If I ruled the world

Prompted by this post on Scans_Daily, the question:

So... if you were the new EIC at either Marvel or the Distinguished Competition, what would you do differently? At least, what one series would you commission, and what one series would you cancel?

I won't touch DC as, frankly, I don't have a clue what's going on with them.

Now Marvel, what would I do?

Put a stop to all line-wide crossovers like Secret Invasion etc.

Yes, they're big sellers. But I'm a believer that people will only buy a finite number of books each month. The big crossover's sales come at the expense of the little books. The ones that go largely ignored because they're not promoted and people will only spend a certain amount of cash each month.

I'd focus, instead, on setting strong aims for each of the main outputs. As part of that I'd put editors to work doing what they should be doing - editing and talking with their writers. In addition to regular writer summits, editors should also have editor summits with other lines to work on a whole cohesive universe. Editors should concentrate on their job and quality control of the books produced under their name, not spend all their time attempting to be "superstar" editors and attempting to be in the limelight as much as their creators. Promotion should be done by a promotional team, not editors.

I'd do regular summits for the Spider-man line, the X-men line, the Avengers line etc and create cohesive storylines in each. That doesn't mean crossovers, just ensuring that character X isn't appearing in 4 books in one month while character Y, which has a fanbase too, isn't ditched out of the running entirely. For example, trying to avoid a situation like the current X-books where Cyclops and Emma and Beast are the focus of stories in Uncanny and Astonishing concurrently while a character like Rogue is entirely ignored.

I'd do a lot of house clearing of titles too. Each title within a line should serve a specific purpose, focus on a specific set of characters and have a specific set of creators. If you don't like one book in a line, there should be another for you. Clamping down on, say, writers like Bendis writing every book in the sandbox so if you don't like Bendis, you don't read any. Each book should also have one writer (or team of writers) and one artist where possible, for arcs at least. Revolving artists are fine, but it shouldn't be every other issue - X-Factor I'm looking at you.

The launch of new titles within a line should be a big deal. They should be promoted. Readers should know about them. They shouldn't be snuck out and die a death because they're unsupported. Likewise they should serve a purpose. Numerous one shots and limited series that mean absolutely nothing and never have any bearing on continuity and are never mentioned ever again should be clamped down on.

When a new creator joins a book, they shouldn't be allowed all the toys in the sandbox to play with at once. Every time a new writer jumps on board they should be encouraged to create at least one new character and they shouldn't just be given Green Goblin, Venom, Magneto or other major characters to play around with. It creates repetitive stories with the same characters cropping up again and again and being written in different ways each time. Uneven characterization should be avoided at all costs. I appreciate the fact that new writers will want to play with the toys they know best, but they should also have to earn their corn.

Tying into that, I'd make writers read the runs before they take over. It's not enough for a writer to go on their remembrance of the characters from their youth. They need to know where the character is now, not just hit the reset button and take them back to where they were a couple of years ago or even twenty years ago (Whedon). If they're not prepared to follow on from current character development, they shouldn't use the character at all. Character DEVELOPMENT is key, not character reset. Or character assassination. The only excuse for hitting that reset button is when a character's been screwed up beyond all recognizability (see Bishop), but simply this should be avoided.

Reinstate the "death means death" rule. My main issue with this isn't dead characters coming back, but them dying in the first place. It's an easy beat for writers to kill an established character to create drama and it usually completely fails to do so (see Banshee). Writers should be made to sit down and think before there's a death in their book. Will it actually have a knock on effect? Will they be writing the fall out? Does the death serve the story? Is it a "good death"? If a character has been reintroduced simply to die, don't do it. Avoid fridging (whatever the sex of the character). In short THINK.


Specific thoughts on the lines would be:

Spider-man = Ditch the three weekly format. Three titles. Three creative teams. Each book with a slightly different tone. One, a teen book, along the lines of Ultimate Spiderman, but set back in time in the 616 Universe. A blend of Spiderman Loves Mary Jane, Marvel Adventures and classic stories. It should be a good jumping on book for new teen readers where they can read about the trials, tribulations and love-life of Peter Parker without making him a twenty-something loser.

The other two titles should have two "name" creators. The demonic deal should be undone at all costs and NEVER MENTIONED AGAIN. It's not going to be an easy road to draw people back in, but solid writers should be able to do so. One book should deal with Spider-man, the superhero. The other should have more interplay with his supporting cast. Re-instate him at the Bugle. The soap opera aspect is an important part of Spidey lore. His supporting characters are memorable. There should be a book with that.

The X-men should take a similar approach. Firstly I'd work on undoing the "no more mutants" idea. I've no problem with mutants being a minority, but frankly, the direction Grant Morrison set the mutant line was far more interesting than retreading the abused minority thing again. But fine, hard to go back on entirely. So, a partial re-powering. Return the powers of those in-book mutants who lost them, they've pretty much done that anyway, and make the birth of any more mutants a big deal. The numbers should be small, but not catastrophic.

I'd relaunch Young X-men with a new creative team and with a strict remit of seeing the original New Mutants training the new generation of X-men. The book's improving issue by issue, but it got off on the wrong foot and it'll take a relaunch to pull people back in now.

Next up I'd revert to the "blue and Gold" team idea for Uncanny and Astonishing and cancel Legacy. It's lost its way. I'd concentrate on making these two titles as good as they can be - flagship titles that people want to read, not books that people read out of habit.

X-Force I'd probably keep, although I'd try and lighten the tone. It's just a mess at the moment, but people are reading it.

I'd relaunch X-Factor. Sit down with Peter David and hammer out a solid direction for the book and a solid cast, bringing back Rahne and Quicksilver, specifically. Personal tastes.

Cancel Cable.

I'd launch a new book. Generation M looked like it was going to be a group of minor characters joining up. It wasn't. New Warriors was that book but failed on every level. There's room for a book that has characters like Boom Boom, Chamber, Jubilee, Husk etc in the spotlight. The B-list level mutants that still have an audience and if they were gathered in a cohesive book, there would be room for them. These guys trained to be X-men, let's see them BE X-men.

Rename Captain Britain back to Excalibur, keeping the same creative team. I'm sure the title must be putting people off who think it's a solo book. Or think of something even better. UK Avengers? Whatever.

Outside of the Spidey and X-men universes, which I only really dip my toes in:

A League of Losers book.

Ditch the registration act. It makes one group seem like irresponsible a-holes and another group fascists.

Get writers playing to their strengths and try and break up the cliques and playing favorites. Sorry, Bendis, but you're just not good on big crossover events. You're great on small scale crime and characters stuff.

Do the equivalent for the magic characters within the Marvel Universe as was done for the cosmic characters. Not a great crossover, but just try and spotlight them some.

A cohesive line focused on new readers. This was done with Ultimates, which has now died in the water, and partly done with Marvel Adventures. But half-heartedly and not aimed at the direct market to the same degree. Taking the cue from the Spiderman book a new sub-line aimed at new, continuity unfamiliar readers, mixing new and classic stories, told in a more modern style. The Stan Lee style won't fly with modern audiences. But the stories do.

Re-launch She-Hulk but throw some weight behind it. A solid premise, a solid creative team. A superheroine lawyer should be a hell of a lot of fun and Slott's book wasn't bad, but there's room for even better. It's worked with Hercules, surely it can work with Jen.

Cut out the "turning existing characters female" shit. Let's see some new female characters who are more than just the "bad girl" cliche or wholesome love interest. Be original!

Give existing female characters some focus and decent characterization. And more "womb crazy" Wandas and "wailing victim" Tigras and fingers should be broken. Cut out all that frat boy crap at the Marvel offices. Writers shouldn't be specifically given top jobs because they're women but they shouldn't shuffled aside for the boys club either.

Just some thoughts for now.

Following on...

...from the last post, about Spider-man, let me just clarify my position further.

I hate One More Day and I'd do everything I could to undo it, but my main objection is this:

Its purpose was to bring Peter back into the game where he can have fun stories about his love life and being a swinging single.

The trouble is Peter's an everyman. And he's an everyman who's grown with the readers. It's not kids and young teens who are picking up his books every month from comic stores any more, it's the twenty-thirty somethings with disposable income who've seen Peter grow up with them and, well, move on.

Taking a twenty-something Peter and taking away the trappings of a mature lifestyle (marriage, home life) and replacing it with the things familiar with teenagers (romances, rivalry with friend, living at homes) doesn't work. You know why? Because while plenty of us enjoy reading a book with Spider-man as a teen and doing teenage stuff (see Ultimate Spider-man), the last thing anyone wants is to see a thirty year old Spider-man acting like a teen. He's no a creepy man-boy. Kind of like the Fonz, but without the cool. The kinda creepy aging guy who hangs around with teens and hits on them.

That's not an everyman, that's just creepy.

But there is room for a teen book and a book focusing on older Peter. There should be a teen book. Something for younger readers. But taking existing continuity and trying to deage a character so he's 26 but has all the trappings of a teenager is not the way to appeal to youngsters. Peter's now become upallatable to everyone. No one wants to read about an embarrassing man child in his twenties trying to act 16. It's cringeworthy.

Next thing he'll be hanging around the school gates trying to pick up twelfth graders.

Catching up with Wolverine and the X-men 2

And the second episode of the week, in an attempt to play catch up.

( Spoilery steam of consciousness review of episode 11 under the cut. )