| Author |
|
Greg Woronchak
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 September 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1631
|
| Posted: 09 March 2017 at 9:29am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Do people here talk to younger readers, newer readers, and female
readers?
I see Marvel as targeting very specific, narrow demographics, which is well and good. However, when I started collecting in the 80s, I felt that titles catered to everyone and anyone (the magical 'all-ages' demographic), which is something the Big two have strayed away from.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Bill Collins
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 11295
|
| Posted: 09 March 2017 at 11:51am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
All we want is to read good stories,in concise arcs or
one issue,featuring the characters we grew up loving.It
seems that Marvel took Stan`s edict of not giving the
fans what they think they want far too literally!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Andrew W. Farago
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4079
|
| Posted: 09 March 2017 at 2:31pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Of course, we could get a "back to basics" approach soon enough:
http://www.comicsbeat.com/did-marvel-already-miss-the-boat-o n-thor-700/
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Charles Valderrama
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4830
|
| Posted: 09 March 2017 at 4:03pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Honestly, I'm not sure Marvel knows WHAT "back to basics" is anymore.
Maybe they need a focus group of diverse readers to critique them.
-C!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Michael Casselman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1246
|
| Posted: 09 March 2017 at 4:55pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Reverting to old numbering is the new go-to gimmick when it's advantageous. All it is is a "New #1" gimmick by another name. Just like when they reverted Wonder Woman in time for it's 600th issue. Of course, we can see how well that worked out, as it's now on number.... what, now...?It's also why Detective and Action are being allowed their legacy numbers, as close to 1000 as they both are (and published twice-monthly, creeping up on it faster than ever).
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Skelley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 February 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 231
|
| Posted: 09 March 2017 at 8:05pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Conrad Teves wrote:
| it's worth noting those superhero characters were designed for younger audiences. There's a perfectly good reason they weren't replete with swearing and sex. |
|
|
I'm not sure I'm tracking what you're trying to say here. I said that comics (super-hero to be precise as I doubt Avatar makes anything remotely kid friendly) should either be for kids and we older people should fade off (prob the case) or we should just completely drop the pretense that kids matter for modern comics. If comics are for kids then they should be relaunched and updated from time to time as new readers pick it up, much like movies/TV does.
Conrad Teves wrote:
I mean the Big Two are afraid to do anything new. |
|
|
This I don't get at all.. I may not be a fan of what Marvel is attempting to do, but it is new. I don't recall anyone replacing Wolverine before (could be wrong) let alone with his younger female clone.
Greg Woronchak wrote:
| I see Marvel as targeting very specific, narrow demographics |
|
|
I'm assuming (please correct as needed) that you're referring to the aging fan here. If anything Marvel is attempting to widen it's demographics with it's replacing characters with minorities.
I think Marvel's mistake of late is trying to have their cake and eat it too as they're attempting to refresh it's lineup and diversify it so everyone can have someone they identify with. They're attempting (badly or good depending on your view) to keep it's aging fans happy while making the line open to new readers. It's a no win for them as the aging fan hates anything that isn't what they've loved all their lives, and yet the characters are still buried under decades of history that makes it hard for new readers to know what's going on.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2230
|
| Posted: 10 March 2017 at 1:50am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Brian>> I said that comics (super-hero to be precise as I doubt Avatar makes anything remotely kid friendly) should either be for kids and we older people should fade off (prob the case) or we should just completely drop the pretense that kids matter for modern comics. If comics are for kids then they should be relaunched and updated from time to time as new readers pick it up, much like movies/TV does.<<
I'm in favor of comics for everybody. A full-spectrum market. As for kids, the industry has not considered itself particularly kid-friendly for some time. Recall this ad for C2E2. Pair with the section of the population which is certain that the entire medium must be for kids and any exceptions are aberrations: "No Self Respecting Adult Should Buy Comics or Watch Superhero Movies" <-you'll forgive me if I find many of the opinions in that article offensive, but he does have one point. Many of these characters were originally written for 10-year old boys. Changing them to be palatable to adults in particular changes what they are. They were better off just creating new designed-for-adults IP for an older market if they wanted to reach an older market. Also, that should be too, not instead. I'm sure you could change Winnie the Pooh to be attractive to cynical 40 year-olds, but is it really Winnie the Pooh anymore?
Brian>>This I don't get at all.. I may not be a fan of what Marvel is attempting to do, but it is new. I don't recall anyone replacing Wolverine before (could be wrong) let alone with his younger female clone.<<
This is just permuting the visible attributes of a character/concept to roll a new one that has the same "badge." Lady Deadpool, Spider-Gwen, DC's Earth-11 (<-woo! They're all gender-swapped!), arguably the entire Ultimates line, etc. The Big Two are stuck in an IP box that they won't get out of and can't see there's so much more they could do. Anything they try has to fit in the "Universe" they've created (or alternate universe), which immediately places huge limitations on the product.
How often do they try something that (at least initially) doesn't fit in the Marvel Universe in any way? That's not superheroes? That used to be all the time, but not so much anymore. Where's the Scif-fi, Horror, Westerns, War Stories, Historical Fiction, Comedy, Romance? All very broad genres by themselves, and all used to be pretty common. DC (to it's credit) has the Vertigo line, but experimental pieces can be done within the DC imprint proper if they wished (even if they wanted to make them less adult-oriented). Mostly what the Big Two do is desperately cling to their aging IP like it was the only thing there is to do. I strongly suspect the reason so few new characters have been created (relative to the 60's) is just concept saturation. But it's not saturation of the medium, it's saturation of the playing field that they themselves built.
Honestly, even within the existing genres, a single change can be profound. I like using James Bond as an example of how sensitive characters can be to more internal changes. Take a Bond movie--say, Casino Royale--and have all the same actors, dialog, action, fx, etc. but have Daniel Craig play Bond with normal-people confidence. Suddenly it's a completely different movie that's about something different and we haven't changed a word of dialog--just how it's said. His conversations with women might now come across as creepy, his humor as defensive, etc. His ability to sleep with women after just having killed people as...a little disturbing. But of course, an internal change like that would make him not James Bond.
If you'd like a suggestion for something Marvel could do to have some "new" happen, would be to ban healing-factors and see what happens...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Matthew Wilkie
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 09 March 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1139
|
| Posted: 12 March 2017 at 1:38pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Was everyone this upset when Rhodey replaced Tony for a couple of years back in the mid-eighties, and again in the early nineties?
***
I was thinking the same and likewise when Steve Rogers had a stint in the black costume and was no longer called Captain America. I never read Thor but was mindful of Beta Ray Bill and the frog storyline too.
And you're right, there was no furore that I can recall about any of these stories at the time - but the difference, I think, was that these stories were allowed to evolve naturally. They weren't pitched as events and, given the way the market worked, you literally found out about them when you bought them from the newsagent.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 8515
|
| Posted: 12 March 2017 at 2:04pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
In my neighborhood, there was discussion around the comic store and considerable blowback from the fans concerning the Captain & Rhodey storylines back in the day. Those changes occurred after a rumor had come out that Jim Shooter was planning to end the current Marvel Universe and replace the characters, one by one, with those of his own devising, presumably out of ego. He'd reportedly made a statement that whoever had the hammer was Thor. Whoever carried the shield was Captain America. Whoever wore the armor was Iron Man, and whoever put on web-shooters could be Spider-Man. Fans were upset that these changes were paving the way for even greater ones to come.
The focus of the tumult at the time had less to do with the stories themselves and more to do with the guy supposedly puppet-mastering the entire shady affair, but the overall tone was not positive.
The Beta Ray Bill story played into all this, but quickly veered away from it as Thor was back as Thor in the very next issue. The frog bit was more of a "we did it before; dare we do it again?" joke a couple of years after the fact. Even then, that wasn't a replacement Thor. That was just Thor himself made a little more green and warty.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Matthew Wilkie
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 09 March 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1139
|
| Posted: 12 March 2017 at 2:53pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I guess I was reading those issues totally cold. I had no insight other than what I read.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mario Ribeiro
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 June 2016
Location: Brazil
Posts: 474
|
| Posted: 12 March 2017 at 7:14pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Good to know that there is some explanation for Doom's behavior.
I know many dislike hero replacements in general. I don't. What bothers me is taking one of the top villains in comics and making him a hero. Didn't we learn anything from Magneto?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike Norris
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4274
|
| Posted: 12 March 2017 at 7:25pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
One of the problems I have is Doom isn't an Iron Man villain. If Victor von Doom wanted to turn over a new leaf, start a new FF and call himself "Doctor Fantastic" I could almost buy it. I think replacement should have some connection the original. Sam Wilson, Bucky or even John Walker taking the Cap ID works. Rhodey becoming Iron Man works. Even Luthor calling himself "Superman" works. Luthor calling himself Batman, not so much. Even though he's closer to being Batman in some respects than Superman.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Topic Closed)
