Tony Stark Ironman no more...

[emeraldknight47]

I'm guessing she will be referred to as "Alloy-Wearing-Teenage-Girl," which would be a more fitting name for the character since her alter-ego will be, well, a teenage girl. I think it's more Disneyfication of the Marvel Universe. It's a lot easier to make a teenage girl a part of the Disney Princess line than it would be Tony Stark.

Doom donning the armor will play out similarly, I would imagine, to Doc Ock's taking over of the Spider-Man persona a couple of years ago.

[MIB41]

You know somewhere along the way I think sounder minds on the boards of these companies should step back and say amongst themselves, " We need to create new heroes to broaden our appeal, not reinvent them to exile others." I've never liked these methods because what it ultimately does is ask someone to set aside their years of loyalty to a character to, in effect, get force fed a very pale attempt at social messaging. In my eyes, it's arse-backwards because it caters to stereotypes rather than asking them to stand on their own and be accepted on their terms, not some "fill-in" for a traditional character. I think it insults everyone from all sides of the equation and creates more discourse than understanding. You never gain insight by asking someone to give up part of their identification with heroes to understand someone else. At best its divisive because it falls into this "conform or be judged" attitude that holds plenty of prejudice under it's own rule of "compliance". I'm a big believer in diversity and tolerance. Life is short and I believe in getting along and respecting everyone who treats me well. But those are choices I make for myself. In these kinds of instances, they don't give me a choice. They take one away and say I MUST see it this way and to me that caters to those old school ideas I thought society was trying to remove itself from. How is skewing social behavior a good principle when the only thing that changes is who is dictating the terms? It's either a collective decision or it doesn't work. This doesn't work. And don't even get me started on the artistic side of it. All of this mixing of characters is starting to read like a story intended for "mash-up" figures. " Hey lets put a Spider-man head on a Hulk body! Let's make Dr. Doom Iron Man!" It has a familiar ring to it...

[Brazoo]

This article came out today in The Washington Post:

"The resurgence of comic books: The industry has its best-selling month in nearly two decades"

It lists many contributing factors for the growth, but broadening the appeal of comics is listed as a key to this upswing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/12/the-resurgence-of-comic-books-the-industry-has-its-best-selling-month-in-nearly-two-decades/

[EMCE Hammer]

I'm all for broadening the horizons, but I'd prefer it be done in a multiverse approach. Why can't I have Peter, Miguel, Miles, etc? Why does one need to be at the expense of the other? It's the difference between growth and replacement, between progress vs. change for the sake of change.

[samurainoir]

I'm all for broadening the horizons, but I'd prefer it be done in a multiverse approach. Why can't I have Peter, Miguel, Miles, etc? Why does one need to be at the expense of the other? It's the difference between growth and replacement, between progress vs. change for the sake of change.

For the most part this is exactly what's going on if people are actually paying attention. It's a have your cake and eat it situation with multiple versions of the characters running around in a buffet style of choose your own version in whichever comic/character you wish to purchase or not or ignore.

Tony has been starring in TWO titles the past year. was anyone else around here actually reading these books besides me? The Dr Doom thing comes as no surprise to me because he's been co-starring in Invincible Iron Man for close to a year now. Mary Jane also joined the cast and is now Iron Spider, and I was actually expecting her to get the spin-off title.

Peter, Miles and Miguel all have their own books. For those that hate that Peter is now living Tony Stark's life in the primary Amazing title, they are even adding a book starring the Peter from Renew Your Vows who is married to Mary Jane still and has a daughter. Plus, Spider-Gwen, SpiderWoman, Silk, Webbed Warriors, etc. ALL of this stemmed from Superior Spider-Man which took the lone 616 Spider-Man book and eventually created an entire Spider-verse of titles. Which then gets exploited by Disney into cartoons, video games, action figures, movies etc. Success on this level spawns similar strategies. rinse, repeat.

Kate Bishop was actually co-starring concurrently with Clint Barton in Matt Fraction's relatively extended run on Hawkeye, and though she stars in the new titular Hawkeye book, Barton as Hawkeye still has his own book, Occupy Avengers.

Jane Foster Thor is the titular star of the book, but Odinson Thor still pretty much co-stars. It's also a continuation of plot threads that have been running through the title for years now, and consistent in quality, so I keep reading it because Jane Foster had become a very engaging character starting with the set-up prior to her becoming Thor. I won't ignore a good read simply because it's wrapped up in a high concept marketing pitch of All New All Different.

Steve Rogers finally has his own Captain America book again, as does FalCap, as does Winter Soldier who has consistently had his own series since he spun out of his tenure as Captain America. It also strengthens the likelihood that Falcon would be able to sustain his own series after all of this (and his movie appearances), since we all know he's going to relinquish the shield eventually.

and beyond this stunt with Iron Man, as we've seen time and time again, starting when Reign of the Supermen spun out Steel and Superboy, or even as far back as when Rhodey took over as Iron man, eventually spinning out as War machine a few years later. Thus single character titles become a "family" of titles. Remember when one Green Lantern Book eventually became a half dozen a few years ago following the return of Hal? How only Batman spinoffs seem to be the only titles that can successfully launch over at DC?

I predict Tony's back in the armour within the year (if they don't actually keep him on board the new books or some other Avenger title) and this new character gets her own book as Iron Woman or Iron Maiden or whatever, and Dr Doom spins off into his own book as well. It's become the formula to successfully launch new books rather than just simply have a Dr Doom spinoff book or this new black female character spin off into her own book first without the added media attention the national press announcing her existence to the world as "Iron Man".

Bootstrapping/piggybacking however you call it has become common practice because it's been consistently the only means that has successfully launched newer characters into their own solo series in the past decade or more (outside of having TV/movie media tie-ins like the entire Guardians of the Galaxy cast).

as always, some of these experiments are good, some are bad. I'll pick up both the new Iron man books because I've been enjoying the current titles written by Bendis. I'll read them for myself and I'll decide if I like them or not based on the writing. I like what I like, and sometimes it's just not my cup of tea, and if that is the case, I'll choose to ignore them.

I can barely keep up with the comics that I love and enjoy these days anyways. If there is a book I'm not into, why bother giving it any extra thought? There will always be other creative teams down the road on the title that I might like better and I've never been a completist when it comes to runs on character titles.

[thunderbolt]

They just offed Banner, too. Not sure why they are so intent on getting rid of all the originals. Just for the sake of some PC?

[Bruce Banner]

Yeah, the characters sure ain't what (who) they used to be.

[Brown Bear]

And this is why I don't bring my kids to the comic store.

[EMCE Hammer]

I still take mine, but we stick to the Action Cat and Peanuts area. My oldest is reading some of the SW stuff. Their super hero reading list comes from well-worn trades.

[EMCE Hammer]

For the most part this is exactly what's going on if people are actually paying attention. It's a have your cake and eat it situation with multiple versions of the characters running around in a buffet style of choose your own version in whichever comic/character you wish to purchase or not or ignore.

Tony has been starring in TWO titles the past year. was anyone else around here actually reading these books besides me? The Dr Doom thing comes as no surprise to me because he's been co-starring in Invincible Iron Man for close to a year now. Mary Jane also joined the cast and is now Iron Spider, and I was actually expecting her to get the spin-off title.

Peter, Miles and Miguel all have their own books. For those that hate that Peter is now living Tony Stark's life in the primary Amazing title, they are even adding a book starring the Peter from Renew Your Vows who is married to Mary Jane still and has a daughter. Plus, Spider-Gwen, SpiderWoman, Silk, Webbed Warriors, etc. ALL of this stemmed from Superior Spider-Man which took the lone 616 Spider-Man book and eventually created an entire Spider-verse of titles. Which then gets exploited by Disney into cartoons, video games, action figures, movies etc. Success on this level spawns similar strategies. rinse, repeat.

Kate Bishop was actually co-starring concurrently with Clint Barton in Matt Fraction's relatively extended run on Hawkeye, and though she stars in the new titular Hawkeye book, Barton as Hawkeye still has his own book, Occupy Avengers.

Jane Foster Thor is the titular star of the book, but Odinson Thor still pretty much co-stars. It's also a continuation of plot threads that have been running through the title for years now, and consistent in quality, so I keep reading it because Jane Foster had become a very engaging character starting with the set-up prior to her becoming Thor. I won't ignore a good read simply because it's wrapped up in a high concept marketing pitch of All New All Different.

Steve Rogers finally has his own Captain America book again, as does FalCap, as does Winter Soldier who has consistently had his own series since he spun out of his tenure as Captain America. It also strengthens the likelihood that Falcon would be able to sustain his own series after all of this (and his movie appearances), since we all know he's going to relinquish the shield eventually.

and beyond this stunt with Iron Man, as we've seen time and time again, starting when Reign of the Supermen spun out Steel and Superboy, or even as far back as when Rhodey took over as Iron man, eventually spinning out as War machine a few years later. Thus single character titles become a "family" of titles. Remember when one Green Lantern Book eventually became a half dozen a few years ago following the return of Hal? How only Batman spinoffs seem to be the only titles that can successfully launch over at DC?

I predict Tony's back in the armour within the year (if they don't actually keep him on board the new books or some other Avenger title) and this new character gets her own book as Iron Woman or Iron Maiden or whatever, and Dr Doom spins off into his own book as well. It's become the formula to successfully launch new books rather than just simply have a Dr Doom spinoff book or this new black female character spin off into her own book first without the added media attention the national press announcing her existence to the world as "Iron Man".

Bootstrapping/piggybacking however you call it has become common practice because it's been consistently the only means that has successfully launched newer characters into their own solo series in the past decade or more (outside of having TV/movie media tie-ins like the entire Guardians of the Galaxy cast).

as always, some of these experiments are good, some are bad. I'll pick up both the new Iron man books because I've been enjoying the current titles written by Bendis. I'll read them for myself and I'll decide if I like them or not based on the writing. I like what I like, and sometimes it's just not my cup of tea, and if that is the case, I'll choose to ignore them.

I can barely keep up with the comics that I love and enjoy these days anyways. If there is a book I'm not into, why bother giving it any extra thought? There will always be other creative teams down the road on the title that I might like better and I've never been a completist when it comes to runs on character titles.

What your saying doesn't sound bad at all. My lone Marvel pull is a guilty pleasure - Punisher. He's mostly been an island, Frankencastle notwithstanding, which I enjoyed.

I know I am not the target demographic of DC or Marvel. My opinions are based mostly upon what I read ABOUT the big two, not FROM the big two. They sucked so bad for so long that I quit and don't foresee myself going back. I can't blame them for not marketing to me. My money goes to back issues and my kids' reading.

[samurainoir]

Clint Barton... not gone and stars in his own title. If folks don't buy this by the pant load and by the pound, you have nothing to complain about! Vote with your wallets, otherwise the teenage girls will win comics for all time.


Folks are also not deprived of Logan either... because he's also got an ongoing title that you guys aren't buying. In anticipation of what is rumoured to be the third Wolverine film. This is a title we can all relate to around here, as Logan struggles with near-sightedness and those kids who keep walking across his lawn.


Steve Rogers is back. and you don't even have to worry about being a nazi sympathizer if you buy the title... it's all a cosmic cube twist as revealed in the second issue.


Odinson Thor not only has a co-starring role in The Mighty Thor, he basically took centre stage back a couple of issues ago as well.

[Brazoo]

I honestly don't get the PC angle a lot of you guys are taking. I honestly don't get what politics has to do with this. If the books were smash hits they wouldn't be re-tooling them. Also, why would Marvel dedicate their billion dollar brands to diminishing and aging markets? I mean, let's face it, the 40-50 age group we're in isn't a growing market share — we're not keeping the sales up and we're literally dying off (not to be too morbid) — catering to us doesn't seem to yield any future growth for these brands.

Personally, the main reason I was drawn to Iron Man back in the 80s was because I thought it was interesting that Iron Man was taken over by a new character. The idea of a new hero taking over a classic hero was alluring, because I loved the history of Marvel, but it also bugged me that I missed so much of it by the time I was reading comics. Picking up a book with a hero I knew, but with a new beginning was the exact thing that originally excited me about Iron Man and I followed that title for years.

[MIB41]

I honestly don't get the PC angle a lot of you guys are taking. I honestly don't get what politics has to do with this. If the books were smash hits they wouldn't be re-tooling them. Also, why would Marvel dedicate their billion dollar brands to diminishing and aging markets? I mean, let's face it, the 40-50 age group we're in isn't a growing market share — we're not keeping the sales up and we're literally dying off (not to be too morbid) — catering to us doesn't seem to yield any future growth for these brands.

Personally, the main reason I was drawn to Iron Man back in the 80s was because I thought it was interesting that Iron Man was taken over by a new character. The idea of a new hero taking over a classic hero was alluring, because I loved the history of Marvel, but it also bugged me that I missed so much of it by the time I was reading comics. Picking up a book with a hero I knew, but with a new beginning was the exact thing that originally excited me about Iron Man and I followed that title for years.

Speaking for myself, the entire comic scene is just fundamentally different from the era I read them in. From the 60's to the mid 80's my heroes kept an ongoing story line. There was a degree of pride from writers in keeping continuity with the characters whether it was in their own book or in crossovers. There was even recognition offered for readers who ever spotted a legitimate error in back story contradictions. So there was an investment in what you read. These characters were treated as if they were somehow "real" and growing with us. But there was really no major shakeups in their appearance or secret identities. Each writer came in and added layers to the one that came before to try and evolve these characters so you as a reader had something to follow and evolve with as well. Then came Spider-man and the Symbiote costume. Then the death of Superman. Then the infamous cloning of Peter Parker. Continuity suddenly became a lost art and now writers could go back and do revisionist stories and suggest it really wasn't as we once thought. And if those ideas didn't work out because they wrote themselves into a corner and sells dried up then they would just reboot it...or kill them off...or give the costume to someone else.

So from my perspective, the worst part of the reading experience has become the very framework from which comics are designed today. No one is ever who they seem. Roles are interchangeable and heroes are more about the costume than the cause. Everybody gets a turn being the SAME hero. So it's no longer about continuity or really a ongoing story line or character you can invest in. Heroes are now just a platform for social statements rather than character building. Now I don't expect the times to stay with me as I get older because I have understood for several decades that I am no longer the key demographic here. I get it. But I do think it's unfortunate that comics have been reduced to a constant and cheap headline about who wears the suit to sell issues. The origins of that new identity is the industry catering to the stereotype. For me it's the simple fact they've eliminated a character that was there for a specific cause. A personal journey. It's the industry basically saying, it's the costume, not the person, which for me is demeaning. Unfortunately that's what today's generation is about. It's the social media age. People need something to debate, examine, revile, or "reform". And unfortunately the superhero has become the host for many of those ideas. If that sells comics now then I guess it's doing as it should. I realize the comic industry must constantly reinvent itself to remain "viable". But from my perspective there should still be an artistic expression to these transactions that is timeless to ANY generation. The writing arm of this industry appears to have gone from serious fiction to more of a national Inquirer/TMZ sensibility.

Now while I may no longer be the primary demographic nor a key contributor to that particular branch of the industry (for comics anyway), I would be hard pressed to believe the merchandise and movie division does not consider my corner quite viable for the degree of product created and priced with my pocketbook in mind (all of which goes to fund the comics division). So I wouldn't go as far as to suggest our generation are without merit in this industry, but clearly not an audience for the content of comics. That much is crystal clear. But seeing that we clearly contribute to the industry that funds it, I think its more than fair to offer a voice in what we see.

[hedrap]

It's become the formula to successfully launch new books rather than just simply have a Dr Doom spinoff book or this new black female character spin off into her own book first without the added media attention the national press announcing her existence to the world as "Iron Man".

Bootstrapping/piggybacking however you call it has become common practice because it's been consistently the only means that has successfully launched newer characters into their own solo series in the past decade or more...

This is exactly correct...and also the problem. Think about the process in play.

1. Take an established character and split them away from their book-title identity.

2. Treat the book-title like a brand and insert a new character who is 180 opposite from the original character.

3. PR Hype and market new character as a correction to the company failures of the past.

3. But - keep original character around to buoy title-brand so the new character can be established.

4. Then eventually PR Hype and market re-insertion of original character.

I honestly don't get the PC angle a lot of you guys are taking. I honestly don't get what politics has to do with this.

Because that's how Marvel/Bendis is literally justifying all of this.

Marvel Comics’ diverse new cast has stirred some controversy among a subset of fans.
Some of the comments online, I don’t think people even realize how racist they sound. I’m not saying if you criticize you’re a racist, but if someone writes, “Why do we need Riri Williams we already have Miles?” that’s a weird thing to say. They’re individuals just like Captain America and Cyclops are individuals. All I can do is state my case for the character, and maybe they’ll realize over time that that’s not the most progressive thinking.

But increasingly we see less and less of that. Once Miles hit, and Kamala Khan hit and female Thor hit — there was a part of an audience crawling through the desert looking for an oasis when it came to representation, and now that it’s here, you’ll go online and be greeted with this wave of love.

Why did it take so long to turn the Avengers from a team of mostly white dudes into a more diverse array of characters?
Talking to any of the older creators, it’s the thing they said they wish they’d done more of — reflecting the world around them. It just wasn’t where the world was at at that time. Now, when you have a young woman come up to you at a signing and say how happy she is to be represented in his universe, you know you’re moving in the right direction.

That is all from one Time interview. He's declaring who is/is not progressive based on the reaction to these changes. He claims their is a whole new wave of fans coming in because of this, but the sales numbers don't bare that out.

Also, his claim about the old creators is revisionist junk. The old guard did change with the times.

What he's implying with "wish they'd done more of" - is they didn't use superhero comics to push for social change. Bendis is justifying his use of comics for advocacy as brave as the old guard wasn't, but he ignores that he's only able to do this because the old guard built a foundation which became a multi-billion film franchise. That bedrock lead to a 4Billion merger with Disney. Without it, Marvel would have been bought by DC nearly twenty years ago.

So instead of saying "they went as far as anyone could in the entertainment world for their time"...he throws them under the bus. And if you disagree, you're a racist. If this was happening under the guidance of Busiek and Waid, this doesn't turn into an unfolding disaster. But it is.

We look to the 80's Marvel/DC reboots with fondness because the company decision may have been market-driven but the editorial choices were creative inspired. When you read Byrne's how and why from his 80's books, he's not citing political or social concerns. He talks about the past direction of the character and what happens when you move them in another way. Bendis is the opposite. He looks externally for what interests him and figures out how to apply it to whichever title. That's why the Hulk Death doesn't work: it's just a marketing/plot device for what he really wanted to write.

[samurainoir]

Here's the other thing... the comics, at least from Marvel and DC's perspective (though the trickle down does seem to affect the others with Hollywood interests) are no where near as profitable as the merchandising, video games, movies, and TV stuff.

These days, comics are a drop in the bucket when it comes the Billions on the table. What is clear is that for the past decade or so, they exist as almost purely R&D for Disney/Warner to mine IP and exploit into every other forms of much more profitable media.

The reason why they seem to be creating new versions at a ridiculously escalated clip is because each one of these new iterations is an additional IP/license they can exploit.

With the royalty programs as well, it benefits creators much more to create these new versions than to write the originals... which is a far cry from thirty years ago, so why not create a new female Thor or Nova or Hulk. One that instantly becomes a series of action figures and skin in whatever Marvel Universe video game app, or cartoon. And if it shows up on the Big Screen? Big bucks!

wrap this up into the ADD of the comics COLLECTING public that comprises print comics these days, and the culture of Instant Collectible that has increasingly permeated the industry for the past quarter century, then both companies are forced to put out new #1's every single year now in order to maintain their market share. With the audience fatiguing of the constant new #1's, there also needs to be a hook for the dozens being released. So voila.... we have the industry that we have today.


We can easily blame the folks in charge, and the creators, but the buying public is equally culpable because Marvel and DC are simply giving people what they seem to want. At least according to their sales statistics over the past decade, their customers want constant novelty and variants and only spinoffs of popular franchises and not new original characters who instantly die on the vine.