Have Marvel comics changed for the better or worse?

[RDMacQ]

Just fine, of course. I was obviously referring to physical comics accessible by the public.

I understand. But if your location has a good internet connection, then kids who are interested in comics- or let's face it, comic book characters- might be able to go online and download or access comics far easier than going to a physical location and picking them up.

[Kymeric]

Man, did you ever get a lot of this assbackwards. Comics have never sold better than when they were at the height of their goofiness in the 50's, and in the 60's thru the 80's, when virtually everything was "all ages", the comics sold almost as well. The cold hard truth is that those old comics appealed not only to kids, but to a wider selection of adults.

What killed the industry was a boneheaded trend to write almost every comic like Watchman and Dark Knight Returns as well as style over substance art and gimmicks. These concepts still infest the industry but where all absent during the eras when comics were at their peaks. Funny that.

Yeah right, the people that bought those comics are parents or grandparents now and their kids and grandkids didnt continue their comics hobby. Also, figure in for inflation.

Are you really trying to say that the spidey cartoons of the 90s were dark and the cause of the collapse of comics? Post 9-11 sure, but thats just the last 10 years, not the 60 years prior. People didnt want comics anymore so they stopped buying them. Period. Speculation gimmicks and trendy 'dark' comics kept industry alive but just barely. In the 1930s there werent many other options for entertainment, they cant compete with todays options.

Comics have had one foot out the door for decades, although the digital comic move has been a good attempt to stay relevant the writing has been on the wall for awhile.

The only reason comic books still exist is nostalgia and parent companies buying them for their intellectual properties.

[Mark_S]

I've read enough. YES!

God bless you, Internet!

SW

But how ever great it sounds I could never quite figure out a way to fit the two together. I once had a partial outline using the Lynda Carter show style of Wonder Woman but the situations and the characters wouldn't mesh. Either Diana ended up being too dumb or too smart making Hogan and the gang look too dumb. The problem with a team up is that the characters and situation have to ballance to play to the strength of both characters. You team up Spiderman and Thor against the Living Pharoah and you have to come up with a way to make Spiderman not look like a weakling next to Thor.
But you seem to go against that if I read your post correctly. At marvel the concept would be given the green light based on the Pitch and maybe an outline and then when the writer ran into the problems I described he's just push things past the limit. Hogan would end up being Klink's illegitimate son, Newkirk and LeBau would be secret lovers, Shultz would defeat Wonder Woman by falling on her... just about anything like that because the writer put all of the effort into the Pitch and didn't think the story through. It might be an interesting and fun story but it wouldn't be a Wonder Woman story or a Hogan's Heroes story. It would just be a story with characters named the same but acting completely different to their established characters.
This is I believe why in AvX Cyclops is suddenly a religious loon, why Captain America is pushing the panic button instead of thinking and why so many X-men are fighting so many Avengers without a real good reason. The Pitch was great and that was all. Seriously I saw no reason for that fight in X-men legacy when I read it today. I also saw no reason for that Avengers team to be even be there. But the Pitch must have been great or the editorial directive must have said "Make them fight". Either way it wasn't an issue that made a lot of sense.


Mark_S

[Mark_S]

Yeah right, the people that bought those comics are parents or grandparents now and their kids and grandkids didnt continue their comics hobby. Also, figure in for inflation.

Are you really trying to say that the spidey cartoons of the 90s were dark and the cause of the collapse of comics? Post 9-11 sure, but thats just the last 10 years, not the 60 years prior. People didnt want comics anymore so they stopped buying them. Period. Speculation gimmicks and trendy 'dark' comics kept industry alive but just barely. In the 1930s there werent many other options for entertainment, they cant compete with todays options.

Comics have had one foot out the door for decades, although the digital comic move has been a good attempt to stay relevant the writing has been on the wall for awhile.

The only reason comic books still exist is nostalgia and parent companies buying them for their intellectual properties.

I don't think anyone can really say why comics still exist as an artform or if they will continue to exist as the world goes digital. I know that marvel made an announcement about Infinite Comics as it relates to AvX and it looks good; but I still can't afford an ipad and sitting at the computer reading a comic just isn't the same for me. But if I had an ipad I'd be tempted, even for a story as bad as AvX is turning out to be. I can take a bad story a lot easier for a lower price.

Mark_S

[Mikey Brown]

Didn't read that way when I first read him. Imperious yes, somewhat manipulative. But with ethics. Retcon is a lazy way to write in my opinion.

Mark_S

Retcons have been happening since, well forever. The original Phoenix story was retconned. Professor X was retconned into having feelings for a very young teenage Jean. How ethical is it to be a pedophile? Captain America took a very young teenage boy with him, dressed him up like a superhero to fight the war. How ethical is that? How ethical is it for Peter Parker to keep on being Spider-Man after assisting in killing the love of his life Gwen Stacy? I could go on and on but I'll just say, your memory is very selective, as is many more posting in this thread.

[timeismoney]

Retcons have been happening since, well forever. The original Phoenix story was retconned. Professor X was retconned into having feelings for a very young teenage Jean. How ethical is it to be a pedophile? Captain America took a very young teenage boy with him, dressed him up like a superhero to fight the war. How ethical is that? How ethical is it for Peter Parker to keep on being Spider-Man after assisting in killing the love of his life Gwen Stacy? I could go on and on but I'll just say, your memory is very selective, as is many more posting in this thread.

Welcome back Mikey and quote for the truth.

[RDMacQ]

Retcons have been happening since, well forever. The original Phoenix story was retconned. Professor X was retconned into having feelings for a very young teenage Jean. How ethical is it to be a pedophile? Captain America took a very young teenage boy with him, dressed him up like a superhero to fight the war. How ethical is that? How ethical is it for Peter Parker to keep on being Spider-Man after assisting in killing the love of his life Gwen Stacy? I could go on and on but I'll just say, your memory is very selective, as is many more posting in this thread.

Professor X having feelings for Jean wasn't a retcon.

[USERNAME TAKEN]

Uh, no, it's not something that CAN be tracked. But, just for arguments sake, let's say that it IS a "demonstrable fact."

So.... demonstrate it.

Demonstrate how the skill of writers have decreased in the past 2 years. Go ahead. Show us how.

Don't TELL us how, in that YOU just dislike the stories. SHOW how these stories have gone downhill with specific examples and figures. SHOW how- in an OBJECTIVE manner- that the skill of the writers have gone downhill since 2010.

We'll be waiting.

I was going to ask Kelly the same thing.

How can you objectively say that writing has gotten worse over the last two (2) years?

[Mark_S]

Retcons have been happening since, well forever. The original Phoenix story was retconned. Professor X was retconned into having feelings for a very young teenage Jean. How ethical is it to be a pedophile? Captain America took a very young teenage boy with him, dressed him up like a superhero to fight the war. How ethical is that? How ethical is it for Peter Parker to keep on being Spider-Man after assisting in killing the love of his life Gwen Stacy? I could go on and on but I'll just say, your memory is very selective, as is many more posting in this thread.

All memory is selective MB, that's a fact of humanity that can not be escaped from. But in the case of printed material my memory is fine because I can continually refresh it by reading the back issues I have. If you want to play the kindergarten defense card of "someone else is just as bad or worse" then go ahead but I'm sorry if I offend you when I say it's a silly game to play. Of the examples you cite I can easily come up with the ethical reasons behind all of them except one: Aside from RadMacQ pointing out that Prof X's feelings for Jean were not retconned they do not qualify as pedophile. Jean was a teenager when she joined the X-Men, not a child.

Mark_S

[kelly_warrior_princess]

I was going to ask Kelly the same thing.

How can you objectively say that writing has gotten worse over the last two (2) years?

Um, you an i have already done this dance mate. But let me just quote whats come before when i already answered this question twice in this thread: 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.

The above section was taken from a part of the discussion talking about Bendis & his post dark reign run on Avengers. But the same holds true for the majority of writers at marvel at the moment. We've lost a lot of the technical skill involved, which can be objectiely judged.

[theflyingfrogunderdog]

An not one of them is in here defending Marvel. I'd say this particualr thread is a perfect microcosm of the Marvel readership. A whole heap of people telling you why they are no longer reading your products, a small handful of die hards telling everyone that they are wrong and that one guy who wants to pretend that the large group of us who are telling you why we have stopped reading make up some extreme minority that just like to complain, rather then quite a large minority who can see a demonstrable problem (keep in mind that even 49% is a minority, but if 49% of your demographic are telling you there is a problem, saying "oh its just a minority" is possibly a stupid tact to take)

Kelly, i understand what you're talking about. Bendis declining? IMO, Bendis was always in decline. How about Iron Man acting like Beavis and Butt-Head at the U.N. in Avengers Disassembled? Totally out of character, even drunk. And how about Avengers #1, where Captain America says "time is a thing" ? Bendis...a great writer? Come on, everyone. I may be an old-schooler and out of touch with today's comics, but there is still a standard of quality that i can see isn't being met. Marvel has not stayed faithful to the already defined characterization of their characters.

I don't buy the "opinion" that change is good for change's sake, otherwise the non-changing thing becomes stale. How does changing Thor's speech from Asgardian to Earthly = change for the better? It's only better if the target readership is too dumb to understand shakesperean speech. It's funny...during my childhood in the 70's and my teen years during the 80's, i never had a problem with Thor's speech. I understood it just fine. If Marvel has to pander to a dumbed down audience today, who can truly say that today's comics are more sophisticated than they were 30 years ago?

I agree with you, Kelly. Marvel is at an all-time low. I believe it started to get worse than ever about two years ago, just like you said. There were titles that i was liking, such as Captain America and Hulk (Red). Marvel has never looked so lackluster, IMO. I try to find something from Marvel that i like today, and i find myself seriously wanting. And i do consider Thor's lack of Asgardian accent to be something that is an objective problem, not subjective, like some are trying to push on this board. Sure, characterization can be subjective when a character's actions are questioned and debated. I think everyone would agree, though, that if Captain America started acting like Wolverine or the Punisher, there would be a major problem, wouldn't everyone agree? We saw a different Cap in the late '80's...a psycho Cap who killed the bad guys. Would that be subjective characterization if Steve Rogers was slaughtering the bad guys? The "it's only your opinion" argument can only be taken so far until it becomes ridiculous.

The bottom line is, Marvel's iconic characters have decades of character development already under their belts by past writers who were the ones who defined them and laid the groundwork for future writers to follow. Now, if the writers today, don't want to follow those defined character traits faithfully, or if they're too lazy to research the material to write in a way that does the character justice, then that writer deserves all the criticism he gets because that criticism is factual and valid. It's objective criticism and not subjectively arrived at. This is why i said in the OP, that if Marvel wants to change their characters so much, then why beat around the bush with characters who are old and stale, now? Do it right and create a "New 52" like DC has done. I could respect that and accept it as a redefining of classic characters that has little to do with the long history of characterization, as these new characters are not the same as the ones we all know so well from past decades of comics. Rather, these new characters are loosely based on those iconic, classic characters. I could accept that, just like i can accept the changes made in marvel movies. I can accept it because i know going in, that these are characters that are loosely based on the characters i knew as a youth, not the same characters in every definable way.

And on top of it all, Marvel continuity is much closer than in real time. "Little" Franklin is still about 10 years old. In Marvel time, only like 5 years has passed since the 1980's. So, how can Thor and the Thing talk so different in 5 years? If comics have a more sophisticated readership now, then Marvel should prove it by not dumbing down their comics to appeal to those who can't understand Shakespeare. Give me a break! The argument that Asgardian speech has to change with the times is totally invalid and i think everyone knows it when they objectively think it through.

'Nuff said.

[RDMacQ]

Um, you an i have already done this dance mate. But let me just quote whats come before when i already answered this question twice in this thread: 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.

Or, we still have all of that in the books, and the flaws are no more readily apparent than they were 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago.

Just you SAYING these things are more predominantly NOW than they were 2 years ago does not PROVE that they ARE more predominant.

That where this "demonstrable facts" come into play. You need to DEMONSTRATE these things, rather than just saying "They're there now more than they were then."

The above section was taken from a part of the discussion talking about Bendis & his post dark reign run on Avengers. But the same holds true for the majority of writers at marvel at the moment. We've lost a lot of the technical skill involved, which can be objectiely judged.

Yeah. That doesn't mean that they ARE more predominant now than they were 2 years ago. It's just people's discussion on the matter.

Where is the evidence that shows that things HAVE gotten worse? That objective, demonstrable facts that would show for a certain that things are worse.

Citing passages of people bitching about Bendis doesn't prove that. From the very day Bendis took over the Avengers, people were complaining about his stories. So you're going to have to try harder than just quoting people who are disgruntled at Bendis.

[kelly_warrior_princess]

Or, we still have all of that in the books.

I'm sure there are a few that still do. However as i have already said, the writing talent has predominately decreased, with Bendis being a prime example of the decreasing standard in technical skill (prime example because his work is prolific enough that it becomes obvious).

Just you SAYING these things are more predominantly NOW than they were 2 years ago does not PROVE that they ARE more predominant.

Sure & me saying its colder during winter doesn't MAKE it colder during winter: It being demonstrably colder during winter makes it colder during winter. The fact remains that anyone looking at the work objectively & comparing it to the work we were getting as little as 2 years ago (utilising particular criteria that does not require personal preference) & it becomes demonstrably clear.

That where this "demonstrable facts" come into play. You need to DEMONSTRATE these things, rather than just saying "They're there now more than they were then."

Not really. See i've given you the criteria using the work of Bendis: You can do the rest yourself. I'm not going to write you a 130 page comparative essay with Harvard Referencing. If you want to look into your self, then, you've been given the tools to do so yourself.

Citing passages of people bitching about Bendis doesn't prove that. From the very day Bendis took over the Avengers, people were complaining about his stories. So you're going to have to try harder than just quoting people who are disgruntled at Bendis.

pointing out facts =/= bitching.

[theflyingfrogunderdog]

Where is the evidence that shows that things HAVE gotten worse? That objective, demonstrable facts that would show for a certain that things are worse.

RD, it's like saying a comic grade is FINE when everyone can see that it's POOR or no better than GOOD. Only those with wishful thinking who aren't objective would call the comic FINE when it clearly isn't. IMO, that's how you're seeing things. Marvel has a rich history of characterization and heroism that has been trampled under the cogs of Marvel's own declining professionalism. Yes, something has definitely changed...Marvel's professionalism has changed and become noticeably unprofessional over the years, as they're too concerned with event driven sales than doing these characters justice in the process. This blatant disregard of past characterization didn't exist in the 80's like it does now. Like i said, a little bit is one thing, but a lot is no longer a subjective thing. It becomes objective at that point.

[RDMacQ]

I'm sure there are a few that still do. However as i have already said, the writing talent has predominately decreased, with Bendis being a prime example of the decreasing standard in technical skill (prime example because his work is prolific enough that it becomes obvious).

Yeah. You haven't PROVEN that yet. If it IS "demonstrable," DEMONSTRATE IT! SHOW, don't TELL!

Sure & me saying its colder during winter doesn't MAKE it colder during winter: It being demonstrably colder during winter makes it colder during winter. The fact remains that anyone looking at the work objectively & comparing it to the work we were getting as little as 2 years ago (utilising particular criteria that does not require personal preference) & it becomes demonstrably clear.

It being cold in winter is pretty much common knowledge and accepted by many. The DEGREE of cold depends on the region. In addition, the individual people judging it aren't entirely a reliable source. Some people can withstand many low temperatures, some cannot. It's why meteorologists focus on the temperatures themselves, rather than stating what they think it feels like.

You can DEMONSTRATE that it is colder in January in Saskatchewan than it is in Kentucky by looking at the temperatures. But what YOU are doing is saying that it IS colder in Kentucky in January than it is in Saskatchewan because you FEEL colder in Kentucky, and it's "obvious." If you want to SHOW that it is colder, comparing the temperatures would do that. You don't get to say "It's colder, because it's clear that it is colder." It's a circular argument.

Not really. See i've given you the criteria using the work of Bendis: You can do the rest yourself. I'm not going to write you a 130 page comparative essay with Harvard Referencing. If you want to look into your self, then, you've been given the tools to do so yourself.

Nope. Sorry. Doesn't work that way. You're arguing that the comics are worse? Onus is on you to prove it. You write that 130 page comparative essay. I don't have to do anything.

You want me to take your point seriously, prove it. Evidence and facts. Salient arguments and comprehensive conclusions. You don't get to come in and say that your position is absolute, and then claim it's everyone else's job to prove you wrong. I have no reason to believe a word you say. You want to sway me and others who don't share your opinion? The hard work is on you.

pointing out facts =/= bitching.

Problem is people aren't "pointing out facts." They are stating opinions. And "Opinions" =/= facts.