Changes Coming at Marvel?

tony ingram wrote:If you don't mind me saying so, you seem to be coming at this from a POV where your assumptions are very much based on pessimism. Why would you "guess" Legacy "qickly went cold" if you're not reading the stuff?

Well, when Marvel went to "Legacy", they changed the issue numbers for many titles back to higher "Legacy numbering" (so they could hit things like issue #700, etc.), but I thought I heard (could be wrong) that several of those titles are getting relaunched yet again with new writers and artists, a slight title name-change, and of course, new numbering so they could have yet another "Issue #1!"

MajorHoy wrote:

tony ingram wrote:If you don't mind me saying so, you seem to be coming at this from a POV where your assumptions are very much based on pessimism. Why would you "guess" Legacy "qickly went cold" if you're not reading the stuff?

Well, when Marvel went to "Legacy", they changed the issue numbers for many titles back to higher "Legacy numbering" (so they could hit things like issue #700, etc.), but I thought I heard (could be wrong) that several of those titles are getting relaunched yet again with new writers and artists, a slight title name-change, and of course, new numbering so they could have yet another "Issue #1!"

Yes, but that's just a marketing gimmick, it has no effect on the actual contents of the books!

tony ingram wrote:Yes, but that's just a marketing gimmick, it has no effect on the actual contents of the books!

Some days, it seems like most of what Marvel is is "marketing gimmicks".
(That's part of why I basically gave up on them.)

MajorHoy wrote:

tony ingram wrote:Yes, but that's just a marketing gimmick, it has no effect on the actual contents of the books!

Some days, it seems like most of what Marvel is is "marketing gimmicks".
(That's part of why I basically gave up on them.)

Yes, but you see, you're saying that-but you don't actually know what they're doing, because you gave up on them. You're not reading the stuff, you're just making assumptions that they're not doing anything worth reading. You can't really justifiably make disparaging remarks about their current output if you haven't read any of it yourself. Well, in my opinion, anyway.

tony ingram wrote:

MajorHoy wrote:

tony ingram wrote:Yes, but that's just a marketing gimmick, it has no effect on the actual contents of the books!

Some days, it seems like most of what Marvel is is "marketing gimmicks".
(That's part of why I basically gave up on them.)

Yes, but you see, you're saying that-but you don't actually know what they're doing, because you gave up on them. You're not reading the stuff, you're just making assumptions that they're not doing anything worth reading. You can't really justifiably make disparaging remarks about their current output if you haven't read any of it yourself. Well, in my opinion, anyway.

Problem is, when I have tried to read titles in the past, I either didn't like it (like with Falcon #1 last October) or Marvel cancels it / soon changes direction AGAIN! (In the latter case, we have the Waid/Samnee Black Widow series that . . . ended(?) and their (limited) run on Captain America where after a few issues, they froze Steve and had him defrost/wake up ten years in the future or something?)
After a while, it's not worth the frustration (nor the cover price).

MajorHoy wrote:

tony ingram wrote:

MajorHoy wrote:

tony ingram wrote:Yes, but that's just a marketing gimmick, it has no effect on the actual contents of the books!

Some days, it seems like most of what Marvel is is "marketing gimmicks".
(That's part of why I basically gave up on them.)

Yes, but you see, you're saying that-but you don't actually know what they're doing, because you gave up on them. You're not reading the stuff, you're just making assumptions that they're not doing anything worth reading. You can't really justifiably make disparaging remarks about their current output if you haven't read any of it yourself. Well, in my opinion, anyway.

Problem is, when I have tried to read titles in the past, I either didn't like it (like with Falcon #1 last October) or Marvel cancels it / soon changes direction AGAIN! (In the latter case, we have the Waid/Samnee Black Widow series that . . . ended(?) and their (limited) run on Captain America where after a few issues, they froze Steve and had him defrost/wake up ten years in the future or something?)
After a while, it's not worth the frustration (nor the cover price).

The thing about Cap being in the future was one storyline that lasted a handful of issues, then went back to normal. Should they not ever try anything new? I had this problem with all the objections to the Cap-as-Hydra thing; it was clearly just a storyline with a clearly planned beginning, middle and end, and it was interesting, but people acted as though it was sacrilege.

tony ingram wrote:The thing about Cap being in the future was one storyline that lasted a handful of issues, then went back to normal. Should they not ever try anything new? I had this problem with all the objections to the Cap-as-Hydra thing; it was clearly just a storyline with a clearly planned beginning, middle and end, and it was interesting, but people acted as though it was sacrilege.

My problem with that storyline was that we just had the Cap-as-Hydra mess, then on the third issue after that, we throw Cap back in the future again!
Last time they did something like that (throwing Cap into a different time?) was during Remender's run back in 2013, which I hated. It just felt like Marvel keeps repeating itself with Cap, and not in a good way.
Let's have Cap lose his abilities and suddenly start to get old!
Let's have somebody else replace Steve as Cap!
Let's have Cap suddenly find himself in the future!

Phooey!

MajorHoy wrote:

tony ingram wrote:The thing about Cap being in the future was one storyline that lasted a handful of issues, then went back to normal. Should they not ever try anything new? I had this problem with all the objections to the Cap-as-Hydra thing; it was clearly just a storyline with a clearly planned beginning, middle and end, and it was interesting, but people acted as though it was sacrilege.

My problem with that storyline was that we just had the Cap-as-Hydra mess, then on the third issue after that, we throw Cap back in the future again!
Last time they did something like that (throwing Cap into a different time?) was during Remender's run back in 2013, which I hated. It just felt like Marvel keeps repeating itself with Cap, and not in a good way.
Let's have Cap lose his abilities and suddenly start to get old!
Let's have somebody else replace Steve as Cap!
Let's have Cap suddenly find himself in the future!

Phooey!

The whole thing with Cap losing his powers and getting old has appened, what, twice? In about thirty years? He's been replaced three times in those same thirty years? It's not as though it's a regular thing, it just feels a bit like it because we've been reading so long. How many times has Cap fought Batroc or the Red Skull since 1963? But nobody complains about that.

tony ingram wrote:The whole thing with Cap losing his powers and getting old has appened, what, twice? In about thirty years? He's been replaced three times in those same thirty years? It's not as though it's a regular thing, it just feels a bit like it because we've been reading so long.

But it's getting ramped up as to how often it's happening. Brubaker does it, then Remender does it, and how soon does the next writer decide that they want to put their spin on it?
(It's like with Batgirl at DC: Babs got an implant to allow her to walk again, but now how often are writers having somebody hack the implant to either affect Babs' memories or, as it sounds like her new writer will be doing, to interfere with Babs' mobility?)

MajorHoy wrote:

tony ingram wrote:The whole thing with Cap losing his powers and getting old has appened, what, twice? In about thirty years? He's been replaced three times in those same thirty years? It's not as though it's a regular thing, it just feels a bit like it because we've been reading so long.

But it's getting ramped up as to how often it's happening. Brubaker does it, then Remender does it, and how soon does the next writer decide that they want to put their spin on it?
(It's like with Batgirl at DC: Babs got an implant to allow her to walk again, but now how often are writers having somebody hack the implant to either affect Babs' memories or, as it sounds like her new writer will be doing, to interfere with Babs' mobility?)

Well, I didn't read Batgirl during the New 52 period, and I've heard no rumours about what's due to happen, so that's a new idea to me.

tony ingram wrote:My issue with that is that I've followed Iceman as a character for decades

Could I just make a point? And if it becomes controversial we can drop it?

I think this is the problem with a lot of the comics field. New characters don't take, so publishers try to rework older characters to appeal to new readers. But, then almost every character has fans and those long-term readers feel betrayed or don't see why there was any need to change. So publishers are stuck. They can't make changes without making long-term fans upset, but they can't appeal to new ones (which they need) without making changes.
I have no idea how they survive. Honestly, I don't.

Mbast1 wrote:

tony ingram wrote:My issue with that is that I've followed Iceman as a character for decades

Could I just make a point? And if it becomes controversial we can drop it?

I think this is the problem with a lot of the comics field. New characters don't take, so publishers try to rework older characters to appeal to new readers. But, then almost every character has fans and those long-term readers feel betrayed or don't see why there was any need to change. So publishers are stuck. They can't make changes without making long-term fans upset, but they can't appeal to new ones (which they need) without making changes.
I have no idea how they survive. Honestly, I don't.  

I would agree, to a point. But a good new character, done well, will indeed take. The new Ms Marvel has been very popular, as has Squirrel Girl. OK, they're not on the level of a Superman or Spider-Man, but then, neither was Iceman. Maybe they just need to try harder.

tony ingram wrote:I would agree, to a point. But a good new character, done well, will indeed take. The new Ms Marvel has been very popular, as has Squirrel Girl. OK, they're not on the level of a Superman or Spider-Man, but then, neither was Iceman. Maybe they just need to try harder.

True, true. Some do stick around. But very few. Plus publishers often have more of an interest in "intellectual property" than in developing good art or great characters.

Mbast1 wrote: . . . publishers often have more of an interest in "intellectual property" than in developing good art or great characters.

Is it just me, or does "intellectual property" sound more like a joke when discussing some of the "properties" put out by comic book companies these days?

Mbast1 wrote:

tony ingram wrote:I would agree, to a point. But a good new character, done well, will indeed take. The new Ms Marvel has been very popular, as has Squirrel Girl. OK, they're not on the level of a Superman or Spider-Man, but then, neither was Iceman. Maybe they just need to try harder.

True, true. Some do stick around. But very few. Plus publishers often have more of an interest in "intellectual property" than in developing good art or great characters.

Sadly, I think that's been true for decades. I'm just grateful there are still some actual creators more interested in the latter.

MajorHoy wrote:

Mbast1 wrote: . . . publishers often have more of an interest in "intellectual property" than in developing good art or great characters.

Is it just me, or does "intellectual property" sound more like a joke when discussing some of the "properties" put out by comic book companies these days?

How many modern comics are you actually reading? Rebellion, Titan, IDW and even Dynamite are putting out some very well crafted and well written stuff, and though I'm not reading any Image, I've been hearig good things about some of their output too. Why so negative? At any given time, there has always been a fair amount of rubbish out there, but there are always gems if you look for them. I'm sorry, but in terms of the quality and sophistication of the actual writing, I'd say most of the stuff DC are putting out now, repetitive or not, is headv and shoulders above a lot of the stuff they were putting out in, say, 1984 or 1971. Superman certainly is.

tony ingram wrote:Why so negative?

Part of that is because what I truly want to read isn't necessarily being published on a regular basis these days. And some other comics where I like the characters in general, I don't like current directions, writers, etc.

I also have lost a bit of contact because the comic book shop I had been using closed earlier this year (the owner got a real job instead). I have another store I now buy stuff from, but it's not quite as convenient to get to, so I only go there maybe once a month or so.

As for the publishers you suggested, they aren't really offering the types of stories I want these days.

MajorHoy wrote:

tony ingram wrote:Why so negative?

Part of that is because what I truly want to read isn't necessarily being published on a regular basis these days. And some other comics where I like the characters in general, I don't like current directions, writers, etc.

I also have lost a bit of contact because the comic book shop I had been using closed earlier this year (the owner got a real job instead). I have another store I now buy stuff from, but it's not quite as convenient to get to, so I only go there maybe once a month or so.

As for the publishers you suggested, they aren't really offering the types of stories I want these days.

I think I'm lucky in that my tastes have always been fairly eclectic. My current pull list, for instance, includes Flash, Hellblazer, Barbarella, Cave Carson, Doctor Who and Tarzan/Red Sonja, and thanks to Lucy's subscription I'm also reading 2000 AD, which of course is a pretty diverse anthology.

Mbast1 wrote:So publishers are stuck. They can't make changes without making long-term fans upset, but they can't appeal to new ones (which they need) without making changes.
I have no idea how they survive. Honestly, I don't.  

By constantly oscillating between the two positions, depending on where most of the complaints are coming from at any given time.

Lucy McGough wrote:

Mbast1 wrote:So publishers are stuck. They can't make changes without making long-term fans upset, but they can't appeal to new ones (which they need) without making changes.
I have no idea how they survive. Honestly, I don't.  

By constantly oscillating between the two positions, depending on where most of the complaints are coming from at any given time.

But then there's the lag time between when those complaints are first voiced in a way that publishers place any value on them vs. how long it takes publishers to develop/print/distribute a comic book designed to respond to the complaints.

Hey, I never said it was an efficient process

Lucy McGough wrote:By constantly oscillating between the two positions, depending on where most of the complaints are coming from at any given time.

That seems unsustainably like surfing chaos. Might be their only choice, though.

Mbast1 wrote:That seems unsustainably like surfing chaos. Might be their only choice, though.

Did the Beach Boys (or even Jan & Dean) ever have a song about that?

MajorHoy wrote:Did the Beach Boys (or even Jan & Dean) ever have a song about that?

Someone should!