So I think this is going to be a long one, given the number of questions that came in this week and the number of things I set up to talk about beforehand.
Great newsletter, as always, Tom -- and very exciting (albeit mysterious) news about that Buckley Initiative. On the Captain Marvel front, I happen to be doing a retrospective on the revamp of Carol Danvers for io9, where I'm talking to the creators involved. Any chance you'd be willing to let me pose a couple of questions about that initial push from yourself and Brian to make Carol Captain Marvel?
Sure, but you should send me a request for that at my Marvel e-mail address, tbrevoort@marvel.com so that it can be set up through Marvel's promo department.
Absolutely, and thank you! I'll send a note over to you via email from ZRabiroff at gmail dot com, so we can go through the right channels for it. Much appreciated.
I don't mean to drag the Ms. Marvel controversy out in this space, but I feel compelled to say this about it: I buy comics through DCBS out of necessity, so I have to buy everything in advance. The absurd turnaround on her "death" and rebirth meant that I was being asked to buy "CLASSIFIED #1 by TBA," before any details were revealed, which I obviously did not do. And then, once it was too late for me to get it, Marvel announced that it's the new Ms. Marvel comic, which I absolutely would have purchased. So, not only does her "death" seem more cynical than any comics death I can think of, the manner of its execution cost you my business. Against my will, even. This will be the first Ms. Marvel series I don't buy since Kamala's introduction. This has been an extremely disappointing experience.
Great article this week Tom! Excited about your news, the new series announcements, and everything you hinted at!
Was wondering your thoughts on licensed comics - there seems to be a resurgence recently (The Kirkman Transformers shared universe, the new Conan series, the fox properties at Marvel, etc) - I find there is a rich history in comics of toy/movie licensed material that could have been fluff but was elevated in comics form (as a child of the 80s I find that Gi Joe is better than it has any right to be under Larry Hama).
Any favourite licensed books? Or properties you think would be fun in comic book form (Indiana jones?)?
I am happy that Marvel will be reprinting ROM and the MICRONAUTS series.
"...there were sudden concerns about any character who was going to so prominently carry the Marvel name in that way."
Were the concerns centered around making the new CM female? Monica Rambeau was one of better holders of that title, I thought, and given Carol's historic ties to Mar-Vell, she seems like a natural successor.
Another fun Sunday read! Thank you! You mention how cover concepts for that seven years in development project have changed as the marketplace has shifted. I was curious how today’s covers are different than other eras? (I’m loving those Alex Ross covers for the current F.F. run!)
Also, I know the Star Wars comics have been a big success. Has there been consideration of a line of books set in the MCU continuity? I’ve always thought the five years directly after the Thanos snap could be a rich area for stories. But I could also see not wanting to compete with your own line of books or confuse readers (something Star Wars doesn’t have to worry about.)
Has Marvel ever packaged any runs or arcs in an Absolute-style edition? I know there are some hardcover deluxe versions of certain arcs, but nothing quite like the oversized Absolute versions that DC has done. At least none that I can think of. Any reason why Marvel hasn’t done something similar? Any runs or arcs you think would fit that kind of format? Civil War, Marvels, and House of M came to my mind.
It's a passing reference, but why do you call playing fast and loose with the set-up a “Roy Thomas violation”? Was he particularly keen that people didn't do that, or famous for doing that himself?
I have a pretty good suspicion about what's coming based on past conversations and the specific wording you used so, obviously, CONGRATS! I'm pumped to see what you have on tap and will have more to say once things are made public.
Comics’ page counts have moved way up and down. 64 pages, down to 17, now around 22. 17-pagers had fewer subplots and less action, but each page became more consequential. Do you think there’s some Aristotelian length that makes for the best monthly comics story? Or can good people tell good stories regardless of page length?
Been thinking a lot about this as Dan Slott mentioned that a couple new ongoings he’s doing will be 22 pages a month. I wonder if Marvel might be testing the waters of going back to that higher page counts at a slightly higher price.
Looks like the reason 2001's "Incredible Hulk" #26 came inside a polybag was because it also included a CD that allowed you to sign in into something called "MARVELONLINE.NET", according to this eBay listing: https://www.ebay.com/itm/275630642729
Since you brought him up-- whatever happened to Gravity? I really enjoyed that character back in the mid 2000s. Especially his debut miniseries. It had a lot of classic Spider-Man vibes. Can we get a check-in with him? Is he alive and well somewhere in the 616? Any future plans? (Apologies if he's already in a series I'm unaware of.)
Thanks as always for the detailed answers! I look forward to watching that deep dive into Secret Empire. I'm curious if you could point me/us to the best place to read your answers on Fantastic Four and/or Inhumans, as most of what I can find is from places that have a more critical or even suspicious approach to the "company line."
On that note, can you shed any light on what precisely happened with the 2020 New Warriors title? I'd always assumed that the superhero names teased in the promos were intentionally a little tone deaf, and that part of the story (ala Heinburg/Cheung Young Avengers) would be the heroes stepping out of the conception of what the adults wanted and carving their own. It seems some of the ideas may have been used in Children of the Atom, but I could be entirely wrong, on any or all points.
Also, Supreme Power was a very important gateway comic for me, so thanks helping bring that to life. It always felt to me like a popcorn version of Watchmen, which I mean entirely as a compliment (I've re-read the series many times). Can you share what things Marvel had to avoid to not piss of DC? I've always felt the very clear alternate superman but treated "realistically" was one of the best parts of that story.
Finally, not a question, but surely a Hey Jude moment has been the decision to kill of Ultimate Peter Parker and replace him with Miles Morales. I don't remember what the state of the Ultimate line was at the time in terms of how risky it might have been, but I think there's a case to be made that Miles Morales is the most successful new Marvel character of the 21st century.
EDIT: Sorry, one last question. What's with the Nick Lowe "hate"? I can't imagine you actually being so publicly rude to a colleague if it weren't tongue firmly in cheek, but I also feel like I came to late to the newsletter to follow what is probably at this point an inside joke?
I gotta tell you, Jack, and I mean no disrespect by this. But I got a real laugh out of you writing to this Newsletter that goes into behind-the-scenes details in minute detail each and every week about a wide variety of things from the past three decades to complain that there’s no way to get behind-the-scenes details about the events of the past three decades. Having been a reader and a fan in the 1970s and 1980s, I have to tell you, you get a mountain more inside information and a lot more ready direct contact with the creators than we could ever have dreamed of back then. Also, if anybody has ever performed any independent verification on the events of The Dark Phoenix Saga, I’ve never heard about it. We know what we know because the people who were involved told us what had gone on at some point, and there were the work-products of the era and the printed comics themselves from which certain truths could be devised. But as the audience, you’re not entitled to know how the cake is made, any more than I was back in the day. The transaction is: you give me money and some of your time and I give you a story that you hopefully feel is worthy of both. And if you don’t, then next month you give me neither. Any backstage stuff isn’t a part of the compact at all—any more than it is with a TV show, a film or a novel or game. You might get some of that info if the people involved feel a desire to share, but it isn’t required. Does that make sense?
------------------------------------
First of all, thanks for your response and addressing my reply.
Coming from a background in film history, I don't find the argument "you’re not entitled to know how the cake is made, any more than I was back in the day" especially convincing. We know a great deal of how Alfred Hitchcock made his movies for instance thanks to documentary evidence (production notes, drafts, etc), much of which contradict his own claims. The same is true of the Making of Citizen Kane, or J. W. Rinzler's books on the making of Star Wars or Joseph McBride's biography of Frank Capra. A number of biographies of artists and politicians make a great deal of use of archival material, as and when applicable. I don't think there's an argument for claiming that comics as a medium are any more entitled to privacy than any other art-form.
In the case of The Dark Phoenix Saga alone, we have significantly more data and documentation than all Marvel Comics of the last decade put together. Including original scripts, alternate scenes, and accounts from everyone in the team. That there are contradictions only points to the fact that nobody is arguing the same set of talking points. The sense of "common messaging" does feel characteristic of the "creative committee" era that's been in place for nearly the last two decades. Obviously, there's aspects we'll never fully know, and nobody would say that explanations of such kind fully explain the work or are needed to like/dislike these stories. I personally think having a more open and candid view of the publication's working processes would lower the temperature greatly. Openness isn't the same as having "access", in my perspective at least. Today we have more "access" certainly but I'm not so sure that's good for either fans or creators, since there's a great deal of performative anxiety (on both sides) that comes with needing to maintain a 'public-facing' customer care image.
Jack - My understanding of Tom's reply to you was that fans have far more current info/access today than they previously did and yet there is a contingent that remains convinced that they are being lied to for some reason. A fact that is not altogether borne out by the facts, or by the honesty which creatives like Tom display in forums like this.
In the current instance of the death of Ms Marvel, fans raised a theory - we have been told it is incorrect and yet some people (and it seems, in this case, you) are insisting they are being lied to and/or that some sort of independent verification will be needed before they will believe.
Your point about drafts of Hitchcock scripts etc is a good one and true - we do get a greater insight into the creative process through such things but I think Tom was saying that is outside the scope of the contract you enter into when you buy a comic. The deal is for the pages you buy - what the creators may share after that is gravy for those who are interested but it isn't owed by anyone to anyone. Just as those Hitchcock early drafts were not owed to anyone. If fans had screamed at Hitch that he had clearly meant for Janet Leigh to live through to the end of Psycho, and he had told them that was not the case, and they had had insisted that they knew better, would this have necessitated his producing his earliest drafts? And if he had, would that ever be enough?
I have no doubt you understand all this but your comment here proposes that actually Marvel (or whoever) should produce this independent verification, and they should produce it now.
In time, these things may come to light but the creative team surely can't be responding to every fan demand. It seems disingenuous to refer to biographies and draft scripts that emerged sometimes years after the fact to justify that they do.
I've already written too much but I suppose I am mystified at the people who insist they know the real truth with no more than hunch really to back it up. And this tendency to insist the truth is as what I want to believe it is extends far beyond comics, and we are the poorer for it.
1) I never once referred directly to the Kamala Khan theory that Brevoort addressing. Got nothing to do with what I said.
2) I do think that as an editor of a company who also doubles as a comics scholar, Mr. Brevoort ought to address the dichotomy of the latter vocation owing itself to transparency of the kind that's clearly, no longer practiced at Marvel on his watch.
When before we got fairly open views...going back to the early 1960s era fanzines which Ditko interacted with (available in Steve Ballmer's recent edited compilation), to the Alter-Ego stuff of the '70s, the TCJ stuff of the 1980s. Jim Shooter was a flawed man but Bill Mantlo could talk smack of him in an interview without fear of losing a position. Perhaps not because Shooter was especially honorable but because the industry was more open and candid at the time. The example of The Dark Phoenix Saga is especially weak as a refutation because we got to know more about that comic in the 1980s itself than anything over the last 2 decades.
3) "what the creators may share after that is gravy for those who are interested but it isn't owed by anyone to anyone" okay but then I think editors shouldn't get into a huff if people are going by what's on the page. The insistence on special pleading of good faith while denying transparency strikes me as an untenable position. If you wish the work must speak for itself then fine, keep quiet when fans speculate away. Stanley Kubrick had that mentality and it never bothered him that people made up theories about The Shining or that he faked the moon landing or whatever. He just went on with his work.
4) "In time, these things may come to light but the creative team surely can't be responding to every fan demand." Well to take another example of a well documented 1980s comics. Look at Avengers #200 that was a complete mess that happened because everyone slept at the wheel. Yet Shooter admitted a mistake happened, he allowed Chris Claremont to address it at the earliest opportunity. There are other examples, but the kind of doubling down siege mentality on offer at Marvel since the 2000s isn't characteristic of its period of highest impact and readership certainly. The era of Marvel in the creative committee period seems by contrast a time of doubling or tripling down, a kind of self-righteousness which means mistakes are never admitted, never walked-back, never acknowledged. And it's that mentality that is my concern here.
5) ", and we are the poorer for it." We are poorer indeed but only because of a tendency to not uphold people to higher standards and norms.
Hi Jack - you make good points, and are obviously well versed in comics history - more so than I am to be sure.
Perhaps I have been hoodwinked by, say, Tom's strategic candour about certain things - all designed to lure readers like myself into believing him when he lies elsewhere but I don't think that's the case.
I guess my reaction to your comment comes from the idea that it occurs in a forum in which I see Tom being honest about mistakes, or errors of judgement being made in the heat of the deadline-driven comics-making process, and clear about when he doesn't know or cannot say. So when he says such-and-such a thing is the way it was, I am inclined to believe that. You said "There's very little transparency and candor from people involved behind the scenes." and I find myself thinking "Aren't we on Tom's Substack where those transparency and candor are in good supply?"
You followed that by later saying (when you very much did refer to the Kamala Khan theory) "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".
It seems odd to contrast the current situation with Ditko or Mantlo giving their opinions because even then, that was just their opinion/recollection. Mantlo said this. Shooter said that. And the audience decides who they want to believe. The difference is that Mantlo and Shooter were there. The fans who Tom referred to as arguing with him when he assured them that Khan's death had always been intended were not. Why insist they know otherwise?
In a wider sense, you may perhaps be right that professionals are not as able to be as open as they once were (In, say, your example of talking smack about former/current collaborators) (though I suspect Mantlo's behaviour is an outlier and people are usually cordial about the people with whom they work) but that's not restricted to comics, and it's the result of a whole host of factors - including the rise of the internet and globalised media, an awareness that bad press may hurt sales, more importance being placed on spoilers, increased competition, the growth of online outlets analysing every statement, a realisation that these things have a longer life than anyone initially expected and more.
The gnomic silence which you refer to Kubrick working in was largely in the pre-internet era and is not entirely a fair comparison. As his reputation grew, he had less and less need to explain everything - indeed there may have been commercial logic in appearing more obtuse, and preserving a wizard-like reputation. And that's before we even discuss the man's dislike of travel and the selling side of the process.
It seems to me that your logic suggests that if Kubrick had come out and said "I did not film fake moon landings" and fans argued with him, suggesting he was obviously lying, he'd have to accept that as the price of speaking out.
Well maybe, but refusing to accept the word of someone who was there when they don't seem to have any particular reason to lie is part of the toxicity of online culture. And well spoken and erudite people like yourself provide them with cover - telling us it's actually the fault of the "creative committee period" of Marvel and fans should go right on pressing their baseless theories until some proof is offered up.
I hear what you're saying about the work speaking for itself but you seem to pose a false dichotomy - that creators can either produce work and say nothing, or they can produce work, talk about it, and accept fans accusing them of lying.
No one has expressed any problem with fans raising their theories but when the people involved refute them, what reason does anyone have to disbelieve them?
I have again written too much but I figured I owed it to you not to bow out when you took the trouble to respond.
Perhaps we shall not see eye-to-eye but perhaps we can agree that this forum is a pleasant place to be, and not ruin that with bickering.
I've read a few books such as Sean Howe's history of Marvel or Grant Morrison's Supergods but I would like to read more. Tell me - what book would you recommend to get more insight into the creative sagas of comics in decades past?
1) "It seems odd to contrast the current situation with Ditko or Mantlo giving their opinions because even then, that was just their opinion/recollection."
Well it's just not one opinion, right? It's multiple views which coalesce into a mosaic. You judge based on long term patterns and corroborate it with other stuff. Right now there's no way to corroborate anything said by anyone in Marvel editorial. We know Steve Ditko's views on Spider-Man are more reliable than Stan Lee's because Ditko's story has stayed consistent from the 1960s to the 2000s for one, he said the stuff before and after Spider-Man got big and it's always corroborated with the evidence on the page. Whereas Stan Lee's views are all over the place by comparison, and famously more reliably in stuff he said in the 1960s (openly bragging about the Marvel Method for instance) than at any time later.
2) "I guess my reaction to your comment comes from the idea that it occurs in a forum in which I see Tom being honest about mistakes, or errors of judgement being made in the heat of the deadline-driven comics-making process, and clear about when he doesn't know or cannot say. "
My perspective is that Tom Brevoort is a person in a position of power. Not that he's the most powerful person in the Disney-Marvel enterprise, or they're responsible for everything. But certainly someone in a position of influence and authority. He's also a public figure in that his actions as an executive aren't private and ought to be seen that way. So that means that all his actions, which includes his posts on this blog, ought to be seen as an extension of that activity. And I've had experience where Mr. Brevoort's work as part of Marvel Editorial compromised his critical judgment. His famous "Brevoort Manifesto" is rife with basic factual errors, as is his follow-up "Spider-Man is about Youth" which repeats the nostrum that Ditko was opposed to Spider-Man leaving high school (an idea that only went public sometime around 2000 or so, it was never discussed at any time before). And that's a case of Mr. Brevoort talking about something where he was "never there". I wrote about it here, demolishing it completely [https://elvingsmusings.wordpress.com/2022/01/11/ditko-and-high-school-the-history-of-an-office-rumor/]. And Mr. Brevoort has never updated his story or accepted the new evidence that's come since, all the while his Brevoort Manifesto ideas becomes a reigning ideology inside Marvel and other places.
I myself have had the chance to use Mr. Brevoort's blogposts as a resource to research stuff like the true origins of Spider-Man, the role of Simon and Kirby in gestating the idea and Kirby bringing that to Marvel so I'm not saying his work isn't valuable or that it's all propaganda. Far from it. I evaluate each thing said on its basis and try to corroborate it.
There's not space or time right now for me to go across Mr. Brevoort's posts but I think, given human nature, and patterns already established, there's enough that a lot posted here ought to be considered with a grain of salt. I
3) "The gnomic silence which you refer to Kubrick working in was largely in the pre-internet era"
Artists who avoid the limelight is still a thing even in the Internet era. Nobody knows Thomas Pynchon still and he's published 3 novels in the internet era. Banksy is similarly elusive, among film-makers Terence Malick. Steve Ditko was active in the Internet era and until he died there were only three photographs known to the public (since his passing there's been several to the extent that younger readers no longer get how weird it is to have access to all of that).
4) "No one has expressed any problem with fans raising their theories but when the people involved refute them, what reason does anyone have to disbelieve them?"
If past is prologue, human nature is constant, and the nature of the comics industry hasn't fundamentally changed, it stands to reason that the Marvel Comics of today is no more nor less honest/credible than in the past. What that means is that the Kamala Khan conspiracy theories are very likely to be false, but what's also likely is that there's a great deal omitted in the official story put out about the whole resurrection fracas. Legally I doubt there's anything entirely untrue spoken here but I do think that there's more to the story put out. Obviously this was a story that was considerably botched in execution. We ought to talk about that more than the intentions, so that part I agree with Mr. Brevoort. But I also don't accept what Mr. Brevoort said as the whole truth, or that there isn't more to the story. What that is, I won't speculate but I will stress the gaps arising from asymmetry. At the end of the day, that drawing of Kamala on resurrection was colored poorly and quite a bit off-model.
5) "I've read a few books such as Sean Howe's history of Marvel or Grant Morrison's Supergods but I would like to read more. Tell me - what book would you recommend to get more insight into the creative sagas of comics in decades past?"
Well the thing about comics scholarship is that these days a lot of it is on the internet. Like Sean Howe's book is a good introduction in parts but most of the stuff it has to say about Jim Shooter is based on dated information, which R. S. Martin has debunked here (http://rsmwriter.blogspot.com/2016/06/jim-shooter-second-opinion.html). His work has citations and good research.
Among books,
-- "Steve Ditko in the 1960s" edited by J. Ballman. Which brings in tons of new information, some of which definitely challenges stuff that Mr. Brevoort has said about Ditko in other avenues. I reviewed it here:
-- Abraham Josephine Riesman's biography of Stan Lee (True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee) is the single best and most detailed look at Marvel Comics and Lee's own personality.
-- Tom Scioli's Jack Kirby the Graphic Biography. He has an upcoming one on Stan Lee as a complement.
-- Lance Parkin's "MAGIC WORDS", a very good biography of Moore which is fair and balanced and avoids hagiography.
I thoroughly enjoy these, Tom! The process stuff is an extra treat this round.
Great newsletter, as always, Tom -- and very exciting (albeit mysterious) news about that Buckley Initiative. On the Captain Marvel front, I happen to be doing a retrospective on the revamp of Carol Danvers for io9, where I'm talking to the creators involved. Any chance you'd be willing to let me pose a couple of questions about that initial push from yourself and Brian to make Carol Captain Marvel?
Sure, but you should send me a request for that at my Marvel e-mail address, tbrevoort@marvel.com so that it can be set up through Marvel's promo department.
Absolutely, and thank you! I'll send a note over to you via email from ZRabiroff at gmail dot com, so we can go through the right channels for it. Much appreciated.
I don't mean to drag the Ms. Marvel controversy out in this space, but I feel compelled to say this about it: I buy comics through DCBS out of necessity, so I have to buy everything in advance. The absurd turnaround on her "death" and rebirth meant that I was being asked to buy "CLASSIFIED #1 by TBA," before any details were revealed, which I obviously did not do. And then, once it was too late for me to get it, Marvel announced that it's the new Ms. Marvel comic, which I absolutely would have purchased. So, not only does her "death" seem more cynical than any comics death I can think of, the manner of its execution cost you my business. Against my will, even. This will be the first Ms. Marvel series I don't buy since Kamala's introduction. This has been an extremely disappointing experience.
Great article this week Tom! Excited about your news, the new series announcements, and everything you hinted at!
Was wondering your thoughts on licensed comics - there seems to be a resurgence recently (The Kirkman Transformers shared universe, the new Conan series, the fox properties at Marvel, etc) - I find there is a rich history in comics of toy/movie licensed material that could have been fluff but was elevated in comics form (as a child of the 80s I find that Gi Joe is better than it has any right to be under Larry Hama).
Any favourite licensed books? Or properties you think would be fun in comic book form (Indiana jones?)?
I am happy that Marvel will be reprinting ROM and the MICRONAUTS series.
Some excellent hints as to secret upcoming things . . . . I really hope you'll explicitly mention in a future newsletter what these were referring to!
"...there were sudden concerns about any character who was going to so prominently carry the Marvel name in that way."
Were the concerns centered around making the new CM female? Monica Rambeau was one of better holders of that title, I thought, and given Carol's historic ties to Mar-Vell, she seems like a natural successor.
Another fun Sunday read! Thank you! You mention how cover concepts for that seven years in development project have changed as the marketplace has shifted. I was curious how today’s covers are different than other eras? (I’m loving those Alex Ross covers for the current F.F. run!)
Also, I know the Star Wars comics have been a big success. Has there been consideration of a line of books set in the MCU continuity? I’ve always thought the five years directly after the Thanos snap could be a rich area for stories. But I could also see not wanting to compete with your own line of books or confuse readers (something Star Wars doesn’t have to worry about.)
Mr. Brevoort,
Has Marvel ever packaged any runs or arcs in an Absolute-style edition? I know there are some hardcover deluxe versions of certain arcs, but nothing quite like the oversized Absolute versions that DC has done. At least none that I can think of. Any reason why Marvel hasn’t done something similar? Any runs or arcs you think would fit that kind of format? Civil War, Marvels, and House of M came to my mind.
It's a passing reference, but why do you call playing fast and loose with the set-up a “Roy Thomas violation”? Was he particularly keen that people didn't do that, or famous for doing that himself?
I have a pretty good suspicion about what's coming based on past conversations and the specific wording you used so, obviously, CONGRATS! I'm pumped to see what you have on tap and will have more to say once things are made public.
I, too, am really glad that Marvel is finally promoting Staff Sergeant America to Captain America. It's about time.
Comics’ page counts have moved way up and down. 64 pages, down to 17, now around 22. 17-pagers had fewer subplots and less action, but each page became more consequential. Do you think there’s some Aristotelian length that makes for the best monthly comics story? Or can good people tell good stories regardless of page length?
Been thinking a lot about this as Dan Slott mentioned that a couple new ongoings he’s doing will be 22 pages a month. I wonder if Marvel might be testing the waters of going back to that higher page counts at a slightly higher price.
Looks like the reason 2001's "Incredible Hulk" #26 came inside a polybag was because it also included a CD that allowed you to sign in into something called "MARVELONLINE.NET", according to this eBay listing: https://www.ebay.com/itm/275630642729
Since you brought him up-- whatever happened to Gravity? I really enjoyed that character back in the mid 2000s. Especially his debut miniseries. It had a lot of classic Spider-Man vibes. Can we get a check-in with him? Is he alive and well somewhere in the 616? Any future plans? (Apologies if he's already in a series I'm unaware of.)
He was last seen in Young Avengers almost 10 years ago. So he's definitely still alive somewhere.
Thanks as always for the detailed answers! I look forward to watching that deep dive into Secret Empire. I'm curious if you could point me/us to the best place to read your answers on Fantastic Four and/or Inhumans, as most of what I can find is from places that have a more critical or even suspicious approach to the "company line."
On that note, can you shed any light on what precisely happened with the 2020 New Warriors title? I'd always assumed that the superhero names teased in the promos were intentionally a little tone deaf, and that part of the story (ala Heinburg/Cheung Young Avengers) would be the heroes stepping out of the conception of what the adults wanted and carving their own. It seems some of the ideas may have been used in Children of the Atom, but I could be entirely wrong, on any or all points.
Also, Supreme Power was a very important gateway comic for me, so thanks helping bring that to life. It always felt to me like a popcorn version of Watchmen, which I mean entirely as a compliment (I've re-read the series many times). Can you share what things Marvel had to avoid to not piss of DC? I've always felt the very clear alternate superman but treated "realistically" was one of the best parts of that story.
Finally, not a question, but surely a Hey Jude moment has been the decision to kill of Ultimate Peter Parker and replace him with Miles Morales. I don't remember what the state of the Ultimate line was at the time in terms of how risky it might have been, but I think there's a case to be made that Miles Morales is the most successful new Marvel character of the 21st century.
EDIT: Sorry, one last question. What's with the Nick Lowe "hate"? I can't imagine you actually being so publicly rude to a colleague if it weren't tongue firmly in cheek, but I also feel like I came to late to the newsletter to follow what is probably at this point an inside joke?
That was great. I stood around like a loon after work, not going home.
------------------------------------
I gotta tell you, Jack, and I mean no disrespect by this. But I got a real laugh out of you writing to this Newsletter that goes into behind-the-scenes details in minute detail each and every week about a wide variety of things from the past three decades to complain that there’s no way to get behind-the-scenes details about the events of the past three decades. Having been a reader and a fan in the 1970s and 1980s, I have to tell you, you get a mountain more inside information and a lot more ready direct contact with the creators than we could ever have dreamed of back then. Also, if anybody has ever performed any independent verification on the events of The Dark Phoenix Saga, I’ve never heard about it. We know what we know because the people who were involved told us what had gone on at some point, and there were the work-products of the era and the printed comics themselves from which certain truths could be devised. But as the audience, you’re not entitled to know how the cake is made, any more than I was back in the day. The transaction is: you give me money and some of your time and I give you a story that you hopefully feel is worthy of both. And if you don’t, then next month you give me neither. Any backstage stuff isn’t a part of the compact at all—any more than it is with a TV show, a film or a novel or game. You might get some of that info if the people involved feel a desire to share, but it isn’t required. Does that make sense?
------------------------------------
First of all, thanks for your response and addressing my reply.
Coming from a background in film history, I don't find the argument "you’re not entitled to know how the cake is made, any more than I was back in the day" especially convincing. We know a great deal of how Alfred Hitchcock made his movies for instance thanks to documentary evidence (production notes, drafts, etc), much of which contradict his own claims. The same is true of the Making of Citizen Kane, or J. W. Rinzler's books on the making of Star Wars or Joseph McBride's biography of Frank Capra. A number of biographies of artists and politicians make a great deal of use of archival material, as and when applicable. I don't think there's an argument for claiming that comics as a medium are any more entitled to privacy than any other art-form.
In the case of The Dark Phoenix Saga alone, we have significantly more data and documentation than all Marvel Comics of the last decade put together. Including original scripts, alternate scenes, and accounts from everyone in the team. That there are contradictions only points to the fact that nobody is arguing the same set of talking points. The sense of "common messaging" does feel characteristic of the "creative committee" era that's been in place for nearly the last two decades. Obviously, there's aspects we'll never fully know, and nobody would say that explanations of such kind fully explain the work or are needed to like/dislike these stories. I personally think having a more open and candid view of the publication's working processes would lower the temperature greatly. Openness isn't the same as having "access", in my perspective at least. Today we have more "access" certainly but I'm not so sure that's good for either fans or creators, since there's a great deal of performative anxiety (on both sides) that comes with needing to maintain a 'public-facing' customer care image.
Jack - My understanding of Tom's reply to you was that fans have far more current info/access today than they previously did and yet there is a contingent that remains convinced that they are being lied to for some reason. A fact that is not altogether borne out by the facts, or by the honesty which creatives like Tom display in forums like this.
In the current instance of the death of Ms Marvel, fans raised a theory - we have been told it is incorrect and yet some people (and it seems, in this case, you) are insisting they are being lied to and/or that some sort of independent verification will be needed before they will believe.
Your point about drafts of Hitchcock scripts etc is a good one and true - we do get a greater insight into the creative process through such things but I think Tom was saying that is outside the scope of the contract you enter into when you buy a comic. The deal is for the pages you buy - what the creators may share after that is gravy for those who are interested but it isn't owed by anyone to anyone. Just as those Hitchcock early drafts were not owed to anyone. If fans had screamed at Hitch that he had clearly meant for Janet Leigh to live through to the end of Psycho, and he had told them that was not the case, and they had had insisted that they knew better, would this have necessitated his producing his earliest drafts? And if he had, would that ever be enough?
I have no doubt you understand all this but your comment here proposes that actually Marvel (or whoever) should produce this independent verification, and they should produce it now.
In time, these things may come to light but the creative team surely can't be responding to every fan demand. It seems disingenuous to refer to biographies and draft scripts that emerged sometimes years after the fact to justify that they do.
I've already written too much but I suppose I am mystified at the people who insist they know the real truth with no more than hunch really to back it up. And this tendency to insist the truth is as what I want to believe it is extends far beyond comics, and we are the poorer for it.
1) I never once referred directly to the Kamala Khan theory that Brevoort addressing. Got nothing to do with what I said.
2) I do think that as an editor of a company who also doubles as a comics scholar, Mr. Brevoort ought to address the dichotomy of the latter vocation owing itself to transparency of the kind that's clearly, no longer practiced at Marvel on his watch.
When before we got fairly open views...going back to the early 1960s era fanzines which Ditko interacted with (available in Steve Ballmer's recent edited compilation), to the Alter-Ego stuff of the '70s, the TCJ stuff of the 1980s. Jim Shooter was a flawed man but Bill Mantlo could talk smack of him in an interview without fear of losing a position. Perhaps not because Shooter was especially honorable but because the industry was more open and candid at the time. The example of The Dark Phoenix Saga is especially weak as a refutation because we got to know more about that comic in the 1980s itself than anything over the last 2 decades.
3) "what the creators may share after that is gravy for those who are interested but it isn't owed by anyone to anyone" okay but then I think editors shouldn't get into a huff if people are going by what's on the page. The insistence on special pleading of good faith while denying transparency strikes me as an untenable position. If you wish the work must speak for itself then fine, keep quiet when fans speculate away. Stanley Kubrick had that mentality and it never bothered him that people made up theories about The Shining or that he faked the moon landing or whatever. He just went on with his work.
4) "In time, these things may come to light but the creative team surely can't be responding to every fan demand." Well to take another example of a well documented 1980s comics. Look at Avengers #200 that was a complete mess that happened because everyone slept at the wheel. Yet Shooter admitted a mistake happened, he allowed Chris Claremont to address it at the earliest opportunity. There are other examples, but the kind of doubling down siege mentality on offer at Marvel since the 2000s isn't characteristic of its period of highest impact and readership certainly. The era of Marvel in the creative committee period seems by contrast a time of doubling or tripling down, a kind of self-righteousness which means mistakes are never admitted, never walked-back, never acknowledged. And it's that mentality that is my concern here.
5) ", and we are the poorer for it." We are poorer indeed but only because of a tendency to not uphold people to higher standards and norms.
Hi Jack - you make good points, and are obviously well versed in comics history - more so than I am to be sure.
Perhaps I have been hoodwinked by, say, Tom's strategic candour about certain things - all designed to lure readers like myself into believing him when he lies elsewhere but I don't think that's the case.
I guess my reaction to your comment comes from the idea that it occurs in a forum in which I see Tom being honest about mistakes, or errors of judgement being made in the heat of the deadline-driven comics-making process, and clear about when he doesn't know or cannot say. So when he says such-and-such a thing is the way it was, I am inclined to believe that. You said "There's very little transparency and candor from people involved behind the scenes." and I find myself thinking "Aren't we on Tom's Substack where those transparency and candor are in good supply?"
You followed that by later saying (when you very much did refer to the Kamala Khan theory) "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".
It seems odd to contrast the current situation with Ditko or Mantlo giving their opinions because even then, that was just their opinion/recollection. Mantlo said this. Shooter said that. And the audience decides who they want to believe. The difference is that Mantlo and Shooter were there. The fans who Tom referred to as arguing with him when he assured them that Khan's death had always been intended were not. Why insist they know otherwise?
In a wider sense, you may perhaps be right that professionals are not as able to be as open as they once were (In, say, your example of talking smack about former/current collaborators) (though I suspect Mantlo's behaviour is an outlier and people are usually cordial about the people with whom they work) but that's not restricted to comics, and it's the result of a whole host of factors - including the rise of the internet and globalised media, an awareness that bad press may hurt sales, more importance being placed on spoilers, increased competition, the growth of online outlets analysing every statement, a realisation that these things have a longer life than anyone initially expected and more.
The gnomic silence which you refer to Kubrick working in was largely in the pre-internet era and is not entirely a fair comparison. As his reputation grew, he had less and less need to explain everything - indeed there may have been commercial logic in appearing more obtuse, and preserving a wizard-like reputation. And that's before we even discuss the man's dislike of travel and the selling side of the process.
It seems to me that your logic suggests that if Kubrick had come out and said "I did not film fake moon landings" and fans argued with him, suggesting he was obviously lying, he'd have to accept that as the price of speaking out.
Well maybe, but refusing to accept the word of someone who was there when they don't seem to have any particular reason to lie is part of the toxicity of online culture. And well spoken and erudite people like yourself provide them with cover - telling us it's actually the fault of the "creative committee period" of Marvel and fans should go right on pressing their baseless theories until some proof is offered up.
I hear what you're saying about the work speaking for itself but you seem to pose a false dichotomy - that creators can either produce work and say nothing, or they can produce work, talk about it, and accept fans accusing them of lying.
No one has expressed any problem with fans raising their theories but when the people involved refute them, what reason does anyone have to disbelieve them?
I have again written too much but I figured I owed it to you not to bow out when you took the trouble to respond.
Perhaps we shall not see eye-to-eye but perhaps we can agree that this forum is a pleasant place to be, and not ruin that with bickering.
I've read a few books such as Sean Howe's history of Marvel or Grant Morrison's Supergods but I would like to read more. Tell me - what book would you recommend to get more insight into the creative sagas of comics in decades past?
Thanks for your lengthy reply. I appreciate it.
1) "It seems odd to contrast the current situation with Ditko or Mantlo giving their opinions because even then, that was just their opinion/recollection."
Well it's just not one opinion, right? It's multiple views which coalesce into a mosaic. You judge based on long term patterns and corroborate it with other stuff. Right now there's no way to corroborate anything said by anyone in Marvel editorial. We know Steve Ditko's views on Spider-Man are more reliable than Stan Lee's because Ditko's story has stayed consistent from the 1960s to the 2000s for one, he said the stuff before and after Spider-Man got big and it's always corroborated with the evidence on the page. Whereas Stan Lee's views are all over the place by comparison, and famously more reliably in stuff he said in the 1960s (openly bragging about the Marvel Method for instance) than at any time later.
2) "I guess my reaction to your comment comes from the idea that it occurs in a forum in which I see Tom being honest about mistakes, or errors of judgement being made in the heat of the deadline-driven comics-making process, and clear about when he doesn't know or cannot say. "
My perspective is that Tom Brevoort is a person in a position of power. Not that he's the most powerful person in the Disney-Marvel enterprise, or they're responsible for everything. But certainly someone in a position of influence and authority. He's also a public figure in that his actions as an executive aren't private and ought to be seen that way. So that means that all his actions, which includes his posts on this blog, ought to be seen as an extension of that activity. And I've had experience where Mr. Brevoort's work as part of Marvel Editorial compromised his critical judgment. His famous "Brevoort Manifesto" is rife with basic factual errors, as is his follow-up "Spider-Man is about Youth" which repeats the nostrum that Ditko was opposed to Spider-Man leaving high school (an idea that only went public sometime around 2000 or so, it was never discussed at any time before). And that's a case of Mr. Brevoort talking about something where he was "never there". I wrote about it here, demolishing it completely [https://elvingsmusings.wordpress.com/2022/01/11/ditko-and-high-school-the-history-of-an-office-rumor/]. And Mr. Brevoort has never updated his story or accepted the new evidence that's come since, all the while his Brevoort Manifesto ideas becomes a reigning ideology inside Marvel and other places.
I myself have had the chance to use Mr. Brevoort's blogposts as a resource to research stuff like the true origins of Spider-Man, the role of Simon and Kirby in gestating the idea and Kirby bringing that to Marvel so I'm not saying his work isn't valuable or that it's all propaganda. Far from it. I evaluate each thing said on its basis and try to corroborate it.
There's not space or time right now for me to go across Mr. Brevoort's posts but I think, given human nature, and patterns already established, there's enough that a lot posted here ought to be considered with a grain of salt. I
3) "The gnomic silence which you refer to Kubrick working in was largely in the pre-internet era"
Artists who avoid the limelight is still a thing even in the Internet era. Nobody knows Thomas Pynchon still and he's published 3 novels in the internet era. Banksy is similarly elusive, among film-makers Terence Malick. Steve Ditko was active in the Internet era and until he died there were only three photographs known to the public (since his passing there's been several to the extent that younger readers no longer get how weird it is to have access to all of that).
4) "No one has expressed any problem with fans raising their theories but when the people involved refute them, what reason does anyone have to disbelieve them?"
If past is prologue, human nature is constant, and the nature of the comics industry hasn't fundamentally changed, it stands to reason that the Marvel Comics of today is no more nor less honest/credible than in the past. What that means is that the Kamala Khan conspiracy theories are very likely to be false, but what's also likely is that there's a great deal omitted in the official story put out about the whole resurrection fracas. Legally I doubt there's anything entirely untrue spoken here but I do think that there's more to the story put out. Obviously this was a story that was considerably botched in execution. We ought to talk about that more than the intentions, so that part I agree with Mr. Brevoort. But I also don't accept what Mr. Brevoort said as the whole truth, or that there isn't more to the story. What that is, I won't speculate but I will stress the gaps arising from asymmetry. At the end of the day, that drawing of Kamala on resurrection was colored poorly and quite a bit off-model.
5) "I've read a few books such as Sean Howe's history of Marvel or Grant Morrison's Supergods but I would like to read more. Tell me - what book would you recommend to get more insight into the creative sagas of comics in decades past?"
Well the thing about comics scholarship is that these days a lot of it is on the internet. Like Sean Howe's book is a good introduction in parts but most of the stuff it has to say about Jim Shooter is based on dated information, which R. S. Martin has debunked here (http://rsmwriter.blogspot.com/2016/06/jim-shooter-second-opinion.html). His work has citations and good research.
Among books,
-- "Steve Ditko in the 1960s" edited by J. Ballman. Which brings in tons of new information, some of which definitely challenges stuff that Mr. Brevoort has said about Ditko in other avenues. I reviewed it here:
https://elvingsmusings.wordpress.com/2022/05/25/book-review-steve-ditko-in-the-1960s-edited-by-j-ballmann/
-- Abraham Josephine Riesman's biography of Stan Lee (True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee) is the single best and most detailed look at Marvel Comics and Lee's own personality.
-- Tom Scioli's Jack Kirby the Graphic Biography. He has an upcoming one on Stan Lee as a complement.
-- Lance Parkin's "MAGIC WORDS", a very good biography of Moore which is fair and balanced and avoids hagiography.