So is Vance Astrovik the most obscure Marvel character who went from going years without being seen to showing up in two different monthly Marvel titles (NW and the Guardians of the Galaxy)? Can the hivemind think of someone more obscure who went from zero appeareance to two monthlies?
"Like pretty much everybody else, I’m thoroughly exhausted and preparing to face a future that suddenly looks far more apocalyptic than most people even realize." So, "pretty much everybody" excludes most of the population? Personally, I am relieved that the lesser of two evils won. It's unfortunate that politics has to worm its way into a discussion of comics.
Always worth mentioning anytime anyone mentions “most of the population” after an election…barely half of the adult US population even bothered to vote, so nearly 3/4 of potential voters in fact didn’t vote for the president elect.
I forgot that you got the last two issues of POWER OF TERROR out the door. I wish you had edited the entire series...
I have to say that despite the fact that putting the Thor splash of the New Warriors on my dartboard was something I was very likely to do...I did not have it on my dartboard. Nope. I did, as did most of the office mock the hell out of the concept and the name. We were certain it would suck, especially with shoe-horning SPEEDBALL in there...who was also mocked at that time.
Yes indeed FABIAN is the one guy who thought this would work and had the idea of how to do it. Oddly he wasn't the first choice and had to wait quite a while to get the gig...and Mark Bagley....also not a first, second or third choice. Myself, Ralf Macchio and Bob Budiansky (likely others) all championed Mark to do the book. Mark had done a lot of terrific work and saved all our butts with deadlines and it was past time he got his shot. But the editor wanted to hire established SUPERSTARS for the writing and pencilling. Not that he didn't like Fabian's work our Marks work...in the end he couldn't hire the "stars" and "settled" for Fabian and Mark...who proved us ALL WRONG with the first issue, and the first pages Mark sent in changed everyone's tune about this book. I regard what Fabian and Mark did with this book as inspiration for every concept that seems lame, but with enough positive work can be great. It's a benchmark title for me. Although I'm sure Fabian was on my dartboard at some point.
In the spirit of ultimately unimportant comic book production information as a means of distracting ourselves, my question is thus: Would you and your team ever consider moving the X-Mentions spread to the back of the books?
Thank you for writing this newsletter. I look forward to reading it every Sunday morning.
Is there currently an Art Director or similar role at Marvel? I’ve seen such a wide range of styles, and in my opinion quality, that I often wonder if there is anyone guiding things art-wise
I appreciate that there isn’t a singular “house style”, but the overall story-telling and figure drawing seems inconsistent to me.
This might be one of those questions answered with a "wait and see", but
What's the point of tying a story about a mutant disease (wow, it's already 6 years since last one concluded) to Resurrection Protocols? It's not going to excite Krakoa fans, they're too busy pointing out holes in it, like the fact that Magneto's latest resurrection had nothing to do with The Five. It's not going to please people looking for new X-Men stories not tied to a 5-year hundreds-of-issues story they did not follow. Who is this for?
New Warriors was such a formative title for me. Looking back, Fabian, Mark, Darick et al worked miracles with that book. I dropped it after Fabian left but did pick it back up before the end and thought Evan Skolnick and Patch Zircher had done enough course correction to make it sing again. Tom, as part of your writeups would love to know what you thought the essence of it that worked so well (for a surprisingly long time) was, and why future iterations haven't captured it? For me, it felt like a moment in time that it's v hard to go back to the well on without an exceptional creator or pitch (like Runaways or Young Avengers). Would love New Warriors to get a Kieron Gillen or Rainbow Rowell equivalent run again.
I thought Jay Faerber's short-lived series was pretty great, though they were saddled with awful costumes that I think turned people off immediately without continuing to read. Shame, because I think the last time we saw the New Warriors before that series launch was in Busiek/Perez Avengers, where, of course, they looked amazing.
It's interesting that internal sentiment was against the New Warriors after they first appeared. Yes, the DeFalco/Frenz era of Thor looked like it was from another time, but that was a huge part of the appeal... at least for the 11 or 12 year old that I was when those comics came out. Mostly, I was just excited to have a new team comic that I could be with on the ground floor.... and I DID like the characters, even in that first appearance.
Of course, Fabian and Mark (and later Darick) did wonderful things with it, and even later than that, Evan Skolnick and especially Patch Zircher did a great series... but those things just made the characters I loved even better. Mileage may vary, etc.
I think a lot of the 90s new number 1 had that appeal of a series younger readers (like me) can get in at the beginning. So coupled with a fun creative team it helped propel some series into the sky. It definitely worked on me at the time.
Mr. Brevoort, I’m curious what insight you can provide on the DeFalco/Frenz run of Thor. It definitely was a tonal shift from Walt Simonson’s run and I’m curious if the idea of doing it with a kind of throwback 60s Marvel-ish tone came first and then DeFalco and Frenz seemed to fit that style, or if it was the other way around with them getting the assignment and deciding to go in that direction? Even the cover copy was a throwback. Despite the difference in style from Simonson’s legendary run, I still have very fond memories of this era as well. Ron Frenz especially, feels like an unappreciated artist. I always thought he was born to draw Thor (and Superman), with definite nods to Kirby, but with his own modern twist. Thanks for your work on this newsletter and your continued insights and stories.
Ha! Fair enough, thanks for acknowledging my question even if you didn’t answer it. I guess the last thing you need is clickbait articles about Scott divorcing Jean to hook up with Psylocke in the near future or some such nonsense.
I have another question this time more about being a fan and editor and that side of things because I remember earlier you said you had strong feelings about Bucky coming back. How do you reconcile doing things that are good for business but maybe go against what you feel is “right” For a character or story? As an outlandish example let’s say a the next MCU movie has Spider-Man inject himself the x-gene for reasons and he is now a mutant and gains additional gecko powers, changing his name to Gecko-Spider-Man. The movie is a huge hit and people LOVE Gecko-Spider-Man and he becomes a worldwide phenomenon. How does an editor who’s job it is to make sales reconcile their personal belief as a life long fan of Spider-Man that Gecko-Spider-Man is the worst thing to ever happen, that just the thought of changing printing a story about Gecko-Spider-Man makes them want to puke, but that NOT doing a Gecko-Spider-Man book or something that ties into or references it is like leaving money on the table? You’d don’t have to give a specific example of when this has happened. It just interests me of how an editor, who is likely a fan, knows when to die on a hill to preserve what they think is right for a character based in their opinion as a passionate fan or when to give in and say “yeah, I hate this, but audience’s love it and it’s gonna sell well, so I have to swallow my pride and live with it.” Obviously it’s a no brainer that a good editor doesn’t let their personal biases affect their job but I’m talking more about when your opinions as a fan inform what’s good for the character business wise as well. Where’s the line, how do you know when to stand your ground because you’re confident chasing a trend do a disservice to a character, or when you have to swallow your pride and chase the trend and go with the sales
To follow up on the quote ("yeah, I hate this, but audiences love it and it's gonna sell well")... is there ever a time when the quote becomes "yeah, I hate this, and the audience is gonna hate it/we'll get so much free publicity that it's gonna sell like wheatcakes"?
It’s not that I don’t WANT to believe you about the extra page.
It’s that fundamentally, it felt like more work and effort for an expiring page link, that interrupts the flow of reading the book that I bought. I am incredibly pleased, as I said, about Storm #1’s decision, even if it’s true we lost a page to the ether of the internet, my book feels complete in my hands and that’s what matters to me.
Again, I’m incredibly pleased that the feedback from this has finally been heard, even if it seems like some people thought the idea would be more popular than it was in execution.
What are your thoughts on recolouring old classic comics?
I was looking at the various editions of Batman Year one - and I find the new colours (even through they were by Richmond Lewis) - too strong and it feels off. I find this happens to comics I discovered in the 80s - it is almost not logical but based on some books from my youth.
I know the Neal Adams Batman reprints just seemed so garish to me. I am eager for some of the Masterworks editions coming out (Buscema Avengers and Mazzucelli DD) but I am afraid it will seem off to me (again a personal illogical perspective).
What are your thoughts Tom on recolouring, paper stock, etc - any good (or bad examples) you want to share?
(also fellow readers feel free to chime in here as well).
New Warriors! Every week! All right! w00t!
So is Vance Astrovik the most obscure Marvel character who went from going years without being seen to showing up in two different monthly Marvel titles (NW and the Guardians of the Galaxy)? Can the hivemind think of someone more obscure who went from zero appeareance to two monthlies?
"Like pretty much everybody else, I’m thoroughly exhausted and preparing to face a future that suddenly looks far more apocalyptic than most people even realize." So, "pretty much everybody" excludes most of the population? Personally, I am relieved that the lesser of two evils won. It's unfortunate that politics has to worm its way into a discussion of comics.
Politics haven't wormed their way in anywhere; comics have always been, and will always remain, inherently political.
Captain America punched Hitler in 1940 -- decades before most of us were even born.
Frankly speaking, he's welcome to punch modern Hitler too, for all I care.
I feel like you would have to try extremely hard to cherry pick only comics that are apolitical.
Art is often political
Always worth mentioning anytime anyone mentions “most of the population” after an election…barely half of the adult US population even bothered to vote, so nearly 3/4 of potential voters in fact didn’t vote for the president elect.
Quite a world you must live in, where that guy is somehow the lesser evil. Time will tell otherwise I am sure.
I forgot that you got the last two issues of POWER OF TERROR out the door. I wish you had edited the entire series...
I have to say that despite the fact that putting the Thor splash of the New Warriors on my dartboard was something I was very likely to do...I did not have it on my dartboard. Nope. I did, as did most of the office mock the hell out of the concept and the name. We were certain it would suck, especially with shoe-horning SPEEDBALL in there...who was also mocked at that time.
Yes indeed FABIAN is the one guy who thought this would work and had the idea of how to do it. Oddly he wasn't the first choice and had to wait quite a while to get the gig...and Mark Bagley....also not a first, second or third choice. Myself, Ralf Macchio and Bob Budiansky (likely others) all championed Mark to do the book. Mark had done a lot of terrific work and saved all our butts with deadlines and it was past time he got his shot. But the editor wanted to hire established SUPERSTARS for the writing and pencilling. Not that he didn't like Fabian's work our Marks work...in the end he couldn't hire the "stars" and "settled" for Fabian and Mark...who proved us ALL WRONG with the first issue, and the first pages Mark sent in changed everyone's tune about this book. I regard what Fabian and Mark did with this book as inspiration for every concept that seems lame, but with enough positive work can be great. It's a benchmark title for me. Although I'm sure Fabian was on my dartboard at some point.
In the spirit of ultimately unimportant comic book production information as a means of distracting ourselves, my question is thus: Would you and your team ever consider moving the X-Mentions spread to the back of the books?
Thank you for writing this newsletter. I look forward to reading it every Sunday morning.
Is there currently an Art Director or similar role at Marvel? I’ve seen such a wide range of styles, and in my opinion quality, that I often wonder if there is anyone guiding things art-wise
I appreciate that there isn’t a singular “house style”, but the overall story-telling and figure drawing seems inconsistent to me.
The New Warriors Chronicles kicks off AND we get Rickey Purdin in a pink wig? This issue feels designed specifically for me, Tom—thank you.
This might be one of those questions answered with a "wait and see", but
What's the point of tying a story about a mutant disease (wow, it's already 6 years since last one concluded) to Resurrection Protocols? It's not going to excite Krakoa fans, they're too busy pointing out holes in it, like the fact that Magneto's latest resurrection had nothing to do with The Five. It's not going to please people looking for new X-Men stories not tied to a 5-year hundreds-of-issues story they did not follow. Who is this for?
New Warriors was such a formative title for me. Looking back, Fabian, Mark, Darick et al worked miracles with that book. I dropped it after Fabian left but did pick it back up before the end and thought Evan Skolnick and Patch Zircher had done enough course correction to make it sing again. Tom, as part of your writeups would love to know what you thought the essence of it that worked so well (for a surprisingly long time) was, and why future iterations haven't captured it? For me, it felt like a moment in time that it's v hard to go back to the well on without an exceptional creator or pitch (like Runaways or Young Avengers). Would love New Warriors to get a Kieron Gillen or Rainbow Rowell equivalent run again.
I thought Jay Faerber's short-lived series was pretty great, though they were saddled with awful costumes that I think turned people off immediately without continuing to read. Shame, because I think the last time we saw the New Warriors before that series launch was in Busiek/Perez Avengers, where, of course, they looked amazing.
I think the Wolfman/Perez Teen Titans were also a moment in time/lighting in a bottle that is hard to replicate.
It's interesting that internal sentiment was against the New Warriors after they first appeared. Yes, the DeFalco/Frenz era of Thor looked like it was from another time, but that was a huge part of the appeal... at least for the 11 or 12 year old that I was when those comics came out. Mostly, I was just excited to have a new team comic that I could be with on the ground floor.... and I DID like the characters, even in that first appearance.
Of course, Fabian and Mark (and later Darick) did wonderful things with it, and even later than that, Evan Skolnick and especially Patch Zircher did a great series... but those things just made the characters I loved even better. Mileage may vary, etc.
I think a lot of the 90s new number 1 had that appeal of a series younger readers (like me) can get in at the beginning. So coupled with a fun creative team it helped propel some series into the sky. It definitely worked on me at the time.
Mr. Brevoort, I’m curious what insight you can provide on the DeFalco/Frenz run of Thor. It definitely was a tonal shift from Walt Simonson’s run and I’m curious if the idea of doing it with a kind of throwback 60s Marvel-ish tone came first and then DeFalco and Frenz seemed to fit that style, or if it was the other way around with them getting the assignment and deciding to go in that direction? Even the cover copy was a throwback. Despite the difference in style from Simonson’s legendary run, I still have very fond memories of this era as well. Ron Frenz especially, feels like an unappreciated artist. I always thought he was born to draw Thor (and Superman), with definite nods to Kirby, but with his own modern twist. Thanks for your work on this newsletter and your continued insights and stories.
Would have loved to see Ron Frenz do a stint on Captain America
Frenz was my favorite 80s Spider-Man artist. Nobody drew the black costume as well as he did.
Ha! Fair enough, thanks for acknowledging my question even if you didn’t answer it. I guess the last thing you need is clickbait articles about Scott divorcing Jean to hook up with Psylocke in the near future or some such nonsense.
I have another question this time more about being a fan and editor and that side of things because I remember earlier you said you had strong feelings about Bucky coming back. How do you reconcile doing things that are good for business but maybe go against what you feel is “right” For a character or story? As an outlandish example let’s say a the next MCU movie has Spider-Man inject himself the x-gene for reasons and he is now a mutant and gains additional gecko powers, changing his name to Gecko-Spider-Man. The movie is a huge hit and people LOVE Gecko-Spider-Man and he becomes a worldwide phenomenon. How does an editor who’s job it is to make sales reconcile their personal belief as a life long fan of Spider-Man that Gecko-Spider-Man is the worst thing to ever happen, that just the thought of changing printing a story about Gecko-Spider-Man makes them want to puke, but that NOT doing a Gecko-Spider-Man book or something that ties into or references it is like leaving money on the table? You’d don’t have to give a specific example of when this has happened. It just interests me of how an editor, who is likely a fan, knows when to die on a hill to preserve what they think is right for a character based in their opinion as a passionate fan or when to give in and say “yeah, I hate this, but audience’s love it and it’s gonna sell well, so I have to swallow my pride and live with it.” Obviously it’s a no brainer that a good editor doesn’t let their personal biases affect their job but I’m talking more about when your opinions as a fan inform what’s good for the character business wise as well. Where’s the line, how do you know when to stand your ground because you’re confident chasing a trend do a disservice to a character, or when you have to swallow your pride and chase the trend and go with the sales
To follow up on the quote ("yeah, I hate this, but audiences love it and it's gonna sell well")... is there ever a time when the quote becomes "yeah, I hate this, and the audience is gonna hate it/we'll get so much free publicity that it's gonna sell like wheatcakes"?
I loved New Warriors and Valentino's GotG. I am excited!
It’s not that I don’t WANT to believe you about the extra page.
It’s that fundamentally, it felt like more work and effort for an expiring page link, that interrupts the flow of reading the book that I bought. I am incredibly pleased, as I said, about Storm #1’s decision, even if it’s true we lost a page to the ether of the internet, my book feels complete in my hands and that’s what matters to me.
Again, I’m incredibly pleased that the feedback from this has finally been heard, even if it seems like some people thought the idea would be more popular than it was in execution.
Incredibly bummed to hear that Young Avengers news was misconstrued but appreciate you letting us know it’s not true.
Consider this one fan in favor of bringing them back though! Young Avengers Vol 3 please!
Sorry about that; didn't realize that would be a vexing question.
What are your thoughts on recolouring old classic comics?
I was looking at the various editions of Batman Year one - and I find the new colours (even through they were by Richmond Lewis) - too strong and it feels off. I find this happens to comics I discovered in the 80s - it is almost not logical but based on some books from my youth.
I know the Neal Adams Batman reprints just seemed so garish to me. I am eager for some of the Masterworks editions coming out (Buscema Avengers and Mazzucelli DD) but I am afraid it will seem off to me (again a personal illogical perspective).
What are your thoughts Tom on recolouring, paper stock, etc - any good (or bad examples) you want to share?
(also fellow readers feel free to chime in here as well).