|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Nov 21, 2017 21:24:05 GMT -5
Obviously, and as always, I disagree with Simon. I've been really digging Marvel over the past couple years and I'm buying more Marvel books than I ever have in my life. Basically it seems like there's a concentrated push to engage an audience beyond the typical "I (heart) violence/I (heart) continuity" fanboy demographic with a strong stable of creator driven, anti-grim 'n gritty, just plain fun comics. (Ms. Marvel, Squirrel Girl, Silver Surfer, Moon Girl...) My comic shop guy says my tastes are the same as an 18 year old "Tumblr Girl" but there seems to be - for the first time since the '70s - room for idiosyncratic, innovative titles that are both aimed at a non-traditional audience and are... um... .good. (Why does nobody ever talk about Street Poet Ray?) Also hooray for the outright rejection of '90s "Punisher/Ghost Rider: MurderDeath vs. KillBloodSatanMurder" style crap. So with the editorial regime I'll probably go back to not caring about Marvel. No big loss... it's not like I can't find plenty of good comics to read. I think the problem is that while some of those Marvel titles are good (I enjoyed what I've read of Silver Surfer) what they're trying to do (stand-alone, idiosyncratic, innovative) is being done far better at Image. I suppose I was psychologically shaped as a reader by how I got into Marvel comics. When I started reading in the mid-80's, I got heavily into the Handbooks and the shared universe concept was almost as important to me as the characters and stories. Divorced of continuity, I don't think I would have cared as much. It was all an illusion, of course, but the idea of a giant overarching story (The Marvel Universe) was enthralling to my young mind. I agree that Marvel creators should be given a lot of freedom as long as they don't go too far off model, but what I've sampled in recent years (like Aaron's Doctor Strange) is simply bad characterization masquerading as innovation. That is, if you have even a basic understanding of Doctor Strange. He's literally written like movie Tony Stark. Even in a perfect scenario where all your readers are brand new and know nothing about the character or his history, you're doing them a disservice. I'm... um.... actually more into Marvel books than Image these days. I mostly either buy TPBs and read them from the library and.... well.... all the Image books are these grand, meticulously plotted long form narratives which are hard for me to follow! I really liked the first couple Wicked and the Divine trades but by the third I dunno what's going on. I've already devoted 20% of my brain to keeping the Love and Rockets characters straight - I've only got so much space for long form comic storytelling. The Marvel books I follow are narratively simpler, friendlier, and (weirdly) equally formally ambitious. Mockingbird (ferinstance, RIP) did some amazing things with storytelling... And you could pick up any individual issue and figure out WTF is happening. I think individual comics should be worthwhile on their own, not part 48 of 156 and you HAVE TO READ THE FIRST 47 FIRST! I like and admire a lot of what Image is doing, but it's just not working for me like Marvel did. And, yeah, I guess my relationship with Marvel is different... I grew up with my dad's '70s Marvels where nobody except Roy gave a fuuuuuuuu about continuity, and I could sit and read 50 straight issues of Captain America starring three clearly different characters wearing the same costime. So that will always be what I expect and look for. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 13:21:25 GMT -5
See, I think twenty or thirty books out of a hundred is a GOOD average. I'd say 5 is a good average. (And, again, reminiscent of the '70s where Spidey, the Fantastic Four, and Thor were kind of Ok at best.) "Flagship" books are kind of by-there-very-nature the least interesting parts of Marvel and DC's line. If a company can produce a handful of comics that I'm excited about at any given time - And it has never been more than a handful since I was 10 and really liked Secret Wars 2 - they're doing very well. I'm not talking about 20 or 30 series out of a hundred a month, I'm talking 20 or 30 issues out of many hundred in a year - I think the success rate is that low. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,202 
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 22, 2017 17:11:26 GMT -5
...reminiscent of the '70s where Spidey [was] kind of Ok at best. Sometimes I just don't understand you.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 17:18:27 GMT -5
Never fear, it seems Joe Quesada is stepping in to focus more on the publishing side in his role as Chief Creative Officer during the transition period between EICs. Theres an interview with JoeyQ over at Newsarama I haven't seen, and this article on BC that popped up in my news feed over on google. Joe Q excerpted from the interview in the BC artivle seems he has been stepping in since October so I wonder how long the change at EIC has been in the works. -M |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,202
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 22, 2017 20:35:46 GMT -5
Never fear, it seems Joe Quesada is stepping in to focus more on the publishing side in his role as Chief Creative Officer during the transition period between EICs.  |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 24, 2017 13:52:16 GMT -5
I think the problem is that while some of those Marvel titles are good (I enjoyed what I've read of Silver Surfer) what they're trying to do (stand-alone, idiosyncratic, innovative) is being done far better at Image. I suppose I was psychologically shaped as a reader by how I got into Marvel comics. When I started reading in the mid-80's, I got heavily into the Handbooks and the shared universe concept was almost as important to me as the characters and stories. Divorced of continuity, I don't think I would have cared as much. It was all an illusion, of course, but the idea of a giant overarching story (The Marvel Universe) was enthralling to my young mind. I agree that Marvel creators should be given a lot of freedom as long as they don't go too far off model, but what I've sampled in recent years (like Aaron's Doctor Strange) is simply bad characterization masquerading as innovation. That is, if you have even a basic understanding of Doctor Strange. He's literally written like movie Tony Stark. Even in a perfect scenario where all your readers are brand new and know nothing about the character or his history, you're doing them a disservice. I'm... um.... actually more into Marvel books than Image these days. I mostly either buy TPBs and read them from the library and.... well.... all the Image books are these grand, meticulously plotted long form narratives which are hard for me to follow! I really liked the first couple Wicked and the Divine trades but by the third I dunno what's going on. I've already devoted 20% of my brain to keeping the Love and Rockets characters straight - I've only got so much space for long form comic storytelling. The Marvel books I follow are narratively simpler, friendlier, and (weirdly) equally formally ambitious. Mockingbird (ferinstance, RIP) did some amazing things with storytelling... And you could pick up any individual issue and figure out WTF is happening. I think individual comics should be worthwhile on their own, not part 48 of 156 and you HAVE TO READ THE FIRST 47 FIRST! I like and admire a lot of what Image is doing, but it's just not working for me like Marvel did. And, yeah, I guess my relationship with Marvel is different... I grew up with my dad's '70s Marvels where nobody except Roy gave a fuuuuuuuu about continuity, and I could sit and read 50 straight issues of Captain America starring three clearly different characters wearing the same costime. So that will always be what I expect and look for. One of the interesting thing's about the Shooter-era at Marvel was that one of his big mantra's was that "every comic is somebody's first comic" and preached making each issue accessible, yet this was the period (1978-1986 specifically) when continuity was at its tightest. Of course Marvel didn't have a billion X-Men or Avenger's spinoff's, had yet to move their characters "off model" (I'm pretty much convinced that Peter Parker's marriage was the first major domino to fall) and were only dealing with about 20 years of publishing history. I do find it interesting that, depending on when you got into comics, particularly mainstream Marvel or DC comics, you're most likely going to always perceive that era as how things should be when all engines are firing. That's not exactly true for me, because I was starting to read those early Marvel trade's (late 70's X-Men and Iron Man for instance) concurrently with the then current 1986/87 material. I preferred the older stuff, so I pretty much preferred the early Shooter era from the start. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 24, 2017 13:57:22 GMT -5
Never fear, it seems Joe Quesada is stepping in to focus more on the publishing side in his role as Chief Creative Officer during the transition period between EICs. Exactly what Marvel comics doesn't need. I'll grudgingly admit that Quesada helped to give Marvel a jolt from 2000-2005 (though I dislike virtually everything until Planet Hulk and the cosmic Annihilation stuff) but his contribution to Marvel has been greatly exaggerated and overrated. Mediocre was all that was needed to shine brightly coming out of the darkness that was the mid-to-late 90's at Marvel. Even then, I much preferred the direction of Heroes Return (particularly the Busiek stuff) to what Quesada would soon implement. Marvel was turned around by people above his pay grade turning the company into a multimedia enterprise and eventually, of course, the Disney deal. I view the departure of Bendis and Axel as a potential positive change of creative direction, and in my view, Quesada (and perhaps Brevoort) is the last piece of the old guard that needs to go. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Nov 30, 2017 7:25:46 GMT -5
I'm... um.... actually more into Marvel books than Image these days. I mostly either buy TPBs and read them from the library and.... well.... all the Image books are these grand, meticulously plotted long form narratives which are hard for me to follow! I really liked the first couple Wicked and the Divine trades but by the third I dunno what's going on. I've already devoted 20% of my brain to keeping the Love and Rockets characters straight - I've only got so much space for long form comic storytelling. The Marvel books I follow are narratively simpler, friendlier, and (weirdly) equally formally ambitious. Mockingbird (ferinstance, RIP) did some amazing things with storytelling... And you could pick up any individual issue and figure out WTF is happening. I think individual comics should be worthwhile on their own, not part 48 of 156 and you HAVE TO READ THE FIRST 47 FIRST! I like and admire a lot of what Image is doing, but it's just not working for me like Marvel did. And, yeah, I guess my relationship with Marvel is different... I grew up with my dad's '70s Marvels where nobody except Roy gave a fuuuuuuuu about continuity, and I could sit and read 50 straight issues of Captain America starring three clearly different characters wearing the same costime. So that will always be what I expect and look for. One of the interesting thing's about the Shooter-era at Marvel was that one of his big mantra's was that "every comic is somebody's first comic" and preached making each issue accessible, yet this was the period (1978-1986 specifically) when continuity was at its tightest. Of course Marvel didn't have a billion X-Men or Avenger's spinoff's, had yet to move their characters "off model" (I'm pretty much convinced that Peter Parker's marriage was the first major domino to fall) and were only dealing with about 20 years of publishing history. I do find it interesting that, depending on when you got into comics, particularly mainstream Marvel or DC comics, you're most likely going to always perceive that era as how things should be when all engines are firing. That's not exactly true for me, because I was starting to read those early Marvel trade's (late 70's X-Men and Iron Man for instance) concurrently with the then current 1986/87 material. I preferred the older stuff, so I pretty much preferred the early Shooter era from the start. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think Shooter era Marvel should absolutely be the model for mainstream comics - Long-form plotting with individual issues that stand on their own. "Every comic should be somebody's first" might not be true any more, but it seems blatantly obvious to me that you should do the work to get new readers om board. And I'm not saying that Marvel, overall, is better at this than Image. I remember an interview with an Avengers writer asking about jumping on points for new readers and the Avengers guy basically said "Well, there isn't one." It's FREAKING SUPERHERO FREAKING COMICS! These should not require research to understand! |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Dec 8, 2017 22:45:42 GMT -5
Very surprising pick with Cebulski. I would not have guessed that. I figured the next E-i-C would probably be Brevoort, but he's probably seen as too traditional. Brevoort embodies everything that's wrong with marvel on a purely philosophical and moral level. I won't argue with him within the context of "whatever sells, sells", however  Also, he for some reason reminds me of a beaver in a trench coat sporting a trilby/fedora |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,202
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Dec 9, 2017 20:46:32 GMT -5
Breevort embodies everything that's wrong with marvel on a purely philosophical and moral level. I won't argue with him within the context of "whatever sells, sells", however Yeah, that's boll***s; if the fans are angry you're doing something wrong as a publisher and eventually many of those angry readers will simply drop your books. I know I sure did with Marvel. Life's too short to read comics that annoy me. That's really some spectacularly wrongheaded business thinking and, actually, it's kind of arogant too. |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Dec 10, 2017 7:05:46 GMT -5
Yeah, that's boll***s; if the fans are angry you're doing something wrong as a publisher and eventually many of those angry readers will simply drop your books. I know I sure did with Marvel. Life's too short to read comics that annoy me. That's really some spectacularly wrongheaded business thinking and, actually, it's kind of arogant too. Well, fans have been angry at marvel before for the death of Jean Grey and Elektra, but I think Cap secretly being a Hydra agent was the straw that broke the camel's back due to how much media attention it got As much as I love the character, I was more or less "apathetic" to the whole ordeal. I've seen, if you'll pardon the wrestling vernacular, "heel turns" like this before and they're really nothing new. The difference between then and now is that comics, and the properties therein, are big business; more than they've ever been before And Marvel has this brash notion that it's "untouchable" solely because it has the backing of Disney, leading to the staff just doing whatever the hell they want, with little repercussion |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Dec 10, 2017 13:53:22 GMT -5
Marvel is dead to me
I love Stan's Marvel, and the Bronze Age that followed and some following that, but I disliked most of DeFalco's tenure, a lot of Quesada's and Jemas', and most of Axel's.
Weak as some of those were, the All-New, All-Different Disney has zero interest for me.
Thanks for bloating the market even more than before along with decompressed storytelling beyond reason and cover prices that have helped to kill the market, along with gutting consistent characterization, and constant title reboots, and saving me literally hundreds of $$ per month I used to spend.
Still a DC fan, though they too following Marvel have bumped up the cover prices beyond what I think they need, plus bloated the market with more product, though not as badly and at least their's doesn't feel so much like an overt money grab.
Loving Image, Valiant, Dark Horse, Fantagraphics, and others much more than Marvel's dreck.
If they ever wise up and set up a retro imprint, I'd be on it in a minute.
Outside of that and the occasional prestige non-continuity project, I'm done.
Cebulski represents everything I don't want in Marvel and everything I dislike from Disney.
My $$ and attitude are long gone anyway. Hopefully they play well to others, but I'm done with Marvel.
I take no joy in proclaiming it, but it's true.
|
|
