This is a treatise that covers two subjects.
A) Why a Marvel character introduced after the year 2000 should be in Ultimate Marvel Vs. Capcom 3.
B) Why its important for fans of these characters to be vocal about getting them in a game like this.
This work will be separated into several sections so as to make it easier for people with different levels of investment in this game to be able to easily find the information pertinent to them if they do not wish to have to read the entire document.
Section 1. A short introduction to Marvel Vs. Capcom.
This document is intended to reach all Marvel fans out there as well as fans of just MVC, and as such I think it’s important to give a little bit of perspective on the game as a whole.
The Marvel vs. Capcom series of games have been some of the greatest fighting games in the history of the genre, and while they easily stand on their own in gaming history, the reason that Marvel fans who are not gamers should care, is that the MVC series has introduced many, many people to Marvel characters that have not always been the most well represented in the cartoons and movies that non comic reading Marvel fans generally get their knowledge from.
The latest entry in the series, Marvel vs. Capcom is no slouch in this, introducing characters like Taskmaster to a public outside of your average comic reader, and giving them an instant boost in popularity that even appearing in a cartoon or movie might not be able to bring.
This is because unlike in TV or movies Marvel vs. Capcom instantly allows its players to empathize with its characters by giving them full control over the full range of abilities, and letting them put them to the test in situations that they have more control of.
In summation, games like Marvel vs. Capcom can be a great boon to the notoriety and popularity of a Marvel character even above mediums like TV or movies.
Section 2. The Mix.
Right now Marvel vs. Capcom 3 has a fairly wide variety of Marvel characters in it. We have the classic Avengers characters who have been getting movies of late, some of the more iconic X-Men characters of the 70s and movies, some classic villains like Dr. Doom, Supper Skrull, Modok and Taskmaster, and some newer stars like Deadpool and X-23. The game does two things very well with this roster. It represents the classic Marvel line at its simplest and most pure giving people the characters that really exploded Marvel in the 60s and 70s, and it also does a very good job of representing characters who people would know from movies.
Coming in November we get Ultimate Marvel Capcom 3, which gives us six new characters. Dr. Strange, Iron Fist, Ghost Rider, Hawkeye, Nova and Rocket Raccoon. These are great new characters, and while sticking with an emphasis on focusing on Marvels current movies and cartoons (Rocket Raccoon will be showing up in the second season of Avengers Earth’s Mightiest Heroes). It also does a lot to represent trends in the Marvel Comics Universe that are currently going on, capitalizing on characters who have been revitalized in the last several years.
Saying all of this though, the game is still sorely lacking representation of characters introduced after the year 1990. With but one exception every single character in Marvel vs. Capcom 3 is at least 20 years old, and that one exception is X-23. X-23 is a very hot character, she certainly adds something that you aren’t seeing elsewhere in the game, and with her new book having launched a bit before the game came out, helping her popularity was definitely a good call. On the other hand, isn’t it sad that the only Marvel character from the last two decades they chose to include is quite literally a clone of one of Marvel’s most popular characters.
Section 3. The Opportunity A.K.A. The Megaman Situation.
For those of you who don’t know Capcom is the company that created a long running and beloved franchise called Megaman. One of the most requested characters to be added to the original Marvel vs. Capcom 3 was a character named Megaman X, for whatever reason though, several months ago when the roster for the upcoming Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 was decided Megaman X was not chosen to be in it. Coincidentally, in the months since that decision Capcom has had to cancel all of its Megaman related projects for other game systems.
This has left one of Capcoms large fan bases very upset at Capcom. Many rashly calling out that Megaman is dead. This is a fairly disproportionate reaction, but it has left Capcom in a bit of a bind with it getting a decent amount of coverage on the web and in some parts of the gaming press. While its not certain, nor even what I could call highly likely, there are definitely those of the opinion that Megaman X will be added to UMVC down the road as downloadable content, and when/if that happens another Marvel character will have to be added as well.
I am dedicated to making sure that that character is one introduced at least in the year 2000, or hopefully even more recently, and I sincerely hope you will support me in that goal.
Section 4. The Argument.
While there are many fans of Marvel’s younger breed of characters many people would still probably ask why these young, arguably obscure characters should be added to one of Marvel’s headlining games.
I hope go over that and convince you of the necessity of more recently created characters here.
For the past several years Marvel has been very interested in strengthening its core titles. With the Marvel movies coming out and the Event story structure of comics in modern times its been very important for Marvel to make sure many of its older more recognizable characters have very large roles in its games and other non comics non movie media. It’s also been important to introduce the public to less well known classic Marvel characters who may not have been as publicized in the 90’s. Lastly its been very important to make sure these games tie into the modern Marvel comics world, to make sure they reflect the ways in which the Universe is moving.
These are all smart moves on Marvel’s part. Selling Marvel’s strong stable of characters outside of just the comics is important, and so its vital to take what you are pushing in the comics and put it out in front of people, even when those things are not necessarily what the people clamor for, however this also leads to one extremely large flaw.
Over the past 10 years Marvel has introduced tons of great new characters like the Runaways, the Young Avengers, X-Statix, and more recently the Avengers Academy and Generation Hope, among countless others. Marvel has done a good job supporting a lot of these characters, however in the grand scheme to strengthen Marvel’s core, these characters have no faired particularly well in outside media. That has to change.
Marvel no longer has “hot” new characters like they did in the 90s. It certainly has its share of new successes every few years, but at this point these are all revitalizations of older characters. Books like Iron Fist, or Guardians of the Galaxy or Incredible Hercules, which get a lot of good reception or critical praise and really revitalize these characters, and then they end a year and a half or two years later because they aren’t necessarily strengthened by Marvel’s emphasis on core books.
This isn’t Marvel’s fault, and Marvel is definitely trying to support these characters, its just hard right now, but its even worse for the young turks. The guys who really are completely new characters. These characters don’t have a long history, they don’t have all the relationships with currently existing popular characters that you can use to tie them into things. These characters are usually busy carving their own identity out in the Marvel Universe so it can be hard to tie them into the big events well, and it goes almost without saying that they don’t get represented well in the outside media.
One of the most prevalent attitudes I come across in this day and age is that since a character is new, that character does not matter, that character does not count. That character is not a “real” X-Man, or a “real” Avengers, or even a “real” Marvel character. This is why these new characters, even more than the older revitalized characters like Iron Fist, HAVE to be put in these games. Marvel has to show people that these are valid Marvel characters, every bit as important and with every bit as much potential as the Hulk or Captain America or Wolverine.
While its important right now to make people aware of classic characters, and make sure they stay important in their universe and outside media, and while its important to keep trying to renew older characters, and make use of potential that might have gone to waste before, or hit at a time that just wasn’t right, eventually if you keep forcing older characters up to bat you risk cannibalizing your old stories, or re-inventing the wheel to often. Sometimes you need characters created in a particular era to work well within an era. At the end of the day, and new character that a lot of people like is never a bad thing. If you aren’t growing you are dying, if you are creating great new characters, and you aren’t putting them into a position where you can capitalize on them you are wasting an opportunity. Lastly on this subject, and this is just my opinion, I think people like to know that they have a super hero that’s for them that’s of their time, that he wasn’t their grandpa’s super hero, or their father or mothers super hero, its their super hero.
Section 5. Support.
If you are a fan of modern characters or if you are just a fan of the philosophy that Marvel needs to continue to push new I.P. in order to remain relevant as time marches one, then I hope you will show your support to this cause. This document will be posted to multiple blogs, on multiple forums, anywhere I think might help get this message out. I really encourage all of you reading this to comment, but not just comment, I urge you to write letters to Marvel. Write to Marvel editorial, write to Marvel games, tell them this is what you want and/or this is what you think is best for the Marvel universe.
It’s really sad that we’ve already missed two opportunities to get newer Marvel characters into Marvel vs. Capcom 3. I realize a lot of you might think that MVC3 is not that big a deal, that it won’t influence that many people. I’d have to disagree, almost every person I know who is a Psylocke fan, and most everyone I know who is a Venom fan is a fan of those characters because of MVC, and I don’t think that’s a experience that’s unique to me.
The MVC series puts every character on an equal footing, no character in it is a side character, no one is unimportant, or just some grunt, or just a boss characters. it’s a really ideal place for people to get to know characters, their personalities, their powers, and most importantly because they play those characters, they empathize and form long lasting relationships with those characters that can really help that character gain a stronger foot hold among the people. That’s why this is so important even though its just one game.
Section 6. In Closing…
I KNOW that there are fans of the newer Marvel characters out there. I see you every time there is an X-Men Live Blog on Marvel.com and you ask after Rockslide, or Anole or the Gen Hopeys. I know that there are Young Avengers fans, and I know that there are Avengers Academy fans, because that book is still being published, and great book that it is I never would have seen that coming.
I know there are fellow Grant Morrison fans out there who are enjoying that Fantomex is shining in X-Force right now, and would love to see him and Noh Varr and Dust out in a game. I know there are other guy’s reading Vengeance right now saying, don’t the Young Masters get a chance.
The Runaways was a phenomenon, if not in sales, then in good will, X-Statix one of the best comics I ever read, and I’ve never very few people who after reading it didn’t agree with me. We have people like Amadeus Cho, like the Scorpion, like so many characters from the Initiative, that show that Marvel wants to create new characters for the world we live in, but these characters have to keep getting support, its an uphill battle these days, not only do they have to show up in books, but they have to do more than that, they have to fulfill that strange ineffable criteria which is “they have to count.”
Getting one or two or three, or eight of these characters in a game like Marvel vs. Capcom 3, where a million people all over the world will for a very personal relationship with specifically what that character does and is, will go a LONG way to making sure these characters count, and so if you want them to stay firmly up front in the grand tapestry of Marvel Comics, I hope you’ll support this. I hope you’ll write, and politely shout, and tell everyone involved in this game on both sides to Make Mine MODERN Marvel.
Levi Tompkins
Kansas
7/30/2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Sunday, July 3, 2011
This is a quick one.
Why does DC think that this relaunch is going to invigorate its failing characters. Certainly the relaunch is getting me to read a LOT more DC books than I was previously, three times more at least, but the guys I wouldn't have read before this relaunch are guys I still won't read now.
I don't like Wonder Woman, I don't like Hawkman, I REALLY don't like Barry Allen Flash, and I mean its not like it would be impossible to sell these things to me, but when you are launching 52 titles at once, how do you build up any particular book.
I love that DC is just throwing things out there and seeing what sticks, but do they really think that thats
going to fix their broken franchise characters? I'm not implying these books will be bad, some of them have great creative teams that could really knock it out of the park. A good run doesn't really equate to more sells though.
We still know so little about the relaunch, about how its going to be approaching these characters, that we can't even begin to speculate what may or may not work, but I think we all have our eyes on books that aren't going to last long, Right now none of this feels like an actual considered update of characters for modern sensibilities. It feels superficial and hollow.
Yes I'm gonna read a lot of new DC books, JLA Dark, Firestorm, Stormwatch, Frankenstein, Blue Beetle, but none of these are books that I'm excited about because they are re-invigorating the character, most of them are more along the lines of "Oh they are integrating these things into the DCU proper, this could be interesting". I expect that some of these books will survive, maybe even thrive past their first year, but I expect just as many will wither on the vine, and I'll probably end up reading roughly the same number of DC books I am now, albeit different ones.
My point is this. Who does DC think they are fooling, saying its new, but saying its still old. Throwing all their new infant books in a pit with behemoths like Batman and Green Lantern with little to no protection to get them through the night. I hope the relaunch does well. I hope these nifty new books they've introduced, the Mr. Terrifics, and the Swamp Things and such all do well, but I don't think they will, and I don't think throwing a new coat of paint on Wonder Woman or any of the other DC icons who don't really do that well in sales are going to help them any either.
DC, you have to give us a new reason to care, and while I might care about DC relaunching its universe, threes so much of its universe I still don't care to read about, and I think that there are plenty of comic fans right there with me.
Why does DC think that this relaunch is going to invigorate its failing characters. Certainly the relaunch is getting me to read a LOT more DC books than I was previously, three times more at least, but the guys I wouldn't have read before this relaunch are guys I still won't read now.
I don't like Wonder Woman, I don't like Hawkman, I REALLY don't like Barry Allen Flash, and I mean its not like it would be impossible to sell these things to me, but when you are launching 52 titles at once, how do you build up any particular book.
I love that DC is just throwing things out there and seeing what sticks, but do they really think that thats
going to fix their broken franchise characters? I'm not implying these books will be bad, some of them have great creative teams that could really knock it out of the park. A good run doesn't really equate to more sells though.
We still know so little about the relaunch, about how its going to be approaching these characters, that we can't even begin to speculate what may or may not work, but I think we all have our eyes on books that aren't going to last long, Right now none of this feels like an actual considered update of characters for modern sensibilities. It feels superficial and hollow.
Yes I'm gonna read a lot of new DC books, JLA Dark, Firestorm, Stormwatch, Frankenstein, Blue Beetle, but none of these are books that I'm excited about because they are re-invigorating the character, most of them are more along the lines of "Oh they are integrating these things into the DCU proper, this could be interesting". I expect that some of these books will survive, maybe even thrive past their first year, but I expect just as many will wither on the vine, and I'll probably end up reading roughly the same number of DC books I am now, albeit different ones.
My point is this. Who does DC think they are fooling, saying its new, but saying its still old. Throwing all their new infant books in a pit with behemoths like Batman and Green Lantern with little to no protection to get them through the night. I hope the relaunch does well. I hope these nifty new books they've introduced, the Mr. Terrifics, and the Swamp Things and such all do well, but I don't think they will, and I don't think throwing a new coat of paint on Wonder Woman or any of the other DC icons who don't really do that well in sales are going to help them any either.
DC, you have to give us a new reason to care, and while I might care about DC relaunching its universe, threes so much of its universe I still don't care to read about, and I think that there are plenty of comic fans right there with me.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Turning A Blind Eye: Diversity and Marvel Part 1
This is my first blog entry, and I figure I'd kick start with an interesting observation I've made in the last year. Remember when DC killed Ryan Choi? Of course you do, chances are very likely that you've never read his series, that you've never had any interest in the character itself, and you probably didn't even know his name, but the character is now synonymous with the biggest spark of controversy that has hit mainstream comics since Women in Refrigerators. This particular fire erupted after the infamous Chris Sims' article made it's way onto the internet, and it's one of the few pieces of comics journalism that in addition to make a tangible difference, is still in the public eye. It's even gone as far heavily influencing DC's commitment to diversity as evident by the relaunch and the promises of a more diverse DC in the future But, what about Marvel?
It's fascinating how Marvel has managed to come out of this situation almost entirely unscathed. And why shouldn't they? Marvel has always been depicted as the better of the two companies, friendlier, with a better commitment to their fans and their creators. Marvel is in the unique position of having been largely developed decades after DC had established their core cast of characters and concepts in a less...socially acceptable era. They have had a huge lead on DC for a while now when it comes to diversity in their cast of characters and for this Marvel generally manages to escape notice in these discussions while DC is hammered relentlessly. In all honesty, they don't deserve the immunity they have seemingly been granted.
Let's start with a few interesting statistics: Looking at September Solicits Marvel has the following amount of ongoing titles that feature non-white, non-male characters in a starring role: Thunderbolts, Ghost Rider (Apparently Ghost Rider is a female now?), Black Panther, Iron Man 2.0*, X-23, Dark Wolverine, Heroes for Hire (For all intents and purposes this is a Misty Knight book), X-Men Legacy (A Rogue book). So out of 50 or so titles, Marvel manages 2 ensemble books with a minority lead, 2 ongoings with the sole focus on a minority character, one book with a bisexual lead, and 3 books with female leads. Not really that impressive is it? It doesn't get much better when you start evaluating team books. Between the three main Avengers titles (Adjectiveless, Secret, and New) there are only two non-white characters on the team. The main team does not have a single minority character and only a single female character to boot. Avengers Academy fares slightly better with 2 minorities and a 50% female cast. The true stand-up team at Marvel that manages to incorporate a truly diverse cast of characters is the Young Avengers. It's almost inspiring how they manage to work in such a differing interesting group of characters that never feels like it was stitched together just to meet some quota to half-heartedly appease critics who harp on these types of things. It's a shame that they simply star in a miniseries, and genuinely tend to disappear for long stretches of time after Allen Heinberg is done having his fun.
Marvel does have one other ace up their sleeve though, and it's a shield they have managed to successfully hide behind whenever these nasty accusations pop their head up. The X-Men, the most diverse bunch of characters that have ever existed in any modern comics publication. They're great aren't they? So many characters, so many personalities, so many of them it's hard to keep straight. But, that's sort of the problem isn't it? The X-Men as they are, are so widely divided from the core of the Marvel universe (Outside of obvious exceptions like Wolverine), that it becomes difficult to really cite this as true diversity. Writers are constantly creating new X-Men, but they rarely make it from one run to the next. Just as Dick Grayson's supporting cast changes with every new writer, so do the X-Men rarely come with the baton pass. These new X-Men, they can't support titles, they don't show up anywhere outside of their own respective books, only occasionally showing up to clutter crowd scenes. It is diversity, I make no qualms about this, but this type of diversity comes with serious strings attached. Marvel is known for the high-level of integration of it's universe, something DC is not known for, but even then the X-Men generally tend to exist in their own bubble. You can cite that the Marvel Universe is diverse and this is true to a fault, but when it comes down to it, it is simply the X-Men that are truly diverse. In most respects Marvel is just as bad, if not worse than DC when it comes to the greater universe.
We've taken a look at Marvel this September, but let's take a look at DC in September as well. 52 ongoings: There are 8 ongoings with a female lead (One of which is an all-female team.), 6 ongoings with a minority lead, and one ongoing with a LGB lead. On almost all counts that's twice of what Marvel is offering, with only two more books being published. On team books, the mainline Justice League book has 3 minorities (possibly four), with 4 female characters. The JLI has 4 minority characters, with 3 females in tact. The Teen Titans beat out the Avengers Academy for minority characters. Stormwatch is headed up by two gay lead characters. Now let me make it quite clear that I am not implying that DC is diverse just because of what is shown. Quite the opposite in fact, they still have an uphill battle on making sure that these titles STAY this way, and even then they still have a way to go. Numbercrunching doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, but it does help paint a better picture of what I'm saying. The Marvel Way is not the clear-cut answer, and the fact that they have managed to escape the diversity issue entirely intact is simply disingenuous. DC has improved, and now the ball is now in Marvel's court to do the same. Marvel simply cannot hide behind the X-Men as their source of diversity because it does not work when examining the whole of their universe.
Tomorrow I will get into the differences between DC and Marvel when it comes to the creation and implication of minority characters, and weigh the flaws and benefits of both methods.
*I have severe trepidations about listing Iron Man 2.0 as a book with a minority lead when it's become increasingly evident that War Machine is barely even a character in his own book. http://funnybookbabylon.com/2011/06/24/i-am-pretty-sure-marvel-mislabeled-fear-itself-immortal-weapons-2-as-iron-man-2-0-6/
It's fascinating how Marvel has managed to come out of this situation almost entirely unscathed. And why shouldn't they? Marvel has always been depicted as the better of the two companies, friendlier, with a better commitment to their fans and their creators. Marvel is in the unique position of having been largely developed decades after DC had established their core cast of characters and concepts in a less...socially acceptable era. They have had a huge lead on DC for a while now when it comes to diversity in their cast of characters and for this Marvel generally manages to escape notice in these discussions while DC is hammered relentlessly. In all honesty, they don't deserve the immunity they have seemingly been granted.
Let's start with a few interesting statistics: Looking at September Solicits Marvel has the following amount of ongoing titles that feature non-white, non-male characters in a starring role: Thunderbolts, Ghost Rider (Apparently Ghost Rider is a female now?), Black Panther, Iron Man 2.0*, X-23, Dark Wolverine, Heroes for Hire (For all intents and purposes this is a Misty Knight book), X-Men Legacy (A Rogue book). So out of 50 or so titles, Marvel manages 2 ensemble books with a minority lead, 2 ongoings with the sole focus on a minority character, one book with a bisexual lead, and 3 books with female leads. Not really that impressive is it? It doesn't get much better when you start evaluating team books. Between the three main Avengers titles (Adjectiveless, Secret, and New) there are only two non-white characters on the team. The main team does not have a single minority character and only a single female character to boot. Avengers Academy fares slightly better with 2 minorities and a 50% female cast. The true stand-up team at Marvel that manages to incorporate a truly diverse cast of characters is the Young Avengers. It's almost inspiring how they manage to work in such a differing interesting group of characters that never feels like it was stitched together just to meet some quota to half-heartedly appease critics who harp on these types of things. It's a shame that they simply star in a miniseries, and genuinely tend to disappear for long stretches of time after Allen Heinberg is done having his fun.
Marvel does have one other ace up their sleeve though, and it's a shield they have managed to successfully hide behind whenever these nasty accusations pop their head up. The X-Men, the most diverse bunch of characters that have ever existed in any modern comics publication. They're great aren't they? So many characters, so many personalities, so many of them it's hard to keep straight. But, that's sort of the problem isn't it? The X-Men as they are, are so widely divided from the core of the Marvel universe (Outside of obvious exceptions like Wolverine), that it becomes difficult to really cite this as true diversity. Writers are constantly creating new X-Men, but they rarely make it from one run to the next. Just as Dick Grayson's supporting cast changes with every new writer, so do the X-Men rarely come with the baton pass. These new X-Men, they can't support titles, they don't show up anywhere outside of their own respective books, only occasionally showing up to clutter crowd scenes. It is diversity, I make no qualms about this, but this type of diversity comes with serious strings attached. Marvel is known for the high-level of integration of it's universe, something DC is not known for, but even then the X-Men generally tend to exist in their own bubble. You can cite that the Marvel Universe is diverse and this is true to a fault, but when it comes down to it, it is simply the X-Men that are truly diverse. In most respects Marvel is just as bad, if not worse than DC when it comes to the greater universe.
We've taken a look at Marvel this September, but let's take a look at DC in September as well. 52 ongoings: There are 8 ongoings with a female lead (One of which is an all-female team.), 6 ongoings with a minority lead, and one ongoing with a LGB lead. On almost all counts that's twice of what Marvel is offering, with only two more books being published. On team books, the mainline Justice League book has 3 minorities (possibly four), with 4 female characters. The JLI has 4 minority characters, with 3 females in tact. The Teen Titans beat out the Avengers Academy for minority characters. Stormwatch is headed up by two gay lead characters. Now let me make it quite clear that I am not implying that DC is diverse just because of what is shown. Quite the opposite in fact, they still have an uphill battle on making sure that these titles STAY this way, and even then they still have a way to go. Numbercrunching doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, but it does help paint a better picture of what I'm saying. The Marvel Way is not the clear-cut answer, and the fact that they have managed to escape the diversity issue entirely intact is simply disingenuous. DC has improved, and now the ball is now in Marvel's court to do the same. Marvel simply cannot hide behind the X-Men as their source of diversity because it does not work when examining the whole of their universe.
Tomorrow I will get into the differences between DC and Marvel when it comes to the creation and implication of minority characters, and weigh the flaws and benefits of both methods.
*I have severe trepidations about listing Iron Man 2.0 as a book with a minority lead when it's become increasingly evident that War Machine is barely even a character in his own book. http://funnybookbabylon.com/2011/06/24/i-am-pretty-sure-marvel-mislabeled-fear-itself-immortal-weapons-2-as-iron-man-2-0-6/
X-Men Prelude to S***
So, I'm under the stigma of being an X-Men fan. The somewhat corny melodrama, the strange powers and appearances, the diverse and well developed stable of characters, no matter how many times I've tried to leave comics behind me the X-books are always the chain that drags me kicking and screaming back into the dark recesses of comic fandom. Today I want to talk about X-Men Prelude to Schism, but for those of you who aren't particularly knowledgeable about the X-Men, let me give you a quick break down of the situation today.
X-Men over the last several years have been de-emphasized by Marvel as they try to develop and promote the franchises that haven't done quite as stellarly as they may have wished in the first part of the last decade, and as such have earned a bad rep from some comics fans. The last X-Men project to garner a lot of praise was Whedon's Astonishing X-men, and that was more than half a decade ago. Moreover it is despite having a classic roster of incredibly iconic X-Men (or more likely because of it) I find it to be one of the least X-Men like comics ever published in the line.
The last several years have been pretty good as the franchise has started to find its feet again and get a solid direction after its core purpose was shattered by the rather ill thought out House of M. We got the Hope saga, with its odd theme of faith, and while that still feels like a strange and slightly inappropriate place to take the X-titles its generally worked out well allowing for a lot of characters and concepts to shine and bringing back the more tumultuous nature of classic X-men.
Now though we are coming upon X-Men: Schism, and more to the point of this article Prelude to Schism. The X-men as an organization have become rather monolithic under the auspices of Matt Fraction and Nick Lowe. Nearly a hundred mutants live on Utopia the small island "nation" which the X-Men call their home, Thats half the mutants left on the planet, and they are all basically on one team. This has become somewhat badly managed, and Schism, a fight between Cyclops and Wolverine which will end with the X-Men's membership splitting down the middle and taking on two different philosophies of protecting mutant kind, is hopefully the solution. Not only should it allow the books to become more distinctive (most of the current x titles feature the same 9-12 mutants in them despite having a roster of at least 50 X-men) but it is supposed to drag the X-Men back into the spotlight of the Marvel Universe as a whole.
This brings me to Prelude to Schism, a book that fails to in anyway live up to its name while also being utter tripe.
Now in saying it doesn't live up to its name, one might say I'm being unfair. This comic takes place sometime in the middle of the upcoming Schism storyline, a storyline which does not begin for another two months, but it does at least take place before the actual fight between Cyclops and Wolverine takes place. Despite this its still fairly problematic.
Prelude drops us in the middle of an in progress story. It doesn't tell us whats happening, something is coming to attack the X-men. We don't know who or what, but we know that the X-Men must choose to stand their ground and maybe die, or run away and hide. Throughout the four issues of the book we see four characters with leadership roles among the X-Men, and get a view of where they are coming from as a person and some of their personal philosophies on where mutant kind should be headed. That's the theory anyway. Even if that were the case (which its not), it wouldn't serve as a prelude to this story. Prelude tells us nothing about Schism, it doesn't in anyway distinguish why this threat is any worse than the Sentinel invasion of the recent Second Coming, and in that story the X-Men didn't even have the option of running away. The examining of these characters philosophies doesn't really set us up for any logical break either. These four characters, Xavier, Magneto, Cyclops and Logan are all in lockstep with each other, in no way does this book give you any idea of why, come the end of schism, the X-Men will Never Be The Same™.
I think the point of this comic probably isn't to actually act as a prelude to Schism in anyway, but rather to inform a lot of people who have gotten into comics in the modern Avengers franchise craze as to who some of these characters are, and what there role is today. Sadly, even in this the book is at least partially a failure.
The first issue of the book is told from Charles Xavier's perspective, and the problem here is two fold. Problem one is that the entire issue reads like the worlds longest birthday card to Cyclops. Going over how proud he is about how Cyclops has always been such a good little leader, and has united mutant kind, and second, this guy doesn't really act like Charles Xavier. Charles Xavier is a man with a huge ego and a control freak, he has a tendency to put himself over Scott in any situation possible. So why do we get this Professor X who lovingly wholeheartedly endorses Scott in every way? It's because of Xavier in the cartoons, and Xavier in most of the movies. Xavier is just supposed to be a kindly bald guy with a dream, not a nuanced character with a lot of negative qualities laying just under his saintly persona.
The next three issues are a bit different. They are closer to origin stories, with each of the characters thinking about events of their past and their various philosophies. This is actually very interesting. The moments the characters choose to think of are all pretty important moments in their collective histories, but they arent really defining moments in their history of leadership. The whole thing is slanted in such a way as to give you a very narrow, and extremely superficial look at these characters. Instead of looking at each character holistically, and seeing how the sum of their differing experiences might affect their philosophies, Jenkins (and I assume Marvel editorial) instead tries to simplify these characters to their most easily distinguishable origins and traits. This is most apparent if you look at the Xavier issue, and how it relates very little to Xavier's actual history in any way. This is because Xavier in the adventures of his youth is barely recognizable as the guy in the chair in the cartoons. He gets in fights, he kills people, he is a lot more morally ambiguous than Marvel usually likes to portray him in outside media (a side note: to its credit the recent X-Men First Class film gives us a better and more accurate Charles Xavier than 90 percent of Marvel's writers do).
You may ask why I'm going on about all this. Well, two reasons, first is that anyone who is actually reading the Xmen titles and bought Prelude to Schism was basically just tricked into wasting their money. The book gives no story, no information on Schism, and only the absolutely most superficial of looks into the characters they are highlighting. You could get a more well rounded understanding of the characters from going on wikipedia. Secondly, and more importantly in the long run, what does it say about Marvel that they are trying to boil down these characters to the most simple versions of themselves. Perhaps its just an easier way to make new readers to the Xmen feel comfortable, and I can understand that, but I have to wonder what happens when one of these new readers picks up an issue of X-Men Legacy and finds an Xavier wholly unlike the one he's used to. Magneto and Cylops are both characters who are far far more complex these issues would like you to believe.
I dont think Marvel will actually try to simplify these characters, I dont think they really want to, and I dont think it would actually work, but I have to look askance at Marvel for creating a lead in series that accomplishes so very little. It probably has helped a little to get some new readers over to the X Books, and I have to give it a little credit for that, but I still worry that the poor or over simplified versions of the characters rendered in Schism will leave some readers adrift come the comics that follow Schism proper.
X-Men over the last several years have been de-emphasized by Marvel as they try to develop and promote the franchises that haven't done quite as stellarly as they may have wished in the first part of the last decade, and as such have earned a bad rep from some comics fans. The last X-Men project to garner a lot of praise was Whedon's Astonishing X-men, and that was more than half a decade ago. Moreover it is despite having a classic roster of incredibly iconic X-Men (or more likely because of it) I find it to be one of the least X-Men like comics ever published in the line.
The last several years have been pretty good as the franchise has started to find its feet again and get a solid direction after its core purpose was shattered by the rather ill thought out House of M. We got the Hope saga, with its odd theme of faith, and while that still feels like a strange and slightly inappropriate place to take the X-titles its generally worked out well allowing for a lot of characters and concepts to shine and bringing back the more tumultuous nature of classic X-men.
Now though we are coming upon X-Men: Schism, and more to the point of this article Prelude to Schism. The X-men as an organization have become rather monolithic under the auspices of Matt Fraction and Nick Lowe. Nearly a hundred mutants live on Utopia the small island "nation" which the X-Men call their home, Thats half the mutants left on the planet, and they are all basically on one team. This has become somewhat badly managed, and Schism, a fight between Cyclops and Wolverine which will end with the X-Men's membership splitting down the middle and taking on two different philosophies of protecting mutant kind, is hopefully the solution. Not only should it allow the books to become more distinctive (most of the current x titles feature the same 9-12 mutants in them despite having a roster of at least 50 X-men) but it is supposed to drag the X-Men back into the spotlight of the Marvel Universe as a whole.
This brings me to Prelude to Schism, a book that fails to in anyway live up to its name while also being utter tripe.
Now in saying it doesn't live up to its name, one might say I'm being unfair. This comic takes place sometime in the middle of the upcoming Schism storyline, a storyline which does not begin for another two months, but it does at least take place before the actual fight between Cyclops and Wolverine takes place. Despite this its still fairly problematic.
Prelude drops us in the middle of an in progress story. It doesn't tell us whats happening, something is coming to attack the X-men. We don't know who or what, but we know that the X-Men must choose to stand their ground and maybe die, or run away and hide. Throughout the four issues of the book we see four characters with leadership roles among the X-Men, and get a view of where they are coming from as a person and some of their personal philosophies on where mutant kind should be headed. That's the theory anyway. Even if that were the case (which its not), it wouldn't serve as a prelude to this story. Prelude tells us nothing about Schism, it doesn't in anyway distinguish why this threat is any worse than the Sentinel invasion of the recent Second Coming, and in that story the X-Men didn't even have the option of running away. The examining of these characters philosophies doesn't really set us up for any logical break either. These four characters, Xavier, Magneto, Cyclops and Logan are all in lockstep with each other, in no way does this book give you any idea of why, come the end of schism, the X-Men will Never Be The Same™.
I think the point of this comic probably isn't to actually act as a prelude to Schism in anyway, but rather to inform a lot of people who have gotten into comics in the modern Avengers franchise craze as to who some of these characters are, and what there role is today. Sadly, even in this the book is at least partially a failure.
The first issue of the book is told from Charles Xavier's perspective, and the problem here is two fold. Problem one is that the entire issue reads like the worlds longest birthday card to Cyclops. Going over how proud he is about how Cyclops has always been such a good little leader, and has united mutant kind, and second, this guy doesn't really act like Charles Xavier. Charles Xavier is a man with a huge ego and a control freak, he has a tendency to put himself over Scott in any situation possible. So why do we get this Professor X who lovingly wholeheartedly endorses Scott in every way? It's because of Xavier in the cartoons, and Xavier in most of the movies. Xavier is just supposed to be a kindly bald guy with a dream, not a nuanced character with a lot of negative qualities laying just under his saintly persona.
The next three issues are a bit different. They are closer to origin stories, with each of the characters thinking about events of their past and their various philosophies. This is actually very interesting. The moments the characters choose to think of are all pretty important moments in their collective histories, but they arent really defining moments in their history of leadership. The whole thing is slanted in such a way as to give you a very narrow, and extremely superficial look at these characters. Instead of looking at each character holistically, and seeing how the sum of their differing experiences might affect their philosophies, Jenkins (and I assume Marvel editorial) instead tries to simplify these characters to their most easily distinguishable origins and traits. This is most apparent if you look at the Xavier issue, and how it relates very little to Xavier's actual history in any way. This is because Xavier in the adventures of his youth is barely recognizable as the guy in the chair in the cartoons. He gets in fights, he kills people, he is a lot more morally ambiguous than Marvel usually likes to portray him in outside media (a side note: to its credit the recent X-Men First Class film gives us a better and more accurate Charles Xavier than 90 percent of Marvel's writers do).
You may ask why I'm going on about all this. Well, two reasons, first is that anyone who is actually reading the Xmen titles and bought Prelude to Schism was basically just tricked into wasting their money. The book gives no story, no information on Schism, and only the absolutely most superficial of looks into the characters they are highlighting. You could get a more well rounded understanding of the characters from going on wikipedia. Secondly, and more importantly in the long run, what does it say about Marvel that they are trying to boil down these characters to the most simple versions of themselves. Perhaps its just an easier way to make new readers to the Xmen feel comfortable, and I can understand that, but I have to wonder what happens when one of these new readers picks up an issue of X-Men Legacy and finds an Xavier wholly unlike the one he's used to. Magneto and Cylops are both characters who are far far more complex these issues would like you to believe.
I dont think Marvel will actually try to simplify these characters, I dont think they really want to, and I dont think it would actually work, but I have to look askance at Marvel for creating a lead in series that accomplishes so very little. It probably has helped a little to get some new readers over to the X Books, and I have to give it a little credit for that, but I still worry that the poor or over simplified versions of the characters rendered in Schism will leave some readers adrift come the comics that follow Schism proper.
Intro
I guess every crappy blog needs one of these right? Well here's ours. We write about comics, or whatever really comes to mind. Sometimes what we write are introspective and well thought out acknowledgments of one of the forgotten aspects of pop culture lore and sometimes it's about whatever dumb shit happens to spill out of our fingertips. Hope you enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)