Howdy, Stranger!

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

Episode 1626 Talkback - The October 2016 Previews for items in shops in December 2016

i_am_scifii_am_scifi Posts: 784
edited October 2016 in CGS Episodes & Spin-Offs
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!
«13

Comments

  • i_am_scifii_am_scifi Posts: 784
    edited October 2016
    As for my insights on the episode in question:

    @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:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SZ3rMMYBLY

    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:

    image

    The year is 1996, and Telepath and her team of young heroes are coming into their own. But just as they're beginning to find their strength, a trap is sprung that lands them in the middle of a dark plot larger than they realize. Confidence is shattered, innocence is lost, and their skills are put to the test in a challenge that will leave them forever changed. From the minds of 7-time Harvey Award nominated husband-and- wife creators Comfort Love and Adam Withers, The Uniques is a superhero story about growth and change, following the course of seven characters' lives in a world where the super is common but heroes are not.
    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.
  • "Lord Trousers"

    I prefer Sir Shorts. Or Constable Corduroys.
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,750
    @wildpigcomics, I'm with you on Fraction’s take on Kate Bishop. He made her one of my favorite Marvel characters. And I'll second you on the Jones/Anderson Ka-Zar run. Like the McGregor Black Panther run, it was a highmark of Marvel at the time. Great stuff, particularly the “Ka-Zar in New York” storyline.

    “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.)
  • Thanks for the valuable Skype/recording advice, Ian (@i_am_scifi). (Took a lot to prevent myself from typing "'sound' advice" just then... hope you appreciate the self-restraint!!) We'll try it next time the connection goes all reverberant on us.

    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!
  • Mark_EngblomMark_Engblom Posts: 343
    edited October 2016
    @wildpigcomics - Save your precious time on Planet Earth and skip Buckaroo Banzai. It's one of the three movies I've actually walked out of and never looked back. It went beyond (below?) unimpressive into "actively annoying" territory, and can't for the life of me understand what it's rabid fans see in it. I guess if you're into kooky camp that thinks it's cool, this is the movie you've been waiting for...but I just found it to be a pretentious load of BS. Take a cue from Pants' non-endorsement and spend your time doing something else. Life's too short!
  • Mr_CosmicMr_Cosmic Posts: 3,200
    edited October 2016
    Mike (who?) used to talk it up on the show and I used to wonder how anyone could love such an awful movie.
  • Mark_EngblomMark_Engblom Posts: 343
    edited October 2016
    Regarding the fallen status of the X-Men: It's been fascinating seeing Marvel steadily downgrade its (once) mighty X-franchise, diminished to almost the near-invisible status of the X-Men prior to 1975's Giant Size X-Men #1 (the debut of the "New X-Men"). At first glance, it seems to be based on moves being made in the cinematic/TV realm, whether it's Marvel Studios' game of high-stakes "movie rights chicken" with Fox or the ham-fisted rollout of the "Inhumans" on TV's "SHIELD" series...and all the craziness in between (like converting Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch into Inhumans in the comics and similar corporate brinksmanship).

    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?
  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,884
    @Mark_Engblom I think it could be argued that the strategy of having more characters/brands that reflect the changing demographics of the audience actually IS the long game. Even if, in the short term, it may seem radical or surprising.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    @Mark_Engblom I think you've made some great points and spot-on observations, but few of the more prolific posters on these boards would be willing to publicly agree with us.
  • "Sub-letting" the identities of existing, established and iconic heroes doesn't seem like a great long term strategy. One would think creating exciting new characters that reflect those changing demographics would be the more solid long-term approach. The notion that (fill in the blank) populations need characters dressed up like Marvel's historically white male A-listers in order to feel included and inspired is at the very least condescending.
  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,884
    edited October 2016

    "Sub-letting" the identities of existing, established and iconic heroes doesn't seem like a great long term strategy. One would think creating exciting new characters that reflect those changing demographics would be the more solid long-term approach. The notion that (fill in the blank) populations need characters dressed up like Marvel's historically white male A-listers in order to feel included and inspired is at the very least condescending.

    ... Except that-- even if their initial hook might have been sharing a name of a historical, proven brand name-- if given time and success, and quality stories, these "sub-letted" identities can strongly stand on their own, as their own thing. If the starting point is often a mantle, that is probably because years of experience have taught Marvel and DC how hard it is to establish new characters with new names, as opposed to making a brand extension. And that doesn't just apply to situations of changing the demographics of the characters, that is basically the case with virtually all titles that Marvel and DC launches. The market has taught them that, with very, very few exceptions, publishing a brand new character with their own, new name in a title does not fly. And they have found they can sell multiple versions of the same brand at the same time, so it is not even a matter of replacement. They don't have to choose whether to sell a Miles Morales OR a Peter Parker, when they can just sell more Spider-Man books.

    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.

  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    edited October 2016
    Told'ja

    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.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    Enjoyed the brief discussion about the Classics Illustrated series published by Pendulum comics that Chris got from his uncle. They were indeed "classics." In fact, those books were the direct antecedent to Marvel Classics Comics — which is where I discovered these books in my school's library. The Marvel series' first twelves issues were actually colorized reprints of selected Pendulum comics, just with new covers.

    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.
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,750
    All I know for sure is that I'm reading and enjoying more Marvel books today than I have at any other point in the past 25 years.

    But, yes, Spider-Man has come down with Flash Syndrome.
  • David_D said:

    I 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."

    Which makes the whole sub-letting practice even more ridiculous...not to mention potentially condescending and/or offensive to the very new audiences they're trying to attract. Imagine being attracted to a comic book character that resonates with you, your culture, your skin color, your gender, etc., then discovering that character is essentially just playing "dress up" using someone else's M.O. The subtle (or not so subtle) message that "your kind can't make it unless we smuggle you in using this costume" is counterproductive to achieving true equality and inclusiveness.
  • Mr_CosmicMr_Cosmic Posts: 3,200

    All I know for sure is that I'm reading and enjoying more Marvel books today than I have at any other point in the past 25 years.

    I'm the opposite. Though it has nothing to do with "sub-letting." Rather the type of stories that are being told and the characters that are being pushed don't interest me. It's sort of funny because a couple years ago I was reading more and enjoying more Marvel than ever before..now I'm buying hardly anything from them. I'm sure the pendulum will swing back sooner or later like it always does.

  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,884
    edited October 2016
    @Mark_Engblom

    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.

  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,884
    PS- One last thought, to follow an already too-long post, but I think this is an interesting point you've made-- I think another hedge against the feeling that this was just a sub-let, or an existing character re-skinned to be aimed at you, comes down to whether or not the new character feels distinct. I can't speak to all of them, I didn't read the last Ghost Rider, I don't read the Miles Morales book or Totally Awesome Hulk. But in cases like Kamala Khan, or the Jane Foster Thor, the Kate Burton Hawkeye, or Riri Williams (so far, she is probably still too new for me to really judge)-- they may have taken some inspiration from the mantle, but they are very, very different characters. As different as Rhodey from Tony, or as different as Dick, Jason, and Tim are from each other. And I don't think a new reader to the Ms. Marvel book, while there is reason in the narrative for her to choose that name, feels like they are reading stories that are just re-skinned retellings of the old Ms. Marvel stories from the 1970s. She is not Ultimate Ms. Marvel that way. The character is very much her own thing. And I think, when they succeed at doing that, the idea that it is a pre-existing name becomes less important to that new reader. Or, so I would imagine.
  • Mark_EngblomMark_Engblom Posts: 343
    edited October 2016
    I've read and enjoyed the new Ms. Marvel stories (though not quite enough to continue with them long term), and the character was certainly good and intriguing enough not to need the "training wheels" of the Ms. Marvel moniker. That move on Marvel's part, rather than showing progressive courage, actually reveals a kind of regressive cowardice by not having the confidence to create and heavily promote a dynamic new female character with an Islamic cultural identity who can stand on that alone without a pre-existing identity to inhabit. If reflecting the larger cultural dynamic around us...especially here in the multi-ethnic United States is TRULY the wave of the future (and I believe it is), why not BOLDLY go in that direction, rather than sheepishly going the dress-up, training wheels, sub-let route of "kinda-sorta inclusion"? For all of Marvel's clout, for all of Marvel's big talk, for all of Marvel's power, and for all of Marvel's (and Disney's) money, THEY of all entities can create and empower ENTIRELY NEW CHARACTERS of every check-box on an employment application form without having to rely upon these silly, winking, condescending Trojan Horse stunts.
  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,884

    I've read and enjoyed the new Ms. Marvel stories (though not quite enough to continue with them long term), and the character was certainly good and intriguing enough not to need the "training wheels" of the Ms. Marvel moniker. That move on Marvel's part, rather than showing progressive courage, actually reveals a kind of regressive cowardice by not having the confidence to create and heavily promote a dynamic new female character with an Islamic cultural identity who can stand on that alone without a pre-existing identity to inhabit. If reflecting the larger cultural dynamic around us...especially here in the multi-ethnic United States is TRULY the wave of the future (and I believe it is), why not BOLDLY go in that direction, rather than sheepishly going the dress-up, training wheels, sub-let route of "kinda-sorta inclusion"? For all of Marvel's clout, for all of Marvel's big talk, for all of Marvel's power, and for all of Marvel's (and Disney's) money, THEY of all entities can create and empower ENTIRELY NEW CHARACTERS of every check-box on an employment application form without having to rely upon these silly, winking, condescending Trojan Horse stunts.

    I think that is fair. And it may be, if a book like Mosiac has legs, there will be more like it to come. We'll see. And it may be that years from now, if they let her age, and she ends up aging out of the teenage sounding "Ms." moniker, that there might be a book in the future simply called Kamala Khan. Or some new name she takes on. But I hear you that there is some timidity built into how the character got started.

    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.
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,750
    Mr_Cosmic said:

    All I know for sure is that I'm reading and enjoying more Marvel books today than I have at any other point in the past 25 years.

    I'm the opposite. Though it has nothing to do with "sub-letting." Rather the type of stories that are being told and the characters that are being pushed don't interest me. It's sort of funny because a couple years ago I was reading more and enjoying more Marvel than ever before..now I'm buying hardly anything from them. I'm sure the pendulum will swing back sooner or later like it always does.
    These things do tend to run in cycles, or at least they used to. I'm not so sure that will continue to be the case. We'll see.
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,750
    David_D said:

    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.

    I think this is the crux of the matter. Ms. Marvel is a unique case because of her Muslim background. Of all the new characters Marvel has created during the “New” era, she was the one most likely to get blowback from the readership. Saddling her with the company’s name was a sign of commitment to the character—an indication that Marvel was not going to let her fade into the background like most new characters eventually do. I think it was a subtle suggestion to the readers that, “You can invest in this character. We are going to support this character and give this book every chance to succeed and become an integral part of our universe.” Because, let’s face it, many readers need to feel confident a book is going to be around for a while before they decide to jump on board—especially with the cost of comics these days. And the people of Marvel know this.

    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.
  • These things do tend to run in cycles, or at least they used to. I'm not so sure that will continue to be the case. We'll see.

    They absolutely run in cycles. Most of us can probably recall the big trend in the early to mid-90's at DC where entirely new characters took over the roles of their most iconic characters for varying lengths of time. Even the dawn of the Silver Age saw new (albeit still white and still male) versions of Golden Age DC characters taking over the legacy (though this isn't quite as analogous to our modern comic book environment).

    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.
  • Mark_EngblomMark_Engblom Posts: 343
    edited October 2016

    I think this is the crux of the matter. Ms. Marvel is a unique case because of her Muslim background. Of all the new characters Marvel has created during the “New” era, she was the one most likely to get blowback from the readership.

    I find it a little hard to buy that. The vast majority of the comic book readership (particularly the coveted younger demographic) seems to pride itself on being very open to alternate cultures and lifestyles...so I don't see much of a risk of "blowback" introducing a prominent Muslim character. I mean, it's not like they're selling comics to the crowd at a Donald Trump rally. It's the comics community we're talking about here, hardly a bastion of entrenched, flag-waving, foaming at the mouth Xenophobia.

  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,750

    your gender, etc., then discovering that character is essentially just playing "dress up" using someone else's M.O. The subtle (or not so subtle) message that "your kind can't make it unless we smuggle you in using this costume" is counterproductive to achieving true equality and inclusiveness.

    This is a good point, and it’s an issue that’s been around in comics since the Golden Age. Hawkgirl, Catgirl (young partner of Catman), Namora, Mary Marvel, Bulletgirl, Batwoman, Supergirl, Batgirl—for every Wonder Woman and Miss Fury in the Golden and Silver Ages, there was a knock-off of a lead male hero. So why does there seem to be a difference between how people feel about Supergirl and how they feel about a black Captain America? Is it simply because Supergirl has been around since before we started reading comics? And if so, why should that matter?
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,750

    These things do tend to run in cycles, or at least they used to. I'm not so sure that will continue to be the case. We'll see.

    They absolutely run in cycles. Most of us can probably recall the big trend in the early to mid-90's at DC where entirely new characters took over the roles of their most iconic characters for varying lengths of time. Even the dawn of the Silver Age saw new (albeit still white and still male) versions of Golden Age DC characters taking over the legacy (though this isn't quite as analogous to our modern comic book environment).

    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.
    I just meant in terms of storytelling style. Marvel and DC both go through cycles of being more experimental in their storytelling approach followed by being more traditional, and so on.
  • nweathingtonnweathington Posts: 6,750
    edited October 2016

    I think this is the crux of the matter. Ms. Marvel is a unique case because of her Muslim background. Of all the new characters Marvel has created during the “New” era, she was the one most likely to get blowback from the readership.

    I find it a little hard to buy that. The vast majority of the comic book readership (particularly the coveted younger demographic) seems to pride itself on being very open to alternate cultures and lifestyles...so I don't see much of a risk of "blowback" introducing a prominent Muslim character. I mean, it's not like they're selling comics to the crowd at a Donald Trump rally. It's the comics community we're talking about here, hardly a bastion of entrenched, flag-waving, foaming at the mouth Xenophobia.

    True, but the average Marvel reader still skews in the 35+ age range. And comics aren’t going to survive on just younger reader or just older readers. They need both.

    [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.]
  • BrackBrack Posts: 868
    edited October 2016
    @Adam_Murdough makes a common mistake in his guess as to what Gwenpool's deal is.

    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).

  • [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.]

    It's probably not going to survive PERIOD. All signs point in that direction. We're just tap dancing until that time finally arrives.
Sign In or Register to comment.