For those who haven’t seen the news about the Entertainment Weekly piece yet, Marvel has spilled the beans about its much-discussed post-Avengers Vs. X-Men plans. Under the umbrella branding “Marvel NOW!” the publisher will launch at least one new series every week from October through February 2013, including a new X-Men series by Brian Michael Bendis and Stuart Immonen in which the original X-Men time-travel to the present day, a bi-weekly Avengers series by Jonathan Hickman and Jerome Opena and Uncanny Avengers by Rick Remender and John Cassaday, a series that mashes-up the Avengers and X-Men teams. Some random first impressions:
- Uncanny Avengers sounds like that joke that people started making, back when Thunderbolts was announced as about to be retitled Dark Avengers. “One day, Marvel will have a book called X-Avengers that’ll just mix their two biggest franchises, it’s the only thing they haven’t done,” cynics laughed. Well, at least they got the title wrong.
- Uncanny Avengers also shows that the old Marvel team-up formula still has it: Heroes meet, have a misunderstanding, fight, and then team-up to take on the bad guys. There’s something to be appreciated about that classicism, don’t you think?
- Bendis’ X-Men series sounds… odd. It sounds like a mini-series, doesn’t it? Or something with a finite end, because (a) you can’t just keep characters from the past in their future indefinitely – Something that Marvel seemingly attempted and then abandoned with its ill-fated Captain Marvel relaunch in Civil War – and (b) you quickly run out of reason for this plot device outside of “Oh, they are horrified by what has happened to their world,” surely? Factor in that four of those five characters already exist in the Marvel Universe, and this seems like a weirdly convoluted way to bring Jean Grey back and also keep her dead. On the plus side, at least they’re not calling it X-Factor this time (Well, that title is taken, I guess).
- I wonder if Hickman’s new series means that Avengers and New Avengers will be cancelled and folded into one title? What about Avengers Assemble? Or, for that matter, Secret Avengers and Avengers Academy? Surely we wouldn’t end up with six ongoing Avengers books, one of them bi-weekly, would we?
- One new series every week for five months suggests that Marvel took all of the complaints about DC’s New 52 overwhelming retailers, readers and the market as a whole to heart. I hope it works out for them; it’s a smart move.
- That’s a lot of new titles. Assuming that not every current book will get relaunched along the way – Will Amazing Spider-Man really turn in 700 issues for another renumbering? Really? (Mind you, #700 could be one of those big dramatic end points that leads to a relaunch the following month) – we may as well all start our speculation engines as to what all-new series we’ll get in the next few months.
- I can’t believe, considering the publicity that Astonishing X-Men‘s wedding got, that Northstar won’t be up for a solo book during this cycle. If Gambit and Hawkeye can carry one, then surely Northstar could…
- Launching at least four new series every month for five months is a great way of continually pushing to dominate the news cycle, isn’t it? Well done for that.
- “Marvel NOW!” is a pretty lousy branding for the event. It sounds like a convention panel – DC even has “DC NOW!” at SDCC this year, doesn’t it? – more than a publishing event, and makes no sense: Considering that Marvel has always prided itself on its contemporary nature, they’ve always been NOW!. What makes this NOW! any more important than previous NOW!s?
July 3rd, 2012 at 9:47 am
So a year or so after DC does a big relaunch with more or less the same people writing the comics, Marvel does almost the same thing? Is Marvel copying DC, or it is just how things are now for both companies?
July 3rd, 2012 at 10:03 am
“Is Marvel copying DC”
Not really. After all, this is not a continuity reboot, but simply yet ANOTHER relaunching of titles.
And Marvel’s relaunching of titles again and again and again got old a long time ago. Hell, they just relaunched several X-Men titles out of Schism a year ago. Avengers titles were relaunched a couple of years ago.
July 3rd, 2012 at 10:23 am
It’s the same comics you’ve been reading for years, but different! Somehow it’s different. Just trust us and buy it!
July 3rd, 2012 at 10:39 am
man, that bendis book just shows they are bereft of ideas.
July 3rd, 2012 at 12:08 pm
The Hickman Avengers book sounds interesting, if for no other reason than it makes me think of old JLA stories with the giant cast of characters. I don’t know that there’s ever really been an Avengers book like that (aside from when Busiek tried it for a while).
July 3rd, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Just another dumb relaunch worded differently. And if I remember correctly one of theories being thrown on various boards for the past decade at least was the time traveling Grey. 0 N0EZ SP0OILERZ!1
July 3rd, 2012 at 4:22 pm
I love how #1 supposes that Marvel should never make a comic in case someone on internet might make a joke about. Ugh. How much defeatism can one man revel in?
What was the “ill-fated Captain Marvel relaunch” during Civil War?
SW
July 3rd, 2012 at 5:42 pm
You guys.
Everything that this thing is doing is what the bonkers internet has been asking for for YEARS.
Bendis off Avengers? DONE! Remender and Hickman on more stuff you like? DONE! Comics not late all the time? DONE–WAIT! Remember when comics were late all the time? Of COURSE you don’t, because now they’re EARLY all the time which is another cool thing to kvetch yourselves to death about.
YA CAN’T WIN, COMICS.
July 3rd, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Damn, RF…you nailed it right on the head. All you people bitching about this already, and with the bare minimum of info (aside from the great creative teams) just lost 100% of your credibility from here on out. Freaking fanboys…I’m done.
July 3rd, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Marvel is on such a roll with their movies that why would anyone bother with their silly comic line, which is nothing more than a convoluted mess as it is. Marvel should close up shop and concentrate on their film studio. It’s not like their movie success has translated to roaring sales for their comic line, anyway.
July 3rd, 2012 at 9:52 pm
M.,
So the point you’re making is that the No.1 comic book company in America should close shop?
July 3rd, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Goddamn, I hate this “people complain about this, now people complain about that, they can’t win!” strawman bullcrap the Internet just loooooooves to throw out there. Like the fanbase is this all-composing hivemind that all have one thought.
It’s called opinions guys, and everyone has one. No matter what any company does, someone isn’t going to like it. That is how the world works.
July 3rd, 2012 at 10:54 pm
Graeme seems to be under the impression that the Captain Marvel return during Civil War was meant to be the kickoff to an new relaunch or ongoing, instead of the Secret Invasion trojan horse it turned out to be. I don’t think there’s ever been clear evidence it was meant to be anything more than it turned out to be.
Civil War: The Return does have the distinction of being one of the few Paul Jenkins comics in the last decade that doesn’t make me want to chew my leg off at the knee, so point to that.
July 4th, 2012 at 5:28 am
Alpha Flight volume 5 anyone? Let’s try it with a writer who doesn’t write like it’s a fanfic taking place in it’s own separate universe, and without OOC Marina?
I know, name it Avengers: Canada, then create a French Canadian Avengers and have them squabble but ultimately unite to save the day. Instant success, or so the Marvel formula would indicate.
July 4th, 2012 at 7:06 am
@ Dan Slott – M was talking about Marvel, not DC.
July 4th, 2012 at 7:52 am
@ Stephen Wacker – With all the new relaunches, please use your supreme editorial powers to get Alpha Flight Back – “Avengers North” and put some of Marvel’s marketing power behind it – Add Wolverine to THAT team along with Sasquatch, Puck, Vindicator, Snow Bird, Shaman, Aurora and Northstar and we may just have something there…
@ Dan Slott – Would you like to write that???
July 4th, 2012 at 10:04 am
I’d be all for that Alpha Flight Volume 5, especially if we could get Dale Eaglesham attached to it, perhaps as both artist and co-plotter? I think Dale doesn’t get nearly enough props lately for keeping the Alpha Flight love alive. Love to see what he could do with them as a scripter, much like John Byrne’s original run.
July 4th, 2012 at 10:34 am
@Dan Slott-Why not? It’s not like a huge amount of children are coming into the shops like they used to. The industry is eating its own tail. It’s simpler to follow Marvel’s films because their not bogged down by decades of confusing continuity. DC doesn’t fare so well either, but at least they reboot every now and then, making their universe slightly more accessible.
Not that it matters since I decided to quit. I only come here for info on the latest comic based films not the comics, and certainly not for the video games since it’s obvious the people who cover that have poor taste in games.
July 4th, 2012 at 11:21 am
Jeremy, get over yourself, pal. Despite what you said, the internet is not full of people saying people complain too much or that it’s “bullcrap the Internet just loooooooves to throw out there”.
What it’s full of is just the opposite – people who complain too much with no basis to complain. You call it opinion, I call it bitching, which I suppose is also an opinion. I’m entitled to that too, aren’t I?
July 4th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Sure, Z. That’s what makes the internet great. You can say whatever you like, think however you like, and throw out a bunch of blanket statements to make yourself feel better, and I’m free to think you’re a narrow-minded fool for thinking so.
July 4th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
“Not that it matters since I decided to quit. I only come here for info on the latest comic based films not the comics…”
@ M – If you only come here for “info on the latest comic based films”, then why are you reading AND commenting on an article that is about the PUBLISHING side of things???
Also, those movies you claim to enjoy, take a LOT of inspiration/direction from the expansive history, hard work, creativity and characters of the comics that came before them and they will continue to do so. I’d argue a big part of Marvel’s success is their RESPECT for that very source material. The comics fuel the movies. Without the comics, we would have no movies.
We, the fans, publishers and retailers just need to figure out a better way for the movies to reciprocate to the publishing side, whether it be print and/or digital.
I still want an Avengers North/Alpha Flight comic that you know Marvel would give a fair shake to…
July 4th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
@CapCanuck-In regards to the films, you provided an answer. There are decades worth of stories to mine. A lot of the films’ success and respect derives from the history, hard work, and creativity of older comic stories, and certainly not as much from newer tales. The studios can cherry pick the best stories, and keep a very streamlined movie universe. Look at Bruce Timm’s DCAU. That universe is so much more interesting than the comic version and readily accessible.
I read an article about the publishing side because maybe the industry will make comics worth reading again. I would love for the industry to get back on its feet but as much as the fans complain about its direction they are also at fault for keeping the industry stagnant. Geeks and fanboys are the worst consumers because they will eat all the sh*t that their favourite company shovels into their mouths. Then they’ll b*tch and moan, and yet go back for seconds when it’s offered. Pathetic.
I decided to support the side where the regular consumers outweigh the fandom. A bad film will be made known to the studios, and they will make adjustments to future installments. A bad comic will continue to be sold because the fans are determined to complete their collection.
July 4th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
The problem with all this is – despite the quality, or lack there of, of the new titles – is that it’s reactionary. Marvel and DC have circled themselves for decades, each reacting to the other without forging their own way. While this isn’t a reboot (thankfully), per se, but a “relaunch” it still seems unnecessary. Wasn’t the point of Marvel’s Ultimate Universe to give them the chance to reboot their universe while keeping the original intact? This move has a tinge of what made comics nearly implode in the 1990′s, with relaunches and special covers and gimmicks galore. We now have a time where comics give respect to both the story and art with excellent writers and talented artists. I would love to see them just focus on telling great stories with the characters we have grown up with. That should count for something. It’s more than likely that these titles will be great and we’ll all be enjoying them months from now – my question is: was this move necessary to get to those good stories? Could the evolution of these characters brought us to an equally good place without relaunching? The answer is yes.
July 4th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
AWOO Says:
The problem with all this is – despite the quality, or lack there of, of the new titles – is that it’s reactionary.
Marvel isn’t being reactionary. This is the same cycle Marvel has been following all along. Marvel typically follows these kinds of “Event” crossovers with shakeups or relaunches on various books- often branding them with titles like “Dark Reign” or “Heroic Age”. This has nothing but the most superficial similarities with DC’s New 52.
I’m sure a lot of the Marvel anti-fans just have blue balls because they’ve been making incorrect predictions for a year that Marvel would “copy DC” and reboot the MU. They’re probably frustrated by being denied their “I told you so” moment yet again that they feel like they need to pretend that this announcement is somehow similar to DC’s New 52.
July 5th, 2012 at 12:03 am
“There are decades worth of stories to mine. A lot of the films’ success and respect derives from the history, hard work, and creativity of older comic stories (I agree), and certainly not as much from newer tales (I disagree). The studios can cherry pick the best stories, and keep a very streamlined movie universe (I agree)”.
@M: Are you saying movies can live off the old stuff? I for one would not trust the Hollywood suits to craft an engaging or updated super hero tale without the past stories and present involved comic creators. Origins have been updated, the Avengers movie is an amalgamation of the Ultimates (newer series)and Avengers. I guarantee you we will see Winter Soldier soon in Cap movies. Plus, are they not taking bits of Extremis for IM 3? These are pretty new stories in comparison and I think by bringing newer stories to the movies after the origins, we could see some better synergy with present comics, which, depending on your point of view, could be a good or bad thing. Note to Marvel: Gwen should stay dead.
Yes, movies can cherry pick (but still, not all are successful, look at Green Lantern, Daredevil) – Like a good comic, a good movie depends on TONS of factors.
ASIDE: I agree with you 100% on Bruce Timm’s JL and JLU series. I am a Marvel fan, not really a DC fan, but I LOVED that series and own all of them.
In terms of being ‘bogged down blaming continuity’. It is a double-edged sword. As a kid, I liked learning about what had happened in the past, it was part of the ‘adventure’. Continuity provides a sense of who the character is and should behave and back story. Now, as an adult, what I like is “in continuity” and what I do not is, well, not in continuity.
As an adult, I realize that this is serialized story telling. Not every story is going to be awesome. Mistakes will be made or what I consider mistakes anyways. I want MJ back, yes. I think Marvel dropped the ball with Spidey and made a mistake with keeping Aunt May and ending the marriage. Does that mean it is all crap since OMD/BND? No. Yes, I considered dropping but ultimately I did keep ASM for a variety of factors, but that does not ‘eating whatever they shovel’ me. I did not read A vs X. I don’t read Avengers. I did not buy into the New 52. I dropped USM as I did not like Ultimatum. I’d like to THINK most fans don’t just keep buying stuff they don’t like but bitch about how horrible it is online, but choose based on what makes sense to them.
After all this blabbing, I do wish the companies could just start telling self-contained stories with long over arching smaller stories building in the background like they use to in the earlier days. Event books are no longer ‘events’. I feel like they don’t let stories build off of what just happened before jumping into the next big thing. One of my fave Avengers stories was Under Siege and they only had a few cross-overs into other series, but the “event” was in the title proper, which is how I think these things should be done.
Crappy sermon concluded.
July 5th, 2012 at 5:19 am
@ coming curse
It is reactionary. While it’s not identical it has the same DNA. This has been going on for years: DC does Identity Crisis, Marvel does Identity Disc; DC does Blackest Night, Marvel does Fear Itself; Marvel kills Captain America and he skips around through time, DC kills Batman and he skips around through time. I understand your defense of the company and reaction to overly negative hype, but at least be honest about what the companies are doing.
I love what Marvel has been doing (with the exception of Brand New Day), but disagree with you that this is like Dark Reign or the Heroic Age. Those were natural story progressions. While MarvelNOW ostensibly derives from AvX, the changes to characters and story are far more substantial and are truly relaunches. I do believe that characters should evolve, that’s half the fun of the read, going on this journey with the characters. Relaunches like this don’t evolve the character but reset them. What both companies are trying to do, which is stated in their press releases, is appeal to new and younger clientele. I get that they want to grow and expand their brands. What they don’t get is their audience. Changing everything to accommodate potential new readers is unnecessary – and ignores the fact that the vast majority of these new, young readers get into the genre by being brought in by older readers with the backgrounds already explained.
July 5th, 2012 at 5:51 am
@CapCanuck-It’s been my experience this past decade, or so, that most fans do keep buying comics they don’t like as opposed to readers like yourself who are better able to form a wise consumer based decision, or else there wouldn’t be so much glut on the racks.
In no other type of fandom (the Xbox fanboys, notwithstanding) have I come across such blind loyalty. When I compare the fans of today to what it was like during the ’70s & ’80s. If the direction was unsatisfying people voted with their dollars. Incremental price increases were acceptable because the reasons for the increase were plausible. The ‘events’ were reasonably spaced out over years, retcons weren’t as prevalent, and the death of a major character was absolutely heartbreaking.
The first sentence of your last paragraph is everything that I would love the publishers to do, and yet I find that it is the film studios who are doing it. Sure they’ll make duds like The Hulk and Green Lantern yet I’m a little more forgiving because there are hundreds if not thousands of people who work on a movie than compared to a comic. To get that many people working together to make even an under achieving film is still quite an accomplishment. I’d like to think that the studios learned their lesson from The Spirit and never allow a comic creator near a camera ever again. Now, that movie was the worst of the worst, and I doubt something that horrendous will be greenlit in the foreseeable future. It didn’t even have the ‘so bad it’s good’ quality like the various Punisher films and Batman & Robin.
Anyhow, I wish the publishers good luck and I do hope one day they right the ship, and minimize the amount of boneheaded decisions they make like what they did to Stephanie Brown (poor Batgirl). There is nothing more that I would want than to have the publishers make me love comics again, though.
July 5th, 2012 at 8:28 am
Marvel continues to put marketing over storytelling with all the launching and re-launching. I mean, seriously, HOW MANY TIMES are they going to RE-LAUNCH the Avengers line???? It doesn’t even mean anything anymore because it’s so obvious what they are trying to do. Its a big turn-off for me, a long time fan (over 20 years) and perfect jumping off point. Also, as far as marketing techniques go, MARVEL NOW! is lame. What’s next Diet Marvel?
July 5th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
I just read through the “10 Things we know” article on “Marvel NOW” and I gotta say… I’m confused. Admittedly I’m a DC reader, but with so many Avenger books, and X-Men books… I don’t really know where to start. At least with, let’s say, the JL titles, everything kinda rebooted about the same time. But I’m a bit intimidated by the “NOW” moves. I’m sure the number 1 issues will do well, but it’s a bummer that newer readers will have to rely on a lot of back story…
July 5th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
@AWOO
No, I think this is more like Dark Reign than New 52. DC’s linewide reboot invovled 52 ongoing titles. Dark Reign only involved launching 26 ongoing titles. Based on what we know about Marvel NOW! (1 new series a week, October through February) I estimate that it will involve only around around 15-20 titles being launched. If anything “New 52″ is more similar in scope to Dark Reign than Marvel NOW! You know what that means.
..
NEW 52 IS A RIPOFF OF DARK REIGN!!!! DC HAS NO ORIGINAL IDEAS!!! EAT IT DC FANBOYS!!!