| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Retiring Spiderman, Batman, and Superman really is not going to bring in new readers who have never read a comic before. It may get some new readers from other lines, although whether or not they offset people who rage-quit when there favorite character disapears, I don't know.
If people talk about Iron-Man or Guardians of the Galaxy, it's mostly because they were successful movies that appealed to the non-comic reading community
From all I have seen, comic books are just a hard sell to a lot of people. I don't see how retiring known and popular characters somehow ENCOURAGES more people to buy into the medium
From all I have seen, comic books are just a hard sell to a lot of people. I don't see how retiring known and popular characters somehow ENCOURAGES more people to buy into the medium
Directly, it wouldn't, but as a catalyst that would force Marvel and DC to actually get truly creative and come up with new characters, it could. I don't have a problem with the existing characters in and of themselves, just the general laziness it inspires when it comes to creating something newer to potentially strengthen the medium as a whole rather than relying the inertia of the fame of the existing heroes whose stories often are simply well known, not necessarily better written.
Why do we need to change old characters? If the new generation brings completely different characters, they are no longer the characters I love. If they have the same personality of their predecessors, what's the point of having a new generation?You don't get it. It's not about you or what you love or hate. You're not the primary concern as you're reading comics already. It's about making them relevant to the younger generations.The comics characters who have been the mainstays of the genre for 50 (and in some cases 80) years, finally need to be replaced for this generation? Despite being still more popular than any previous attempts to make relevant heroes?
I don't think so.
They need to change with the times. As they've done before and will continue to do. That requires more different writing and different approaches to the characters than either replacements or reboots.
Mind you, new versions have worked with less popular, less iconic second string characters. Ones who were actually losing their popularity, not just following the general drop in comics popularity.
I wouldn't exactly call being a mainstay of a genre that has been stagnant for most of the last three decades much of reason to automatically keep the old heroes around, especially if the goal is to diversify the types of people they have reading comics. Different writing and different approaches are not by themselves going to be enough in all cases. The idea of replacement must remain on the table even if it is not ultimately pursued immediately.
That's only going to work if you can force them to do it and stick to it somehow.
You're relying on a discipline that the two companies have never had. Or ever aimed for.
What you'd really get is a reboot in a couple years to bring the old characters back.
Possibly, but people claimed that with the new Thor when it was first announced, and are quite likely to be proven wrong if they can pull off the reveal soon and well. You're right, it requires discipline that neither company has shown much interest in lately, but in the early days, they showed something of the discipline required, and we are having this conversation today because of it. Without that discipline in those early days, none of the now iconic heroes would likely have gained much traction and we would be talking of other things here. Simply feeding off the table scraps of yesterday, which is what both companies are doing right now, is not going to last forever, and discipline and focus in general is going to be needed to establish themselves as something more than the owners of yesterday's heroes.
Marvel is actually doing quite well on this front, so the upcoming relaunch will be interesting to see. If they go the route that DC did, and only do a partial reboot for a few of the characters while being unwilling to even glance at most of their sacred cows, they will have missed an opportunity to solidify the gains they have made through the movies. This is not to say that they should slay sacred cows for the sake of slaying sacred cows, but I really do hope that they at least took a long hard look at them before sparing them for reasons beyond not wanting to take a risk of any kind. Right now, they seem to have the management and the public support to take a certain amount of risk and do just fine without having to have nightmares of what life after Peter Parker might look like.
Stopped being written mostly for kids.
Perhaps that was their biggest mistake. Kids in general have a much higher tolerance for what comic books have always been.
Regardless of the reason, there was a very real shift around that time that left both Marvel and DC largely running on a hamster wheel just trying to keep up with the changing times. Relying on established heroes and methods of story telling aren't going to get them off of that hamster wheel, now or ever.
I fundamentally don't agree with this. Or that it was all that different before.Stopped being written mostly for kids.Perhaps that was their biggest mistake. Kids in general have a much higher tolerance for what comic books have always been.
Regardless of the reason, there was a very real shift around that time that left both Marvel and DC largely running on a hamster wheel just trying to keep up with the changing times. Relying on established heroes and methods of story telling aren't going to get them off of that hamster wheel, now or ever.
So you think that Marvel and DC have always been this stagnant in terms of new character development and that they differentiated themselves from the competitors they faced in their early days by relying on the status quo? They couldn't have, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them today. Any company their size had to take a fair number or risks, both calculated and otherwise, at some point in order to get there, more so given the limited nature of the market they serve.
You are basically arguing that neither company should even think about risking what they already have even though it's clear that what they currently have is a shrinking niche that is going to require a significant jolt to revive. I don't think that Marvel is in that mindset right now. They have already changed the character behind the three most recent successful heroes, significantly rewrote a fouth (the Hulk did not used to be that easy to control) and seem reasonably determined to stick to it. Especially given the reasonable success of the alternate Spiderman, their lack of ownership of the movie rights to Spiderman, and at least one semi-recent attempt to purge the number of X-Men, they seem to be willing to go out on a limb and back the changes up. More importantly, they have a large wave of public support to genuinely make it stick as long as the stories are good. They would be foolish not to at least try some risk.
I don't think Marvel had more discipline in the early days. Characters didn't die and get replaced. In fact, they returned from the dead pretty frequently. Storylines were often little more than "What weird thing can happen this month?" DC's early days were too long ago for me to know much about them. Not at all impressed by what I've read of them. By the 70s, there was much silliness and little discipline. Think of the Superman of those days.
Marvel had enough discipline to establish both themselves and their characters in the face of Superman and DC, just like DC had the discipline to establish themselves and their characters. That is far more than can be said for either company today, though Marvel at least seems to be trying to change that recently. So yes, things were different initially than what they became in the 80s and 90s, where there was basically no discipline or focus at all.
Not risks in terms of getting rid of or making drastic changes to their most successful characters.
Steve Rogers is no longer Captain America.
Tony Stark is no longer Iron Man.
Thor is now an unknown female.
Peter Parker has no consistent storyline at this point and one major alternative to claim the name of Spiderman.
Ditto for Bruce Wayne and Batman. and Robin.
At least 3 Green Lanterns. and Flashs.
Superman and Wonder Woman have had their origins retconned to the point where most people stopped carrying about the precise one that DC wants to push at any given time.
The Fantastic 4 are now the Fantastic 3.
The X-Men in general are harder to follow than trying to trace a medieval family tree to its roots.
Admittedly, not all of these things have stuck or will stick, and many have been done multiple times, but enough have, even on the Marvel side, to disprove that statement easily.
Not risks in terms of getting rid of or making drastic changes to their most successful characters.That was specifically in terms of the early days.
Killing off Gwen Stacy and bringing in MJ was a pretty big deal in those early days that had a major impact on the Spiderman story. From what I've seen of the early X-Men books, they freely changed, killed, or wrote off multiple characters that didn't make their way back into the story until after the cartoon had started. They definitely did make risks with their big names and stuck with them in those early days. The goofiness didn't start immediately.
I believe Jean Grey is actually alive, but a much younger version of her now.
As for major characters since the 60s...well along with Wolverine were all the New X-men of the 70s which included Storm, Colossus and Nightcrawler.
There was Cable, though some would debate on how big or not-big he was.
Mile Morales as Spiderman is relatively new (and possibly outselling the other spiderman?).
Deadpool I think is a relatively newcomer (still, that was over 20 years ago he was created).
All the Ultimates are newer, though some would say that was more of an independent reboot of a side universe.
I feel that:
However, sales is the reason they are going to do the marvel change up, and the rehash. It's why there was the new 52. DC originally wasn't breaking over 100K with any of it's titles if I recall. After the new 52 several titles were breaking over 100K.
Of course that's nothing compared to the sales of yesteryear with 500K, but it's better than what they were.
Spiderman has been up and down. Some would say OMD didn't have anything to do with it, as readership already had been going down below 200K for a while. However, OMD didn't do it any favors. They saw a brief spike for a month or two...but I don't think even that spike got them anywhere close to 200K, and in fact spidy sales have been under 100K (I think as low as 30K to 50K some months) for the most part ever since (I'm trying to regurgitate information I saw six months ago...so...I'm not absolutely sure of the numbers...but I'm thinking this is the general idea). Basically, Spidy sales have been in the tank (thanks OMD...yeah...that was wonderful).
So, you have some hardcore fans that keep buying comics, and many of them will say the Spidy comics are great...but the fact is...the sales numbers stink for Marvel in many of their lines. That's the real reason they are doing this (and most likely the reason they keep doing these big events, because they know it will boost comic sales at least temporarily, even if it messes with continuity and everything else).
Marvel probably looks at DC (which still doesn't have stellar numbers, but they did have higher numbers than marvel, at least a while ago they did after the NEW 52) and probably say...why can't we do something like that and boost OUR numbers too!
The Movies are doing great, but part of that I think is due to the writing, directing, and acting of those movies. If the comicbooks have good writing, and good direction...Yes, I think they'll sale.
However, the more people you upset (with things like OMD), the more people you are going to lose, and having bad writing (and almost every hardcore marvel fan would disagree with the statement there is bad writing...I am aware of that) only exacerbates the problem. The movies don't go out of their way to upset you about what they've just done to the hero...they keep a status quo (at least thus far they have) and people are happy.
Actually, I think there was ONE superhero movie recently that didn't make people as happy (though it DID follow what happened in the comicbooks). In the Amazing Spiderman some people were unhappy with what happened to Gwen Stacy...and though many say there are other things which caused the movie to fail (note: it didn't fail, unless you consider 700+million dollars a failure), it is perhaps the only recent superhero megabudget movie I can think of that is seen as such.
But overall, the movies keep people happy, and don't do stupid things like the comicbooks do all the time...and when they do shake it up a little, they have decent writing to ensure that people at least can enjoy the story rather than having bad writing AND getting upset.
Why do we need to change old characters? If the new generation brings completely different characters, they are no longer the characters I love. If they have the same personality of their predecessors, what's the point of having a new generation?You don't get it. It's not about you or what you love or hate. You're not the primary concern as you're reading comics already. It's about making them relevant to the younger generations.
You mean the younger generations who haven't grown tired of the stories because they haven't seen them yet?
Apparently, it's you who doesn't get it.
How exactly does replacing the character help newcomers? They are far more likely to want to read about the heroes that their parents and older brothers told them about than some random hero that holds no significance to anyone they know.
I remember I started reading comics because my brother had a bunch of them. I remember being so excited that about spider-man and the x-men that I bought comics with my next allowance, because I recognized the characters from the comics and the cartoons. I don't think I'd have bought them if the covers displayed completely different characters.
I was predicting this reboot from about a year ago, I think. Way too many storylines were going with time travel stuff and character arcs were progressing in ways which made characters practically irredeemable (all the members of the Illuminati) and then there was the time jump in Avengers just a few months ago. The writing was on the wall.
However, how I react to this will depend on what comes out after the crossover. If they use this to essentially restart the timeline completely, they will lose my loyalty to the line. Having an unbroken continuity is one of the things which made Marvel comics unique to me. Having characters like Kitty Pryde be the sum of their experiences is what made them likeable and understandable.
If Marvel now goes the DC route of just ending the lives of their characters and replacing them with new versions with different live stories... what is the point of giving them any loyalty and investing emotions? From that point on, they all are constantly under the threat of the publishing company pulling the plug again for another reboot, just like under DC.
If Marvel just makes slight changes, i.e. they situate some characters in the main universe and (finally) end the Ultimate universe, then things will be okay. I don't know how they'd get around the damage they have done to some of their mainstay characters like Reed Richards, Tony Start, Namor, Black Panther and others this way, though.
All in all, I'll keep calm until the crossover is done. If they go with a full reboot, expect some fire spitting, however.
Marvel had enough discipline to establish both themselves and their characters in the face of Superman and DC, just like DC had the discipline to establish themselves and their characters. That is far more than can be said for either company today, though Marvel at least seems to be trying to change that recently. So yes, things were different initially than what they became in the 80s and 90s, where there was basically no discipline or focus at all.
Neither company will ever 'establish' themselves again. Back then it was all about Stan Lee. He started this whole 'it's the man not the mask' philosophy of real people with real problems while DC still focused on ICONS of perfect awesomeness....
However, since then DC's heroes have become more fallible and Marvels have become more awesome.. and both companies use the same writers and same artists all of whom have had the same influences from when THEY were loving comics...
Both Companies are the same now. If anything DC has slipped too far into 'realism' with gratuitous violence. All of which turned a lot of fans off.
Not risks in terms of getting rid of or making drastic changes to their most successful characters.Steve Rogers is no longer Captain America.
Tony Stark is no longer Iron Man.
Thor is now an unknown female.
Peter Parker has no consistent storyline at this point and one major alternative to claim the name of Spiderman.
Ditto for Bruce Wayne and Batman. and Robin.
At least 3 Green Lanterns. and Flashs.
Superman and Wonder Woman have had their origins retconned to the point where most people stopped carrying about the precise one that DC wants to push at any given time.
The Fantastic 4 are now the Fantastic 3.
The X-Men in general are harder to follow than trying to trace a medieval family tree to its roots.
Admittedly, not all of these things have stuck or will stick, and many have been done multiple times, but enough have, even on the Marvel side, to disprove that statement easily.
None of these risks really count.
Steve has 'not been Cap' before. in fact I was against the whole Falcoln/cap BECAUSE they JUST did that story with Bucky/cap. But this isn't any more of a risk then it was in the 80's with John Walker, or even earlier with the Nomad year...
Tony Stark gave up the suit to Rhodey before too. Rhodey was the iron man in the original Secret Wars... In the 90's they brought in the 'teen Tony' concept and replaced him... that was retconned away.
Thor has had long running arcs with 'other Thors' too... Eric Masterson was always a favorite of mine. There is a list somewhere of 'who can lift the hammer'... This is just another stunt.
Peter Parker? I assume you mean Miles Moralis... Who's been around a whole 4 years... About as long as Ben Reilly... who was also a 'risk' that marvel took..
Fantastic 3? Every time you turn around they've killed off an FF member... that's nothing anymore..
Like you said, they aren't going to stick, and they've been done before. It isn't a risk at this point, it's tradition.
DC on the other hand actually DID what you wanted... Flash was the posterboy for taking the mantle of a fallen hero. He was never my favorite, but he had a massive following and that reboot angered a LOT of people and cost them a lot of business.
Marvel always had the philosophy of 'resurrection over replacement'. They really don't have any legacy characters and the best they can hope for is the replacement to be popular enough that he gets his own identity like thunderstrike or War Machine or USagent.
DC was always into replacing a character and just keeping the mask going. Wally West was Flash for 30 years before they brought Barry back. Kyle Rayner had been sole GL for TEN years before Hal came back... Green arrow etc.
Those were a bit riskier, but there were always enough fans who wanted the originals back that it just doesn't last.
I find it interesting how so many of the most hated stories ever... are the ones involved in replacing the main character. Emerald Twilight, Clone Saga, Crossing, Heroes Reborn...
Directly, it wouldn't, but as a catalyst that would force Marvel and DC to actually get truly creative and come up with new characters, it could. I don't have a problem with the existing characters in and of themselves, just the general laziness it inspires when it comes to creating something newer to potentially strengthen the medium as a whole rather than relying the inertia of the fame of the existing heroes whose stories often are simply well known, not necessarily better written.
I think this is where we disagree the most. Both companies HAVE created a TON of new characters. Just look at the x-men... The amount of mutants that have popped up caused them to actually do the 'no more mutants' super-wipe on them. It was out of control.
The number of heroes and villains have grown by leaps and bounds over the decades to the point that IF THEY WANTED to, they could completely retire all the old guys WITHOUT handing off the costumes to other people.
Is there ANY reason we NEED a wolverine? He's dead now... focus on sabertooth or x-23 or anyone ELSE under the sun... does the name 'wolverine' have to passed on?
Why do we NEED a Spider-man? if the book was that unpopular and people really wanted to read something new... then they would stop buying it and buy scarlet spider instead...
Ultimate Universe was their big chance. It was a complete reboot starting from scratch in the modern world. There were a lot of people who wondered if 'only one universe would survive'... If everyone had jumped ship from Avengers and X-men and bought the ultimates instead... they would have canceled the original line. Everything would have drifted over there...
But it didn't.
Green Lantern is a big. one. There are a lot of people who go on and on, about how much they love John Stewart. However, he can't carry a book. Wally West was the 'best' flash... but his numbers were plummeting... Bringing back the original characters and the books got massive boosts...
Green Lantern Post rebirth was insanetly popular. Heck there were a couple events that were JUST Green Lantern-centric after that...
I think the competition from other forms of entertainment is what's hurting comic sales. I don't think ditching their still top characters is going to fix that.
I blame the price. The cost of comics has gone INSANE...
It's not that there are no new characters being created... it's that people don't WANT them, and don't buy their books. And at $4 a book, I'm not surprised. The cost has gone too far and it's tough for anyone to commit to someone that's new.Also, they shot themselves in the foot with the TPB market. Everything started getting 'padded' out to 6 issue stories... even when there was only 2-3 issues worth of material there, and people have come to the conclusion that it's cheaper and more fulfilling to wait for the collected edition.
Now they get their numbers at the individual sales and they look pretty dismal. Regardless if FANS still like the books.. they end up canceled.
You mean the younger generations who haven't grown tired of the stories because they haven't seen them yet?
I am new to comics... the two I am following with interest are Ms Marvel (the new one, Kamala Khan) and Thor (the new Thor, the woman). I don't want to read about the dusty old heroes who held those names before, they don't matter... well Thor might later when he eventually reclaims the hammer, but for now this is her book. I may not be tired of the old stories, I am just not interested in most of them. I want a new hero. Someone I can read about as they grow into the role. It's people like me that will grow or kill the comic industry; we the new readers, the old readers are a shrinking group clinging to an ever smaller set of old fashioned heroes. This is why they want to reboot everything yet again. They want us to fall in love with the old heroes, so they are wiping the slate clean. Cleaning away their histories and restarting them anew. But I think that would only accelerate the alienation of old readers. I know some of you think my idea of just retiring the old to clear room for the new is a bad one. And I wonder, do you really prefer your old heroes to be reset? I mean you old fans should probably be the ones to decide the fate of your heroes reset or retired? Either way it seems the comic companies will give me my new stories. Which way is easier on you guys?
Characters aging in real time is pretty much a bad idea. Comics come out in one month jumps, hence a lot of stories can't be told in "real time" with only 32 pages per month.
Not even to mention that some heroes have more endurance in popular culture than others. If you need to retire the popular heroes after a while (Marvel has now 50+ years of history, let's not forget that), it will go bad for you if your next bunch of characters were not as popular as the last one.
It's an all-around bad idea.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Characters aging in real time is pretty much a bad idea. Comics come out in one month jumps, hence a lot of stories can't be told in "real time" with only 32 pages per month.That's another issue. There's a lot of character development that's really hard to do with that few pages to cover a whole year. Especially when you're going to devote most of that space to fight scenes. :)
Even if you cheat and have a 6 issue plotline take place over a couple days, then have 6 months of down time, it'll be hard. Relationship developments and similar things don't work well with that little screen time.
One thing I did like (but apparently the sales show I was in the minority) were Savage Hulk and Savage Wolverine. Stories back in the character's past. Allowed a variety of 'fill in the blank' stories in the sliding timescale.
If he's suggesting that, you only have to look at Batman on how right he is. There have been lots of Batman's including Dick Grayson wearing the hood and cape. They're all overshadowed by the original, Bruce Wayne who IS Batman. That's what carries forward from reboot to reboot, Bruce Wayne as Batman, Clark Kent as Superman, Princess Diana as Wonderwoman, Green Lantern is a bit more pliable, but that's because at best, he's a second stringer in the DC Pantheon compared to the Trinity.thejeff your arguing that they don't get rid of big name heroes... I get that, but if superman is retired and a grown up superboy takes the name and uniform then who would really care? It would still sell under the superman title. Are you really suggesting that the ONLY superman fans will buy is the original Kal-El? And if so then how irritated will those fans be when they reboot him and wipe out every story they ever loved reading in one shot?
Maybe that's why I am failing here. I don't know most of these heroes outside of TV or movies. It just seemed like common sense.
And if so then how irritated will those fans be when they reboot him and wipe out every story they ever loved reading in one shot?
The problem is that they do it all the time anyway. Even with a universe wide reboot, NONE of these characters are the same as we've been reading about 10 years ago, let alone 50. Marvel has rebooted a few times now, they just do it as mini retcons and special events to the point that people don't notice.
One thing that tends to frustrate me is the people who say 'go back and read the old stories.. they're still there...' whenever these conversations still come up. Most notably when Barry Allen or Hal Jordan were coming back.
Comics HAVE evolved over time. The Barry Allen stories of the 60's and 70's were fun for the time... but now days are REALLY silly and/or poorly done. Same with most of the 'original' stories. Some hold up well as world changing phenomenons... some read like they paid the artist/writers a nickel a page to push as much as they could out...
add in the fact they were 'just for kids' and quality REALLY suffered.
If the choice is 'go back and read what I already read' or 'reboot the characters with modern art and storytelling'... I REALLY do push for Reboot any day of the week.
What I CAN'T stand are the retcons and writers who forget the continuity they're writing for. It's really why I lost so much respect for Marvel over the years. It's bad enough telling the same story I read 10 years ago... but it's even worse when they act like it is brand new! Also, if they are gonna reboot... start from the beginning. BND and New 52 were garbage, because nobody knew what was and what wasn't being counted yet. They shot from the hip and just confused everyone.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe that's why I am failing here. I don't know most of these heroes outside of TV or movies. It just seemed like common sense.
Common sense, isn't. :-)
You do get me wondering about the MCU though. Rumors point to Steve dying in Civil War, and Bucky/Winter Soldier picking up the shield.
Don Cheadle is 50 himself, RDjr is 50 this year. Sebastian Stan is 32, Anthony Mackie is 34. So Rhodey = Taking up the armor runs into the same aging concerns as Tony, short of recasting.
So, how will the movies affect the comics if we get 6 movies of Bucky (or Sam) as Cap?* Could the MCU do what the comics have never been able to do for long, put someone else in the title and make it stick? If we don't get Rhodey taking up the Iron Man-tle, do we get a new character in the movieverse? And does he jump to the comics like Phil Colson did?
*
I really wish they'd just accept it and recast. If they get good people and don't just descend to second rate talent, it could work.
This.
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with Recasting and moving along with our lives. They already did it once with War Machine. They did for Hulk too. The Ed Norton movie is still Canon. They've done it for years with Batman. Heck, they're doing it with Mad Max...
I HATE the idea that every time an actor doesn't work out, we get stuck with being told the Origin story again. Andrew Garfield was an awesome Spider-man... but telling us the SAME story that we JUST saw... Ruined the franchise. If they had recast and kept the story going, it would have been more accepted.
Same with Green lantern. I've seen a lot of calls for a 'reboot' of the movie... but I say Recast and keep going. We've seen him get the ring, lets move on to new original stories.
The Day RDJ decides he's done with Iron Man... Either A) Iron man takes a back seat and ignored (Which was his designated place for decades...) or B) a new actor jumps in and the already 5-8 Iron man movies are still canon.
But the idea of rebooting everything?? This franchise is way bigger then any one or two actors.
Same with Green lantern. I've seen a lot of calls for a 'reboot' of the movie... but I say Recast and keep going. We've seen him get the ring, lets move on to new original stories.
I can understand the GL one, though... The problem wasn't the actor. The whole movie was horrible.
IMO, they should just create GL2 and make ti a good movie. No need to reboot or recast. Just make a good movie.
As far as the movies are concerned I agree completely; just recast the role and keep going forward. So maybe on one level thejeff is right. If you are NOT going to care about continuity in your shows or books anyway then neither rebooting or retiring seem like good ideas. I love continuity... and so I hope they NEVER do a reboot with the MCU. A big part of the MCU's charm for me IS the continuity on display not just in one movie and its sequels but rather all the way across the entire line of super hero films. Because of that continuity I would be horrified by a reboot. If the actor gets too old either retire them in the show and let a new person inherit the role OR recast them; but PLEASE never reboot.
Oh and this goes for Thor and Ms Marvel as well, I hope they never reboot those books. I had never heard of an inhuman before Ms Marvel so when they did the inhuman thing on Marvel Agents of SHIELD I suddenly was excited "Hey this is like Kamala, I can't wait to see more". Someone above mentioned Thor being included in the new reboot... I really hope they are wrong or I will be very disappointed in the comic industry as a whole.
Kamala is pretty popular, so case you can expect her to keep going as long as that's the case.
The 'classic' male Thor is bound to be rebooted sooner or later - you just have to hope it doesn't happen prematurely.
The problems of long-running comic book characters are pretty much inevitable. Ms Marvel was an example of a character that could attract new people to comics, but already there's enough issues and ongoing story to make new readers reluctant to try to get on board at this point, compared to (for example) buying Issue 1 of Squirrel Girl instead. As time goes by, Ms Marvel's continuity will get more complicated and then what? Will it desperately try to cling onto the readers it has rather than attempt the virtually hopeless task of finding new ones? Will it reboot itself and make everything that's happened so far irrelevant? Will it just end? Best case scenario for her is if she manages to branch out of comics and into a movie or TV show. If that happens, this new version of her will become the one most people expect to see, and the comic will probably keep her like that from then on, which reduces their ability to tell developing story-lines...
You mean the younger generations who haven't grown tired of the stories because they haven't seen them yet?I am new to comics... the two I am following with interest are Ms Marvel (the new one, Kamala Khan) and Thor (the new Thor, the woman). I don't want to read about the dusty old heroes who held those names before, they don't matter... well Thor might later when he eventually reclaims the hammer, but for now this is her book. I may not be tired of the old stories, I am just not interested in most of them. I want a new hero. Someone I can read about as they grow into the role. It's people like me that will grow or kill the comic industry; we the new readers, the old readers are a shrinking group clinging to an ever smaller set of old fashioned heroes. This is why they want to reboot everything yet again. They want us to fall in love with the old heroes, so they are wiping the slate clean. Cleaning away their histories and restarting them anew. But I think that would only accelerate the alienation of old readers. I know some of you think my idea of just retiring the old to clear room for the new is a bad one. And I wonder, do you really prefer your old heroes to be reset? I mean you old fans should probably be the ones to decide the fate of your heroes reset or retired? Either way it seems the comic companies will give me my new stories. Which way is easier on you guys?
as ever, you intrigue,Aranna.
Kamala is pretty popular, so case you can expect her to keep going as long as that's the case.
The 'classic' male Thor is bound to be rebooted sooner or later - you just have to hope it doesn't happen prematurely.The male Thor will return. May not be rebooted. There is a difference.
What happens to the female Thor when he gets the hammer back is the question. And that will depend largely on her popularity.
I foresee another thunderstrike happening.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I foresee another thunderstrike happening.Kamala is pretty popular, so case you can expect her to keep going as long as that's the case.
The 'classic' male Thor is bound to be rebooted sooner or later - you just have to hope it doesn't happen prematurely.The male Thor will return. May not be rebooted. There is a difference.
What happens to the female Thor when he gets the hammer back is the question. And that will depend largely on her popularity.
Hope not, for her sake.
Eric was apparently always fated to die a hero by editorial. As much as I liked the sinister superhero, I'm happy he's stayed dead. He died a heroes death, bringing him back... would cheapen it for me.
Thunder Strike? What was this?
The new Thor's book is pretty good... Although i'd have prefered if they had created a new character, or taken an existing female member of the nordic pantheon and made her more important (kinda like they did with Miss Marvel, now Captain Marvel, who became a more important character is last few years).
As it is, replacing Thor as the God of Thunder pretty much guarantees that she'll eventually be kicked aside so that male Thor can come back and wield Mjolnir again.
Also, I wish they'd bring Marrow back... In the classic form, where she had bone knives sticking out of her back because she couldn't control her powers very well... I think she's in Cable and The X-Force, but that book is pretty "meh". I don't even know if it's still running...
In the Spider-man universe, I don't like Silk, but the Spider-Gwen seems cool. And I'd love to see a return of the Spider-Girl comics.
For the X-men, I just hope they don't bring Jean Grey back again... She's the dullest character ever. Emma Frost is so much more interesting... She actually has a freaking personality!
Nope... They teased her almost transforming back to her non-Thor form in the last issue, but she got the hammer back before that could happen.
I feel bad for losing the Thor- God of Thunder series, though... That book was awesome!