Tony Stark Ironman no more...

[Brazoo]

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.

I guess maybe because I'm probably a bit younger it doesn't seem that different now to me. In the early 80s (when I first got into Marvel) I got wrapped up and excited about the continuity of Marvel and it seemed like all these significant changes were being made; Tony Stark stopped being Iron Man, Jean Grey died, the Thing left the FF...

Then in the mid-80s Marvel wanted to reset things; Jean came back to life, Thing rejoined the FF, Tony Stark became Iron Man again...
...The original 60s X-Men even came back and got their own book!

I admit, it was disappointing to figure out that I wasn't seeing history being made - I clearly remember being upset by the fact that they could just cheat the story to make changes and pretend like anything inconvenient didn't happen. It's just like you say - you invest yourself in a story or a character and then it changes - it feels like losing something.

But I think that's just the nature of the fact that these aren't creator controlled characters — for better or worse these are corporate brands. The people who wrote all these twists and changes left the books to work on other projects. And what's the longest any given artist or writer will work on a title? Maybe a couple of years at most?

Plus, if the characters are bound to one continuous story with no ending then there are obvious issues with keeping continuity — because while it might be compelling to me, I have to admit — a 67 year old Peter Parker is going to have limited interests for most of the comic-buying audience.

Also, I feel like maybe some of the type of criticism I see online is a bit unfair to the creative people who inherit these storylines and are trying to come up with things to make their work exciting. Some of these characters we're talking about are over 50 years old and there are only so many things you can do to create big and exciting story arcs with characters who have been through everything already without re-tooling the characters. Bruce Banner can control Hulk then lose control a billion more times - at this point who cares? SOMETHING else has got to happen to him. On one hand these big changes might seem cheap or attention grabbing, but on the other hand everything that can happen to Thor has kind of already happened. It seems way less restrictive to play with a new version of Thor for a bit - and possibly more fun for old fans, who get to see new things happen, and new fans, who get to follow this new character's history unfold.

[Brazoo]

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.

To me this is key. It may seem cold for Marvel to treat their comic characters like brands but that's exactly 100% what they are. Brands worth billions.

[hedrap]

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.

100% agreement. Spot-on breakdown.

Brazoo - if you haven't yet, do some research on the 80's reboots and rewinds. It's really fascinating. Book sales were in retrospect pretty rock solid. Not nuclear hot 90's, but Marvel and DC were profitable on publishing alone. The nadir was 1980, but sales surpassed the 70's by '84.

[Brazoo]

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 dunno. When the only media space these companies had to hype their new issue was the cover of the comic I don't think the mentality was much different. It seems like the nature of comic books to try and create bombastic wild events, but occasionally backtrack to return to the stability of the original brand.

[Brazoo]

100% agreement. Spot-on breakdown.

Brazoo - if you haven't yet, do some research on the 80's reboots and rewinds. It's really fascinating. Book sales were in retrospect pretty rock solid. Not nuclear hot 90's, but Marvel and DC were profitable on publishing alone. The nadir was 1980, but sales surpassed the 70's by '84.

This is exactly when I really started reading comics. Around 82 to maybe 86ish was when I was deepest into Marvel. I guess that's why I'm confused by the outrage - I'm really not trying to be argumentative - it just seems like it's always been like this to me.

I'll do more reading on that subject - but if you have any sources you want me to check out I'm in for sure!

Samurainnoir is always teaching me a lot about comic history. He really needs to get a podcast or write a book or something.

[Brazoo]

The only period of superhero comics that is completely repellent to me is that 90s period where tons of heroes became jerk-holes. There seemed like tons of violence and zero positivity to a lot of the characters. It's like the exact period DC superhero movies keeps celebrating. Just seems gross to me.

[MIB41]

But I think that's just the nature of the fact that these aren't creator controlled characters — for better or worse these are corporate brands. The people who wrote all these twists and changes left the books to work on other projects. And what's the longest any given artist or writer will work on a title? Maybe a couple of years at most?

Plus, if the characters are bound to one continuous story with no ending then there are obvious issues with keeping continuity — because while it might be compelling to me, I have to admit — a 67 year old Peter Parker is going to have limited interests for most of the comic-buying audience.

Also, I feel like maybe some of the type of criticism I see online is a bit unfair to the creative people who inherit these storylines and are trying to come up with things to make their work exciting. Some of these characters we're talking about are over 50 years old and there are only so many things you can do to create big and exciting story arcs with characters who have been through everything already without re-tooling the characters. Bruce Banner can control Hulk then lose control a billion more times - at this point who cares? SOMETHING else has got to happen to him. On one hand these big changes might seem cheap or attention grabbing, but on the other hand everything that can happen to Thor has kind of already happened. It seems way less restrictive to play with a new version of Thor for a bit - and possibly more fun for old fans, who get to see new things happen, and new fans, who get to follow this new character's history unfold.

Through the years I did come to realize the comic universe was going to become a parody of itself, if it didn't self-destruct and give rebirth to a new generation. Clearly Peter Parker can't become a grandpa and relate with a 12 or 13 year old. If you live long enough everything in life cycles back around more than once. So there's a degree of deja'vu in certain segments of our cultural experience as older eyes get exposed to fewer elements that come across as fresh and are instead enthralled in allot of recycled concepts that were flushed out many moons ago (when they were young). But like you referenced Bruce Banner losing control of the Hulk a billion times, that plays exactly to the point. It may be a billion times for you, but somewhere in the world it's the first time for a kid opening that comic book and experiencing it as a brand new idea. That's why I wish the heart of these heroes stayed intact, instead of the artists feeling like they need to change the essence of who and what they are and reduce them to a soundbite to sell issues. You see, I got to grow up with my heroes. Today's kids do not.

[The Bat]

Well, here's another book to cancel...at least my wallet likes it.

[hedrap]

[samurainoir]

To me this is key. It may seem cold for Marvel to treat their comic characters like brands but that's exactly 100% what they are. Brands worth billions.

Which is fine if they do have a creative team I enjoy on the title, but this isn't always the case. I enjoy the female Thor, but the lost interest in the new Hulk despite being a fan of artist Frank Cho and really loving writer Greg Pak's previous Planet Hulk epic.

But with Iron Man, I've actually been following the title on and off depending on the creative team for the past few years. Hopped off the title when he went into space and joined the Guardians of the Galaxy, but given Stark's history with Doom in those ridiculous 80's issues where they travelled back in time together, I've got a soft spot for them teaming up as mismatched buddies. IF Marvel does have the FF characters back again, I'd love to see a Marvel cinematic universe movie that pitted Stark against Doom.

I'm also enjoying the character of Mary Jane taking centre stage in a non-Spider-Man title. They really haven't known what to do with her since the dissolved the Spider-Marriage, and as a fan of the character, this is the most character development she's gotten in a while and likely the first time she's been really given a chance to develop outside of her relationship with Peter.

[Brazoo]

Which is fine if they do have a creative team I enjoy on the title, but this isn't always the case. I enjoy the female Thor, but the lost interest in the new Hulk despite being a fan of artist Frank Cho and really loving writer Greg Pak's previous Planet Hulk epic.

But with Iron Man, I've actually been following the title on and off depending on the creative team for the past few years. Hopped off the title when he went into space and joined the Guardians of the Galaxy, but given Stark's history with Doom in those ridiculous 80's issues where they travelled back in time together, I've got a soft spot for them teaming up as mismatched buddies. IF Marvel does have the FF characters back again, I'd love to see a Marvel cinematic universe movie that pitted Stark against Doom.

I'm also enjoying the character of Mary Jane taking centre stage in a non-Spider-Man title. They really haven't known what to do with her since the dissolved the Spider-Marriage, and as a fan of the character, this is the most character development she's gotten in a while and likely the first time she's been really given a chance to develop outside of her relationship with Peter.

I think that's the only way to truly enjoy superhero comics — putting your interest in the creators first. There are some characters I have more of an affinity for, but I gained that connection to those characters through the people who were creating the books at the time. I think when a lot of comic fans put the brand ahead of the creators they're always going to be bound for disappointment.

[Brazoo]

That's why I wish the heart of these heroes stayed intact, instead of the artists feeling like they need to change the essence of who and what they are and reduce them to a soundbite to sell issues. You see, I got to grow up with my heroes. Today's kids do not.

I agree with your sentiment, but I think maybe we have different takes on it. A teenage black girl character taking over Iron Man doesn't trigger any negative emotional response from me. There's nothing about that change that seems like anything meaningful is necessarily being lost in translation. Maybe she's an interesting character with a lot of the same heart and positive messages as Tony had for kids. Again, when I was a kid and gained interest in Iron Man the character in the suit was Rhodes, and I really connected with him.

When I think of the legacy of the mythology of these heroes being ruined I think of Superman and Batman wanting to kill each other. To me, that's sad empty hype. That's the heart of superhero comics that I think shouldn't be messed with.

[samurainoir]

confirming another example of what appears to be Marvel's latest strategy of doubling their market on any given IP, Odinson Thor returns to his own series alongside the Jane Foster Mighty Thor series. Two Thor series to choose from or read both since they are by the same writer and continue the previous story lines of the past couple of years. Looks like another situation where Marvel is asking the reader to vote with their wallets as to which character fans want to continue with in the future. I'm buying both.