The Heroic Age: Regression of the Marvel U?

[Elijah Dexan]

Since 'Event Fatigue' has set in things are going to change in Marvel. Perhaps it is too early to tell, but it seems that the new Heroic Age is turning back to how the Marvel U was a little before Disassembled. The Heroic Age fore the Marvel U may be like what Brand New Day was for Spider-Man.

Is it a regression? Is that good or bad? Discuss.

[olympichero62]

Since 'Event Fatigue' has set in things are going to change in Marvel. Perhaps it is too early to tell, but it seems that the new Heroic Age is turning back to how the Marvel U was a little before Disassembled. The Heroic Age fore the Marvel U may be like what Brand New Day was for Spider-Man.

Is it a regression? Is that good or bad? Discuss.

Discuss it with yourself.

[Expletive Deleted]

Perhaps it is too early to tell . . .You think?

[Alan2099]

Is it a regression?
No. It's the dust finally settling and people starting to come to their sense again. No regression, just rebuilding.


Is that good or bad?
Good.


Discuss.
I won't and you can't make me!

[Kid Kamikaze10]

Since 'Event Fatigue' has set in things are going to change in Marvel. Perhaps it is too early to tell, but it seems that the new Heroic Age is turning back to how the Marvel U was a little before Disassembled. The Heroic Age fore the Marvel U may be like what Brand New Day was for Spider-Man.

Is it a regression? Is that good or bad? Discuss.


It's too early to tell, and the only reason why things "weren't as good" as right now is because of the writing, not whether or not the universe was depressing or not. And I aim that specifically at the Avengers. (I'm blaming Austen for that, not Johns, not Busiek)


We have no idea what is coming in the Heroic Age except for the little tidbits Marvel is telling us. We don't even know what's happening in Siege.


We don't have nearly enough information to say whether or not this is a good thing or not. It's all about the execution.

[Kid Kamikaze10]

I will say this though.

It's about time Marvel is letting up on the events. A rebuilding period is a good thing, IMO. Marvel should have let up much earlier than this (post-CW).

[Mark_S]

I'd reply but I'd probably just get yelled at again.

Mark_S

[Shyft]

Comic books are cyclical - i dont know if you can have regression in a cycle? Either way, its not a part of the cycle i particularly enjoy, but i can live with it. And it will give the nay-sayers one less thing to complain about.

[Largo]

Main stream comic books are and will always be about the illusion of change.

As long as this 'regression' doesn't make the stories duller why should I care?

[million_suns]

Yes it is regression.

Bendis et al will simply be retelling the same stories, but with better art, and over a more decompressed time period.

Dark Reign could have been a stepping stone to brave new avenues of metafiction. Instead it seems they're going back to the well.

[contreras9977]

this is great news. its about time marvel gets back to its roots. i hope they fix the x-titles.

[strathcona]

Main stream comic books are and will always be about the illusion of change.

As long as this 'regression' doesn't make the stories duller why should I care?

Absolutely. All this 'progress' and 'change' that has been happening at Marvel lately is no different than what they have been doing for decades now. They have always had just as much change going on, it just usually wasn't all centered around one (well, multiple, just not all at the same time) big event. Usually the changes were spead out between mutliple books and progressed naturally from stories being told by the individual writers. The last 7 years have all been changes brought down from above and been sweeping across the board, no matter if it interferes with what the writer wanted or not.

However, in either case, comics will always go back to a certain status quo. They have to so that Marvel can keep their properties in a recognizable form to be able to market them properly. If the changes made actually were permanent, then the characters would no longer resemble the ones marketed in cartoons, movies, games, toys, etc... and they wouldn't be able to make as much money. A return to a certain status quo is inevitable. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is being a little naive.

[TinyJoseph]

Like they've said they're going to focus events on the different families of books rather than company wide cross overs. Sure, they'll be crossovers between X-Men, Avengers, Hulk, FF & Spidey titles, but not on such a grand scale as in the past (in the short term anyways, I doubt that company wide crossovers are gonna be gone for any significant time).

I'm looking forward to smaller events and not just because of the huge amount of tie-ins for them (my pockets are crying out for relief), but because I don't always want to know/see every title/character show up or be significantly affected in a story and that's not any kind of a knock on continuity or anything. It's just that I really don't want to know how some X-stories end up effecting say, the New Warriors and so on..

[Supermutant2099]

So pretty much we are suppose to trust the people who destroyed Avengers and Marvel U for seven years to fix it. That be like asking the demolitioner who demolished your buidling for you then turn around and start buidling for you. Why now all the sudden this certain status quo mean anything to the current people in charge? I don't trust marvel but they do have chance to prove me wrong. Of course they haven't yet.

[Silvermoth]

It sounds like a regression if everything goes back to being nice and simple. Drama is what makes comic books great and if everyone is perfect than something is missing.

[Jorblochs]

If by "Heroic Age" they mean the good guys can stop flipping out, going crazy, turning into jerks, or getting killed off just for shock value, I'm all for it.

It doesn't mean everything has to be simple. Well-written heroes and villains never are. It probably does mean that the writers won't have tired gimmicks to rely on to make their stories "more interesting."

[earl]

I think it would do some good to not have every title having to completely tie into some over arching theme for a bit.

The Avengers have been on the run for about 40 issues. That is a good while time for a 'status quo'.

I don't think everything is going to go back to the mansion with ID cards and Jarvis serving them iced tea like in a couple of months. I don't think it is going to end up with Nick Fury the head of SHIELD again like nothing happened. I could see it all playing out with a bit of 'reconstruction' blues tied to this stuff.

Considering all that has gone on of Earth in the Marvel U. for a few years, I think we are over due for a cosmic Avengers story.

[Dark Soul # 7]

Well, they did horribly regress Spider-man for no real point at all.

But with this it seems more like a natural progression actually. So it'll probably work out.

[Finganforn]

I said it before, and I will say it again: it is a promo stunt, nothing less, nothing more. Labels and people bitching about it. If current status quo was obtained without anyone saying 'guys, now everything is ebil and bla bla bla, it is the dark reign, nuh' and did those stupid book renames that are obviously other promotional stunts too, do you know how many people would be complaining how dark comics became? Zero.

Without them placing 'Dark Reign (the era of DURRRKNEEZZ UHHHHHH)' seal everywhere and such, people would complain about how bad norman osborn's hair is, they would argue whether it made or did not make sense for him to achieve the position he has, they would certrainly argue if Sentry is or is not a well used character, and all that stuff, and all that stuff, but would just be seem as your regular book. But humans love labels and all the meaning(less) they carry, and market departments feast on that.


On a side note, I think I am on the wrong job.

[Gadfly]

I don't really believe they are done with events, but I would welcome such a change. The what good stories they had have been on hold for the better part of a decade as the characters of most titles fly from event to event. I would like to see a return to character development (I do believe there was some or at least the potential for it before this roller coaster started)

There were things going on in New Avengers, but I don't even remember what they were. Ironman, Thor, Captain America, all had interesting things going on in their books that were disrupted by this never ending cycle. The cast gets shaken up every two or three issues, the relationships haven't been aloud to develop It's hard to even figure out whats going on. I'd like to see the titles become more self contained, with a maximum one or two small scale crossovers per year.

I don't think the events were bad ideas in and of themselves. They could have had the titles existing in a Invasion/Dark Reign/Civil War/Siege world without having to set aside everything the books had been working to develop. Just because Ozborn is running things doesn't mean he has to appear in every issue of every book. Let the events change how the characters have to change what they go about doing but don't throw Dark Avengers at them time after time.

Sorry for the rant. I hope the heroic age isn't just some other event.

[kindella2]

i think this is a good thing but its too early to tell. If this new age means they are slowing down to tell better stories and explore the characters more in depth then i think its good.
i too hope this is not just another event.

[RDMacQ]

No, I don't think it will be a regression since I don't think Siege will lead to any reboots or restructuring of the histories of the main characters. It will be a tonal shift. At the very least, it will be a banner that Marvel can slap on books to boost sales, and it will be largely forgotten in a year or so.

[Rev. Calibos]

I don't see it as a regression but a scaling back of storylines.


Since Disassembled the entire Marvel U has been in Event Overdrive. It's as if every book should have had a 'SECRET WARS II CONTIUES IN THIS ISSUE!' for every title for Civil War, Secret Invasion, Dark Reign, etc.

I'm looking forward to the books being a lot more self contained.

[Taiso]

It sounds like a regression if everything goes back to being nice and simple. Drama is what makes comic books great and if everyone is perfect than something is missing.

Most Marvel characters were never portrayed as 'perfect', not even during the time period that 'the heroic age' is trying to harken back to.

Characters can be portrayed in a more fundamental light without being portrayed as 'perfect.' Marve was always at its best when it did it.

'The Heroic Age' is a good move on a conceptual level because the dark shadow will be gone.

But the current stewards at Marvel have long since proven that they don't know how to tell compelling stories about these characters in their more archetypal modes. If they were capable of remaining true to the essence of the MU, they would never have had Civil War or any of the other MU-wide events that have cast such a gray pall over everything.

I'll follow it, of course. I'm a Marvel fan and I'm conditioned to periods of drek. It's just how comics fans are. We love it when we enjoy it and we hate it when it's not what we want. It's the nature of the hobby for the hardcore fans.

[arp2008]

A thread posing a similar question inpired by much of the same evidence was posted some time yesteryear by yours truly. It's a little reasuring to know I'm not the only who can see the forest in spite of the trees.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=291646

[Frank]

Disassembled was the regression.

As in going back to neanderthal state of mind. ;)

[jackolover]

As long as this 'regression' doesn't make the stories duller why should I care?

That is one issue about the Heroic Age - that we will be looking forward to more of the Austen, Busiek, and Johns era of writing which is why I got out of comics. I don't want that kind of regression. It got tiresome.

And I don't know why the current custodians of Marvel are being lambasted, because the stories never got better UNTIL the Civil War started and progressed into the events. I have never seen better writing and character development like I have during this era, and I fear that all that development will be swept away for the more traditional story structures. Give me Brian Reeds Carol Danvers/Julia Carpenter, or, Warren Ellis's arrest of the Iron Spider. This is supreme writing at it's best, because the heroes are attacked for what they stand for. When heroes are dressed in their little suits and comfortabley paid to do heroics, nothing in that excites me.

Just a little piracy from another thread to look at another aspect of the Heroic Age :





Below are the five traits that will strengthen your heroic imagination and propel you into heroic action.

1. Maintain constant vigilance for situations that require heroic action.
2. Learn not to fear conflict because you took a stand.
3. Imagine alternative future scenarios beyond the present moment.
4. Resist the urge to rationalize and justify inaction.
5. Trust that people will appreciate heroic (and frequently unpopular) actions.

I'd like to take a look at what it is the Heroic Age will display. Will it showcase heroism, or will it be a formula of the regression back to pre-CW days?

I will look for the selflessness of heroes and the appreciation of those who see it. Too often, the heroes are taken for granted.

I want to see heroes get the respect for the job that they do. There are too many occasions that heroism and heroes do things, and no one sees them. What will really make a Heroic Age, or, is this really just a banner exercise to trip the MU back to a more familiar and safe time? I don't want to see that. I don't like safe.

[TOAA]

I see no difference. Just another label. Frankly i never understood why "big 3" working together is oh so much important.

Are stories "brighter"? From those that i read i didn`t notice any difference, different faces, same stories. Same can be said about Brigthest Day over at DC, everyone thought it`ll be silver age once again but it`s not, same stories just different label.

[whiteshark]

All the people saying Spider-Man stories went through a regression should maybe actually read the stories.
The only thing that hapened was that the status quo was changed other than that the stories kept on moving forward to where they were except some needed changes *cough Spider-Man identity being public cough*

As to Heroic Age,seems more as Marvel new phase that anything else.
And surelly it would not be a copy of long past stories but rather achieve to be a unique new Marvel phase i think.

[Iron Theurge]

Most Marvel characters were never portrayed as 'perfect', not even during the time period that 'the heroic age' is trying to harken back to.

Characters can be portrayed in a more fundamental light without being portrayed as 'perfect.' Marve was always at its best when it did it.

'The Heroic Age' is a good move on a conceptual level because the dark shadow will be gone.

But the current stewards at Marvel have long since proven that they don't know how to tell compelling stories about these characters in their more archetypal modes. If they were capable of remaining true to the essence of the MU, they would never have had Civil War or any of the other MU-wide events that have cast such a gray pall over everything.

I'll follow it, of course. I'm a Marvel fan and I'm conditioned to periods of drek. It's just how comics fans are. We love it when we enjoy it and we hate it when it's not what we want. It's the nature of the hobby for the hardcore fans.

I liked Civil War in concept and throughout some of its execution. It fell apart slightly along the edges and the center. Also I wish Spider-Man never had BND and they had the opportunity to explore Iron Man and Spider-Man in their boss-lackey mode for awhile more.

I liked the gray pall it cast, but it was one big event in a series of big events, which got a little hard to follow. Still overall I liked Civil War and Dark Reign .... too bad we had to endure Secret Invasion.

The one good thing about Secret Invasion was seeing Quicksilver blame all his bad behavior on the Skrulls (to the Inhumans, et. al). :tongue:

IT

-- On another note - I still say all the big events of this decade were more enjoyable than Secret War II (the first uber/overdone MU event, IMO), Onslaught, and the heroes reborn.

[Paj Meen Ah]

Ignoring the fact we're like...2 issues into The Heroic Age, I'm pretty sure everything's gonna be relatively the same, but the events and big shizz won't stem from friendships and trust breaking down and stuff. Bringing the teams all back to together, the "heroes are back!" doodad etc etc.

[SpideyCzar]

It's way too early to tell if 'The Heroic Age' is a regression or not. But I've found with Marvel in their cycle of story telling ever since 'Disassembled' started even if I didn't like the main event story, I enjoyed certain stories that came from that event. For example I didn't like 'Avengers Disassembled' but I enjoyed New Avengers, completely loathed Civil War but enjoyed 'Back in Black', and 'Mighty Avengers', didn't care for Secret Invasion but enjoyed Dark Reign for the most part.

I look at the Heroic Age as a way to streamline the Marvel Universe and to stop having universe spanning crossovers, I don't see it as a regression of the characters. A regression is if the characters were written as if they don't remember their past differences. For example if Thor didn't reference his beating on Tony Stark in Thor #3, or Steve and Tony being at odds during Civil War, yes it's a new age for the super heroes but everything that tore them apart and then brought them back together still happened and I hope is still referenced in some way by the writers.

[SpideyCzar]

I'm all about organic story telling, and character progression but after a certain length of telling stories with the heroes being at odds, you have to bring the story full circle and reunite these characters who've been friends and fought great battles alongside each other for years.

Is it character regression when DC or Marvel brings back Barry Allen, Hal Jordan, Steve Rogers, Bruce Wayne, Martian Manhunter, Aquaman, Thor or Jean Grey?

[Iron Theurge]

With regards to bringing back Jean Grey or other iconically dead characters .... its just a gimmick.

[satchmo the dragon]

Is it character regression when DC or Marvel brings back Barry Allen, Hal Jordan, Steve Rogers, Bruce Wayne, Martian Manhunter, Aquaman, Thor or Jean Grey?

Yes. Characters deaths mean nothing now.

[jackolover]

I'm all about organic story telling, and character progression but after a certain length of telling stories with the heroes being at odds, you have to bring the story full circle and reunite these characters who've been friends and fought great battles alongside each other for years.

Is it character regression when DC or Marvel brings back Barry Allen, Hal Jordan, Steve Rogers, Bruce Wayne, Martian Manhunter, Aquaman, Thor or Jean Grey?

I wouldn't necessarily specify character regression but rather story regression. The formula for super hero comics was that you would have characters fight through a cycle of their rogues gallery, and you know they are going to come out the other side okay to fight the next one. Interspersed now and then with a death of someone close to the character. That formula became boring because rogues galleries were a cop out to good story telling. You fish out Doc Ock every ten issues and Green Goblin every 20.

But if you re-invigorated under-used villains, like Iron Spider and Necromancer or whoever she was with the Dark Power, that Warren Ellis did in TBolts, and you breathe life back into story telling.

I wonder which one we'll get?