|
Edge & Christian posted:A lot of truth I've just finished reading all of New Mutants through the current X-Force series and, holy poo poo, does the old school cross over model suck. Stories just end so I can be treated to disjointed chunks of poo poo starring characters that don't headline my book. Yeah, having event tie ins nowadays can be annoying but I find it far preferable to see Ms Marvel punch a dracula during the course of her normal story because Deadpool vs Vampires is happening than seeing her current storylines put on hold so Bucky and Hawkeye can stake some vamps in Jersey.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:43 |
|
|
I feel lumping late 80s X men crossovers is unfair, as they mainly were separate stories with a similar backdrop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Edge & Christian posted:2) Again, NOT DEFENDING THE STORY ITSELF of Civil War II, but I find the "Ms Marvel does four issues that when you read them feature plot elements of Civil War II" model infinitely preferable to the sort of poo poo that happened in the late 1980s and 1990s, where if you were reading the Avengers title, pick up issue 344 one month and then you'd hit a crossover and literally you're told "before reading Avengers 345 make sure you read this month's issues of Captain America, West Coast Avengers, Quasar and Wonder Man! And then read this month's Thor and Iron Man, and next month's Cap/WCA/Quasar/Wonder Man, then come back for Avengers 346! Then repeat this for the next three months, also you should probably pick up Silver Surfer and Fantastic Four to understand some of this." Ah, someone else read Operation Galactic Storm. Seriously, if you weren't buying all of Avengers, Avengers West Coast, Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Wonder Man, and Quasar for three months, each individual book was unreadable. There was no catch-up, no context for events in the other books, if you were just reading e.g. Quasar then you had three months in which the story makes no sense, and major changes to the character's status quo happened in other books. Or The Crossing (do not read The Crossing), which ate Avengers, Force Works, Iron Man, War Machine, and a bunch of specials for six months. I'd much rather have the current event model than that bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 10:19
|
|
|
Clawtopsy posted:and, if youre marvel, you also cant write miles with anything memorable bendis: can't write miles without "my dad was a shield agent"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
Edge & Christian posted:*This* is the era you're longing for:
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Edge & Christian posted:1) Using the X-Men is kind of cherry-picking, since that really just comes down to Chris Claremont having Most Favored Nations status. Even ignoring that, In between SWII (1986) and Onslaught (1996) the core title still crossed over into other X-Books for Mutant Massacre (1986), Fall of the Mutants (1988), Inferno (1988), Acts of Vengeance (1989), X-Tinction Agenda, X-Cutioner's Song (1992), Fatal Attractions (1993), Bloodties (1993), Phalanx Covenant (1994), Legion Quest/Age of Apocalypse (1995), and probably some smaller interbook crossovers I'm forgetting about. There were also a number of events like Infinity Gauntlet that featured the X-Men but didn't explicitly cross over into the X-Books, I guess because Claremont wasn't interested. Did you actually read any of those? They actually have to do with the books they are in, instead of getting derailed because someone is writing about Skrulls infiltrating the MU, for instance. The X-Men crossovers involved buying other books you were probably already buying, like X-Factor or New Mutants. Infinity Gauntlet w/r/t X-Men is exactly the way an event *should* be. I get to give a poo poo and read it if I want to, and ignore it if you didn't. Back in the day, I did because I was reading the Jim Starlin run on Silver Surfer, and Infinity Gauntlet was an extension of those plot lines. quote:2) Again, NOT DEFENDING THE STORY ITSELF of Civil War II, but I find the "Ms Marvel does four issues that when you read them feature plot elements of Civil War II" model infinitely preferable to the sort of poo poo that happened in the late 1980s and 1990s, where if you were reading the Avengers title, pick up issue 344 one month and then you'd hit a crossover and literally you're told "before reading Avengers 345 make sure you read this month's issues of Captain America, West Coast Avengers, Quasar and Wonder Man! And then read this month's Thor and Iron Man, and next month's Cap/WCA/Quasar/Wonder Man, then come back for Avengers 346! Then repeat this for the next three months, also you should probably pick up Silver Surfer and Fantastic Four to understand some of this." If you're going to make this point, don't use Mutant Massacre. The only one that really involved any crossover was Thor/Power Pack/X-Factor. And yeah, I'd rather have crossovers headed by the guys I'm reading so that you don't just get a de-rail for a few months to a story that I don't give a poo poo about. Also, LOL at Including Acts of Vengeance, where all the involvement in the crossover meant was a page or two, and the actually interesting gimmick of fighting a different character's villain. You're also apparently referencing Operation: Galactic Storm, which was bad because it was bad and had nothing to do with it crossing over between books. The solution is not to handle a crossover badly, or at least do it in ignorable annuals. The 80s and early 90s were far better about crossovers than we are now. quote:3. Do you have an example of "the model where you have to worry about a crossover if you don't read the main writer's books, which means that fiat from other writers screwing over main characters from other offices?" Like when did this happen? As far as books go, you just named one-- Thor. I know it's popular to hate on JMS and Bendis (also Hickman oddly) here, but they were writing something different that works better when they get to not have their books derailed by unrelated big story. It's also the part of Secret Wars that I'm least happy with-- making GBS threads on all your other stories for ~6 months is a trash model. See also Avengers during Civil War, where the book gets critically hosed by creeper Mark Millar's lovely event book. It's like people lived through the "Secret Wars II shits up your book" debacle, and nobody learned a drat thing from it. But we also had the cosmic joke of Claremont getting run out of X-Men by Jim "Tit Ninja" Lee who they couldn't even keep on the book a year afterwards, so it seems that editorial wasn't thinking long term even then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
What's with the Power Pack citation? Was it not available as a mail-order subscription, like as a sop to brick-and-mortar stores or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
Almost every Secret Wars tie-in was fun as all hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:What's with the Power Pack citation? Was it not available as a mail-order subscription, like as a sop to brick-and-mortar stores or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Almost every Secret Wars tie-in was fun as all hell. But was it worth cancelling literally everything else Marvel was doing for it? For as bad as Flashpoint was, it at least had the dignity to not poo poo on any books except Booster Gold, at least until DC decided to New 52 up the place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Did you actually read any of those? They actually have to do with the books they are in, instead of getting derailed because someone is writing about Skrulls infiltrating the MU, for instance. The X-Men crossovers involved buying other books you were probably already buying, like X-Factor or New Mutants. I think you're looking at a lot of the old storylines/comics with rose colored glasses or something. You also keep dismissing some truly lovely comics (Operation Galactic Storm) because "they were lovely". Well great. It was also really lovely that I was only reading Avengers at the time it came out AND I had a pull box so I was on the hook for like $3 (a lot in 1992 junior high money) in order to buy fuckin' part 6/12/18 of a story that had nothing to do with what had been going on in the Avengers. That or somehow find an extra $20 to buy all of the tie-in books I didn't care about. Under what circumstance would this ever be an acceptable way of doing crossovers? I don't care how good the story is, if you're reading Hawkeye and issue 5 is Kate working on a case in LA, then issue 6 is "oh man, Kate's possessed by Mephisto but only appears for four pages, meanwhile WHY ON EARTH have Ms. Marvel and Ironheart changed costumes? And is that Squirrel Girl in Hell?" I don't care if you bring in Your Favorite Writer to show-run that crosover, it's going to be annoying as hell and bad for the person who just wants to read Hawkeye. quote:As far as books go, you just named one-- Thor. I know it's popular to hate on JMS and Bendis (also Hickman oddly) here, but they were writing something different that works better when they get to not have their books derailed by unrelated big story. It's also the part of Secret Wars that I'm least happy with-- making GBS threads on all your other stories for ~6 months is a trash model. See also Avengers during Civil War, where the book gets critically hosed by creeper Mark Millar's lovely event book. In the 1980s, writers were spread all over the country, sometimes the world. If you were a writer outside of NYC (even as close as Long Island, where Peter David was living and raising kids when he was working on X-Factor) your interaction with your editor, much less other writers involved phone calls and maybe sometimes a fax of bullet points of how some other book/crossover was going to involve your book. Speaking personally as a comics reader from the time you were describing, there definitely wasn't anything like the Internet to fill you in on books you weren't reading. You could buy Marvel Age or Comic Buyers Guide to essentially read press releases about what was going on, and Marvel would provide little postcards with checklists for crossovers/events. If you wanted to catch up on a book you could trawl back issue bins for the old issues, there were no trade paperbacks to speak of, certainly no digital subscription services. So even "simple things organized by the creators and offices working on the books" would get awfully confusing if you're trying to collect old issues of New Mutants and you finally find the issues that are tying into the simple clear Mutant Massacre book that I suppose you should really go find other back issues to fully understand, but it's okay, Louise Simonson also wrote some of those. Contrast that with the past ten years. If we're going off of the "DON'T gently caress OVER THE CREATORS AND THEIR DERAILMENT" side of things, I think you're really underestimating the amount of contact and input that most creators at Marvel have with the overall direction of "their" characters and the events. In the periods you're talking about, everyone cited so far (JMS, Bendis, Hickman, Wilson) are people who attended Marvel's regular "summits", so JMS was sitting around for the planning of the Civil War crossover that he launched Thor out of. He sat in when everyone was plotting out Secret Invasion and Dark Reign and Siege and through all of this he put in his request that he be left alone for the period between Civil War and Siege, and everyone agreed, he wouldn't have to deal with anyone else's books for that two year period, Thor would be off of the table in everyone else's book until Siege. He then proceeded to breach that agreement he made by not finishing his book in anywhere near the agreed upon time. Bendis sat around a table with Mark Millar and everyone else and planned out the big beats for Civil War with Ed Brubaker and everyone else. Same with Secret Invasion or Civil War II or any other book. There are obviously things where creators disagree and maybe one doesn't get to tell exactly the story they want to tell and that is not a good thing, but it's also not unique to the current model. At least now those two people generally have the opportunity to talk about it face to face, pitch their ideas to the room, hopefully find an agreeable compromise, and know where things are going when they actually sit down to write their books. Also it is much easier as a reader to understand that if you're reading (say) Ms. Marvel that when suddenly "Civil War II" shows up in the one book you are reading that you just need to read issues of Ms. Marvel in sequential order and that they will tell a coherent story. If you are confused by what "Civil War II" is you can find a plot summary, a recap, probably someone posting half the pages of the story on the Internet in about thirty seconds. If you decide (either while reading the book as it's published, or years later in trades/on a digital subscription service) that you want to know more about this "Civil War II" beyond reading a plot summary, that's also very easy. Would it be nice if everyone had 100% freedom to write exactly what they wanted? Sure, that would be cool. But that will probably never happen, it isn't happening now, it wasn't happening 10/20/30 years ago either, and I still can't see why you feel things were better Back Then, unless the period of "back then" comprises "1987-1991, but only if you're Chris Claremont". Edge & Christian fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
What I didn't like about Civil War 2 was that it seemed hard to sympathize with Captain Marvel's side.Yeah, preventing world-shattering menaces is important, but superheroes do that at the time without resorting to profiling, so it's hard to cheer for her. Is there something else you folks didn't like?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
I didn't read the main CW2 series at all, and continued to enjoy Ms. Marvel just fine since it's competently written and Wilson was able to fold the general narrative of CW2 into it without derailing the story she was trying to tell. This is, as E&C has mentioned, vastly better than Peter David having to write an issue of X-Factor that includes exactly zero X-Factor characters because of a crappy crossover.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:But was it worth cancelling literally everything else Marvel was doing for it? I say yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:What I didn't like about Civil War 2 was that it seemed hard to sympathize with Captain Marvel's side.Yeah, preventing world-shattering menaces is important, but superheroes do that at the time without resorting to profiling, so it's hard to cheer for her. The writing, the art, the fact that nothing happens and the final issue devolves into "Here's advertising for all our other future events." The contempt it had for its readers, the fact that it's a desperate attempt to get Carol Danvers over as a top character and utterly failed to do anything but make her awful, that it lead into another series of #1s that is essentially Marvel NOWer. That fact that it is another Hero vs Hero story of which I am sick to death of. The fact Marvel learned loving nothing from the event and will continue to make stories like it, the fact that it derailed all the books around it, making them sell worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
redbackground posted:I say yes. Agreed. Secret Wars was tons of fun all around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:But was it worth cancelling literally everything else Marvel was doing for it? Absolutely, no question. In fact I could have gone with more issues for most of the tie-ins. Onmi posted:The writing, the art You can say all you want about the writing, but the art on Civil War II was amazing. Marquez is one of the best artists Marvel has had in a long time. X-O fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Quote /= Edit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
As strange as it sounds I felt like knowing that the end of the story needed to sync up with Secret Wars was easier for writers to deal with than having the crossover be in the middle of the story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Edge & Christian posted:I read a lot of them! As for "derailed because someone is writing about Skrulls", there certainly were a lot of (non-X-Men books) that got derailed because someone else was writing about New York being invaded by demons. Acts of Vengeance required everyone to derail their story because someone decided that all of the supervillains were going to trade partners. I might be something of an outlier but growing up I only read New Mutants, not X-Men or X-Factor or Wolverine because the X-Men seemed weird and confusing and my first X-Book was that Warlock vs. Impossible Man annual so I was a New Mutants loyalist. Therefore crossovers like X-Tinction Agenda and even a lot of Inferno turned into New Mutants crossing over with a bunch of books I didn't read or care about. Later in the post-Claremont era, this sort of crossing over not only turned me off of reading all of the X-Men books (I got suckered in by the pre-Image Image Creator hype of gatefold covers and trading cards) until the only book I was still reading was Peter David's X-Factor, which made poo poo like X-Cutioner's Song a real pain in the rear end unless you wanted to buy five other books. Coincidentally this crossover mania, while supported and coordinated with "the office", were bad enough that they were cited by Peter David, Mark Waid, and others as the reason they quit working on the X-Books. But at least they got hosed over by the office, not by another creator! Then why did you bring up Mutant Massacre? The New Mutants story out of that is entirely self-contained. Something weird is happening off panel, but it had basically nothing to do with the story in New Mutants. They get told to not go into the sewers, go in anyway, fight Magus, and nope the gently caress out back to 15th (?) century Scotland with Robert the Bruce. The problem to me is more that it has the marquee on it, so that people would pick it up while it had zero to really do with the stories that were happening in X-Men and X-Factor. The Inferno stuff in New Mutants was basically the same-- a fully separate story running through that book (and the X-Terminators mini, but reading it didn't add anything)while the main story was happening in X-Men & X-Factor. The stakes were 100% New Mutants stuff, and so were the results. I'm not going to defend the poo poo events that happened later in X books because they were poo poo. You are right that they did drive David off his book, and it sucked because he was writing the best X book at the time. The analog to this is to say have X-Factor stop being about the team and do single issue mildly related vignettes for six months-- you know, how New Avengers was hosed over by Civil War (also Secret Invasion, though that was self-inflicted wound by Bendis). The solution is always to not do things shittily in either method. But I can't help but feel that things were better before events were annualized, so books got a chance to really breath and didn't have to waste a third of their issues a year with tie-ins to unrelated events. quote:I think you're looking at a lot of the old storylines/comics with rose colored glasses or something. You also keep dismissing some truly lovely comics (Operation Galactic Storm) because "they were lovely". Well great. It was also really lovely that I was only reading Avengers at the time it came out AND I had a pull box so I was on the hook for like $3 (a lot in 1992 junior high money) in order to buy fuckin' part 6/12/18 of a story that had nothing to do with what had been going on in the Avengers. That or somehow find an extra $20 to buy all of the tie-in books I didn't care about. Under what circumstance would this ever be an acceptable way of doing crossovers? I don't care how good the story is, if you're reading Hawkeye and issue 5 is Kate working on a case in LA, then issue 6 is "oh man, Kate's possessed by Mephisto but only appears for four pages, meanwhile WHY ON EARTH have Ms. Marvel and Ironheart changed costumes? And is that Squirrel Girl in Hell?" I don't care if you bring in Your Favorite Writer to show-run that crosover, it's going to be annoying as hell and bad for the person who just wants to read Hawkeye. The answer is it wouldn't matter how you set up the O:GS crossover because it was a lovely crossover and crossed pretty poo poo books at the time. The solution is to have events that organically involve the characters involved. As an example, you didn't complain that Infinity Gauntlet was de-railing Silver Surfer when it came out and crossed over specifically because Gauntlet was a Silver Surfer story in run up and stakes. You can something similar for Avengers/New Avengers and Infinity or Secret Wars. The other tie-ins were awful, because it was a de-rail for an event, same as when say you have to deal with Skrull or Civil War poo poo loving up an unrelated book. quote:Speaking personally as a comics reader from the time you were describing, there definitely wasn't anything like the Internet to fill you in on books you weren't reading. You could buy Marvel Age or Comic Buyers Guide to essentially read press releases about what was going on, and Marvel would provide little postcards with checklists for crossovers/events. If you wanted to catch up on a book you could trawl back issue bins for the old issues, there were no trade paperbacks to speak of, certainly no digital subscription services. So even "simple things organized by the creators and offices working on the books" would get awfully confusing if you're trying to collect old issues of New Mutants and you finally find the issues that are tying into the simple clear Mutant Massacre book that I suppose you should really go find other back issues to fully understand, but it's okay, Louise Simonson also wrote some of those. Isn't it normal to read all of a creator's books that are coming out? Even your Peter David example had this kind of crossover in it involving the Hulk. quote:Would it be nice if everyone had 100% freedom to write exactly what they wanted? Sure, that would be cool. But that will probably never happen, it isn't happening now, it wasn't happening 10/20/30 years ago either, and I still can't see why you feel things were better Back Then, unless the period of "back then" comprises "1987-1991, but only if you're Chris Claremont". I dunno, I like the idea of not having the status quo of a book hosed up in an event that didn't even happen in the related family of books, or at least a crossover coming out of them. DC was famous for this for years (CoIE and even worse Zero Hour) but Marvel has gotten worse about this over time-- X-Men and Thor both get hosed over in Avengers stories, and everything gets screwed by the Secret Wars reboot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:50
|
|
PaybackJack posted:As strange as it sounds I felt like knowing that the end of the story needed to sync up with Secret Wars was easier for writers to deal with than having the crossover be in the middle of the story. Could you imagine being Tom Taylor and getting told that your final issues need to undo AXIS, setup Bendis' run and also do something for Secret Wars? Dude must've partied when he found out he could just leave the evil toys hanging out and Franklin Richards would put the toys where Bendis wants offscreen.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
X-O posted:Absolutely, no question. In fact I could have gone with more issues for most of the tie-ins. How can you say that? A lot of books never picked up steam again afterwards. I mean, we knew that both Avengers books were done at that point, but say GotG never got back on track, and X-Men just sort of found its footing unless this art fiasco pulls its feet out from under it again. All for 'Memberberry stories.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Aren't crossovers usually "opt-in" deals anyway?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Depends. Secret Wars tie-ins were clearly "well you can write/draw one of these or I guess you can find work elsewhere" given that they stopped the entire line for them. Stuff like Original Sin or CW2 or whatever are like that usually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:How can you say that? A lot of books never picked up steam again afterwards. I mean, we knew that both Avengers books were done at that point, but say GotG never got back on track, and X-Men just sort of found its footing unless this art fiasco pulls its feet out from under it again. All for 'Memberberry stories. You're shooting your own argument in the foot by constantly holding up Secret Wars as an example of a bad event as it's probably the most universally well regarded event the company has had since Infinity Gauntlet and a lot of that is because it used the Age of Apocalypse method of completing upending everything line wide. Which is the thing that also helped Age of Apocalypse be so well regarded for so long.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:How can you say that? A lot of books never picked up steam again afterwards. I mean, we knew that both Avengers books were done at that point, but say GotG never got back on track, and X-Men just sort of found its footing unless this art fiasco pulls its feet out from under it again. All for 'Memberberry stories. oh nooooo, no gotg comics for four months Gonna bet that pretty much every SW miniseries was better than whatever gotg was doing right beforehand anyway. There have also been one billion literal years of x-men comics, they can take it. If shutting everything down was the only way to get Gillen's Siege, which still sticks with me to this day, then alls the better. redbackground fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
I really liked Secret Wars and I'm one who usually hates these Marvel events. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
So going back to April 2015, just before Secret Wars started, GOTG and All-New X-Men were finishing up a crossover (which tied into a bunch of books for like a single issue, including the "conclusion" to the Cyclops solo series, I would add), Uncanny was still in a not-terribly-well received Bendis run, and Wilson was finishing up her run. So yeah, I dunno, I think I would rather read SW tie-ins than any of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
On that note, what were all the "lasting effects" of Black Vortex? Off the top of my head: -Angel has fire wings ...that's all I've got.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Then why did you bring up Mutant Massacre? The New Mutants story out of that is entirely self-contained. Something weird is happening off panel, but it had basically nothing to do with the story in New Mutants. They get told to not go into the sewers, go in anyway, fight Magus, and nope the gently caress out back to 15th (?) century Scotland with Robert the Bruce. The problem to me is more that it has the marquee on it, so that people would pick it up while it had zero to really do with the stories that were happening in X-Men and X-Factor. quote:The Inferno stuff in New Mutants was basically the same-- a fully separate story running through that book (and the X-Terminators mini, but reading it didn't add anything)while the main story was happening in X-Men & X-Factor. The stakes were 100% New Mutants stuff, and so were the results. quote:I'm not going to defend the poo poo events that happened later in X books because they were poo poo. quote:You are right that they did drive David off his book, and it sucked because he was writing the best X book at the time. The analog to this is to say have X-Factor stop being about the team and do single issue mildly related vignettes for six months-- you know, how New Avengers was hosed over by Civil War (also Secret Invasion, though that was self-inflicted wound by Bendis). The solution is always to not do things shittily in either method. But I can't help but feel that things were better before events were annualized, so books got a chance to really breath and didn't have to waste a third of their issues a year with tie-ins to unrelated events. quote:The answer is it wouldn't matter how you set up the O:GS crossover because it was a lovely crossover and crossed pretty poo poo books at the time. The solution is to have events that organically involve the characters involved. As an example, you didn't complain that Infinity Gauntlet was de-railing Silver Surfer when it came out and crossed over specifically because Gauntlet was a Silver Surfer story in run up and stakes. quote:Isn't it normal to read all of a creator's books that are coming out? Even your Peter David example had this kind of crossover in it involving the Hulk. quote:I dunno, I like the idea of not having the status quo of a book hosed up in an event that didn't even happen in the related family of books, or at least a crossover coming out of them. DC was famous for this for years (CoIE and even worse Zero Hour) but Marvel has gotten worse about this over time-- X-Men and Thor both get hosed over in Avengers stories, and everything gets screwed by the Secret Wars reboot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
redbackground posted:oh nooooo, no gotg comics for four months Yup, because 4 months of no book is enough to really de-rail the book and kill its sales in lots of cases. See what happened with OYL back in the day for DC. X-O posted:You're shooting your own argument in the foot by constantly holding up Secret Wars as an example of a bad event as it's probably the most universally well regarded event the company has had since Infinity Gauntlet and a lot of that is because it used the Age of Apocalypse method of completing upending everything line wide. Which is the thing that also helped Age of Apocalypse be so well regarded for so long. I liked the actual event (i.e. more Hickman Avengers stuff) but didn't care for making GBS threads on literally every other book coming out at the time. Some of the stories were very good to great-- I'm remembering the Days of Future Past one being great, and I'm sure there were some other ones. But what about these required dropping everything else that Marvel was doing? At least Flashpoint was kind enough to let all of DC's other books go on without consequence during the event. AoA was okay, but I wasn't as enamored with it as you guys are (it was the thing that got me out of comics as a kid) and I don't think it's really aged all that well. I know, a goon shits on something popular, news at 11. But it was a grim & gritty reboot of the already grim & gritty comics line, and that's pretty much the opposite way we've needed to go since Watchmen first came out. The idea that there were some lasting consequences afterward was somewhat neat, but I'm not sure that X-Man, Holocaust, or Sugar Man really made a mark long term or even middle term. Also, weren't the AoA books actually one to one replacements with the same creative teams? I don't think I had something like that with Secret Wars if I was say read Al Ewing's Mighty Avengers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ericafails/status/854371668202016770
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Yup, because 4 months of no book is enough to really de-rail the book and kill its sales in lots of cases. See what happened with OYL back in the day for DC. quote:Also, weren't the AoA books actually one to one replacements with the same creative teams? I don't think I had something like that with Secret Wars if I was say read Al Ewing's Mighty Avengers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
irlZaphod posted:Power Pack was one of the books in the 1980s which was only available through the Direct Market, i.e. you couldn't get it from a newsstand or a non-specialty shop. What was the reasoning here? You'd think the comic book about adolescents and little kids having capers would do well in the kinds ofk pharmacies and grocery stores where children would be hanging out browsing at the spinner rack while their parents shopped. I know most of the comics I bought before 10-or-11 or so in the early/mid 90s were very piecemeal, just whatever covers jumped out at me at Food Lion or had a character inside that I'd seen a neighbor's sick action figure of-- and even though I very very rarely had two consecutive issues of any given titles I was still coming home with an ok amount of comics per month as far as a tiny kid's disposable "mom, dad, gimme" income goes. Why would you want to take Power Pack out of the reach of this market?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:55
|
|
Archyduke posted:What was the reasoning here? You'd think the comic book about adolescents and little kids having capers would do well in the kinds ofk pharmacies and grocery stores where children would be hanging out browsing at the spinner rack while their parents shopped. Maybe someone had the presence of mind to realize how hosed up the comic was and in how much trouble they'd get if a bible mom accidentally bought it for her kids.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Diet Poison posted:On that note, what were all the "lasting effects" of Black Vortex? Off the top of my head: Groot's redesign stuck around for a while too
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:But what about these required dropping everything else that Marvel was doing? I'd imagine the majority of books that were legitimately hurt by a four-month break were already at or near the chopping block, and wouldn't have lasted much longer, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Edge & Christian posted:I haven't read any of these mutant books in at least twenty years, probably not since roughly around the time they were released. I may have not been deeply confused by the specific books you're citing. I remembered that flowchart and how even Marvel's house ads were giving me the impression I was missing out on poo poo because I wasn't buying every book with the given logo. I did re-read them to go along with a podcast I listen to, and yeah they were their own stories. Or more accurately, for Inferno there was a X-Men/X-Factor story that was big payoffs for both, an Excalibur story, and a New Mutants story with minor points from the X-Terminators mini. I will admit that a bunch of other books got drawn in for no good reason, but otherwise the most the crossover meant core-wise was picking up X-Factor if you were reading X-Men and vice versa. Mutant Massacre had basically no crossover between books, unless you want to count the Thor story crossing with X-Factor. Note that Thor's stuff stood on its own and even actually had some decent Thor-related stuff (Hela's curse reveal) happen in it. quote:Your initial argument was things worked really well from 1986 to 1996, but fine, we're narrowing that to 1986-1991 and the lovely things in that five year span now were just a result of lovely books, and lovely books after that period were also lovely so they were lovely in that time. Great. I agree, but given that the story was six issues of most Avengers punching each other, you ought to just make it an Avengers story and play it out in the actual series. If you want a recent example, see the Hickman FF/F4 stuff, though you'd probably poo poo on that too since somehow someone is reading FF for Bentley or Alex Power and then gets annoyed when he has to read about the Fantastic Four half of the story. You get to have an event (i.e. big sweeping story with high stakes and major characters) without loving over other books in the process. quote:Infinity Gauntlet (and Infinity War, and Infinity Crusade, and etc.) did not derail Silver Surfer, but they sure did end up randomly crossing over into Hulk, Fantastic Four, Deathlok, and other books I was reading at the time. I was also reading the Infinity Gauntlet/War comics but it's hard to argue that all of the weird poo poo with evil clones and Invisible Woman being possessed by her evil clone and an evil Wolverine clone attacking everyone and etc. wasn't a "derail" by your own standards. But also by your own standards, Fantastic Four (and for all I know everything else I was reading) were lovely books who deserved a lovely derail for the lovely Infinity War poo poo. I guess I don't understand what your position here even is, that when Chris Claremont did good crossovers they were good, and all lovely comics from the halcyon days of 1986-1996, or 1986-1991, or the summer of 1989, or whatever period was good were good because they were good, and lovely examples from that period don't count because they're lovely, not like the current lovely period where everything is poo poo? I agree that pretty much all the Infinity War crossovers were awful de-rails, same with the Infinity Gauntlet stuff outside of Silver Surfer and I think maybe Dr. Strange. You could equally say the same thing with Infinity or Secret Wars and every book that wasn't Avengers and New Avengers. They were stupid important plotlines showing up in books without stakes, and have all the resonance of Spider-man teaching the Beyonder to poop. Look, the point I'm trying to make is that crossovers worked better when they were narratively driven by the books in the crossover, and have payoffs for them. X-Cutioner's Song was this way if the X-Factor portions are ignored, which means it should have been an X-Men & X-Force crossover, or else should have been written to give X-factor more of a point in it. I'm sorry I called a bunch of the 90's Avengers adjacent stuff crap, but looking back on it none of it had any real quality. I read the main series at that time, but god did Bob Harras have zero clue how to write. The only notable thing is that the main villain of the run was essentially an MRA/friend zoned d-bag, but seeing that it was the 90s there was no real commentary on it. quote:Again, i feel like there's a communication gap here. When are you saying that the X-Men and Thor got "hosed over" in Avengers stories? I am assuming for Thor you're talking about Siege, but when did the X-Men get hosed over in an Avengers story? House of M? That would be the one. The line gets rebooted in what was essentially an Avengers event book. If you're going to have a huge status quo change for a book, have it in that book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Maybe someone had the presence of mind to realize how hosed up the comic was and in how much trouble they'd get if a bible mom accidentally bought it for her kids. I mean I got the Uncanny X-Men issue where Wolverine is crucified on the cover at a Ride-Aid or something just fine. Granted I'm not that familiar with late-period Power Pack but was it really anomalously kid-inappropriate in the age of Carnage and three ongoing Punisher titles*? *which may or may not have also been direct market only I guess-- I don't have any Punisher comics from that period, but I don't know if that's because they weren't on the spinners or if my brothe or I just found him scary. I guess I did get the first issue of Punisher: War Zone at a gas station but that was in one of those sealed multi-comic mystery packs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:43 |
|
|
rkajdi posted:That would be the one. The line gets rebooted in what was essentially an Avengers event book. If you're going to have a huge status quo change for a book, have it in that book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:10
|
|