|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Feb 23, 2018 17:38:16 GMT -5
I don't complain any longer since I have access to virtually everything Marvel published from 1961-1991 (what I consider to be MARVEL and my main area of focus). I have a few lifetimes of potential reading just with that (not to count my growing knowledge of Pre-Crisis DC) so why complain? I much prefer creator owned material when it comes to new comics (Saga, Ragnarok, Autumlands, Five Ghosts, etc) since it's clear to me that the creators hearts and souls are into it.
When it comes to the frequent cancellations and relaunches, what strikes me nowadays is that it's not just the obscure titles and characters that are being cancelled, reshuffled, repackaged, etc, but it's the A list titles that are being relaunched and retooled. I'm talking Avengers and Batman here. So the most successful and popular titles aren't really all that successful when left to their own devices given the current method of publishing. This seems to me to be the fundamental problem that nobody wants to address.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 23, 2018 22:30:34 GMT -5
Going back to one Avengers book seems positive, though I don't like the line up much (having T'challa and Tony Stark both on the team is silly story wise, and Ghost Rider and Dr Strange there don't mix well). And doing the extra shipping thing means either multiple artists or they've produced stuff in advance and it'll be temporary. I'm also not a fan of that 10,000 BC thing, so if that's a feature.. meh. I'll probably stick with checking stuff out after it hits Unlimited. See, I loved the 10,000 BC bit from Thor and immediately thought,"Why isn't that a book?" from the moment I read it. I mean, ghost rider rides a woolly mammoth!? That's the fun kind of idea that originally drew me to comics. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 23, 2018 22:48:43 GMT -5
Going back to one Avengers book seems positive, though I don't like the line up much (having T'challa and Tony Stark both on the team is silly story wise, and Ghost Rider and Dr Strange there don't mix well). And doing the extra shipping thing means either multiple artists or they've produced stuff in advance and it'll be temporary. I'm also not a fan of that 10,000 BC thing, so if that's a feature.. meh. I'll probably stick with checking stuff out after it hits Unlimited. See, I loved the 10,000 BC bit from Thor and immediately thought,"Why isn't that a book?" from the moment I read it. I mean, ghost rider rides a woolly mammoth!? That's the fun kind of idea that originally drew me to comics. I think they are sending out feelers to see if it could be a book. |
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Feb 25, 2018 7:00:14 GMT -5
Oh, and as far as the toxicity of this site, I guess that's in the eye of the beholder, cause this is still by far one of the best places on the net for civil discourse. Im just flicking thru this thread and want to throw a couple of cents worth in here. First, " cause this is still by far one of the best places on the net for civil discourse" is a statement I have to wholeheartedly agree with, this is close to the ONLY place Ive found, which self regulates, and continues to exist in relative harmony. Second, however, " as far as the toxicity of this site",well I kind of get that too. My take, and I hope Im reading this right, is that things like the start of this thread, with the criticism of Cebulski and Marvel, before they have even put the books in question in the market, well that is starting to get a bit much. Any time this sort of discussion starts we get the same group ragging on Marvel or DC, on Bendis, Quesada, Johns, Lee, and Didio. We get the Disney this, and the Rebirth that, etc etc etc Go and reread the thread, a whole buncha folk bitchin bout Marvel and their new direction without having read a single book, some not for years or decades. Yet they still feel entitled to discredit ALL that work ... I know youse fullas mean well, even think youre fighting the good fight, but if this is meant to be some haven of sanity in a real big ocean of shit, could we at least give stuff a chance. Try some positivity in our digital lives, pay it forward even, hell it might even reach Marvel and DC. Of course I mean this in the most respectful way, in no way am I trying to be argumentative. I admire most here, love reading your thought most days, and enjoy being part of the family. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 25, 2018 8:26:01 GMT -5
Oh, and as far as the toxicity of this site, I guess that's in the eye of the beholder, cause this is still by far one of the best places on the net for civil discourse. My take, and I hope Im reading this right, is that things like the start of this thread, with the criticism of Cebulski and Marvel, before they have even put the books in question in the market, well that is starting to get a bit much. Any time this sort of discussion starts we get the same group ragging on Marvel or DC, on Bendis, Quesada, Johns, Lee, and Didio. We get the Disney this, and the Rebirth that, etc etc etc Go and reread the thread, a whole buncha folk bitchin bout Marvel and their new direction without having read a single book, some not for years or decades. Yet they still feel entitled to discredit ALL that work ... - you make a fair point, but I don't think you're reading the situation right. It's not the books we're bashing, because no, they haven't been released yet and we don't know what level of quality they are going to be. They may very well have hired the next Dickens, Hemingway, Tolkien, and Martin to write their books, along with the next Kirby, Windsor-Smith, Wrightson, and Kubert to draw them, and they will be masterpieces of the form that we will all embrace with open arms. What many of us take objection to or issue with is the constant change of direction and rebranding from the Big Two. Most of us here have been reading comics for a long time, and growing up, we didn't have to deal with reboots every 12-18 months, new directions, new vision from a new management. They published comics with Spider-Man and Batman and Superman and so on, and we bought them and if we enjoyed them, we showed up at the newsstand or LCS the following month to buy the next issue. There were changes, to be sure, like a new Robin or Spidey's black suit, but they were organic to the books and so we just went on buying our books without having to be sold on some All-New and All-Different every time we turned around. Today, however, the changes are just crass cash grabs, designed to juice the sales (and let's not forget the stock price for the shareholders), but most of us see them as just that, not a "Fresh Start" or a "Rebirth". They'll change the numbering, change the logo, change the trade dress, give us some new creative teams, maybe monkey with the rosters of the teams, but it's just more of the same old same old. It's comic book creation for the ADHD generation, designed to appeal to society's need for the new and hot and different, not built for the long game, because that requires patience and effort, and heaven knows shareholders don't have patience to allow things to build slowly. Just last fall, Marvel gave us "Legacy", which was supposed to bring back and honor the classic characters, but now we're getting a "Fresh Start" with a whole new direction. So, yes, many of us are jaded about the constant whiplash from the Big Two, because it's a game that many of us are outgrowing and tired of supporting. I don't NEED new monthly books, as I already have well over 11,000 individual issues, both floppy and collected, to read, but I will pick up books that look interesting to me or feature characters that I like. Unfortunately, Marvel just isn't delivering those to me any more, not like they used to, no matter how they sell it. Respectfully, The Captain |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 25, 2018 10:05:18 GMT -5
My take, and I hope Im reading this right, is that things like the start of this thread, with the criticism of Cebulski and Marvel, before they have even put the books in question in the market, well that is starting to get a bit much. Any time this sort of discussion starts we get the same group ragging on Marvel or DC, on Bendis, Quesada, Johns, Lee, and Didio. We get the Disney this, and the Rebirth that, etc etc etc Go and reread the thread, a whole buncha folk bitchin bout Marvel and their new direction without having read a single book, some not for years or decades. Yet they still feel entitled to discredit ALL that work ... - you make a fair point, but I don't think you're reading the situation right. It's not the books we're bashing, because no, they haven't been released yet and we don't know what level of quality they are going to be. They may very well have hired the next Dickens, Hemingway, Tolkien, and Martin to write their books, along with the next Kirby, Windsor-Smith, Wrightson, and Kubert to draw them, and they will be masterpieces of the form that we will all embrace with open arms. What many of us take objection to or issue with is the constant change of direction and rebranding from the Big Two. Most of us here have been reading comics for a long time, and growing up, we didn't have to deal with reboots every 12-18 months, new directions, new vision from a new management. They published comics with Spider-Man and Batman and Superman and so on, and we bought them and if we enjoyed them, we showed up at the newsstand or LCS the following month to buy the next issue. There were changes, to be sure, like a new Robin or Spidey's black suit, but they were organic to the books and so we just went on buying our books without having to be sold on some All-New and All-Different every time we turned around. Today, however, the changes are just crass cash grabs, designed to juice the sales (and let's not forget the stock price for the shareholders), but most of us see them as just that, not a "Fresh Start" or a "Rebirth". They'll change the numbering, change the logo, change the trade dress, give us some new creative teams, maybe monkey with the rosters of the teams, but it's just more of the same old same old. It's comic book creation for the ADHD generation, designed to appeal to society's need for the new and hot and different, not built for the long game, because that requires patience and effort, and heaven knows shareholders don't have patience to allow things to build slowly. Just last fall, Marvel gave us "Legacy", which was supposed to bring back and honor the classic characters, but now we're getting a "Fresh Start" with a whole new direction. So, yes, many of us are jaded about the constant whiplash from the Big Two, because it's a game that many of us are outgrowing and tired of supporting. I don't NEED new monthly books, as I already have well over 11,000 individual issues, both floppy and collected, to read, but I will pick up books that look interesting to me or feature characters that I like. Unfortunately, Marvel just isn't delivering those to me any more, not like they used to, no matter how they sell it. Respectfully, The Captain Well put, Cap. But I do like that the big three are going to be in the new Avengers book. I know, I'm part of the problem...  |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Feb 25, 2018 11:20:59 GMT -5
Hey icctrombone, just wanna point out to you and everyone else, you're only part of the problem if you're blindly, like a Marvel Zombie, supporting product without considering the content.
The completist mentality of "gotta have every issue" is mostly dead now, with the oversaturation of product bloating every franchise or family of titles, as I pointed out in my original post.
The constant carnival barker-like chorus of New & Improved post-Everything-Is-In-This-Huge-Crossover Event is what's wrong more than the content.
I'm only speaking for myself, but Marvel is now a toxic brand to me.
I've been burned so many times so many ways that I'm pretty much done.
If they actually had a Crisis and rebooted everything, or a separate imprint not unlike the Ultimate Universe, which I was a fan of, I'd be there.
Ultimate could have been exactly what I wanted but it was too scattershot and didn't have tight consistent continuity. Ultimately it became nothing more than a testing ground for creators before sending them to the big leagues of the 616, with little regard for what was actually being produced in the Ultimate Testing Ground.
With Disney buying Marvel, it's only gotten worse not better.
The soul of Marvel is gone IMO and it's been taken over by the suits at Disney.
I wish Cebulski the best of luck but I'm not holding my breath.
Alonso was one of my favorite editors of all time but he was put in a nearly impossible position between Disney and the long-term fans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 25, 2018 12:55:54 GMT -5
The thing is...there's pretty much zero reason to buy all the "New Improved" comics sight unseen and feed the hype machine. Back in the day you might get a house ad and a blurb in the DC or Marvel coming attractions page. If you were really tuned in there might be something in CBG or Amazing Heroes or other fan press.
Now you can literally within seconds access a dozen or more competent reviews, previews, etc. I have only recently started buying new comics (digitally). For over a decade I stuck with trades because it was just easier. But I am buying a few new books in order to support them and the creators and let people know that that is the kind of content I want. As of now, I've yet to be burnt badly. That's because I do my research and I know going in that between the subject matter and the creators, bolstered by reviews and previews that there's a very very good chance I'm going to like the book. And if I don't (I wasn't thrilled by Ennis' Dastardly & Muttley) I can not buy any more or I can decide to pick up the inevitable trade when I find it crazy cheap.
Knee-jerk buying #1's because you "like" the character tells the powers-that-be to keep making number 1's with that character because that's where the sales and money are. Knee-jerk hating something that hasn't been published yet because it's a number 1 or a reboot or what have you, just means you could be depriving yourself of a great book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 25, 2018 14:26:03 GMT -5
Because of the constant reboots, I've bought the same issue a few times. Now when I get back issues I look at the year instead of the issue number.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Feb 25, 2018 16:14:01 GMT -5
Paste Pot Paul - you make a fair point, but I don't think you're reading the situation right. What many of us take objection to or issue with is the constant change of direction and rebranding from the Big Two. Most of us here have been reading comics for a long time, and growing up, we didn't have to deal with reboots every 12-18 months, new directions, new vision from a new management. They published comics with Spider-Man and Batman and Superman and so on, and we bought them and if we enjoyed them, we showed up at the newsstand or LCS the following month to buy the next issue. There were changes, to be sure, like a new Robin or Spidey's black suit, but they were organic to the books and so we just went on buying our books without having to be sold on some All-New and All-Different every time we turned around. Today, however, the changes are just crass cash grabs, designed to juice the sales (and let's not forget the stock price for the shareholders), but most of us see them as just that, not a "Fresh Start" or a "Rebirth". They'll change the numbering, change the logo, change the trade dress, give us some new creative teams, maybe monkey with the rosters of the teams, but it's just more of the same old same old. It's comic book creation for the ADHD generation, designed to appeal to society's need for the new and hot and different, not built for the long game, because that requires patience and effort, and heaven knows shareholders don't have patience to allow things to build slowly. Respectfully, The Captain Although this may sound argumentative, I would like to point out that this has been a staple of the industry since inception. Everything Ive read about Stan Lee has talked about how Martin Goodman(my bad if I got the name wrong) would jump on any trend that might deliver a sales bump,so current publishers doing the same, well thats just business isnt it? Nice point about comics for the ADHD generation, maybe with millennials exerting more influence in the workplace and in stores there will be corresponding changes in storytelling, design, or packaging. Interesting times. Paste Pot Paul - you make a fair point, but I don't think you're reading the situation right. It's not the books we're bashing, because no, they haven't been released yet and we don't know what level of quality they are going to be. They may very well have hired the next Dickens, Hemingway, Tolkien, and Martin to write their books, along with the next Kirby, Windsor-Smith, Wrightson, and Kubert to draw them, and they will be masterpieces of the form that we will all embrace with open arms. What many of us take objection to or issue with is the constant change of direction and rebranding from the Big Two. Most of us here have been reading comics for a long time, and growing up, we didn't have to deal with reboots every 12-18 months, new directions, new vision from a new management. They published comics with Spider-Man and Batman and Superman and so on, and we bought them and if we enjoyed them, we showed up at the newsstand or LCS the following month to buy the next issue. There were changes, to be sure, like a new Robin or Spidey's black suit, but they were organic to the books and so we just went on buying our books without having to be sold on some All-New and All-Different every time we turned around. Today, however, the changes are just crass cash grabs, designed to juice the sales (and let's not forget the stock price for the shareholders), but most of us see them as just that, not a "Fresh Start" or a "Rebirth". They'll change the numbering, change the logo, change the trade dress, give us some new creative teams, maybe monkey with the rosters of the teams, but it's just more of the same old same old. It's comic book creation for the ADHD generation, designed to appeal to society's need for the new and hot and different, not built for the long game, because that requires patience and effort, and heaven knows shareholders don't have patience to allow things to build slowly. Just last fall, Marvel gave us "Legacy", which was supposed to bring back and honor the classic characters, but now we're getting a "Fresh Start" with a whole new direction. So, yes, many of us are jaded about the constant whiplash from the Big Two, because it's a game that many of us are outgrowing and tired of supporting. I don't NEED new monthly books, as I already have well over 11,000 individual issues, both floppy and collected, to read, but I will pick up books that look interesting to me or feature characters that I like. Unfortunately, Marvel just isn't delivering those to me any more, not like they used to, no matter how they sell it. Respectfully, The Captain Well put, Cap. But I do like that the big three are going to be in the new Avengers book. I know, I'm part of the problem... Theres always gotta be that one...heh Hey icctrombone, just wanna point out to you and everyone else, you're only part of the problem if you're blindly, like a Marvel Zombie, supporting product without considering the content. The completist mentality of "gotta have every issue" is mostly dead now, with the oversaturation of product bloating every franchise or family of titles, as I pointed out in my original post. The constant carnival barker-like chorus of New & Improved post-Everything-Is-In-This-Huge-Crossover Event is what's wrong more than the content.I'm only speaking for myself, but Marvel is now a toxic brand to me. I've been burned so many times so many ways that I'm pretty much done. If they actually had a Crisis and rebooted everything, or a separate imprint not unlike the Ultimate Universe, which I was a fan of, I'd be there. Ultimate could have been exactly what I wanted but it was too scattershot and didn't have tight consistent continuity. Ultimately it became nothing more than a testing ground for creators before sending them to the big leagues of the 616, with little regard for what was actually being produced in the Ultimate Testing Ground. With Disney buying Marvel, it's only gotten worse not better. The soul of Marvel is gone IMO and it's been taken over by the suits at Disney. I wish Cebulski the best of luck but I'm not holding my breath. Alonso was one of my favorite editors of all time but he was put in a nearly impossible position between Disney and the long-term fans. ...then 3 posts after mine, after pointing out the volume of negativity here at times we have more of the same...and mate you even seemed to contradict your own self there too. Im gunna apologize here if that sounded antagonistic, not my intention, I was trying for light-hearted dig. Like, I love it here, but do I really have to read about BillyBobs hatred of Bendis, or JimmyJoes loathing of One More Day again and again(thats the stuff I personally am finding toxic here). Seems like some a youse is jest waitin for every dang excuse to spout that same ole vitriol every damn time you can. Sure you dont have to like a book or creator. Sure you dont have to agree with me (many patently dont at the moment). I'd just like to think the conversation will shift direction. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 25, 2018 16:25:26 GMT -5
I find that many that have strong opinions about things they dislike don't rehash it. But do you want them to give different answers every time ? I see many can dislike some book or creator but still give them credit to the effort.
Ex; I think Dick Dillins artwork is terrible but I give him respect for drawing a book for 10 straight years.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 25, 2018 16:26:53 GMT -5
Paste Pot Paul - you make a fair point, but I don't think you're reading the situation right. What many of us take objection to or issue with is the constant change of direction and rebranding from the Big Two. Most of us here have been reading comics for a long time, and growing up, we didn't have to deal with reboots every 12-18 months, new directions, new vision from a new management. They published comics with Spider-Man and Batman and Superman and so on, and we bought them and if we enjoyed them, we showed up at the newsstand or LCS the following month to buy the next issue. There were changes, to be sure, like a new Robin or Spidey's black suit, but they were organic to the books and so we just went on buying our books without having to be sold on some All-New and All-Different every time we turned around. Today, however, the changes are just crass cash grabs, designed to juice the sales (and let's not forget the stock price for the shareholders), but most of us see them as just that, not a "Fresh Start" or a "Rebirth". They'll change the numbering, change the logo, change the trade dress, give us some new creative teams, maybe monkey with the rosters of the teams, but it's just more of the same old same old. It's comic book creation for the ADHD generation, designed to appeal to society's need for the new and hot and different, not built for the long game, because that requires patience and effort, and heaven knows shareholders don't have patience to allow things to build slowly. Respectfully, The Captain Although this may sound argumentative, I would like to point out that this has been a staple of the industry since inception. Everything Ive read about Stan Lee has talked about how Martin Goodman(my bad if I got the name wrong) would jump on any trend that might deliver a sales bump,so current publishers doing the same, well thats just business isnt it? I don't take it as argumentative, but rather engaging in dialogue. That's the point of this place, and no, we don't always agree with each other. The difference is that with Goodman, he saw what TYPE of books were selling and made adjustments. If Western comics are hot and you're still putting out Romance comics, then that's just bad business. However, putting out Two-Gun Kid for 18 months, then "killing" him and replacing him with a new Two-Gun Kid, then bringing back the original one and having two titles with one continuing the original numbering and the other with a new #1, then putting them together in a team-up book with a new #1 issue, then counting the issues from the two original series and adding them to the team-up book's number as they approach issue #100, then splitting them back into separate books with their own sidekicks in each with a new #1 for each, then creating a team of both Two-Gun Kids and the two sidekicks and continuing the numbering, then... That latter is what many of us are against. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 25, 2018 16:34:26 GMT -5
Although this may sound argumentative, I would like to point out that this has been a staple of the industry since inception. Everything Ive read about Stan Lee has talked about how Martin Goodman(my bad if I got the name wrong) would jump on any trend that might deliver a sales bump,so current publishers doing the same, well thats just business isnt it? I don't take it as argumentative, but rather engaging in dialogue. That's the point of this place, and no, we don't always agree with each other. The difference is that with Goodman, he saw what TYPE of books were selling and made adjustments. If Western comics are hot and you're still putting out Romance comics, then that's just bad business. However, putting out Two-Gun Kid for 18 months, then "killing" him and replacing him with a new Two-Gun Kid, then bringing back the original one and having two titles with one continuing the original numbering and the other with a new #1, then putting them together in a team-up book with a new #1 issue, then counting the issues from the two original series and adding them to the team-up book's number as they approach issue #100, then splitting them back into separate books with their own sidekicks in each with a new #1 for each, then creating a team of both Two-Gun Kids and the two sidekicks and continuing the numbering, then... That latter is what many of us are against. Get this man a shield ! |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Feb 25, 2018 21:34:42 GMT -5
Paste Pot Paul - you make a fair point, but I don't think you're reading the situation right. What many of us take objection to or issue with is the constant change of direction and rebranding from the Big Two. Most of us here have been reading comics for a long time, and growing up, we didn't have to deal with reboots every 12-18 months, new directions, new vision from a new management. They published comics with Spider-Man and Batman and Superman and so on, and we bought them and if we enjoyed them, we showed up at the newsstand or LCS the following month to buy the next issue. There were changes, to be sure, like a new Robin or Spidey's black suit, but they were organic to the books and so we just went on buying our books without having to be sold on some All-New and All-Different every time we turned around. Today, however, the changes are just crass cash grabs, designed to juice the sales (and let's not forget the stock price for the shareholders), but most of us see them as just that, not a "Fresh Start" or a "Rebirth". They'll change the numbering, change the logo, change the trade dress, give us some new creative teams, maybe monkey with the rosters of the teams, but it's just more of the same old same old. It's comic book creation for the ADHD generation, designed to appeal to society's need for the new and hot and different, not built for the long game, because that requires patience and effort, and heaven knows shareholders don't have patience to allow things to build slowly. Respectfully, The Captain Although this may sound argumentative, I would like to point out that this has been a staple of the industry since inception. Everything Ive read about Stan Lee has talked about how Martin Goodman(my bad if I got the name wrong) would jump on any trend that might deliver a sales bump,so current publishers doing the same, well thats just business isnt it? Nice point about comics for the ADHD generation, maybe with millennials exerting more influence in the workplace and in stores there will be corresponding changes in storytelling, design, or packaging. Interesting times. Well put, Cap. But I do like that the big three are going to be in the new Avengers book. I know, I'm part of the problem... Theres always gotta be that one...heh Hey icctrombone, just wanna point out to you and everyone else, you're only part of the problem if you're blindly, like a Marvel Zombie, supporting product without considering the content. The completist mentality of "gotta have every issue" is mostly dead now, with the oversaturation of product bloating every franchise or family of titles, as I pointed out in my original post. The constant carnival barker-like chorus of New & Improved post-Everything-Is-In-This-Huge-Crossover Event is what's wrong more than the content.I'm only speaking for myself, but Marvel is now a toxic brand to me. I've been burned so many times so many ways that I'm pretty much done. If they actually had a Crisis and rebooted everything, or a separate imprint not unlike the Ultimate Universe, which I was a fan of, I'd be there. Ultimate could have been exactly what I wanted but it was too scattershot and didn't have tight consistent continuity. Ultimately it became nothing more than a testing ground for creators before sending them to the big leagues of the 616, with little regard for what was actually being produced in the Ultimate Testing Ground. With Disney buying Marvel, it's only gotten worse not better. The soul of Marvel is gone IMO and it's been taken over by the suits at Disney. I wish Cebulski the best of luck but I'm not holding my breath. Alonso was one of my favorite editors of all time but he was put in a nearly impossible position between Disney and the long-term fans. ...then 3 posts after mine, after pointing out the volume of negativity here at times we have more of the same...and mate you even seemed to contradict your own self there too. Im gunna apologize here if that sounded antagonistic, not my intention, I was trying for light-hearted dig. Like, I love it here, but do I really have to read about BillyBobs hatred of Bendis, or JimmyJoes loathing of One More Day again and again(thats the stuff I personally am finding toxic here). Seems like some a youse is jest waitin for every dang excuse to spout that same ole vitriol every damn time you can. Sure you dont have to like a book or creator. Sure you dont have to agree with me (many patently dont at the moment). I'd just like to think the conversation will shift direction. Hey Paste Pot Paul,
You had highlighted the part of my post about the Crisis. Yes, I can claim unequivocally, guaranteed, that if Marvel had a Crisis-type event, that yes, I would at least try it, if it truly meant they were doing a hard reboot. The key word here is hard
That's what Marvel keeps avoiding and dancing around with Marvel Now !, All-New All-Different Marvel, Marvel Legacy, and now Fresh Start Marvel, in what, a couple of years ? Really ? and it's all superficial and nothing really changes Tons of new # 1's that are nothing more than artificial manipulation of the market. Your mileage may vary, but I've been lied and misled from them for years now and I'm tired of it. Time will tell to see what Cebulski's reign is like. I still have huge respect for Axel Alonso and would love to hear someday the inside scoop of his reign at Marvel. There are people in both camps. Some, like yourself, are ok with what Marvel is doing, and if you do, then that's great, seriously, but others, like myself, don't, and we're voicing our opinion here of why. I'm not knocking the creators or even the stories because they obviously haven't been published yet. The return of the FF isn't here yet, but it's coming, and I'm genuinely anxious to read it and will probably try it at some point. Part of the appeal is that it's a single title. I like that. I don't have to buy a family of titles. For certain things I don't mind at all, like back in the day buying Legion of Super-Heroes, and Legionnaires, cause they were two different sets of characters, but obviously related. It made sense and I enthusiastically bought both and would do so today. Bloating has driven me away from other characters I really like including the huge Batman family pantheon. Obviously DC gets more mileage out of having a huge ton of Bat-characters, and great that people buy them, but I don't. I haven't bought Batman since Grant Morrison wrote him. Maybe under Cebulski all of this constant churning wraps up and is a thing of the past with a true Fresh Start, which would be great. |
|
|
|
Post by Paste Pot Paul on Feb 26, 2018 6:36:47 GMT -5
I don't take it as argumentative, but rather engaging in dialogue. That's the point of this place, and no, we don't always agree with each other. The difference is that with Goodman, he saw what TYPE of books were selling and made adjustments. If Western comics are hot and you're still putting out Romance comics, then that's just bad business. However, putting out Two-Gun Kid for 18 months, then "killing" him and replacing him with a new Two-Gun Kid, then bringing back the original one and having two titles with one continuing the original numbering and the other with a new #1, then putting them together in a team-up book with a new #1 issue, then counting the issues from the two original series and adding them to the team-up book's number as they approach issue #100, then splitting them back into separate books with their own sidekicks in each with a new #1 for each, then creating a team of both Two-Gun Kids and the two sidekicks and continuing the numbering, then... That latter is what many of us are against. Fair enough, I do get how the renumbering can piss people off, I've just got to the stage where I'm buying the latest Avengers book irrespective of numbering, though to be fair more out of resignation than preference. Actually my preference would be a system like Mignola's Hellboy or Abe Sapien, where you have a succession of minis which are internally numbered ... #35 in a series for example, with the cover having issue 4 of 5. Hey Paste Pot Paul,
You had highlighted the part of my post about the Crisis. Yes, I can claim unequivocally, guaranteed, that if Marvel had a Crisis-type event, that yes, I would at least try it, if it truly meant they were doing a hard reboot. The key word here is hard
That's what Marvel keeps avoiding and dancing around with Marvel Now !, All-New All-Different Marvel, Marvel Legacy, and now Fresh Start Marvel, in what, a couple of years ? Really ? and it's all superficial and nothing really changes Tons of new # 1's that are nothing more than artificial manipulation of the market. Your mileage may vary, but I've been lied and misled from them for years now and I'm tired of it. Time will tell to see what Cebulski's reign is like. I still have huge respect for Axel Alonso and would love to hear someday the inside scoop of his reign at Marvel. There are people in both camps. Some, like yourself, are ok with what Marvel is doing, and if you do, then that's great, seriously, but others, like myself, don't, and we're voicing our opinion here of why. I'm not knocking the creators or even the stories because they obviously haven't been published yet. The return of the FF isn't here yet, but it's coming, and I'm genuinely anxious to read it and will probably try it at some point. Part of the appeal is that it's a single title. I like that. I don't have to buy a family of titles. For certain things I don't mind at all, like back in the day buying Legion of Super-Heroes, and Legionnaires, cause they were two different sets of characters, but obviously related. It made sense and I enthusiastically bought both and would do so today. Bloating has driven me away from other characters I really like including the huge Batman family pantheon. Obviously DC gets more mileage out of having a huge ton of Bat-characters, and great that people buy them, but I don't. I haven't bought Batman since Grant Morrison wrote him. Maybe under Cebulski all of this constant churning wraps up and is a thing of the past with a true Fresh Start, which would be great. I'm not one to get hot about general editorial direction. I'll buy a character I like, or story I've read good things about. I'm generally ok with them trying new directions though im happy to point out those that havent worked for me. As above the numbering means nothin to me, Im more concerned with getting cool stories. Im sad when some dont work...Nu52, Inhumans being pushed over theX-Men, Secret Empire...but thats reality, not everything works for everyone. One thing I have enjoyed over the last 5 years or so is the number of B titles Marvel have given us which work delightfully, from Hawkeye to Spider-Woman to Silver Surfer to Jessica Jones, and the absolute blast of Mighty Thor with Jane Foster. I'm not saying all their changes to Legacy heroes worked, (cough Sam Wilson cough) but there have been some good ones...yes even Doom as Iron Man...Im so sad to see Bendis go to DC(but thats an argument for another thread  ) |
|
)