So events are moving steadily towards the launch of our new line of X-titles, and at the top of this week, we released pre-teasers for the three books that we then gave out additional information about during the week: PHOENIX, X-FORCE and NYX.
You're right about the majority of comic book news sites becoming nothing but click bait. It's a real shame, but I guess it's just the nature of the internet these days.
Also wanted to say I'm super excited for the Phoenix and Storm solo series. I will miss the Krakoa era, but I'm looking forward to seeing what this new era will be all about.
Has Gwenpool been discussed at all during the development of current and future X-projects? Leah Williams made her a mutant almost 5 years ago and it’s only resulted in about 4 cameos throughout the Krakoan era (not including her Love Unlimited story). It’d be nice to see her on a team again.
What are your thoughts on the other big 80s DC franchise - the Giffen/Levitz Legion of superheroes? Did you read/enjoy it? It is interesting to note the parallels to the Titans in terms of how DC managed (bungled?) the franchise - a top seller in the 80s and early 90s under some visionary creators that languished and they cannot seem to recapture its glory.
It's a shame because it is the perfect 'stand alone' franchise - links to the DCU but apart as it is in the future so it can stand on its own and reflect the current continuity as needed but not fully beholden to it. The long history of the series added to its mystique for me (I did not know everything but it gave the series texture and depth).
On my end I Loved the Great Darkness Saga, the Legion of Villains arc, and Giffen's return to issue 50 was its apex mountain (the fight at the end of time!) in my opinion. I enjoyed the 5 years later story but they did not seem to know how to go beyond that. The endless reboots drove me away (I enjoyed Geoff Johns return to that era's continuity during his Action Comics run but it was short lived).
For my part I loved the Levitz/Giffen Legion, but hated "5 years later": I wanted an optimistic, Star-Trek-like future, and was annoyed by the turn into a grimdark mode. I also thought that on an individual issue level, the Bierbaums and Giffen were lacking in craft in several important respects.
I tend to agree - overall I liked the world building, the anything can happen stakes, and the fact that it had a definite conclusion around year 3 of the main arc with the Dominators. But in retrospect when you go that far there is no coming back.
It would work better as a 'earth 2' Legion series or a Dark Knight type story set in the 32nd century or something. I liked the fact that Geoff Johns picked up the continuity in his Action run from the Baxter Legion ending and went from there..unfortunatley DC botched it with yet another reboot that went nowhere..
The Giffen year of stories when he returned was amazing IMO - issue 50 as stated above was a masterclass in anniversary issues, as were the year or so that followed (Emerald Eye, Magic wars, etc.)
Serendipitously, I just chatted with Scott Edelman when I was in Baltimore last month! Really nice guy.
One question that came to mind this week: there aren't a lot of them, but a few X-book mainstays have also spent time in the Avengers (Beast, Sunspot, Firestar, and Cannonball all come to mind). Is the experience of editing a story with a character who fits that description any different from editing a story with a character who you haven't worked with before?
Congratulations on wrapping up your Avengers tenure and now with the soon-to-be launch of your X-Men line. With so much online silliness, as captured by your opening story, how do you and your teams go about receiving and parsing criticism? I suspect there is a pull to only look inwards, towards people working at Marvel, and to ignore what can often be perceived as rantings about font/color from the "general public". But, at the same time, that can prove folly as well. With the decline of comic news and reviews sites, how to you take the temperature on creative decisions other than from industry peers and sales numbers?
Tom, I recently went through all your "Man With a Hat" Substack posts because I wanted to compile the Compleat Brevoort Compendium on the JLA-Avengers series. There were substantial bits here and there, and of course sometimes just small bits, not so substantial but still fun or interesting. More than once, you offered a reference that began with a statement like "I have written about this before..." And that lead me to some significant searching. In fact, I think that' show this whole thing started.
This is just my way of suggesting that you could create a few posts that do this same thing, compile previous pieces that all fit together. If you need an alternate to a weekly installment, that is. Perhaps when the "X" hits the fan. I'm sure there are other "big topics" like Avengers-JLA that you've examined in various pieces through the years.
I quite enjoy your writing, here and on your website. By the way, more suggestions for that corner of your comics life: "5 Greatest Unfinished Comic Storylines." And "5 Most Heartbreaking Losses of a Creative Artist/Team." Or "5 Series I Would Bring Back If I Could." To be more positive, "5 Comics That Pointed to the Future of the Art/Industry, Even Thought We Didn't Know It At The Time." And maybe the "5 Best Inside Jokes In Comics?" Jenette Kahn talking to Spider-Man about a Leon Spinks team-up, that was really funny.
I feel bad saying this as you're always a straight shooter (EIC pun) and fair to fans but this quote from you is exactly why I won't be buying any of these titles.
"Nothing against the past few years or anything, but these look like X-Books to me, in a primal and foundational way."
The X-men should, IMO, always be forward moving. You're taking them backward.
I loved the X-men in the early to mid 90's (my formative pre-teen, teen-years) and then I took a break just before Onslaught. I hopped back in for Morrison - and stopped when Morrison left. With an exception for Astonishing when Whedon and then Ellis were there. I read the X-men when they do something legitimately new and interesting. The X-men should mutate constantly, always moving into the future.
The X-men went through a truly bad period where they were stuck in the past. No-More-Mutants was, I think, the biggest mistake Marvel made during the Q. era.
From 2003 to 2019: The X-men were pointless and had no reason to exist, they just recycled the same 'people don't like mutants' stories over and over again - with the same three dozen characters. Ignoring the MC Universe inconsistency of the general public being totally ok with everyone else who had powers, just not mutants. They fought vampires when Twilight was popular, they sort of fought the Avengers, maybe? And at one point I think they had big hammers for some reason. And to really emphasize the fetishism of the past - the time displaced original five x-men came to hang out too! I guess they went back to their own time mind-wiped? I wasn't reading at the time. (not many people were).
Krakoa brought the X-men back to forward thinking, legitimately new and fresh stories.
Take away Krakoa - I might still read. But take away Krakoa, and intentionally make the books look like 90's re-treads "in a primal and foundational way"...... and go back to the extremely tired 'people don't like mutants' story telling well. I'm out. There is no reason to read these.
The question about fictionalized versions of comic publishers reminds me of one of my favorite gags Dwayne McDuffie wrote in Damage Control Vol. 2 #4 where the character Albert Clearly makes a remark about selling their building with the initials "DC" to a "comic book company uptown" that made "a great deal of money from a movie" during the summer of 1989 :)
You do something quite genteel with the mailbag: you refer to people who write in questions by name, even going so far as to bold our names. Is that habit from the Bullpen letter-column days, or something you decided to bestow to everyone who writes in...even to complain?
There's two, interrelated comments that I'm curious about. One about the lack of comics news sites (I think there's great criticism out there but actual news is hard come by around all the other junk pieces that surround it), the other about about fontgate with you saying "if only we have that much thought to our promotional efforts".
The lack of outlets for news about comics implies, to my at least, that there less opportunity for word of mouth and one side effect would be more weight being put on official promotional efforts. It may be that the only impression someone gets from a series is from the Marvel Official social media posts.
So with that stawman I constructed being the unimpeachable truth, why wouldn't y'all want to put additional efforts into those promotional efforts?
I know ideally a book would sell on its own merit, but with the emphasis of pre-orders and the criticality of sales early on in a run, it seems to me that announcement copy, key art, and other promotional material should be trying to sell the unique value prop of the comic. Just one man's opinion!
Anyway if David Gabriel wants to consult about publishing sales with a guy who has never worked in that market, hmu.
Those quotes are indeed from me, and they ran in an issue of The Comics Journal back in 1978. My favorite of them, and the one I've quoted most often to others, is John Verpoorten's pronouncement, "I was just speaking to our printer. He was wondering if we were still in business."
You're right about the majority of comic book news sites becoming nothing but click bait. It's a real shame, but I guess it's just the nature of the internet these days.
Also wanted to say I'm super excited for the Phoenix and Storm solo series. I will miss the Krakoa era, but I'm looking forward to seeing what this new era will be all about.
Two questions based on the cover mockups - which look great, by the way:
The X-Men legacy number will be fixed before printing, right? (Also: Why doesn't NYX have one? Is it because of the very different tone?)
I'm seeing $4.99 prices on almost all of these. Is it just for the first issue or is every book going to be $4.99 every month?
Has Gwenpool been discussed at all during the development of current and future X-projects? Leah Williams made her a mutant almost 5 years ago and it’s only resulted in about 4 cameos throughout the Krakoan era (not including her Love Unlimited story). It’d be nice to see her on a team again.
Can we expect more launches in August alongside uncanny?
The NYX logo confuses me. The large X seems to be fighting against the telescoping nature of the logo.
What are your thoughts on the other big 80s DC franchise - the Giffen/Levitz Legion of superheroes? Did you read/enjoy it? It is interesting to note the parallels to the Titans in terms of how DC managed (bungled?) the franchise - a top seller in the 80s and early 90s under some visionary creators that languished and they cannot seem to recapture its glory.
It's a shame because it is the perfect 'stand alone' franchise - links to the DCU but apart as it is in the future so it can stand on its own and reflect the current continuity as needed but not fully beholden to it. The long history of the series added to its mystique for me (I did not know everything but it gave the series texture and depth).
On my end I Loved the Great Darkness Saga, the Legion of Villains arc, and Giffen's return to issue 50 was its apex mountain (the fight at the end of time!) in my opinion. I enjoyed the 5 years later story but they did not seem to know how to go beyond that. The endless reboots drove me away (I enjoyed Geoff Johns return to that era's continuity during his Action Comics run but it was short lived).
For my part I loved the Levitz/Giffen Legion, but hated "5 years later": I wanted an optimistic, Star-Trek-like future, and was annoyed by the turn into a grimdark mode. I also thought that on an individual issue level, the Bierbaums and Giffen were lacking in craft in several important respects.
I tend to agree - overall I liked the world building, the anything can happen stakes, and the fact that it had a definite conclusion around year 3 of the main arc with the Dominators. But in retrospect when you go that far there is no coming back.
It would work better as a 'earth 2' Legion series or a Dark Knight type story set in the 32nd century or something. I liked the fact that Geoff Johns picked up the continuity in his Action run from the Baxter Legion ending and went from there..unfortunatley DC botched it with yet another reboot that went nowhere..
The Giffen year of stories when he returned was amazing IMO - issue 50 as stated above was a masterclass in anniversary issues, as were the year or so that followed (Emerald Eye, Magic wars, etc.)
I remember the Dan Slott SHE-HULK run with great fondness.
Serendipitously, I just chatted with Scott Edelman when I was in Baltimore last month! Really nice guy.
One question that came to mind this week: there aren't a lot of them, but a few X-book mainstays have also spent time in the Avengers (Beast, Sunspot, Firestar, and Cannonball all come to mind). Is the experience of editing a story with a character who fits that description any different from editing a story with a character who you haven't worked with before?
I'm glad you featured the Death of Captain Marvel, why does Marvel refuse to bring back Mar-Vell in any meaningful way.
Thanks
Congratulations on wrapping up your Avengers tenure and now with the soon-to-be launch of your X-Men line. With so much online silliness, as captured by your opening story, how do you and your teams go about receiving and parsing criticism? I suspect there is a pull to only look inwards, towards people working at Marvel, and to ignore what can often be perceived as rantings about font/color from the "general public". But, at the same time, that can prove folly as well. With the decline of comic news and reviews sites, how to you take the temperature on creative decisions other than from industry peers and sales numbers?
Tom, I recently went through all your "Man With a Hat" Substack posts because I wanted to compile the Compleat Brevoort Compendium on the JLA-Avengers series. There were substantial bits here and there, and of course sometimes just small bits, not so substantial but still fun or interesting. More than once, you offered a reference that began with a statement like "I have written about this before..." And that lead me to some significant searching. In fact, I think that' show this whole thing started.
This is just my way of suggesting that you could create a few posts that do this same thing, compile previous pieces that all fit together. If you need an alternate to a weekly installment, that is. Perhaps when the "X" hits the fan. I'm sure there are other "big topics" like Avengers-JLA that you've examined in various pieces through the years.
I quite enjoy your writing, here and on your website. By the way, more suggestions for that corner of your comics life: "5 Greatest Unfinished Comic Storylines." And "5 Most Heartbreaking Losses of a Creative Artist/Team." Or "5 Series I Would Bring Back If I Could." To be more positive, "5 Comics That Pointed to the Future of the Art/Industry, Even Thought We Didn't Know It At The Time." And maybe the "5 Best Inside Jokes In Comics?" Jenette Kahn talking to Spider-Man about a Leon Spinks team-up, that was really funny.
Thanks again,
Steve
Well, I should have written that I TRIED to go through your JLA-Avengers references. Not sure I got them all...!
I feel bad saying this as you're always a straight shooter (EIC pun) and fair to fans but this quote from you is exactly why I won't be buying any of these titles.
"Nothing against the past few years or anything, but these look like X-Books to me, in a primal and foundational way."
The X-men should, IMO, always be forward moving. You're taking them backward.
I loved the X-men in the early to mid 90's (my formative pre-teen, teen-years) and then I took a break just before Onslaught. I hopped back in for Morrison - and stopped when Morrison left. With an exception for Astonishing when Whedon and then Ellis were there. I read the X-men when they do something legitimately new and interesting. The X-men should mutate constantly, always moving into the future.
The X-men went through a truly bad period where they were stuck in the past. No-More-Mutants was, I think, the biggest mistake Marvel made during the Q. era.
From 2003 to 2019: The X-men were pointless and had no reason to exist, they just recycled the same 'people don't like mutants' stories over and over again - with the same three dozen characters. Ignoring the MC Universe inconsistency of the general public being totally ok with everyone else who had powers, just not mutants. They fought vampires when Twilight was popular, they sort of fought the Avengers, maybe? And at one point I think they had big hammers for some reason. And to really emphasize the fetishism of the past - the time displaced original five x-men came to hang out too! I guess they went back to their own time mind-wiped? I wasn't reading at the time. (not many people were).
Krakoa brought the X-men back to forward thinking, legitimately new and fresh stories.
Take away Krakoa - I might still read. But take away Krakoa, and intentionally make the books look like 90's re-treads "in a primal and foundational way"...... and go back to the extremely tired 'people don't like mutants' story telling well. I'm out. There is no reason to read these.
The question about fictionalized versions of comic publishers reminds me of one of my favorite gags Dwayne McDuffie wrote in Damage Control Vol. 2 #4 where the character Albert Clearly makes a remark about selling their building with the initials "DC" to a "comic book company uptown" that made "a great deal of money from a movie" during the summer of 1989 :)
You do something quite genteel with the mailbag: you refer to people who write in questions by name, even going so far as to bold our names. Is that habit from the Bullpen letter-column days, or something you decided to bestow to everyone who writes in...even to complain?
There's two, interrelated comments that I'm curious about. One about the lack of comics news sites (I think there's great criticism out there but actual news is hard come by around all the other junk pieces that surround it), the other about about fontgate with you saying "if only we have that much thought to our promotional efforts".
The lack of outlets for news about comics implies, to my at least, that there less opportunity for word of mouth and one side effect would be more weight being put on official promotional efforts. It may be that the only impression someone gets from a series is from the Marvel Official social media posts.
So with that stawman I constructed being the unimpeachable truth, why wouldn't y'all want to put additional efforts into those promotional efforts?
I know ideally a book would sell on its own merit, but with the emphasis of pre-orders and the criticality of sales early on in a run, it seems to me that announcement copy, key art, and other promotional material should be trying to sell the unique value prop of the comic. Just one man's opinion!
Anyway if David Gabriel wants to consult about publishing sales with a guy who has never worked in that market, hmu.
xoxo
Those quotes are indeed from me, and they ran in an issue of The Comics Journal back in 1978. My favorite of them, and the one I've quoted most often to others, is John Verpoorten's pronouncement, "I was just speaking to our printer. He was wondering if we were still in business."