What went wrong with Marvel's push of Carol?

[dreyga2000]

Some really nice points here, and I like how even-handed you're being despite not drinking the kool-aid.

No, Carol hasn't become the sales powerhouse Marvel *might* have hoped she'd be. But the fact that there's always at least three Carol threads active on the first couple pages of this forum does help show that her profile has vastly increased. For the CBR vets, was Carol talked about this much before 2012?

I don't think sales are actually as much of a factor here as we may think either. This was obviously a long-term investment, and who knows what kind of timeline Marvel gave itself? That an artificial push of a character would generate big returns in quick order was perhaps little more than an empty hope. So for all we know, Carol might be exactly where Marvel predicted she'd be at this time. We also know that Carol tends to do well in distribution systems outside the Direct Market, like digital. Which makes her sales harder to estimate (not that they'd be remarkably different, but still, Hot Topics and Comixology and whatever else adds up). Now, as I understand it her sales have dropped off in the last year or two, but look at the book. No offense to Stohl; I'm sure she did her best and she did have her moments, but her run drove people off, not a lack of interest in Carol. The film's got big hype and good pre-orders, and Marvel itself is still pushing her. I know these guys make plenty of mistakes, but there's no way they would forget "don't throw good money after bad." If Carol's push wasn't working out the way Marvel had hoped, and if they couldn't course correct, they'd abandon the push quietly and move on. That may still happen, who knows? But Marvel's still in the game so I'm guessing Carol's doing well enough to make the effort worthwhile. Once the film is out and we know how that'll affect Carol as a brand, we'll have a better idea if she's going to truly capture and own that A-list status Marvel so desperately wants her to have.

From what I have read, I may be wrong, the real money in superheroes is in the merchandising. If Marvel is trying to make Carol their answer to Wonder Woman, it may be so they have character that can more easily marketed to young girls.

[CRaymond]

From what I have read, I may be wrong, the real money in superheroes is in the merchandising. If Marvel is trying to make Carol their answer to Wonder Woman, it may be so they have character that can more easily marketed to young girls.

Which is why they should forgo a Carol led book and pursue a Carol led animated series.

[Darthfury78]

Marvel would had been better off making Monica Rambeau Captain Marvel instead of Carol Danvers. Besides, Monica did a great job as CM in the 1980's and 1990's. And she did made her first appearance in one of the Amazing Spider-Man Annual of 1982. It's too bad that Monica wasn't a regular in the pages of Spider-Man. Going back to Carol, I think that Marvel is trying way too hard at making the character a role model for young girls. Most girls(believe it or not) are reading Amazing Spider-Man and his satellite titles. The idea that Marvel should have done was not exclude Peter Parker in Carol's world and vice versa.

Yeah. I know that Carol and Jessica Drew are BFF. But Peter Parker is a BFF to both of them respectively. I do not understand why there is so much hate among the writers to have Peter in a reoccurring guest spot in Captain Marvel and Spider-Woman self titles series. They are member of the Avengers. They are very good friends. This is an oversight by the Editors as well as the writers for the most part.

[koonfasa]

I thought most girls read Deadpool & Hawkeye, and watch Teen Titans Go and Steven Universe.

[davew128]

Jim Shooter never should have been able to write the interdimensional incest-rape arc to begin with.

Bob Layton wrote the issue not Shooter...

[JKtheMac]

Bob Layton wrote the issue not Shooter...

Surely you appreciate that this is a controversial issue. Just because Shooter says he has no idea why he gets a writer credit on the book, and can’t remember plotting it, doesn’t mean he didn’t plot it. He may just be distancing himself from the book, given the controversy it gained. A simple check of contemporary books would suggest writing credits are not randomly assigned or mistaken. If the book says he plotted it he probably did. In essence it is just a clever time travel paradox which unwittingly but unavoidably contains a problematic element.

Besides, I have always asserted that this only became as problematic and infamous as it is now, after the fact. It was effectively Claremont’s choice to tease out the controversy instead of smoothing it over or just ignoring it. He built an interesting story out of the incident and highlighted the problem. This is a form of commentary. The most effective way of making a statement about art is to make more art. While Claremont was clearly making a statement and taking a stand he is not actually condemning the previous writers so much as having his own say on the issue.

[Fokken]

What went wrong?

Removed/detached her from Earth. Declined giving her any of the BIG name artists (you want big numbers, give big talent). Upon returning her to Earth, placed her opposite Tony Stark for a 2nd Civil War.

What's going RIGHT with Carol?

Kelly Thompson. Being brought back to Earth. Giving her a stronger artist. Aaaaaaaall the sick/rad/awesome movie merch.

[leokearon]

For me, the problem is the (almost) hypocritical treatment of Carol, over the years. The whole Marcus affair was badly handled (Let Carol live happily ever after with her incestious rapist) and Claremont's response was much better (Call on her friends out, but in a story where she was assaulted and mind raped). Give her a drinking problem, make her be a complete jerk to everyone about and then seemingly miraculously get over it. Have her be one of the sides of Civil War 2, where she goes on about trying to be right and prevent crime and then tries to murder Tony Stark, when things start going to pot for her. It seems that Marvel believes the best way to promote someone is to throw them under a couple of buses

[Ichijinijisanji]

For me, the problem is the (almost) hypocritical treatment of Carol, over the years. The whole Marcus affair was badly handled (Let Carol live happily ever after with her incestious rapist) and Claremont's response was much better (Call on her friends out, but in a story where she was assaulted and mind raped). Give her a drinking problem, make her be a complete jerk to everyone about and then seemingly miraculously get over it.

Idk about miraculously with regards to her "demon in a bottle". The alcoholism was a long arc starting with her getting demoted in the avengers with a court martial (leading to her quitting) around live kree or die, and almost dying to organ damage from alcohol poisoning and then her getting help because she put innocents in danger in a drunken haze in iron-man vol 3. The avengers also felt super guilty about not being there for her during the marcus and rogue incidents so they felt partly responsible for carol going down the bottle making their demeanor more sympathetic to her.

Then she spent a long time building herself back and earning the right to be back on the team, ending finally in Kang Dynasty (avengers vol 3 #54) where she requested her own court martial for killing Master of the World. When they found her not guilty because of the exigent circumstances it finally felt like she'd redeemed herself.

I feel overall that one was done well.

[JudicatorPrime]

While Claremont was clearly making a statement and taking a stand he is not actually condemning the previous writers so much as having his own say on the issue.

Well, yes and no. While Claremont may not have been taking anyone to task or condemning anyone, he must have known that his X-Men base of readers, which I dare say were more erudite and socially conscious than your average Avenger reader, absolutely would do that for him. Especially in retrospect as awareness and sensibilities changed.

[cranger]

Which is why they should forgo a Carol led book and pursue a Carol led animated series.

Yep. Introduce her to a younger generation and an audience that has no expectations. All the retcons and reboots don't matter to people who are reading Marvel comics and their boasted 80 years of continuity. Make a cartoon, be creative, find out what works. Animated series are gold mines for new ideas that audiences love and are tested and then make their way to the comics.

[leokearon]

Yep. Introduce her to a younger generation and an audience that has no expectations. All the retcons and reboots don't matter to people who are reading Marvel comics and their boasted 80 years of continuity. Make a cartoon, be creative, find out what works. Animated series are gold mines for new ideas that audiences love and are tested and then make their way to the comics.

As look as it is better than recent animated portrayals of Carol. Most of them are jerks

[leokearon]

Idk about miraculously with regards to her "demon in a bottle". The alcoholism was a long arc starting with her getting demoted in the avengers with a court martial (leading to her quitting) around live kree or die, and almost dying to organ damage from alcohol poisoning and then her getting help because she put innocents in danger in a drunken haze in iron-man vol 3. The avengers also felt super guilty about not being there for her during the marcus and rogue incidents so they felt partly responsible for carol going down the bottle making their demeanor more sympathetic to her.

Then she spent a long time building herself back and earning the right to be back on the team, ending finally in Kang Dynasty (avengers vol 3 #54) where she requested her own court martial for killing Master of the World. When they found her not guilty because of the exigent circumstances it finally felt like she'd redeemed herself.

I feel overall that one was done well.

She rejoined the team with Avengers Vol 3 #27, where she was complete sober again with only a brief mention of her alcoholism in the following story

[CentralPower]

Bob Layton wrote the issue not Shooter...

My mistake.

But, my general point stands. That story contaminated the character. It is kind of like "Speedy is a junkie" (from "Green Lanter/Green Arrow"), minus the funny.

[Ascended]

From what I have read, I may be wrong, the real money in superheroes is in the merchandising. If Marvel is trying to make Carol their answer to Wonder Woman, it may be so they have character that can more easily marketed to young girls.

It's true. All the Batman comics sold for a year don't come close to equaling the revenue generated by the merchandise. Even on a non-movie year Batman generates about a billion dollars annually. When there's movie merchandise on the shelves as well its even more. The comics don't come close.

So to that end, the real question of Carol's push can be answered in whether she moves more merchandise now than she did in 2011.....but since comics are the foundation and the source material, you still want strong product there; it reflects well on the larger media stuff and adaptations offer touchstones to ensure the adaptation is keeping honest with the IP's core appeal. And if there's no worthwhile comics to adapt, it's easier to go astray and miss what makes the property work. And that can end up costing a lot of money.