Why can't Marvel admit some of the BAD STUFF that Civil War caused outside of the good ?

[Cmbmool]

I know it's bad to speak ill of the company, but why couldn't Marvel straight out admit that outside it success, the original Civil War event had it share of problems too ?

I mean the late scheduling alone should make anyone a bit worried for the sequel.

Plus out of actions of many of their popular characters and how it spread throughout the tie-in titles.

Also how imbalance it was in the main title. I mean you couldn't even tell what was next for Captain America if he were to win the war ?

I mean I know it would be bad for business, but it would also be a bit reassuring to not only the fan base, but the public as well for Marvel to admit their mistakes publicly and try to assure us that this time it will not happen in the sequel.

What do you all think of this as Marvel fans ?

[gurkle]

If it's any consolation, the Russo brothers said in a recent interview that when they were going to do a Civil War movie, people from Marvel publishing warned them that the story "hurt the characters for a long time afterward."

I don't think we'd see the editors and writers admit this in public, of course.

[lordozone]

[QUOTE=Cmbmool;1992546] I mean I know it would be bad for business /QUOTE] Ok, if it could be bad for business, why take the chance ten years laters ?

[Prof. Warren]

I know it's bad to speak ill of the company, but why couldn't Marvel straight out admit that outside it success, the original Civil War event had it share of problems too ?

I mean the late scheduling alone should make anyone a bit worried for the sequel.

Plus out of actions of many of their popular characters and how it spread throughout the tie-in titles.

Also how imbalance it was in the main title. I mean you couldn't even tell what was next for Captain America if he were to win the war ?

I mean I know it would be bad for business, but it would also be a bit reassuring to not only the fan base, but the public as well for Marvel to admit their mistakes publicly and try to assure us that this time it will not happen in the sequel.

What do you all think of this as Marvel fans ?

1) Late scheduling affects many books. Civil War was no exception in this regard. CW's issues with lateness shouldn't have any impact on CWII one way or another, however, as a completely different creative team is involved.

2) "Out of actions of many of their popular characters" Um, is this referring to "characters acting out of character" or is it "characters being taken out of action", as in killed, disabled, or imprisoned? Either way, who cares? Clearly Marvel is still standing as a publisher so nothing they did in CW crippled them as a business. So someone's favorite character may not have been treated right in some fan's opinions - so what? Fans are always bent out of shape about something.

3) Is the fanbase so fragile that they need Marvel to apologize for a ten-year-old mini-series? I don't think so. And apologize for what, exactly? CW was one of the company's biggest sellers and continues to be a huge title for them to this day (you may have noticed a movie sharing that title is in theaters now). So some fans didn't like it, or didn't like certain aspects of it. Big deal. You can't please everyone. That's life.

[t hedge coke]

Marvel's big Summer Event next year should be Out of Actions.

Everyone's &@#&ing tired and nobody does anything. In an eight-issue main series, fifty tie-in issues from ongoings and several short supporting minis and oneshots. Just an eight month vacation.

[Tiamatty]

Because "hey guys we totally screwed up this big event was awful we're so sorry" is a piss-poor marketing strategy? Why would they bother talking about how bad a story was? There's absolutely no benefit to it.

[nightw1ng]

There really is no point to a thread that asks "why won't a business sabotage itself for my benefit?".

[WinterSoldier76]

If it's any consolation, the Russo brothers said in a recent interview that when they were going to do a Civil War movie, people from Marvel publishing warned them that the story "hurt the characters for a long time afterward."

I don't think we'd see the editors and writers admit this in public, of course.

Disagree.

It helped Bucky b/c he became Captain America and anchored an acclaimed run on the character, and ushered in Steve's return from the dead and actually stayed on as Cap while Steve did other stuff.

It added gravitas to Thor's return to Midgard when he was like "WTF happened in my absence?" and laid an amazing smackdown / reality check on Iron Man.

It built up Tony Stark to "Director of SHEILD" which was cool and then returned him to his Avengers sensibilities.

It built up the Young Avengers.

We got Hawkeye back.

We got the Dark Avengers.

We learned to love to hate Maria Hill.

We got the Secret Warriors and the return of Hyrdra as a real threat.

We got a shitty Spider-Man story that turned into a pretty cool Spider-Man story.

We got a shitty Daredevil story that turned into a pretty cool Daredevil story.

We got a pretty cool New Agengers story that turned into a shitty New Avengers story that turned into a pretty cool Thunderbolts story.

Collosus as the Juggernaut was kinda cool too, not to mention Namor got a better costume, Hickman's FF and the cosmic stuff getting super weird and cool and I say Civil War aftermath is kinda bitchin.

[Cmbmool]

Because "hey guys we totally screwed up this big event was awful we're so sorry" is a piss-poor marketing strategy? Why would they bother talking about how bad a story was? There's absolutely no benefit to it.

Maybe longtime fans would be sympathetic to Marvel if they outright admit their mistakes to the public.

[Cmbmool]

1) Late scheduling affects many books. Civil War was no exception in this regard. CW's issues with lateness shouldn't have any impact on CWII one way or another, however, as a completely different creative team is involved.

2) "Out of actions of many of their popular characters" Um, is this referring to "characters acting out of character" or is it "characters being taken out of action", as in killed, disabled, or imprisoned? Either way, who cares? Clearly Marvel is still standing as a publisher so nothing they did in CW crippled them as a business. So someone's favorite character may not have been treated right in some fan's opinions - so what? Fans are always bent out of shape about something.

3) Is the fanbase so fragile that they need Marvel to apologize for a ten-year-old mini-series? I don't think so. And apologize for what, exactly? CW was one of the company's biggest sellers and continues to be a huge title for them to this day (you may have noticed a movie sharing that title is in theaters now). So some fans didn't like it, or didn't like certain aspects of it. Big deal. You can't please everyone. That's life.

On #2 it's more of the former characters acting out of character throughout the event then the latter. However it's more both when you consider the Black Goliath moment in the event.

On both #1 and #3 it would befits longtime Marvel fans who could recall the last Civil War event and would be nice to be reassured by Marvel that this time they have plans in case this occurs again.

[Prof. Warren]

Maybe longtime fans would be sympathetic to Marvel if they outright admit their mistakes to the public.

The "mistakes" you reference are not viewed as mistakes by all. They may be aspects of CW that didn't sit right with you, personally, but that doesn't make them mistakes to the general readership. The only valid remark is about lateness and that is not exclusive to CW. Barely anyone remembers that several CW issues shipped late. You know why? BECAUSE IT WAS TEN YEARS AGO. Readers are more concerned about the lateness of the previous Marvel event, Secret Wars and Marvel has made steps to avoid a similar situation this time around by putting a creative team on CWII that is known for their promptness and speed.

[Handsome men don't lose fights]

Kinda worried for Carol. This'll be two Civil wars in a row where she picked the wrong side. That's damaging to a character that Kelly Sue Deconnick made fun again.

[PhantomStranger]

CW was one of the company's biggest sellers and continues to be a huge title for them to this day (you may have noticed a movie sharing that title is in theaters now). So some fans didn't like it, or didn't like certain aspects of it. Big deal. You can't please everyone. That's life.

Sales is not a sufficient justification to take a huge steaming dump all over beloved characters. If Marvel couldn't be bothered to write a good story that didn't job out teams like the Warriors or turn characters like Tony into an Iron-suited fascist dictator and Reed Richards into one of the biggest human rights abusers in modern history then maybe Marvel should be sold to people who actually respectthe MU and respect the fanbase.

Someone who makes money by being a douche is still being a douche.

[PhantomStranger]

Because "hey guys we totally screwed up this big event was awful we're so sorry" is a piss-poor marketing strategy? Why would they bother talking about how bad a story was? There's absolutely no benefit to it.

There's a great deal of benefit gained by manning up and admitting when one is wrong. It shows maturity and good character, and people respond positively to it.

Instead Marvel has consistently bashed critics of Civil War at every opportunity and lied about it being "massively popular" with the fanbase.

[Coal Tiger]

Civil War was incredibly successful for them. Why would they call any part of it a mistake?

When have they ever been in the business of apologizing when people online didn't like something they did?