|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 12, 2016 21:06:33 GMT -5
Nothing catches my eye so far. If I pick anything up down the road it'll be because some writer or artist I like is working on a character I also like - and maybe not even then, since everyone has to keep to the current party line on these characters. So even if, say, Warren Ellis were writing Doctor Strange, I might not bother reading it since most likely he'll have to write the within the bounds set for the current version of the character. Did you read Ellis' brief run on Doc Strange in the 90s? It was only like 3-4 issues and bridged the gap between the end of Quinn's run and the start of DeMatteis' run. It featured Mark Buckingham on art I believe. -M No, I've always felt a bit sceptical towards his work with established Marvel characters, having somehow been left with the impression that his heart wasn't really in it and that he even felt some disdain towards those characters. But after reading that Moon Knight was a favourite of his I took a chance on his recent issues for that series when they were collected and thought they were great - so now I'm a little more open to trying his other Marvel series. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2016 21:09:04 GMT -5
He was hired to reimagine the character somewhat, kind of like his Counter-X stuff, and try to reinvigorate the character after the Quinn run went off the rails for some fans. However, it seemed he quickly butted heads with editorial, because by the second issue he had a co-scripter and he was replaced after the third issue and DeMatteis brought in.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jul 12, 2016 21:50:54 GMT -5
Ah, doesn't sound like he had enough time to set his mark on the series, good or bad. I just did a quick image-search and I can't say the artwork appeals to me - looks like typical 90s style that I avoided at the time and still dislike.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Jul 13, 2016 5:57:28 GMT -5
I was with them but no X books means I'm out for now. Hey, you're right! No X-book and no Fantastic Four! Nothing to do with Fox, of course, no... such thoughts would be pure cynicism. (Not that I think the comics have much influence on what movie-goers want to see, but still... the coincidence is noticeable). I doubt there will be no X-books. They also didn't anounce any Inhuman titles. It's a leak, not an official anouncement, so I think it's incomplete. |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 13, 2016 8:59:45 GMT -5
Marvel puts out something like 80 books a month, so there's no way that list is showing their entire lineup.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Jul 13, 2016 10:35:12 GMT -5
If no X-Men had anything to do with Fox, than I wonder why we still get a ton of Deadpool comics and a Silver Surfer title. Those rights are at Fox as well. I looked at the numbers for June and the combined X-men titles was about 265k in sales (Titles I counted as X-Men: Old Man Logan, Wolverine, Extraordinary X-Men, 2x Uncanny X-Men and All-New X-Men. Not counting Civil War: X-Men which was 68k by itself but tie-in and #1 or Deadpool vs. Gambit, which was 65k but also a #1, any of the other Deadpool titles). Giving up 5 titles that each do a solid 40k? And this conspiracy theory has been around for years now. Source: www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2016/2016-06.html(And I see I didn't count the less succesful titles like X-Men '92 and Worst X-Man) |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 13, 2016 10:37:48 GMT -5
I've heard that Marvel's sales are down while DC's are up. Makes sense with Rebirth, but if Rebirth is a long-lasting success, it'll be interesting to see if Marvel tones down their current nonsense and goes for a more traditional approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 13, 2016 11:08:35 GMT -5
Well, they're getting national news with the Iron Man thing, which they always thing is good, so I doubt things will change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 13, 2016 11:25:02 GMT -5
Well, they're getting national news with the Iron Man thing, which they always thing is good, so I doubt things will change. Which hasn't translated to long-term sales, otherwise they wouldn't have to relaunch their top titles every six months to a year and generate interest through shocking gimmicks and regressive PC pandering. I think they get to do this because comics sales are so insignificant in the grand scheme to Disney. Back in the Silver and Bronze age, when 90% or more of Marvel's revenue came from comics, we got better comics. Thank Eternity for creator owned comics. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 13, 2016 11:27:02 GMT -5
My point, which I didn't make all that clear, is that you'd THINK Disney would want the comics to mirror the movies and animated shows, but that hasn't been the case so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bronze age andy on Jul 13, 2016 12:20:33 GMT -5
Conway writes Spider-Man again...well that should put the cat amongst the pigeons in fan circles.
Still no FF. No more Astonishing Ant-Man?
I might be interested in Prowler.
On the whole, though, ... yawn.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 13, 2016 12:39:24 GMT -5
My point, which I didn't make all that clear, is that you'd THINK Disney would want the comics to mirror the movies and animated shows, but that hasn't been the case so far. yeah, I'm surprised by this too. I mean, sure, they draw Tony to look like RDJ and they added the Agents of SHIELD crew, but by and large there is little connection. I kinda assumed they'd do something like the Ultimate Universe to have comics based on the Movie/TV, but having he actual MU resemble them would be fine too... it's just never happened. I think that shows how little Disney (as corporate overlord) cares about the actual comic sales... the comics are really just about creating buzz (especially social media buzz) so that they get more free pub for the next blockbuster. Sadly, it makes sense financially, too. The 2015 final sales for comics (ALL Comics) was about 1 billion dollars.. Marvel gets 40% of that, give or take. That means the gross of the whole year's comics is equal to about 1/2 a good blockbusters' international box office take... and they have 3 or 4 of those a year.. never mind the merchandising that goes with it. The comics themselves are probably no more than 10-15% of the revenues. |
|
|
|
Post by earl on Jul 14, 2016 6:02:30 GMT -5
I've been wondering if all the Marvel swapping out of the main characters is some legal thing to be able to retain copyright or trademark rights to names for longer periods of time. I kinda think it might be.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 14, 2016 7:25:17 GMT -5
Nah, that would only make sense if the old characters didn't come back, and they always do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 14, 2016 8:22:27 GMT -5
It's about shaking the tree and creating a buzz. Oscar Wilde said it best : "There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."
Each time readers protest because the Falcon reveals he's been a white man in blackface all along, that the Hate Monger is Aunt May or that Galactus' origin is that he ate a radioactive doughnut, there's a chance someone will buy a copy just to see what the fuss is all about. The increased sales are transient, but that's all right... in six months the status quo ante will have been restored. But wait! Look over there! New dramatic revelations! Doctor Strange never had magical powers, he did it all with mirrors! The Hulk is Bruce Banner's parasitic twin, who was internalized during gestation! Oh, and Shanna the she-devil used to be Lo-Zar, lord of the jungle, before her sex change!
The ironic part is that even with such terrible ideas, there will be pretty good books in the lot... But the message is clear : there's not much gain in trying to maintain a coherent universe, and surfing a constant wave of shock value and fannish outrage generates free publicity.
|
|
