well OBVIOUSLY my theory about the Shogun Warriors' plots being deliberate metaphors for the Carter administration & the pre-Reagan national malaise are NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH how dare you call it a conspiracy EVERYONE AT MARVEL WAS IN ON IT
You write, “it now typically takes an artist around six weeks to do a book.” Has Marvel ever tried an every-six-week publishing schedule to better accommodate the modern rhythms of drawing a comic? I know there were a few bimonthly books back in the 1970s, and I assume they weren’t successful in holding readers’ interest. But I’d be willing to wait the extra two weeks if it meant an artist could have an unbroken run on a book.
I'm very sorry to hear about the way that some Spider-Man fans behave to simple information.
It's frustrating, because I genuinely love to hear all about the behind-the-scenes stories of a bunch of creative people trying to tell stories about characters with a 60-year history, to a very tight deadline. And that includes the wins and the mistakes. It's why I love this newsletter so much.
And fans are losing those opportunities to hear more because creatives are being told to quit, or worse, if anyone disagrees. And it's very understandable why. Just look at what people say to Nick Lowe every time he tweets about a Spider-Man comic.
There’s a standard assumption that a crossover issue of a comic (especially a comic without robust sales) may have been suggested/forced up on them by editorial, in order to bolster sales. Have there been cases of the opposite, though? Where a writer wanted to steer their comic into an upcoming crossover, but the editor nixed it?
Speaking of last minute changes and/or the conspiracy belief in them, I wonder if you can speak to the way they Secret Empire changed, or didn't, from say issue 1 of the event to the finale. It certainly felt like there were things set up and teased, both within the comic and in promos, that didn't quite match the end. But perhaps it's a boring example of the story evolving organically and well in advance, rather than in response to criticism.
Medium length side tangent: I think one reason people beleive in conspiracy theories is that there really *are* examples of events which people in power attempt to cover up. I would argue this happens in comics even - things do change behind the scenes, and the public doesn't always get the full or honest story as to why. Now, there are often good and reasonable reasons for these changes, and even reasons for not being fully transparent with the public. But it does engender suspicion.
As an example, I think about the way in which Fantastic Four was sidelined, and a strong denial from Marvel that such was happening. I don't k ow if anyone was open about why Inhumans were given greater prominence, though everyone suspects it was for the Disney/Fox reasons.
yeah I wonder what Rick Remenders original plans for Hydra were (Misty Knight seemed to be a Hydra agent and hinted there were more traitors about). Anything you can share Tom?
My father also died at a young age for both himself and me. As it happened, the day on which I surpassed him in age was one that allowed for me to be in the city where the bulk of my memories of him were (we lived there from my age 3-11, and he died only a few months after we moved back to our mutual home town). But the odd thing was that the house we lived in while there was on the market. So I pretended to be a possible buyer and got inside it for the first time since we'd moved decades before. Definitely intensified the memories I had of him to be back in it.
In regards to 'one more day' - maybe one bone of contention is that Mephisto 'won' a victory against Spidey? Is it possible if Mephisto dissolved the marriage but somehow was denied another victory (bunch of souls freed, etc) maybe fans would feel better about this story?
It seemed like the Spencer run (and Aaron's Avengers run) were leading to some comeuppance for Mephisto that never happened..what do you think?
(I liked the spidey-MJ marriage but get why the status quo was returned to in terms of Peter being single - makes sense and sorry to see fans react so aggressively to marvel staff over this).
Jack Quaid is listed on various Internet sources as somewhere between 6'1" and 6'3". Anson Mount is between 5'11" and 6'1", with Rebecca Romijn definitely being taller than average at 5'11" and Jess Bush not far behind at 5'9-10" and Celia Rose Gooding at 5'8". Ethan Peck is 6'1", but Christina Chong is just 5'4" and Melissa Navia just 5'3". Babs Olusanmokun is on the shorter side at 5'9".
So Quaid is either taller than or right at the tallest of the SNW cast, and would appear possibly significantly taller than Olusanmokun (4-6") and significantly taller than Chong or Navia (8"-12").
On the topic of late books, I have always wondered why companies don't get more issues in house before publishing, especially for crossover events. With the Dreaded Deadline Doom a thing of the past this would make sense.
You buried the lead on the Kevin Maguire story. WHY did he only do one issue of Cap? I don’t remember any other high profile book he worked on after that.
Hi there! A few weeks back, you mentioned "Today, when fans enthuse about the wonderfulness of YOUNG AVENGERS, most often they’re speaking about Kieron and Jamie’s work, rather than Allan and Jim’s."
Interestingly, within my own lens of Young Avengers fandoms I follow online, I usually get the opposite impression. However, whether these be circles of twitter followers, tumblr pages, blogs, or comic forums, they are all a bit skewed and echo-chambery in various ways. This made me wonder:
I know at the end of the day money is the most important indicator for any business, but does Marvel editorial typically track or measure sentiment around the reception of different comic book runs in online spaces? I work in the video game industry, and large game studios tend to have community engagement or social media teams that grab lots of data from various social media(s) to see how fans are reacting to or anticipating various, even specific things about games and franchises. Do Marvel comics do anything like that? I suppose one avenue of gauging feedback I'm aware of is through your various office emails such as mheroes.
Thank you for another interesting and informative missive! Every week, I look forward to the Sunday morning notification that a new edition has been posted. I have no questions, only an additional measure of gratitude for the paragraph about conspiracy theories ("Here's the thing..."). Very well said, and something definitely worth sharing.
Mr. Brevoort. Fundamentally I think there's a larger issue at hand. One I think you can appreciate as a comics scholar yourself. You have written countless notes and commentary on old comics going into detail on various behind the scenes notes and concepts. You were able to do so owing to the diligence of comics scholars in the past on one hand, but primarily to the greater accessibility and candor of people working behind the scenes.
Since 2008 or so (coinciding with the Marvel Disney purchase which might or might not be the explanation), there's been comparatively little data about the making of comics at Marvel in the same time frame. Primarily the only information at hand is various PR spin and marketing diktats of the kind that would be inadmissible at an earlier time. There's very little transparency and candor from people involved behind the scenes. In the internet era it's a bit baffling for there to be more information behind the scenes about a story as old as The Night Gwen Stacy Died rather than one as recent as One More Day for example. The periods after that are similarly blank.
So in a certain sense, the current issue of competing claims about the Kamala Khan fracas feels self-generated. To some extent, it's ideal from a marketing perspective, where people raising doubts about the execution of a comics storyline can raise doubts but be dismissed as conspiracy theorists all the while the publisher is not in any obligation to provide real data to back its claims. Nor is there any information that is not open to any independent verification or double-checking. All that's left is the honor system, the expectation that Marvel Editorial can tell the truth, when editors and publishers of the past, great ones at that, in any comics continuity, have been noted fibbers. There's a profound expectation here that the current Marvel Editorial be regarded as the most honest, truest, highest in conduct on a level hitherto unseen. And I'm not sure this present response addresses that.
I think conspiracy theories around Amazing Spider-Man are a fired stoked both by some readers' wild imaginations and Marvel/Spidey editorial choosing to be a bit too confrontational towards the fact that the current run has a larger than usual amount of fans unhappy.
Then there have been some course corrections absolutely evident in the book: it started by telling us that Peter had done something so terrible, so unforgivable, that put him at odds with everybody and caused MJ to leave him. When we (finally!) got the full story, Peter had done pretty much nothing and MJ had just decided to move on with another guy just because. There is an absolute disconnect between how it was presented and how it was resolved.
And then there is the fact that Kamala was drawn in the resurrection scene without her usual facial features. She literally looks like a grown up white woman colored with a darker skin tone.
Look, I've never gave the character-switch narrative any credence, but if you put all this together then it becomes much less of a stretch than how you are presenting it.
I was listening to Hey Jude from The Beatles the other day, and it's a song that maybe shouldn't work. It's a pop song that's over 7 minutes long and has an endlessly repetitive ending. I'm not sure if it's true, but I've read that even with as successful as The Beatles were, there was studio pushback about releasing it, and in the end, it turned out to be one of their biggest hits. Have you ever had a comic story like that? A supremely talented creator pitched an idea that really seemed to cut against the grain of what sells comic books, but due to their track record you acquiesced and it ended up being a hit?
Something I've long been curious about: 2001's The Incredible Hulk #26 was shipped from the printer inside a clear polybag. No markings on the bag, nothing included with the comic, no mature content. Do you recall why?
well OBVIOUSLY my theory about the Shogun Warriors' plots being deliberate metaphors for the Carter administration & the pre-Reagan national malaise are NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH how dare you call it a conspiracy EVERYONE AT MARVEL WAS IN ON IT
You write, “it now typically takes an artist around six weeks to do a book.” Has Marvel ever tried an every-six-week publishing schedule to better accommodate the modern rhythms of drawing a comic? I know there were a few bimonthly books back in the 1970s, and I assume they weren’t successful in holding readers’ interest. But I’d be willing to wait the extra two weeks if it meant an artist could have an unbroken run on a book.
I'm very sorry to hear about the way that some Spider-Man fans behave to simple information.
It's frustrating, because I genuinely love to hear all about the behind-the-scenes stories of a bunch of creative people trying to tell stories about characters with a 60-year history, to a very tight deadline. And that includes the wins and the mistakes. It's why I love this newsletter so much.
And fans are losing those opportunities to hear more because creatives are being told to quit, or worse, if anyone disagrees. And it's very understandable why. Just look at what people say to Nick Lowe every time he tweets about a Spider-Man comic.
There’s a standard assumption that a crossover issue of a comic (especially a comic without robust sales) may have been suggested/forced up on them by editorial, in order to bolster sales. Have there been cases of the opposite, though? Where a writer wanted to steer their comic into an upcoming crossover, but the editor nixed it?
Speaking of last minute changes and/or the conspiracy belief in them, I wonder if you can speak to the way they Secret Empire changed, or didn't, from say issue 1 of the event to the finale. It certainly felt like there were things set up and teased, both within the comic and in promos, that didn't quite match the end. But perhaps it's a boring example of the story evolving organically and well in advance, rather than in response to criticism.
Medium length side tangent: I think one reason people beleive in conspiracy theories is that there really *are* examples of events which people in power attempt to cover up. I would argue this happens in comics even - things do change behind the scenes, and the public doesn't always get the full or honest story as to why. Now, there are often good and reasonable reasons for these changes, and even reasons for not being fully transparent with the public. But it does engender suspicion.
As an example, I think about the way in which Fantastic Four was sidelined, and a strong denial from Marvel that such was happening. I don't k ow if anyone was open about why Inhumans were given greater prominence, though everyone suspects it was for the Disney/Fox reasons.
yeah I wonder what Rick Remenders original plans for Hydra were (Misty Knight seemed to be a Hydra agent and hinted there were more traitors about). Anything you can share Tom?
My father also died at a young age for both himself and me. As it happened, the day on which I surpassed him in age was one that allowed for me to be in the city where the bulk of my memories of him were (we lived there from my age 3-11, and he died only a few months after we moved back to our mutual home town). But the odd thing was that the house we lived in while there was on the market. So I pretended to be a possible buyer and got inside it for the first time since we'd moved decades before. Definitely intensified the memories I had of him to be back in it.
In regards to 'one more day' - maybe one bone of contention is that Mephisto 'won' a victory against Spidey? Is it possible if Mephisto dissolved the marriage but somehow was denied another victory (bunch of souls freed, etc) maybe fans would feel better about this story?
It seemed like the Spencer run (and Aaron's Avengers run) were leading to some comeuppance for Mephisto that never happened..what do you think?
(I liked the spidey-MJ marriage but get why the status quo was returned to in terms of Peter being single - makes sense and sorry to see fans react so aggressively to marvel staff over this).
Jack Quaid is listed on various Internet sources as somewhere between 6'1" and 6'3". Anson Mount is between 5'11" and 6'1", with Rebecca Romijn definitely being taller than average at 5'11" and Jess Bush not far behind at 5'9-10" and Celia Rose Gooding at 5'8". Ethan Peck is 6'1", but Christina Chong is just 5'4" and Melissa Navia just 5'3". Babs Olusanmokun is on the shorter side at 5'9".
So Quaid is either taller than or right at the tallest of the SNW cast, and would appear possibly significantly taller than Olusanmokun (4-6") and significantly taller than Chong or Navia (8"-12").
On the topic of late books, I have always wondered why companies don't get more issues in house before publishing, especially for crossover events. With the Dreaded Deadline Doom a thing of the past this would make sense.
You buried the lead on the Kevin Maguire story. WHY did he only do one issue of Cap? I don’t remember any other high profile book he worked on after that.
Hi there! A few weeks back, you mentioned "Today, when fans enthuse about the wonderfulness of YOUNG AVENGERS, most often they’re speaking about Kieron and Jamie’s work, rather than Allan and Jim’s."
Interestingly, within my own lens of Young Avengers fandoms I follow online, I usually get the opposite impression. However, whether these be circles of twitter followers, tumblr pages, blogs, or comic forums, they are all a bit skewed and echo-chambery in various ways. This made me wonder:
I know at the end of the day money is the most important indicator for any business, but does Marvel editorial typically track or measure sentiment around the reception of different comic book runs in online spaces? I work in the video game industry, and large game studios tend to have community engagement or social media teams that grab lots of data from various social media(s) to see how fans are reacting to or anticipating various, even specific things about games and franchises. Do Marvel comics do anything like that? I suppose one avenue of gauging feedback I'm aware of is through your various office emails such as mheroes.
Thanks and looking forward to the next post!
Thank you for another interesting and informative missive! Every week, I look forward to the Sunday morning notification that a new edition has been posted. I have no questions, only an additional measure of gratitude for the paragraph about conspiracy theories ("Here's the thing..."). Very well said, and something definitely worth sharing.
Mr. Brevoort. Fundamentally I think there's a larger issue at hand. One I think you can appreciate as a comics scholar yourself. You have written countless notes and commentary on old comics going into detail on various behind the scenes notes and concepts. You were able to do so owing to the diligence of comics scholars in the past on one hand, but primarily to the greater accessibility and candor of people working behind the scenes.
Since 2008 or so (coinciding with the Marvel Disney purchase which might or might not be the explanation), there's been comparatively little data about the making of comics at Marvel in the same time frame. Primarily the only information at hand is various PR spin and marketing diktats of the kind that would be inadmissible at an earlier time. There's very little transparency and candor from people involved behind the scenes. In the internet era it's a bit baffling for there to be more information behind the scenes about a story as old as The Night Gwen Stacy Died rather than one as recent as One More Day for example. The periods after that are similarly blank.
So in a certain sense, the current issue of competing claims about the Kamala Khan fracas feels self-generated. To some extent, it's ideal from a marketing perspective, where people raising doubts about the execution of a comics storyline can raise doubts but be dismissed as conspiracy theorists all the while the publisher is not in any obligation to provide real data to back its claims. Nor is there any information that is not open to any independent verification or double-checking. All that's left is the honor system, the expectation that Marvel Editorial can tell the truth, when editors and publishers of the past, great ones at that, in any comics continuity, have been noted fibbers. There's a profound expectation here that the current Marvel Editorial be regarded as the most honest, truest, highest in conduct on a level hitherto unseen. And I'm not sure this present response addresses that.
I think conspiracy theories around Amazing Spider-Man are a fired stoked both by some readers' wild imaginations and Marvel/Spidey editorial choosing to be a bit too confrontational towards the fact that the current run has a larger than usual amount of fans unhappy.
Then there have been some course corrections absolutely evident in the book: it started by telling us that Peter had done something so terrible, so unforgivable, that put him at odds with everybody and caused MJ to leave him. When we (finally!) got the full story, Peter had done pretty much nothing and MJ had just decided to move on with another guy just because. There is an absolute disconnect between how it was presented and how it was resolved.
And then there is the fact that Kamala was drawn in the resurrection scene without her usual facial features. She literally looks like a grown up white woman colored with a darker skin tone.
Look, I've never gave the character-switch narrative any credence, but if you put all this together then it becomes much less of a stretch than how you are presenting it.
I was listening to Hey Jude from The Beatles the other day, and it's a song that maybe shouldn't work. It's a pop song that's over 7 minutes long and has an endlessly repetitive ending. I'm not sure if it's true, but I've read that even with as successful as The Beatles were, there was studio pushback about releasing it, and in the end, it turned out to be one of their biggest hits. Have you ever had a comic story like that? A supremely talented creator pitched an idea that really seemed to cut against the grain of what sells comic books, but due to their track record you acquiesced and it ended up being a hit?
Something I've long been curious about: 2001's The Incredible Hulk #26 was shipped from the printer inside a clear polybag. No markings on the bag, nothing included with the comic, no mature content. Do you recall why?