Okay, this page clearly shows this is set in New York, so they would know the Falcon is Cap’s partner. It also implies that the Trapster was not seen by the police, and that Falcon was already immobilized at the scene of the crime when they arrived. And let’s not forget that Sam Wilson did have ties to the mob (or has that been written out of continuity now?). It’s a reasonable assumption that Falcon hadn’t yet proven himself in the eyes of local law enforcement at the time of this incident, which would have made them less inclined to believe him whether he was black or not—though this scene is clearly implying the arresting officer didn’t believe his story simply because he was black.
But—it’s daytime outside, so one can assume that either the crime happened during daylight, or it took a long time for Captain America to get the word that his partner was in jail. If it happened during the daytime, where were the witnesses who could have told the police what happened? No security cameras at the bank that could corroborate his story?
I don’t have a problem with the scene in principle—Falcon being mistakenly arrested by the police. Retcons have been going on in comics for almost as long as comics have been made, and this is a scene I could see one of Marvel’s then-young writers writing back in the early ’70s. It’s a bit lazy and not as well well thought out as it could/should have been, that’s certain, but that’s not really the point here, is it?
So all the kids that looked up to him as an ideal and a racial equalizer now get to see him sitting in jail after this bunch of miscreant law enforcement officers somehow executed his arrest finding him glued down. How humiliating.
Getting taken down by the Trapster isn’t going to win you any fans, I agree. But that’s kind of beside the point, as well. The systematic racial bias in our policing policies and prison system is the point he’s illustrating and what we should be paying attention to. Yes, he’s much more heavy-handed in his writing than I prefer. I can’t say I'm a fan of anything Spencer’s written to be honest. But I have no problem with the issue being raised in a Captain America comic.
Are you saying the "systematic racial bias in our policing policies & prison system" along with Spencer or are you saying that's Spencer's take? I'm not certain yet if it's 2 people I'm disagreeing with here or just 1.
Good to know my knack for picking low-hanging fruit is still accurate enough to catch the ire of the dedicated SJW's in our midst!
But to be honest, Marvel makes it easy by promoting polarizing writers like Nick Spencer, David Walker, Dan Slott, et al.
I'm hardly a social justice warrior. I don't participate in rallies, boycotts or campaigns and I reject political evangelism from either wing. I just don't like hypocrisy.
"They're underpaid – overworked – and unappreciated – no one calls them superheroes, or makes any fuss over them! And yet, it's men like that – the thousands of unsung cops on the beat – who keep our streets from turning into jungles – and who make our cities safe – even for the unthinking cop-haters themselves!" - Captain America, from Tales of Suspense (Vol 1) 97
Are you saying the "systematic racial bias in our policing policies & prison system" along with Spencer or are you saying that's Spencer's take? I'm not certain yet if it's 2 people I'm disagreeing with here or just 1.
For the purposes of the discussion, I was saying that the point of the scene was to show systemic racial bias in law enforcement, and that Sam Wilson has been a victim of it. It doesn’t matter what I believe, because I was discussing the technical aspects of the storytelling of the scene, not the validity of the point he was illustrating. Whether systemic racial bias exists or not, and to what extent it exists if it does in fact exist has no affect on anything I was talking about. [Edit: Other than that I believe it is a topic worthy of discussion, and that I have no problem with a comic book being part of that discussion.]
It also has nothing to do with how adorable Moon Girl may or may not be, or why @i_am_scifi wants to squeeze her cheeks so badly.
I reject political evangelism from either wing. I just don't like hypocrisy.
I've grown weary of of Marvel hyper-politicizing its books while engaging in obscene double-standards, so I stop buying any title that fills its pages with divisive partisanship. Yet for some reason, you clearly have a problem with me sounding off on Nick Spencer's "political evangelism" because you feel I'm not qualified to do so since I've ridiculed the "entitlement generation" on several occasions.
Under Breevort's editorial hand, if a Marvel writer wants to pen cartoonish versions of irrational and angry white men, then he or she can do that. And if that writer wants to take the actions of a few to incite anger against the whole, then doing so against cops and law-abiding gun owners or conservative thinkers is completely permissible. Nick Spencer is only one of several Marvel writers that take straw man arguments they see online and put them into the mouths of obviously villainous characters.
They can write or draw whatever inflammatory idea they have towards white people, but they don’t dare cover inner city violence or Islamic terrorism — even if you planned on handling the latter issues in a measured manner. Nick Spencer says to do that would "dehumanize" those segments of the population. But white cops are racist? Conservatives are evil? No problem.
Marvel Comics has been filling its ranks with partisan trolls whose best ideas for keeping the company afloat is to cultivate loyalty with the lowest common denominator. There are many readers who are fed up with immature antics of writers like Nick Spencer, David Walker, and Jason Latour. We may not have an affinity for Donald Trump, but we also don’t want to see him turned into a de facto Red Skull or alternate-universe M.O.D.O.K. (Mental/Mobile/Mechanized Organism Designed Only for Killing). Where's the discussion regarding a Nobel Peace Prize honored President who has bombed and killed civilians? Or the a corrupt left-wing candidate who engages in pay-for-play corruption deals? Nada. No room for those discussions. And who really wants that either?
Superhero comic books once used to unite readers of all ages and from all walks of life, but these days Marvel employees seem determined to divide — and that is one reason why so many life-long customers no longer care and are walking away in droves. Since I know that only a handful of people are actually reading most of these titles, I sound off on them when I see what they're up to in order to put the spotlight on it. If you don't like my occasional forays into activism, then you're welcome to continue to defend their position or insultingly explain why I haven't any right to comment on it.
Yeah, Captain America was really even-handed when it turned out Richard Nixon was the head of The Evil Empire.
That was Englehart's intent in Captain America #175, but, at least back then, Marvel editorial tried to distance itself from that assumption as was printed in their responses to readers in the letters pages. Nixon's 1974 resignation from office, time-wise, corresponded with the Secret Empire's Number One being exposed as a criminal, who was described as a high ranking government official who immediately committed suicide upon his capture by Captain America. It was assumed to be Nixon. Previously, in CA #144, Nixon was also the guy that authorized SHIELD to create the all female assault team called "Femme Force" with Sharon Carter as its first leader. Many comics that featured Nixon prior to the Secret Empire story were considered "good things" that he did.
So "even-handed" compared to today? Given that Nixon essentially admitted to wrong-doing by resigning, I'd say "yes."
And for what it's worth, I doubt anyone wants to hear my thoughts on what I'm currently reading from Marvel. I'm in the middle of the 1991 run of Namor The Sub-Mariner and the first Marvel Masterworks of The Inhumans.
Are you kidding!?! I LOVED Byrne's Namor run (surprise), and I've been picking up assorted issues from the original Inhumans' series whenever I stumble across them (at reasonable prices). I've got fingers crossed it will show up on the Marvel Unlimited App soon.
This isn't the proper thread (being a Marvel 2.0 thread and all), but feel free to start a fresh one!
Are you kidding!?! I LOVED Byrne's Namor run (surprise), and I've been picking up assorted issues from the original Inhumans' series whenever I stumble across them (at reasonable prices). I've got fingers crossed it will show up on the Marvel Unlimited App soon.
This isn't the proper thread (being a Marvel 2.0 thread and all), but feel free to start a fresh one!
Glad to know I'm not the only one! I did mention one of them here
'No More Mutants'...Again? X-MEN 'New World' Tease Takes on New Life After EXTRAORDINARY Preview
I could see fleeing the mists as the initial status quo for splitting into teams (e.g. Extraordinary X-Men vs. Uncanny or New), but I still think the old idea that this premise is how they are going to separate and sideline the X-characters from the rest of the MU because of Perlmutter's hate for Fox is still bunk.
It sounds like the mists thing might be a story that a few teams with and react to and resolve in their own ways. A temporary status quo. And, sure, it may be trying to convert some X-fans into being Inhumans readers by having a reason to bring those groups into opposition.
But the solicits for Uncanny X-Men don't sounds like they are running away anywhere. The All-New X-Men solicits for December keep them clearly on their road trip on Earth. And from the looks of the solicits, books like All-New Wolverine, the various Deadpool books, and Uncanny Avengers (which still have mutants in the lineup who are still mutants) might not even be involved in the Terrigan mist story.
So, was there any truth at all to the Terrigan mist rumors? I will acknowledge that, despite my doubts, there was. There seems to be a story ahead that involved the mists being deadly to mutants.
But does this mean the rumor that a pro-Inhumans anti-X-Men sentiment bias was going to separate the mutants from the rest of the Marvel Universe by sending them all to the moon or whatever was never going to happen, and is still a ridiculous thing to believe? Yes. Yes, I think it still is.
I don't think this story is a smoking gun. It is just a story. Just as, when the Brubaker/Tan run of Uncanny sent the X-Men into space, it wasn't to try to get rid of the X-Men or part of some larger bit of politics. It was just a story being a story.
And is Alonso and others letting people continue to speculate about this, and maybe presume things that aren't going to happen? Of course. Because that's part of the game.
For what it is worth, a year later, we see that all this Terrigan mist stuff was a a lead-in to an X-Men vs. Inhumans event, and now, as we are seeing, relaunches of X-titles (as we have now had announcements of upcoming X-Men Blue and Gold series, as well as a new Generation X book). In other words-- a story. Leading to more stories and relaunches. Not some behind the scenes conspiracy to get rid of all the X-books for corporate or personal inter-studio political reasons, as some of the rumor mongering and clickbaiting would lead you to believe. Rather, a temporary status quo to set up for a lineup change and relaunch. Business as usual.
Not some behind the scenes conspiracy to get rid of all the X-books for corporate or personal inter-studio political reasons, as some of the rumor mongering and clickbaiting would lead you to believe. Rather, a temporary status quo to set up for a lineup change and relaunch. Business as usual.
Oh, David. That’s exactly what they want you to believe. ;)
Not some behind the scenes conspiracy to get rid of all the X-books for corporate or personal inter-studio political reasons, as some of the rumor mongering and clickbaiting would lead you to believe. Rather, a temporary status quo to set up for a lineup change and relaunch. Business as usual.
Oh, David. That’s exactly what they want you to believe. ;)
There were several instances where the X-Men licensing was pulled from everything from t-shirts to video games. But apparently FOX and Marvel made a few deals regarding a new TV show, Deadpool, and Ego the Living Planet and worked some things out on the movie side. Probably adjusted the status quo a bit.
All I want to know is when's that new Fantastic Four book coming out, Ike?
I think CosmicBookNews could use a better fact check. For example:
The rival corporation that Claremont refers to is Fox Studios, as they own the X-Men, Silver Surfer, Galactus and Fantastic Four as a result of purchasing the rights to the characters in the 90s. Reportedly, Marvel Comics CEO Ike Perlmutter has been at odds with Fox over those characters' movie rights and ordered the cancellation of X-Men characters, Fantastic Four books and even ordered the characters off of Marvel merchandise (and why there are no X-Men movie toys).
Ike "ordered the cancellation of the X-Men characters." Really? When did that happen? Do they mean when everything got cancelled for Secret Wars, like the Avengers as well, and then relaunched out of Secret Wars? And mean old Ike ordered the cancellation of the Fantastic Four BOOKS. You know, those four or five FF books Marvel had been selling like hotcakes!
And, sure, there weren't toys for the latest X-Men movie. But that is different than ordering a lack of X-Men merchandise in total. What they skipped, for the last two X-Men movies, were toys that Fox would get a piece of, and, to my eye, to judge from discount bins, don't sell as well as the classic, comic book looking designs (raise your hand if you've also seen loads of discounted 'X-Men movie Beast' toys in the wild. I know I have.)
But there is a difference between pulling out of the Fox licensing deals for toys of the Fox movie versions. . . and pulling away from licensing the X-Men as characters in general.
For example, I forget if it is a back cover ad, or a full page ad (maybe it has been both). But there have been a ton of ads in the Marvel books I read for the newest wave of X-Men Legends figures, including a Deadpool, that each come with a piece of a Juggernaut. So it is not like toys and other licensed products for the X-Men aren't happening. They just aren't the movie toys. Do I believe that Marvel would rather sell these versions:
And keep all the money, rather than sell more versions of Wolverine and Jean Grey in flight suits, and let Fox take a piece? Of course.
But I think the theory, with all due respect to what Chris Claremont feels, that Marvel has pulled back from X-Men and Deadpool merchandise IN GENERAL to downplay the X-Men and instead play up the Inhumans is thin on evidence.
I think CosmicBookNews could use a better fact check. For example:
The rival corporation that Claremont refers to is Fox Studios, as they own the X-Men, Silver Surfer, Galactus and Fantastic Four as a result of purchasing the rights to the characters in the 90s. Reportedly, Marvel Comics CEO Ike Perlmutter has been at odds with Fox over those characters' movie rights and ordered the cancellation of X-Men characters, Fantastic Four books and even ordered the characters off of Marvel merchandise (and why there are no X-Men movie toys).
Ike "ordered the cancellation of the X-Men characters." Really? When did that happen? Do they mean when everything got cancelled for Secret Wars, like the Avengers as well, and then relaunched out of Secret Wars?
And, yes, there weren't toys for the latest X-Men movie. Toys that Fox would get a piece of, and, to my eye, to judge from discount bins, don't sell as well as the classic, comic book looking designs (raise your hand if you've also seen loads of discounted 'X-Men movie Beast' toys in the wild. I know I have.)
But there is a difference between pulling out of the Fox licensing deals for toys of the Fox movie versions. . . and pulling away from licensing the X-Men as characters in general.
For example, I forget if it is a back cover ad, or a full page ad (maybe it has been both). But there have been a ton of ads in the Marvel books I read for the newest wave of X-Men Legends figures, including a Deadpool, that each come with a piece of a Juggernaut. So it is not like toys and other licensed products for the X-Men aren't happening. They just aren't the movie toys. Do I believe that Marvel would rather sell these versions:
And keep all the money, rather than sell more versions of Wolverine and Jean Grey in flight suits, and let Fox take a piece? Of course.
But I think the theory, with all due respect to what Chris Claremont feels, that Marvel has pulled back from X-Men and Deadpool merchandise IN GENERAL to downplay the X-Men and instead play up the Inhumans is thin on evidence.
Wait, are you implying facts are getting perverted & twisted to support a premise? Blasphemy I say!!
For what it is worth, a year later, we see that all this Terrigan mist stuff was a a lead-in to an X-Men vs. Inhumans event, and now, as we are seeing, relaunches of X-titles (as we have now had announcements of upcoming X-Men Blue and Gold series, as well as a new Generation X book). In other words-- a story.
Story is a little generous. 12 months of treading water and half-hearted new directions. Lemire and Hopeless appear to be gone in these relaunches, so these feel less a continuation of their stories than rebooting again. And the new Inhumans book is by Ewing, not Soule, so they're getting a new start too. The one positive is Bunn is continuing his ongoing tale of Magneto in X-Men Blue. And it's not drawn by Horn this time so there's a second positive there too.
For what it is worth, a year later, we see that all this Terrigan mist stuff was a a lead-in to an X-Men vs. Inhumans event, and now, as we are seeing, relaunches of X-titles (as we have now had announcements of upcoming X-Men Blue and Gold series, as well as a new Generation X book). In other words-- a story.
Story is a little generous. 12 months of treading water and half-hearted new directions. Lemire and Hopeless appear to be gone in these relaunches, so these feel less a continuation of their stories than rebooting again. And the new Inhumans book is by Ewing, not Soule, so they're getting a new start too. The one positive is Bunn is continuing his ongoing tale of Magneto in X-Men Blue. And it's not drawn by Horn this time so there's a second positive there too.
And, to be clear, I am not making a qualitative judgment on how the current era has been to read, as I am way behind in reading it. And it likely the case that this, it sounds like, unremarkable, X-Men era tread some water while they went from the Bendis era, through Secret Wars, to whatever comes next. My only point was that, like many past eras both bad and good, the Terrigan MIsts was a story to tell. That the intent was making stories. Something to do and fill the time until the next relaunch. (Even if those stories did not end up being great).
That is what I mean by story. As opposed to being some kind of insidious plot to sideline the X-Men characters as brands, as some reported (and, I would say "report" is probably too generous of a word) with an intent to be the end of the X-Men comics. These were intended to be stories in a continuing line, rather than an editorial push to disassociate the brands from the MU, and end the line.
some kind of insidious plot to sideline the X-Men characters as brands, as some reported (and, I would say "report" is probably too generous of a word) with an intent to be the end of the X-Men comics. These were intended to be stories in a continuing line, rather than an editorial push to disassociate the brands from the MU, and end the line.
Do you still maintain that, in spite of the old adage of "where there's smoke there's fire" and in spite of the current solicits, that there was absolutely nothing to those oft-repeated rumors that Ike P. was threatening license-pulls and other mitigation of the FOX owned licensed characters?
some kind of insidious plot to sideline the X-Men characters as brands, as some reported (and, I would say "report" is probably too generous of a word) with an intent to be the end of the X-Men comics. These were intended to be stories in a continuing line, rather than an editorial push to disassociate the brands from the MU, and end the line.
Do you still maintain that, in spite of the old adage of "where there's smoke there's fire" and in spite of the current solicits, that there was absolutely nothing to those oft-repeated rumors that Ike P. was threatening license-pulls and other mitigation of the FOX owned licensed characters?
To borrow that metaphor: People have been selling this smoke for years and often, like in the article you linked to, pointing at smoke and calling it fire.
I'm saying it's about time somebody pointed to where some fire ever showed up.
For what it is worth, a year later, we see that all this Terrigan mist stuff was a a lead-in to an X-Men vs. Inhumans event, and now, as we are seeing, relaunches of X-titles (as we have now had announcements of upcoming X-Men Blue and Gold series, as well as a new Generation X book). In other words-- a story.
Story is a little generous. 12 months of treading water and half-hearted new directions. Lemire and Hopeless appear to be gone in these relaunches, so these feel less a continuation of their stories than rebooting again. And the new Inhumans book is by Ewing, not Soule, so they're getting a new start too. The one positive is Bunn is continuing his ongoing tale of Magneto in X-Men Blue. And it's not drawn by Horn this time so there's a second positive there too.
And, to be clear, I am not making a qualitative judgment on how the current era has been to read, as I am way behind in reading it. And it likely the case that this, it sounds like, unremarkable, X-Men era tread some water while they went from the Bendis era, through Secret Wars, to whatever comes next. My only point was that, like many past eras both bad and good, the Terrigan MIsts was a story to tell. That the intent was making stories. Something to do and fill the time until the next relaunch. (Even if those stories did not end up being great).
I've been reading the X-books, and until Death of X came out 2 months ago, I'm not sure there was a "Terrigan Mists story" being told in them. It's been a plot device to start other stories, but I'm not sure there's been an ongoing story about them specifically.
Like Decimation in 2005, it's been an obstacle dumped in the X-Men's lap that has to be written around. Of the two Inhumans books, the one book that was specifically about the Terrigan Mists got cancelled. The one that survived has been about Kang and a cool Inhumans nightclub. Even Beast barely shows up nowadays.
The Terrigan Mists being in the background of the X-Books and others (Uncanny Avengers, New Avengers, Deadpool, Ms Marvel and so on) is not supposed to be a cool plot for the X-Men or the book they are in, it was supposed to make you think "these Inhumans sure are important, I should buy their comics".
Like when Homer suggested "whenever Poochie's not on screen, all the other characters should be asking 'Where's Poochie?'".
And that's the real subtext - Marvel Comics & TV's attempt to make the Inhumans a thing, and the audience's (and Marvel Film's) disinterest in them. The X-Men are just an innocent bystander like the rest of us.
For what it is worth, a year later, we see that all this Terrigan mist stuff was a a lead-in to an X-Men vs. Inhumans event, and now, as we are seeing, relaunches of X-titles (as we have now had announcements of upcoming X-Men Blue and Gold series, as well as a new Generation X book). In other words-- a story.
Story is a little generous. 12 months of treading water and half-hearted new directions. Lemire and Hopeless appear to be gone in these relaunches, so these feel less a continuation of their stories than rebooting again. And the new Inhumans book is by Ewing, not Soule, so they're getting a new start too. The one positive is Bunn is continuing his ongoing tale of Magneto in X-Men Blue. And it's not drawn by Horn this time so there's a second positive there too.
And, to be clear, I am not making a qualitative judgment on how the current era has been to read, as I am way behind in reading it. And it likely the case that this, it sounds like, unremarkable, X-Men era tread some water while they went from the Bendis era, through Secret Wars, to whatever comes next. My only point was that, like many past eras both bad and good, the Terrigan MIsts was a story to tell. That the intent was making stories. Something to do and fill the time until the next relaunch. (Even if those stories did not end up being great).
I've been reading the X-books, and until Death of X came out 2 months ago, I'm not sure there was a "Terrigan Mists story" being told in them. It's been a plot device to start other stories, but I'm not sure there's been an ongoing story about them specifically.
Like Decimation in 2005, it's been an obstacle dumped in the X-Men's lap that has to be written around. Of the two Inhumans books, the one book that was specifically about the Terrigan Mists got cancelled. The one that survived has been about Kang and a cool Inhumans nightclub. Even Beast barely shows up nowadays.
The Terrigan Mists being in the background of the X-Books and others (Uncanny Avengers, New Avengers, Deadpool, Ms Marvel and so on) is not supposed to be a cool plot for the X-Men or the book they are in, it was supposed to make you think "these Inhumans sure are important, I should buy their comics".
Like when Homer suggested "whenever Poochie's not on screen, all the other characters should be asking 'Where's Poochie?'".
And that's the real subtext - Marvel Comics & TV's attempt to make the Inhumans a thing, and the audience's (and Marvel Film's) disinterest in them. The X-Men are just an innocent bystander like the rest of us.
I think that sounds right.
I have certainly sensed how hard Marvel have been trying to make the Inhumans a thing. And without a lot of success so far it seems. I just haven't bought into the premise that to elevate the Inhumans they must hold back or get rid of the X-Men. I have an easier time believing that they would rather make money on both at the same time, if they can. And the X-Men/ Deadpool are IPs that make money.
I have certainly sensed how hard Marvel have been trying to make the Inhumans a thing. And without a lot of success so far it seems.
For more than a decade I have found the Inhumans to be significantly more interesting than the X-Men. Except recently. Maybe they were better as mysterious outsiders, taken in small doses. I too feel like Marvel is trying to "force" the Inhumans on us. Maybe it is the tone of the books/characters that just don't feel like the Inhumans that I have been intrigued with in the past. Which is too bad... for years I yearned for an Inhumans on-going title. Now we have two(!), and plenty of guest appearances in other titles, and I'm not all that interested in any of it.
And as far as "replacing" the X-Men with the Inhumans... that (theory) was never gonna fly. However, I do have more interest in the mutants now that their presence has been somewhat scaled back.
It's funny, I was thinking something similar with Marvel on another current trend.
Does anyone else see Marvel going so diverse it's practically a new universe? Within the next couple months, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, & Wolverine will all be titles that feature a female lead where the character was traditionally a male character?
I think it's a disservice to the Falcon character, but was there ever a reason why he's still Cap? Or why he's "Cap-Prime" with the shield?
It's funny, I was thinking something similar with Marvel on another current trend.
Does anyone else see Marvel going so diverse it's practically a new universe? Within the next couple months, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, & Wolverine will all be titles that feature a female lead where the character was traditionally a male character?
I think it's a disservice to the Falcon character, but was there ever a reason why he's still Cap? Or why he's "Cap-Prime" with the shield?
M
Remember, though, as per the latest month solicited, some of these are additive rather than replacements. Sure, Tony and Banner are off the board for now, but in February there will be a Thor comic staring the son of Odin as well as one staring the current Thor, a continuing comic about a male Hulk as well as female led Hulk, an Iron Man comic with a male lead (Infamous Iron Man, with Doom) as well as one with a female lead (Invincible, with Riri), two issues of an Old Man Logan comic, alongside one issue of the female-led All New Wolverine, Hawkeye is the female Hawkeye, but Occupy Avengers stars Clint, and two issues of Captain America: Steve Rogers shipping alongside one issue of Captain America: Sam Wilson.
These often get discussed as if it is a zero sum game-- that the mantle change means that the older character is replaced and put out to pasture. But I think, to judge by where things are at in comics shipping February 2017, that is rarely the case. More often, we see a mantle change to launch, and then the old one comes back, as well. So instead of "Wolverine is now a woman" you basically are extending the brand-- there are two Wolverine books, one is a woman.
It's funny, I was thinking something similar with Marvel on another current trend.
Does anyone else see Marvel going so diverse it's practically a new universe? Within the next couple months, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, & Wolverine will all be titles that feature a female lead where the character was traditionally a male character?
I think it's a disservice to the Falcon character, but was there ever a reason why he's still Cap? Or why he's "Cap-Prime" with the shield?
M
Remember, though, as per the latest month solicited, some of these are additive rather than replacements. Sure, Tony and Banner are off the board for now, but in February there will be a Thor comic staring the son of Odin as well as one staring the current Thor, a continuing comic about a male Hulk as well as female led Hulk, an Iron Man comic with a male lead (Infamous Iron Man, with Doom) as well as one with a female lead (Invincible, with Riri), two issues of an Old Man Logan comic, alongside one issue of the female-led All New Wolverine, Hawkeye is the female Hawkeye, but Occupy Avengers stars Clint, and two issues of Captain America: Steve Rogers shipping alongside one issue of Captain America: Sam Wilson.
These often get discussed as if it is a zero sum game-- that the mantle change means that the older character is replaced and put out to pasture. But I think, to judge by where things are at in comics shipping February 2017, that is rarely the case. More often, we see a mantle change to launch, and then the old one comes back, as well. So instead of "Wolverine is now a woman" you basically are extending the brand-- there are two Wolverine books, one is a woman.
Kind of different from what I was driving toward. Odinson is serving the male role of his first name, & Foster is serving as the more common name of the character. Same with Hulk, Iron Man, & Wolverine. None of them have "lady," "she," or any other (correct) gender indicator. It reminds me of Detective Comics had Batwoman as its feature lead. It's a way to sell a character with a bit of bait & switch.
I put Doom in the same category as Wilson. It's a disservice to the character to package them as something with a little more weight. If their books were exactly the same, but titled "Dr. Doom" & (a costume returned) "Falcon", respectively, would they sell the same number of books as the status quo?
In the same token would "Lady Iron," "She-Hulk," "X-23," & "Thunderstrike" be titled that sold the same numbers of books using everything as is, but a title change?
Do the extended brands sell as well as the original brand being sold at the same time?
It's funny, I was thinking something similar with Marvel on another current trend.
Does anyone else see Marvel going so diverse it's practically a new universe? Within the next couple months, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, & Wolverine will all be titles that feature a female lead where the character was traditionally a male character?
I think it's a disservice to the Falcon character, but was there ever a reason why he's still Cap? Or why he's "Cap-Prime" with the shield?
M
Remember, though, as per the latest month solicited, some of these are additive rather than replacements. Sure, Tony and Banner are off the board for now, but in February there will be a Thor comic staring the son of Odin as well as one staring the current Thor, a continuing comic about a male Hulk as well as female led Hulk, an Iron Man comic with a male lead (Infamous Iron Man, with Doom) as well as one with a female lead (Invincible, with Riri), two issues of an Old Man Logan comic, alongside one issue of the female-led All New Wolverine, Hawkeye is the female Hawkeye, but Occupy Avengers stars Clint, and two issues of Captain America: Steve Rogers shipping alongside one issue of Captain America: Sam Wilson.
These often get discussed as if it is a zero sum game-- that the mantle change means that the older character is replaced and put out to pasture. But I think, to judge by where things are at in comics shipping February 2017, that is rarely the case. More often, we see a mantle change to launch, and then the old one comes back, as well. So instead of "Wolverine is now a woman" you basically are extending the brand-- there are two Wolverine books, one is a woman.
Kind of different from what I was driving toward. Odinson is serving the male role of his first name, & Foster is serving as the more common name of the character. Same with Hulk, Iron Man, & Wolverine. None of them have "lady," "she," or any other (correct) gender indicator. It reminds me of Detective Comics had Batwoman as its feature lead. It's a way to sell a character with a bit of bait & switch.
I put Doom in the same category as Wilson. It's a disservice to the character to package them as something with a little more weight. If their books were exactly the same, but titled "Dr. Doom" & (a costume returned) "Falcon", respectively, would they sell the same number of books as the status quo?
In the same token would "Lady Iron," "She-Hulk," "X-23," & "Thunderstrike" be titled that sold the same numbers of books using everything as is, but a title change?
Do the extended brands sell as well as the original brand being sold at the same time?
M
I will leave the sales charts question to those that pay more attention to those. My guess is that the original, more famous character that has been around longer will sell better than a newer one, so probably Logan sells better than the X-23 Wolverine. And I would guess Steve Rogers sells better than Sam Wilson. But, at the end of the day, whichever one sells better, to some people they are now selling two Cap books or two kinds of Wolverine books, when there used to be one. That is what I mean by these being a brand extension. If your original Cheez-Its sell better than your Toasted Cheez-Its, I would imagine it doesn't matter to Kellogg that Toasted is not outperforming original if, at the end of the day, you end up taking more shelf space away from your competitors, and selling more Cheez-Its.
But your original question was "is this practically a new universe?" For what it is worth, as someone has read Marvel consistently, I would say, no. Most of the characters I was reading 30 years ago are still around, and while there is the usual soft reshuffling of time and continuity that Marvel does, generally the stories I am reading now feel like they are in the same universe and continuity of the ones I read as a kid.
There are a few (very few) new characters. There are some name changes. There are some changes to what title certain characters are found in. The publishing line has changed, as far as some characters getting a push in solo titles who didn't have them before. But the universe still feels very much the same to me.
I've said this ad nauseam, but still think Marvel should've marketed and produced a Falcon series following the Ant-Man or Captain America: Civil War movie. The audience at my theater during Ant-Man let out audible cheers and gasps when The Falcon showed up onscreen unexpectedly. They had a lot of good will then, but instead Marvel decided to put him in the Cap suit, then doubled-down with Steve Rogers' return by having two Cap books. It's redundant, and frankly doesn't promote the idea that a 'black' character can stand on his own without being in the shadow of a 'legacy' character. I hope Nick Spencer will eventually right that ship since it doesn't appear to be a sales winner.
Speaking of sales charts questions. Regarding the Captain America redundancy, when you look at October's charts, Captain America: Steve Rogers sold 49K copies at rank #51, while Captain America: Sam Wilson only sold 27k at rank #111. Abysmal. Sam Wilson deserves better. Also noteworthy, this time two years ago (October 2014) Captain America #25 sold 74,183 copies coming in at rank #14. This seems to indicate that the two 2016 titles have merely split the audience.
I've said this ad nauseam, but still think Marvel should've marketed and produced a Falcon series following the Ant-Man or Captain America: Civil War movie. The audience at my theater during Ant-Man let out audible cheers and gasps when The Falcon showed up onscreen unexpectedly. They had a lot of good will then, but instead Marvel decided to put him in the Cap suit, then doubled-down with Steve Rogers' return by having two Cap books. It's redundant, and frankly doesn't promote the idea that a 'black' character can stand on his own without being in the shadow of a 'legacy' character. I hope Nick Spencer will eventually right that ship since it doesn't appear to be a sales winner.
Speaking of sales charts questions. Regarding the Captain America redundancy, when you look at October's charts, Captain America: Steve Rogers sold 49K copies at rank #51, while Captain America: Sam Wilson only sold 27k at rank #111. Abysmal. Sam Wilson deserves better. Also noteworthy, this time two years ago (October 2014) Captain America #25 sold 74,183 copies coming in at rank #14. This seems to indicate that the two 2016 titles have merely split the audience.
You are comparing the typical October issues to an issue of Remender/Pacheco Captain America that has this solicit:
CAPTAIN AMERICA #25 RICK REMENDER (w) • CARLOS PACHECO(a) Cover by STUART IMMONEN Variant Cover by STEVE MCNIVEN Variant Cover by Adam Hughes DEADPOOL 75th VARIANT COVER BY TBA HASBRO VARAINT COVER BY TBA STOMP OUT BULLYING VARIANT COVER BY TBA Extra-Sized Issue! • Who is the All-New Captain America? • The conclusion to the story that began in Dimension Z as Zola strikes in unison with The Red Skull! • The final fate of Jet Black! 40 PGS./Rated T …$4.99
I am guessing this was unintentional rather than a cherry-pick, because #25 happened to be exactly two years prior to the recent month you looked at.
But, yes, retailers ordered heavy on that particular issue you cited, given that it was the reveal of the new Captain America with lots of variant covers. A lot there for retailers and readers to jump onto. (Not to mention, given how retailers had been caught by surprise and did not have supply to meet demand for the 2007 Captain America #25 "death" issue, that issue number echo and buzz around who would be the new Cap might have also encouraged retailers to go bullish on this one. At $5/pop. I wonder how many of those are in dollar bins now). And that made it an outlier from how that title had been selling.
So, versus September of 2014, October of 2016 Marvel not only sold more copies of a comic called Captain America: Steve Rogers than it was selling of Captain America two years and one month prior, they also sold 27K copies of a Captain America: Sam Wilson as well.
That is not splitting the audience. That is growing the audience by extending the brand (not to mention continuing to have two different kinds of Captain America to sell toys and other things of, as we all know the comics have not been the actual economic engine of Marvel for a long time).
Comments
It also has nothing to do with how adorable Moon Girl may or may not be, or why @i_am_scifi wants to squeeze her cheeks so badly.
Under Breevort's editorial hand, if a Marvel writer wants to pen cartoonish versions of irrational and angry white men, then he or she can do that. And if that writer wants to take the actions of a few to incite anger against the whole, then doing so against cops and law-abiding gun owners or conservative thinkers is completely permissible. Nick Spencer is only one of several Marvel writers that take straw man arguments they see online and put them into the mouths of obviously villainous characters.
They can write or draw whatever inflammatory idea they have towards white people, but they don’t dare cover inner city violence or Islamic terrorism — even if you planned on handling the latter issues in a measured manner. Nick Spencer says to do that would "dehumanize" those segments of the population. But white cops are racist? Conservatives are evil? No problem.
Marvel Comics has been filling its ranks with partisan trolls whose best ideas for keeping the company afloat is to cultivate loyalty with the lowest common denominator. There are many readers who are fed up with immature antics of writers like Nick Spencer, David Walker, and Jason Latour. We may not have an affinity for Donald Trump, but we also don’t want to see him turned into a de facto Red Skull or alternate-universe M.O.D.O.K. (Mental/Mobile/Mechanized Organism Designed Only for Killing). Where's the discussion regarding a Nobel Peace Prize honored President who has bombed and killed civilians? Or the a corrupt left-wing candidate who engages in pay-for-play corruption deals? Nada. No room for those discussions. And who really wants that either?
Superhero comic books once used to unite readers of all ages and from all walks of life, but these days Marvel employees seem determined to divide — and that is one reason why so many life-long customers no longer care and are walking away in droves. Since I know that only a handful of people are actually reading most of these titles, I sound off on them when I see what they're up to in order to put the spotlight on it. If you don't like my occasional forays into activism, then you're welcome to continue to defend their position or insultingly explain why I haven't any right to comment on it.
So "even-handed" compared to today? Given that Nixon essentially admitted to wrong-doing by resigning, I'd say "yes."
I LOVED Byrne's Namor run (surprise), and I've been picking up assorted issues from the original Inhumans' series whenever I stumble across them (at reasonable prices). I've got fingers crossed it will show up on the Marvel Unlimited App soon.
This isn't the proper thread (being a Marvel 2.0 thread and all), but feel free to start a fresh one!
All I want to know is when's that new Fantastic Four book coming out, Ike?
And, sure, there weren't toys for the latest X-Men movie. But that is different than ordering a lack of X-Men merchandise in total. What they skipped, for the last two X-Men movies, were toys that Fox would get a piece of, and, to my eye, to judge from discount bins, don't sell as well as the classic, comic book looking designs (raise your hand if you've also seen loads of discounted 'X-Men movie Beast' toys in the wild. I know I have.)
But there is a difference between pulling out of the Fox licensing deals for toys of the Fox movie versions. . . and pulling away from licensing the X-Men as characters in general.
For example, I forget if it is a back cover ad, or a full page ad (maybe it has been both). But there have been a ton of ads in the Marvel books I read for the newest wave of X-Men Legends figures, including a Deadpool, that each come with a piece of a Juggernaut. So it is not like toys and other licensed products for the X-Men aren't happening. They just aren't the movie toys. Do I believe that Marvel would rather sell these versions:
And keep all the money, rather than sell more versions of Wolverine and Jean Grey in flight suits, and let Fox take a piece? Of course.
But I think the theory, with all due respect to what Chris Claremont feels, that Marvel has pulled back from X-Men and Deadpool merchandise IN GENERAL to downplay the X-Men and instead play up the Inhumans is thin on evidence.
And, yes, there weren't toys for the latest X-Men movie. Toys that Fox would get a piece of, and, to my eye, to judge from discount bins, don't sell as well as the classic, comic book looking designs (raise your hand if you've also seen loads of discounted 'X-Men movie Beast' toys in the wild. I know I have.)
But there is a difference between pulling out of the Fox licensing deals for toys of the Fox movie versions. . . and pulling away from licensing the X-Men as characters in general.
For example, I forget if it is a back cover ad, or a full page ad (maybe it has been both). But there have been a ton of ads in the Marvel books I read for the newest wave of X-Men Legends figures, including a Deadpool, that each come with a piece of a Juggernaut. So it is not like toys and other licensed products for the X-Men aren't happening. They just aren't the movie toys. Do I believe that Marvel would rather sell these versions:
And keep all the money, rather than sell more versions of Wolverine and Jean Grey in flight suits, and let Fox take a piece? Of course.
But I think the theory, with all due respect to what Chris Claremont feels, that Marvel has pulled back from X-Men and Deadpool merchandise IN GENERAL to downplay the X-Men and instead play up the Inhumans is thin on evidence.
Wait, are you implying facts are getting perverted & twisted to support a premise? Blasphemy I say!!
M
That is what I mean by story. As opposed to being some kind of insidious plot to sideline the X-Men characters as brands, as some reported (and, I would say "report" is probably too generous of a word) with an intent to be the end of the X-Men comics. These were intended to be stories in a continuing line, rather than an editorial push to disassociate the brands from the MU, and end the line.
http://nerdist.com/marvel-releases-details-on-generation-x-revival/
Do you still maintain that, in spite of the old adage of "where there's smoke there's fire" and in spite of the current solicits, that there was absolutely nothing to those oft-repeated rumors that Ike P. was threatening license-pulls and other mitigation of the FOX owned licensed characters?
I'm saying it's about time somebody pointed to where some fire ever showed up.
Like Decimation in 2005, it's been an obstacle dumped in the X-Men's lap that has to be written around. Of the two Inhumans books, the one book that was specifically about the Terrigan Mists got cancelled. The one that survived has been about Kang and a cool Inhumans nightclub. Even Beast barely shows up nowadays.
The Terrigan Mists being in the background of the X-Books and others (Uncanny Avengers, New Avengers, Deadpool, Ms Marvel and so on) is not supposed to be a cool plot for the X-Men or the book they are in, it was supposed to make you think "these Inhumans sure are important, I should buy their comics".
Like when Homer suggested "whenever Poochie's not on screen, all the other characters should be asking 'Where's Poochie?'".
And that's the real subtext - Marvel Comics & TV's attempt to make the Inhumans a thing, and the audience's (and Marvel Film's) disinterest in them. The X-Men are just an innocent bystander like the rest of us.
I have certainly sensed how hard Marvel have been trying to make the Inhumans a thing. And without a lot of success so far it seems. I just haven't bought into the premise that to elevate the Inhumans they must hold back or get rid of the X-Men. I have an easier time believing that they would rather make money on both at the same time, if they can. And the X-Men/ Deadpool are IPs that make money.
And as far as "replacing" the X-Men with the Inhumans... that (theory) was never gonna fly. However, I do have more interest in the mutants now that their presence has been somewhat scaled back.
Does anyone else see Marvel going so diverse it's practically a new universe? Within the next couple months, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, & Wolverine will all be titles that feature a female lead where the character was traditionally a male character?
I think it's a disservice to the Falcon character, but was there ever a reason why he's still Cap? Or why he's "Cap-Prime" with the shield?
M
These often get discussed as if it is a zero sum game-- that the mantle change means that the older character is replaced and put out to pasture. But I think, to judge by where things are at in comics shipping February 2017, that is rarely the case. More often, we see a mantle change to launch, and then the old one comes back, as well. So instead of "Wolverine is now a woman" you basically are extending the brand-- there are two Wolverine books, one is a woman.
I put Doom in the same category as Wilson. It's a disservice to the character to package them as something with a little more weight. If their books were exactly the same, but titled "Dr. Doom" & (a costume returned) "Falcon", respectively, would they sell the same number of books as the status quo?
In the same token would "Lady Iron," "She-Hulk," "X-23," & "Thunderstrike" be titled that sold the same numbers of books using everything as is, but a title change?
Do the extended brands sell as well as the original brand being sold at the same time?
M
But your original question was "is this practically a new universe?" For what it is worth, as someone has read Marvel consistently, I would say, no. Most of the characters I was reading 30 years ago are still around, and while there is the usual soft reshuffling of time and continuity that Marvel does, generally the stories I am reading now feel like they are in the same universe and continuity of the ones I read as a kid.
There are a few (very few) new characters. There are some name changes. There are some changes to what title certain characters are found in. The publishing line has changed, as far as some characters getting a push in solo titles who didn't have them before. But the universe still feels very much the same to me.
I've said this ad nauseam, but still think Marvel should've marketed and produced a Falcon series following the Ant-Man or Captain America: Civil War movie. The audience at my theater during Ant-Man let out audible cheers and gasps when The Falcon showed up onscreen unexpectedly. They had a lot of good will then, but instead Marvel decided to put him in the Cap suit, then doubled-down with Steve Rogers' return by having two Cap books. It's redundant, and frankly doesn't promote the idea that a 'black' character can stand on his own without being in the shadow of a 'legacy' character. I hope Nick Spencer will eventually right that ship since it doesn't appear to be a sales winner.
Speaking of sales charts questions. Regarding the Captain America redundancy, when you look at October's charts, Captain America: Steve Rogers sold 49K copies at rank #51, while Captain America: Sam Wilson only sold 27k at rank #111. Abysmal. Sam Wilson deserves better. Also noteworthy, this time two years ago (October 2014) Captain America #25 sold 74,183 copies coming in at rank #14. This seems to indicate that the two 2016 titles have merely split the audience.
But, yes, retailers ordered heavy on that particular issue you cited, given that it was the reveal of the new Captain America with lots of variant covers. A lot there for retailers and readers to jump onto. (Not to mention, given how retailers had been caught by surprise and did not have supply to meet demand for the 2007 Captain America #25 "death" issue, that issue number echo and buzz around who would be the new Cap might have also encouraged retailers to go bullish on this one. At $5/pop. I wonder how many of those are in dollar bins now). And that made it an outlier from how that title had been selling.
I think a more fair comparison, to peek at the charts on Comichron, would be the prior month to the one you cited, Captain America #24, which sold 33,517. At a time when Marvel was more up overall against DC than it is right now.
So, versus September of 2014, October of 2016 Marvel not only sold more copies of a comic called Captain America: Steve Rogers than it was selling of Captain America two years and one month prior, they also sold 27K copies of a Captain America: Sam Wilson as well.
That is not splitting the audience. That is growing the audience by extending the brand (not to mention continuing to have two different kinds of Captain America to sell toys and other things of, as we all know the comics have not been the actual economic engine of Marvel for a long time).