|
|
Post by Warmonger on Sept 30, 2017 10:12:50 GMT -5
I think we'd have to include the Punisher in this discussion. Here is a character whose occasional appearances in ASM I had loved in the 70s, but by the early 90s had multiple titles as well as monthly appearances alongside seemingly every character Marvel published, and even some they did not (Archie). Even the Punisher's equipment received its own title (Armory). That would be like Batman's utility belt having an ongoing series. The ultimate effect was to diminish my love for the character and to greatly dilute his impact. Yep The oversaturation of the character coupled with guys like Mike Baron, Steven Grant and Carl Potts moving away from writing Frank led to him being reduced to no more than a stereotypical action hero in the mid-90's. Then came the whole "avenging angel" Punisher series whose only redeeming quality was the Bernie Wrightson artwork. Thankfully Garth Ennis came along and took Frank Castle back to his roots with some of the greatest, hard-boiled crime tales out there. But there was about an 8 year period where he was essentially unreadable. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Sept 30, 2017 10:51:50 GMT -5
Thankfully Garth Ennis came along and took Frank Castle back to his roots with some of the greatest, hard-boiled crime tales out there. Yes. For many, including me, that's the definitive take on the character. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 30, 2017 12:02:48 GMT -5
Getting back to the OP, with the understanding that @mrp is completely right in that the publishers print what is goimg to make them the most money, I've written before on my feelings about Deadpool. Yes, he was a Liefeld creation, but the concept (amoral mercenary willing to do anything for a paycheck, with a healing factor unique to him due to his cancer) was solid. I actually enjoyed his first apperances, as they were few and far between, and when he showed up, chaos ensued. Then he became the fourth-wall breaking, wacky hijinx-causing Looney Tunes character he is today, and Marvel pushed him to the moon. For me, the appeal was gone, as he could no longer be taken seriously, and then they started him down a road to semi-redemption, always keeping just enough bad behavior to avoid making him a total good guy so that he continued to draw in anti-hero fans but not so much that he couldn't be put into situations with the heroes of the MU. I guess not everything appeals to everybody He really took off with the latter depiction as the Bugs Bunny of the comic world. I really enjoyed the movie although you couldn't pay me to pick up his book. |
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 30, 2017 12:18:21 GMT -5
I understand your underlying theory about publishers pushing certain characters to appease and entice readers into spending more money and their rush to release such material may have an effect on it's inherent quality but you seem to be labeling every Wolverine comic during this time as 'bad' which is a very bold statement to make. Besides broaching the fact that the quality of any given comic is a purely subjective opinion based on the needs and views of any particular reader, there is such a concept as 'diamond in the rough'. Yes, not every single comic nor appearance is an instant worthy classic but there were some stories and issues featuring Wolverine during this time that I quite enjoyed and still do to this day. For me, the enduring mystery surrounding Logan's past was a huge part of his appeal to me. That's why Barry Windsor Smith's Weapon X story from Marvel Comics Presents was such a huge game-changer for me. But as time wore on, Marvel felt the need to fully disclose everything so my love of the character has diminished equally. Although I do like the fact that recently Logan is viewed (and used) more as a elder statesman in the role and future of mutants, a position one who hardly think he was capable of taking given his early and enraged years. In the direct market, in which there is not a lot of market manipulation via advertising and marketing budgets, there is a more direct correlation between fans desires and their buying habits. Especially in a day and age where you can see how many will sell before it hits the stands because of non-returnability. Revealing the mystery of Wolverine in stories like Weapon X and later the Origins mini series was a response to fan demand for those types of stories. The massive sales boost those BWS stories gave to Marvel Comics Presents and the massive sales Origin garnered only reinforced that this is what fans want and will sell. And I wasn't implying every Wolverine comic was bad, in fact I still quite like the character and he is one of my wife's favorites (and she's the bigger X-Men fan in the house), but that said, considering Sturgeon's Law, 90% of all comics are bad or "crap" so there's a lot of bad comics on marketplace at any given time, and if the types of comics that sell consistently are among that 90% and have a commonality to them (appearances by X or Y character for instance), then that type of stuff will be what is given preference in production. -M Well, the more you reveal and reveal about his past, the more fans want to read it, of course. I applaud Claremont in stretching it out for as long as he did. But then you run into the case of the well running dry for now you've potentially shown everything and the mystery allure vanishes altogether. What to do then? Well, why not shoehorn him into every non-X book possible? I absolutely loathe that Logan was ever an Avenger and the very reasons why he was in the books. But they wanted to promote Bendis on all his Avengers titles and the biggest change to boost sales in such a case would seemingly be to add your two biggest stars to the book, Logan and Spider-Man. |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Sept 30, 2017 13:26:14 GMT -5
I think we'd have to include the Punisher in this discussion. Here is a character whose occasional appearances in ASM I had loved in the 70s, but by the early 90s had multiple titles as well as monthly appearances alongside seemingly every character Marvel published, and even some they did not (Archie). Even the Punisher's equipment received its own title (Armory). That would be like Batman's utility belt having an ongoing series. The ultimate effect was to diminish my love for the character and to greatly dilute his impact. I think Punisher works best as a recurring character who guest stars in other character's titles as a gray-area anti-hero, perhaps with periodic minis or one-shots. That's why that first decade or so of his history. Then again, I haven't read much later Punisher. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Sept 30, 2017 16:07:18 GMT -5
The Joker.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Sept 30, 2017 16:18:25 GMT -5
and Dr Doom
and Thanos
and Darkseid
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Oct 1, 2017 10:50:11 GMT -5
It's worth noting that "over-saturation" isn't necessarily an issue of quantity. Star Wars is everywhere and yet never feels "over" saturated to me. I may have to walk by a life-size Rey decal every time I enter Target but, even though I'm not a particularly big Star Wars fan, it feels appropriate enough. Star Wars has become a massive part of our culture and how it is celebrated (even with Force Fridays and May the Fourth) doesn't feel particularly tedious. I'd imagine the ubiquitous presence of Superman in the Forties felt a lot like that -- everywhere, but somehow appropriate.
Then you look at Batman in the Sixties and Eighties, and it just feels obnoxious and in your face. I was alive for one of those two decades, but I can see the evidence of the other in a lot of merchandising and media exposure of the time.
I don't know. I have only my subjective viewpoint to work from, so feel free to disagree, but if my take on these media saturations is accurate, then I'm curious to better understand why some media presence feels appropriate and welcomed while another media presence can feel forced and unwelcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Oct 1, 2017 10:57:12 GMT -5
I agree.
The X-ploitative X-Men of the 90's felt bloated and artificial, as did the Batman of the 80's.
Yeah, it probably was of the 60's too, but it was more of a pop culture phenomenon / craze that grew up from the bottom and less from the top down.
Marvel's trying to jam the Inhumans in lieu of former favorite X-Men feels artificial and unappealing despite me liking the previous versions of the characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Oct 1, 2017 12:06:14 GMT -5
I think most of us feel that way about Wolverine. Especially him, but the X-Men and mutants in general, plus #1's. Too many #1's. It seems like every couple of years a series ends so that they can come out with another #1 to temporarily boost sales. |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Oct 1, 2017 12:11:28 GMT -5
Couldn't agree with you more !
Funny how Marvel is now switching back to "legacy" numbering, though that's sort of jacked up in certain ways as well
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Oct 1, 2017 13:22:11 GMT -5
I would think Spider-Man, Batman and Superman would be the biggest and oldest offenders with Wolverine, Deadpool and maybe Harley Quinn being more recent ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 1, 2017 14:26:23 GMT -5
It's worth noting that "over-saturation" isn't necessarily an issue of quantity. Star Wars is everywhere and yet never feels "over" saturated to me. I may have to walk by a life-size Rey decal every time I enter Target but, even though I'm not a particularly big Star Wars fan, it feels appropriate enough. Star Wars has become a massive part of our culture and how it is celebrated (even with Force Fridays and May the Fourth) doesn't feel particularly tedious. I'd imagine the ubiquitous presence of Superman in the Forties felt a lot like that -- everywhere, but somehow appropriate. Then you look at Batman in the Sixties and Eighties, and it just feels obnoxious and in your face. I was alive for one of those two decades, but I can see the evidence of the other in a lot of merchandising and media exposure of the time. I don't know. I have only my subjective viewpoint to work from, so feel free to disagree, but if my take on these media saturations is accurate, then I'm curious to better understand why some media presence feels appropriate and welcomed while another media presence can feel forced and unwelcome. Interesting point. When they came out with that last movie about the rebels, I'd wondered why they didn't create spin off movies the whole time. It might feel like over saturation when the Han Solo and other spin offs start filling the movie theaters in the coming years. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 1, 2017 16:18:06 GMT -5
shaxper , the Batmania of the 60s was a true fad; it burst into existence overnight, burned out quickly, and became not just regarded as passé, but mocked and even vilified. Not to say there weren't lingering after-effects ... go go checks  scripts and art already prepared that were full of  s and  ![]() s and knock-offs that were too late to the ball.  If Batmania were saturation, what we've seen since the 90s is inundation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 16:37:38 GMT -5
I would think Spider-Man, Batman and Superman would be the biggest and oldest offenders with Wolverine, Deadpool and maybe Harley Quinn being more recent ones. Too many of these movies and that's beginning to irks me and I feel like rebelling against them in the same matter as Hawkeye (Alan Alda) in M*A*S*H in an episode called "Adam's Ribs" ... I'm tired of Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, and anything like that and I'm equally tired of the X-Men, Wolverine, and I don't care for Deadpool and Suicide Squad either. |
|
