So to re-cap; Captain America is either the former Falcon or he's Hydra, Hulk is Chulk, Thor isn't Thor, Wolverine too, and now - here's Iron Man (or shouldn't it be Iron Woman or is Riri transitioning?)
What if... Marvel is finally developing the sense of legacy that DC has owned for decades—the thing that really has made DC seem “special”—and which Marvel has never really had. Regardless of what their current intentions or motives may be, this could lead to some great storytelling opportunities down the road.
Just some food for thought.
It would be nice if this allowed for the Marvel Universe to finally feel like more than 7-10 years of story have passed. I feel like the X-Men corner of Marvel has had that-- the idea of characters like Kitty Pryde getting the chance to grow up, and mature from teen to a professor in her own right. But a lot of the other characters can feel a little stuck in an endless, elastic present, without a sense of the history, years, and experience building up behind them. Legacy characters can help with that.
What if... Marvel is finally developing the sense of legacy that DC has owned for decades—the thing that really has made DC seem “special”—and which Marvel has never really had. Regardless of what their current intentions or motives may be, this could lead to some great storytelling opportunities down the road.
Just some food for thought.
While that is possible, I'm far more curious about their intentions and motives and how it affects the bottom line in our present day. I'm also somewhat skeptical of how the writers get to these places. Miles Morales was introduced and developed for years before taking over. This character has been in 3 issues? While I'm sure you have an interesting take on how this is developing a sense of legacy, but I also notice the blockbuster movies continue to showcase the classic versions of their legacy characters; Cap, Spidey, Thor, Iron Man, Hulk, etc.
I believe at best, this is more about getting free press and selling more issues than it is developing "legacy". It's a demonstration of capitalism in its purest form. Marvel and DC are big companies who are constantly trying to increase the bottom line and have demonstrated they're willing to break things to do just that. But at worst, this could be labeled as SJW pandering. Neither approach necessarily guarantees good writing.
If readers are looking for real diversity, I hope they're convinced to eventually turn to independent titles. Cheryl Lynn Eaton's work would be a good start.
Well, Tony Stark is handing his namesake, the mantle of Iron Man, and what is probably the most powerful weapons system on this planet to a relative unknown, a 15-year old MIT student. But Marvel sure likes those press releases, and let's face it they can always use another reason for another #1 issue relaunch. Right?
I actually don't care much about this news because I'm not reading Iron Man, much less any of the new Marvel titles...
I am reading Iron Man. I'm not sure how the story is getting described in the stories about it today, but so far from the actual stories the character has been in, Stark has not handed over anything to her yet. She was inspired by Iron Man to build her own suit, and, at least so far, has not decided on a name or pronoun for herself yet. And Stark has not decided to turn anything over.
And if Stark decides to hand things over to her, there is a story currently being told that builds up to that decision. Just like all the other times Stark has handed the armor over to others. Or others have take it up when he has been absent or incapacitated.
Because, stories.
From the provided Time magazine link:
There’s a new Iron Man. Well, Iron Man for now. She’s still working on the name. The events at the end of the comic book event series Civil War II will result in Tony Stark stepping out of the Iron Man suit and a new character, Riri Williams, taking over, Marvel tells TIME.
What if... Marvel is finally developing the sense of legacy that DC has owned for decades—the thing that really has made DC seem “special”—and which Marvel has never really had. Regardless of what their current intentions or motives may be, this could lead to some great storytelling opportunities down the road.
Just some food for thought.
While that is possible, I'm far more curious about their intentions and motives and how it affects the bottom line in our present day. I'm also somewhat skeptical of how the writers get to these places. Miles Morales was introduced and developed for years before taking over. This character has been in 3 issues? While I'm sure you have an interesting take on how this is developing a sense of legacy, but I also notice the blockbuster movies continue to showcase the classic versions of their legacy characters; Cap, Spidey, Thor, Iron Man, Hulk, etc.
I believe at best, this is more about getting free press and selling more issues than it is developing "legacy". It's a demonstration of capitalism in its purest form. Marvel and DC are big companies who are constantly trying to increase the bottom line and have demonstrated they're willing to break things to do just that. But at worst, this could be labeled as SJW pandering. Neither approach necessarily guarantees good writing.
If readers are looking for real diversity, I hope they're convinced to eventually turn to independent titles. Cheryl Lynn Eaton's work would be a good start.
Well. From the outside, motivations are always something that people can interpret any way they want. And labels are easy to affix.
If you are talking quality, there are not guarantees. Really the quality of the work, and whether the effort behind it is sincere or cynical, is best judged by the work itself. To me, that is where the substantial discussion is to be had. There is no perfect formula for what works and what sticks. Sure, Miles Morales had time being an Ultimate Spider-Man before he became a 616 Spider-Man. The new Ms. Marvel, had, like one panel in Captain Marvel, a couple pages in a Marvel NOW anthology, and then was straight into her own solo title that has been one of Marvel's biggest hits in years. There is no perfect formula for launching a character. There never has been. There are just some things they try that work, and some that don't.
EDIT- I would also add, with Bendis in mind, that Jessica Jones was another character introduced (and retconned) into the MU by her own, mature-readers solo title. And then later expanded out to appearances in New Avengers. On paper, or following conventional wisdom, that would sound like a terrible plan for introducing a character that is supposed to stick. But now, 15 years later, Jones is one of a small group of Marvel characters with their own show. So, again, I don't believe there is any particular right or wrong way. Some unconventional ways have worked, and some more conventional pushes have failed. It really comes down to quality.
But judging that takes reading the work. So there is bound to be less of that discussion, as the bar for entry is higher. But we will get plenty of second guessing motivations, and labeling things as pandering and talking about how a comic that is not even out yet fits into the narrative of the political aims alongside this and that other comic that many of the people making these points also haven't read. Because that's easy. Reacting to a press release and seeing how it reinforces what you already believe takes next to no time or effort at all.
At the end of the day, the actual readership will show if they are into this, or not, by how they buy and continue to buy. And that is what will be listened to. As that is the real signal from the readers.
Reacting to a press release and seeing how it reinforces what you already believe takes next to no time or effort at all.
Wow. I thought my reaction seemed downright tame compared to a number of people who got very angry when reading the same Marvel press release when they discovered that Bendis (who btw is a white creator who is raising an adopted black daughter) was being allowed to write a black female character. Many are demanding Marvel hire a black creator to handle it.
Reacting to a press release and seeing how it reinforces what you already believe takes next to no time or effort at all.
Wow. I thought my reaction seemed downright tame compared to a number of people who got very angry when reading the same Marvel press release when they discovered that Bendis (who btw is a white creator who is raising an adopted black daughter) was being allowed to write a black female character. Many are demanding Marvel hire a black creator to handle it.
Sorry, to be more clear, I was not talking about your own reaction. As you yourself already said you didn't care and had already opted out, and you seemed to be bringing it up to talk about how you thought others were reacting, which I guess you do care about? I don't know.
But I was talking about, in general, the reactions going on today that I am seeing, hearing about, and could set my watch to. And the boring cycle of announce/ kneejerk reactions/ publication of the actual work/ near silence as everyone is off reacting to the next announcement that this one fits into. I get it, that's the business, and that's the depth of usual comics discussion these days: Talking about the talking about the thing that isn't out yet. But I find myself less and less interested in participating in that cycle.
I'd be happy to discuss the story once it is out, though. I am currently reading, and enjoying, both Iron Man titles. And will be reading this new volume or whatever it is, once it is a thing to be read.
It's called "buzz" @David_D and no, it isn't mandatory to participate. Comic talk is a rather varied subject these days. I think it's Marvel and DC's intent to get people to talk about it and react to it. You're not playing their game the way they want you to.
I'd be happy to discuss the story once it is out, though. I am currently reading, and enjoying, both Iron Man titles. And will be reading this new volume or whatever it is, once it is a thing to be read.
I presume the Iron Man relaunch isn't coming until October since that when the last issue of Civil War II is scheduled to hit shelves. Plenty of time to continue enjoying the current volume.
It's called "buzz" @David_D and no, it isn't mandatory to participate. Comic talk is a rather varied subject these days. I think it's Marvel and DC's intent to get people to talk about it and react to it. You're not playing their game the way they want you to.
I'd be happy to discuss the story once it is out, though. I am currently reading, and enjoying, both Iron Man titles. And will be reading this new volume or whatever it is, once it is a thing to be read.
I presume the Iron Man relaunch isn't coming until October since that when the last issue of Civil War II is scheduled to hit shelves. Plenty of time to continue enjoying the current volume.
A relaunch coming AFTER an event has concluded shows progess on Marvel's part.
While that is possible, I'm far more curious about their intentions and motives and how it affects the bottom line in our present day. I'm also somewhat skeptical of how the writers get to these places. Miles Morales was introduced and developed for years before taking over. This character has been in 3 issues? While I'm sure you have an interesting take on how this is developing a sense of legacy, but I also notice the blockbuster movies continue to showcase the classic versions of their legacy characters; Cap, Spidey, Thor, Iron Man, Hulk, etc.
I believe at best, this is more about getting free press and selling more issues than it is developing "legacy". It's a demonstration of capitalism in its purest form. Marvel and DC are big companies who are constantly trying to increase the bottom line and have demonstrated they're willing to break things to do just that. But at worst, this could be labeled as SJW pandering. Neither approach necessarily guarantees good writing.
I didn’t say this was being done in order to develop a sense of legacy for the Marvel universe. I only said it may provide the potential for doing so. DC never set out to establish a sense of legacy for their characters either. When DC’s publishers thought it was time to give superheroes another shot, Julius Schwartz thought, “You know, all those old characters will probably look a little cheesy to today’s readers. We need sleeker costumes and sci-fi backgrounds—that’ll sell! No magic lantern for Green Lantern. Instead there will be a corps of Lanterns, like the Lensmen novels. And he’ll be a test pilot like Chuck Yeager. That’ll get kids excited!” They scrapped all the old and made way for the new because they thought it would help them sell books.
The legacy feel of DC didn’t really develop until the ’70s, after the two generations of characters had plenty of time to intermingle and become “family.” Whether any of what’s going on at Marvel now leads to that feeling of legacy will depend on the creators handling the characters years from now. It’s not really something you can plan out.
You and I both know that Marvel’s current intentions and motives are the same as every publisher that has ever existed: they want to make money. That is, Marvel the publisher wants to make money. Marvel’s writers and artists want to tell great stories, but they also want to sell enough books so that they can continue to tell those stories at Marvel.
And comics have always pandered to their readers. When Marvel’s superheroes made wave in the ’60s, they were pandering to their perceived readers: young, white males, aged 7-14 or so. When Stan found out the Marvel books were a hit on college campuses, he began pandering to that crowd as well. When DC discovered older readers really dug Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns, they and every other comic publisher began pandering to that crowd. So what’s the big deal if Marvel is pandering to the SJW crowd now? Because pandering doesn’t guarantee good writing? Well, pandering doesn’t guarantee bad writing either, as Marvel and DC have shown for decades. The only difference now is that Marvel isn’t limiting its pandering to white males. Frankly, I don’t see a problem with that.
So for some All-New, All-Different MU titles I am currently reading--
ANAD Avengers by Waid and Asrar - Pretty solid so far. Very different than the Hickman stuff. Very throwback superhero-team-working-on-being-a-superhero-team-and-doing-superhero-things kind of a dynamic. And apropos to an earlier conversation, there is a bit of a legacy thing going on. Which is to say, there is definitely a sense of there being two generations of characters, the grown-ups and the teens, mixed together on the same team, but are all working on being the Avengers together. Sort of like if the X-Men and New Mutants were all together in one. In some ways I probably still like the prior Hickman and Bendis volumes a little better. But this is a nice change up from how dense and ponderous (usually in a good way) the Hickman era was. And it has a lot in common with the Bendis era, as being personality and character driven. But is maybe more on the front foot as far as pace and action go.
You and I both know that Marvel’s current intentions and motives are the same as every publisher that has ever existed: they want to make money. That is, Marvel the publisher wants to make money. Marvel’s writers and artists want to tell great stories, but they also want to sell enough books so that they can continue to tell those stories at Marvel.
And comics have always pandered to their readers. When Marvel’s superheroes made wave in the ’60s, they were pandering to their perceived readers: young, white males, aged 7-14 or so. When Stan found out the Marvel books were a hit on college campuses, he began pandering to that crowd as well. When DC discovered older readers really dug Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns, they and every other comic publisher began pandering to that crowd. So what’s the big deal if Marvel is pandering to the SJW crowd now? Because pandering doesn’t guarantee good writing? Well, pandering doesn’t guarantee bad writing either, as Marvel and DC have shown for decades. The only difference now is that Marvel isn’t limiting its pandering to white males. Frankly, I don’t see a problem with that.
Interesting that you point out DC's transformation after the success of Watchmen and The Dark Knight, a useful well that they've returned to time and time again with varied results.
I'm just a little surprised this news is being announced 3 months before the IronMan title relaunches. Is that supposed to increase August pre-orders? Increase July sales figures by curious readers and speculators? I'm also surprised Marvel and Bendis are being attacked online by people who think only creators of color should be allowed to write or draw comic characters of color. I'm further surprised that Marvel creators and editorial have continued to double down on acusing anyone who doesn't embrace these changes (female Thor, Sam Wilson Cap, female new IronMan, et al) as "mysoginists" or "racists". Well, disappointed is a more apt description.
I think everyone here understands and agrees that all the press releases, gender/race swaps and relaunches are mostly designed to pander in order to maximize profits. I suppose it's also conceivable that writers like Bendis are given a shorter time to introduce a new "legacy" character when most comic books are selling in the 30k-40k range versus the hundreds of thousands or millions like they did in the 70's, 80's, and 90's to the 7-14 year olds and the colleges kids you mention. Hence a character who just got introduced a couple of issues ago is suddenly taking over the Iron Man role. Maybe who Marvel decides to pander to only matters to a 8 or 9 people per comic shop and possibly to the publisher's accounting department.
FWIW, I don't think it was pandering when Luke Cage was the leader of the Avengers, and I don't think having a character like Monica Rambeaux returning would be pandering either. I don't think killing Rhodey helped the Marvel diversity quota, but I did always assume he would ventually become Iron Man. Tony Stark handing over the mantle to a teenage girl is a better plan than teen Tony, I guess. I happen to think some moves Marvel's been making since ANAD (and arguably earlier) are easy to reasonably disagree with or critically analyze - though for the life of me I can't recall anything Marvel has done that you've been vocally critical of on these boards. Maybe I've missed it.
But we don't have to agree. It's just comic talk, after all.
Interesting that you point out DC's transformation after the success of Watchmen and The Dark Knight, a useful well that they've returned to time and time again with varied results.
As I said, it wasn’t just DC who dipped into that well, it was pretty much every comic book publisher.
I'm just a little surprised this news is being announced 3 months before the IronMan title relaunches. Is that supposed to increase August pre-orders? Increase July sales figures by curious readers and speculators?
Ennh, I think they’re just trying to get out ahead of the San Diego news crush.
I'm also surprised Marvel and Bendis are being attacked online by people who think only creators of color should be allowed to write or draw comic characters of color. I'm further surprised that Marvel creators and editorial have continued to double down on acusing anyone who doesn't embrace these changes (female Thor, Sam Wilson Cap, female new IronMan, et al) as "mysoginists" or "racists". Well, disappointed is a more apt description.
I haven’t seen any of this myself, but I tend to stay away from comic book “news” sites. I get my news from my Facebook feed and this forum for the most part, which helps me maintain my good will towards the human race.
I suppose it's also conceivable that writers like Bendis are given a shorter time to introduce a new "legacy" character when most comic books are selling in the 30k-40k range versus the hundreds of thousands or millions like they did in the 70's, 80's, and 90's to the 7-14 year olds and the colleges kids you mention. Hence a character who just got introduced a couple of issues ago is suddenly taking over the Iron Man role.
This really isn’t anything new. Tim Drake appeared six months before he became Robin. Kyle Rayner first appeared only three issues before he replaced Hal Jordan as Green Lantern. It just happens more often now, which makes sense given how long the characters have been around at this point.
I happen to think some moves Marvel's been making since ANAD (and arguably earlier) are easy to reasonably disagree with or critically analyze - though for the life of me I can't recall anything Marvel has done that you've been vocally critical of on these boards. Maybe I've missed it.
So to re-cap; Captain America is either the former Falcon or he's Hydra, Hulk is Chulk, Thor isn't Thor, Wolverine too, and now - here's Iron Man (or shouldn't it be Iron Woman or is Riri transitioning?)
What if... Marvel is finally developing the sense of legacy that DC has owned for decades—the thing that really has made DC seem “special”—and which Marvel has never really had. Regardless of what their current intentions or motives may be, this could lead to some great storytelling opportunities down the road.
Just some food for thought.
"Finally" seems...off putting, like Marvel really needed it. I have to admit, I'm not really a fan of the "legacy" aspect. I thought it was near to tie the Lone Ranger into Green Hornet. The legacy aspect of the Phantom is part of the character. DC legacy characters, for the most part, were created through incidental circumstances.
Fortunately, I'm only reading one Marvel book that's basically a peripheral character.
So to re-cap; Captain America is either the former Falcon or he's Hydra, Hulk is Chulk, Thor isn't Thor, Wolverine too, and now - here's Iron Man (or shouldn't it be Iron Woman or is Riri transitioning?)
What if... Marvel is finally developing the sense of legacy that DC has owned for decades—the thing that really has made DC seem “special”—and which Marvel has never really had. Regardless of what their current intentions or motives may be, this could lead to some great storytelling opportunities down the road.
Just some food for thought.
"Finally" seems...off putting, like Marvel really needed it. I have to admit, I'm not really a fan of the "legacy" aspect. I thought it was near to tie the Lone Ranger into Green Hornet. The legacy aspect of the Phantom is part of the character. DC legacy characters, for the most part, were created through incidental circumstances.
Fortunately, I'm only reading one Marvel book that's basically a peripheral character.
M
Okay, pretend I didn’t say “finally.” I wasn’t trying to say that I or anyone else has been clamoring for Marvel to establish generational legacy characters, just throwing the idea out there that this new wave of characters taking over long-held identities could eventually lead to the same incidental circumstances that DC creators took advantage of many years ago. That’s all.
And comics have always pandered to their readers. When Marvel’s superheroes made wave in the ’60s, they were pandering to their perceived readers: young, white males, aged 7-14 or so. When Stan found out the Marvel books were a hit on college campuses, he began pandering to that crowd as well. When DC discovered older readers really dug Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns, they and every other comic publisher began pandering to that crowd. So what’s the big deal if Marvel is pandering to the SJW crowd now? Because pandering doesn’t guarantee good writing? Well, pandering doesn’t guarantee bad writing either, as Marvel and DC have shown for decades. The only difference now is that Marvel isn’t limiting its pandering to white males. Frankly, I don’t see a problem with that.
I forget who it was, but I recall a really good speech about how everything we like - no matter how counter-culture it may seem - is designed to pander and sell out. No matter how much the guys in The Pearl Jam may seem to be anti-establishment, make no mistake, they want your money. :) So they can keep doing what they're doing, obviously. It wasn't portrayed as a horrible thing, but the gist of the speech was to be wary of anyone who claims to be doing art for art's sake yet putting it out there commercially. There's an underlying motive behind it.
A relaunch coming AFTER an event has concluded shows progess on Marvel's part.
That's assuming the event even wraps up on time. Not exactly Marvel's strong suit.
Marvel is doing its best to spoil the ending of Civil War II without actually spoiling it. Announcing new books such as an All New and Different Iron (Wo)man, An infamous Iron Man that is DOOM!, no mention of what Tony Stark is up too (yet), and a Captain Marvel book where supposedly she is hugely popular.
A relaunch coming AFTER an event has concluded shows progess on Marvel's part.
That's assuming the event even wraps up on time. Not exactly Marvel's strong suit.
Marvel is doing its best to spoil the ending of Civil War II without actually spoiling it. Announcing new books such as an All New and Different Iron (Wo)man, An infamous Iron Man that is DOOM!, no mention of what Tony Stark is up too (yet), and a Captain Marvel book where supposedly she is hugely popular.
Don't forget that they've already told us that a MAJOR CHARACTER DIES! in Civil War #3
Of course this would be a worry if Civil War 2 was any good. But it is a Bendis event, so it is people talking opaquely about events that happened (or worse, yet to happen) in other comics, while the actual event comic is fairly uneventful.
This week's Captain America: Sam Wilson tie-in does a much better job of arguing Carol and Tony's positions than the actual event has so far.
We have two Captain Americas. Two Iron Men (at least). Two Hawkeyes. Two Visions. Two Thors. Two Wolverines. Two Spider-Men. Two Spider-Women. Two Beasts. Two Icemen. Two Angels. Two Hulks (for now). Two Wasps. Two Widows – Red and Black. Two Gwen Stacys. Two Ms Marvels. Two Apocalypses. And loads of Deadpools.
We have two Captain Americas. Two Iron Men (at least). Two Hawkeyes. Two Visions. Two Thors. Two Wolverines. Two Spider-Men. Two Spider-Women. Two Beasts. Two Icemen. Two Angels. Two Hulks (for now). Two Wasps. Two Widows – Red and Black. Two Gwen Stacys. Two Ms Marvels. Two Apocalypses. And loads of Deadpools.
...I guess I just don't get it. Because people will buy a Captain America title, but won’t necessarily buy a Falcon title? And people will buy a book with a female Thor if she’s the Thor, but won't necessarily buy a Jane Foster book? And Old Man Logan was a hit, so let’s give him a regular series, and maybe people will buy a female Wolverine book if she’s the Wolverine? Obviously that doesn’t explain a lot of the other duplicate characters, but I think it boils down to “How can we make things different, but not too different, so we can make a bunch of titles that people will want to buy, instead of just a handful of titles people will want to buy?”
We have two Captain Americas. Two Iron Men (at least). Two Hawkeyes. Two Visions. Two Thors. Two Wolverines. Two Spider-Men. Two Spider-Women. Two Beasts. Two Icemen. Two Angels. Two Hulks (for now). Two Wasps. Two Widows – Red and Black. Two Gwen Stacys. Two Ms Marvels. Two Apocalypses. And loads of Deadpools.
...I guess I just don't get it.
Isnt there 3 Spider-men; Parker, Morales, & O'Hara?
We have two Captain Americas. Two Iron Men (at least). Two Hawkeyes. Two Visions. Two Thors. Two Wolverines. Two Spider-Men. Two Spider-Women. Two Beasts. Two Icemen. Two Angels. Two Hulks (for now). Two Wasps. Two Widows – Red and Black. Two Gwen Stacys. Two Ms Marvels. Two Apocalypses. And loads of Deadpools.
...I guess I just don't get it.
Because people will buy a Captain America title, but won’t necessarily buy a Falcon title? And people will buy a book with a female Thor if she’s the Thor, but won't necessarily buy a Jane Foster book? And Old Man Logan was a hit, so let’s give him a regular series, and maybe people will buy a female Wolverine book if she’s the Wolverine? Obviously that doesn’t explain a lot of the other duplicate characters, but I think it boils down to “How can we make things different, but not too different, so we can make a bunch of titles that people will want to buy, instead of just a handful of titles people will want to buy?”
Plus, Kate Bishop Hawkeye is awesome.
Again, disclosure is that I'm not reading core character books, but that's the stuff that always drive my interest away.
Besides the overall goal of making money, Marvel can claim diversity and put out a press release every few months hyping a new book with an established character now being more inclusive.
It also has an out with people who want the (kind of) status quo. Steve Rogers, Odinson, Clint Barton, etc. are all still there.
Marvel is trying to have it all and reach as wide an audience as they can.
Is it working? As well as anything can actually work in comics today. Some of the books are good, some are not. They will make adjustments around every summer event (if not sooner). No matter what they do, there will be a portion of the fans unhappy.
We have two Captain Americas. Two Iron Men (at least). Two Hawkeyes. Two Visions. Two Thors. Two Wolverines. Two Spider-Men. Two Spider-Women. Two Beasts. Two Icemen. Two Angels. Two Hulks (for now). Two Wasps. Two Widows – Red and Black. Two Gwen Stacys. Two Ms Marvels. Two Apocalypses. And loads of Deadpools.
...I guess I just don't get it.
Having 2 versions of a superhero is pretty modest compared to other superhero franchises...
Also, that list is currently off.
There's only one Hulk (for now). There's a lot more Spider-Women and Spider-Men than just two of each. And more Angels as of the latest Uncanny X-Men. There was a load of Deadpools, but they stopped being Deadpool after the first arc of the current run and went back to their old codenames. There are currently Three Apocalypses, but none of them are in the same time period.
It's brand extension. There are also a lot of different Cheez-It varieties in the aisle. There used to be only one. Because it is easier for a manufacturer to sell a new kind of Cheez-It then to try to get the consumer to give something new a try.
But, at the end of the day, if the work is something you enjoy, and the character feels distinct, then the idea that this started off as a derivative falls away. But I'm not surprised that they continue to revive and spin variations of the same brand names. Because when they try something actually new with a new name, it almost always fails.
I loved the Fraction/ Kitson series The Order. New characters. Excellent concept, that fit well with the MU status quo at the time. Went 12 issues. Maybe if they had called the very same book "The Champions", which they wanted to at the time, but they were worried about legal challenges from a RPG company, it may have still not sold. Or maybe it would have attracted enough initial interest to go the distance, or at least get to 25 issues instead of 12.
I would say the same for Simon Dark. A book actually set IN GOTHAM. But didn't have the Bat- prefix, so I think it went 16 issues or something.
I actually can't think of many examples, as trying to launch a new character with a new name instead of a mantle or extension after the prefix is not something tried very much in the last 10-15 years.
But, I don't blame them. As a readership we have trained them to do it this way.
It's brand extension. There are also a lot of different Cheez-It varieties in the aisle. There used to be only one. Because it is easier for a manufacturer to sell a new kind of Cheez-It then to try to get the consumer to give something new a try.
But, at the end of the day, if the work is something you enjoy, and the character feels distinct, then the idea that this started off as a derivative falls away. But I'm not surprised that they continue to revive and spin variations of the same brand names. Because when they try something actually new with a new name, it almost always fails.
I loved the Fraction/ Kitson series The Order. New characters. Excellent concept, that fit well with the MU status quo at the time. Went 12 issues. Maybe if they had called the very same book "The Champions", which they wanted to at the time, but they were worried about legal challenges from a RPG company, it may have still not sold. Or maybe it would have attracted enough initial interest to go the distance, or at least get to 25 issues instead of 12.
I would say the same for Simon Dark. A book actually set IN GOTHAM. But didn't have the Bat- prefix, so I think it went 16 issues or something.
I actually can't think of many examples, as trying to launch a new character with a new name instead of a mantle or extension after the prefix is not something tried very much in the last 10-15 years.
But, I don't blame them. As a readership we have trained them to do it this way.
It's an interesting cycle, people clamor for new characters so their characters aren't tweaked. New, diverse characters are created, they don't sell books, so established characters are tweaked to give the diversity...then repeat.
I've already been of the mindset the person who had the identity when I first came to be exposed to him/her is the constant (aside from West as Flash, it's normally the original).
If I was reading Cap because I'm a Cap fan, it's for Rogers. So, when if a spinoff book came out when Walker was Cap, I'd stick to the book with Rogers.
If I was reading Batman when both Batman & Grayson as Batman had books, I'd stick to only the titles with the true Batman.
I'm sure I'm in the minority, but the notion of 2 characters (in some instances more then 2) with the same name never made sense to me. I actually think it undercuts Wilson by having him take on another established (and active) character's handle instead of Falcon.
Whatever happened to new character development? In the past it seemed that a new character was introduced in another book and over time deemed popular enough to have their own book. Or there was a comic series that had the sole intention of trying out new concepts to see what does well and then maybe give a well received character a shot at a book. Now, a new character comes along, if we're lucky it gets a few issues to introduce who they are and then, bam, they have their own title or have taken over for an established character.
It's brand extension. There are also a lot of different Cheez-It varieties in the aisle. There used to be only one. Because it is easier for a manufacturer to sell a new kind of Cheez-It then to try to get the consumer to give something new a try.
But, at the end of the day, if the work is something you enjoy, and the character feels distinct, then the idea that this started off as a derivative falls away. But I'm not surprised that they continue to revive and spin variations of the same brand names. Because when they try something actually new with a new name, it almost always fails.
I loved the Fraction/ Kitson series The Order. New characters. Excellent concept, that fit well with the MU status quo at the time. Went 12 issues. Maybe if they had called the very same book "The Champions", which they wanted to at the time, but they were worried about legal challenges from a RPG company, it may have still not sold. Or maybe it would have attracted enough initial interest to go the distance, or at least get to 25 issues instead of 12.
I would say the same for Simon Dark. A book actually set IN GOTHAM. But didn't have the Bat- prefix, so I think it went 16 issues or something.
I actually can't think of many examples, as trying to launch a new character with a new name instead of a mantle or extension after the prefix is not something tried very much in the last 10-15 years.
But, I don't blame them. As a readership we have trained them to do it this way.
It's an interesting cycle, people clamor for new characters so their characters aren't tweaked. New, diverse characters are created, they don't sell books, so established characters are tweaked to give the diversity...then repeat.
I've already been of the mindset the person who had the identity when I first came to be exposed to him/her is the constant (aside from West as Flash, it's normally the original).
If I was reading Cap because I'm a Cap fan, it's for Rogers. So, when if a spinoff book came out when Walker was Cap, I'd stick to the book with Rogers.
If I was reading Batman when both Batman & Grayson as Batman had books, I'd stick to only the titles with the true Batman.
I'm sure I'm in the minority, but the notion of 2 characters (in some instances more then 2) with the same name never made sense to me. I actually think it undercuts Wilson by having him take on another established (and active) character's handle instead of Falcon.
M
I'd be hard pressed to say that the new Ms. Marvel has not sold books. Especially in trade and digital.
Whatever happened to new character development? In the past it seemed that a new character was introduced in another book and over time deemed popular enough to have their own book. Or there was a comic series that had the sole intention of trying out new concepts to see what does well and then maybe give a well received character a shot at a book. Now, a new character comes along, if we're lucky it gets a few issues to introduce who they are and then, bam, they have their own title or have taken over for an established character.
I think new characters do get developed. But they might then get sold in a title called All New Wolverine instead of in a title called X-23.
It's an interesting cycle, people clamor for new characters so their characters aren't tweaked. New, diverse characters are created, they don't sell books, so established characters are tweaked to give the diversity...then repeat.
I think it’s important to make the distinction that (from what I can tell) the majority of the people “clamoring for new characters” are people who are generally not reading many Marvel or DC titles. Marvel and DC want those readers—need those readers—and so they are trying to bring them in. But obviously, they aren’t so easily lured in, perhaps because the bait often isn’t enticing enough. But when you get a respected writer and artist on the book (see Black Panther, Ms. Marvel), you can get those new readers, plus a number of the older readers.
Comments
While that is possible, I'm far more curious about their intentions and motives and how it affects the bottom line in our present day. I'm also somewhat skeptical of how the writers get to these places. Miles Morales was introduced and developed for years before taking over. This character has been in 3 issues? While I'm sure you have an interesting take on how this is developing a sense of legacy, but I also notice the blockbuster movies continue to showcase the classic versions of their legacy characters; Cap, Spidey, Thor, Iron Man, Hulk, etc.
I believe at best, this is more about getting free press and selling more issues than it is developing "legacy". It's a demonstration of capitalism in its purest form. Marvel and DC are big companies who are constantly trying to increase the bottom line and have demonstrated they're willing to break things to do just that. But at worst, this could be labeled as SJW pandering. Neither approach necessarily guarantees good writing.
If readers are looking for real diversity, I hope they're convinced to eventually turn to independent titles. Cheryl Lynn Eaton's work would be a good start.
If you are talking quality, there are not guarantees. Really the quality of the work, and whether the effort behind it is sincere or cynical, is best judged by the work itself. To me, that is where the substantial discussion is to be had. There is no perfect formula for what works and what sticks. Sure, Miles Morales had time being an Ultimate Spider-Man before he became a 616 Spider-Man. The new Ms. Marvel, had, like one panel in Captain Marvel, a couple pages in a Marvel NOW anthology, and then was straight into her own solo title that has been one of Marvel's biggest hits in years. There is no perfect formula for launching a character. There never has been. There are just some things they try that work, and some that don't.
EDIT- I would also add, with Bendis in mind, that Jessica Jones was another character introduced (and retconned) into the MU by her own, mature-readers solo title. And then later expanded out to appearances in New Avengers. On paper, or following conventional wisdom, that would sound like a terrible plan for introducing a character that is supposed to stick. But now, 15 years later, Jones is one of a small group of Marvel characters with their own show. So, again, I don't believe there is any particular right or wrong way. Some unconventional ways have worked, and some more conventional pushes have failed. It really comes down to quality.
But judging that takes reading the work. So there is bound to be less of that discussion, as the bar for entry is higher. But we will get plenty of second guessing motivations, and labeling things as pandering and talking about how a comic that is not even out yet fits into the narrative of the political aims alongside this and that other comic that many of the people making these points also haven't read. Because that's easy. Reacting to a press release and seeing how it reinforces what you already believe takes next to no time or effort at all.
At the end of the day, the actual readership will show if they are into this, or not, by how they buy and continue to buy. And that is what will be listened to. As that is the real signal from the readers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/07/06/iron-man-will-soon-be-a-young-black-woman-named-riri-williams-but-not-everyone-is-satisfied/
But I was talking about, in general, the reactions going on today that I am seeing, hearing about, and could set my watch to. And the boring cycle of announce/ kneejerk reactions/ publication of the actual work/ near silence as everyone is off reacting to the next announcement that this one fits into. I get it, that's the business, and that's the depth of usual comics discussion these days: Talking about the talking about the thing that isn't out yet. But I find myself less and less interested in participating in that cycle.
I'd be happy to discuss the story once it is out, though. I am currently reading, and enjoying, both Iron Man titles. And will be reading this new volume or whatever it is, once it is a thing to be read.
That's assuming the event even wraps up on time. Not exactly Marvel's strong suit.
The legacy feel of DC didn’t really develop until the ’70s, after the two generations of characters had plenty of time to intermingle and become “family.” Whether any of what’s going on at Marvel now leads to that feeling of legacy will depend on the creators handling the characters years from now. It’s not really something you can plan out.
You and I both know that Marvel’s current intentions and motives are the same as every publisher that has ever existed: they want to make money. That is, Marvel the publisher wants to make money. Marvel’s writers and artists want to tell great stories, but they also want to sell enough books so that they can continue to tell those stories at Marvel.
And comics have always pandered to their readers. When Marvel’s superheroes made wave in the ’60s, they were pandering to their perceived readers: young, white males, aged 7-14 or so. When Stan found out the Marvel books were a hit on college campuses, he began pandering to that crowd as well. When DC discovered older readers really dug Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns, they and every other comic publisher began pandering to that crowd. So what’s the big deal if Marvel is pandering to the SJW crowd now? Because pandering doesn’t guarantee good writing? Well, pandering doesn’t guarantee bad writing either, as Marvel and DC have shown for decades. The only difference now is that Marvel isn’t limiting its pandering to white males. Frankly, I don’t see a problem with that.
ANAD Avengers by Waid and Asrar - Pretty solid so far. Very different than the Hickman stuff. Very throwback superhero-team-working-on-being-a-superhero-team-and-doing-superhero-things kind of a dynamic. And apropos to an earlier conversation, there is a bit of a legacy thing going on. Which is to say, there is definitely a sense of there being two generations of characters, the grown-ups and the teens, mixed together on the same team, but are all working on being the Avengers together. Sort of like if the X-Men and New Mutants were all together in one. In some ways I probably still like the prior Hickman and Bendis volumes a little better. But this is a nice change up from how dense and ponderous (usually in a good way) the Hickman era was. And it has a lot in common with the Bendis era, as being personality and character driven. But is maybe more on the front foot as far as pace and action go.
I'm just a little surprised this news is being announced 3 months before the IronMan title relaunches. Is that supposed to increase August pre-orders? Increase July sales figures by curious readers and speculators? I'm also surprised Marvel and Bendis are being attacked online by people who think only creators of color should be allowed to write or draw comic characters of color. I'm further surprised that Marvel creators and editorial have continued to double down on acusing anyone who doesn't embrace these changes (female Thor, Sam Wilson Cap, female new IronMan, et al) as "mysoginists" or "racists". Well, disappointed is a more apt description.
I think everyone here understands and agrees that all the press releases, gender/race swaps and relaunches are mostly designed to pander in order to maximize profits. I suppose it's also conceivable that writers like Bendis are given a shorter time to introduce a new "legacy" character when most comic books are selling in the 30k-40k range versus the hundreds of thousands or millions like they did in the 70's, 80's, and 90's to the 7-14 year olds and the colleges kids you mention. Hence a character who just got introduced a couple of issues ago is suddenly taking over the Iron Man role. Maybe who Marvel decides to pander to only matters to a 8 or 9 people per comic shop and possibly to the publisher's accounting department.
FWIW, I don't think it was pandering when Luke Cage was the leader of the Avengers, and I don't think having a character like Monica Rambeaux returning would be pandering either. I don't think killing Rhodey helped the Marvel diversity quota, but I did always assume he would ventually become Iron Man. Tony Stark handing over the mantle to a teenage girl is a better plan than teen Tony, I guess. I happen to think some moves Marvel's been making since ANAD (and arguably earlier) are easy to reasonably disagree with or critically analyze - though for the life of me I can't recall anything Marvel has done that you've been vocally critical of on these boards. Maybe I've missed it.
But we don't have to agree. It's just comic talk, after all.
Fortunately, I'm only reading one Marvel book that's basically a peripheral character.
M
Use Your Illusion, as it were. :)
Of course this would be a worry if Civil War 2 was any good. But it is a Bendis event, so it is people talking opaquely about events that happened (or worse, yet to happen) in other comics, while the actual event comic is fairly uneventful.
This week's Captain America: Sam Wilson tie-in does a much better job of arguing Carol and Tony's positions than the actual event has so far.
Because people will buy a Captain America title, but won’t necessarily buy a Falcon title? And people will buy a book with a female Thor if she’s the Thor, but won't necessarily buy a Jane Foster book? And Old Man Logan was a hit, so let’s give him a regular series, and maybe people will buy a female Wolverine book if she’s the Wolverine? Obviously that doesn’t explain a lot of the other duplicate characters, but I think it boils down to “How can we make things different, but not too different, so we can make a bunch of titles that people will want to buy, instead of just a handful of titles people will want to buy?”
Plus, Kate Bishop Hawkeye is awesome.
Isnt there 3 Spider-men; Parker, Morales, & O'Hara?
M
Plus, Kate Bishop Hawkeye is awesome.
Again, disclosure is that I'm not reading core character books, but that's the stuff that always drive my interest away.
M
It also has an out with people who want the (kind of) status quo. Steve Rogers, Odinson, Clint Barton, etc. are all still there.
Marvel is trying to have it all and reach as wide an audience as they can.
Is it working? As well as anything can actually work in comics today. Some of the books are good, some are not. They will make adjustments around every summer event (if not sooner). No matter what they do, there will be a portion of the fans unhappy.
Also, that list is currently off.
There's only one Hulk (for now). There's a lot more Spider-Women and Spider-Men than just two of each. And more Angels as of the latest Uncanny X-Men. There was a load of Deadpools, but they stopped being Deadpool after the first arc of the current run and went back to their old codenames. There are currently Three Apocalypses, but none of them are in the same time period.
But, at the end of the day, if the work is something you enjoy, and the character feels distinct, then the idea that this started off as a derivative falls away. But I'm not surprised that they continue to revive and spin variations of the same brand names. Because when they try something actually new with a new name, it almost always fails.
I loved the Fraction/ Kitson series The Order. New characters. Excellent concept, that fit well with the MU status quo at the time. Went 12 issues. Maybe if they had called the very same book "The Champions", which they wanted to at the time, but they were worried about legal challenges from a RPG company, it may have still not sold. Or maybe it would have attracted enough initial interest to go the distance, or at least get to 25 issues instead of 12.
I would say the same for Simon Dark. A book actually set IN GOTHAM. But didn't have the Bat- prefix, so I think it went 16 issues or something.
I actually can't think of many examples, as trying to launch a new character with a new name instead of a mantle or extension after the prefix is not something tried very much in the last 10-15 years.
But, I don't blame them. As a readership we have trained them to do it this way.
I've already been of the mindset the person who had the identity when I first came to be exposed to him/her is the constant (aside from West as Flash, it's normally the original).
If I was reading Cap because I'm a Cap fan, it's for Rogers. So, when if a spinoff book came out when Walker was Cap, I'd stick to the book with Rogers.
If I was reading Batman when both Batman & Grayson as Batman had books, I'd stick to only the titles with the true Batman.
I'm sure I'm in the minority, but the notion of 2 characters (in some instances more then 2) with the same name never made sense to me. I actually think it undercuts Wilson by having him take on another established (and active) character's handle instead of Falcon.
M