I tried the new BLUE BEETLE and gave up after 2-3 issues. I just couldn't bare reading a redone version which was so thuddingly average. It's like replacing a rare gourmet steak with a McDouble With Cheese.
My tastes run a mix of both for ongoing titles; I follow certain characters as well as creators to a degree. Because AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is linked to my childhood, no matter how bad things got with his title editorially, I would always give it a chance every few years and it would get an infinite amount of those sporadic chances. The X-MEN franchise burned me out at a certain point and I rarely try it. But there are other characters that I'll usually give a chance every time they get a new book, such as MOON KNIGHT or the DEFENDERS. I have been off and on with DAREDEVIL since the 90's, etc.
I do follow creators too. I've followed Christos Gage onto X-MEN LEGACY. I've read about 65% of everything Slott has written for Marvel within the 21st century and I even gave his run on JLA CLASSIFIED a go. I followed Fraction on a few books, and Brubaker, and even Bendis years ago when I enjoyed/tolerated his work. Robert Kirkman is likely another large instance, although not even he could get me to try THE INFINITE.
Which takes priority for me? I guess the test was this last MOON KNIGHT volume. If it had been launched by anyone else, I'd have tried it, given it an issue. But by then, I no longer liked Bendis, and fled it due to that. So I guess creator trumps franchise for me at this stage. This wasn't true when I was a kid, but what do kids know?
The alchemy of what makes a hit book is not always an exact science; in theory this IS art, after all. Ideally, it is a mixture of a franchise that the audience either never stopped loving or wants back again, with a creative team that not only is of high quality and popularity, but is deemed appropriate for the franchise. For example, Mark Millar made WOLVERINE sell epically, but faded on FANTASTIC FOUR in terms of sales after less than a year.
I would like to see Marvel try as hard with some heroine titles as they have in recent years with Moon Knight, Black Panther and even Hercules to a degree. MS. MARVEL had a long volume at 50 issues, but since then and the end of SHE-HULK material, it's become problematic. X-23 in theory had "fame" from TV and video game appearances, and it couldn't last two full years. Storm would have been a no-brainer choice I think at the peak of the X-Men's popularity in the late 80's to early 90's, but now I don't think would sell very easily. Not even Bendis could make SPIDER-WOMAN sell at acceptable numbers to Marvel for long. While the MC2 version of SPIDER-GIRL lasted as a fringe cult book for over a decade, Arana/Spider-Girl has gotten two tries at ongoing series, and both folded after 12 issues or less. MYSTIQUE and ROGUE both had stabs at solo titles in the recent past (and by that I mean "in the Joe Q era"), and both didn't last 3 years. While it's hard for Marvel to launch ANY new ongoing title recently - not even 2nd tier Wolverine spin-off's are safe - the lack of any solo heroine titles is a bit of a blemish. Even after canning 6-8 titles from the New 52, DC is willing to replace at least one with a heroine led book (WORLD'S FINEST, which is now a Huntress/Power Girl book). DC was willing to cut VOODOO a chance for 8 issues but BLACK WIDOW is getting zippo in 2012, "AVENGERS" year. Does anyone see how absurd that seems? The problem is that aside for those examples I just mentioned - Ms. Marvel, She-Hulk, Storm, Spider-Woman, X-23, Arana/Spider-Girl, and/or Black Widow - no other heroine either has had their own series or could in theory lead one. Most of Marvel's other heroines are too firmly entrenched in teams, such as Rogue or Invisible Woman. They could try a team of them - would LADY LIBERATORS work the same way as BIRDS OF PREY worked? - but frankly, Marvel lacks the stones. Surely, LADY LIBERATORS would suffer from a crappier title - even cutting it to LIBERATORS smacks of cliches about feminism. BIRDS OF PREY at least sounds scary. Marvel seems to be trying to shove Valkyrie out there, but I don't think she'll ever shake the stigma of being a B-List Defender. Ironically, the Marvel female character who has had the longest run of solo title issues is PATSY WALKER during her "teen dating" era throughout the 40's, 50's, into the 60's. She was naturally made a superheroine as Hellcat for AVENGERS and DEFENDERS in the 70's - and before someone claims she was a riff on Black Cat, she debuted a few years before Felicia Hardy did. But she's never caught on, and the last HELLCAT mini by Kathy Immonen was downright weird.
A part of me still feels the Marvel Universe isn't the same without Janet Van Dyne/Wasp around. She was one of few founding heroines of iconic teams, beside Invisible Woman and Jean Grey/Marvel Girl. Of them, only Sue is alive. But none of them have the iconic solo status as Wonder Woman did. Part of me always wondered what the Marvel Universe would have looked like had Stan Lee alongside Jack Kirby and/or Steve Ditko chose to revive Sun Girl from the Timely Comics era like they did with Captain America and Namor. She was one of few Golden Era Marvel heroines who wasn't draped in war propaganda like Miss America was.
