Have Marvel comics changed for the better or worse?

[Probably_not_a_Nurgling]

And you're still ignoring subjectivity.

The fan in my movie example is a "new" fan...so, again, would their irritation be valid if Iron Man 3 (in continuity with Iron Man 1 and 2) ignored or reversed vast portions of the previous movies?

If a book comes out that completely ignores or reverses something you like and it upsets you, will your own feelings be valid at that point?

Yes, that would be valid. It's happened to me. I'm not saying feeling that way isn't valid. What isn't valid is arguing, as you seem to be, that comics were objectively better at one period of time than another. For example, I found the dialogue in Secret Wars painfully outdated. Does that make me a "bad fan?"

[YagamiFire]

Yes, that would be valid. It's happened to me. I'm not saying feeling that way isn't valid. What isn't valid is arguing, as you seem to be, that comics were objectively better at one period of time than another. For example, I found the dialogue in Secret Wars painfully outdated. Does that make me a "bad fan?"

I've actually never said that comics were objectively better at one point or another. On the contrary, I've simply said that I think a big issue with the comic industry in general right now is that they aren't being written in a kid-accessible way. This does not make them "good" or "bad" or "better" or "worse"...but it can definitely damage their ability to sustain their own tropes and I think it undermines quite a bit. Can the stories still be good? Oh sure there are plenty of non-kid accessible stories that are objectively of high quality...but I don't feel it should be the default form of comic books. They are a medium for kids and should be targeted towards kids...I think it'd also be really good for the industry since kids have a lot of disposable income nowadays AND tend to guide buying decisions of their parents. My initial post is actually how writing comics for comic fans is actually a bad idea that seems to have happened as comic readers grew up and became comic writers...the industry became more insular and catered to the more "hardcore" fans that were older and that were looking for more "sophisticated" story-telling. I don't think this is a good thing for the industry.

[stephen wacker]

If Wacker would be willing to say, I would be curious to hear how he deals with such instances when they come up in the Spider-books. For example, if Slott gave him a script where MJ had an affair with Octavius would he reject it out of hand (to preserve the characters), see if it was really good (like bringing Bucky back from the dead), or does he not view such decisions as part of his role.

I'd be open minded. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that if you can make it sensible and exciting. Dan's earned the benefit of the doubt and I assume he'd know that the pitch to me would have to be much more extensive than "They have an affair". I try to give established creators who work for me on ongoing books a wide berth, but if the story's not working, it's my job to speak up. And I do. Dan and I are going back and forth about an upcoming beat right now in fact.

Similarly, whose job, if anyone's is it to catch continuity problems. If Wacker received a Secret Wars IX tie in issue that had Spider-Man in Latveria when everyone knows he was helping Mageto build Genosha II in a microverse inside Attilan at that time, would he insist it be fixed or is that not the gig.

If there's an error in the book, it's the editor's fault. I have a good continuity support team in Ellie, Brevoort, Brennan and even Dan on Spidey, but human error is human error and mistakes do get through. Especially with so many books with so many moving parts. It sucks when it happens and I hate it, but I've been doing it long enough to know these mistakes aren't new and they aren't completely avoidable all the time. I probably lose less sleep over it though than some of the more...enthusiastic...people here wish though. There's a reason the New York Times has a correction section everyday.

Thirdly, what about content. Such as the famous Byrne panel of Wanda (maybe) molesting Wonder Man. If an ambiguous panel was submitted would he feel the need to intervene.

Not sure about the example you cite, but I deal with content issues like that every week. I have things adjusted in art everyday, but then again some issues sail right by me until the more Beavis-y fans on the internet point it out. (The recent Daredevil smelling his fingers "nontroversy" is a good example.)

Overall, though, these concerns make up about 5 percent of the job anymore. Editing has changed a lot in my 12 years doing it.

SW

[Corey W]

I'd be open minded. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that if you can make it sensible and exciting. Dan's earned the benefit of the doubt and I assume he'd know that the pitch to me would have to be much more extensive than "They have an affair". I try to give established creators who work for me on ongoing books a wide berth, but if the story's not working, it's my job to speak up. And I do. Dan and I are going back and forth about an upcoming beat right now in fact.




If there's an error in the book, it's the editor's fault. I have a good continuity support team in Ellie, Brevoort, Brennan and even Dan on Spidey, but human error is human error and mistakes do get through. Especially with so many books with so many moving parts. It sucks when it happens and I hate it, but I've been doing it long enough to know these mistakes aren't new and they aren't completely avoidable all the time. I probably lose less sleep over it though than some of the more...enthusiastic...people here wish though. There's a reason the New York Times has a correction section everyday.



Not sure about the example you cite, but I deal with content issues like that every week. I have things adjusted in art everyday, but then again some issues sail right by me until the more Beavis-y fans on the internet point it out. (The recent Daredevil smelling his fingers "nontroversy" is a good example.)

Overall, though, these concerns make up about 5 percent of the job anymore. Editing has changed a lot in my 12 years doing it.

SW

Thanks, I appreciate the insight. What is the other 95%? Making sure people meet deadlines and such? I have always wondered what editors do.

[stephen wacker]

Thanks, I appreciate the insight. What is the other 95%? Making sure people meet deadlines and such? I have always wondered what editors do.

Deadlines is a huge part of it with so many of the creators at every level working in different offices. Plus information from publishing needs to be shared throughout the company for various programs/creative needs. So it's a LOT of meetings.

Beyond that is marketing and production concerns as well.

Basically there's drama everyday, but it's not like this is work where lives depend on it. I try not to get too stressed out about it all. Mostly it's fun, just very busy. I'm just excited that coming up this week I have my only week this year without several books going out, so I'm hoping to catch up.

Back to ruining your childhoods!

SW

[Mark_S]

I'd be open minded. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that if you can make it sensible and exciting. Dan's earned the benefit of the doubt and I assume he'd know that the pitch to me would have to be much more extensive than "They have an affair". I try to give established creators who work for me on ongoing books a wide berth, but if the story's not working, it's my job to speak up. And I do. Dan and I are going back and forth about an upcoming beat right now in fact.

Even though it would be fundementaly wrong for MJ short of mind control? If a good pitch is all that it takes that does explain a lot.

If there's an error in the book, it's the editor's fault. I have a good continuity support team in Ellie, Brevoort, Brennan and even Dan on Spidey, but human error is human error and mistakes do get through. Especially with so many books with so many moving parts. It sucks when it happens and I hate it, but I've been doing it long enough to know these mistakes aren't new and they aren't completely avoidable all the time. I probably lose less sleep over it though than some of the more...enthusiastic...people here wish though. There's a reason the New York Times has a correction section everyday.

Is that the reason that Wolverine gave Cap only a very bad history of the Pheonix Force over in AvX? This is what I mean, is Wolverine giving that flawed explanation because A) He's running some secret agenda on his own, B) He's looking to hurt Cyclops, maybe wrest control of the X-men from him, C) Being mind controled, D) The story needs the fight and the fight won't happen unless Wolverine doesn't give the full truth?
What Wolverine has the writer chosen to put into the story?

Mark_S

[stephen wacker]

Even though it would be fundementaly wrong for MJ short of mind control? If a good pitch is all that it takes that does explain a lot.



Is that the reason that Wolverine gave Cap only a very bad history of the Pheonix Force over in AvX? This is what I mean, is Wolverine giving that flawed explanation because A) He's running some secret agenda on his own, B) He's looking to hurt Cyclops, maybe wrest control of the X-men from him, C) Being mind controled, D) The story needs the fight and the fight won't happen unless Wolverine doesn't give the full truth?

Mark_S

Dunno how to answer these. One is a hypothetical that didn't happen and another is a book that I didn't work on and is a kind of "problem" that readers have spent decades accepting.

Either way, they don't worry me that much. If they're enough to bug you, I'm afraid most of our comics since 1961 have been unacceptable.

SW

[One More Day]

Stephen, do you miss working for D.C.? Also I notice that sometimes you don't answer the Spidey letters page, but someone named "Ellie Pyle" does. Any reason for this? Also will there be any additions to back issues of Spidey on the comixology app?

[The Black Guardian]

And really the world press? I don't trust the media to give me much beyond tomorrows weather report.

That is not the world press. It's WORDpress, a blog site.

[Mark_S]

Dunno how to answer these. One is a hypothetical that didn't happen and another is a book that I didn't work on and is a kind of "problem" that readers have spent decades accepting.

Either way, they don't worry me that much. If they're enough to bug you, I'm afraid most of our comics since 1961 have been unacceptable.

SW

Well I can't ask you to answer a question that you know nothing of. But Logan did give a flawed explanation of the PF to Captain America. Why did he do that? If the reason has to do with the plot then ok, if the reason is because the story needed the lie to get the two sides fighting then I call it lazy writing.

Mark_S

[Mark_S]

That is not the world press. It's WORDpress, a blog site.

Which I find even less reliable. With so much miss-information out on the web I gave up trusting just about everything a long time ago.

Mark_S

[stephen wacker]

Well I can't ask you to answer a question that you know nothing of. But Logan did give a flawed explanation of the PF to Captain America. Why did he do that? If the reason has to do with the plot then ok, if the reason is because the story needed the lie to get the two sides fighting then I call it lazy writing.

Mark_S

Okay. Sorry it didn't work for you.

SW

[Mark_S]

Okay. Sorry it didn't work for you.

SW

No problem. On the bright side for you you've got 1140 pulls on the iFanboy sight and that's pretty good.

Mark_S

[passer-by]

My view is that all eras have a mix of great, good, average and bad and we tend to forget the average and bad, unless it is so bad that it characterizes the era (see 1990s, then we forget the good).

For example, the early 60s is best rememberred for the terrific Spidey and FF runs, but Cap was virtually unreadable, the X-Men were actually unreadble, and IM was pretty up and down.

The 90s are remembered for belts, pockets, BIG guns, every character having swords or claws, Liefeld, and glossy covers. But there was also Marvels, Kingdom Come, Byrne's WCA, Waid's Cap, and the good stories that came out of Heroes Return including Busiek's Avengers.

The past ten years at Marvel has certainly seen out of character writing, writing for trade, lazy continuity, and character regression, but it has also seen Young Avengers, Runaways (BKV and Whedon), Annihilation & Annihilation Conquest, Guardians of the Galaxy, Pak's Hulk, Slott's She-Hulk, Brubaker's Cap, Alias, Agents of Atlas, Captain Britain & MI:13, Bendis's Daredevil, Ultimate Spider-man, Spider-girl, Brubaker's Daredevil, several great Thunderbolts runs, Ennis's Punisher, Waid's FF, Ultimates I and II, JMS's Thor, Gillen's Thor/JIM, Waid's DD, Waid's Man Out of Time, Brubaker's Marvels Project, Planet X, Gaiman's 1602, Fraction/Aja's Iron Fist, etc.



So, while there has been some very, very bad at Marvel. There has also been a lot of really, really good. I think the quality is highin recent years and while I don't read every book, and may be reading fewer now than a few years ago, I am enjoying the ones that I do read.

Spot on, and I agree with your examples (except Hickman's FF - the FF ended for me at #553 combined with Alan Davis' FF: The End).

I do appreciate tolworthy's post though (#23), and I thank him for the link to his blog - http://enterthestory.com/comics/comics.html
I checked several articles already and I found the FF analysis just brilliant ( http://enterthestory.com/comics/ff_end.html ), especially the part about Walt Simonson's run. It is a fine description not only of the book, but of Marvel editorial policy in general. Kudos!

[Probably_not_a_Nurgling]

You know, a lot of people here are saying that Marvel was better in the '60s and '70s. Earlier in the thread, one of those same people said they left DC because Didio and his ilk want comics to be like the way they were when they were kids. Well, aren't you doing the same thing?