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.
What if the Terragen Mist took away all mutant powers across the planet except for a handful? Then there would essentially be no more mutants...oh wait a second...
I don't understand all the nuances of the legal details of the Spiderman, X-Men, FF movie properties. For example, if mutants are gone, can Fox still make X-Men movies based (however loosley) on the past 50 year's worth of story? If the FF stop being the FF but each individually have adventures, is the FF null and void and not usable in a movie? How long do these other companies have the rights to the character? How can they loose the rights? Can they loose the rights?
They only lose the rights if they fail to produce a film featuring the property every so many years. Not sure what Universal's deal with The Hulk is, but it's slightly different than FOX and Sony's deals.
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.
Wake me when they turn Wolverine, Deadpool, and Storm into Inhumans ;)
But, to be serious, we'll see when the time comes. But I think taking Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch away from Magneto's parentage (and, I didn't realize until someone on the board pointed it out, that is actually a sort of retcon of a retcon. Scarlet Witch and Pietro were kicking around the MU for almost 20 years before the story that established them as Magneto's children. (And that seemed to undo a story from nearly 10 years before that suggested they were the children of Miss America and The Whizzer). All of that was news to me-- I started reading X-books in the mid-80s, and probably first got to know the characters from the OHOTMU, so to me they were always Magneto's children. Put from a publishing point of view, they spent nearly half their publishing life not being that. More history on all that here.
Also, the story of their true parentage is still playing out in All New Uncanny Avengers, as far as I know. I don't think they will end up back as Magneto's kids, but I am not sure that they will end up as Inhumans, either. The recent Avengers magazine (it was a freebie to shops, and DCBS threw one in my box) didn't drop the "I" word in their brief OHOTMU-light style comic character bios. It says things like "a magical revelation during the Axis event left the Maximoff twins' whole past in doubt once again!" So in this puff piece marketing magazine, if they wanted to sell the idea that they are definitely Inhumans now, they could of. And instead they treat it as a mystery that is still unfolding in Uncanny Avengers.
And didn't the movie seemed to suggest their powers were the results of HYDRA experiments?
Long story short-- yes. Those two characters have been moved away from their X-origins. And surely there is some film studio politics around branding them as Avengers rather than X-characters (of course, that is nothing new-- they became Avengers in 1965).
But whether this signals an attempt by Marvel publishing to push out all X-Men and go all-Inhumans instead? I don't see it. I think that is a VERY big jump to make and there is very little evidence to suggest that is in the works.
MCU has been competing with Fox for years, and yet there hasn't been a slowdown in X-titles that I have noticed. (Including how many X-centered titles are part of Secret Wars).
New X-titles keep launching. Spider-Man & The X-Men just launched this past December, for example. The fact that Kitty Pryde has been guesting in Guardians (not to mention the fact overall that Guardians and X-Men just had a crossover) is not evidence of pulling the X-Men apart. It is Marvel continuing to include them. Keep them central. Because X-Men sell a lot of comics, and that is what publishing is going to try to do.
(Also, in the case of Kitty Pryde and Peter Quill, I think Bendis really enjoys writing her, and is setting up a way to continue to do so once he is off his X-books, and as I don't she Ultimate Kitty has been a part of his Miles Morales Spider-Man comic).
And, yes, they are pushing Inhumans, of course, because there is an Inhumans movie on the slate. And to build to that, I would expect that we will see more Inhumans-related origins (i.e. the new Ms. Marvel) going forward than mutant origins. But I would be very surprised if the long term plan by publishing is "No More X-Books". Because that equals "No More X-Book Money".
We'll see. But if the only indication of this overall no-more-mutants-all-Inhumans-all-the-time plan is what they did with Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, then we are talking about characters who have been more Avengers-centered than X-centered since 1965.
PS- Sorry, that was a long sidebar, and I know this is meant to be a thread about how people currently feel about DC. I suppose it is only fair, though-- how many Marvel-related topics end up being about Batman!
I don't understand all the nuances of the legal details of the Spiderman, X-Men, FF movie properties. For example, if mutants are gone, can Fox still make X-Men movies based (however loosley) on the past 50 year's worth of story? If the FF stop being the FF but each individually have adventures, is the FF null and void and not usable in a movie? How long do these other companies have the rights to the character? How can they loose the rights? Can they loose the rights?
Please, share your insight. I am but an egg.
Take this with the caveat that I am not a lawyer, so this is my amateur understanding--
As far as I understand it, and of course every licensing deal is different, but these other studios retain the rights so long as they keep making movies with these characters. If they don't exercise the option to make one after X amount of years, then the rights could revert. I believe that is what happened with Punisher and Daredevil. The studios that had options on them let the rights run out at a certain point. Or, they could make a new deal to sell back or share a character, as it seems Sony has done with Spider-Man.
As far as I understand it, there is nothing that Marvel could publish tomorrow or next year that could actually affect these deals. They could cancel all the X-books, kill all the characters, or have the next issue reveal that the X-Men never existed, or were never mutants, etc., and it would not affect the deal one bit. Because what is in effect is what was agreed to and named at the time of the deal. Not anything that publishing has done since then.
They only lose the rights if they fail to produce a film featuring the property every so many years. Not sure what Universal's deal with The Hulk is, but it's slightly different than FOX and Sony's deals.
That's about the extent of my knowledge. Does Marvel's Inhuman mutation gambit have any real effect on this?
I don't understand all the nuances of the legal details of the Spiderman, X-Men, FF movie properties. For example, if mutants are gone, can Fox still make X-Men movies based (however loosley) on the past 50 year's worth of story? If the FF stop being the FF but each individually have adventures, is the FF null and void and not usable in a movie? How long do these other companies have the rights to the character? How can they loose the rights? Can they loose the rights?
Please, share your insight. I am but an egg.
Take this with the caveat that I am not a lawyer, so this is my amateur understanding--
As far as I understand it, and of course every licensing deal is different, but these other studios retain the rights so long as they keep making movies with these characters. If they don't exercise the option to make one after X amount of years, then the rights could revert. I believe that is what happened with Punisher and Daredevil. The studios that had options on them let the rights run out at a certain point. Or, they could make a new deal to sell back or share a character, as it seems Sony has done with Spider-Man.
As far as I understand it, there is nothing that Marvel could publish tomorrow or next year that could actually affect these deals. They could cancel all the X-books, kill all the characters, or have the next issue reveal that the X-Men never existed, or were never mutants, etc., and it would not affect the deal one bit. Because what is in effect is what was agreed to and named at the time of the deal. Not anything that publishing has done since then.
Again, this is the extent of my knowledge. And your explaination is a good one.
So Marvel is going through all these motions, disregarding their fan base, to be petulant? Like a cranky teenager?
If I had the rights to he FF or any character, I would make anything within the specifics of the deal to retain owwnership. People are not going to not go to the movies because "mutants don't exist anymore".
Were the Inhumans ever a popular group until recently? I remember DnA did a cross-over about them a few years back but I feel like it wasn't well received. It really does feel like Marvel is just pushing them as a stand-in for not having the X-Men. Nothing wrong with that, I'm just curious if someone can say "no, no, the Inhumans were hugely popular in 1978" or something.
I don't understand all the nuances of the legal details of the Spiderman, X-Men, FF movie properties. For example, if mutants are gone, can Fox still make X-Men movies based (however loosley) on the past 50 year's worth of story? If the FF stop being the FF but each individually have adventures, is the FF null and void and not usable in a movie? How long do these other companies have the rights to the character? How can they loose the rights? Can they loose the rights?
Please, share your insight. I am but an egg.
Take this with the caveat that I am not a lawyer, so this is my amateur understanding--
As far as I understand it, and of course every licensing deal is different, but these other studios retain the rights so long as they keep making movies with these characters. If they don't exercise the option to make one after X amount of years, then the rights could revert. I believe that is what happened with Punisher and Daredevil. The studios that had options on them let the rights run out at a certain point. Or, they could make a new deal to sell back or share a character, as it seems Sony has done with Spider-Man.
As far as I understand it, there is nothing that Marvel could publish tomorrow or next year that could actually affect these deals. They could cancel all the X-books, kill all the characters, or have the next issue reveal that the X-Men never existed, or were never mutants, etc., and it would not affect the deal one bit. Because what is in effect is what was agreed to and named at the time of the deal. Not anything that publishing has done since then.
Again, this is the extent of my knowledge. And your explaination is a good one.
So Marvel is going through all these motions, disregarding their fan base, to be petulant? Like a cranky teenager?
If I had the rights to he FF or any character, I would make anything within the specifics of the deal to retain owwnership. People are not going to not go to the movies because "mutants don't exist anymore".
Well... going through all of which motions? There are lots of rumors about what Marvel will be doing re: Mutants vs. Inhumans in the future. And we will see.
But all that has actually happened has been that the early-80's retcon of Wanda and Pietro being Magneto's children has been undone, and now gone into 'their parentage is a mystery'.
And, yes, FF was cancelled a few months ago... shortly followed by Avengers, New Avengers, Thor, Iron Man, Captain America... for a total of 33 titles cancelled to make way for Secret Wars and whatever reboot or relaunch will come out the other side. So they only did to FF what they were about to do to almost the entire rest of the line. They just ended FF earlier, I would guess, because that was the organic end to the story that was happening in the book. (In fact, given that the FF end got attention before we knew about the rest of the cancellations, it ended up getting more attention, and that final story arc bumped up in numbers).
So this wasn't publishing singling out FF in any way. It was just a month or two ahead of the rest of the cancellations.
So if Marvel, at least the publishing division, is supposed to be acting like a cranky teenager towards the X-Men and FF. Well... then I have seen much crankier teenagers in my time, you know what I mean ;)
I feel like a lot of these beliefs that Marvel is out to get the FF and X-Men have persisted, but they are based on rumors. And with each successful month, what those rumors are based on gets more and more thin.
Maybe Marvel could have done a better job of countering that narrative. (Though, in the interim, they ended up selling more copies of FF than they had in years, I think, so maybe that is why they let the controversy play out). But I feel like, to judge by what is actually getting published line-wide, the idea that Marvel-- at least the publishing division-- is out to bury the IPs of the X-Men and FF because of studio battles just doesn't ring true to me.
I clearly find the whole speculation interesting, as I tend to go on and on about it. But maybe the conversation should get continued over there so this one can get back to talking about DC.
Were the Inhumans ever a popular group until recently? I remember DnA did a cross-over about them a few years back but I feel like it wasn't well received. It really does feel like Marvel is just pushing them as a stand-in for not having the X-Men. Nothing wrong with that, I'm just curious if someone can say "no, no, the Inhumans were hugely popular in 1978" or something.
Dude! The Inhumans were popular in 1978. Where have you been?
I clearly find the whole speculation interesting, as I tend to go on and on about it. But maybe the conversation should get continued over there so this one can get back to talking about DC.
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more...
Were the Inhumans ever a popular group until recently? I remember DnA did a cross-over about them a few years back but I feel like it wasn't well received. It really does feel like Marvel is just pushing them as a stand-in for not having the X-Men. Nothing wrong with that, I'm just curious if someone can say "no, no, the Inhumans were hugely popular in 1978" or something.
OK. Hating on DC. I do not buy any regular series from DC because I don't care for them since the New 52. Grayson is pretty good, but I really do prefer Nightwing. I stopped buying Batman after Court of Owls, Night of Owls, Death of the Family. I simply lost interest. I also enjoyed Greg Pak and Jar Lee's Batman/Superman, World's Finest, and James Robinson's Earth 52. Lost interest, canceled, Robinson left. I now get Convergence...Secret Wars is so much better...because I was interested, it has Earth 2 characters and, ironically, a Nightwing free Grayson. This far in, I'll finish it to see what happens (Divergence?). Blackest Night leading to Brightest Day annoyed me. Lets see if Convergence into Divergence is any better. Darkseid War interests me. I'll check it out. My problems is DC has positioned themselves in such a way to have me assume their products and stories will suck or start off strong and derail. Since they will be around for years to come I will always keep an eye on things, but Marvel has been more consistent (this changes, as we all know). I feel Marvel has stronger creators overall than DC and DC pushed house style for some time after the relaunch which is limiting. Image has been getting a larger share of my weekly shekels. I also look for back issues of specific story arc and am considering getting into book binding.
I actually have a little trouble even understanding this sentiment. I prefer DC to Marvel for a lot of reasons, but in general I just find Marvel books silly in a bad way for the most part. I still don't see why people are abandoning the New 52, except for continuity complaints which, again, just seen ridiculous. I am waiting to see where Convergence leaves us, but in general I will go where great writers and artists are, the exact characters and universe positions are heavily secondary.
I am waiting to see where Convergence leaves us, but in general I will go where great writers and artists are, the exact characters and universe positions are heavily secondary.
I too go with story/art over character/publisher—always have. That being said, the only Convergence title I'm reading the second issue of is Shazam.
I am probably repeating myself from earlier in the thread, but I have found from my many years of reading that I usually get the most out of my time and money when I follow creators I enjoy and let that lead me, rather than follow a certain character or continuity. Or pick a side when it comes to this or that publisher. For me, this is art, not sports. It is about seeing what someone who creates does next rather than staying loyal to my team.
I am probably repeating myself from earlier in the thread, but I have found from my many years of reading that I usually get the most out of my time and money when I follow creators I enjoy and let that lead me, rather than follow a certain character or continuity. Or pick a side when it comes to this or that publisher. For me, this is art, not sports. It is about seeing what someone who creates does next rather than staying loyal to my team.
Agree 100%
Strangley, most of the creators I follow are either at Marvel or Image these days. Was disappointed Lemire's 'Black Hammer' at Dark Horse has been delayed.
I am probably repeating myself from earlier in the thread, but I have found from my many years of reading that I usually get the most out of my time and money when I follow creators I enjoy and let that lead me, rather than follow a certain character or continuity. Or pick a side when it comes to this or that publisher. For me, this is art, not sports. It is about seeing what someone who creates does next rather than staying loyal to my team.
I'm the other way, but without the yoke of continuity to hinder me.
I just finished the trade of Sensation Comics featuring Wonder Woman, for example. A cadre of different creators offering their take on Diana and her mythos. I loved it. I love just about every iteration there's been of Captain "Shazam" Marvel - from Beck to Ordway to yes, even Bratson in the New 52 - because I enjoy seeing how different creators approach a character I like. And these "new" takes on the characters doesn't diminish what came before them (for me at least) in any way.
Continuity and canon are fool's errands that I think DC is actually being wise to ignore with this apparent "All Stories Happened" angle they seem to be headed toward.
I am not a superhero purist bit I do prefer superhero stories. I do not have issues with reboots or retcons. I do have issues with bad stories. Continuity is important for ongoings but it shouldn't get in the way of a good story. Elseworlds, What-ifs, alternate realities/timeliness/dimensions are great! I am part of the comics as modern myth camp.
I have prefered characters. If a certain character has a specific writer and/or artist I will check it out. If that same character has someone I've never heard of, ill check it out. If Rob Liefield is on it, I won't touch it.
I will follow writers to unknown places. Hickman, Lemire, Moore, Morrison, Vaughn to name a few. Black Science is in my wheel house but I wouldn't have checked it out if Remender wasn't writing it.
I currently prefer writers over artists. A good story can be hindered by poor are. A poor story cannot be saved by a good artist. Although it may be pretty, if it doesn't read well who cares? In a perfect world, a strong artist and writer work together.
With DC, I feel they are currently aping a marvelesque style. I think Marvel does Marvel better. I prefer the days of DC characters being heroic role models (think about the scene in All Star Superman when Kal saves the girl from jumping). I just don't get that feeling currently.
I'm enjoying precious few of their comics lately, but I do think "hating on DC" has become trendy, and I don't enjoy the rise of this trend.
If people are going to talk about DC or make DC's current output the focus of discussion (such as it is in this thread), and then they're going to critique the comics negatively, then... fine. That's all well and good. I've done that myself and I agree with the sentiment.
But basically what I object to -- and I have NOT witnessed this happening much if at all on CGS podcasts or forums -- is when DC is routinely pulled into discussions only for the sake of derision. While comparisons between Secret Wars and Convergence are natural (and it's totally fair game to bring up how much better the former is than the latter), I'm constantly hearing podcasters and pundits bring up, say, David Finch's depiction of Wonder Woman while talking about the Agent Carter TV series. "The Marvel Cinematic Universe and their TV stuff does female characters so well... and then we have DC and their stupid boobalicious Wonder Woman comic." They talk about live-action and writing, but then use that as an excuse to criticize art that they don't like. Or whatever. Or someone will be posting about how much they like Squirrel Girl or the current Silver Surfer, and then apropos of nothing they'll bring up "Meanwhile DC has this grimdark Batman stuff with all sorts of violence," which isn't a very direct comparison at all, since the series are SUPPOSED to be totally different, and it isn't like Marvel doesn't do "dark", and it isn't like DC doesn't hasn't had a lighthearted Batman book or two out as well (Batman '66 and Li'l Gotham). Or whatever. Apples and oranges.
It seems like the points of comparison are increasingly lax and it's like a kneejerk reaction or tourettes-like symptom where at any point in any discussion anyone can feel free to bring up something negative about DC. ("I enjoyed the Winter Soldier movie, and--NEW 52 YUCK UGH TERRIBLE!--I liked Age of Ultron as well." "Right now I'm reading Saga and--OMG STILL CAN'T GET OVER HOW THREE YEARS AGO DC GAVE WORK TO ROB FREAKING LIEFELD!!!!--Black Science is really good too.") I'm exaggerating, but not much. Too often these putdowns seem non sequitur, but it's condoned because of the heavy anti-DC bandwagon that we're all supposed to be jumping on.
To a large extent, I think DC has unfortunately earned their current reputation, but I also think people, sometimes, are piling on for no good reason. For the last few years there HAVE been good DC books out there, but what's the ratio between people who actually tried Charles Soule's Swamp Thing and people who spent hours on the internet propounding the belief that DC had "no" good books anymore? Pretty small ratio. Sometimes I read something or hear something and think "So, instead of committing to yet another ten-minute anti-DC rant after ten-minute anti-DC rant, maybe this person could use that time to at least TRY an issue of Grayson or Batgirl. Maybe at least to temper their one-sidedness with an example or two of current DC comics that aren't totally 100% bad. Just a bit of nuance and balance, please."
Again, this honestly isn't directed at anything or anyone here. But it's mostly what I see on other forums and comments sections when I dare to look or listen. One of the things I really appreciate about CGS is how Chris, even during his anti-DC monologues, will namecheck current DC books that he does enjoy. That's welcomed, nuanced criticism.
I'm enjoying precious few of their comics lately, but I do think "hating on DC" has become trendy, and I don't enjoy the rise of this trend.
If people are going to talk about DC or make DC's current output the focus of discussion (such as it is in this thread), and then they're going to critique the comics negatively, then... fine. That's all well and good. I've done that myself and I agree with the sentiment.
But basically what I object to -- and I have NOT witnessed this happening much if at all on CGS podcasts or forums -- is when DC is routinely pulled into discussions only for the sake of derision. While comparisons between Secret Wars and Convergence are natural (and it's totally fair game to bring up how much better the former is than the latter), I'm constantly hearing podcasters and pundits bring up, say, David Finch's depiction of Wonder Woman while talking about the Agent Carter TV series. "The Marvel Cinematic Universe and their TV stuff does female characters so well... and then we have DC and their stupid boobalicious Wonder Woman comic." They talk about live-action and writing, but then use that as an excuse to criticize art that they don't like. Or whatever. Or someone will be posting about how much they like Squirrel Girl or the current Silver Surfer, and then apropos of nothing they'll bring up "Meanwhile DC has this grimdark Batman stuff with all sorts of violence," which isn't a very direct comparison at all, since the series are SUPPOSED to be totally different, and it isn't like Marvel doesn't do "dark", and it isn't like DC doesn't hasn't had a lighthearted Batman book or two out as well (Batman '66 and Li'l Gotham). Or whatever. Apples and oranges.
It seems like the points of comparison are increasingly lax and it's like a kneejerk reaction or tourettes-like symptom where at any point in any discussion anyone can feel free to bring up something negative about DC. ("I enjoyed the Winter Soldier movie, and--NEW 52 YUCK UGH TERRIBLE!--I liked Age of Ultron as well." "Right now I'm reading Saga and--OMG STILL CAN'T GET OVER HOW THREE YEARS AGO DC GAVE WORK TO ROB FREAKING LIEFELD!!!!--Black Science is really good too.") I'm exaggerating, but not much. Too often these putdowns seem non sequitur, but it's condoned because of the heavy anti-DC bandwagon that we're all supposed to be jumping on.
To a large extent, I think DC has unfortunately earned their current reputation, but I also think people, sometimes, are piling on for no good reason. For the last few years there HAVE been good DC books out there, but what's the ratio between people who actually tried Charles Soule's Swamp Thing and people who spent hours on the internet propounding the belief that DC had "no" good books anymore? Pretty small ratio. Sometimes I read something or hear something and think "So, instead of committing to yet another ten-minute anti-DC rant after ten-minute anti-DC rant, maybe this person could use that time to at least TRY an issue of Grayson or Batgirl. Maybe at least to temper their one-sidedness with an example or two of current DC comics that aren't totally 100% bad. Just a bit of nuance and balance, please."
Again, this honestly isn't directed at anything or anyone here. But it's mostly what I see on other forums and comments sections when I dare to look or listen. One of the things I really appreciate about CGS is how Chris, even during his anti-DC monologues, will namecheck current DC books that he does enjoy. That's welcomed, nuanced criticism.
Nice. I have come to stop reading many other forums (CBR and some iFanboy not included) because of a general trolling animosity they present. I'm not sure how CGS does it, but haters are far and few.
I'm sure I will always follow DC and Marvel but i tend to have criticisms or critiques of situations or trends. Some folk seem to hate one or both of the big two but continue to purchase the products. It is somewhat reminiscent of a drug habit.
I buy two monthly DC books. Gotham Academy and Gotham By Midnight. Which is fine because it frees up more money for Marvel and Image. However, I have been going back and reading TPBs and back issues of DC titles I've always wanted to read(Ostrander's Spectre, Dixon's Nightwing, etc).
And now you can read 44 sneak previews of the post-Convergence titles DC will be offering at: www.comicbookresources.com.
I did notice there was no Wonder Woman or JLA offering, but that may be due to scheduling. Who knows?
Here's an opportunity to see which titles you're most likely to stick with from DC, you know, instead of hatin' on them. I'm certainly willing to take a peek to see if they're going to get ANYTHING out of me. After the first issue of Convergence, it hasn't seemed likely, although I did order the new Cyborg #1. Maybe I should check it out online now while there's still time to add/remove items from my DCBS order? You ahve until midnight to do that, right?
And now you can read 44 sneak previews of the post-Convergence titles DC will be offering at: www.comicbookresources.com.
I did notice there was no Wonder Woman or JLA offering, but that may be due to scheduling. Who knows?
Here's an opportunity to see which titles you're most likely to stick with from DC, you know, instead of hatin' on them. I'm certainly willing to take a peek to see if they're going to get ANYTHING out of me. After the first issue of Convergence, it hasn't seemed likely, although I did order the new Cyborg #1. Maybe I should check it out online now while there's still time to add/remove items from my DCBS order? You ahve until midnight to do that, right?
Omega Men looks pretty decent - I like the art style and anyone even pretending to do what they did in the first 9 pages makes me predisposed to like it.
Earth 2 Society looks to be picking up from the previous Earth 2 / Earth's End / Convergence storyline. I'm good with that.
I like seeing that the GL books appear to have been disconnected from each other.
I was initially enthusiastic about Dr Fate, but I'm not too sure about the art.
Grayson looks to be continuing to hit it out of the park.
It's an interesting question. I really think people like to complain. Plain and simple. I love DC. I love Marvel. I love their characters. What I don't love? The prices. My lack of space in my house. The lack of time. I'm not a huge fan of certain things going on with the comics so I don't read them for that reason as well. I wish I could. I wish I had the money and the space and the time to read the books that I really want to but I don't. Still, to get on the topic, people want change and once they get it? They want things to go back. Bottom line is people like to complain about what they don't have and when they do get it, they complain about it too. It's a shame because the creators are doing their best to make something different and entertaining and all we do as a consumer is shit on it. It's lose/lose situation for the creators and it's not really that fair to them who is only trying to make something for our enjoyment.
Comments
For example, if mutants are gone, can Fox still make X-Men movies based (however loosley) on the past 50 year's worth of story?
If the FF stop being the FF but each individually have adventures, is the FF null and void and not usable in a movie?
How long do these other companies have the rights to the character? How can they loose the rights? Can they loose the rights?
Please, share your insight. I am but an egg.
But, to be serious, we'll see when the time comes. But I think taking Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch away from Magneto's parentage (and, I didn't realize until someone on the board pointed it out, that is actually a sort of retcon of a retcon. Scarlet Witch and Pietro were kicking around the MU for almost 20 years before the story that established them as Magneto's children. (And that seemed to undo a story from nearly 10 years before that suggested they were the children of Miss America and The Whizzer). All of that was news to me-- I started reading X-books in the mid-80s, and probably first got to know the characters from the OHOTMU, so to me they were always Magneto's children. Put from a publishing point of view, they spent nearly half their publishing life not being that. More history on all that here.
Also, the story of their true parentage is still playing out in All New Uncanny Avengers, as far as I know. I don't think they will end up back as Magneto's kids, but I am not sure that they will end up as Inhumans, either. The recent Avengers magazine (it was a freebie to shops, and DCBS threw one in my box) didn't drop the "I" word in their brief OHOTMU-light style comic character bios. It says things like "a magical revelation during the Axis event left the Maximoff twins' whole past in doubt once again!" So in this puff piece marketing magazine, if they wanted to sell the idea that they are definitely Inhumans now, they could of. And instead they treat it as a mystery that is still unfolding in Uncanny Avengers.
And didn't the movie seemed to suggest their powers were the results of HYDRA experiments?
Long story short-- yes. Those two characters have been moved away from their X-origins. And surely there is some film studio politics around branding them as Avengers rather than X-characters (of course, that is nothing new-- they became Avengers in 1965).
But whether this signals an attempt by Marvel publishing to push out all X-Men and go all-Inhumans instead? I don't see it. I think that is a VERY big jump to make and there is very little evidence to suggest that is in the works.
MCU has been competing with Fox for years, and yet there hasn't been a slowdown in X-titles that I have noticed. (Including how many X-centered titles are part of Secret Wars).
New X-titles keep launching. Spider-Man & The X-Men just launched this past December, for example. The fact that Kitty Pryde has been guesting in Guardians (not to mention the fact overall that Guardians and X-Men just had a crossover) is not evidence of pulling the X-Men apart. It is Marvel continuing to include them. Keep them central. Because X-Men sell a lot of comics, and that is what publishing is going to try to do.
(Also, in the case of Kitty Pryde and Peter Quill, I think Bendis really enjoys writing her, and is setting up a way to continue to do so once he is off his X-books, and as I don't she Ultimate Kitty has been a part of his Miles Morales Spider-Man comic).
And, yes, they are pushing Inhumans, of course, because there is an Inhumans movie on the slate. And to build to that, I would expect that we will see more Inhumans-related origins (i.e. the new Ms. Marvel) going forward than mutant origins. But I would be very surprised if the long term plan by publishing is "No More X-Books". Because that equals "No More X-Book Money".
We'll see. But if the only indication of this overall no-more-mutants-all-Inhumans-all-the-time plan is what they did with Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, then we are talking about characters who have been more Avengers-centered than X-centered since 1965.
PS- Sorry, that was a long sidebar, and I know this is meant to be a thread about how people currently feel about DC. I suppose it is only fair, though-- how many Marvel-related topics end up being about Batman!
As far as I understand it, and of course every licensing deal is different, but these other studios retain the rights so long as they keep making movies with these characters. If they don't exercise the option to make one after X amount of years, then the rights could revert. I believe that is what happened with Punisher and Daredevil. The studios that had options on them let the rights run out at a certain point. Or, they could make a new deal to sell back or share a character, as it seems Sony has done with Spider-Man.
As far as I understand it, there is nothing that Marvel could publish tomorrow or next year that could actually affect these deals. They could cancel all the X-books, kill all the characters, or have the next issue reveal that the X-Men never existed, or were never mutants, etc., and it would not affect the deal one bit. Because what is in effect is what was agreed to and named at the time of the deal. Not anything that publishing has done since then.
So Marvel is going through all these motions, disregarding their fan base, to be petulant? Like a cranky teenager?
If I had the rights to he FF or any character, I would make anything within the specifics of the deal to retain owwnership. People are not going to not go to the movies because "mutants don't exist anymore".
But all that has actually happened has been that the early-80's retcon of Wanda and Pietro being Magneto's children has been undone, and now gone into 'their parentage is a mystery'.
And, yes, FF was cancelled a few months ago... shortly followed by Avengers, New Avengers, Thor, Iron Man, Captain America... for a total of 33 titles cancelled to make way for Secret Wars and whatever reboot or relaunch will come out the other side. So they only did to FF what they were about to do to almost the entire rest of the line. They just ended FF earlier, I would guess, because that was the organic end to the story that was happening in the book. (In fact, given that the FF end got attention before we knew about the rest of the cancellations, it ended up getting more attention, and that final story arc bumped up in numbers).
So this wasn't publishing singling out FF in any way. It was just a month or two ahead of the rest of the cancellations.
So if Marvel, at least the publishing division, is supposed to be acting like a cranky teenager towards the X-Men and FF. Well... then I have seen much crankier teenagers in my time, you know what I mean ;)
I feel like a lot of these beliefs that Marvel is out to get the FF and X-Men have persisted, but they are based on rumors. And with each successful month, what those rumors are based on gets more and more thin.
Maybe Marvel could have done a better job of countering that narrative. (Though, in the interim, they ended up selling more copies of FF than they had in years, I think, so maybe that is why they let the controversy play out). But I feel like, to judge by what is actually getting published line-wide, the idea that Marvel-- at least the publishing division-- is out to bury the IPs of the X-Men and FF because of studio battles just doesn't ring true to me.
I clearly find the whole speculation interesting, as I tend to go on and on about it. But maybe the conversation should get continued over there so this one can get back to talking about DC.
Grayson is pretty good, but I really do prefer Nightwing.
I stopped buying Batman after Court of Owls, Night of Owls, Death of the Family. I simply lost interest.
I also enjoyed Greg Pak and Jar Lee's Batman/Superman, World's Finest, and James Robinson's Earth 52. Lost interest, canceled, Robinson left.
I now get Convergence...Secret Wars is so much better...because I was interested, it has Earth 2 characters and, ironically, a Nightwing free Grayson. This far in, I'll finish it to see what happens (Divergence?). Blackest Night leading to Brightest Day annoyed me. Lets see if Convergence into Divergence is any better.
Darkseid War interests me. I'll check it out.
My problems is DC has positioned themselves in such a way to have me assume their products and stories will suck or start off strong and derail. Since they will be around for years to come I will always keep an eye on things, but Marvel has been more consistent (this changes, as we all know).
I feel Marvel has stronger creators overall than DC and DC pushed house style for some time after the relaunch which is limiting.
Image has been getting a larger share of my weekly shekels.
I also look for back issues of specific story arc and am considering getting into book binding.
Strangley, most of the creators I follow are either at Marvel or Image these days. Was disappointed Lemire's 'Black Hammer' at Dark Horse has been delayed.
I just finished the trade of Sensation Comics featuring Wonder Woman, for example. A cadre of different creators offering their take on Diana and her mythos. I loved it. I love just about every iteration there's been of Captain "Shazam" Marvel - from Beck to Ordway to yes, even Bratson in the New 52 - because I enjoy seeing how different creators approach a character I like. And these "new" takes on the characters doesn't diminish what came before them (for me at least) in any way.
Continuity and canon are fool's errands that I think DC is actually being wise to ignore with this apparent "All Stories Happened" angle they seem to be headed toward.
I have prefered characters. If a certain character has a specific writer and/or artist I will check it out. If that same character has someone I've never heard of, ill check it out. If Rob Liefield is on it, I won't touch it.
I will follow writers to unknown places. Hickman, Lemire, Moore, Morrison, Vaughn to name a few. Black Science is in my wheel house but I wouldn't have checked it out if Remender wasn't writing it.
I currently prefer writers over artists. A good story can be hindered by poor are. A poor story cannot be saved by a good artist. Although it may be pretty, if it doesn't read well who cares? In a perfect world, a strong artist and writer work together.
With DC, I feel they are currently aping a marvelesque style. I think Marvel does Marvel better. I prefer the days of DC characters being heroic role models (think about the scene in All Star Superman when Kal saves the girl from jumping). I just don't get that feeling currently.
If people are going to talk about DC or make DC's current output the focus of discussion (such as it is in this thread), and then they're going to critique the comics negatively, then... fine. That's all well and good. I've done that myself and I agree with the sentiment.
But basically what I object to -- and I have NOT witnessed this happening much if at all on CGS podcasts or forums -- is when DC is routinely pulled into discussions only for the sake of derision. While comparisons between Secret Wars and Convergence are natural (and it's totally fair game to bring up how much better the former is than the latter), I'm constantly hearing podcasters and pundits bring up, say, David Finch's depiction of Wonder Woman while talking about the Agent Carter TV series. "The Marvel Cinematic Universe and their TV stuff does female characters so well... and then we have DC and their stupid boobalicious Wonder Woman comic." They talk about live-action and writing, but then use that as an excuse to criticize art that they don't like. Or whatever. Or someone will be posting about how much they like Squirrel Girl or the current Silver Surfer, and then apropos of nothing they'll bring up "Meanwhile DC has this grimdark Batman stuff with all sorts of violence," which isn't a very direct comparison at all, since the series are SUPPOSED to be totally different, and it isn't like Marvel doesn't do "dark", and it isn't like DC doesn't hasn't had a lighthearted Batman book or two out as well (Batman '66 and Li'l Gotham). Or whatever. Apples and oranges.
It seems like the points of comparison are increasingly lax and it's like a kneejerk reaction or tourettes-like symptom where at any point in any discussion anyone can feel free to bring up something negative about DC. ("I enjoyed the Winter Soldier movie, and--NEW 52 YUCK UGH TERRIBLE!--I liked Age of Ultron as well." "Right now I'm reading Saga and--OMG STILL CAN'T GET OVER HOW THREE YEARS AGO DC GAVE WORK TO ROB FREAKING LIEFELD!!!!--Black Science is really good too.") I'm exaggerating, but not much. Too often these putdowns seem non sequitur, but it's condoned because of the heavy anti-DC bandwagon that we're all supposed to be jumping on.
To a large extent, I think DC has unfortunately earned their current reputation, but I also think people, sometimes, are piling on for no good reason. For the last few years there HAVE been good DC books out there, but what's the ratio between people who actually tried Charles Soule's Swamp Thing and people who spent hours on the internet propounding the belief that DC had "no" good books anymore? Pretty small ratio. Sometimes I read something or hear something and think "So, instead of committing to yet another ten-minute anti-DC rant after ten-minute anti-DC rant, maybe this person could use that time to at least TRY an issue of Grayson or Batgirl. Maybe at least to temper their one-sidedness with an example or two of current DC comics that aren't totally 100% bad. Just a bit of nuance and balance, please."
Again, this honestly isn't directed at anything or anyone here. But it's mostly what I see on other forums and comments sections when I dare to look or listen. One of the things I really appreciate about CGS is how Chris, even during his anti-DC monologues, will namecheck current DC books that he does enjoy. That's welcomed, nuanced criticism.
I'm sure I will always follow DC and Marvel but i tend to have criticisms or critiques of situations or trends. Some folk seem to hate one or both of the big two but continue to purchase the products. It is somewhat reminiscent of a drug habit.
I forgot my point, but nice post @Elsiebub
I think many comic fans forget that when any company asks us to buy and read their product, we can simply answer "No."
Perhaps some of the "hatred" comes from bitterness born from a sense of obligation.
http://thecomicforums.com/discussion/3465/one-comic-is-too-many-and-a-thousand-is-not-enough?new=1
www.comicbookresources.com.
I did notice there was no Wonder Woman or JLA offering, but that may be due to scheduling. Who knows?
Here's an opportunity to see which titles you're most likely to stick with from DC, you know, instead of hatin' on them. I'm certainly willing to take a peek to see if they're going to get ANYTHING out of me. After the first issue of Convergence, it hasn't seemed likely, although I did order the new Cyborg #1. Maybe I should check it out online now while there's still time to add/remove items from my DCBS order? You ahve until midnight to do that, right?
Earth 2 Society looks to be picking up from the previous Earth 2 / Earth's End / Convergence storyline. I'm good with that.
I like seeing that the GL books appear to have been disconnected from each other.
I was initially enthusiastic about Dr Fate, but I'm not too sure about the art.
Grayson looks to be continuing to hit it out of the park.
Looks like I'll be dropping Aquaman, however, if the preview is any indication.
Prez and Omega Men look interesting. I'll probably give them a try.