Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Hating on DC?

2456789

Comments

  • Options
    DoctorDoomDoctorDoom Posts: 2,586
    edited April 2015
    WetRats said:

    Torchsong said:

    The best books to me were the fringe titles like All-Star Western, Swamp Thing, Demon Knights, Stormwatch, etc...

    Yep.

    Failed* experiments as far as sales went, but noble efforts.

    *Doomed?
    I loved All-Star Western. Even with the time travel.

    Demon Knights was fun.

    What the hell happened to Stormwatch, though?
  • Options
    WetRatsWetRats Posts: 6,314

    What the hell happened to Stormwatch, though?

    Editorial meddling, I believe.
  • Options
    CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,178
    edited April 2015
    I tried out 24 titles of the N52 first wave and 3 titles of the 2nd wave. I just dropped Wonder Woman with the new creative team and Convergence will be the end of Batgirl for me, leaving me at zero N52 titles (I still get a couple of digital first titles...when they come out in print)

    Some of the books were good early on, but between seemly a lot of creative changes and multiple crossovers within "familes" of books, I just lost interest.

    I do not hate DC though. They still get a lot of my money every month with new trades of old material. Of course eventually that will fade out too when most of the stuff I want has been released.


  • Options
    rebisrebis Posts: 1,820
    Torchsong said:

    rebis said:


    I wonder if some of the dissatisfaction with Nu52 is that DC didn't go far enough with the changes? What they gave us was so similar to what preceded that it was to easy to make comparisons?

    For me personally it was "Too far on some, Not far enough on others".

    Some heroes benefited greatly from the New 52 - Aquaman in particular, but Cyborg actually got interesting again. I enjoyed the New 52 take on Wonder Woman, and Bat-man, -woman, and -girl were all really solid reads, thanks to great teams on them.

    Superman, though, suffered greatly in the New 52, and not just because the trunks weren't on the outside anymore. It just wasn't "Superman" anymore. His cousin was the same way. I bought her books out of devotion to the character, and I dug what they were trying to do with her, but it was really difficult to care about her.

    The best books to me were the fringe titles like All-Star Western, Swamp Thing, Demon Knights, Stormwatch, etc...


    Nu52 Aquaman was a continuation of "Brightest Day". That same book could have been released before Flashpoint. However, it probably took Nu52 to introduce of the Others (?)
    Batman & Green lantern really didn't change.
    With the exception of the ugly costume, I love love love Nu52 Wonder Woman. However, that story could have been told in the pre flashpoint DCU.

    Now, Superman speaks to my point. The difference is really superficial. No trunks, he's younger, and arrogant. Not enough to disassociate the new from the old.
    What if the focus was Kent and not Kal? What if you kept the history of the baby crash landing in Kansas at the turn of the last century. Only you slow down the maturation of his abilities so that Kent is stronger and smarter then everyone around him, but not the demigod that we recognize as Superman.
    So, in Action Comics you would have stories of Clark Kent, the Superman. It could be a homage to Doc Savage and the pulp that inspired Siegel and Shuster.
    Adventures of Superman could be stories of modern day Clark dealing with the loss of friends/lovers and the awakening of a genetic memory of his true heritage. He's a 90 year old man that looks to be 30.
    Man of Steel could be the Superman were more familiar with. He knows who he is and is in full command of his abilities. However, because the stories are set in an ambiguous future, they can be crazy. Maybe not Silver Age crazy, but why could the "sky be the limit"?
  • Options
    Chuck_MelvilleChuck_Melville Posts: 3,003
    Frankly, I thought that nearly the entire line of New52 titles (with a very, very few exceptions) were a disaster almost from the word 'go'. The main reason was that the recreation of practically every character was a divergence from the essence of what made the character successful in the first place. Firestorm, to use an example, went from being about two people who fused together into a single person with two personas, one active and one passive -- a unique concept, Billy Batson notwithstanding -- to a concept where there were an army of 'Firestorms', and a far more malleable matrix, allowing some (like the two main Firestorms) to blend into a 'hulkified' version. Superman started wearing armor, an idea I still have trouble processing (never mind the lack of trunks)... and the Batman stories verged on a degree of creepiness I found unpalatable, with stories I found uninteresting and drawn out (I dropped all the Bat books except for the one about the African Batman right after the Court Of Owls story, so I've no idea what the books have been like since... but I sure didn't want to stick around for that Joker storyline.) And they gave an origin to the Phantom Stranger, which I consider to be sacrilegious to the concept.

    What I did enjoy were usually the fringe books, like All-Star Western, Stormwatch and Booster Gold... though, surprisingly, the reworked JSA in Earth-Two worked much better than I expected it to, given how radical the changes were -- I did enjoy that series.
  • Options
    Chuck_MelvilleChuck_Melville Posts: 3,003

    I tried out 24 titles of the N52 first wave and 3 titles of the 2nd wave.

    I started out with all 52 and began attrition almost immediately. I did some periodic reviews of the New52 from time to time on this forum over the first couple of years, and I'm sure they're still in the archives somewhere.
  • Options
    WetRatsWetRats Posts: 6,314
    rebis said:

    Now, Superman speaks to my point. The difference is really superficial. No trunks, he's younger, and arrogant. Not enough to disassociate the new from the old.
    What if the focus was Kent and not Kal? What if you kept the history of the baby crash landing in Kansas at the turn of the last century. Only you slow down the maturation of his abilities so that Kent is stronger and smarter then everyone around him, but not the demigod that we recognize as Superman.
    So, in Action Comics you would have stories of Clark Kent, the Superman. It could be a homage to Doc Savage and the pulp that inspired Siegel and Shuster.
    Adventures of Superman could be stories of modern day Clark dealing with the loss of friends/lovers and the awakening of a genetic memory of his true heritage. He's a 90 year old man that looks to be 30.
    Man of Steel could be the Superman were more familiar with. He knows who he is and is in full command of his abilities. However, because the stories are set in an ambiguous future, they can be crazy. Maybe not Silver Age crazy, but why could the "sky be the limit"?

    The need for this kind of storytelling is why God gave us Astro City.
  • Options
    DoctorDoomDoctorDoom Posts: 2,586
    WetRats said:

    What the hell happened to Stormwatch, though?

    Editorial meddling, I believe.
    Really? Do Tell, @WetRats , if there's more to it.

    That alternate team was weird, as was the last issue disregarding it.
  • Options
    WetRatsWetRats Posts: 6,314

    WetRats said:

    What the hell happened to Stormwatch, though?

    Editorial meddling, I believe.
    Really? Do Tell, @WetRats , if there's more to it.

    That alternate team was weird, as was the last issue disregarding it.
    I have no details, but that seemed to be the cause of a lot of the unraveling of the promising Nu52 books, and the early change in creative teams seemed symptomatic.
  • Options
    rebisrebis Posts: 1,820
    WetRats said:

    rebis said:

    Now, Superman speaks to my point. The difference is really superficial. No trunks, he's younger, and arrogant. Not enough to disassociate the new from the old.
    What if the focus was Kent and not Kal? What if you kept the history of the baby crash landing in Kansas at the turn of the last century. Only you slow down the maturation of his abilities so that Kent is stronger and smarter then everyone around him, but not the demigod that we recognize as Superman.
    So, in Action Comics you would have stories of Clark Kent, the Superman. It could be a homage to Doc Savage and the pulp that inspired Siegel and Shuster.
    Adventures of Superman could be stories of modern day Clark dealing with the loss of friends/lovers and the awakening of a genetic memory of his true heritage. He's a 90 year old man that looks to be 30.
    Man of Steel could be the Superman were more familiar with. He knows who he is and is in full command of his abilities. However, because the stories are set in an ambiguous future, they can be crazy. Maybe not Silver Age crazy, but why could the "sky be the limit"?

    The need for this kind of storytelling is why God gave us Astro City.
    So, did I just describe an Astro City story line without knowing it?
  • Options
    WetRatsWetRats Posts: 6,314
    rebis said:

    WetRats said:

    rebis said:

    Now, Superman speaks to my point. The difference is really superficial. No trunks, he's younger, and arrogant. Not enough to disassociate the new from the old.
    What if the focus was Kent and not Kal? What if you kept the history of the baby crash landing in Kansas at the turn of the last century. Only you slow down the maturation of his abilities so that Kent is stronger and smarter then everyone around him, but not the demigod that we recognize as Superman.
    So, in Action Comics you would have stories of Clark Kent, the Superman. It could be a homage to Doc Savage and the pulp that inspired Siegel and Shuster.
    Adventures of Superman could be stories of modern day Clark dealing with the loss of friends/lovers and the awakening of a genetic memory of his true heritage. He's a 90 year old man that looks to be 30.
    Man of Steel could be the Superman were more familiar with. He knows who he is and is in full command of his abilities. However, because the stories are set in an ambiguous future, they can be crazy. Maybe not Silver Age crazy, but why could the "sky be the limit"?

    The need for this kind of storytelling is why God gave us Astro City.
    So, did I just describe an Astro City story line without knowing it?
    Not specifically, but of the many, many strengths of Astro City, the ongoing passing of Time is my favorite. There is no Rolling Reset.
  • Options
    batlawbatlaw Posts: 879
    I tried. I really tried to give the new52 a fair chance despite my misgivings. I tried titles I had long ignored. I tried new titles. I kept buying my big regulars long after I shouldve. In the end I finally had no choice but to face the ugly truth and admit DC now sucked (for me). I could've kept reading batman if something, but why? It was barely enjoyable for me. I didn't look forward to reading it and every issue ended in a big "meh" and was just tossed in the box. I've suffered through similar slumps in the past, but w/ new52 there was the renumbering, the absurd continuity, the new designs, art, editorial and political directions that piled on top of my indifferent "meh" reaction to the material itself. Too much of a bad thing. I finally accepted / realized this wasn't MY DC so it didn't matter if I just quit it all. So I did.
  • Options
    mphilmphil Posts: 448
    I feel like a lot of people, both the geeks and people in this thread, are judging DC by the way things were 2 years ago or more. You can't really speak about "The New 52" as though it were one cohesive thing. The New 52 is almost 4 years old. A lot can, and in this case has, change in 4 years.

    The grim and gritty mandate, the editorial meddling, those things have for the most part been rectified. Things are much different, and in my opinion better, than they were in the Trinity War timeline (which I think is what people consider the low point for DC). And things continue to get better, the new titles all seem diverse and with a great amount of potential.

    I get it if people feel like they have been burned too much and just don't want to give DC another chance. I do understand that. But you can't speak to the state of DC if you're not reading it, and are just talking about how it was when you last gave it a shot a year and a half ago.
  • Options
    bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    mphil said:

    If people feel like they have been burned too much and just don't want to give DC another chance. I do understand that. But you can't speak to the state of DC if you're not reading it, and are just talking about how it was when you last gave it a shot a year and a half ago.

    That's a good point.

    Maybe some people see it a lot like a restaurant that they used to frequent. Once they repeatedly got bad service or the food is gross or simply no longer serving to their tastes, then they stopped going. They might try it now and again to see if things have improved, but if things haven't improved then their opinion is firmly made up and they will continue to declare that "the DC cafeteria sucks."

    Or maybe it's a lot like an ex-girlfriend who did some messed up stuff so you broke things off. It might not be polite to keep talking smack about her, especially if she's been trying to change, but there's no reason to ask her out again, unless you just really are glutton for punishment.

    Are people that post poor reviews obliged to continually check in to see if things have improved?


  • Options
    CageNarleighCageNarleigh Posts: 729
    edited April 2015

    mphil said:

    If people feel like they have been burned too much and just don't want to give DC another chance. I do understand that. But you can't speak to the state of DC if you're not reading it, and are just talking about how it was when you last gave it a shot a year and a half ago.

    Are people that post poor reviews obliged to continually check in to see if things have improved?


    Not if it involves my money. If I'm curious, I'll read the solicits and order based on that. If it STILL sucks? Then choosing to order it is on me. But buying comics "just too see if they've gotten better recently"? Nope. Waste of my money and my time.

    There are plenty of other companies and comics that are CONSISTENTLY putting out interesting and quality material I can devote my dollar towards without "taking a chance" on something that's burned me several times before.

  • Options
    Chuck_MelvilleChuck_Melville Posts: 3,003
    Yeah, when it comes to checking out what the books are doing now, I can't help but feel that "that ship has already sailed". I've only got so much money, and any empty slots in my buy list have long since been filled in with other titles; why drop them on the off-chance that the current DC's are suddenly palatable to my tastes once more? I read the solicitations and reviews, and, frankly, I'm not all that encouraged -- it sounds more confusing and more of a mess than before, and very little look even likeable, and much of it sounds like its being micro-managed by the marketing division.

    That's not to say that I won't ever pick up a DC book again. I'm sure I will. I might even shift my buy list to a majority of DC books once more. But I'm not seeing it happening at any point in the near future.
  • Options
    mphilmphil Posts: 448

    mphil said:

    If people feel like they have been burned too much and just don't want to give DC another chance. I do understand that. But you can't speak to the state of DC if you're not reading it, and are just talking about how it was when you last gave it a shot a year and a half ago.

    Are people that post poor reviews obliged to continually check in to see if things have improved?


    Of course not, but they also shouldn't be under any illusion that their reviews are still pertinent.
  • Options
    bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    DC may change Superman's pants, but the Internet is forever....
  • Options
    RepoManRepoMan Posts: 327
    mphil said:

    mphil said:

    If people feel like they have been burned too much and just don't want to give DC another chance. I do understand that. But you can't speak to the state of DC if you're not reading it, and are just talking about how it was when you last gave it a shot a year and a half ago.

    Are people that post poor reviews obliged to continually check in to see if things have improved?


    Of course not, but they also shouldn't be under any illusion that their reviews are still pertinent.
    A thousand likes.
  • Options
    David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,881
    edited April 2015
    mphil said:

    mphil said:

    If people feel like they have been burned too much and just don't want to give DC another chance. I do understand that. But you can't speak to the state of DC if you're not reading it, and are just talking about how it was when you last gave it a shot a year and a half ago.

    Are people that post poor reviews obliged to continually check in to see if things have improved?


    Of course not, but they also shouldn't be under any illusion that their reviews are still pertinent.
    And, of course, if the question is 'How is DC right now?' then a useful and informed answer would be from someone who is not only reading DC books that came out this month, and ideally they should be reading a lot of them, from a variety of editorial offices, to be able to have a real feeling for how DC is at the moment. (For example, I am only reading two Bat-books from the same editors, and Multiversity. So I don't think my review of DC as a whole would be pertinent either.)

    And I agree with you, a review of DC from someone has not not been reading it at all lately is less compelling, and less informed.

    But I think what people are talking about in this thread is their current relationship with this publisher. Not a current review of their output.

    Because, to be fair, the original question @Matt asked was more of a brand question, that is around how people are feeling about the publisher at this moment. Basically 'Do you hate DC?'

    That is a little different than 'How are the DC books you read this month?' You know what I mean.

    For someone to answer 'their big new direction drove me away, I don't hate them, but none of the solicits or previews I've seen have been enough to give them another try'. That is actually a pertinent answer to give about your relationship as brand.

    And I hear you that some lapsed DC readers might be happily surprised by some of the books in the last two years.

    But at the same time, if DC has not done enough to break through to lapsed readers with this product, if longtime readers don't know that the current New52 is much different than the launch, then that is pertinent, too, when we're talking about brand.
  • Options
    monsterswinmonsterswin Posts: 15
    I love DC. JLA is my favorite of them all. Also loved Marvel and read both companies equally BUT to this point Marvel studios has done an exemplary job in their on screen versions and WB's/DC? Not so much. The biting is because people (at least me) care about these characters and want to see their best on screen (something that to this point has yet to be done) a Superman film with an absolute zero amount of joy was certainly not a way to endear themselves to many fans (and apparently many non fans). It feels as if Marvel studios is not at all embarrassed (yes there have been some very painful exceptions) by their characters but WB's is. In fact I would go so far as to say that making them darker, with muted tones and such is taking the eaay way out since todays climate seems to except all that stuff more (until they are shown otherwise by a talented writer and director that is). So for me.....I would LOVE to see a JLA film as great as The Avengers, but from what I have seen so far, I have no reason at all to expect that. I am tired of seeing the old "haters gonna hate" snarky response. There's the opposite too. "lovers gonna love" no matter how poorly it's done. It goes both ways
  • Options
    PlaneisPlaneis Posts: 980
    Matt said:

    I just had to go on a sabbatical on another forum because the 'sorry sack' mentality became overwhelmingly draining. Especially when the people most vocal are doing the same things they complain about.

    Apparently, more the 2/3rds of the posts on 'neutral' forums bash DC & especially the DCCU. The bashing extends to non-MCU Marvel movies. Does that sound inaccurate to anyone else? It's apparently even more if you eliminate the multiple posts by the same "MCU fanboys" & "honest" people who just didn't care for Man of Steel.

    Is it trendy to hate DC or do these people just have an Eeyore mentality while hating the MCU?

    M

    It's 100% trendy. You'd think Marvel never made a bad movie (they have). Also seems to be a backlash against The Dark Knight trilogy
  • Options
    playdohsrepublicplaydohsrepublic Posts: 1,377
    edited May 2015
    Planeis said:

    Matt said:

    I just had to go on a sabbatical on another forum because the 'sorry sack' mentality became overwhelmingly draining. Especially when the people most vocal are doing the same things they complain about.

    Apparently, more the 2/3rds of the posts on 'neutral' forums bash DC & especially the DCCU. The bashing extends to non-MCU Marvel movies. Does that sound inaccurate to anyone else? It's apparently even more if you eliminate the multiple posts by the same "MCU fanboys" & "honest" people who just didn't care for Man of Steel.

    Is it trendy to hate DC or do these people just have an Eeyore mentality while hating the MCU?

    M

    It's 100% trendy. You'd think Marvel never made a bad movie (they have). Also seems to be a backlash against The Dark Knight trilogy
    I don't know that it's 100% trendy. Part of it is "what have you done for me lately?" for sure. But I think that time and reflection has made some people less enthusiastic about the DK trilogy (and all the non MCU Marvel movies) and therefore more likely to overcompensate when they express dissatisfaction. When phase 3 finishes we'll probably see the same thing for the MCU. It's a normal cycle, "excitement-apologist-backlash-ooh what's this shiny new thing?"
  • Options
    monsterswinmonsterswin Posts: 15
    <<<<I don't know that it's 100% trendy. Part of it is "what have you done for me lately?" for sure. But I think that time and reflection has made some people less enthusiastic about the DK trilogy (and all the non MCU Marvel movies) and therefore more likely to overcompensate when they express dissatisfaction. When phase 3 finishes we'll probably see the same thing for the MCU. It's a normal cycle, "excitement-apologist-backlash-ooh what's this shiny new thing?"</p>

    Not for me. I didn't really like the DK trilogy from the first time I sat in the theater watching them. BB's is the best of the lot and that one only the first 3/4 or so of the film. MOS same thing. Marvel studios has made one terrible (IM 3), and at least 3 mediocre to less than mediocre films (IM 2, Hulk and Thor 2) the rest have been quite good to fantastic. Nothing to do with shiny new things and my enthusiasm for IM 1 (for example) has not fallen off at all. It is still one of the best CB movies. I waited my entire life to see great CB movies and Marvel "gets it" (not always but more often than not) better than anyone has. Not to mention the faithfulness to the source material (for film) is at times delightful to experience. The interconnectedness of the universe (just like Marvel was when they were at the top of their game years ago), heroes now showing up in each others films, Thanos, infinity gems, Kree, GOTG, Dr. Strange etc.....very exciting and dare I say it? Actually fun, which is something very much missing from comics for the past several years if not longer.
    It isn't trendy to dislike the 2 recent Spidey films. They weren't very good, and the second was pretty bad. DOFP was ok, but kind of boring. Needed a little bit more oomph. Marvel studios has done something no one has ever done. DC had many years and many chances to do it first and they never, ever could get it together. So....until they show me differently and based on what I have seen so far I ain't convinced they can pull it off as well. NOT the same mind you, but as well. The wonder of the DC heroes is unparalleled and that seems to be missing from the comics for a while now as in the recent films. To me (at least so far) Marvel just "gets it" better then anyone right now.

  • Options
    mguy1977mguy1977 Posts: 801
    New 52 DC is swinging some epic 4s or 5s ratings on the core Batman book, a variety of 3 to 5 rating on the Superman books & Finch's WW I'm enjoying. No, it isn't as good as pre Flashpoint DC books but it doesn't have to. It is just a different time now like the All New All Different across the country at Marvel. Dan Didio & Company is doing there thing is it all good nope but that is why there is pull lists. I got my Uncle Scrooge, Hellboy, Velvet, Saga, Daredevil, a list of Star Wars books & Usagi Yojimbo while reading American Vampire & the end of Fables over at Vertigo. There is something for me at the big 5 companies & that is a very good thing. The key word is variety.

    Matthew
  • Options
    MihawkMihawk Posts: 433
    edited May 2015
    The only superhero comic I read now is Batman. I used to be heavily into both Marvel and DC but I just can't read it anymore.

    Marvel is letting the movie universe dictate how the run there comics story wise and it's ruining it IMO. What they have done to both FF and X-Men because they don't own the movie rights is the biggest bunch of BS I've seen. And for me ever since Spider-Man One More Day Marvel just hasn't felt the same to me and I feel it has slowly gotten worse.

    And DC I just didn't like most of the directions they went after 52. The only exception for for has been Scott Snyder's Batman.

    I don't know if I've out grown Superhero comics at this point? Or if they really have become that bad.
  • Options
    David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,881
    Mihawk said:

    Marvel is letting the movie universe dictate how the run there comics story wise and it's ruining it IMO. What they have done to both FF and X-Men because they don't own the movie rights is the biggest bunch of BS I've seen.

    If you are not feeling Marvel these days, that is fair. But, just for clarity on what Marvel (at least the publishing division) is or isn't doing to FF and X-Men-- all Marvel publishing has done to X-Men and FF so far is suspend publication of their regular monthly titles during Secret Wars.

    Which is the exact same thing they did to the regular Avengers, Thor, Iron Man, Guardians, and many other titles. To almost the whole line, actually.

    When more new volumes and new titles start launching on the other side of Secret Wars, we will have a better idea if the publishing division is treating some properties differently than others. Though given that some of the first titles set in the post-SW Marvel Universe are Uncanny Inhumans, which has Johnny Storm as a team member, and A-Force, which stars a number of characters that from the X-Men catalog (not to mention all of the "screen time" that Doom and the FF are getting in the main Secret Wars book) so far it seems that at least the characters connected to FF and X-Men are not going to be second class citizens of the new MU. Whether that will be reflected in the title lineups, we'll see.

  • Options
    SolitaireRoseSolitaireRose Posts: 1,445
    rebis said:

    WetRats said:

    Torchsong said:

    Hate is too strong a word for this. It's comics. I don't hate DC. Never will. They haven't betrayed my trust, raped my childhood, crushed my aspirations, etc...they're trying something different. Sometimes they're going to succeed. Sometimes they're going to blow it. Marvel does the same stuff. Kudos to them both for continuing to try, though.

    Yep.

    I admire the bravery of the New52 experiment, but I fell the execution was less than great.

    Far less.

    And I admire them for re-jiggering things with Convergence, but this time will wait to see what comes out of it. They no longer have the benefit of my doubt.

    But hate? Hardly.

    I can recall 3 or 4 times in the last 20 years where DC had positioned themselves in what I thought was a very cool place only to puss out. There was the push for legacy characters during the heyday of JLA/JSA and then after the various "Crisis" (Identity, Infinite, & Final).

    I wonder if some of the dissatisfaction with Nu52 is that DC didn't go far enough with the changes? What they gave us was so similar to what preceded that it was to easy to make comparisons?
    For me it was they they did such a right angle away from what I want in comics now, and what they had going. They went from creator driven (Geoff Johns's stories, Grant Morrison's work, 52, etc...) to editorially driven. Changing writers midstory, creators leaving while telling about how things were running behind the curtain and just plain mediocre stories based on shock instead of plot all added up to the kind of comics that drove me from Marvel in the 90's.

    The stories about editorial changeups don't matter except when it explains why things felt like SUCH a mess. By a year in, I felt like I was reading Marvel books from 1994 with better Jim Lee imitators. I tapped out.

    Did I hate them? Only when they did stupid stuff or shot themselves in the foot because DC is a huge part of the market, and if they drive off people in exchange for peopel who MAY show up, it'll hurt the industry.

    DC needed to do something. Their sales were falling, and the New 52 gave a HUGE sales boost to shops when they needed it. It caused Marvel to step up their game (marketing-wise) and they upped their sales of monthly books. This month was the biggest month for dollars brought in a while and it keep going up, so they succeeded on that level.

    Hate? No. I DO hate Marvel for killing off their Essential program, but DC is still putting out Showcases once in a while, so they are OK with me.

  • Options
    MihawkMihawk Posts: 433
    edited May 2015
    David_D said:

    Mihawk said:

    Marvel is letting the movie universe dictate how the run there comics story wise and it's ruining it IMO. What they have done to both FF and X-Men because they don't own the movie rights is the biggest bunch of BS I've seen.

    If you are not feeling Marvel these days, that is fair. But, just for clarity on what Marvel (at least the publishing division) is or isn't doing to FF and X-Men-- all Marvel publishing has done to X-Men and FF so far is suspend publication of their regular monthly titles during Secret Wars.

    Which is the exact same thing they did to the regular Avengers, Thor, Iron Man, Guardians, and many other titles. To almost the whole line, actually.

    When more new volumes and new titles start launching on the other side of Secret Wars, we will have a better idea if the publishing division is treating some properties differently than others. Though given that some of the first titles set in the post-SW Marvel Universe are Uncanny Inhumans, which has Johnny Storm as a team member, and A-Force, which stars a number of characters that from the X-Men catalog (not to mention all of the "screen time" that Doom and the FF are getting in the main Secret Wars book) so far it seems that at least the characters connected to FF and X-Men are not going to be second class citizens of the new MU. Whether that will be reflected in the title lineups, we'll see.

    They are trying to turn the Inhumans into the Mutants just like there movie verse. They've already turned Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch from Mutants into Inhumans.

    And there big plan for mutants after Secret Wars is for the Inhumans to release the Terragen Mist on the Earth and that will effect the Mutants by making them have to leave Earth and find a new home world. If that isn't the stupidest idea ever I don't know what is.

    And it seems to me already any X-Men with big popularity there trying to pull them away IE Kitty getting with Peter Quil for no reason.
Sign In or Register to comment.