|
Ebeneezer Splooge posted:Comic book direction is influenced more by film/TV dealings than by book sales. X-Men films were off limits for a long time, so they pushed Inhuman books. Those failed and now X-Men are back with Marvel Studios so it's time to hype up the X-Men again before they start making those movies. I don't really know how much of that is true. I'm pretty sure there's never been a point in time where there were more Inhumans and Inhuman adjacent books than X-books. They certainly were trying to push Inhumans for awhile, but when that started I think was also when they had Bendis on 2 X books, an adjectiveless X-Men book starring the women and Aaron's Wolverine and the X-Men, plus I think two other Wolverine books. And in recent history, both X-Men Blue and Gold ran for 3 years or so, and they've had solo titles for Jean Grey and Iceman, plus multiple Deadpool books, All-New Wolverine, and probably some other books I'm forgetting. And all of those were started, or at least we're in the planning stages, before Disney was buying Fox. I suspect those books weren't selling as well as they liked and Uncanny being the legacy name had more to do with the relaunch than Disney buying Fox.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
ElNarez posted:I'll give you Thompson and Rosenberg (though Rosenberg is highly dependant on having an artist that can play around with the format, see 4 Kids Walk Into a Bank for a great example of that), but what's Ed Brisson's fine-to-great work? Good point, and honestly I was probably just giving him the benefit of the doubt out of a misplaced sense of niceness. I guess Comeback was not at all my cup of tea, but it was, you know, fine. It had ideas. Now, as a letterer he's fantastic. Change and Rat Queens were gorgeously lettered. If they'd let him letter the X-Men I'm sure we'd all be golden.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
I would kill for Broo to be in the Avengers films.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
ElNarez posted:I'll give you Thompson and Rosenberg (though Rosenberg is highly dependant on having an artist that can play around with the format, see 4 Kids Walk Into a Bank for a great example of that), but what's Ed Brisson's fine-to-great work? I’ve very much enjoyed his Old/Dead Man Wolverine so far. His Cable run was fine but marred by terrible artwork from a lovely Liefeld ripoff. I’ve read part of his Iron Fist which I didn’t care for so there’s that I guess. X-O fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jan 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:I guess if you ignore that the deal isn't done and X-Men has been continually published, then sure it's true. The deal is done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:I guess if you ignore that the deal isn't done and X-Men has been continually published, then sure it's true. I would ignore that as it isn’t terribly relevant
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I would ignore that as it isn’t terribly relevant much like your posting
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:The deal is done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Alaois posted:much like your posting Got em.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Marvel was so spiteful of of Fox owning their characters that they published a billion Deadpool comics a month as the ultimate power play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
Remember when they started taking mutant characters and retconning them out of being mutants. Must be a coincidence
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
It can't fail now. It passed everything that can stop it. It's done. Disney just isn't in control yet. It would be the perfect time for Disney/Marvel to spin up renewed focus on returning assets, like say... the Fantastic Four.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Remember when they started taking mutant characters and retconning them out of being mutants. Must be a coincidence Can't wait for the Avengers movie starting Roz Solomon, American Eagle, and Ka-Zar since the comics only do what movies do it must be in development.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Squirrel Girl, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver was it,. but really, did they have anything to do with them being mutants? SG was more of a joke character and the Maximoffs were always Avengers adjecent outside of their first appearances and some one offs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Squirrel Girl, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver was it,. but really, did they have anything to do with them being mutants? SG was more of a joke character and the Maximoffs were always Avengers adjecent outside of their first appearances and some one offs. Quicksilver is more known for his stint in X-factor than anything. Though their in universe roles don’t really matter to my point which was to try and get characters they could out of the way. I’m surprised people are so defensive about an obvious thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Wolverine isn't a mutant, he's part of a race of wolf people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Wolverine isn't a mutant, he's part of a race of wolf people. He evolved from a wolverine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Quicksilver is more known for his stint in X-factor than anything. I think most peoples minds mutant = X-men and their villains.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
Yeah it's not like Quicksilver has a long and extensive history as an Avenger, including being literally 25% of the team for a while there, long before X-Factor was even a thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
haven't Wanda and Pietro's status as mutants ping-ponged more than whether or not they're Magneto's kids
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Wolverine isn't a mutant, he's part of a race of wolf people. Actually in that storyline they were still mutants, but an offshoot. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
I remember well when those Marvel bastards turned Quicksilver into an Inhuman back in 2016. I mean 2006, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
The only characters I can think of that have had a back and forth about whether or not they are mutants are Cloak and Dagger of all people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
rantmo posted:The only characters I can think of that have had a back and forth about whether or not they are mutants are Cloak and Dagger of all people. I mean Cloak and Dagger got their powers from magic drugs, I can understand some confusion there
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
There was a stretch in the 80s or very early 90s when Cloak and Dagger's comic was formally called "The Mutant Misadventures of Cloak and Dagger" because this was when the X-Men were so huge that the word "mutant" on the cover of a comic was enough to sell the book. Spider-Man was the next biggest thing Marvel had after X-Men and his books all had a little box on the cover that said "THE NON-MUTANT SUPERHERO".
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
Alaois posted:I mean Cloak and Dagger got their powers from magic drugs, I can understand some confusion there But they didn't die like all the other kids because the drugs activated their mutant powers or maybe their mutant powers saved them or maybe daskfl;sdakl; I've always been fond of them but ye gods pick one Marvel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 01:35
|
|
|
I wish they had left Cloak and Dagger as mutants because at least then they had a shot of making one of the 10 X-teams, whereas otherwise they only get used when a writer who likes them can get away with sneaking them in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
Franklin Richards was a mutant then he totally wasn't but maybe he is again? I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 09:37
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:I guess if you ignore that the deal isn't done and X-Men has been continually published, then sure it's true. Far be it for me to defend CharlesTheHammer, but it's entirely possible for Marvel to realize that they could get a bigger bang for their buck putting more emphasis on the properties they have the movie rights for while simultaneously understanding that there are a variety of good reasons to keep publish X-Men books at a decent clip.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 11:39
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure more than one Marvel writer said they were directed by editorial to push certain things over others and Hickman tweeted about it last year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 11:50
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:Far be it for me to defend CharlesTheHammer, but it's entirely possible for Marvel to realize that they could get a bigger bang for their buck putting more emphasis on the properties they have the movie rights for while simultaneously understanding that there are a variety of good reasons to keep publish X-Men books at a decent clip. I think this is basically it, yeah. There was never any edict to kill the X-Men or whatever, but there was very much a push to see if they could make Inhumans a big thing, too. And they tried for like ten years and it seems like the answer was no. Wheat Loaf posted:There was a stretch in the 80s or very early 90s when Cloak and Dagger's comic was formally called "The Mutant Misadventures of Cloak and Dagger" because this was when the X-Men were so huge that the word "mutant" on the cover of a comic was enough to sell the book. Are there any other characters that got this treatment? I know that's the reason Namor is a mutant. Squirrel Girl was previously, but she never had a book to push so it's probably not related.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 11:51
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Wolverine isn't a mutant, he's part of a race of wolf people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 12:59
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:Far be it for me to defend CharlesTheHammer, but it's entirely possible for Marvel to realize that they could get a bigger bang for their buck putting more emphasis on the properties they have the movie rights for while simultaneously understanding that there are a variety of good reasons to keep publish X-Men books at a decent clip. Look, I certainly agree that there was a mandate from above to push lots of Inhumans books. Whether that has anything to do with X-Men or movies seems spurious at best since we got such great MCU Inhumans as um.... and er..... Meanwhile, they were supposedly DESTROYING mutants and X-Men by having their top writer on them, publishing numerous spin-offs and miniseries, and creating new characters, but oh a character that was only made a mutant as a joke and two others who were best known as Avenger were made not mutants so clearly it's a huge conspiracy against X-Men. Nah, it's doesn't add up. Similarly, the comics rarely lined up with the movies, unless I missed the movies where Natalie Portman played Thor, and the 2010s comics where Peter Parker is a teenager living with his aunt and building Legos with his best friend Ned. If you want to make a case for the F4, sure, I'll buy it, but it sure took them awhile to decide they were going to TOTALLY OWN Fox Studios by first having one of their top writers write a long, intricate story, followed by another one of their top writers, then another reasonably well-regarded writer before finally cancelling it. I have no doubt editors were pushing and pulling some characters, but the writers likely don't have all the information they do, but I have a hard time believing it's anything more than "Hey there's an Ant-Man movie coming out see if you can put Ant-Man in your comics" or "Hey Bendis is killing Tony Stark over in his comic so try not to use Tony Stark for a bit." The only "bang for their buck" Disney/Marvel gets by publishing, say, Avengers comics over X-Men comics is that the movie writers could, potentially, use the Avengers stories in movies, but given we're three movies deep, and about the only thing they've really mined is story titles and the basic plotline of a nearly 30 year old miniseries, I'm gonna guess it's not that big a concern. Not having X-Men/F4 comics on the shelf doesn't hurt Fox in any way, but does hurt Marvel should Fox make a movie and someone wants to go check out those comics. I will certainly never question the pettiness of multi-billion corporations, but it just doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
There was a pretty unmistakable mandate to reduce the importance of mutant (and Fantastic Four-related) characters to the universe/IP where possible. People overstate it when they say that Marvel was attempting to kill X-Men as a brand, they definitely weren't, but it's impossible to otherwise explain things like Marvel vs. Capcom 2 and 3 (which were popular games that heavily featured mutant and FF characters) being made unavailable for purchase shortly after Disney acquired Marvel, and their much-hyped sequel cutting all the series mainstays from those franchises without explanation. Like, Wolverine, Doctor Doom, Storm, Magneto, Sentinel, etc were some of the most popular characters in the MvC franchise, and they just straight up didn't appear in MvC Infinite. Their movesets were redistributed to characters Disney owned the movie rights to, like Ultron made his game debut and had a bunch of Dr. Doom's moves. Why do that if there wasn't some kind of high level mandate to refocus Marvel's output towards stuff Disney owned the movie rights for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
How long before Kamala Khan is retconned to having actually been a mutant all along and joining the X-Men? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
Also the Squirrel Girl thing was straight up a wink-and-nod, "I'm now legally distinct from a mutant, don't talk about it, I used to say I was a mutant but don't even worry about it," thing. I think the idea was that Fox could have claimed all mutant characters fell within the terms of their film rights contract, so doing stuff like that was legal protection from Fox blocking Disney's media plans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
They banned mutants and the F4 from video games and for a few years even being merchandised. But that was to grow the brand I’m sure because, um...
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
In the same way that Marvel Comics Editorial (and Marvel Studios Doing Movies / Marvel Studios Doing Television, at least previously) are separate semi-autonomous groups within Disney/Marvel, so too is Marvel Licensing, which may well also be separate semi-autonomous groups. Not having the X-Men or Fantastic Four in video games or on t-shirts is not a decision made by Axel Alonso or Akira Yoshida or Jordan White or whomever, and I think the point people are making is that decisions/actions taken in one branch being cross-applied to other branches is a deeply imperfect lens. Even the whole "oh look, they straight up canceled Fantastic Four!" thing, which was almost definitely guided by The Powers That Be, still meant that in 2015 the giant crossover event that took over literally their entire publishing schedule was at its core a Fantastic Four story, and spinning out of that they were publishing monthly comics starring Doctor Doom and half of the Fantastic Four, and the fact that The Rest of the FF Were "Dead" was a plot point across a bunch of books and not just something they memory holed. Thor was dead and didn't have a book for a couple of years back circa 2005-2007 and they had the rights to make Thor movies and everything. I get that everyone wants to be cynical and inside baseball but people are reading tea leaves and taking things to [Adam-X] THE EXTREME.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Marvel crowing about how the Fantastic Four are BACK in video games just makes me think of how they forced Marvel Heroes to remove all Fantastic Four characters a few months before the game suddenly closed
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
I'm finding it a little hard to believe that Disney just winds up all it's little bits and pieces of Marvel and sends them off on their merry way, with no though to how those pieces might interact. It's entirely believable that they're autonomous from each other-- editorial isn't telling licensing anything, licensing isn't directing studios, etc-- but the idea that Disney, of all companies, is not laying out at least some kind of broad overall direction for them with an eye towards making money seems like a bridge too far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 21:57
|
|