You own Marvel comics (RAR!)

[Elheru Aran]

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute here: What's so wrong with sexualized women in comics? I mean, I get why they do it on the meta-level, and agree that it would be good if there was more variation in character taste, but looking at it from an in-character perspective, if I was a woman with superpowers, I'd wear whatever the fuck I wanted. If I was a man with superpowers I'd wear whatever the fuck I wanted, for that matter. Shit, I'd go around naked like I do at home. Witness my super schlong, muthafuckas. Emma likes to look hot? Who's going to stop her? I'm sure as hell not.

"If you say the words 'boob window,' I will punch you into orbit." --Power Girl

Most of it, craziness aside, boils down to three things: one, most women aren't that level of insanely sexy, thus unrealistic (they say while reading a comic about people who can fly, etc...). Two, it's a bit... overdone? It's not like there are MANY comics where women are portrayed in a more realistic manner, at least in the DC/Marvel mainstream. Three, women with superpowers are still women. They don't (usually) acquire magical powers to keep thongs from riding up their asses or oversize boobs from flopping about uncomfortably, among other things. Same reason men don't typically let their cocks hang out in a fistfight. Sure, it might be a superpowered dong, but if it meets a superpowered boot, it's still going to super-hurt.

[The Romulan Republic]

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute here: What's so wrong with sexualized women in comics? I mean, I get why they do it on the meta-level, and agree that it would be good if there was more variation in character taste, but looking at it from an in-character perspective, if I was a woman with superpowers, I'd wear whatever the fuck I wanted. If I was a man with superpowers I'd wear whatever the fuck I wanted, for that matter. Shit, I'd go around naked like I do at home. Witness my super schlong, muthafuckas. Emma likes to look hot? Who's going to stop her? I'm sure as hell not.

"If you say the words 'boob window,' I will punch you into orbit." --Power Girl

The point is not "Its wrong to ever have a woman who looks sexy." At least not to me- I can't speak for everyone else's opinion on this subject.

The problem is when its done all the time, even when its in contexts where it makes no sense or is downright creepy. Like female superheroes being draw in porn positions during fight scenes, or every female superhero constantly wearing skimpy outfits and having an anatomy that makes Barbie look reasonable.* The message then is basically "No matter what their abilities or what the context, it is a woman's job to titillate men." I fully get why people are offended by that, though to me, its also a suspension of disbelief issue.


*Speaking of which, I seem to recall discussing back when we had a thread about a Barbie movie that a Barbie movie would actually work if done as a superhero film, though I can't see any studio going for it.

Edit: So yeah, if Power Girl wants to have a boob window, and if that fits the character, I've got no objection. But there's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it.

In my opinion, nearly every problem with writing or visual storytelling can be summed up in two words: Consistency, and Contrast. Consistency means that everything fits together in a coherent way- that the world you are creating makes sense, at least by its own internal logic. Otherwise, why should the audience take it seriously? Contrast means that you need variation- do the same thing over and over again, and its dull. Contrast is at the heart of both comedy and drama.

Always sexualizing your female character, regardless of context and individual characterization, violates both these principles, and thereby automatically qualifies as bad writing, on top of the ethical issues regarding sexism and gender roles.

[Sidewinder]

I think the replacement of classic characters with "diverse" counterparts could be better received if Marvel was willing to spend the time (number of issues) explaining WHY a classic character was willing to "pass the torch," and have the classic character spend the time personally TRAINING his/her successor to ensure said successor could do the job.

[Raw Shark]

Two, it's a bit... overdone? It's not like there are MANY comics where women are portrayed in a more realistic manner, at least in the DC/Marvel mainstream.

Agreed. I'm honestly kind of surprised that we haven't seen a major character who is a plus-sized woman by now. Talk about expanding your audience.

Three, women with superpowers are still women. They don't (usually) acquire magical powers to keep thongs from riding up their asses or oversize boobs from flopping about uncomfortably, among other things. Same reason men don't typically let their cocks hang out in a fistfight. Sure, it might be a superpowered dong, but if it meets a superpowered boot, it's still going to super-hurt.

Yeah, jokes aside, I'd probably wear Kevlar to a fight, at least as shorts. No matter how tough my dick is, I'm not doing casual experiments to find out, or going to feel comfortable taking chances.

My girlfriend has sort of this problem. She's about a G-cup (not sure exactly; she got teased about it as a kid and won't discuss it, but they're fucking huge), and has to wear some serious anti-bounce garments to function normally. Sports bra, tight tank top, and tight shirt, and she still doesn't jog anywhere. If she had a superpower, best case scenario would probably be Narwhal from Wildbow's Worm's ability: She possesses an extremely voluptuous figure and mastery over force fields, and uses the latter to create a very form-fitting and... buoyant costume, among other things.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, I do think that some sort of reboot is necessary to start with. Maybe not a "shut down all existing continuity" hard reboot, but definitely some sort of clean slate. A new continuity alongside the old ones, where we put the majority of our focus (and with crossovers between the continuities being rare or non-existent) or an "event" which wiped out most of the universe and establishes a new status quo, though these sorts of things have of course been done before, and haven't helped much, at least as far as I can tell.

From their, some editorial guidelines:

1. Character deaths should not happen often. Character resurrection should happen even less often. If a character is killed, then unless you can sell me a really good pitch for a story to bring them back, like something-that-would-make-Shakespeare-weep-good, then they FUCKING STAY DEAD. At least in that continuity. Which means major characters won't die, because then we'd lose the cash cow. Unless, as I noted, we go with my approach of hard rebooting every five or ten years, which I think is probably the only way that you can practically have major character deaths and really major status quo changes that last (at least in a given continuity) without killing the cash cow.

As an addendum to this rule: if you are going to kill (or maim, turn evil, or especially depict or reference being raped or otherwise abused) a female character: you WILL have to justify, at length, in print, why the themes or plot of the work necessitate this decision. Said explanation will be printed on the official website before the judging eyes of fans and critics. No more "fridge stuffing" or shock-value exploitation of female characters. Or male characters, for that matter.

2. In keeping with the above, focus on how to create drama and high stakes in other ways. Accept that the heroes and villains are basically gods. They aren't going to die, the audience knows it, so don't try to fool them.
Focus on character drama. Have your heroes spend more time grappling with problems that don't revolve around physical combat. Superman, over in DC's world, is perhaps the best example of this. What makes Superman most interesting is not how he deals with a physical threat- its how he deals with the implications of having that much power, when to use it and when not to use it, and how he deals with problems he can't punch. That's why Lex Luthor-as a respectable businessman/Presidential candidate/President-is such a great antagonist for him, in my opinion. Because Luthor is respectable, he's part of the system Superman is trying to defend... and he's also utterly corrupt. He's a problem Superman can't punch. Yeah, you can tell a Superman story where Lex Luthor puts on a suite of kryptonite-equipped powered armour and dukes it out with him, but that's a waste of both characters, in my opinion.

Hell, maybe think about the implications of a world where death is not a real worry, or at least not permanent, at least not for the special people.

Alternatively, for all its flaws, I think Doctor Who can be a good model for how to write a franchise with no real continuity. Now, granted, its a bit of a different case because it only has to deal with one main character, and time travel, around which the whole show is built, is the ultimate retcon device. But its a franchise that has thrived and largely stayed fresh for over fifty years despite having a main character who will never permanently die, because it constantly reinvents itself, works an explanation for that into the premise of the series, and over time has turned the implications of that into a recurring theme- an exploration of identity when one's appearance and even memories are not fixed, but subject to change (which is also a major reason why I feel that a female Doctor is not only a plausible but logical and even creatively necessary step for Doctor Who).

3. All this requires putting more effort into your storylines, so on that note: maybe fewer stories published. Focus on quality, not quantity. Reducing the number of interconnected story lines that readers have to follow to make sense of the world might also make it more accessable to new or more casual readers. Though I don't have the business acumen to say weather this would be likely to be a financially viable model. I do know that fewer books likely means having to charge more for each book, and there's only so much people will pay for comics. Though I'm interested in the possibilities of reaching a larger audience over the internet as well.

In keeping with the "quality over quantity approach", let's also try to attract more celebrated guest writers.

4. In keeping with the above, try to dial down the interconnectedness of the different characters/comics. You shouldn't have to read, say Iron Man to be able to read X-Men and know what's going on. Shout outs and guest cameos and such are fine. Occasional larger crossovers are fine. But keep it reasonable. A work should be able to stand on its own.

And if you are going to have a big multi-character/multi-team crossover (and those should be relatively rare), give it its own self-contained miniseries, obviously, and keep it there. Again, the point is that you shouldn't have to buy twenty different comics to follow one storyline, and I sometimes feel like you do have to, though maybe I'm exaggerating somewhat (hell, probably).

5. Try to dial back the sexualisation of female characters to something vaguely resembling reality. Embrace the possibility of readers who aren't horny, perverted teenage boys. I think, again, that hiring more female artists will help with this, probably. If the "Alt. Right" whines about "SJWs", let them. I'd rather reach a broader audience, and its the right thing to do.

6. Make sure that whoever the continuity guy is, they're absolutely ruthless and has a lot of authority to veto anything that creates plot holes/contradictions.

[The Romulan Republic]

In (much more) short: I think Abrams has the capacity to create visually brilliant moments and likeable and interesting characters.

He just needs someone to exercise stringent editorial oversight on his plots.

[Crazedwraith]

In (much more) short: I think Abrams has the capacity to create visually brilliant moments and likeable and interesting characters.

He just needs someone to exercise stringent editorial oversight on his plots.

Wrong thread? Unless you're suggesting Abrams head up your reboot MCU.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes. Damn it. Meant to put this in the Episode VIII director thread, obviously.

Although... Abrams running Marvel would be hilarious, just to see his detractors scream. But he'd be a terrible choice for Marvel. Like I said, Abrams' strength is largely as a visual director, and with characterization. He sucks at coherent plots, and has a tendency towards gratuitous sexual objectification as well, though thankfully not to Marvel/DC comic book levels. In short, he'd likely exacerbate, or at least fail to adequately address, the main issues I have with Marvel.

[Darth Yan]

So, I do think that some sort of reboot is necessary to start with. Maybe not a "shut down all existing continuity" hard reboot, but definitely some sort of clean slate. A new continuity alongside the old ones, where we put the majority of our focus (and with crossovers between the continuities being rare or non-existent) or an "event" which wiped out most of the universe and establishes a new status quo, though these sorts of things have of course been done before, and haven't helped much, at least as far as I can tell.

From their, some editorial guidelines:

1. Character deaths should not happen often. Character resurrection should happen even less often. If a character is killed, then unless you can sell me a really good pitch for a story to bring them back, like something-that-would-make-Shakespeare-weep-good, then they FUCKING STAY DEAD. At least in that continuity. Which means major characters won't die, because then we'd lose the cash cow. Unless, as I noted, we go with my approach of hard rebooting every five or ten years, which I think is probably the only way that you can practically have major character deaths and really major status quo changes that last (at least in a given continuity) without killing the cash cow.

As an addendum to this rule: if you are going to kill (or maim, turn evil, or especially depict or reference being raped or otherwise abused) a female character: you WILL have to justify, at length, in print, why the themes or plot of the work necessitate this decision. Said explanation will be printed on the official website before the judging eyes of fans and critics. No more "fridge stuffing" or shock-value exploitation of female characters. Or male characters, for that matter.

2. In keeping with the above, focus on how to create drama and high stakes in other ways. Accept that the heroes and villains are basically gods. They aren't going to die, the audience knows it, so don't try to fool them.
Focus on character drama. Have your heroes spend more time grappling with problems that don't revolve around physical combat. Superman, over in DC's world, is perhaps the best example of this. What makes Superman most interesting is not how he deals with a physical threat- its how he deals with the implications of having that much power, when to use it and when not to use it, and how he deals with problems he can't punch. That's why Lex Luthor-as a respectable businessman/Presidential candidate/President-is such a great antagonist for him, in my opinion. Because Luthor is respectable, he's part of the system Superman is trying to defend... and he's also utterly corrupt. He's a problem Superman can't punch. Yeah, you can tell a Superman story where Lex Luthor puts on a suite of kryptonite-equipped powered armour and dukes it out with him, but that's a waste of both characters, in my opinion.

Hell, maybe think about the implications of a world where death is not a real worry, or at least not permanent, at least not for the special people.

Alternatively, for all its flaws, I think Doctor Who can be a good model for how to write a franchise with no real continuity. Now, granted, its a bit of a different case because it only has to deal with one main character, and time travel, around which the whole show is built, is the ultimate retcon device. But its a franchise that has thrived and largely stayed fresh for over fifty years despite having a main character who will never permanently die, because it constantly reinvents itself, works an explanation for that into the premise of the series, and over time has turned the implications of that into a recurring theme- an exploration of identity when one's appearance and even memories are not fixed, but subject to change (which is also a major reason why I feel that a female Doctor is not only a plausible but logical and even creatively necessary step for Doctor Who).

3. All this requires putting more effort into your storylines, so on that note: maybe fewer stories published. Focus on quality, not quantity. Reducing the number of interconnected story lines that readers have to follow to make sense of the world might also make it more accessable to new or more casual readers. Though I don't have the business acumen to say weather this would be likely to be a financially viable model. I do know that fewer books likely means having to charge more for each book, and there's only so much people will pay for comics. Though I'm interested in the possibilities of reaching a larger audience over the internet as well.

In keeping with the "quality over quantity approach", let's also try to attract more celebrated guest writers.

4. In keeping with the above, try to dial down the interconnectedness of the different characters/comics. You shouldn't have to read, say Iron Man to be able to read X-Men and know what's going on. Shout outs and guest cameos and such are fine. Occasional larger crossovers are fine. But keep it reasonable. A work should be able to stand on its own.

And if you are going to have a big multi-character/multi-team crossover (and those should be relatively rare), give it its own self-contained miniseries, obviously, and keep it there. Again, the point is that you shouldn't have to buy twenty different comics to follow one storyline, and I sometimes feel like you do have to, though maybe I'm exaggerating somewhat (hell, probably).

5. Try to dial back the sexualisation of female characters to something vaguely resembling reality. Embrace the possibility of readers who aren't horny, perverted teenage boys. I think, again, that hiring more female artists will help with this, probably. If the "Alt. Right" whines about "SJWs", let them. I'd rather reach a broader audience, and its the right thing to do.

6. Make sure that whoever the continuity guy is, they're absolutely ruthless and has a lot of authority to veto anything that creates plot holes/contradictions.

One change. Be willing to retire heroes after a time. Doctor Octopus in Spider Man 2 was great because he truly had an arc, that culminates in his heroic sacrifice.

I mentioned secret wars because it made Doom's heel turn natural. The new infamous iron man series also does a good job showing Doom trying to be a hero (not everyone trusts him, but at the same time his mother is willing to reconnect with him). It also has the Maker (ultimate reed) as the bad guy so it's interesting seeing doom fighting his former self in a way. Also only have a character death if it's plausible. Lian Harper was stupid because it was cheap shock value.

[Crazedwraith]

Going for the reboot approach your rules look fine. I wouldn't publish their explanations of why characters died online though. At least not until way after the event. Their explanation is likely to contain spoilers. Plus themes and things should be picked up/interpreted by the reader, not posted by the author.

An additional rule I'd have after reading a fair few early arc of ultimate x-men and spider-man. No you can't adapt that old story. Invent your own. And don't compress 40 years of 616 into a few arcs of your reboot. (eg. No Death of Gwen Stacy, No Dark Phoenix saga.)

And just my personal taste edict, which might well go against the business sense one. No crutch characters. Specifically. Your opening line up of X-Men cannot include Wolverine and won't for a long time. Mix things up, use lesser known people. Try and make them likeable. For the soap opera stuff; avoid love triangles. Don't use all the same couples as 616, mix up so long as they make sense in the story.

[The Romulan Republic]

Going for the reboot approach your rules look fine. I wouldn't publish their explanations of why characters died online though. At least not until way after the event. Their explanation is likely to contain spoilers. Plus themes and things should be picked up/interpreted by the reader, not posted by the author.

I was semi-joking about that, but the idea is to shame authors who can't come up with a justification for such things other than exploitation/shock value/sexism. More cynically, it would give the studio executives cover by having a counter argument ready for critics if such a controversial decision is made.

But yeah, wait until maybe a few months after publication, at least if there are spoiler issues

An additional rule I'd have after reading a fair few early arc of ultimate x-men and spider-man. No you can't adapt that old story. Invent your own. And don't compress 40 years of 616 into a few arcs of your reboot. (eg. No Death of Gwen Stacy, No Dark Phoenix saga.)

Agreed.

And just my personal taste edict, which might well go against the business sense one. No crutch characters. Specifically. Your opening line up of X-Men cannot include Wolverine and won't for a long time. Mix things up, use lesser known people. Try and make them likeable. For the soap opera stuff; avoid love triangles. Don't use all the same couples as 616, mix up so long as they make sense in the story.

This reminds me of Nolan's approach to Batman, using less well-known villains in the first film, rather than bringing in Joker immediately.

Huh, I keep using DC examples in a Marvel thread. Probably largely down to the fact that Batman is my favourite superhero, and the one I'm most familiar with (unless you count Buffy as a superhero, anyway ).

[Batman]

Darth Yan brought up Lian Harper who wasn't exactly Marvel either. I think using them for reference or to elaborate a point that applies equally to Marvel is fine.

[JLTucker]

I'd pay to take the movie rights away from Disney.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd pay to take the movie rights away from Disney.

For what reason? And what would you like to see done differently?

[JLTucker]

I'd pay to take the movie rights away from Disney.

For what reason? And what would you like to see done differently?

The movies suck and they keep churning them out.

[Batman]

The people who keep flocking to the movies seem to disagree.

[Gandalf]

I'd pay to take the movie rights away from Disney.

For what reason? And what would you like to see done differently?

The movies suck and they keep churning them out.

Well they're basically a license to print money, so I can't imagine how much coin it would take for DIsney to give up those rights.

I wager it's more than Marvel's total worth.

[Darth Yan]

JL's full of shit. Winter Soldier, Guardians 1 and 2, Civil War, Avengers 1 and First Avenger are phenomenal. Thor 1 and Iron Man are pretty good and even at worst they're mostly ok.

Captain America, Loki, and other incarnations are at their peak here (Chris Evans Steve Rogers is the best incarnation, and Loki is actually a tragic villain while still being a monster); Hell Ego the Living Planet is a downright horrifying villain

[Darth Yan]

I'd pay to take the movie rights away from Disney.

For what reason? And what would you like to see done differently?

The movies suck and they keep churning them out.

Fuck you. As I see it

Great

1.) Winter Soldier
2.) Civil War
3.) Avengers 1
4.) Guardians 1
5.) Guardians 2
6.) Dr Strange

Good

1.) First Avenger
2.) Iron Man
3.) Age of Ultron (the battle of Sokovia kicks ass)
4.) Iron Man 3
5.) Ant Man
6.) Thor

Decent


1.) Thor 2

Bad: Iron Man 3

All things said Marvel's hit more than they missed

[Crazedwraith]

You mean Iron Man 2 in bad? That's probably their weakest. And you missed out Norton's Hulk movie.

It is all subjective though.

[Gandalf]

JL's full of shit. Winter Soldier, Guardians 1 and 2, Civil War, Avengers 1 and First Avenger are phenomenal. Thor 1 and Iron Man are pretty good and even at worst they're mostly ok.

Of course you'd think that, you're a fucking idiot at best.

[JLTucker]

JL's full of shit. Winter Soldier, Guardians 1 and 2, Civil War, Avengers 1 and First Avenger are phenomenal. Thor 1 and Iron Man are pretty good and even at worst they're mostly ok.

Captain America, Loki, and other incarnations are at their peak here (Chris Evans Steve Rogers is the best incarnation, and Loki is actually a tragic villain while still being a monster); Hell Ego the Living Planet is a downright horrifying villain

After looking at your list, my suspicions were correct: you're the type of moviegoer that is responsible for 14 movies in 9 years. You're what I like to call the Lowest Common Denominator Cinemagoer. Seriously. Look at your list. It proves you're unconcerned with what makes a good movie: scripting, acting, cinematography, themes, music, etc. Those are all BANG BANG PEW PEW movies. I see only three on there that are mediocre at best (Winter Soldier, GotG 1, and Ant Man). The rest? Poorly executed bullshit, or a better and more accurate phrase: "comic book movie."

[The Romulan Republic]

For what reason? And what would you like to see done differently?

The movies suck and they keep churning them out.

Fuck you. As I see it

Great

1.) Winter Soldier
2.) Civil War
3.) Avengers 1
4.) Guardians 1
5.) Guardians 2
6.) Dr Strange

Good

1.) First Avenger
2.) Iron Man
3.) Age of Ultron (the battle of Sokovia kicks ass)
4.) Iron Man 3
5.) Ant Man
6.) Thor

Decent


1.) Thor 2

Bad: Iron Man 3

All things said Marvel's hit more than they missed

Why do people bash Iron Man 3? Is it just the fact that they changed the Mandarin?

Because, speaking as someone with no standing attachment to comics Mandarin, I thought it one of the best MCU films, at least by the subjective measure of how much I personally enjoyed watching it.

Although the whole "Iron Man quits using the armour" thing at the end meshed awkwardly with subsequent films. But that's an issue with lack of overall editorial oversight/story direction, not the film in and of itself.

[Darth Yan]

JL's full of shit. Winter Soldier, Guardians 1 and 2, Civil War, Avengers 1 and First Avenger are phenomenal. Thor 1 and Iron Man are pretty good and even at worst they're mostly ok.

Captain America, Loki, and other incarnations are at their peak here (Chris Evans Steve Rogers is the best incarnation, and Loki is actually a tragic villain while still being a monster); Hell Ego the Living Planet is a downright horrifying villain

After looking at your list, my suspicions were correct: you're the type of moviegoer that is responsible for 14 movies in 9 years. You're what I like to call the Lowest Common Denominator Cinemagoer. Seriously. Look at your list. It proves you're unconcerned with what makes a good movie: scripting, acting, cinematography, themes, music, etc. Those are all BANG BANG PEW PEW movies. I see only three on there that are mediocre at best (Winter Soldier, GotG 1, and Ant Man). The rest? Poorly executed bullshit, or a better and more accurate phrase: "comic book movie."

Fuck you. Winter Soldier, the first avengers film and Guardians has ALL of that. Then again you defend Armond White even though the man's a complete idiot.

JL's full of shit. Winter Soldier, Guardians 1 and 2, Civil War, Avengers 1 and First Avenger are phenomenal. Thor 1 and Iron Man are pretty good and even at worst they're mostly ok.

Of course you'd think that, you're a fucking idiot at best.

Is this because I insulted Galvatron in that thread about Return of the Jedi?

[Batman]

Although the whole "Iron Man quits using the armour" thing at the end meshed awkwardly with subsequent films. But that's an issue with lack of overall editorial oversight/story direction, not the film in and of itself.

What in Valen's name are you talking about? The final scene of the movie is Tony picking up a screwdriver, kissing it, and driving away with the remains of his workshop, presumably to build a new one. His very last words (well before the inevitable post-credits scene ) are 'The one thing you can't take away? I AM Iron Man'. There's no indication he intends to give up the armour.