Have Marvel comics changed for the better or worse?

[theflyingfrogunderdog]

Marvel comics have changed.

I'm an older comics fan who seriously collected many Marvel titles during the 1980's and also grew up with lots and lots of Marvel comics during the 1970's, so i'm pretty familiar with Marvel's characters during that time period when Marvel's characters were really defined, i think.

Back then, Thor talked like this:

"Verily, i say thee nay! Tis not befitting of Marvel to alter the way i speak. Methinks Marvel has changed the god of thunder too much!"

And the Thing talked like this:

"Ya bozos wanna take on the FF, yer gonna have to stop the ever lovin', blue eyed Thing first!"

Where did the characterization go? Where are the distinctive ways of speaking?

The characters i've read in Marvel comics in more recent years, are not the same characters. I find that i can't relate to the modern versions of Thor and the Thing, which sadly, makes me want to pass on buying Marvel comics altogether. Right now, i'd much rather buy OMAC and Frankenstein Agent of S.H.A.D.E on the DC side, At least, those are characters i don't know historically, and can relate to in a new way. I was really liking OMAC until it's cancellation, and who knows how long Frankenstein will last, but at least, i was able to enjoy a few titles that really had the excitement that i remember was in comics of the 70's and 80's. Maybe DC's superhero titles have that excitement too, but i've only been collecting those two titles that are mostly outside the DC superhero universe. Anyway, my point is, i can't relate to Marvel's characters because Thor, the Thing and Hercules in particular, have changed too much. During the scene where the torch dies in the FF, i didn't even realize that it was Ben Grimm trying to keep Johnny from sacrificing himself until after i had read most of the issue. Then i realized that it was Ben, but he wasn't talking like i remember from when i collected the FF during the 1980's. I have a complete Byrne run of FF, so i know how John Byrne made the Thing talk back during his run on the title, and it's not the same at all. If Marvel wants their characters to talk and act differently now, then they should start a "New 52" like DC has done. At least, then, i would be able to accept the characters as they are, and say to myself, this is a different universe with different versions of the characters i grew up with and have fond memories of. I could accept that and would like a change up like DC has done.

Another thing that has changed is the Marvel corner box (or circle) hasn't been there in years. To me, a Marvel comic isn't really a Marvel comic without that.

And also, all the decompression has made single issue reads far less interesting than used to be the case. I guess, to fully take in a Marvel story now, buying the TPB would be the way to go.

And what about "The world's greatest comic magazine" ? Fortunately, Marvel realized the mistake of changing that and returned it to the tops of the covers of the FF comics.

If i was in charge of Marvel, i would:

Change the above things mentioned, and create an environment that the fans could be a part of, like existed during the 1960's, when Marvel was more of a clubhouse than a corporation. The bullpen and the fans being closely acquainted in a way that the fans feel like they're a part of a club. I think that sort of inclusiveness should return, especially in this internet age, where websites can be very interactive. Marvel could do a lot with their website to make it more of an interactive atmosphere that has a clubhouse feel to it (if anyone saw Elvira's Movie Macabre on TV before it was cancelled, you know what i'm talking about. It had a feel of inclusiveness to it...like you were part of something that was like a clubhouse rather than a corporation). I think Marvel could do a lot more in that regard, and their website could be a much more fun place to visit every month if they went in that direction more. Anyway, those are my thoughts that i've had for some time, and thought i'd share here. Sorry, if i'm beating a dead horse. I don't mean to bash Marvel, i just think that they could do so much more to make the Marvel experience a fun one, not just in the comics, but also at the Marvel.com website, too.

This question is directed towards older fans first, but anyone of any age is welcome to voice your opinion on it. Do you prefer the older characterizations of Thor and the Thing? Or do you prefer the less characterized versions that are in Marvel comics today?

Have Marvel comics changed for the better or worse?

[Kakaroach]

Not to mention the great voices of Nightcrawler and Peter Rasputin in the old days. I miss great characterization.

[theflyingfrogunderdog]

Not to mention the great voices of Nightcrawler and Peter Rasputin in the old days. I miss great characterization.

Yep...there's another example. IMO, this is laziness on Marvel's part. The writers and editors don't have to do their jobs if they can get away with it, which they have for years. But Marvel should be more professional and true to their classic characters. People claim that comics have evolved and are more mature and engaging than ever, but really, the characterization is an integral part of that, that shouldn't have been neglected like it has been. Marvel has dropped the ball and most of the fans are too easy to please, to care, i guess.

[Monty_Cristo]

i don't care as long as at least one of my favorite characters is somewhere i can read about them.

[Telos]

There are still oases of good writing, you just have to search through a desert of mediocrity to find them.

Read books by:
Jeff Parker
Dan Slott
Cullen Bunn
Rick Remender (except for his Captain Britain)
Christopher Yost
Kieron Gillen

I agree with your general sentiment, though. The quality of writing has declined in the past two decades.

[SpiderCrawler]

Characterization is up to the writer. It's not Marvel's problem, it's the writers' problem.

[The Black Guardian]

There are still oases of good writing, you just have to search through a desert of mediocrity to find them.

Read books by:
Jeff Parker
Dan Slott
Cullen Bunn
Rick Remender (except for his Captain Britain)
Christopher Yost
Kieron Gillen

I agree with your general sentiment, though. The quality of writing has declined in the past two decades.

Funny you say that because I think Gillen and Remender are two of the biggest violators of this. It's not just Cap Brit that Remender has problems with. Every character he writes has these problems. His Psylocke is horrible. His Angel was horrible. His Hawkeye is disgusting.

Anyway, two recent jarringly wrong voices for characters were Storm saying, "God help us" in AvX and Magma saying, "Mother of God" in the upcoming JIM.

[RDMacQ]

Yes.

No.

Maybe.

Affirmative.

Take your pick.

[tolworthy]

The characters i've read in Marvel comics in more recent years, are not the same characters.

I agree with others, that characters SHOULD change, but NOT RANDOMLY. And the changes should MATTER. E.g. not be forgotten a few issues later. That was the curse of the 1950s comics that Marvel once rejected.

This question is directed towards older fans first, but anyone of any age is welcome to voice your opinion on it. Do you prefer the older characterizations of Thor and the Thing?

They are two completely different sets of characters. Take The Thing for example:
old Thing:
Top fighter on the planet (the Hulk was marginally stronger due to his height, but he was less reliable): (full details here)
New Thing:
Punching bag, certainly not in the top rank.
Old Thing:
Bravest one of all (e.g. see Contest of Champions).
New Thing:
Begged for mercy on the cover of a recent Fantastic Four (by Millar?).
Old Thing:
Trapped in a monstrous body
New Thing:
Thanks to the sliding time scale he changes roughly every month (more recently weekly)
Old Thing:*
Deep psychological commitment issues (see Alicia; self hatred)
New Thing:
No particular purpose or inner conflict.

I much prefer the first set of characters, because the stories built up, year after year. That enabled readers to care deeply about characters and their past. Today the characters have no past, so their stories are less interesting. Take The Thing for example:

The old Thing lived in the real world, and interacted with real history: e.g. he was a WWII veteran, met the Beatles, etc. His story developed, it had a long term shape and direction:
Progressed from angry (circa FF1-30)
to tragic (circa FF 30-to 140)
to accepting (circa FF140-236)
to finally facing his issues (Littleville, Battleworld, Alicia and Johnny, Monster Island: FF236-296),
to resolution (key moments were FF296, FF302, She-Thing allowed him to see himself as other see him then Reed moved out and he became leader of the FF, now at peace).
It was a moving story.

The new Thing exists in a timeless limbo, where he fought in some undefined war - nothing specific. He got de-matured at the end of Simonsons run, and there's been no permanent character development since.

I agree with Tony of the Wastebasket: The original Marvel Universe ended in 1991, and the modern Marvel Universe, while it often has superb stories, only has short stories, and features different characters. The new universe, with its families (multiple Hulks, multiple Wolverines, multiple Spider-folk, etc.) its shorter stories, and its abandonment of any firm links with our world, is much closer to the DC comics of the 1950s.

[Nomads1]

According to Marvel, it changed because it's audience changed. Kids (which they still insist is their main consumer base) nowadays need constant stimuli, not distractions, such as different speach patterns, background information, and tied-up ccontinuity may lead to. In a world of computer games, pop-corn movies, and text messages, Marvel had to adapt it's language to be as fast,as simple, and as least thought provoking (maybe that isn't the right expression - thought demanding, perhaps?) as possible, in order to remain competitive. Some may argue that in order to steal into other niches of consumer, Marvel may have lost much of it's own, but that's debatable. Right or wrong, that's how they chose to do things. Must be doing something right. DC hasn't gone full swing that way, and yet Marvel continues to beat them in the charts.
Me, I miss those days of little details and a little bit more content for my buck(bucks, nowadays). However, it's the way of the world, you don't move, you lose (not saying it's the right way, mind you, just the way it is).

Peace

[vicvega]

wanted to know if some people shared my sentiments
my problems are:
-the superheroes pretty much hate each other
-the mutants are still outcasted even though they've been around for years
-Characters that die always get revived
-Bendis can't write team books
-The constant threat of event fatigue. Fear itself was shoddy, and AvX is only slightly better
-Lack of fresh talent writer and art-wise. Look at DC culling in fresh talent like Lemire, Snyder, and Mieville as well as others and some fresh art talent as well like Francis Manapul and JH Willaims III. Marvel has been using these same guys for over a decade its time for a change. Remender, Hickman and Brubaker are the best they've got.

I do read quite a few Marvel titles but Marvel has some serious issues that need to be addressed, like how quite a few of the superheroes hate each other and that not a single, NEW memorable character has been introduced. What are your problems with Marvel, and what should they do to address it?

[Aziz Abbasi]

wanted to know if some people shared my sentiments
my problems are:
-the mutants are still outcasted even though they've been around for years
-Bendis can't write team books
-The constant threat of event fatigue. Fear itself was shoddy, and AvX is only slightly better

I will agree with those, and add:

-Spider-Man should be solo again, or retire
-Wolverine should quit all those teams he's on, except the X-Men
-Red Hulk should be retconned
-Quit curing Banner just to eventually make him the Hulk again, that's one of the most outplayed gags in Hulk books
-Phoenix should return to space, and never again in X-Men books, or any Marvel title
-Red Shulkie should be dead again

[JohnShil]

I disagree with most of your points, so I'll probably come back and form arguments for each.

My own problems with Marvel, though, begin with Bendis. His AVENGERS has been consistently awful, worthless and unimportant for the entirety of his run. I'm astonished at how what should be the flagship Marvel book is just Bendis doing whatever he wants. His focus on characters like Luke Cage, Spider-Woman and Jessica Jones is laughable. The roster, in general, has been deplorable.

In addition, Brubaker needs to stop writing superhero comics. Captain America's been bleh since Steve came back, as is Winter Soldier.

Nick Fury, Jr. was a mistake.

Why is Rucka's Punisher run not amazing? This should be a worthy successor to Aaron's (despite not being MAX) but it's just... flat.

When was the last time something happened in Fraction's Iron Man?

And now a list of creators that Marvel needs to drop ASAP:
Brian Bendis
Daniel Way
John Romita, Jr.
Everyone that's been drawing Incredible Hulk
Nick Bradshaw
Mark Bagley
Jeph Loeb
Ed McGuinness
Greg Land
Salvador Larocca

[Telos]

There are a few things that bother me about Marvel:

• Inattention to continuity. For example, there are lots of conflicting developments between Bendis's Avengers, Hickman's Fantastic Four, Fraction's Mighty Thor and Avengers: The Children's Crusade.
• Price, especially since I live overseas. Trades are way too expensive and often include too few issues.
• Bad writers on flagship titles. Bendis comes to mind, along with Loeb, Millar, Fraction...
• Bad artists. Why are there so many on Marvel titles right now?
• Characters are regularly killed off only to be revived later. I hate event killings because they're devoid of emotion. We all know the characters are coming back, we're just pissed off that we can't read about them for the next 12-36 months.
• Decompression. Again, Bendis, but also Brubaker, Fraction and Hickman.
• Lack of genre diversity and miniseries. Everything being published by Marvel is an ongoing or an event. Almost all of the titles fall into either "Avengers", "X-Men" or "has been published since the Silver Age".

And biggest of all...

Disney's total contempt for the comic book market and lack of attempt to break through to mainstream audiences. Superficial changes like Marcus Fury and Hawkeye's costume are not enough to raise sales - the public have to be aware that comic books exist and are a viable form of entertainment, and that requires marketing.

[vicvega]

1. I think Millar is an on and off writer. Supercrooks and Superior are his best work as well as The Ultimates and American Jesus and Kick-Ass 1. His worst work is when he gets overindulgent in the gore, violence and swearing ie Kick-Ass 2, Wanted, Nemesis, and the Unfunnies. Hes a polarizing writer

2. Bad artists I agree on. Leinil Yu is the best they've got right now imo

3. On decompression, it only works well in some titles. For instance it ruins Spiderman and Iron-Man, but works better in something like Thor where operatic drama is needed in between to be more compelling.

4. Brubaker is a good writer especially at noir comics but he is awful at superheroes. Marvel just hasn't given him a noir-flavored hero to work with yet. Give him Punisher or Hawkeye or SHIELD. Heck does Marvel have any private detectives he could write?