|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 7:55:44 GMT -5
I noticed that there’s a Red Goblin comic coming out, apparently Norman Osborn has a symbiote. Well, he may as well have one, everyone else appears to have a symbiote. I’m sure Aunt May will have her own symbiote soon.
Is anything unique in Marvel now?
When I think about the history of DC and Marvel, well, of course DC did away with unique decades ago, with the debuts of the likes of Supergirl, Batgirl, Ace the Bat-Hound, etc. Then the likes of Kid Flash, Speedy, etc. All of those were fun, though. At least for me, I know our mileage varies. And as for the Marvel Family, I couldn’t get enough of them, I enjoyed reading back-up strips featuring the likes of Captain Marvel Jr. and Mary Marvel.
With Marvel, though, and I’m struggling as usual to articulate something properly, it feels like they can take something unique - and completely destroy and devalue the concept of unique. It feels like they do it in a way that DC does not. There’s something - I don’t know - more earnest and fun about DC spreading its concepts wider, whereas with Marvel, it just feels like a cash cow. I know companies exist to make money, but there’s profit - and then there’s a cash cow that bores me.
Like I said, our mileage varies. I like the Marvel Family, but there may be people who don’t. I hate this “everyone has a symbiote” idea, but there could be readers out there who really like it. It just seems less fun and less earnest with Marvel (just a theory, I have no proof).
It also feels more excessive. Didn’t Supergirl (as in Kara) debut a good 21 years after Superman? Didn’t Batgirl (the Barbara Gordon iteration) debut 29 years after Batman? Even at Marvel, I like Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew) and She-Hulk, but they appeared a good while after the originals. It seems modern Marvel is all about stretching out every conceivable concept; I suppose we’ll get Spider-Wolverine soon, or a Super-Soldier Serum Team-Up Corps book or something.
Does it take away from the originals? It may do. Personally, I think that the likes of Supergirl and Batgirl are a great part of the Bat-mythos. Even Marvel did it right for me at times, e.g. Jim Rhodes as War Machine, or Spider-Woman. I just feel they’ve gone too far now. I suppose - and I know this stuff does sell so I’m shouting at the wind - we’ll get Symbiote Wars soon, or MODOK will get a symbiote. Or perhaps Hulk-Wolverine or Wolverine-Hulk. Or maybe Red Goblin 2099. While people’s mileage does vary, there surely has to be a limit to what you can do with a concept, right?
Have some franchises avoided it? Maybe. I’m not always up to speed. I felt my iteration of Masters of the Universe was unique. When something is unique, it’s special. I just wish less could be more at times. I enjoyed it in Thundercats when some survivors of Thundera showed up and joined the Thundercats. I don’t enjoy it when I read that yet another Marvel character has a symbiote. The cash cow is ready to keel over, if you ask me.
I guess it’s human nature to try and keep replicating success. Wrestling is no different. We had the initially great New World Order angle featuring Hulk Hogan, Kevin Nash and Scott Hall, but within 1-2 years, we had a roster that was too much (I’m sure even my mother was probably a member at some point). And when you keep adding to, and “diluting” a concept, it feels less special; with the symbiote, when it was just Venom, that was great. When Carnage was added to the mythos, that was great. Nowadays, it doesn’t interest me.
As per usual, yours truly has failed to stay in one lane (a serious flaw in my writing), so take what you want from that post if you wish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 8:46:48 GMT -5
There's a comedy troupe I like a lot called the Reduced Shakespeare Company, and probably their most famous play is The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged), which has been performed on stage many times over the years and a performance has been released on video where I've enjoyed it.
The premise is farcical in one sense, as they literally "perform" every single play of Shakespeare's in one performance, taking great comedic liberties to accomplish this along the way. But at times they also inject a bit of actual insight to Shakespeare's methods, and in one scene they reflect on the repetition at times in his works, and inform the audience that he was basically a formula writer. And if he found something worked, he tended to use it over and over and over (their words).
Point being, this is a very common cycle in creative fields, and always has been. Look at how people bemoan all the movie remakes these days and the feeling of lack of originality in Hollywood. Disney forgoing it's history of classic animation in favor of live action remakes. And so on. We see ourselves moving to cycles of "safer money" while foregoing the risks that were taken earlier with more innovative but chancier works. It's actually not just a creative cycle, it's very much the business cycle with the more corporate entities/properties now in more of a "cash cow" phase (as you said) where there's less incentive to take those risks. And for older IP's where "all the stories have already been told" maybe a few times over at least (in some cases markedly more), it gets harder to keep that originality going.
Sometimes the innovation still happens, and it makes people take notice and say "wow, there's still life left in (insert name)", but I think that's more a product of it happens in spite of corporate direction, not because of it.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,701
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 11, 2022 9:00:32 GMT -5
There's a comedy troupe I like a lot called the Reduced Shakespeare Company, and probably their most famous play is The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged)They have other plays??? You just made my year. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 9:09:04 GMT -5
There's a comedy troupe I like a lot called the Reduced Shakespeare Company, and probably their most famous play is The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged)They have other plays??? You just made my year. Oh yes sir, I am very happy to be the one to bring that news to you. Check out the list under the "Shows" dropdown (not sure what all is up on YouTube at this point): www.reducedshakespeare.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Dec 11, 2022 9:13:56 GMT -5
It's modern marketing. It's less expensive to promote products that are all variations of a single brand, so that's how it's done these days. When I was a kid, there were 20 different brands of toothpaste to choose from. Now, here in Alabama, at least, there are 20 varieties of Crest, 30 varieties of Colgate, a few Sensodynes, and maybe one or two minor brands. When I was a kid, there were a ton of cookies to choose from, many heavily marketed with Saturday morning commercials. Now, there is a wall in the grocery filled with different kinds of Oreos, another huge slab of Chips Ahoy, and then a small section of specialty cookies and smaller groups of variations on the same product.
Comics seem to be operating the same way, and have been for quite a while. They've learned it's futile to try to sell a Red Wolf series when a new Backdoor Avengers can ride a little farther in the Avengers tailwinds. And maybe readers today do get more excited by a twist on a familiar concept than the promise of something all-new, at least in the Marvel/DC lane. This strategy fails where the creator-owned material aims for that sweet tv series rights-bidding prospect, and that seems to be where the freshest ideas are cropping up now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 9:19:51 GMT -5
I smile when I see mention of toothpastes. I was thinking the same thing.
I mean, Colgate Triple Action, Colgate Maximum Protection, etc, etc. Does that mean that plain old regular Colgate, the brand I tend to use, is not as efficient and productive as Colgate Triple Action or Colgate Maximum Protection?
Coca-Cola makes me smile. As a kid, I only remember the main one, Diet Coke and Cherry Coca-Cola. Now there’s Coca-Cola Zero (what is the difference between Zero and Diet Coke?), Coca-Cola Vanilla, Coca-Cola with a lemon twist, no doubt we’ll get Coca-Cola Garlic or something soon.
Don’t get me started on cleaning products…
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 9:42:36 GMT -5
I've also been reflecting on the actual question regarding Marvel specifically. It's hard to put my finger on. My issues with Marvel (beyond just the lack of modern originality general theme) are more around how I think the MCU impacted comic books. There's always been this thought that certain aspects of comic books don't translate to live action, and the MCU reworked much in that regard, and obviously it led to a lot of commercial success. But I think the same holds true for me that certain things live action don't always translate to the comic books, and I find the characters these days no longer nearly as recognizable to me anymore (even beyond the costume designs). The fact that they then rely on symbiotes and endless other rehashes of themes, storylines, etc., just sort of compounds my lack of enthusiasm.
DC has messed up a lot for me as well though. The current iteration of Supergirl is horrendous, they just can't seem to get it right. There's some modern trope of "make everyone drunk" at times because that's cool (I remember them doing that with Batgirl as well with the whole "Burnside" remake)...and it all feels kind of hipster and weird to me.
But I digress, back on point here. I think Marvel did accomplish some unique things, but in a different way than DC. Sure, in their mainstream titles we've seen many times over the years the reliance on mutants and symbiotes and so on. But I think of the 2099 universe in the 90's, the Ultimates universe in the 2000's, stuff like Earth X, all created interesting creative outlets to explore and expand on the mythos.
It's an interesting question...I'm sure I will continue to ponder a bit!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 9:46:29 GMT -5
Marvel 2099 was definitely a good angle, and i enjoyed a lot of what I read. I’d rather they try something different with that future - has there been a Cap 2099? - than just attaching a symbiote to yet another character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 9:58:02 GMT -5
Comics has been a copycat business regurgitating someone else's ideas since 1939 when the second super-hero appeared. Superman was unique-every other super-powered or costumed hero was a copycat effort to capture the success of the first. It's ingrained into the very lifebeat of the industry and it's never going to change. The issue is our romanticized perception of comics, not the industry itself today. It is what it is and has always been.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 10:23:44 GMT -5
For me, I feel there’s a bit of a difference between copycat heroes, which can be endearing (such as Fighting American) and the likes of Marvel throwing symbiotes, super-serums and all the rest of it around.
I am quite the fan of Hobgoblin. I am fine that he was derivative of Green Goblin. I don’t mind the idea of Red Goblin. If they introduced another goblin, utilising whatever colour is available, I’d be fine with that. Just as I might be fine if Marvel wanted to create Alloy Man, or give us another rampaging monster, or Red Ant Man.
But it feels boring to me that the likes of symbiotes are getting around the Marvel Universe. Or that there are countless mutants around. Copycat heroes are one thing - I’d love to read a Fighting American trade - but I’d have zero enthusiasm if I woke up to see an announcement about Iron Symbiote or something…
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 10:49:58 GMT -5
Even variants aren't unique anymore. There are variants of the variant. The gimmick is dead.
And yet I still get roped in now and then....
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 11, 2022 17:22:56 GMT -5
Marvel comics was paying out to creators of new properties in the 80’s and 90’s. They would even get percentages from uses of their creations. Somewhere along the way, the suits determined that they could save money by creatiing derivatives of an existing character. I think they eliminated money for new characters since then and are now stuck with spider- Gwen and nothing original. At least the new IP’s are coming from the non big two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 17:43:19 GMT -5
Marvel comics was paying out to creators of new properties in the 80’s and 90’s. They would even get percentages from uses of their creations. Somewhere along the way, the suits determined that they could save money by creatiing derivatives of an existing character. I think they eliminated money for new characters since then and are now stuck with spider- Gwen and nothing original. At least the new IP’s are coming from the non big two. ^ I do like Spider-Gwen though....even more than Cindy Moon's Silk who debuted in 2014... |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Dec 11, 2022 17:54:09 GMT -5
Successfully introducing new characters is one of the hardest things to do in comics. One of the reasons I dislike Busiek's Avengers so much is that I don't like any of the new characters, and that's from a writer who created fantastic characters in Astro City. It really makes you appreciate Marvel's creative output in the 60s where they introduced one great character after another.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Dec 11, 2022 18:08:27 GMT -5
Marvel 2099 was definitely a good angle, and i enjoyed a lot of what I read. I’d rather they try something different with that future - has there been a Cap 2099? - than just attaching a symbiote to yet another character. 2099 originally was not just new versions of old heroes.. Ravage was new.. Doom was a hero (it was unique then....) the X-Men had no overlap, and Ghost Rider had the name used, but was completely unrelated otherwise. Then they had Metalscream and Galahad in the 'Unlimited' book, which were both unique. Sadly, unique doesn't sell. There was no Cap, or anything close, in the original 2099, but when PAD started mucking with it a few years ago (and sorta combined it with Future Imperfect) there was one.. she wasn't very interesting.. I think she was brainwashed to be a traitor or something. Also, we just had Symbiote Wars, it was called King in Black and was a massive company wide crossover. |
|
