• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

This only doing comics important to the movies thing

Mr. Dent

Superhero
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
8,941
Reaction score
0
Points
56
Do you think Marvel can keep this up? I mean, it makes sense from a business stand point, for the time being, but do you think it can hold up creatively? So far, Marvel NOW just seems like a way for Marvel to double down on their most popular properties and those planned to be used in movies, and everything else is being ignored. This really limits the possibilities for new and interesting stories to be told with lesser known properties.

Take for instance the original DnA stuff. That was a really cool initiative that used almost exclusively lesser known properties that resulted in some great stories being told. Now, there is almost no room for something like that.

Say what you will about DC, but they are still doing new and interesting things with their comics line, while Marvel seems to have entrenched itself in what works/sales already. And it has me a little worried for the future.
 
Yes, because what's happening in Soider-Man is clearly a result of the movies... :whatever: :whatever: :whatever:

:yay:
 
I'm not talking about the plots themselves, I'm talking about only running books for properties that have or are related to movies or are popular and established already.
 
DC's top book is Batman, which just had Dark Knight Rises. It's been expanding the Justice League, just as movie talks are starting, and it's launching a new Superman book written by Snyder to coincide with Man of Steel.

So, yeah, I don't see the difference.
 
Yeah, I agree that Marvel caters to movie franchises. Though, in Marvel's defense, their movie franchises are half their line, but they oversaturate them. I mean, do we really need 8 X-Men titles or 8 Avenger books? And that's not even counting solo off-shoots. Half of each of those aren't even that unique from the rest and aren't necessary at all. I mean, what purpose does Astonishing X-Men and Avengers Assemble serve?

The same can be said about Batman books... but that's about all at DC. There are 3 Justice League titles but they all serve a purpose and are very different from one another. There are a bunch of Green Lantern books but, again, they are all very different, with different casts, and serve their own purposes. And DC doesn't overlap their characters to the point of constant continuity problems. I mean, when you have to buy a years worth of comics to figure out how a character fits continuity-wise, if they fit at all, then there's a problem. And they seem to do this (oversaturate) with whatever characters are having movie moments. They did it with Iron Man when his movies came out, then Thor, then Captain America. They did it with Wolverine and with Deadpool after the Wolverine movie. Spider-Man gets it. Etc. Avengers was already big by the time the move came out, but it exploded afterwords. I mean, do we really need a movie-team centric title (Assembled) when those characters are all in the core Avengers team and are also the team that guests everywhere else as well? Notice how Hawkeye didn't come out until after the Avengers movie?

The only way Marvel would have come out with books like I, Vampire, Phantom Stranger, Swamp Thing, and Demon Knights is if they were first planted into a film.
 
^ Exactly. DC is doing so many things not predicated to their movies, while it seems the only thing Marvel will do these days is properties related to their movies or are popular enough already to have titles. There are very few exceptions, like Morbius, which I can only see as an attempt to try and capitalize on the popularity of books like I, Vampire and American Vampire (and it's a pretty horrible attempt at that).

Don't get me wrong, the books Marvel is putting out have decent to great plot, but there is no willingness to try anything new or not proven already right now it seems.
 
Prime Example

A new 52 week digital comic thing. What's the first 13 weeks comprised of? A 13 week story of Wolverine taking place in Japan. Funny how that's chosen being that there's a new Wolverine film coming out focusing on his time in Japan. Why couldn't it be a Storm comic, or an Iron Fist story, or what have you? Hope, gotta go with the movies.
 
I'm sure the second story will be about Thor dealing with Malekith.

But yes, they're just retreading old ground with a new spin on it now. It's really disheartening.
 
Marvel has released a series of new books in the last few years that are "off" the hero radar like Swamp Thing and Animal Man... books like Dr.Voodoo, Morbius, etc... the point is that because of "creative teams" involved and/or buyer apathy, they fail with the numbers, so why wouldn't Marvel execs look at the books that DO sell?

SO there HAS to be some blame placed upon the buyers...
 
I brought up Morbius...to me it's just an attempt to try an captialize on American Vampire and I, Vampire...a failed attempt. And furthermore Morbius is nothing new, he's an established Spider-Man villain.

And neither of those books are good. If Marvel were serious about new, interesting properties they'd put better or more motivated creative teams on them. What we've seen so far is pretty lackluster. Like I said, I don't think Marvel has had interesting, new/unknown properties being used since DnA's cosmic run...which they've taken and turned inside out, but that's a different topic all together.
 
The newer interesting properties would have been Runaways, Young Avengers, Nova, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc. Runaways sorta fizzled over time. Young Avengers was suffocated through underexposure. Nova and Guardians of the Galaxy, along with Immortal Iron Fist, were all cowardly "put on hiatus" (as apposed to canceled, though it all comes to the same conclusion) instead of giving them creative pushes. The thing is, Marvel pushes and pushes and pushes already established franchises but just gives newer ones a little nudge and then just lets them coast to their deaths, canceling them before they can find any ground to stand on.

I won't say that Marvel doesn't try inovated character titles, I will say that those attempts are few and far between, and typically given to a lackluster, unproven creative teams.

Venom was an exception, as Slott laid the groundwork and Remender took an interesting and fairly unique premise and made it work (and the longevity of the book thus far shows the results).
 
I brought up Morbius...to me it's just an attempt to try an captialize on American Vampire and I, Vampire...a failed attempt. And furthermore Morbius is nothing new, he's an established Spider-Man villain.

Time will tellit's a "failed" attempt... I hope it gets better...

I brought up orbius because JH brought up I, Vampire, Phantom Stranger, Swamp Thing, and Demon Knights... none of those being "new" as well...

:yay:
 
I would consider Morbius Marvel's newest attempt at trying a lesser property. I will also predict that we will see minimal effort at promotion from this point onward while we still get teasers for the next big Wolverine thing. Why? Because Wolverine is a major character with a movie coming up. Morbius is a nobody that I doubt they care whether it lives or dies. They'll just replace it with another Avenger book or something and blame fans for not buying it.
 
In an industry that's clearly disappearing (the print industry), you can't blame the big companies trying to tie their product in line with the movies who have proven to be successful... Marvel's doing it, DC released NINE Batman books from the original 52 because they knew that the Batman movies were doing well... it just makes sense...

Do I like it? Of course not.

But I prefer my comics to be on newsprint and cost less than a dollar. :dry:
 
I would've thought after his crazy rant in the DC thread that no one agreed with, Mr. Dent would've taken a break from his evangelizing.
 
What the hell are you on about?

EDIT: I think you have me confused with someone else bro. >.>
 
Last edited:
Eh, it doesn't matter. You both fit the same archetype in my head and that's good enough.
 
Eh, it doesn't matter. You both fit the same archetype in my head and that's good enough.
So you accuse me of something I didn't do and then say it doesn't matter because I fit some archetype simply because you don't agree with the thread...+1 to the ignore list.
 
Haha. That made it all worth it.
 
I don't see Marvel doing anything wrong, personally. The very fact that Kid Loki still exists even though the traditional, villainous, adult Loki is one of the biggest breakout stars of the Avengers movie franchise tells me that they're not catering to the movies--and here comes the important part--at the expense of great stories. Gillen had a fantastic story to tell with Kid Loki so, even though it meant the comics would be slightly removed from the movies, Kid Loki got to keep on truckin' in Journey Into Mystery and other aspects of the Avengers movie were pushed elsewhere, where they made more sense. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable plan for both capitalizing on the movies' success and honoring creators' story ideas in the comics that diverge from the movies' norms to me.
 
You could argue that since Loki has become so popular in the mainstream through the movies, creating Kid Loki is a way to make him an antihero to capitalize on his popularity. Not the same thing as characters and stories from the movies making its way into the books, but it's a way that movies could influence comics.

I think it's a good thing for all mediums to influence each other. It's good to pull from comics, movies, cartoons, etc. As long as the choices don't feel forced. That said, I'm sick of the Avengers movie team :p
 
In all seriousness, I think its nothing more than a matter of popularity, which is not a new or differing concept. It's not like unknown fan favorites like Cloak and Dagger ever had a long running book. No, Marvel's always been about the big guns, and they always will be about the big guns. Anything outside of that are just little ebbs and flows in a pretty consistent river of merchandizing and publicity.
 
I think it's a good thing for all mediums to influence each other. It's good to pull from comics, movies, cartoons, etc. As long as the choices don't feel forced. That said, I'm sick of the Avengers movie team :p
They've all but disappeared from the comics as of NOW, thankfully. I think Assemble is the only series where they're still the central team. Even Hickman's run abandoned the movie team to focus on random characters germane to whatever plot thread Hickman's following in each issue.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"