The Big Picture: Secret Crisis

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

LordTerminal:
Goddamnit Marvel, this likely means no more Kamala Kahn, the new Ms. Marvel. And she was the only one that gave me a reason to keep giving you money.

I hate this company nowadays. I really, REALLY do.

EDIT: This likely also means no more Wasp, Avenger's Academy cast, Squirrel Girl, "vampire Jubilee" (Yes you heard me) and every other B-D List superhero that I actually like and wish got better treatment because of this. What happened to the movie line being it's own thing?

Why would they get rid of Ms. Marvel? The upcoming movie about Captain Marvel is still called Captain Marvel so it's unlikely they're changing it for brand reasons.

Wasp would still be around given her kinda necessity for Ant/Giant-man's entire character. Squirrel Girl still runs on popularity power so she's not going anywhere.

And the Avengers Academy has pretty much already been ruined by Arena and Undercover, so if they want to reboot that I'm all for it.

As a very casual guy when it comes to comics (as in I only peek in every now and then to see who is dead again, who's been resurrected again, and who they've replaced with a non-white or non-male character) I don't really like the sound of this idea. I always kinda liked having two different universes, since it allowed them to do basically whatever they wanted in one while keeping the other relatively normal (you know... normal for comics). Miles Morales in ultimate? Cool. As long as we still get good ol' Pete in one of these universes. But Morales possibly taking over the mantle of Spider-Man in the mainstream continuity despite being from an alternate universe? Severely less cool. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

I tried hard to like Ultimate but never could stand it...

inu-kun:
BTW, what about Magneto? Unlike Cap he lived ever since the end of WW2, so eventually... well... he'll get pretty old, no?

I know Magneto has been de-aged at least once in the books and was turned into a baby. Then later he was re-aged back to an adult. I'm pretty sure after Fatal Attractions and the end of the Age of Apocalypse story his age was fiddled with.

schwegburt:
Easy 1 sentence ret-con: His Magnetic powers also affects his aging process like Wolverine's healing factor does.

I'm pretty sure that they did this, actually. I could be wrong though....

Also, I'm pretty sure that The Punisher's history still has him as a Vietnam veteran and, at least in the Max publications, he has aged. But he's also died, worked for angels, came back to life, got turned into a Frankenstein monster and got better. So yea ....

wetfart:

inu-kun:
BTW, what about Magneto? Unlike Cap he lived ever since the end of WW2, so eventually... well... he'll get pretty old, no?

I know Magneto has been de-aged at least once in the books and was turned into a baby. Then later he was re-aged back to an adult. I'm pretty sure after Fatal Attractions and the end of the Age of Apocalypse story his age was fiddled with.

schwegburt:
Easy 1 sentence ret-con: His Magnetic powers also affects his aging process like Wolverine's healing factor does.

I'm pretty sure that they did this, actually. I could be wrong though....

Also, I'm pretty sure that The Punisher's history still has him as a Vietnam veteran and, at least in the Max publications, he has aged. But he's also died, worked for angels, came back to life, got turned into a Frankenstein monster and got better. So yea ....

wiki

Despite being a teenager during the Holocaust, due to being de-aged to a baby and re-aged to his prime as well as later rejuvenated by the High Evolutionary, Magneto has the body of a man in his prime.

As for Punisher after Garth Ennis reimagined the character its wide speculated that hes not human anymore and is more a spirit of vengeance like Ghost Rider. Marvel leaves Punisher entirely up to the writers imagination and he doesn't adhere to any kind of canon anymore hence going through silly nonsense like his Frankenstein period. I like it that way It makes punisher, like dead pool, more fun.

jaibryan:
this is not a reboot. the continuity is still there, the characters are still there but they are taking that universe and fitting it together with other universes on a new planet. nothing is getting rewritten. i'm surprise how many comicbook people aren't getting this.

That's how I look at but I disagree with Bob, I think the movies are playing in to this change up more than he is willing to admit. I predict every comic book characters that Marvel does not own will be written out or become a B character. Which is fine with me because FOX has no idea what to do with what they have, I have do not faith that the next x-man movie will more than a re-telling of mutants vs humans. At least with the Fantastic Four's new movie they are trying something new.

Now is the age of the inhumans

Funny thing is, the 616 Marvel Universe already has bald and black Nick Fury, and he's the illegitimate son of the original white version (who always sounds like Solid Snake or the younger version of Big Boss when I read his dialogue; it's the eyepatch), and he was introduced in one of the "sequel" miniseries of Fear Itself. It also introduced the 616 version of his best friend and fellow vet (from Afghanistan or Iraq) Phil Coulson. And yes, they're agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and they lead the Secret Avengers.

And Bob should be commended for not immediately jumping on the "It's just like DC's New52!" train. I liked the analogy of "while we're rearranging the furniture, we might as well vacuum".

Strangely, for all the talk Bob did about how "functional" the MU is, I've noticed that when other characters guest star in each other's solo titles, and in team books, they all "sound" different to me, like they have different attitudes and personalities in guest appearances and team books than they do in their solo titles. But I guess it all Depends On The Writer.

Cool one Bob. Thanks for soldiering on. I appreciate it, as I'm sure your many fans do too. I don't know a dang thing about comics. I rely on guys like you and Linkara to fill in the details for me. This was an interesting perspective on how the business of comics and movies circle each other in an attempt to harmonize more profitably. Feel better dude! Drink lots of water and get lots of rest bruthah!

This was great, and I laughed out loud when Bob mentioned that the Avengers movie didn't cause people to run out and start buying comic books, because that's almost exactly what I started doing after seeing the movie.

I do have to correct Bob on something. That was the original intent of the ultimate universe, but that ship sailed early on. After about it's 3rd year it had well become apparent that this was not about anything for new fans, but an extended exercise in revamping things like fanfiction writers. It was understandable that yes, for the first few years we'd need to re-set up the universe, the supporting cast and the villains, but few stories ventured out beyond the revamping and fewer didn't rely on showcasing ultimate Cable, ultimate Thanos, Ultimate Deadpool.... you get the point. And those were before Ultimatum when things went downhill as they go into Ultimate Xorn, Ultimate Machine Man, and yes, Ultimate Damage Control (talk about running out of characters.)

In many ways, I think that's why they want to go reboot instead of using the Spider Verse story, or the already established connection between the two worlds (yes, they've crossed over) because it gives the writers several years of playing to the fanboys that thrive on theorizing what could happen. I mean, using the new 52 as an example, under normal circumstances, seeing Iris West's angry nephew means little, but since he's Wally West, one time Flash in old continuity, instant hype over inconsequential story arcs that take up pages. You can get years out of repurposing heroes, villains, and storylines.

Of course it's hard to say what they'd save from ultimate Marvel. The stories they did write left a lot of decimation and death in their wake. They were never shy about killing characters, and few X-Men or Ultimates have made it to the end of the line, and too many of those that did are carbon copies (does 616 need another Kitty Pride even if it is one that sucker punched Galactus). Ultimate Spider Woman had always felt like a missed oppertunity to tell a story about the gender identity issues of a very literal transgendered character. And while this is probably all being done to find some way to spare Mile, I've never felt he's been a good character to read about, alternating between daddy issues and inferiority complexes to Peter for most of the time he's been around. I mean, to date I haven't heard much to sugest that if he were white, people would care about him any more than they do about Sam Alexandar (the guy that absconded with the Nova book). Gwen stacy was always cool, but we have Spider Gwen now.

Comments have been made to sugest that this has been planned and the seeds placed for a few years now, so I imagine they wanted do to some housecleaning for a while now, but it seems odd to do it amid some high profile character changes and new books.

Sliding time lines have always bothered me, The Simpsons being on the othe biggest culprits.

Evonisia:
So if they downplay the X-Men and the Fantastic Four as suggested in the video, I wonder whether they'll do the same with Spider-Man. Unless Spider-Man was already unimportant, I wouldn't know.

Spider-Man is a billion and a half dollar a year character. That's how much money he makes for Marvel and Disney, not how much the movies make That money goes to Sony.

There is no one that comes close to making that amount. The avengers as a unit makes under 500 million dollars for the company. The X-Men makes close to 700 million.

Marvel isn't downplaying Spidey because it would deprive them of 1.5 billion dollars a year.

Marvel isn't pissed off they can't use X-Men, the FF, or the mutants in the movies. Marvel isn't downplaying them at all. That's just fanboys projecting their anger about not seeing everyone in the approved universe.

Redd the Sock:
And while this is probably all being done to find some way to spare Mile, I've never felt he's been a good character to read about, alternating between daddy issues and inferiority complexes to Peter for most of the time he's been around. I mean, to date I haven't heard much to sugest that if he were white, people would care about him any more than they do about Sam Alexandar (the guy that absconded with the Nova book).

I havent read Ultimate Spidey for a few months, but I always felt Miles's run got pulled into events and crossovers too often for him to forge much of an identity of his own. There's nothing wrong with him by any means, but i've never found much to get excited about

The continuity thing still surprises me. It seems like it would be a lot easier just to have "arcs", and then say that each arc is basically its own self-contained "universe" different from other versions of the character. Then have time flow relatively normally within each arc, or slower/faster as needed.

Heartsib:

I'd suggest giving Dark Horse, Image, Boom!, and IDW a try. They cover pretty much all the genres that just don't seem to work for Marvel and DC.

As for SW...*shrug* I'm buying two books from Marvel solely on the basis of character loyalty. If those vanish in the aftermath of this event, I can spend my money elsewhere. With the exception of Ms Marvel, I haven't seen anything 'wow' worthy from Marvel or DC for a while.

Hmm. I've heard good things about Boom! twice now. I'll give the titles from the companies you've mentioned a look over, thank you. I was told the new Sandman is worth a buy, if nothing else than for the art. I also heard the new She-Hulk held an interesting premiss... but was canceled.

That's a wise way of handling things. Showing support or disapproval with your wallet tends to get more notice from companies than raging with fellow fans.

PetiteMoogle:
Hmm. I've heard good things about Boom! twice now. I'll give the titles from the companies you've mentioned a look over, thank you. I was told the new Sandman is worth a buy, if nothing else than for the art. I also heard the new She-Hulk held an interesting premiss... but was canceled.

That's a wise way of handling things. Showing support or disapproval with your wallet tends to get more notice from companies than raging with fellow fans.

I find voting with my wallet plus a few words to my LCS guy (the customer Marvel actually values) is the way to go.

If you're looking for recs, my current faves from the alternate publishers are:

Image: Lazarus, The Autumnlands, Manifest Destiny
Boom!: The Woods, Suicide Risk
Dark Horse: Usagi Yojimbo, Resident Alien
IDW: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Little Nemo: Return to Slumberland
Oni: Princess Ugg, The Sixth Gun
Misc: Gold Digger, Princeless, The Deep

TheSaylesMan:
The only contributions the Ultimate Universe should bring over are the mentioned Miles, Jessica Drew (Ultimate Spider-Woman and gender-swapped clone of Peter Parker) and Ultimate Reed Richards (aka Mr. Fantastic). He turned evil because he's a fundamentally different character than the classic Reed Richards. He also turns out to be a way more effective villain that any iteration of Dr. Doom. He destroyed Washington DC and in the process killed the President, the Cabinet, Congress and probably the Supreme Court though I don't think they ever mentioned that. There were so few people left that the Secretary of Energy was the guy next in line to inherit the Presidency. He gets defeated in an incredibly anti-climactic way because they replaced the author of that book with a new guy for the resolution but all in all he was pretty fun to read.

Not likely, to be honest this seems to be something that Marvel's brass has been wanting to do for a while. The whole "Ultimate" universe was an attempt to reboot things for more modern (at the time) and liberal sensibilities. It started out being really popular, but never panned out the way they wanted it to, and the ongoing Marvel universe still wound up being their financial mainstay. That said some people used the "Ultimate Universe" as a testbed for some radical ideas they wanted to play around with, and most of them wound up being pretty bad, which is why it was something green lit for the "Ultimate" universe, despite that it pretty much kept surviving.

DC had a similar relationship with it's old "Wildstorm" imprint, Jim Lee's universe which it bought out. Despite flagging support (apparently nobody wanted to be in the "B" product lines) it had some IPs which were doing really well, and the most recent "New 52" reboot wound up bringing a lot of Wildstorm's characters into the main DC continuity, which in some cases is funny as some of the Wildstorm characters that were popular enough to be transferred more or less intact were intended to be analogies to various DC heroes to begin with... I could fill up a post explaining all the back and forth here along with some of the obscure but amusing "if you got it" things that transpired.

At any rate the thing is that with the whole "Ultimate" line they were actually using the characters, not new characters directly intended to resemble old ones with some changes by way of doing some meta-story telling based on how the guy this was based on would behave and how the version in this universe behaves. For example Wildstorm has several "Superman" analogies all based around different guys wanting to show some different takes on the schtick. Majestic, Apollo, The High, etc... all version of Superman with various personal touches and personality modifications. As a sort of joke "Welcome to Tranquility" revealed that three of them even used to hang out together in the 1950s (I think it was) as a team. "The Authority" was a huge reconstructionist take on having the power of a group like the JLA and actually setting out to create "A Finer World" albeit nobody ever really got it right after Warren Ellis dropped it. The Authority and latter-iteration Stormwatch also killed legions of enemies all based on well known DC and Marvel characters. The whole "Elite" storyline for Superman was a sort of in-universe rebuttal where Superman deals with a similar group based on The Authority and manages to justify holding onto his status quo. That said you can say have Jenny meet Manchester Black because they are quite different characters even though they are direct analogies to each other (and behave quite differently when the chips are down). Majestic and The High are different enough where they can co-exist alongside Superman without much problem. On the other hand while they might act differently the Ultimate universe still has Spider-Man being Spider-Man or whatever. I'm probably not articulating that well though.

It's going to be touchy to see what happens with Milo Morales because he's become a left wing political darling, but to actual comic fans he's sort of a joke. As the old "Marvel Heroes Online" joke goes, he's got the best selling comic that nobody actually reads. Basically it sells so well because it's considered to be historic, but very few people actually like the character. To perhaps add insult to injury consider that the same game, run by Gazillion will pretty much buy any license for a skin or whatever that they think they can make a buck on. We have so far seen enhanced costumes (new animations and voice work) for Spider Man featuring both "Superior Spider Man" (Doctor Octopus as Spider Man) and Spider-Gwen have both been released though so understand they haven't been being super-picky. As a general rule Milo Morales and Sam Alexander are probably the two most hated "reboot" characters in existence despite having some decent sales. That same game literally delayed releasing Nova by a year or so because nobody would pay to play as Sam Alexander, so they licensed Richard Rider, recorded his voice and animations, made him the default, and made Sam (the original default) into an enhanced costume... one which I don't think I've ever seen anyone buy and play.

If I had to guess the whole point of the reboot is going to be a combination of two things. One is going to be to shake up the status quo to get attention and sell comics, and then of course make more money whey they say "heh, just kidding" and restore that said status quo. In the long run I anticipate part of the point will be to get rid of characters like Sam Alexander, and promote certain B-list properties viewed as potential blockbusters to great prominence in the universe especially if they are going to be reducing the roles of the X-men and spin offs in the universe, which started to take everything over in the 90s.

I'm guessing, but of course could be wrong, that we won't see a lot of ethnicity swapping or replacing long-standing characters with new people due to the entrenched fan bases. That said I do expect they will likely take a lot of minority super heroes and such and at least try and give them more focus. Marvel actually has a pretty diverse roster despite what some people like to think, it's just that few of those characters ever really sold well or achieved much
of a fan base. If say they decided to do a major push on Cloak and Dagger, Cloak being black and the real heavy hitter of that team (massive dark force manipulator, gateways, absorbs people) which for some reason I suspect they might be gearing up for, the big question is of course going to be whether anyone is going to show up and buy this comic without some kind of "in your face" controversy attached to it, Milo Morales style.

What they are going to do with Nick Fury is going to be an interesting question since he's the other big "World War II" character running around, and his interplay with Captain America because of this in the comics is classic. It's also a big part of why Nick Fury is able to do some of the things he does with SHIELD, he's literally been building his assets, contacts, and organization, longer than most people have been alive and functional. That's in part why even after basically razing his own organization to the ground (in the comics Nick Fury brought down SHIELD at one point) he's been able to rebuild it, and wound up with it in the same basic place in record time. What's more he has a lot of fans (like my father believe it or not).

Samuel L. Jackson apparently got the role of Nick Fury in the movies by putting Marvel under duress. That's a big part of why I don't think he's going anywhere and he's likely to ride that movie gravy train all the way to the station as opposed to quitting (indeed I'd imagine they would love it if he did). What happened here apparently was that when they were doing "The Ultimate Universe" they decided it would be funny to re-create Nick Fury in the image of DC's Amanda "The Wall" Waller, so instead of having some old World War II spook, they created a more modern character with tons of attitude (of a different sort) and they also thought it would be amusing to draw him as Samuel L. Jackson (or close to it). This wound up being a big mistake as rulings against guys like Todd Mcfarlane (Spawn creator) established precedent that drawing comic characters that look like established celebrities is not protected speech. Todd Mcfarlane got sued by the real "Tony Twist" (Hockey Player) for making a gangster in his comics called Tony Twist that looked like him as a sort of homage... and he lost big time. Apparently Sam Jackson agreed not to sue Marvel under the agreement that if they ever did movies he would get to play Nick Fury, at the time this was agreed to easily, but when these movies got planned he showed up, agreement in hand, and a law suit ready to go over the use of his image which could be fought using those existing precedents. This has been discussed for a long time, and I doubt we'll ever know all the details for sure, but the bottom line is that I'd be VERY surprised if they made a main universe Nick Fury that looks anything like Sam Jackson at this point... the last thing they need is to start regularly publishing material that gives him hooks.

Also while it's again a rumor, I'm guessing the biggest black super hero in Marvel's stable is potentially going to be Misty Knight who might be undergoing a lot of promotion in the near future. Allegedly while the comic as a whole got a mixed reception her role in "The Fearless Defenders" went over pretty well, she's also going to have a key role in the upcoming Netflix "Defenders" series. She's basically a detective with a cybernetic arm, allegedly one of the major plans for her is to power up her cyberware (without most of it being all that overt) especially seeing as Marvel is going to be a bit light on cyborg characters since a lot of the big ones like Cable (well sort of) are tied to franchises like the X-men. Time will tell if this is going to be true however. That said for those to who such things matter, the big thing to do is to buy the books.

I don't think it will just be the Ultimates universe, as there were a lot of good ideas in alternate realities that merit more full-time attention. Gwen Stacy: Spider-Woman for example. Yeah, that'd mean packing in way more Spider-people than normal, but there's a huge and popular Spider-Man arc (strange, I know) going on right now all about Spider-Man encountering other Spider-Men (and -Women) from alternate realities. Indian Spider-Man, British Spider-Man, Punk Rock Spider-Man, Anime Spider-Man complete with Giant Kaiju-Fighting Robot, etc. It's a lot of fun if only for the sake of seeing all the different flavors of Spider-Man even if the main plot about some kind of planeswalking clan of magic cannibals is a little bland and is dragging out a little long.

Point is I anticipate more cherry-picked ideas from Marvels universe's finding a home on Earth 616 and then a little reality shuffling to explain that they've ALWAYS been on 616 and all the stuff that happened to them in their own universes happened but is integrated into the 616 continuity. Miles becomes Spider-Man to avenge Peter's death but it turns out the Peter he saw die was a clone or some such nonsense.

inu-kun:
BTW, what about Magneto? Unlike Cap he lived ever since the end of WW2, so eventually... well... he'll get pretty old, no?

Actually

Kahani:

V4Viewtiful:
The movies being the axis to the comic I think is a Dumb Idea because eventually the movies will reboot and try something new and all that stupid "synergy" will be wasted for short time gain.

The thing about that short term gain is that it's really, really big. Check the numbers here, for example. In 2008, the first year of the MCU, Marvel made $125 million from publishing, and $250 million from films. That being from two films including their first ever (Iron Man), and their worst reviewed and worst performing one (Incredible Hulk). So their first experimental foray into films, including their closest thing to failure to date, produced almost double the money that their comics did. Jump forward a few years and they've had more than one film make over a billion just at the box office. Throw in DVDs, merchandising, and so on, and they're easily making the same from one film that they could in a decade of comics.

And the thing is, comics aren't some constant thing that can always be relied on. They've never died out entirely, but they've had some serious downs. Marvel even went backrupt in the '90s. Messing with the comics to support the films might not last long term, and it might compromise the comics in the short term, but since a single successful film can easily cover problems with the comics for several years at least, I really don't think it can be called "wasted". Certainly not from Marvel's point of view at least. And of course, even if it doesn't work out in the long term, they can just do another reboot 10-15 years down the line. Which, let's be honest, is probably going to happen anyway.

The problem is this ignored the practice of Hollywood accounting. While the gross may show that the movies are doing way better then the comics that doesn't mean the net ie PROFIT is.

One example of Hollywood accounting is _Return of the Jedi_ which has made to date $475 million just at the box office and was budgeted at $32.5 million. Yet according to Lucasfilm in 2009 that film "has never gone into profit"

_My Big Fat Greek Wedding_ which made $350 million at the box office and cost just over $6 million to make supposedly LOST $20 million according the Gold Circle Films.

Another example directly related to this is Stan Lee's agreement for 10% of the net of the 2002 film _Spider-Man_. Despite the film making more than $800 million in revenue Marvel Enterprises claimed that the movie made NO PROFIT. Stan Lee of course sued.

The movies could be the WORST place for these character to go.

Comics aren't as weird as they are convoluted! So does this mean that the comics and movies exist in the same universe, or just similar universes now?

Haru17:
Comics aren't as weird as they are convoluted! So does this mean that the comics and movies exist in the same universe, or just similar universes now?

Similar and unconnected. Seeing as Mutants and other such things exist that don't exist in the movies.

I think you should be worried the mainstream is screwing with geek culture to the point they're diminishing importance of characters due to movie rights issues.

At least until the movie trend is no longer profitable.

I'm a little annoyed by all the hype surrounding this event, really. Mostly because I'm kinda afraid I'll be spoiled on who dies and who gets a starring new role since I'm a little behind (I'm still catching up on Original Sin). Beyond that, I get the premise. It's supposed to be a helping point for jumping into a new chronology for new readers, like the New 52 launch was supposed to be. But I stopped reading most of the DC titles because right out of the gate they were already tripping over themselves with trying to establish their place in the greater continuity. Understanding that everything happened more or less over a really wobbly ~30 odd years while most characters didn't age wasn't a problem, really. The answer was "because comics". But I'm getting the feeling they're going to try and do that kind of continuity reset here with Marvel, and...ugh. They just introduced a bunch of new characters and series. The timing just feels...terrible, really. Why do all this new stuff before a giant change, if the giant change is barely going to affect them? It's just odd.

maximara:
The problem is this ignored the practice of Hollywood accounting. While the gross may show that the movies are doing way better then the comics that doesn't mean the net ie PROFIT is.

Note that the link I posted did not say anything about box office gross, it was Marvel's actual financial reports. That $250 million is how much money Marvel actually made from films in 2008 - it's explicitly noted to be net income. Importantly, whatever games they may have tried to play with the numbers there, the stated figures for publishing and film are directly comparable since the same games will have been played with both.

Sure, the billions I referred to made by Avengers and the like was simply raw box office take, not counting production and advertising costs but also not counting DVD sales and merchandising, so it's hard to know exactly how much Marvel have made from any specific film. But the example of their 2008 earnings clearly shows that even their less successful films make multiple times more for them than their publishing arm. Iron Man and Incredible Hulk together cost about $300 million to make and made about $800 million box office. Avengers cost $220 million and made over $1.5 billion. Given a known net income of $250 million from the former, assuming a net income of over $600 million from the latter isn't at all unreasonable (since Marvel is now owned by Disney, their financial statements are mixed together so I can't find any actual figures on this). So a realistic estimate of income based on actual financial statements with no Hollywood accounting involved suggests that Marvel's more successful films will likely make the amount as 4-5 years of comics.

Note that I'm not trying to argue that Marvel would necessarily be right to screw with their comics in order to try to get more out of their films. I was just pointing out that claiming any benefits would be wasted because the gain would only be short term isn't really a good argument, because even the short-term gain is potentially large enough to make it very worthwhile for Marvel from a financial point of view. Whether they're actually able to produce such a gain in practice is a very different question.

Just remember, it's all Franklin Richards' fault! lol

Also, Bob, do that many people give you crap about your voice? I don't live in the comments so maybe I've just missed a lot of trolling, but I don't think your voice is that big of a sticking point for the enjoyment of your videos, IMHO. Honestly, I wouldn't even have noticed anything had you not taken the time to snarkily point it out prior to the title card. Not a complaint really, just more of an observation.

jaibryan:
this is not a reboot. the continuity is still there, the characters are still there but they are taking that universe and fitting it together with other universes on a new planet. nothing is getting rewritten. i'm surprise how many comicbook people aren't getting this.

I get it. I think it's stupid idea. IF Marvel or DC had the balls to do a hard reboot where everything gets reset back to basics I would have no problems with it. The problems with both the New 52 and the New Marvel Universe (or whatever they call it) is the cherry picking of certain works and ditching the rest because it's not popular or not popular anymore. With the New 52 all of Grant Morrison's work on Batman and all of Geoff Johns work on Green Lantern remained, but what about Peter David's work on Aquaman or Supergirl? Chuck Dixion's work on Robin and Nightwing. Alan Moore's work on Wildcats and Deathblow?

If Marvel said that Secret Wars III (or is it IV) would result in the complete and total end of the 616, Marvel UK, Ultimate, MC-2, 2099, and New Universes and what would follow would be a clean slate where none of the convoluted continuity would be carried over I would be more willing to try the post-SW3/4 Marvel Universe a try. Right now I'll stick to Spider-Man 2099 and Miracleman.

undeadsuitor:
Why would they get rid of Ms. Marvel? The upcoming movie about Captain Marvel is still called Captain Marvel so it's unlikely they're changing it for brand reasons.

Captain Marvel movie in 2017 turns out to be about the original white dude Captain Marvel from the 70's. Carol appears as Ms. Marvel in her love interest role again, Kamala Khan is wiped from continuity because "Carol Danvers was always the most iconic Captain Marvel."

And if you think I'm crazy, ask yourself, would this sound like a weird story if it were coming from DC?

Kahani:

maximara:
The problem is this ignored the practice of Hollywood accounting. While the gross may show that the movies are doing way better then the comics that doesn't mean the net ie PROFIT is.

Note that the link I posted did not say anything about box office gross, it was Marvel's actual financial reports. That $250 million is how much money Marvel actually made from films in 2008 - it's explicitly noted to be net income. Importantly, whatever games they may have tried to play with the numbers there, the stated figures for publishing and film are directly comparable since the same games will have been played with both.

Sure, the billions I referred to made by Avengers and the like was simply raw box office take, not counting production and advertising costs but also not counting DVD sales and merchandising, so it's hard to know exactly how much Marvel have made from any specific film. But the example of their 2008 earnings clearly shows that even their less successful films make multiple times more for them than their publishing arm. Iron Man and Incredible Hulk together cost about $300 million to make and made about $800 million box office. Avengers cost $220 million and made over $1.5 billion. Given a known net income of $250 million from the former, assuming a net income of over $600 million from the latter isn't at all unreasonable (since Marvel is now owned by Disney, their financial statements are mixed together so I can't find any actual figures on this). So a realistic estimate of income based on actual financial statements with no Hollywood accounting involved suggests that Marvel's more successful films will likely make the amount as 4-5 years of comics.

Note that I'm not trying to argue that Marvel would necessarily be right to screw with their comics in order to try to get more out of their films. I was just pointing out that claiming any benefits would be wasted because the gain would only be short term isn't really a good argument, because even the short-term gain is potentially large enough to make it very worthwhile for Marvel from a financial point of view. Whether they're actually able to produce such a gain in practice is a very different question.

Did you even READ what came after the part you quoted?

One example of Hollywood accounting is _Return of the Jedi_ which has made to date $475 million just at the box office and was budgeted at $32.5 million. Yet according to Lucasfilm in 2009 that film "has never gone into profit"

_My Big Fat Greek Wedding_ which made $350 million at the box office and cost just over $6 million to make supposedly LOST $20 million according the Gold Circle Films.

Another example directly related to this is Stan Lee's agreement for 10% of the net of the 2002 film _Spider-Man_. Despite the film making more than $800 million in revenue Marvel Enterprises claimed that the movie made NO PROFIT. Stan Lee of course sued.

If a movie that supposedly cost only $140 million and made $800 million (a ratio of 5.7) also made NO profit and a movie that cost just over $6 million and made over $350 million ( a ratio 58.3) also made NO profit then a movie that had had a 6.8 ratio (your Adventures example) could just as easily make NO profit.

According to Gold Circle Films not only did they somehow spend the $344 million between the movie cost and its box office gross but another $20 million on top of that
.
That is just how messed up accounting is in the movie making industry.

As you noted Marvel and Disney financial statements are mixed together to the point you don't know where one ends and the other begins how do you known any of the profit came from Marvel and not the Disney arm, hmmm?

Marvel already tried rebooting it's continuity with Heroes Reborn, a crossover event where an interdimensional being called Onslaught pretty much killed every superhero team in the Marvel Universe and Franklin Richards shunted them all to a pocket dimension in order to protect them. The deceased heroes were than 'reborn' and had to restart their lives from scratch. It didn't last very long, the only impact being Rob Liefeld's hideous artwork.

this video addressed one of marvel comics' biggest hurdles, and it's actually something i wanted to make a forum topic about...

people like me (people who LOVE the marvel characters and lore but who aren't really into comic books) are not opposed to reading comic books, but i think the biggest problem is availability and marketing. firstly, comic book stores feel so densely esoteric that they feel unnapproachable at best and downright hostile at worst. this may not be your experience, but i've frequently been "bullied" out of nerd culture on a local level because they assume i don't belong because i had a 15 inch mohawk and a studded jacket... anyways, that's a different topic i want to talk about.

i don't like comic books. but i like graphic novels. this may only be a distinction that exists in my own mind as a misnomer, but i've read the Jonny The Homicidal Maniac series countless times. and even though the anthology Z? has slightly less content, i generally read that version. why? it's a complete book, not a flimsy little tabloid.

and that's what marvel should do. instead of serial issues, i'd much rather buy one collector book. but these things are already available, i assume. so why don't i buy them now? because they aren't a Marvel STORY collectable, they're a marvel COMIC collectable. And one of the hurdles i personally have is my aversion to comic book style art. i never could stand it. in what my brain catagorizes as "graphic novels" the art is much... better? that's not the right word, i'm looking for an objective quality here, but really, "better" sums it up so well.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.