BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The history of Marvel's Editor-in-Chiefs (and why DC is so far behind)

 
 
TroyJ15
14:21 / 08.04.04
Anyone notice that once every 10 or so years, since the 60s, Marvel gets that one Editor-In-Chief or President who actually knows what the fuck he's doing and he makes good on experimenting and trying different things and shaking up the status quo?
It started with Stan and the Marvel president at the time coming up with the Fantastic Four (for the record I'm not downplaying Kirby's involvement in any of this, but in order to make my point I'll continue without him)--- basically paving the way for a barrage of new and exciting characters in the 60s. This roughly led into the 70s, where Marvel started to get a little smug, until Jim Shooter stepped in and made his own mark (not discrediting DC's acheivements in the 80s). The 90s saw to alot of greed and therefore alot of the decades effectiveness did not come until 1999-2003, with the duo of Bill Jemas and Joe Quesada making things happen.
I bring this up, because looking at just the Marvel solicitations for the next 3 months (which mostly are a waste of time), and being fully aware that Jemas' voice has been muffled and it sounds more and more to me like Quesada's is to, how do you think this will effect your readership. Me personally I embrace the debauchery that is coming because it means I'll be spending less money on comics every month...and also how come DC seems to always be so far behind Marvel. I mean with a few rare exceptions (off the top my head Vertigo, Watchmen, and DK Returns) they seem so scared to take the next step. I think it has alot to do with Time Warner owning the company...but why is DC seem so scared to progress, and they never do so until after Marvel has (Remember the issue of drug abuse didn't appear in Green Arrow until after it appeared in Spider-Man).
Really this is a rant about the two major publishers, why they fuck up, why they are fucking up, and what you feel is wrong with them. Just wanted your thoughts on any of this.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
15:48 / 08.04.04
it also means to me less money spent. I see a 90s revival in Marvel's new vanilla direction.

there's this theory [probably by Moz and Millar] that progress is a pendulum tha swings between Marvel and DC in cicles periods. I don't know if we're about to see a bold new and progressive era for DC's heroes. the same reason that makes DC look like an actual publishing house is the same one that makes it a huge bureaucratic monster: Aol/TimeWarner funding it. but let's not forget the good side of it: a whole bunch of creator owned graphic novels, mini-series and TPs backcatalogue, a relative open mind for new concepts [usually done through Vertigo] and creator copyright participation [as in PLANETARY], funds to support books that sell under 20.000 but have a good collected afterlife etc etc.

you still can't have this at Marvel for the time being, despite the rumours of Bendis taking POWERS there. and it's a shame Marvel as allowed to test new [and sometimes desperate for attention] ideas for its properties only when it was in danger of bankruptcy. it's like clever authors have for themselves: Marvel is for making fast money by working on company owned concepts, DC is for the long run by having your concepts realized, with short runs on the company-owned books.

in any case, as readers we'll always have other places to go for diversity.
 
 
TroyJ15
12:49 / 09.04.04
Good points. Maybe the pendulum does swing between the two. I admit I'm a bit bias towards Marvel, therefore DC is always second best to me...but DC does have an advantage with experimentation because of who owns them. That's probably why Vertigo is allowed to afloat and Epic was not.
 
  
Add Your Reply