|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Dec 17, 2014 12:31:57 GMT -5
Spider-Man, at most, could be a reserve Avengers (if they even still have those) or an honorary Avengers, but I don't think he should ever be a full member and certainly not in the Avengers AND FF at the same time. If dating a supermodel strains the concept of Peter Parker, being a high profile member of the Avengers and FF snaps it and breaks in right on our collective fanboy asses. Hmmm...I'm not sure it destroys the "everyman" aspect of Peter Parker any more than all those superhero team-ups he's been a part of. It's one thing to meet up with the Thing or Cap for a one-off adventures, but when you have direct access to Avengers/FF stipends and all the perks that goes along with it... |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Dec 17, 2014 22:48:35 GMT -5
I just googled "marvel comics 2015 the end" and it seems to be something about the Ultimates line, or the Ultimates Universe, if that's what they call it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Dec 18, 2014 23:56:37 GMT -5
They had The End as a campaign earlier for The Ultimates where Galactus was coming to the UU and Marvel hyped it as possibly killing the UU for good.
It hasn't happened and I doubt if it'll happen.
I still stand that the mainstream 616 will have something COIE-like happen next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Dec 19, 2014 0:38:57 GMT -5
It's clear that sales have started to dip again for Marvel and DC, thus the recent plans and why they're doing these events. Still, I think the sales department jumps the gun when it comes to desperation. If they stopped doing events, they'd lose short term sales, but would it really get to a point where they'd have to close up publishing? This is the basic excuse I've heard from Marvel and DC over the years, but I've never fully bought it. I think they simply have a number in their heads that they select, and realistic or not, they're going to claw and fight to get it. What these guys don't get is that steady sales + critical and fan acclaim can lead to a much bigger cash bonanza down the line. History has shown this.
The current system makes it impossible for creators to create and sustain substantial runs anymore; we'll likely never see something like Lee and Kirby's FF or Claremont and Byrne's X-Men ever again. Those runs were generated in a time where creators sat down and hashed out their stories with minimal editorial interference. (In Lee's case, he was the editor.) Nowadays, the creators are told what the overarching themes are going to be a year in advanced and basically told that they have to fit in whatever they can in terms of characterization and actual progression in this restrictive, and frankly uncreative, framework.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Dec 19, 2014 1:14:37 GMT -5
It's clear that sales have started to dip again for Marvel and DC, thus the recent plans and why they're doing these events. Still, I think the sales department jumps the gun when it comes to desperation. If they stopped doing events, they'd lose short term sales, but would it really get to a point where they'd have to close up publishing? This is the basic excuse I've heard from Marvel and DC over the years, but I've never fully bought it. I think they simply have a number in their heads that they select, and realistic or not, they're going to claw and fight to get it. What these guys don't get is that steady sales + critical and fan acclaim can lead to a much bigger cash bonanza down the line. History has shown this. The current system makes it impossible for creators to create and sustain substantial runs anymore; we'll likely never see something like Lee and Kirby's FF or Claremont and Byrne's X-Men ever again. Those runs were generated in a time where creators sat down and hashed out their stories with minimal editorial interference. (In Lee's case, he was the editor.) Nowadays, the creators are told what the overarching themes are going to be a year in advanced and basically told that they have to fit in whatever they can in terms of characterization and actual progression in this restrictive, and frankly uncreative, framework. Yes and no -- I think it depends a lot on where in the hierarchy the creators are at, or what particular corner of the Marvel/DC universe they work in. Certain "big gun" creators seem to be able to do whatever they want, mainly because they are the ones creating the "overarching themes" you cite. Scott Snyder is 37 issues and counting over at DC, but he's the "head" Batman writer. Mark Waid is wrapping up a four year run on Daredevil over at Marvel, but Daredevil is a B-lister who rarely has a critical role in event stories. |
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Dec 19, 2014 5:57:31 GMT -5
It's clear that sales have started to dip again for Marvel and DC, thus the recent plans and why they're doing these events. Still, I think the sales department jumps the gun when it comes to desperation. If they stopped doing events, they'd lose short term sales, but would it really get to a point where they'd have to close up publishing? This is the basic excuse I've heard from Marvel and DC over the years, but I've never fully bought it. I think they simply have a number in their heads that they select, and realistic or not, they're going to claw and fight to get it. What these guys don't get is that steady sales + critical and fan acclaim can lead to a much bigger cash bonanza down the line. History has shown this. The current system makes it impossible for creators to create and sustain substantial runs anymore; we'll likely never see something like Lee and Kirby's FF or Claremont and Byrne's X-Men ever again. Those runs were generated in a time where creators sat down and hashed out their stories with minimal editorial interference. (In Lee's case, he was the editor.) Nowadays, the creators are told what the overarching themes are going to be a year in advanced and basically told that they have to fit in whatever they can in terms of characterization and actual progression in this restrictive, and frankly uncreative, framework. This is the first time I've seen Jim Shooter described as "minimal editorial interference". |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Dec 19, 2014 7:35:10 GMT -5
Shooter certainly was controlling, but he didn't have retreats (to my knowledge) where he and others in editorial, and a few glorified editorial writers like Bendis, hashed out what everyone would be doing for the upcoming "season." From what I've learned of how things worked, Shooter was liable to interfere after the fact, to the annoyance of the creative team, but it was different set-up to the event factory we have today. That said, I was also referring to the Pre-Shooter Marvel era.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Dec 20, 2014 17:22:35 GMT -5
Yeah, that's my impression too - too much is decided by committee and story and character decisions are made for marketing rather than creative reasons. And this seems to be borne out by comments you see from people like Richard Corben who do work as freelancers rather than as employees.
That doesn't mean their product is automatically going to be bad, but it makes me less interested in whatever they happen to be doing at any given moment. Maybe some of the bigger names - Bendis, Hickman - have more leeway to initiate projects of their own.
|
|
