10 Things We DON'T Like (So Far) About Marvel Now

[SomeBodyAtCBR]

You know what I miss about Newsarama? The articles about people's costumes through the years. Bring back more of those.

[Songbird/Diamondback]

I want to see a Daredevil, Punisher and Spider-man cross-over, or create their own shared universe, where Street Crime is big and costumed heroes aren't trusted.

Wasn't that a crossover earlier this year?

[Omega Alpha]

And the same thing could be said about Carol Danvers. Perhaps even more so. Her title never sold that much, despite having a respected creator, and eventually got cancelled.

So why does Carol get a second series, but other female characters don't?

They need to have a new Cap. Marvel title every five years or so to not lose the rights over the name.

[thirdfalcon]

And here's the big thing that makes or breaks a hero:

DO THEY HAVE AN ENCOMPASSING THEME AND ATMOSPHERE?


80% of the lasting heroes are still in circulation because they have their own themes, supporting cast, and things that can only be done by that specific character. That's the biggest thing you need when making a solo.

I actually think this is the answer to a question you asked earlier in the thread; why do you have to have been created in the 60's or 70's to be popular. By the time the 80's rolled around most of those concepts had been taken. There are only so many archetypes a character can be based on and still be distinct. For instance it would be hard to make a character popular that is just a man but gets by on his intellect and technology. If Marvel tried it would eventually be held back because it would make Ironman less special and canabalize that concept. Ditto for DC , it would split Batman's base it it got too successful. And there are only so many archetypes that you can base a character off of.

Spider-man is an every man becomes a hero archetype, Captain America is a hero representing a nation. Thor is a myth. They seem to be trying to make Captain Marvel represent feminism which is something DC has always had that they lacked.

Occasionally there is room for overlap, for instance Daredevil and Cyclops are both handicapped but overcome it in different enough ways that they are still different archetypes. Cyclops overcomes his with training and a brilliant tactical mind, while Daredevil's handicap is actually becomes his strength. However they are still similar enough that they spilt things which keeps them eternally on the B-list.

You could easily write a book about this, I'm not sure because I haven't read it, but from the looks of it Grant Morrison actually did.

But to use an analogy think of it like a group of characters associated with their respective archetype are like a pack of lions. To become popular enough to carry your own book you have to kill the head lion. So Ironman is the head lion of the tech heros, and for Amadeus Cho to get his own book as tech hero he would need to banish Tony to take his place. Some archetypes have hero's that are so dominant that there's not even room for another pride in another company, this is why there is no popular ubermensch archetype hero in the MU. Ditto for Spider-man with the every man archetype.

so what I'm saying is that the only way we can get real diversity in comics is if minority characters rise up and kill the alpha lions and eat all their babies like what Sam Fury did to Nick Fury Sr. DC has tried to do this with some success. The other way would be a third company rising up to supplant one of the big two, or make it a big three.

[Songbird/Diamondback]

I actually think this is the answer to a question you asked earlier in the thread; why do you have to have been created in the 60's or 70's to be popular. By the time the 80's rolled around most of those concepts had been taken. There are only so many archetypes a character can be based on and still be distinct. For instance it would be hard to make a character popular that is just a man but gets by on his intellect and technology. If Marvel tried it would eventually be held back because it would make Ironman less special and canabalize that concept. Ditto for DC , it would split Batman's base it it got too successful. And there are only so many archetypes that you can base a character off of.

Spider-man is an every man becomes a hero archetype, Captain America is a hero representing a nation. Thor is a myth. They seem to be trying to make Captain Marvel represent feminism which is something DC has always had that they lacked.

Occasionally there is room for overlap, for instance Daredevil and Cyclops are both handicapped but overcome it in different enough ways that they are still different archetypes. Cyclops overcomes his with training and a brilliant tactical mind, while Daredevil's handicap is actually becomes his strength. However they are still similar enough that they spilt things which keeps them eternally on the B-list.

You could easily write a book about this, I'm not sure because I haven't read it, but from the looks of it Grant Morrison actually did.

But to use an analogy think of it like a group of characters associated with their respective archetype are like a pack of lions. To become popular enough to carry your own book you have to kill the head lion. So Ironman is the head lion of the tech heros, and for Amadeus Cho to get his own book as tech hero he would need to banish Tony to take his place. Some archetypes have hero's that are so dominant that there's not even room for another pride in another company, this is why there is no popular ubermensch archetype hero in the MU. Ditto for Spider-man with the every man archetype.

so what I'm saying is that the only way we can get real diversity in comics is if minority characters rise up and kill the alpha lions and eat all their babies like what Sam Fury did to Nick Fury Sr. DC has tried to do this with some success. The other way would be a third company rising up to supplant one of the big two, or make it a big three.

Problem is, you can't accomplish that much as well these days.

Iron Fist for example nailed this theme idea. So did Runaways. Unfortunately, they kinda gave up on those.

Too many series have a "Superhero mashup" I call it, where they just take elements from every other superhero comics and it becomes generic and non-defined, and then we just get something that tends to end up forgettable. That's the biggest problem I see with a lot of books, where they just rely on mashing together what other heroes do, and it falls apart.

[AgPhoenix]

as well as have the benefit of not having the "minority" tag to have to contend with to hinder their ability to be normal characters. (who are built on personality and motivation beyond a gender/racial subtext and get super villains to contend with their philosophies)

Okay, maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but did you just say that being a minority hinders their ability to be a "normal" character?

[nightrider]

Why is it so hard for people to accept that marvel just can't sell female characters.

As of november,

17 Batgirl #14----------------77,468
27 Catwoman #14------------63,653
44 Silk Spectre #4-----------50,002
54 Wonder Woman #14-------42,384
64 Batwoman #14------------36,395
65 Worlds Finest #6----------34,338
73 Supergirl #14-------------31,270
91 Birds of Prey #14---------24,904
115 Catwoman #13-----------20,110 (reorders)
109 Batgirl #13---------------21,035 (reorders)
138 Sword of Sorcery #2------16,272
141 Ame Comi Girls #2---------16,083 (already sold digitally 3 months ago)
187 Phantom Lady #4---------10,119

compared to

96 JiM #646 --------- 22,898
104 Captain Marvel #7 - 21,744
112 Red She-Hulk #59 -20,668

Excluding reorders theres like 11 projects at DC atm. I don't get the need for some posters to wail about the lack of females in marvel. Can't people just accept the fact that

a. Marvel's females are just not marketable as a solo or in a team without their male counterparts
b. Marvel's audience just don't want to read about their female characters.

I think that marvel's female characters are given enough spotlight in their team books, I think that should be sufficient. (Also, having more females in a team doesn't make it a female characters team book, there are several books in DC that have high female character count but should not be considered as a female book)

[HsssH]

This is going to be a bit of generalization but to me it often felt that DC tends to write about female characters as characters who happen to be female while Marvel tends to write about them as being female and being... female i guess? If that makes any sense.

Like take first Captain Marvel issue, it has its share of "she is woman but she is strong" then we have villain displaying hate against women and you get the picture. It seams that focus is more on to trying to justify why this woman is superhero and why it is fine instead of trying to tell interesting story about the character who happens to be a woman. Maybe if i was into "empowering woman" movement or something like that i would find that interesting(strong woman, punching out haters, etc) but since i'm just a regular reader i find all that kinda pointless and ridiculous at times.

[nightrider]

This is going to be a bit of generalization but to me it often felt that DC tends to write about female characters as characters who happen to be female while Marvel tends to write about them as being female and being... female i guess? If that makes any sense.

Like take first Captain Marvel issue, it has its share of "she is woman but she is strong" then we have villain displaying hate against women and you get the picture. It seams that focus is more on to trying to justify why this woman is superhero and why it is fine instead of trying to tell interesting story about the character who happens to be a woman. Maybe if i was into "empowering woman" movement or something like that i would find that interesting(strong woman, punching out haters, etc) but since i'm just a regular reader i find all that kinda pointless and ridiculous at times.

Did you mean Wonder Woman?

[motherofpearl1]

[QUOTE=Songbird/Diamondback;16349452]Because that's not a "IN YOUR FACE HAVE BIG MOVIES COMING OUT IMPORTANT CHARACTERS" book.[/Quote

The problem with female centred books is they don't sell very well. Rogue's solo lasted about 5 minutes. It'd be nice to see a book featuring the 'A'list X women but probably only CC could write it!

[Songbird/Diamondback]

[QUOTE=motherofpearl1;16352833]

Because that's not a "IN YOUR FACE HAVE BIG MOVIES COMING OUT IMPORTANT CHARACTERS" book.[/Quote

The problem with female centred books is they don't sell very well. Rogue's solo lasted about 5 minutes. It'd be nice to see a book featuring the 'A'list X women but probably only CC could write it!

They don't sell well cause Marvel always put its emphasis on the same few characters. They don't push any of the other characters to the front lines often.

[Phantasmagoria]

Man there's a lot of bitching in this thread. Why can't comic fans at least try to be more positive? You don't have to like everything, but don't just go looking for bullshit to nitpick about.

[Songbird/Diamondback]

Man there's a lot of bitching in this thread. Why can't comic fans at least try to be more positive? You don't have to like everything, but don't just go looking for bullshit to nitpick about.

I used to be positive about comics, then they start killing what I like...

[linkspirit97]

Wasn't that a crossover earlier this year?

I meant on film, Marvel has Punisher and Daredevil, I'd love them to go to Sony.