Calibandar

Comics XIII

199 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

War Machine wasn't created to be Tony's replacement, he only became Iron Man 50 issues after being first introduced, and with a different writer. Carol Danvers wasn't created to be Mar-vell's replacement either.

Amadeus Cho wasn't created to be Bruce Banner's replacement. Laura Kinney wasn't created to be Wolverine's replacement. Heck, she had a whole solo series before she became Wolverine. Jane Foster has a comics history that would put anyone we've mentioned so far to shame, except perhaps Sam Wilson, of course. So, I'm not sure this is any sort of refutation of my point.

9 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Monica Rambeau was created as a replacement, and the result she wasn't used for decades after her creator left, and never really became a major name.

No, but she's stuck around for decades under various names and currently features in the Ultimates, a team where 3 of the 5 members are legacy heroes.

9 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

DC really is a different case than Marvel because there were always a dozen Flashes or Green Lanterns running around at any given time

No, there weren't.

There were initially only one GL and one Flash, Alan Scott and Jay Garrick. Then there were updated versions, Hal Jordan and Barry Allen. The GL mythos changed so that there were now many GLs at the same time, but AFAIK until now there's always only been one Flash at a time (not counting Kid Flash, of course).

9 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Plus, DC is a good example of what happens to replacement heroes: Wally was his own man for decades, popular and well-accepted by the fans, but sooner or later you get a Geoff Johns saying "I WANT THINGS JUST LIKE IN MY CHILDHOOD! I WANNA!" and Barry was shoved aside and stayed in Limbo or underused for many years.

Yeah, and that's foolish. That is comics being written for the benefit of the existing fans (even if those fans are now writers and editors). That's the existing comics community talking to itself and when a community does that, it will die. DC and Marvel had the vision back in the day to see that: I wish Marvel did now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mormont said:

Amadeus Cho wasn't created to be Bruce Banner's replacement. Laura Kinney wasn't created to be Wolverine's replacement. Heck, she had a whole solo series before she became Wolverine. Jane Foster has a comics history that would put anyone we've mentioned so far to shame, except perhaps Sam Wilson, of course. So, I'm not sure this is any sort of refutation of my point.

 

I'd argue that the step back was in having them replace the existing heroes though eg Cho and X-23. Both characters were doing pretty well - maybe not doing Harley Quinn numbers but appearing quite often. Cho is more interesting to me as a super genuis than as another Hulk. X-23 will always have some level of redundancy to Wolverine but if there can be 4 Green Lantern comics having the same powers shouldn't prohinit there being X-23 and Wolverine titles out ther. I think Jane gets a pass as a lot of people suspected she was the new Thor back when it was a mystery. But it is true that chances are the originals will come back at which point Marvel needs to have a plan in place that allows these characters to continue to grow. By giving them another hero's title it's almost admitting they aren't great characters that can stand on their own and making people see them as semi-redundant.

So as a temporary way of boosting the character's exposure, I think it's worth doing. It's hard to argue that the "America" book wouldn't have got more attention if she'd been branded as the new captain America. But it should be temporary and there should be a plan in place to captilize on the extra attention by having a plan for them as individuals once the step aside.

I don't see why they couldn't have had Wolverine and X-23 share a title. Given the recent film I could see some mileage out of a book in which the two bond over cutting up bad guys. I'd read it. I also enjoyed Hulk and Amadeus Cho as a team up too. There have been times where Cable and Deapool could only sustain a buddy comic and look at Deadpool's popularity now. That way they get exposure in a way that taps into the more recognisable character's profile without giving up their own identity and alienating certain crowds. Solo titles don't mean no other character is allowed a strong supporting role.

Someone made a good point about the spider-titles in which they are largely left to do their own thing and only get together for event crossovers. While they all have the same powers they do have their own distinct characters. I guess this is what they are trying with the Hulks so I can't entirely blame them for trying as Banner, Cho and Walters are quite distinct in their characters. But they didn't get rid of Spider-man whereas they did get rid of Banner Hulk. Although that's as much to do with Hulk not being as big a draw as Spidey, I imagine.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, red snow said:

I'd argue that the step back was in having them replace the existing heroes though eg Cho and X-23. Both characters were doing pretty well - maybe not doing Harley Quinn numbers but appearing quite often. Cho is more interesting to me as a super genuis than as another Hulk. X-23 will always have some level of redundancy to Wolverine but if there can be 4 Green Lantern comics having the same powers shouldn't prohinit there being X-23 and Wolverine titles out ther. I think Jane gets a pass as a lot of people suspected she was the new Thor back when it was a mystery. But it is true that chances are the originals will come back at which point Marvel needs to have a plan in place that allows these characters to continue to grow. By giving them another hero's title it's almost admitting they aren't great characters that can stand on their own and making people see them as semi-redundant.

My point was that these same kind of comments can be directed at having Rhodey take over as Iron Man, Rick Jones take over as the Hulk, etc. So I don't necessarily disagree with some of these comments (in some cases I don't have enough knowledge of the character to say), but the point still stands.

44 minutes ago, red snow said:

So as a temporary way of boosting the character's exposure, I think it's worth doing. It's hard to argue that the "America" book wouldn't have got more attention if she'd been branded as the new captain America.

 

Nitpick: America Chavez is the new Miss (Ms) America, not the new Captain America. I might be wrong but I don't think she's ever been branded as a new Cap.

Side note: I really enjoyed those Rick Jones Hulk comics. Also, remember when Sharon Ventura was the new Ms Marvel but wound up taking over from the Thing? Comics, everybody!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, mormont said:

My point was that these same kind of comments can be directed at having Rhodey take over as Iron Man, Rick Jones take over as the Hulk, etc. So I don't necessarily disagree with some of these comments (in some cases I don't have enough knowledge of the character to say), but the point still stands.

 

Nitpick: America Chavez is the new Miss (Ms) America, not the new Captain America. I might be wrong but I don't think she's ever been branded as a new Cap.

Side note: I really enjoyed those Rick Jones Hulk comics. Also, remember when Sharon Ventura was the new Ms Marvel but wound up taking over from the Thing? Comics, everybody!

Totally agree that War Machine is at best a spin-off of the Iron Man concept.

My point about Miss America was that I suspect her series would have received more attention if she had been branded the new Captain America. The fact she isn't and not getting much attention was me trying to say that the technique of replacing characters usually does work in terms of getting attention and sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a good analysis of Marvel's current sales blight here:

http://www.cbr.com/no-diversity-didnt-kill-marvels-comic-sales/

The conclusion is that all Marvel titles are in trouble, and that it isn't a feature of 'diverse' titles but a problem across the board:

Quote

One of the major culprits was that the All-New, All-Different relaunch turned out not to be all that new or different, with at least 24 series continuing on post-“Secret Wars” with the same creative team, or at least the same writer. In almost every single case, those continuing series saw dramatic sales drops after their initial relaunch.


Prior to “Secret Wars,” these 24 series sold an average of 38,521 single issues through the direct market. But the highest average sales of the most recent issue of these same 24 series was only 22,972 issues — a 40-percent drop, significantly higher than expected attrition of about 25% over 18 months. Rather than acting as a jumping-on point for new readers, All-New, All-Different Marvel Now appears to have acted as a jumping off point.

 

Quote

Having dug into the data, it’s become clear that diversity is not hurting Marvel. The truth is, Marvel’s “diverse” titles actually sell decently. The problem, instead, appears to be a hollowing-out of Marvel’s traditional A-List, titles whose sales have dropped by tens of thousands of copies in the past few years. Especially painful has been the collapse of X-Men sales, which once made up Marvel’s bread and butter, though the Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy lines have also seen a major declines since “Secret Wars.”

 

3 hours ago, red snow said:

My point about Miss America was that I suspect her series would have received more attention if she had been branded the new Captain America. The fact she isn't and not getting much attention was me trying to say that the technique of replacing characters usually does work in terms of getting attention and sales.

Ah, I see. Well, sometimes it does - see the above figures wrt to Thor. But I doubt there's a magic formula. It's a question of persistence and committing to a strategy, which modern media companies tend to struggle with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So maybe the real issue is just lacklustre writing. And maybe also the constant re-numberings, re-shuffling of creative teams and shitty events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mormont said:

Amadeus Cho wasn't created to be Bruce Banner's replacement. Laura Kinney wasn't created to be Wolverine's replacement. Heck, she had a whole solo series before she became Wolverine. Jane Foster has a comics history that would put anyone we've mentioned so far to shame, except perhaps Sam Wilson, of course. So, I'm not sure this is any sort of refutation of my point.

No, there weren't.

There were initially only one GL and one Flash, Alan Scott and Jay Garrick. Then there were updated versions, Hal Jordan and Barry Allen. The GL mythos changed so that there were now many GLs at the same time, but AFAIK until now there's always only been one Flash at a time (not counting Kid Flash, of course).

One thing you're not addressing is that you have a new Hulk, a new Wolverine, a new Iron Man, a new Thor and a new Captain America AT THE SAME TIME. And in most cases killing or sidelining completely the main heroes. And killing off or sidelining some other important heroes too. 

Mind you, I'm not saying the changing heroes it's the only reason for bad sales, far from it, and probably not even the main one.

And Hal Jordan and Barry Allen are 50's introductions, completely different time, I hardly thing the comparison is valid- back then, kids made the majority of the readers and I don't think they cared much who was wearing the mask- it wasn't until Stan & Jack begun creating the main Marvel heroes that the focus begun to he on the Peter Parkers and Tony Starks. Plus, kids who grew up with Jay and Alan Scott had in most cases simply stopped reading comics altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, GallowKnight said:

So maybe the real issue is just lacklustre writing. And maybe also the constant re-numberings, re-shuffling of creative teams and shitty events.

You have to place quality and actually making good characters over forced diversity. What Marvel's been doing has felt very 50/50 to me.

 

8 hours ago, red snow said:

don't see why they couldn't have had Wolverine and X-23 share a title.

I have no issue with Wolverine getting dropped, for the simple fact that he is one of the most overused characters in comic book history. He has done literally everything. I say that as a guy who used to be a big fan.

Edited by Red Tiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

One thing you're not addressing is that you have a new Hulk, a new Wolverine, a new Iron Man, a new Thor and a new Captain America AT THE SAME TIME. And in most cases killing or sidelining completely the main heroes. And killing off or sidelining some other important heroes too. 

I think you're overstating with regard to those original heroes (the word 'main' is telling there). Original Thor never went away and now has his own title. Original flavour Wolverine (albeit with some cosmetic aging) is on more teams and in more books than Laura is. Original flavour Cap has his own ongoing series and is the centre of a line-wide event. OK, Tony's dead, but a, he's hanging around as an AI and b, even dead he's clearly regarded as a central significant figure in Marvel 616.

I'd argue the main problem with the legacy heroes, if there is one, is that if even Marvel won't commit to new Wolverine, new Cap, new Thor, etc. why should readers? When legacy characters are being treated as second-rate by their own publisher, in a market where 16 issues is considered a long time for Marvel to stick with an idea, what do Marvel expect? Miracles, apparently. Instant hits. But that's never been the way of the comics market, sadly.

11 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Mind you, I'm not saying the changing heroes it's the only reason for bad sales, far from it, and probably not even the main one.

It's not the main one. It's not in the top ten. It's not in the top 100. It's not one at all. It's part of the solution, not part of the problem.

11 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

And Hal Jordan and Barry Allen are 50's introductions, completely different time, I hardly thing the comparison is valid

It establishes the point, though: legacy heroes have always existed and someone always complained about them.

11 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Plus, kids who grew up with Jay and Alan Scott had in most cases simply stopped reading comics altogether.

In some ways, the biggest problem that Marvel and DC have right now is that the kids of thirty years ago are still reading. (I'm one of them.) This gives them a market they can always rely on: and they know how to push that market's buttons. They don't have to move on in the way they used to. They have an easy out. But if that market is stifling progress, that's going to kill them in the long run, because that market is literally going to die out. It's already a fraction of what it was. The direct sales market was an innovation when it started: but it's moving into history now. The future is stuff like Scholastic selling Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur to kids in schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mormont said:

There's a good analysis of Marvel's current sales blight here:

http://www.cbr.com/no-diversity-didnt-kill-marvels-comic-sales/

The conclusion is that all Marvel titles are in trouble, and that it isn't a feature of 'diverse' titles but a problem across the board:

 

 

That's a great article and if Marvel aren't considering all those other factors and trying to mask/blame it as a backlash against diversity then they are in serious trouble.

The sales are woeful. An average drop of 40% across the board since secret wars should result in the EIC being replaced and the entire approach being re-examined. For one they should give rethink their writer situation. The fact that Jason Aaron seems to be the only person keeping titles afloat suggests losing the likes of Hickman, Fraction, Brubaker has really damaged them. It also shows how having a writer with a trusted record can make a hero switch work.

They didn't mention the price of Marvel comics either which are more expensive than DC and tend to be released more frequently 18 issues a year vs DCs 12 or 24 (and DC has a much lower price point for the 24 issue books.

The disappearance of the Avengers makes sense. I can't really tell you what the Avengers titles are right now in terms of line-up (character and creatively) which hasn't been true of the last decade. The situation with the X-men is one of the weirdest cases of brand suicide I've seen in entertainment.

104 new titles released in 17 months and they wonder why readers aren't biting anymore? Events have also clearly had their day and resulted in jumping off points rather than jumping on.

8 hours ago, mormont said:

In some ways, the biggest problem that Marvel and DC have right now is that the kids of thirty years ago are still reading. (I'm one of them.) This gives them a market they can always rely on: and they know how to push that market's buttons. They don't have to move on in the way they used to. They have an easy out. But if that market is stifling progress, that's going to kill them in the long run, because that market is literally going to die out. It's already a fraction of what it was. The direct sales market was an innovation when it started: but it's moving into history now. The future is stuff like Scholastic selling Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur to kids in schools.

Things like event books and rebranding/reboots do feel like they've been driven by the older reader crowd but the effect of old readers isn't all bad - I'd arge the demand for more diversity has been driven by members of the old crowd more than the young (but the move is intented to bring in new readers so they can't demand it if they aren't reading it).

I wouldn't say that older readers have to be abandoned though - surely age is a part of diversity too? There shoud be room for older readers and younger ones to enjoy superheroes - the problem may be in trying to cater for both demographics at the same time. Does Moon Girl even need to be set in the regular 616? It doesn't need to be printed as single issues in a comic shop. The comic shop is a place that only adults with disposable income can really afford - digital is the way forward for younger (and people who aren't collectors) as long as they remember cost (people can easily transition from digital to piracy). And one of the big publishers needs to netflix their comics. I know Marvel are doing this but they should go all in with a same day "all you can read subscription". Which probably would spell the end of comic shops that haven't diversified. To be honest the comic shops in my area sell as much anime and manga, SFF novels and toys/clothing as they do comics - they are the ones that (maybe without realising it) know comics are the equivalent of vinyl records; a niche market that's willing to pay more for a collectible/physical sensation.

But Marvel really does need a changing of the guard in the way it's run. They also need to suck it up and pay through the nose and give creative leeway in order to bring back some of the bigger names they once had. I'm all for giving new folk a chance but it really hasn't been working out with the new stable of writers. The only grounds I'd give for keeping some of them on is if the editors have been shackling them (it's hard to imagine Nick Spencer was the guy who created Superior foes of Spider-man).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, red snow said:

That's a great article and if Marvel aren't considering all those other factors and trying to mask/blame it as a backlash against diversity then they are in serious trouble.

Yeah, but they have an ace card: the Star Wars licence. Sales for those titles are significantly higher than any of the Marvel superhero titles, reaching six figures in comics stores. Those sales are probably keeping Axel Alonso in a job.

55 minutes ago, red snow said:

I wouldn't say that older readers have to be abandoned though - surely age is a part of diversity too?

Abandoned, no, but there's currently no sign of that - quite the reverse. 

Giving credit where it's due, a lot of the Marvel titles launched last year were aimed squarely at a YA market: Hellcat, Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur, and so on. But as you point out, that market is just not going to go into a speciality comics shop. If single issue sales are being used as a metric for those titles, that's stupid.

Interestingly, I saw G. Willow Wilson comment this morning that she fears the success of Ms Marvel has, if anything, set the bar too high for titles like Hellcat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, mormont said:

Yeah, but they have an ace card: the Star Wars licence. Sales for those titles are significantly higher than any of the Marvel superhero titles, reaching six figures in comics stores. Those sales are probably keeping Axel Alonso in a job.

Abandoned, no, but there's currently no sign of that - quite the reverse. 

Giving credit where it's due, a lot of the Marvel titles launched last year were aimed squarely at a YA market: Hellcat, Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur, and so on. But as you point out, that market is just not going to go into a speciality comics shop. If single issue sales are being used as a metric for those titles, that's stupid.

Interestingly, I saw G. Willow Wilson comment this morning that she fears the success of Ms Marvel has, if anything, set the bar too high for titles like Hellcat.

I remember when Joe Quesada was EIC and when asked about licenses for franchises like transformers and star wars that it wasn't worth the time for a big company like Marvel. Sure, Dark Horse and IDW can take the license fee because of a net gain but not Marvel. Granted, I imagine being owned by Disney means they don't have a license fee but it still doesn't change the fact their biggest success is a licensed comic book.

That is an interesting take by G Willow Wilson - I guess Marvel would ideally like the books to appeal to both new and existing readers but they probably should accept that won't always be the case. if a comic is intended to reach new audiences don't judge it on brick and mortar sales; if it's aimed at comic stores then judge on those sales.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I know this is literally like trying to discuss Donald Duck on a Game of Thrones forum, but while we're speaking of comics... are anybody here reading Disney comics?

 

It's strange, how these comics are so vastly more popular than the superheroes overseas (at least in certain European countries), yet are all but forgotten in their home country. Above, mormont cites monthly sales numbers of around 40,000 nationwide in the US for some Marvel comics as a number almost unheard-of today. Meanwhile in Norway, a country of five million people, the weekly Donald Duck magazine sees similar sales numbers per issue (albeit down from 250,000 per week in 1986, and 50,000 as late as 2013). While nobody here have heard about Rob Liefeld or Jack Kirby or whatever they're called (Stan Lee enjoys some renown as "that cameo guy in the superhero movies"); Don Rosa, Marco Rota, Paul Murry and above all Carl Barks are household names (the latter's passing in 2000 headlined the evening news and many major newspapers). Even the translation of one of the stories sparked national debate, eventually leading to Lost in the Andes! being designated a piece of national heritage.

 

Yeah, I know the Disney comics can be perceived as stale. Status quo never changes, new characters are only rarely introduced (and sometimes quietly abandoned), there is little consistency and few things ever have consequences, but I find this rather refreshing. Every story is a new adventure without the ballast of previous issues. The DC/Marvel universes are near-impenetrable to new readers, necessitating frequent reboots, parallel timelines and "what if"s (which often get their own continuities), heroes and villains alike are constantly killed and resurrected because the series can't continue without them, origin stories are told over and over, and as time goes on this gets more and more difficult to keep track of - not least because this process is iterated for hundreds of characters. I'm not saying that Marvel and DC should go back to "This is Gotham, here is Batman, what fun new adventures will he have today?", but the model of an unchanging status quo certainly has some merits.

 

If you ever get the chance, I urge you to pick up some of Carl Barks' work once. Of particular merit is the aforementioned Lost in the Andes!, but also others such as The Golden Helmet, Tralla La, Only a Poor Old Man and of course Back to the Klondike are masterpieces of comic storytelling. Many people question why Gandhi never won the Peace Prize, but the most controversial Nobel exclusion over here is the lack of a literature prize for Carl Barks. Other artists are a tier below Barks (who created some 70 % of the top 100 rated Disney comics), but Don Rosa's work is also mostly really good (though the saga known as The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck remains controversial - Rosa was so influential that some people fear Life and Times will be cemented as an "official" backstory for Scrooge, possibly messing with the "no certain past, no certain future" situation the duckverse has been thriving under for eight decades). My personal favourite artist is Marco Rota, with his excellent penmanship and story writing, although his "classic works" are a little harder to pin down. From Egg to Duck (also translated as A Duck Named Donald or My Life In an Egg Shell) might be his most monumental work, but I also like the Andold Duck series or the epic treasure story The Golden Throne Legend.

Other renowned Duck artists are the Italians Romano Scarpa, Giorgio Cavazzano and Massimo De Vita; the legendary Chilean Victor José Arrigada "Vicar" Rios; the Dutch Daan Jippes and William and Noel van Horn (father and son); and Nordic contemporaries Arild Midthun, Kari Korhonen and Flemming Andersen. They might not have Barks' or Rosa's style of grand adventure, but their "slice of life" stories always warm my heart. And of course, all the others I don't have the room (or memory) to mention here.

Of course, there are Mickey Mouse stories too. While he's best known in the US for being a logo (and pretty much nothing else), he's a pretty hard-boiled private investigator in many of the comics. If you think Mickey is too much of a generic face nothing ever happens to these days, check out Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot from 1939. You probably won't see that story used in official marketing any time soon (it's still a safe-for-kids' story, but nowadays it's not so common for Disney to show Mickey Mouse be drugged and subsequently left to die by hanging).

 

I know that for most of you, they probably don't have the same impact as Gwen Stacy's death, Iron Man assembling his suit, that spacepod crash in Kansas or Batman brooding on top of a skyscraper, but I hope there are others here who share (or would like to share) my fondness for the big and small moments from the Disney Comics as well. I know many kids dream about being Superman or Batman or the Flash or Deadpool or those guys, but my childhood dreams were a little different: Defending the big bin on Killmotor Hill from the Beagle Boys, taking a swim in its famous sea of money, watching Donald and the neighbour Jones duke it out across their shared garden fence (from a safe distance), visiting the countryside farm without electricity to taste Grandma Duck's famous apple pie, walking in the shade of the massive corn cobs of the Cornelius Coot statue, skipping school to go fishing with Huey, Dewey and Louie, watching the margarine factory collapse because of a certain duck sleeping on the pressure release valve, visiting the shack of Gyro Gearloose to see his marvellous inventions, tasting an ice cream soda in one of Duckburg's many ice cream parlors, or standing on the opposite street corner when a ten-year-old boy earns his first Dime by shining shoes, a foggy morning in 1877 Glasgow. And knowing that whatever I do and wherever I go, the city will always be there tomorrow, safe and forever unchanged, ready for new adventures.

Edited by Kyll.Ing.
I forgot Daan Jippes. Unforgivable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been a huge comic reader, but my brother is and when he moved he gave me a bunch of stuff he couldn't take with him. Been going through them and found one in particular that sounds awesome and weird. Anyone ever read Battle Pope?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem that european comic market is a lot healthier probably because it isn't so fixated on superheroes but a range of styles for different readers.

Same with Japan.

9 minutes ago, Joey Crows said:

I've never been a huge comic reader, but my brother is and when he moved he gave me a bunch of stuff he couldn't take with him. Been going through them and found one in particular that sounds awesome and weird. Anyone ever read Battle Pope?

I think it's an early robert Kirkman comic. Never read it - I'm guessing it'll be offensive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, red snow said:

It does seem that european comic market is a lot healthier probably because it isn't so fixated on superheroes but a range of styles for different readers.

Same with Japan.

I think it's an early robert Kirkman comic. Never read it - I'm guessing it'll be offensive.

 

Or hilarious. Depends on your viewpoint I'm sure ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Here's what G. Willow Wilson wrote about the controversy, probably the most reasonable take in all of this.

 

 

I hope those Bleeding Cool articles about marvel creators signing contracts that don't allow them to badmouth the company on social media isn't true. While she defends Marvel her comments about legacy heroes might not go down well. I wronder how many of the failed books didn't have a central concept other than trying to launch the character? I think her point about the project meaning something to her is probably true. Did the writer of the "solo" comic have an idea that really rang true to the character? I've no idea but I'd be surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Joey Crows said:

Or hilarious. Depends on your viewpoint I'm sure ;)

Preacher managed it but sometimes writers do confuse offensiveness with humour. Not that the two are mutually exclusive. Let us know your thoughts when you've read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, red snow said:

Preacher managed it but sometimes writers do confuse offensiveness with humour. Not that the two are mutually exclusive. Let us know your thoughts when you've read it.

Very true. I'll give it a read and see how well it walks that line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now