Marvel Cancel "The Vision"

[Prof. Warren]

My guess is Cain was gonna kill off Vision and that wouldn't fit into Zub's Champions plans which hint he's getting killed off...ugh.

I would say no on both counts. Neither Cain nor Zub were or are going to kill off Vision.

Vision's been dead already and, as a machine, there's hardly any problem with bringing him back when the need arises - so why kill him again?

Also, the project was in the works for 2 years and likely was lost in the EiC transition and yet no one told her to at least change things? This seems suspect to me.

While it began under a different regime, I'm sure it wasn't "lost." Rather, I expect it simply was allowed to go through the normal development process and whatever problems they encountered were attempted to be addressed up to the point where Marvel finally had to call it a loss. And its cancellation surely has nothing to do with continuity issues, which would have been easy to fix.

Cain is done with Marvel though. That and getting no communication when she got harassed post Mockingbird seem like there's no point working for them who didn't have her back and just canned her project a month after announcing it plus her not getting a invite to the Eisners when she booked to be in San Diego thanks to them. Yeah, not shocked she's gonna burn a bridge. They needed her more than she needed them.

No disrespect to Cain but it's ridiculous to say that Marvel "needed" her.

She'll continue to do fine with her indie work and Marvel will not be the worse for her absence.

[Frontier]

I would say no on both counts. Neither Cain nor Zub were or are going to kill off Vision.

Vision's been dead already and, as a machine, there's hardly any problem with bringing him back when the need arises - so why kill him again?

By that logic there's not point in any character deaths since it's inevitable most major characters will be brought back shortly afterward, but that still doesn't stop the Big Two from doing major character deaths for a story.

While it began under a different regime, I'm sure it wasn't "lost." Rather, I expect it simply was allowed to go through the normal development process and whatever problems they encountered were attempted to be addressed up to the point where Marvel finally had to call it a loss. And its cancellation surely has nothing to do with continuity issues, which would have been easy to fix.

Although if continuity issues were why it was canned, one has to wonder why that broke the camel's back compared to any other book.

[Prof. Warren]

By that logic there's not point in any character deaths since it's inevitable most major characters will be brought back shortly afterward, but that still doesn't stop the Big Two from doing major character deaths for a story.

In the case of Vision, it's just especially silly. At least with other characters, there's a bit more of a narrative challenge to bring them back. Not so much with Vision.

Although if continuity issues were why it was canned, one has to wonder why that broke the camel's back compared to any other book.

I don't think it had anything to do with continuity issues. Possible, sure, but that's so easy to deal with that I feel it was something else that caused the cancellation.

Whatever that might have been will likely never be public knowledge, though.

[Frontier]

In the case of Vision, it's just especially silly. At least with other characters, there's a bit more of a narrative challenge to bring them back. Not so much with Vision.

I dunno, they had Christos Gage do an annual that had Tony, Hank, and Beast try their best to justify why it too them so long to actually bring Vision back.

It's not the hardest thing to workaround if that's what the writers intend to do.

[JKtheMac]

I'd like to see some sources for that. I agree they wouldn't pay for pages not yet drawn, but it seems unlikely they wouldn't pay for pages drawn but not published.

This is compatible with multiple writers and artists talking about their big two work on Word Balloon. I don't take notes when I listen to these so I can't easily point to an example. I will link to one if the subject comes up again soon.

Everything is subject to individual contracts but from my understanding you get paid when a book is published. An unpublished page is not paid for unless the publisher wants to use it later. In this case it looks like the story will not see print at all.

This is similar to the major dispute we saw between Fraction and Marvel that appeared to result in him leaving and being paid a lump sum for work that would never be published - contrary to their standard procedure (I suspect lawyers got involved). With him dragging his heels a long as possible on his final few issues of Hawkeye for good measure. Those bridges all smell a little ashen.

Exclusive writers are treated differently, they appear to get standard pay and employment benefits for a set number of pages and the way they get more money is linked to producing more usable pages than their contract demands. Hence why some writers involved in big crossovers seem to be producing book after book for months and then slow down. That's partly burn-out, partly because they have banked the cash and can afford to coast for a bit.

As was pointed out, the creators have reportedly been paid "for their work". The issue with this is that they may not be paid what they would have received if the book had gone into production, and there are no possibilities of any profit sharing if the book had been a big hit (increasingly rare but it can happen). There are also a number of other intangibles that would make such a book worth more if it had been produced, portfolio, reputation and profile issues for example.

[JKtheMac]

It is worth pointing out nobody has actually said it was because of a continuity issue. The words used were about the 'direction of the characters'. That is not the same thing at all.

Reading between the lines:

• Marvel asked Cain to pitch a continuation of Tom King's story when it was clear he was leaving.
• She pitched an outline of the WHOLE story (that's what a pitch would entail for a mini).
• Marvel green lit the project.
• She worked on the idea for a while and then started submitting issues.
• Four issues in somebody at Marvel has said something along the lines of "Hang on we want to do this other thing with The Vision."
• The various editors would then have looked at the plans and the book in production and decided if they were compatible.
• Presumably they are entirely incompatible so the book was pulled.

Bear in mind the plans would probably be longer term than a book that is due to come out soon. It could be they have plans for the character in the MCU for example and want to ensure a group of stories are told that all have a set of compatible themes.

Cain is not happy. She is being vocal because she feels she can afford to be and because she thinks this is an all too common issue. Today she wrote:

I want you to know that I am being truthful and transparent because most comic book freelancers can’t be. I am loud, for all of them.

I watch Marvel as closely as anyone can that doesn't work for them and has no actual friends in the business, and they can apparently be a pain to work for if you are not in the close circle of valued creators. Even exclusive writers and artists sometimes get burned.

P.S. I am often a vocal anti Bleeding Cool person, but this is the kind of issue that they can actually handle well and contribute something meaningful. Allowing voices to be heard and issues to be raised that are often kept quiet.

[Digifiend]

I would say no on both counts. Neither Cain nor Zub were or are going to kill off Vision.

Vision's been dead already and, as a machine, there's hardly any problem with bringing him back when the need arises - so why kill him again?

He COULD be transferred to a new body, but he's choosing to allow himself to die. Have you even read Champions #22? His death has been set up.

Two pages later, after Vision is introduced to Snowguard...

[JKtheMac]

I have been reading Champions. It is great. I really don't see how it can have anything to do with this cancellation. Its not the type of thing that would lead to this happening.

[Anthony W]

In the case of Vision, it's just especially silly. At least with other characters, there's a bit more of a narrative challenge to bring them back. Not so much with Vision.



I don't think it had anything to do with continuity issues. Possible, sure, but that's so easy to deal with that I feel it was something else that caused the cancellation.

Whatever that might have been will likely never be public knowledge, though.

The narrative challenge would be Viv. If Marvel wants to push her as the new Vision they will try their best to keep Victor dead.

[Mike_Murdock]

I have been reading Champions. It is great. I really don't see how it can have anything to do with this cancellation. Its not the type of thing that would lead to this happening.

What if Chelsey Cain killed off Viv or brought someone back? It's easy to imagine examples where the continuity doesn't line up.

[ed2962]

I hated that retcon too. I don't think it makes any sense. But like 90% of the people who are constantly hating on her, don't even know about it, because they didn't even read the book. They just saw the "Ask me about my Feminist Agenda" shirt cover and decided she was the devil.

Exactly. It's just like people who say they don't like what Marvel's doing with Carol Danvers and their excuse is, "I liked the old Ms Marvel! Why can't we have a sexy confident female hero anymore?" They weren't reading the comic, they just saw a picture of the new haircut and lost their minds.

[Digifiend]

What if Chelsey Cain killed off Viv or brought someone back? It's easy to imagine examples where the continuity doesn't line up.

Yeah... maybe...

Sparky is killed. He already appeared in Champions, so this can't happen.
Vision is killed. But it's set before Viv joined the Champions, which means it's also before Kang War (first arc of post CWII Avengers).
Virginia or Vin are revived. Vision's clearly been shown to still be a single parent, and I'm pretty sure Viv 2.0 and Snowguard were using Vin's bed.
Victor Mancha is stated to still be dead. That would contradict Runaways.
An Avengers roster appears which doesn't match Waid's teams.
Nadia shows up. Secret Empire was explicitly her and Viv's first meeting, Nadia mentions in Unstoppable Wasp that she hasn't met Viv yet.
Ms Marvel, Miles Morales, or Nova show up (don't forget they were Vision's Avengers teammates at that point). Viv doesn't meet those three until Amadeus Cho invites her to join the Champions.

[JKtheMac]

What if Chelsey Cain killed off Viv or brought someone back? It's easy to imagine examples where the continuity doesn't line up.

Why would anyone imagine continuity was the problem? Continuity is illusory and trivial. It can easily be fixed or aligned. We deal with continuity problems on a monthly basis.

This isn’t anything to do with continuity this is about managing IP. This story does not align with what Marvel want to do with these characters. This is exactly what happened before with The Inhumans under Fraction.

Nobody apart from fans have mentioned continuity. It is a fan obsession.

[Mike_Murdock]

Why would anyone imagine continuity was the problem? Continuity is illusory and trivial. It can easily be fixed or aligned. We deal with continuity problems on a monthly basis.

This isn’t anything to do with continuity this is about managing IP. This story does not align with what Marvel want to do with these characters. This is exactly what happened before with The Inhumans under Fraction.

Nobody apart from fans have mentioned continuity. It is a fan obsession.

Zub mentioned that it had continuity issues. "Direction of the character" and continuity are at least consistent terms. That being said, I agree it's possible it was something else.

I feel like this is something Akira Yoshida should address. I'm not saying he should have to comment on every book, but when a book is announced and then cancelled - particularly one that got such fanfare, it needs to be addressed.

[Drops Of Venus]

Its not the femenist stuff that was the problem (as on the nose and bungled as it was) it was the ridiculous retconning to try and shore up her newly fabricated background. This also included making Bobbi a psychopath who killed her BF rather then just break up with him.

More then nonsensical. It means SHE KILLED HER BF TO AVOID BREAKING UP WITH HIM. You cant sell that as heroic or even an example of pro femenism. Its straight up insanity.

This is not what the retcon did and I wish people would stop spreading this misinterpretation that pins the blame on the woman for reacting to an abusive relationship. Let's get one thing straight: the only thing Chelsea Cain retconned was the consensual aspect of the relationship, meaning Bobbi wasn't forced into the relationship with Phantom Rider like we thought she was. Everything else still happened and is still canon, which means that his abusive behavior towards her is still true. He believed he was the one for her and if he couldn't have her, no one else would. He threatened to kill her during that cliff scene. That is more than enough to explain why she let him die; if she let him live, she might've been dead. This idea that a woman suddenly is a psychopath because she didn't want to let an abusive man ruin her life is ridiculous. You can argue that it was morally wrong for her to let someone die when she could've helped them, but acting like she didn't have a genuine reason to fear for her life and want him to be gone from it is just dishonest and unfair. It's like saying that a woman doesn't have the right to defend herself from an abusive boyfriend/fiance/husband just because the relationship started out with consent. Consent doesn't mean submission. Consent doesn't mean she had to be ok with him abusing and threatening to kill her. This mindset that Bobbi became the villain of the story because she consented to the relationship is extremely problematic and it's a huge part of the reason why so many women in real life are afraid to come forward and report stories of domestic violence, as they are often blamed and shamed for ''letting those men into their lives''.