Have Marvel comics changed for the better or worse?

[SubjectDelta]

I suppose this is where we disagree, Delta. How you find Deadpool to not be a "dumbed down" approach (though I mostly enjoy his title) is beyond me. I don't find the current Scarlet Spider, Daredevil, Amazing Spider-Man, Punisher or Winter Soldier books dumbed down in the least. This is where I am having trouble following your main complaint.

Decompression
Taking away Thor speech
Ultimatizing/cinematizing 616
A general lack of continuity
Dimestore characterization (saying It is okay for spidey to do any dumb thing cause he screwed up once.

And not just marvel too with copout reboots (which I apply to omd as well)
Bland costume redesigns for the sake of appealing to modern audiences.



All these things and more that I see as pandering to new readers.

[CyberHubbs]

Decompression
Taking away Thor speech
Ultimatizing/cinematizing 616
A general lack of continuity
Dimestore characterization (saying It is okay for spidey to do any dumb thing cause he screwed up once.

And not just marvel too with copout reboots (which I apply to omd as well)
Bland costume redesigns for the sake of appealing to modern audiences.

Is any of that in the books he mentioned?

[kelly_warrior_princess]

How long do you give us? Will Marvel make it to the end of the year?

how long do i give you until what? Till i hit Marvel with a car? Till you die on the ground, having accidentally been hit by my car? I don't understnad what you are trying to get at.

Problem is the writing is, in fact, NOT "demonstrably lower" at all. Your opinion of it is one thing but there are people who think it is far better. How exactly do you factually demonstrate that it is lower (or better, for that matter)??

Simple: you can't.

Actually i can. See artistic merit is judged objectively, but technical talent within a medium is judged objectively. I'll use the work of Bendis again as an example, because with his its the most obvious. We went from fully nuanced writing, with individual characterisation that was internally consistent (with individual plot points & interal narrative conflict), plot pacing (which included nuanced character driven & solo scenes), well written objectives, narrative conflict & narrative causality: now we don't. We haven't had that in an issue of Avengers since the relaunch at the end of Dark Avengers, which was the last good book i can recall Bendis writing.

Artistic merit = subjectivily judged
Technical skills within a medium = objectively judged

[CyberHubbs]

Crux of the argument is "Bendis!"

Except all the other excellent writers on other titles.

Also, art can be objectively judged. Like photography.

[SubjectDelta]

Is any of that in the books he mentioned?

Don't know, dropped all my marvel books months ago for the exception of Ghost Rider that got canked for its uncanny amount of suck.

[Ian Pressman]

Marvel's broken fanbase is the biggest problem. We DC fans are mostly tralalalala~ sharing the love. The marvel guys? HA! Not so much. Then again, since Marvel has such a divisive universe that openly encourages its fans to "pick sides" it's sort of their fault.

[kelly_warrior_princess]

Crux of the argument is "Bendis!"

Not really: Its just the most obvious example, because he is so very prolific. However, the quality drop among the majority of the marvel writers is still there & its exactly the same standard used for Bendis. We went from fully nuanced writing, with individual characterisation that was internally consistent (with individual plot points & interal narrative conflict), plot pacing (which included nuanced character driven & solo scenes), well written objectives, narrative conflict & narrative causality: now we predominately don't.

Also, art can be objectively judged. Like photography.

Exactly.

An thats not even getting into the incestiousness of the rapidly shrinking fanchises. Thats an entirely different problem marvel currently has.

[CyberHubbs]

Not really: Its just the most obvious example, because he is so very prolific. However, the quality drop among the majority of the marvel writers is still there & its exactly the same standard used for Bendis. We went from fully nuanced writing, with individual characterisation that was internally consistent (with individual plot points & interal narrative conflict), plot pacing (which included nuanced character driven & solo scenes), well written objectives, narrative conflict & narrative causality: now we predominately don't.

Yeah, I don't agree with this at all. Remender's Uncanny X-Force and Venom, Waid's Daredevil, Slott's Spider-Man, Gillen's Journey Into Mystery, Fraction's Defenders, Yost's Scarlet Spider. Just a couple of titles that immediately spring to mind.

Exactly.

An thats not even getting into the incestiousness of the rapidly shrinking fanchises. Thats an entirely different problem marvel currently has.

How are the franchises shrinking?

[kelly_warrior_princess]

Yeah, I don't agree with this at all. Remender's Uncanny X-Force and Venom, Waid's Daredevil, Slott's Spider-Man, Gillen's Journey Into Mystery, Fraction's Defenders, Yost's Scarlet Spider. Just a couple of titles that immediately spring to mind.

The only one i can agree with you on is Defenders. I want to agree with you on the Scarlet Spider because its a nice change of pace (diffferent city, no cross overs), but its narrative causality has been a little off. There is still hope for it & yes i am hoping for a major bounce back, but i'm not holding my breathe given its low profile & marvels tendency to cancel first & ask no questions later.

The few good books, do not make up for the many bad books. The fact that you could only name books of already limited appeal in you list, while the major books were missed entirely is also very telling. It doesn't matter how awesome the small books are, if the big books that make up the majority of the lines put readers off from reading (especially given the Marvel trend of cross overs & the co-opting of solo books for events). As i said earlier, you need to have all of your books firing on all cylinders, since all people are not going to be interested in the general content of all books.

How are the franchises shrinking?

You mean other then the fact that all the books are pretty much down to 3.5 franchises at the moment, or derivative properties thereof: Spiderman, Avengers, X-Men & Fantastic Four. Too many mini series & spin-offs not enough straight up good new content (or even old new content). Marvel needs to expand its universe again, because it current trend of canonbalising is leaving a lot of holes & not so much to work with at the moment: Either by removing from the field of play entirely, or by leaving them on the board but completely ruined.

[Mr. Rice]

You mean other then the fact that all the books are pretty much down to 3.5 franchises at the moment, or derivative properties thereof: Spiderman, Avengers, X-Men & Fantastic Four. Too many mini series & spin-offs not enough straight up good new content (or even old new content). Marvel needs to expand its universe again, because it current trend of canonbalising is leaving a lot of holes & not so much to work with at the moment: Either by removing from the field of play entirely, or by leaving them on the board but completely ruined.

Would it be a bad idea to get rid of the idea of "franchises?" I know it'd mess up the editorial system, but shaking that up might be beneficial. Instead of an "Avengers" franchise they could make the books more separate. One Avengers book, not written by Bendis, New Avengers could become Marvel's The Bagel Hut: Superheroes sitting down for lunch, written by Bendis. Secret Avengers could become a new Invaders book, Avenger's Academy... someone else should figure that out.

X-Men books could become more unique. Have Uncanny X-Men, and MAYBE X-Men, Jean Grey School, Rogue's book so I don't have to deal with her anywhere else, Old Mutants, where Cannonball and friends find their own place to save the day, and X-Force is separate enough.

Splitting up these 3.5 franchises, making them more separate, would make it easier for books not connected to FF, SM, XM, or A to appeal to audiences. Every book would be a separate part of the Marvel U, and there wouldn't be so many defined sides. Then instead of this Avengers vs. X-Men malarky, we'd all be unified, enjoying our heroes being separate but unified in their separation.

P.S. Typing this post, I have burned into my mind that separate is spelled with two A's. I'll never spell it wrong again.

[Corey W]

There is also, as Mark_S has pointed out, a question of perspective to consider. I hated the 90s era comics while they were coming out. I thought Claremont was terrible, I hated the pockets, the guns, the swords, that Punisher had three books, that Woverine was everywhere, and that for reasons that I couldn't understand no one wanted to read any of my favorite books. About the time they gave the Avengers bomber jackets I started to lose interest. By the time Liefeld, Lee, Larson and McFarlane took over the industry I had already lost interest. And then I was out for a long time. Since then, getting back into comics I have gone back and reread the "big books" of that era (Thor, Cap, IM, Avengers, Hulk, X-Men, FF) and I have to say that they are a lot better than I remember.

I think that part of the problem was that at the time I was caught up in the debate about where comics should go and the side I was cheering for was losing. It took much of the enjoyment out of comics and I found better things to do. Now, I can just read those stories for fun and a lot of them are. The Harras Avengers is a LOT better than I remember. I hated it at the time. So maybe some of the stuff we don't like now will seem better in 20 years.

[kelly_warrior_princess]

Would it be a bad idea to get rid of the idea of "franchises?"

It certainly couldn't hurt. Of course some of the franchise books really need to be cancelled. We don't really need a dozen x-men books a month, especially when half the time they are just being used to tell the boring sections of whatever the newest X-event is. Same goes for the other franchises too. The worst offender is Avengers & New Avengers. Two Avengers books, zero level of specific content & constant crossings between the two. An already its been re co-opted for an event. We just got out of an event like that & i have no doubt within 3 to 4 months of this event ending, we'll have the books co-opted for the Ultron event.

so yes, i think its time for Marvels books to stand or fall under there own power. Because the franchises as they exist, seem to be this house of cards: Pull out one of these cards & the rest comes crashing down. The books need to be seperated out, by both narrative & distance.

[CyberHubbs]

The only one i can agree with you on is Defenders. I want to agree with you on the Scarlet Spider because its a nice change of pace (diffferent city, no cross overs), but its narrative causality has been a little off. There is still hope for it & yes i am hoping for a major bounce back, but i'm not holding my breathe given its low profile & marvels tendency to cancel first & ask no questions later.

How does narrative causality get "off"?

The few good books, do not make up for the many bad books. The fact that you could only name books of already limited appeal in you list, while the major books were missed entirely is also very telling.

Because those books I read and I'm not one of these people that talk about titles I don't buy?

But, hey, I can sure as heck toss in Hickman's Fantastic Four if you like. And how is Slott's Spider-Man "limited appeal"? The character is one of Marvel's flagship titles. It's like you're just moving goalposts at this point.

It doesn't matter how awesome the small books are, if the big books that make up the majority of the lines put readers off from reading (especially given the Marvel trend of cross overs & the co-opting of solo books for events). As i said earlier, you need to have all of your books firing on all cylinders, since all people are not going to be interested in the general content of all books.

Practically impossible at any time in the history of everything. That's like saying every movie out of a studio has to be great, but you know it can't happen.

You mean other then the fact that all the books are pretty much down to 3.5 franchises at the moment, or derivative properties thereof: Spiderman, Avengers, X-Men & Fantastic Four. Too many mini series & spin-offs not enough straight up good new content (or even old new content). Marvel needs to expand its universe again, because it current trend of canonbalising is leaving a lot of holes & not so much to work with at the moment: Either by removing from the field of play entirely, or by leaving them on the board but completely ruined.

How many franchises were there before?

[stephen wacker]

It certainly couldn't hurt. Of course some of the franchise books really need to be cancelled. We don't really need a dozen x-men books a month, especially when half the time they are just being used to tell the boring sections of whatever the newest X-event is. Same goes for the other franchises too. The worst offender is Avengers & New Avengers. Two Avengers books, zero level of specific content & constant crossings between the two. An already its been re co-opted for an event. We just got out of an event like that & i have no doubt within 3 to 4 months of this event ending, we'll have the books co-opted for the Ultron event.

so yes, i think its time for Marvels books to stand or fall under there own power. Because the franchises as they exist, seem to be this house of cards: Pull out one of these cards & the rest comes crashing down. The books need to be seperated out, by both narrative & distance.

What happens if we don't do any of this?

SW

[stephen wacker]

I hated it at the time. So maybe some of the stuff we don't like now will seem better in 20 years.

It always does. I guarantee there will be a "KellyWarrior Princess" in 2032 lamenting that comics aren't as great as they were in 2012.

SW