It’s been a long week and I’m tired, and with an even more grueling week to face ahead thanks to the strike that’s shut down the New Jersey Transit system, making my commute worlds more difficult and expensive.
I notice that older comics tend to show definitions for things that are not explained in more modern issues: the SHIELD acronym, what the Raft is, what SITREP means, etc.
Is this kind of thing decided as a group -- "we should stop explaining SHIELD because people saw the movie" -- or on a case-by-case basis that eventually aligns across the line?
When/why is the choice made to take an adjective out of a title? While there are still plenty of uncannies, amazings, and so on in marvel's roster, I feel like there are a handful of adjectiveless series' over the last few years like Ackerman's Iron Man and Krakoa's X-Men that, at least initially seemed like kinda weird choices to take out that invincible or uncanny or other adjectives. X-Men later justified this with Red, Immortal, and now Exceptional and Uncanny, but I'm wondering why an editor might make that initial choice. Is it just simplicity? Do sales do better on adjectiveless titles?
NJ Transit is on strike. What would be your preferred superpowered way to get to the office: Quicksilver superspeed, a Krakoa gate, Nightcrawler teleporting, the Fantasticar?
Last week you mentioned that you don't like giving every background character superpowers, which I 100% agree with. Do you have any similar preferences for changing an existing hero's powers? I'm thinking of my beloved Doug Ramsey's recent upgrade to Revelation, and I'm curious to see how different he will be from Cypher and how his stories change as a result.
Does the Marvel office consider the possibility of readers buying a series just to keep a consecutive run going, even if they don’t particularly like the story (ASM for example)? Or is it looked past because it only matters that it sells? I happen to think it’s a small part of the internet complaining. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts.
Tom, I’m sorry you’re having a rough couple of work weeks, and I apologize in advance for bringing up a rather difficult question in light of that. Basically, what’s your policy on working with creators who have publicly behaved badly? Jeph Loeb has had multiple incidents of racist comments, pay discrimination and cultural appropriation in regards to Asian people. Why work with him, especially given that you’ve taken pains to set up a diverse X-Office, after those comments?
Can you talk a bit about the Legion of Super Heroes? I don't collect physical copies of many comics but LSH has a special place in my heart for some reason. What did you like and dislike?
Any comments or maybe a future series about looking back at Marvel in 1990 and the launches that went on there? Would have been early in your formative years as an editor - and my formative years as a reader. It seems to me that the titles introduced that year - reboots and new characters alike have persisted pretty well long term (with some ups and downs). New Warriors, Darkhawk, Sleepwalker, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ghost Rider. McFarlane's spider-man, Jim Lee's x-men, Liefeld on New Mutants. Anyway feels like a fertile exciting time at Marvel. Maybe nostalgia is just hitting me hard today.
Thanks for the resoonse to my question last week, which was admittedly a long two-parter. I'm still wondering about the first part that got lost in the discussion about the current X-Men / FF books:
How does Marvel assess the different levels of content and the age groups they're aimed at. For example, I read Sabretooth: The Dead Don't Talk, and it's far more violent and graphic (decapitations, maiming, disembowelling, eye removal, vivisection, etc.) than the Blood Hunt Red Band series, but it's not a Red Band book and it's rated T+ with no warnings. Wolverine and Deadpool books seem to default to Parental Advisory even if they're not always especially graphic. Is the rating set for a title level or for each individual issue?
I feel like you skipped a week of Pimp My Wednesday and are two weeks ahead now. My shop has all these issues coming out not this Wednesday but next, 5/28. Or have I just not noticed after reading for over 120 weeks in a row that you pimp in the future?
I also noticed that the "Pimp My Wednesday" is two weeks ahead (showing comics scheduled to be released Wednesday, May 28, not the next upcoming Wednesday, May 21). Last week's newsletter showed two covers that were correct for that week (One World Under Doom #4 and Uncanny X-Men #14, both of which came out on May 14) and one incorrect cover (Exceptional X-Men #9, which comes out May 21).
Incidentally, I always use Charles LePage's New Comics Release List for determining what is coming out each week. It's not always 100% accurate, but it's more accurate than some other lists. He usually posts the final version on Monday evening. It can be found at https://gocollect.com/blog/category/comiclist/
I wanted to ask about the Guardians of the Galaxy. Their status is confusing since their title ended last year. Nova and Rocket appear in Phoenix without mention of the team. Hercules is in Avengers Assemble, and again, there's no mention of the Guardians or Noh-varr. Now we're seeing Starlord and Nova in the marketing for Imperial, but no other member of the Guardians... so, I need to ask. Does the team exist anymore? Is there an official decision made about this? Will Imperial give me an aswer or is this an editorial choice to assume the team has disbanded since their title was cancelled and no comic is going to adress it?
Tom, do you think Ben Reilly circa Clone Saga worked for New Warriors in a way Peter could not at the time? Reading it as a kid my sense was definitely Peter was an adult while Ben skewed at most mid-20s.
I notice that older comics tend to show definitions for things that are not explained in more modern issues: the SHIELD acronym, what the Raft is, what SITREP means, etc.
Is this kind of thing decided as a group -- "we should stop explaining SHIELD because people saw the movie" -- or on a case-by-case basis that eventually aligns across the line?
When/why is the choice made to take an adjective out of a title? While there are still plenty of uncannies, amazings, and so on in marvel's roster, I feel like there are a handful of adjectiveless series' over the last few years like Ackerman's Iron Man and Krakoa's X-Men that, at least initially seemed like kinda weird choices to take out that invincible or uncanny or other adjectives. X-Men later justified this with Red, Immortal, and now Exceptional and Uncanny, but I'm wondering why an editor might make that initial choice. Is it just simplicity? Do sales do better on adjectiveless titles?
NJ Transit is on strike. What would be your preferred superpowered way to get to the office: Quicksilver superspeed, a Krakoa gate, Nightcrawler teleporting, the Fantasticar?
Last week you mentioned that you don't like giving every background character superpowers, which I 100% agree with. Do you have any similar preferences for changing an existing hero's powers? I'm thinking of my beloved Doug Ramsey's recent upgrade to Revelation, and I'm curious to see how different he will be from Cypher and how his stories change as a result.
Does the Marvel office consider the possibility of readers buying a series just to keep a consecutive run going, even if they don’t particularly like the story (ASM for example)? Or is it looked past because it only matters that it sells? I happen to think it’s a small part of the internet complaining. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts.
Tom, I’m sorry you’re having a rough couple of work weeks, and I apologize in advance for bringing up a rather difficult question in light of that. Basically, what’s your policy on working with creators who have publicly behaved badly? Jeph Loeb has had multiple incidents of racist comments, pay discrimination and cultural appropriation in regards to Asian people. Why work with him, especially given that you’ve taken pains to set up a diverse X-Office, after those comments?
Give your self a treat and stop flirting with Andor season 2. I am in awe of how good it is and that it even got made.
Hi Tom.
Can you talk a bit about the Legion of Super Heroes? I don't collect physical copies of many comics but LSH has a special place in my heart for some reason. What did you like and dislike?
"It seems like we just had an issue of UNCANNY X-MEN come out..."
That's because you jumped ahead! Uncanny #14 came out last week, while #15 (and the other books you highlighted) aren't due out until May 28...
Any comments or maybe a future series about looking back at Marvel in 1990 and the launches that went on there? Would have been early in your formative years as an editor - and my formative years as a reader. It seems to me that the titles introduced that year - reboots and new characters alike have persisted pretty well long term (with some ups and downs). New Warriors, Darkhawk, Sleepwalker, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ghost Rider. McFarlane's spider-man, Jim Lee's x-men, Liefeld on New Mutants. Anyway feels like a fertile exciting time at Marvel. Maybe nostalgia is just hitting me hard today.
Thanks for the resoonse to my question last week, which was admittedly a long two-parter. I'm still wondering about the first part that got lost in the discussion about the current X-Men / FF books:
How does Marvel assess the different levels of content and the age groups they're aimed at. For example, I read Sabretooth: The Dead Don't Talk, and it's far more violent and graphic (decapitations, maiming, disembowelling, eye removal, vivisection, etc.) than the Blood Hunt Red Band series, but it's not a Red Band book and it's rated T+ with no warnings. Wolverine and Deadpool books seem to default to Parental Advisory even if they're not always especially graphic. Is the rating set for a title level or for each individual issue?
I feel like you skipped a week of Pimp My Wednesday and are two weeks ahead now. My shop has all these issues coming out not this Wednesday but next, 5/28. Or have I just not noticed after reading for over 120 weeks in a row that you pimp in the future?
I also noticed that the "Pimp My Wednesday" is two weeks ahead (showing comics scheduled to be released Wednesday, May 28, not the next upcoming Wednesday, May 21). Last week's newsletter showed two covers that were correct for that week (One World Under Doom #4 and Uncanny X-Men #14, both of which came out on May 14) and one incorrect cover (Exceptional X-Men #9, which comes out May 21).
Incidentally, I always use Charles LePage's New Comics Release List for determining what is coming out each week. It's not always 100% accurate, but it's more accurate than some other lists. He usually posts the final version on Monday evening. It can be found at https://gocollect.com/blog/category/comiclist/
Even a broken clock is right two times a day! (When I was Spidey EIC, I set a very low bar for myself, Tom.)
I wanted to ask about the Guardians of the Galaxy. Their status is confusing since their title ended last year. Nova and Rocket appear in Phoenix without mention of the team. Hercules is in Avengers Assemble, and again, there's no mention of the Guardians or Noh-varr. Now we're seeing Starlord and Nova in the marketing for Imperial, but no other member of the Guardians... so, I need to ask. Does the team exist anymore? Is there an official decision made about this? Will Imperial give me an aswer or is this an editorial choice to assume the team has disbanded since their title was cancelled and no comic is going to adress it?
Tom, do you think Ben Reilly circa Clone Saga worked for New Warriors in a way Peter could not at the time? Reading it as a kid my sense was definitely Peter was an adult while Ben skewed at most mid-20s.