Options
Episode 1626 Talkback - The October 2016 Previews for items in shops in December 2016
i_am_scifi
Posts: 784
Time once again to go through the Previews catalog. This is the October 2016 catalog for items shipping to stores in December 2016.
Listen here!
Listen here!
Comments
@wildpigcomics inquired as to why Marvel would be reprinting material pertaining to the character Legion. The simple answer is that there's a TV series coming early next year to FX based on the character. Originally, talk was that this would be taking place in a universe separate from the X-Men movies, but lately Bryan Singer has made it appear more likely that it is simply a story happening adjacent to the X-films, but still within their (loosly) established continuity. Press has been VERY good so far, so I'm hoping this succeeds. Here's a trailer for you all to peruse:
Onto Previews itself. You guys didn't mention it, but I'm required by law to mention that Comfort Love and Adam Withers' The Uniques Volume 2: Paint It Black is solicited this month. Totally not mentioning it because I am one of the editors on the book (okay, maybe a little), but everyone should make sure to support the works of two of CGS' goodest buddies. This edition of The Uniques is completely redone from the original one released years ago, with the addition of new art, panel layouts, polished scripting, and totally new pages and scenes. Here's the solicit, from Page 317 in your Previews, order code OCT161398: Volume 2 is available for a whopping 45% discount at DCBS, for only $8.24. Do check it out!
Finally, as @Adam_Murdough and Chris asked in the post-show, which attached to the CGS App (available on both iOS and Android), here is a reiteration of my advice on getting rid of double audio on Skype:
If you guys get the double audio again, have both Murd and Chris disconnect and reconnect their mics. This one sounded like it was probably coming from Chris' end, as you never heard him echo, but you did Murd and the studio. It's a pain in the ass, but unfortunately one of those Skype quirks that pops up from time to time. If the mic isn't immediately recognized when you reconnect it in Skype, hang up and call back, and it should be good to go. If this doesn't actually fix things, there's more than likely a short in the mic, or Chris' headphones are simply set too loud and need to be adjusted.
“Cheesy”?!? “Cheesy”?!? The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai in the Across the 8th Dimension is not cheesy! It’s a cult classic, monkey boy! You must see it!
(Okay, maybe it's a little cheesy, but that’s what makes it so great.)
Man, we owe Comfort and Adam an apology--and a free plug at a future date! We absolutely intended to mention the second volume of C&A's daring recreation of The Uniques in this episode, but consternation over our audio woes during the recording seems to have driven it from our heads. Everybody buy The Uniques!
However, beyond all the corporate pissing matches, it seemed to me (an historically casual X-Fan) Marvel's X-Men comics had simply run out of gas. All of it seemed so played out and threadbare, so creatively exhausted, that their "quasi-mothballing" may have happened even without the movie issues throwing more water on the embers.
Of course, at the same time, Marvel's been busy diminishing and soft-pedaling the Fantastic Four for similar reasons...as well as converting most of their iconic "A-list" heroes into gender-bent or racially diverse alternate versions...so who knows what the overall corporate endgame is behind these surprisingly radical moves. Sure, the cynical knee-jerk response is "To sell comics, dummy!"...and I'm sure I'll get a few of those responses....but what's the long game here? Or is comics now so reactionary, it's no longer capable of a more overarching strategy?
But what really matters to the long term is whether the new version gets an audience, and works. To judge from the first few years of the character, the Kamala Khan Ms. Marvel has found an audience, and is succeeding. I don't think that the success of that character was because anyone was clamoring to finally have their own version of a historic Marvel character. I would wonder how many of the new fans of that Ms. Marvel had ever read any stories with any version of a Ms. Marvel in it. The character stands on its own now. If the use of the mantle helped smooth over the launch, then so be it. But that strategy- or re-using established character and title names- is used all over the Big 2, not just for cases of changing the demographics of the characters. So if that is condescending to the readership, then that condescension was applied just as much to the readers of the modern incarnation of the Guardians of the Galaxy as it was to the readers of the current Ms. Marvel or Thor.
Creativity at Marvel these days is beginning to look like they're just making a second, third, or fourth iteration of an existing property or popular hero with a different gender, race, or _________. Not sure if it's completely due to Marvel's noble efforts to delight various diverse groups of readers while inflating the appeal of their existing properties, or more that creators just don't want to create new protagonists for which they will receive no royalties or ownership. I think the "smoothing over the launch" excuse is a cop-out.
Also, call me cynical, but I think every person Peter Parker has ever known is now embued with spider-powers.
After the first twelve reprint issues, adaptations were handled by writers like Doug Moench and John Warner and drawn by the likes of Dino Castrillo, Jess Jodloman, Yong Montaño, and Rudy Mesina with many covers by Ernie Chan. This series was also where Michael Golden did his first work for Marvel Comics adapting an Edgar Allan Poe short story.
But, yes, Spider-Man has come down with Flash Syndrome.
I get what you are saying, and, while I can't say what other readers reactions would be, I could see where someone could have that reaction you are describing. I don't feel that has been the case, in large part, in the support and attention that the new Ms. Marvel, as a character, has enjoyed (heck, she was even on the cover of the Village Voice, and the centerpiece of a lead feature on these matters, last week). But I can see where you are coming from and, in general, personally, I wish that the Big Two were less risk averse overall when it comes to new characters and new ideas.
Even putting aside the discussion of where this intersects with the politics of representation, I think the way that being, first and foremost, a "character based entertainment company" rather than, simply, a comics publisher has often led to a lot of very corporate, risk-adverse, 'why launch a brand new snack when we can fill the shelves with different kinds of Cheez-Its' thinking. Proven content thinking. Brand thinking. I think that was already in place, that aversion to the new, and that resurrecting of old names and titles, at the Big Two well before the more recent efforts at creating more representation. I think that was already publishing climate. Heck, for me, it is one of the reasons why these days I am reading more Image than Big Two. I like having more new things in the mix.
So, if I were talking to the hypothetical new reader, having the reaction you are describing, that might be the first thing that I would point to. That this is not a way that they are being treated, as new readers, or readers coming from a different demographic from the conventional demographics of readers, any differently than the historical readers of comics. Because, at the end of the day, how many books or new teams of any kind of character are we ever getting? This is not a trend that is just to do with allowing non-white, non-straight, etc. characters to pass by. This is basically how the Big Two platforms everything they do. (And, if the hypothetical person indulged me for long enough, I would also go on to explain why, for example, calling the Kamala Khan book Ms. Marvel, or rather than a new name, was probably as much or more to do with trying to get retailers to order it, and we established readers to give it a chance, because there is the history of a mantle there.
Because, if anything, the established retailers and readerships have shown how risk averse we are to new brand names. So maybe it is actually guys like us that they have the real lowered expectations of? Of course, we have also voted (and not voted) with our dollars and orders in the past to create a market that is so risk averse. But that falls into a chicken-and-egg dilemma. Was it because they started calling all their team books Avengers because we bought those? Or did they start putting the word Avengers in so many team books because when they launched team books called new things, we so rarely bought them? Hard to know who is most to blame on that one. (Though, ultimately, Marvel has the money to be less risk-averse, and they shouldn't let the tail wag the dog, so I would say it is on them.)
The other thing I would point out to this hypothetical reader is that, it would be one thing if "your kind can't make it unless we smuggle you in using this costume" was actually true across the line of the books being published, but then there are examples that show that-- in the case of characters of color, and female characters, and here is the key, that are already established brands-- it is not like those characters are not being given support, too.
The narrative that 'you're only allowed in if we call you Ms. Marvel, Captain America, or Ghost Rider' is contradicted by the fact that, this month, there are two Luke Cage books on the stands. There is a Black Panther book (and one supported with plenty of advertising, promotion, and a writer that I would bet did not come cheap), and another Wakanda book on the way. And, sure I totally get the argument of 'Why couldn't they have just had a Falcon book?', but at the same time, if we look at the Sam WIlson book as a brand, then, yes, he took on the Captain America mantle as a part of boosting the visibility, prominence, and sales of the character, rather than giving more of a push to the Falcon brand. But, if you look at the actual branding of his solo title, it is called Captain America: Sam Wilson. So what they are branding is the character of Sam Wilson who, like Dick Grayson, has now had several superhero identities, but the brand as this character. Who we also see on screens, and perhaps they are positioning to take over as Captain America onscreen if Evans tires of the movies or gets too expensive. We'll see. But, even if it has that Captain America mantle attached, there may not be a Falcon book on the stands, but there is a book with Sam WIlson's actual name in it. How often does a character actually get their out of costume name in masthead that way? I can think of only a few.
They are even contradicting my premise and even doing the very rare thing of launching a new character and title who gets his own name, with Mosiac.
So I would point out to someone having the reaction you are imaging that it is not a case of them ONLY increasing representation by having different kinds of characters fit the shirt. I think there is, clearly, a lot of that going on. But it is not the only thing happening. It is not an either/or. They can do both at the same time.
But, at the same time, I see where you are coming from, and I am sure they are hearing the reaction you describing from readers, and I think books like Mosiac, as well as making sure to support the existing, established brands they already have in the MU are meant to be a hedge against that criticism, because I think they are keeping the point you are making in mind.
That said, I wonder, given that we are talking about the "Ms. Marvel" mantle and not something super-famous and branded, like Spider-Man, Thor, or Iron Man, how many of the new to Marvel readers that tried out that book had any reference for what a Ms. Marvel was, you know what I mean? Whether, to them, they saw it more as putting the name OF THE COMPANY on this character, and letting her bear that, rather than it being like "they are trusting you to be the new Ms. Marvel" when barely anybody at that point knew what a Ms. Marvel was. It was not like they were having her be a new kind of Wonder Woman, you know what I mean? Which is why I feel like, if the mantle was meant to be a hook, it was aimed more at the retailers and established readership than at people who were the new demographic they were looking to attract.
That is just particular to the Ms. Marvel case, though. I take your overall point.
I look at Ms. Marvel as a case of Marvel feeling that this particular character/book might need every chance for success they could come up with. And it worked.
But the current cycle differs from those past cycles in the degree they're using a mantle of social change/justice to cloak that same, driving, eternal need to sell just one more comic book....to the point where anyone questioning the tactic risks the knee-jerk label of "racist", "xenophone", "homophobe", etc. It's an almost bulletproof policy that Marvel can either claim magnificent victory over the forces of bigotry or malicious defeat by them, and still come out as a Champion of All that is Good and Right. DC is doing similar things on a much smaller scale, but I guess you gotta hand it to Marvel...since they are all in when it comes to this Trojan Horse strategy. Too bad they don't have the courage and confidence to just create new, diverse characters to stand on their own without having to be propped up by pre-existing heroic identities and legacies.
[Edit: I should clarify and say that the comics industry as we know it isn't going to survive on just younger or just older readers.]
She's not a Gwen Stacy (though when she was just a joke cover, she probably was). She's Gwen Poole, a young woman from OUR universe who has ended up in the Marvel Universe. The only superpower she has is an extensive knowledge of Marvel Comics continuity.
The ongoing comic is a lot of fun, especially for fans of Batroc, as he's essentially the second lead. And this week's reveal of the mastermind behind the events so far presents an interesting arch-villain for her (even though they are technically on the same side at the moment).