That's a fair point about the never-ending stories, and it creates a conundrum for Marvel and DC: Do they conclude each series and then reboot at the risk of creating a jumping-off point for a bunch of fans, or do they keep going with a sort of elastic continuity, keeping all the good and quietly forgetting the worst stories? DC pulled o…
That's a fair point about the never-ending stories, and it creates a conundrum for Marvel and DC: Do they conclude each series and then reboot at the risk of creating a jumping-off point for a bunch of fans, or do they keep going with a sort of elastic continuity, keeping all the good and quietly forgetting the worst stories? DC pulled off a good reboot in the 80s, but not with its more recent New 52. Marvel has a stronger continuity overall, making it harder to pull the plug on it.
I see what you're saying about the FF and large number of superheroes. I'm pretty sure I've read a few Spider-Man stories where he's had to step up and face something outside of his weight class because the Avengers, FF, and X-Men are ALL conveniently out of town at the same time. It does start to strain credibility after a certain point.
And the Guardians aren't really superheroes in the traditional sense, which is another reason to separate them. But the original comic book Guardians were at least separated by time -- they were a thousand years in the future (though time-travel did facilitate some team-ups).
Marvel and DC suffer from being old and reliant on really established characters. They are forced to find all sorts of creative ways to make things fresh. Some work some don't. Some are just done to get publicity. It makes the whole product seem to matter less as time goes on.
That is why it is probably a better idea to allow a single creator or small team to kind of begin and end their own idea. The negative of this is that you have to constantly come up with new ideas and new products to entice continued readership. It makes sense that Marvel and DC opted to go with never ending soap operas. At the time there characters were created the audience was more limited, they had no guarantee that a successful comic would necessarily result into other media revenue streams like TV/Movies.
But now it's fairly clear that if a comic is very successful it will be adapted into a show or a movie or even a series of shows/movies. Comics are not the only source of revenue. There less risk in letting stories end, letting stories have beginning middle and end. There are more benefits to focusing on quality rather than quality.
Look at the most beloved comic storylines, arches and mini-series from the past that most of the movies and TV shows draw from? Most of them were noticably better than average quality and risky for the time.
I mean the position DC and Marvel are in is difficult they have already rebooted and restarted countless times. They will again.
This is why I like the Image creator-centered separate imprint business model. It allows for a lot more variety and creative control. Ultimately that is going to pay off down the road.
That's a fair point about the never-ending stories, and it creates a conundrum for Marvel and DC: Do they conclude each series and then reboot at the risk of creating a jumping-off point for a bunch of fans, or do they keep going with a sort of elastic continuity, keeping all the good and quietly forgetting the worst stories? DC pulled off a good reboot in the 80s, but not with its more recent New 52. Marvel has a stronger continuity overall, making it harder to pull the plug on it.
I see what you're saying about the FF and large number of superheroes. I'm pretty sure I've read a few Spider-Man stories where he's had to step up and face something outside of his weight class because the Avengers, FF, and X-Men are ALL conveniently out of town at the same time. It does start to strain credibility after a certain point.
And the Guardians aren't really superheroes in the traditional sense, which is another reason to separate them. But the original comic book Guardians were at least separated by time -- they were a thousand years in the future (though time-travel did facilitate some team-ups).
Yeah absolutely. All good points.
Marvel and DC suffer from being old and reliant on really established characters. They are forced to find all sorts of creative ways to make things fresh. Some work some don't. Some are just done to get publicity. It makes the whole product seem to matter less as time goes on.
That is why it is probably a better idea to allow a single creator or small team to kind of begin and end their own idea. The negative of this is that you have to constantly come up with new ideas and new products to entice continued readership. It makes sense that Marvel and DC opted to go with never ending soap operas. At the time there characters were created the audience was more limited, they had no guarantee that a successful comic would necessarily result into other media revenue streams like TV/Movies.
But now it's fairly clear that if a comic is very successful it will be adapted into a show or a movie or even a series of shows/movies. Comics are not the only source of revenue. There less risk in letting stories end, letting stories have beginning middle and end. There are more benefits to focusing on quality rather than quality.
Look at the most beloved comic storylines, arches and mini-series from the past that most of the movies and TV shows draw from? Most of them were noticably better than average quality and risky for the time.
I mean the position DC and Marvel are in is difficult they have already rebooted and restarted countless times. They will again.
This is why I like the Image creator-centered separate imprint business model. It allows for a lot more variety and creative control. Ultimately that is going to pay off down the road.
Spot on...but what is wrong with the punisher😲
A rip off of 70s era exploitation movies, as a mostly PG-13 comic. With much less introspection than say a movie like "Taxi Driver."
I think the character can be interesting, but isn't really a "superhero" and isn't really inherently interesting in concept or personality alone.
I actually thought the Netflix show was relatively well done, and the character was done well and acted well in Daredevil Season 2 as well.
To me he is just kind usually an out of place mildly dark and gritty usually unexamined 70s/80s dad movie trope.
I was referring to the Netflix show version of him.
That's probably the best version of the character that has ever been put to screen. It's better than almost all comic versions of the character imo.