Can any comic fans fill me in on current Marvel continuity?

[Cthulhudrew]

I don't recall "continuity" having anything to do with Claremont leaving. Especially since his run on X-Men was so long that most of the existing continuity was his own. Claremont left X-Men at the time the future-Image artists started taking over Marvel.

As I recall, it was his working relationship with then "hot" artist Jim Lee (who was doing Uncanny, and then the spinoff adjectiveless 'X-Men') that was the main problem. As you point out, most of these artist "flavors of the day" (in particular, Lee, Todd McFarlane, Erik Larsen, and Rob Liefeld) were increasingly demanding control of writing and artistic pursuits on the books, over the current crop of writers who had done so much to make these titles so successful (ie, Claremont on X-Men). Their work was sometimes sloppy and late, and caused a lot of discontent among the writers. Bob Harras, who was EIC at the time of all of this (Shooter had already been pushed out by the editors and higher ups at Marvel), allowed a lot of this to take place, as Marvel (which had gone public with its stock at this time, c. 1992), was enjoying a massive amount of publicity and popular success. A lot of which was (I think, erroneously) attributed solely to the "hot" artists and the collector's market, which they flooded with multiple covers, die-cut covers, etc. They even had a commercial spot for one of Spike Lee's jeans commercials at the time featuring "hot" artist Rob Liefeld.

Admittedly, Claremont's work had gotten heavily bogged down in its own continuity, and though he still had some good ideas, I think his best days were behind him in the Shooter era. I still can never forget the Brood invasion plotline that was introduced in Uncanny and yet never touched on until several years later. What a threat that must have been, eh?

As the editors started to cater to the artists (the perceived reason for sales), many writers bailed.

The irony, of course, is that the artists themselves bailed at the first opportunity to do creator owned work at Image. Which, in many ways, was a good thing for the artists, but at the same time kind of stupidly handled by McFarlane and co.

Oddly enough, and not well publicized, is that Shooter (before his ouster) had been working to get creator owned works in place at Marvel (chiefly in the Epic line of comics) but never got the opportunity to see it through. Had Shooter's plans gone through, Marvel might not have seen the massive ship-jumping of talent that came with the Image boys. Of course, speculation is ultimately fruitless.

Also, many writers didn't like the way editors were completeling controlling the books, or shoe-horning crossovers in every 3 months so that you can not tell a story.

A good example is Peter David, who was one of the most successful and long ensconced writers at Marvel at the time (he wrote the Hulk for an amazing 12 year run, a run that is only, IIRC, outmatched by Claremont's X-Men tenure). He has gone on record saying that the reasons you state are the chief reason he left X-Factor- IMO one of the best books Marvel had at the time. Marvel's X-comics policy at the time was to have crossovers between all the books every couple of months, because the X-Books were (and, I think, remain) their top sellers, and they wanted to capitalize on that as much as possible. PAD felt continually frustrated, as he couldn't get his own stories going, and was told continually that he couldn't have his ongoing plots intrude too much into the crossovers, as when they were collected into Trades, they would throw off the pacing of the story. Can't write your own stories in your own title... hmmm. I can see why he (and others) didn't want to work that way.

Marvel did market research? When? Where? I was a die-hard comic reader from the mid 80s to 2002. Read everything and kept track of everything. Don't recall any market research.

From what I've heard, the only market research the bean-counters at Marvel did were related to the whole collector's market frenzy, in which we had all the countless alternative covers and crap. The bean-counter stories I've heard from writers, editors, et al, lead me to believe that they are completely out of touch with the comic book producing elements of Marvel, and might as well exist on another planet.

Kevin Smith's Daredevil was totally in continuity and referred back to many old stories.

It drew very heavily on Frank Miller's run, in fact. Featured the return of Karen Page (who hadn't been in a DD title in close to a decade; not since Ann Nocenti's run in the early '90s, I think). It also featured his mother (another obscure character who hadn't been touched on since Miller), Bullseye, and, oddly enough, Mysterio.

Joss picked up where Morrison left off. He brought Kitty back to the team, and brought Colossus back from the dead...

Joss is a perfect example of how continuity can be used and not overdone in a hamhanded "See issue #XXX" sort of way. The way he introduces the AXM team and demonstrates their relationships was very easily taken in by a newcomer, but drew heavily on everything that had come before (Scott and Emma, Jean, Wolverine and Scott, Colossus).

I don't remember if the de-aging of Spidey started with JMS or before, but its also very hard to get to the truth of whether stupid ideas like that come from editorial or the writers. Doesn't much matter anyway as JMS made Spidey a teacher, and has his ex-gf have kids who are now full-grown. Which still makes Spidey look old. (Even if they gave the standard speed-aging excuse to the kids)

Whatever else may be said of JMS' run on Spidey (in particular the Gwen story), he draws on Spidey continuity very heavily. He got MJ and Peter back together, after writers had been told (editorially mandated) that the marriage idea was a failure and they tried to shuffle MJ offstage by having her plane get blown up. Not only did he return her to the title, but he has managed to show that their relationship need not change/adversely affect the title.

Also, this continued misinformation about the continuity of the ULT U is a joke. You just said it has tight continuity, while many say they want to read it because it has no continuity. HA.

Got to agree with you here. Not only has it gotten so convoluted over the past several years since it debuted, but it has gotten sloppy. You mention the FF problem, there's also the two Visions problem (one in Ultimates, one in Ultimate Secret), among others. I'm pretty sure the Ultimate Marvel Team-Up Hulk was different (ie, green) from the Ulimates Hulk, and I don't think they ever explained that one.

The thing that strikes me so funny, in regards to Marvel editorial policy, is that I thought that Joe Quesada did an excellent job as Editor of the Marvel Knights line back in the late '90s. Those were some of the best books Marvel was putting out at the time- Smith's Daredevil (even Bendis', though I haven't liked much of his other work), Priest's Black Panther, Paul Jenkins and Jae Lee's Inhumans- the Marvel Knights line was much better than the mainstream titles, for the most part (other than my favorites, Busiek's TBolts and Avengers). For some reason, though, when Joe Q. became EIC of Marvel, his policies just seemed to kill what, to me, were the best reasons to read Marvel comics.

 

[Vigilance]

Vigilance. I'm not sure where you got that information but I know some of it isn't true. And I doubt other parts of it.

Sorry you doubt it lol

I don't recall "continuity" having anything to do with Claremont leaving. Especially since his run on X-Men was so long that most of the existing continuity was his own. Claremont left X-Men at the time the future-Image artists started taking over Marvel. As the editors started to cater to the artists (the perceived reason for sales), many writers bailed. Also, many writers didn't like the way editors were completeling controlling the books, or shoe-horning crossovers in every 3 months so that you can not tell a story.
Leaving because the artists had become the favored children, and they felt a lack of respect or because the artists were asking for more story-control and the writers felt useless has NOTHING to do with continuity
Leaving because of tight editorial control, and/or the vast amount of forced crossovers is NOT the same as leaving because of cntinuity.

Ummm... how is being told you have to follow a general plotline by an editor, because of what is happening in another book anything BUT continuity? You just contradicted yourself.

One minute Im pulling all of this "Claremont left because of continuity jive" out of my ass and the next Claremont leaves because the crossovers have put the editors in charge.

Here's a heads up- those editors were running the show to MAINTAIN CONTINUITY.

Deal with it.

JMS, Kevin Smith and Whedon are part of the no continuity package? WHAT?
Kevin Smith's Daredevil was totally in continuity and referred back to many old stories. (Also, his Green Arrow for DC also had a lot of nods to various older titles).
Joss picked up where Morrison left off. He brought Kitty back to the team, and brought Colossus back from the dead. If this was a continuity-ignore, why would they need to acknowledge that Colossus was dead and come up with a convoluted "how he survived" story? (To match your example "due to issue X, Colossus sacrificed himself to save the world from the Legacy Virus, and then he was cremated so you can't use him......unless you come up with a way to uncremate him) Also, Whedon has always shown to be a FAN of continuity. Try watching any of his shows.

Ok, once again here you are missing something big. A couple of things actually.

Whedon was not the first guy to try and bring Colossus back. Chuck Austen wanted to add a brick to the X-men and was told no to bringing back Colossus because of (wait for it) continuity.

They wanted the Legacy Virus sacrifice to mean something.

This is what led to Juggernaut ending up on the team.

So while Whedon is clearly a fan of older X-men runs, in my opinion he got a pass another writer could not on the basis of continuity.

I don't remember if the de-aging of Spidey started with JMS or before, but its also very hard to get to the truth of whether stupid ideas like that come from editorial or the writers. Doesn't much matter anyway as JMS made Spidey a teacher, and has his ex-gf have kids who are now full-grown. Which still makes Spidey look old. (Even if they gave the standard speed-aging excuse to the kids)

Well, something you glossed over is, imo, where JMS took his big continuity free card and cashed it in. Gwen having kids by Normal Osborn. That's huge.

So I really have to say that these big names only show up because of a lack of continuity ISN'T true. at all.

I just pointed out two big instances where the big names got the ability to swing a major shift in the history of an established team/character. Sounds like its at least a little true

No continuity implies that you can completely ignore all of what has gone before and do whatever you want. Kind of like what the Ultimate U started as. A blank slate. None of the major titles in the MU are like that. (although things like the new Power Pack and possibly the new New Warriors)

Right, which is exactly the state of the current Marvel U. Magneto is a drug addict who dies at the end of Morrison's run. No wait- he's alive on Genosha? Huh go figure.

Well at least Xorn is still dead?

What? He's back at the school?

Also, this continued misinformation about the continuity of the ULT U is a joke. You just said it has tight continuity, while many say they want to read it because it has no continuity. HA.

Get that chip off your shoulder dude, it looks heavy. The Ultimate U's continuity gaffs have been no worse than what MArvel had when Stan the man ran the show. In other words, no nothing is perfect.

To disprove the tight continuity... How come the Fantastic Four that appeared in Ultimate Marvel Team-Up is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT that the Fantastic Four that appears in Ultimate Fantastic Four.
And if you try to shoe-horn the ULT FF into the past, you have a problem because the FF refer to the Ultimates in early issues.

Case in point.

What "saved" Marvel? Well, the movies saved them from bankruptcy. And have attracted the "Hollywood" writers to the books.
But Marvel isnt saved. Marvel continues to fall apart weekly. Curent editorial policies are all short-term. And from what I've seen, House of M is getting pretty bad word of mouth.

Sorry. Wizard magazine (the leading industry mag) has reported that sales of Marvel comics dropped every quarter after Jim Shooter's run as Editor in Chief *until* the changes instituted by Quesada and Bill Jemas.

Have the movie properties heating up under Avi Arad's leadership contributed to that? You bet. But the fact that Quesada managed to stop a slide in sales that had been going on for years.

Sounds like he deserves part of the credit too.

DC actual won the unit sales and dollar sales battle last month. For the first time in a long time.
Because DC has been trying to keep a tighter more meaningful interconnectedness and continuity.
Because DC has "Marvel-ized" themselves while Marvel has bastardized themselves.
Because Geoff Johns and others have made the "big-7" JLA interesting for the first time (although oddly enough, it didnt actually seep into the JLA book until last issue) , while Bendis is absolutely destroying the Avengers.

Dude, that chip looks REALLY heavy. Seriously, see a chiropractor.

Yes DC has made some great moves lately. However Marvel still controls the majority of the top 100 in Wizard. My point is, No Continuity has clearly not destroyed Marvel and it might be helping.

I didnt pull it out of my ass either.

Just because you disagree with me doesnt mean I must be making it up.

If Marvel as a comics company has been saved, they better get unsaved in a hurry.

Marvel already has been saved. Jemas, Quesada and Arad pulled the company back from the edge of the abyss. Have they solved all their problems and conquered the world of comics forever? Nope.

But Marvel is READABLE again. The books are fun again. I had abandoned ship during the endless crossover hell that Marvel turned into in the 90's. Age of Apocalypse killed it for me. Or maybe that Onslaught thing.

I dont have time to read 50 comics a month anymore, and I dont live at the comics shop like I did back in high school. So the current direction of Marvel is great to me. I read Astonishing X-men, Ultimates, Ultimate Spider Man, X-men and Uncanny X-men, and I can enjoy the stories of Bendis, Millar, Whedon and Claremont without worrying what goes on in the rest of the titles.

I also read JLA, Batman, Flash and Teen Titans, so its not about being a marvel-phile. I enjoy good stories and I like my comics fix.

Under previous leadership, Marvel stopped providing that. Under Quesada it has begun to once again.

Chuck

 

[Vigilance]

What "saved" Marvel? Well, the movies saved them from bankruptcy. And have attracted the "Hollywood" writers to the books.
But Marvel isnt saved. Marvel continues to fall apart weekly. Curent editorial policies are all short-term. And from what I've seen, House of M is getting pretty bad word of mouth.

Here's some current sales numbers:

So their sales are higher this year than they were last year. This is a company that's falling apart?

Publishing: Net Sales

Q1 2005 Q1 2004

22,418 19,644

Now here's a blast from the pre-Quesada past- concerning Marvel's proposed merger with Toy Biz:

Forward-Looking Statements: Except for historical information contained herein, the statements in this news release regarding the Company's products, licensing relationships and growth plans are forward-looking statements that are dependent upon certain risks and uncertainties, including those relating to the outcome of the Marvel bankruptcy...

So the company was in bankruptcy, now its publishing sales are climbing. Yeah, Quesada's doing a terrible job.


And here's another quote on how Marvel is "falling apart monthly" under Quesada's, Jemas' and Arad's leadership:

Take a look first at the top line: revenues. Marvel grew its sales 53% over the past year's quarter, to $87.4 million vs. $57.2 million.

You ready for a new headline? Marvel is now one of the most profitable companies in America.

Quoted from:

http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2003/commentary030507dg.htm

Chris Claremont left the books he had worked on for almost half his life because of one person, the X-titles group editor, Bob Harras. Claremont had often stressed in interviews how important having an editor who worked well with him on the stories was, and was thankful that all the editors he had had (this was during Nocenti's reign) had been wonderful and talented. Obviously, something went wrong as Harras took over, although the eventual cause was due to problems on both sides.

Claremont on why he left the X-men

Two reasons: I was having to backburner my ongoing storylines every three issues or so to accommodate crossovers (giving it a very dis-jointed feel) and the editors were "taking over" the book in that they were dictating storylines and developments that I felt were going to be damaging (ex: Insert Random as a member of the team and kill off the Multiple Man.) Also they were changing my dialogue unilaterally after I'd turned it in without telling me. So I walked.

Peter David on why he left X-factor

You might disagree with my interpretation of these facts, figures and statements, but I consider putting plotlines on the backburner to accomodate something going on in another part of the Marvel U to be continuity.

As for Quesada running Marvel into the ground? Puhleaze. In 8 years the company went from bankruptcy to being referred to as one of the most profitable countries in America.

if that's failure sign me up for some.

Chuck

 

[stevelabny]

Ummm... how is being told you have to follow a general plotline by an editor, because of what is happening in another book anything BUT continuity? You just contradicted yourself.

As a whole, people who talk about comic books over-use the word continuity and I wind up adding to that myself. I'll try to clarify by giving some definitons as to how I will try to use words.
Continuity- keeping faithful to what has previously happened to your character or team, and not just changing things with no explanation. (Can't come back from the dead, switch sides, or ignore events of the past without an explanation)
Interconnectedness- making the books like they take part in the same universe. (If a former villain is trying to rehabilitate himself in one book, he can't be used as a villain elsewhere. If Asgard floats above NYC in Thor, it floats above NYC in Spider-man)

So while Claremont and David might have left books because of problems related to interconnectedness, it isn't the interconnectedness itself thats the problem. It was the editorial OVER-USE of these things. There are tons of reasons to have characters exist in a shared universe. There are zero reasons to have multi-title crossovers every three months.

Also, many fans have said they prefer cross-overs to be contained within one book only (if spidey and DD team up, let it happen in one story arc in either book, dont ask people to read both books) but very few crossovers have ever asked people to read more than 4 titles, and most of those were in a "family of books" like the Spidey-books, Bat-books or X-books. and no crossover has ever FORCED people to do anything.

So while Whedon is clearly a fan of older X-men runs, in my opinion he got a pass another writer could not on the basis of continuity.

No. he got a pass that another writer couldn't because he is JOSS WHEDON.
Just like a veteran writer will be trusted with bigger more convoluted stories than a new writer. Austen wasn't just a rookie, but Joss isn't just a veteran writer either. He's a geek-god. He brought Colossus back, and he did it so well, that it worked, and there have been very few complaints about it. Would Austen have been able to do the same?

Well, something you glossed over is, imo, where JMS took his big continuity free card and cashed it in. Gwen having kids by Norman Osborn. That's huge.

Except that this is just a retcon. Well-done retcons don't ignore or invalidate continuity. A well-done retcon fits seamlessly into a character's past and just adds a previously unknown bit to the past. This is done in almost all episodic stories. This particular retcon has a never explored Gwen trip to Europe, and would have been fine if Norman had raped her. Instead, it gets ridiculed because it completely goes against Gwen's character. There is a difference.

Right, which is exactly the state of the current Marvel U. Magneto is a drug addict who dies at the end of Morrison's run. No wait- he's alive on Genosha? Huh go figure.

I haven't read all of Excalibur yet, but didn't they say that the drug-addict Magneto was a fake? As chessy as a fake might be, it is no worse writing than making Magneto into a weak-minded drug addict in the first place.


But this one is funny. I didn't know anyone ever took Wizard seriously. But here's a good reason not to.

Sorry. Wizard magazine (the leading industry mag) has reported that sales of Marvel comics dropped every quarter after Jim Shooter's run as Editor in Chief *until* the changes instituted by Quesada and Bill Jemas.

Since Shooter left a few years before the speculator boom where Spider-man #1 and X-Force #1 sold millions, and X-Men #1 sold SEVEN million. This has to be wrong.

Here's some current sales numbers:
So their sales are higher this year than they were last year. This is a company that's falling apart?
Publishing: Net Sales
Q1 2005 Q1 2004
22,418 19,644

Total net sales of what title? Or is that an average of all the titles? And is a particular one title or handful of titles that are throwing averages out of whack? These numbers are very incomplete. Also, for dollar numbers, you have to take the quantity of titles sold and cover prices into account.

Comics as a whole have taken a slight uptick over the past year after taking a severe beating since the speculator-boom. compare q1 2005 to q1 1995 or 1985. the current numbers are embarassing compared to everything EXCEPT last year.

Also, when I talk about Marvel being in trouble, I'm talking specifically about the COMICS. Business reports will tell you how sucessful Marvel has become but that is completely based on the movie and merchandising deals. The comics-part of the company isn't doing very well. and the monthly comics in particular (excluding TPBs) are really not doing well.

Marvel is treating the comics as a secondary business to find more properties for movies and tv. Just look at the current New Warriors series. Is this an attempt at a comic book? Or hoping they can get an off to put new warriors go! on tv?

Certain things that Marvel is doing are short-team sales boosters only.

Returning to the alternate cover gimmick?
Yikes. Didn't this spell disaster the first time?

Having Wolverine and Spider-man in the Avengers?
Eventually they'll bring back the REAL Avengers and there will be a sales spike again, but after weakening the teams image, how will they be able to survive long term? But in the meanwhile, tick off people who think these two are over-exposed.

The Ultimate Universe as a continuity light alternative?
Oops. So much for thast idea. It adds more confusion and splits sales.

House of M?
Another alternate reality.
That will bleed over partly into the MU
To make continuity more confusing in an attempt to make it simpler.

Maybe they can dig up a few more gimmicks from the 90s.

 

[Vigilance]

So while Claremont and David might have left books because of problems related to interconnectedness, it isn't the interconnectedness itself thats the problem. It was the editorial OVER-USE of these things. There are tons of reasons to have characters exist in a shared universe. There are zero reasons to have multi-title crossovers every three months.

Agreed. And I also agree that there was more than one reason for the departure of both writers. I think the last point I would make on this subject is, that under the previous EIC Claremont, Peter David and Jim Lee all three left Marvel for various reasons and now all three are back. This to me is a good thing and speaks to Quesada doing a good job.

No. he got a pass that another writer couldn't because he is JOSS WHEDON.
Just like a veteran writer will be trusted with bigger more convoluted stories than a new writer. Austen wasn't just a rookie, but Joss isn't just a veteran writer either. He's a geek-god. He brought Colossus back, and he did it so well, that it worked, and there have been very few complaints about it. Would Austen have been able to do the same?

Oh don't misunderstand me. I am a Whedon fan to begin with and an X-men fan, and its not hard to get me to praise Astonishing X-men, which is the best run on an X-title since the Claremont/Byrne days.

Except that this is just a retcon. Well-done retcons don't ignore or invalidate continuity. A well-done retcon fits seamlessly into a character's past and just adds a previously unknown bit to the past. This is done in almost all episodic stories. This particular retcon has a never explored Gwen trip to Europe, and would have been fine if Norman had raped her. Instead, it gets ridiculed because it completely goes against Gwen's character. There is a difference.

Eh... this is a bridge too far for me. As someone who gobbled up the classic Lee/Ditko Spidey making Gwen the mother of Norman's illegitimate kids is about as good of a retcon as saying Uncle Ben was a drug dealer on the side. Let's just say I respect JMS, he's a better writer than me, but this is not his finest hour imo.

But this one is funny. I didn't know anyone ever took Wizard seriously. But here's a good reason not to.

Its possible I have misremembered the date of the decline in sales. I dont have the issue in front of me. It did however spell out that Marvel's sales had declined for several years and that there were elements within the company who felt continuing decline was inevitable and that the comics industry was dying. Quesada and Jemas dispeled that notion and turn the company back on an upward trend.

Also, when I talk about Marvel being in trouble, I'm talking specifically about the COMICS. Business reports will tell you how sucessful Marvel has become but that is completely based on the movie and merchandising deals. The comics-part of the company isn't doing very well. and the monthly comics in particular (excluding TPBs) are really not doing well.

Marvel is treating the comics as a secondary business to find more properties for movies and tv. Just look at the current New Warriors series. Is this an attempt at a comic book? Or hoping they can get an off to put new warriors go! on tv?

Certain things that Marvel is doing are short-team sales boosters only.

I disagree with this. Quesada realized, rightfully so, that a comics company needed to think and act like a multmedia entertainment conglomerate.

It isnt just movies. Its toys. Tradebacks- which you mention, are a huge part. They appeal to a lot of mainstream comic readers like me. I might not have time to chase down House of M issue by issue. But I will browse the TPB racks at B&N to grab it when it comes out there.

That isnt a short term gimmick, that's the key to Marvel's long term solvency. In the article I quoted where Casey Jones says Quesada saved Marvel, he also says Didio (DC's new VP) is smartly emulating the strategy Marvel used to recover from Bankruptcy in less than 10 years.

If you look at what Didio has done, some of it has been on the comics side, but he also placed a very high priority on getting DC's licensing house back in order (which includes movies).

In other words, Quesada not only saved Marvel and is running it well, he taught the industry how to survive and thrive in the "new economy". Comics are just one part of the equation. Comic companies have very valuable IP that can be licensed in so many directions. Like it or not, Quesada was the driving force behind that.

Chuck

 

[Desdichado]

I disagree with this. Quesada realized, rightfully so, that a comics company needed to think and act like a multmedia entertainment conglomerate.

It isnt just movies. Its toys. Tradebacks- which you mention, are a huge part. They appeal to a lot of mainstream comic readers like me. I might not have time to chase down House of M issue by issue. But I will browse the TPB racks at B&N to grab it when it comes out there.

That isnt a short term gimmick, that's the key to Marvel's long term solvency. In the article I quoted where Casey Jones says Quesada saved Marvel, he also says Didio (DC's new VP) is smartly emulating the strategy Marvel used to recover from Bankruptcy in less than 10 years.

If you look at what Didio has done, some of it has been on the comics side, but he also placed a very high priority on getting DC's licensing house back in order (which includes movies).

In other words, Quesada not only saved Marvel and is running it well, he taught the industry how to survive and thrive in the "new economy". Comics are just one part of the equation. Comic companies have very valuable IP that can be licensed in so many directions. Like it or not, Quesada was the driving force behind that.

I've been reading your discussions with some interest, but one thing that I haven't seen either of you mention, which I think certainly is important in light of the discussion above, is that comic sales as an industry are struggling. Quesada's success in the face of a shrinking industry that's facing increasingly fierce competition and market share loss to translations of manga is --if anything-- even more startling than the fact that he managed to turn Marvel's numbers around in the first place.

 

[guedo79]

I would suggest going to a comic book store, pick up a comic you might like, read a bit of it to see if you like it, and take it home.

Take a deep breath and try not to worry about it. Either you'll figure out what's going on or just read something else. A good writer is a good writer no matter the editor/policy.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I have little to add to the detailed discussion of continuity and comic book politics, but I believe I can clear up one continuity issue...

I'm pretty sure the Ultimate Marvel Team-Up Hulk was different (ie, green) from the Ulimates Hulk, and I don't think they ever explained that one.

They implied it. In the flashback panel in Ultimates #1, the Hulk is just as Green as he was in Team-Up, iirc, though that might just have been his eye. After Banner injects a Hulk Serum that has been combined with material from the recovered Cap, he turns into the grey Hulk.

 

[Vigilance]

I've been reading your discussions with some interest, but one thing that I haven't seen either of you mention, which I think certainly is important in light of the discussion above, is that comic sales as an industry are struggling. Quesada's success in the face of a shrinking industry that's facing increasingly fierce competition and market share loss to translations of manga is --if anything-- even more startling than the fact that he managed to turn Marvel's numbers around in the first place.

I agree, and that's why I think Quesada's decision to treat Marvel as a multimedia entertainment company that would use its valuable IP to make money from comics, video games, movies, TV shows and toys was pure genius.

And the recent changes at DC point to other companies realizing what a good strategy this is. Former DC executive strategy was, as a small part of a massive company (AOL/Time/Warner) to fly below the radar, not do anything bad, or flashy and just stay unnoticed by upper management.

But when those managers were ousted and Didio was put into place, he had very clear marching orders. Orders that included getting the licensing revenues (including movies) back on track. Marvel was being more successful getting movies made than DC, which was PART of a conglomerate that includes Warner Bros, a movie studio.

AOL/Time-Warner's ouster of the old guard and elevation of Didio sent a clear message that, in light of Marvel's success, they expected more from DC.

However as I pointed out... Marvel's comic sales under Quesada have increased as well. The Ultimate line, whatever people think of it, is a huge sales hit and that was started under Quesada's watch.

The other big innovation Quesada ushered in was the focus on trade backs. Most adults (like me) arent going to chase individual issues. I subscribe to a few books, so I get them in my mail every month, and then I buy trade backs.

Quesada also started the Marvel Masterworks line reprenting classic comics in hardback for the serious collector.

These have all increased Marvel's revenue from the publishing side of the industry.

 

[Captain Tagon]

I would suggest going to a comic book store, pick up a comic you might like, read a bit of it to see if you like it, and take it home.

Take a deep breath and try not to worry about it. Either you'll figure out what's going on or just read something else. A good writer is a good writer no matter the editor/policy.

Ding ding ding.