans need to be weaned off their dependency. Occasionally you see TV programs about mothers who go on breast feeding their children for years. If you establish that breastfeeding is something finite, the child will move onto food relatively painlessly, but if you don't establish it as finite the child will keep returning to what it knows and finds comforting. Introducing the sliding timescale was Marvel's way of saying 'to hell with it, you can breast feed forever' - figuratively speaking, of course.

Hm fans are always like this some other medias get hundreds of emails also when they do something outrages. It is nothing wrong with the word obsession in psychological terms it is what us keep us going. I used the adjective 'slightly' because otherwise some people would felt insulted.

I haven't any problem with Mavels timescale it just so that they rewrote very frequently the personality of the different characters, ignore common sense and also stuff they went already through. So the advantage which Marvel gave the readers is gone also what Marvel stand as brand for , on top of that most of the definition I use for superhero doesn't fit anymore with what Marvel release as comics.

What Marvel is doing for the most part is something which is similar like a drug withdrawal/therapy first setting them shorter and shorter(changes more and more since the early 2000's), than confronting them with the true and setting them on a sublime drug(TRO), than setting them drug free (SW), and than explain how worse it will be with the drug in the future(ANAD)

The funny thing is some behaviour maybe can be explained through this. In some other thread we discussed how bad some of the new X-Men story will be for 6 weeks(and what can be done better) or so than suddenly it the hottest stuff ever and you ask yourself which board you had read the last weeks.^^

Those are clearly detoxication symptoms.^^

[JKtheMac]

It is very interesting what Marvel are doing these days (not just in the reboot but for the last three years). The editors and creatives have obviously taken a long hard look at their output and realized how similar their books are and how undiverse in every way they are.

Compare them, only a few years ago, to the popular young adult fiction of the time. That was beginning to grow it's market and potentially replace comics in the hearts of young people.

Indeed the whole revitalization of film franchises was essentially a Potter/Swan/Everdeen phenomenon more than a Parker/Logan/Stark one. Yes Avengers was the record breaker but by then the ideas of a cinematic continuity had been embraced by the public.

In comparison Super-Hero comics were stuck in the past and appealing to an older generation. But ironically, people like myself (47 year old, white, male) were equally uninspired by the majority of comics coming from Marvel and DC.

Out of this uninspiring situation Marvel began to reinvent itself, and it did this by making things that happened in the comics matter again. It looked back at the birth of the Marvel Universe and recognized this as a period of great change and innovation and figured it was worth trying to do that again. They are not launching new characters devoid of context, they are considering what kinds of story can be told and even the kind of genre that the characters plug into.

What better way to recreate the vibe of early Spider-Man than launch Ms. Marvel, or properly tie in the younger Miles. Wolverine may be a classic character but he has been stale for years, Laura Kinny's character is often overlooked and dismissed as an analoge character but she has always been at the heart of a very compelling story that hits all of Wolverine's themes in interesting ways. Thor has suffered decades of convoluted story telling that have left him stranded from his own continuity, by addressing some of the early themes of humanity/deity they are trying to establish Thor as a meaningful character again. The central premise of the early X-Men as young people had been distilled into the school based comics which were forever side projects with patchy popularity.

So I guess all of this adds up to change, especially well considered and meaningful change is not only good, it was essential. I would still be reading classic silver age comics out of academic and historic interest if it wasn't for Marvel's recent work. I would mainly be focused on Image as a modern publisher with compelling stories if Marvel hadn't grabbed my interest.

[TakoM]

It is very interesting what Marvel are doing these days (not just in the reboot but for the last three years). The editors and creatives have obviously taken a long hard look at their output and realized how similar their books are and how undiverse in every way they are.

Compare them, only a few years ago, to the popular young adult fiction of the time. That was beginning to grow it's market and potentially replace comics in the hearts of young people.

Indeed the whole revitalization of film franchises was essentially a Potter/Swan/Everdeen phenomenon more than a Parker/Logan/Stark one. Yes Avengers was the record breaker but by then the ideas of a cinematic continuity had been embraced by the public.

In comparison Super-Hero comics were stuck in the past and appealing to an older generation. But ironically, people like myself (47 year old, white, male) were equally uninspired by the majority of comics coming from Marvel and DC.

Out of this uninspiring situation Marvel began to reinvent itself, and it did this by making things that happened in the comics matter again. It looked back at the birth of the Marvel Universe and recognized this as a period of great change and innovation and figured it was worth trying to do that again. They are not launching new characters devoid of context, they are considering what kinds of story can be told and even the kind of genre that the characters plug into.

What better way to recreate the vibe of early Spider-Man than launch Ms. Marvel, or properly tie in the younger Miles. Wolverine may be a classic character but he has been stale for years, Laura Kinny's character is often overlooked and dismissed as an analoge character but she has always been at the heart of a very compelling story that hits all of Wolverine's themes in interesting ways. Thor has suffered decades of convoluted story telling that have left him stranded from his own continuity, by addressing some of the early themes of humanity/deity they are trying to establish Thor as a meaningful character again. The central premise of the early X-Men as young people had been distilled into the school based comics which were forever side projects with patchy popularity.

So I guess all of this adds up to change, especially well considered and meaningful change is not only good, it was essential. I would still be reading classic silver age comics out of academic and historic interest if it wasn't for Marvel's recent work. I would mainly be focused on Image as a modern publisher with compelling stories if Marvel hadn't grabbed my interest.

I liked Nova but the new Ms.Marvel was just boring for me well whatever people like but certainly I haven't anything against them at any given time.
With undiverse I'm not sure what you mean ? Okay first we had the Avengers with mutants, androids, monster, solders, rich dudes, some African people which all worked together for a common goal, on the other hand we had the x-men which represented a political suppressed minority.

I know my subordinate clause are all void since a long time but they were true at some point in time. What I can understand would be to say they are undiverse because they have no purpose no goal anymore and because of it they look all the same.

The other way I can come to the same conclusion is: how Marvel fused the heroes with their villain counter-part once they were like night and day but now they all grey and in the same pot.

I must say Marvel has always changed the MU over time it is just so that they protected their investment, so their was always a built up which happened than e.g. like Onslaught and Heroes Reborn further more they drawn a very clear line which reader could be sure which won't be crossed. I' must say I don't care much anymore.. let them go the same way the titanic went.

About the movies I'm sure will see some hits in the future but not many in the next years because the topic of superheroes is very much an old chewing gum which lost its taste for most of the watchers. So when Avengers 3 &4 are done and Star Wars It think episode 8 and 9 was is also over thing get rough again for Marvel.