Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 0:22:59 GMT
Hey everyone, I was reading The Mary Sue's article on reboots and remakes recently (Don’t Call It a Comeback: Defending Reboots and Remakes www.themarysue.com/video-defending-reboots-and-remakes) and it got me thinking if it might not be in Marvel's best intrestto consider doing a reboot at some point down the line. Comics do having an aging fanbase, after all, and these characters do have to remain 'fresh' andattainable for younger fans, even with the popularity of the MCU. At some point, the actors involved in the MCU will want to move on, and it might be a nice jumping on point - see the same story, but different, The Avengers continue, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by omega on Oct 19, 2016 4:54:30 GMT
No. At this point Marvel need to maintain a consistency with the overall universe and the individuals within it for a couple of years at least. We're less than a year after the major Secret Wars, and already Civil War II has shaken up the landscape in terms of character personalities (Captain Marvel has never been more poorly written), identities (Ironheart) and alliances (the Champions). To keep readers, Marvel needs them to be invested in the characters so they can invest in the issues to keep the titles running. If and when things can change suddenly and frequently, it provides a bigger disincentive than incentive to keep reading.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timelord007 on Oct 19, 2016 6:15:06 GMT
No.No.No.
|
|
|
|
Post by omega on Oct 19, 2016 6:42:06 GMT
♪There were evil metal creatures who tried to EXTERMINATE!♪ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 10:03:08 GMT
No, they shouldn't. Part of the greatness of Marvel is that so much of their history still "happened". You can tell parallel stories though. Younger readers might hear about the way the Ultimates universe limped to an end but the line saved Marvel in a lot of ways and allowed them to redefine a lot of their iconic characters. It also became the blue-print for the MCU and thus Disney buying Marvel so it really was a game-changer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 11:09:02 GMT
At this point, the MCU should just end.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffeeaddict on Oct 19, 2016 13:27:14 GMT
One of the reasons I can't be bothered with DC these days is that they have rebooted the continuity far too frequently.
I think Marvel would do well to refrain from a reboot for the reasons stated above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2016 15:36:48 GMT
Put me in the NO camp.
|
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Oct 19, 2016 17:32:06 GMT
Nope, reboots would be an unoriginal move. Better to have the titles 'Iron Man', 'Captain America', 'Thor' etc...passed onto new or pre-existing characters as in the comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by christmastrenzalore on Oct 19, 2016 19:12:35 GMT
No, they shouldn't. Part of the greatness of Marvel is that so much of their history still "happened". You can tell parallel stories though. Younger readers might hear about the way the Ultimates universe limped to an end but the line saved Marvel in a lot of ways and allowed them to redefine a lot of their iconic characters. It also became the blue-print for the MCU and thus Disney buying Marvel so it really was a game-changer. Yeah. One-shots like Punsher kills the MARVEL universe or other worlds like Spider-gwen are fine, but rebooting doesn't add anything; just gives you an excuse to retell old stories again. You can always move forward by jumping off from old stories, or adding new stuff and trying new angles. I really see no value in a reboot. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2016 3:09:42 GMT
No, I think that the current state that is in, it doesn't need any reboot of any kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by omega on Oct 20, 2016 4:16:07 GMT
One of the reasons I can't be bothered with DC these days is that they have rebooted the continuity far too frequently. I think Marvel would do well to refrain from a reboot for the reasons stated above. Rebirth is not a reboot. It is the recognizably the same continuity the New 52/DC You ended with, albeit with some elements of the pre-New 52 era included to give it the legacy aspect the New 52 lacked. These elements are fully justified. It even explains more about how New 52 came to be than New 52 did. |
|
aztec
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,849 
|
Post by aztec on Oct 20, 2016 9:07:15 GMT
Not really a comic book fan, but for me personally alot of the Marvel films have felt kinda generic and made by committee, almost all the leads are signed into multiple film contracts so there's rarely a sense of menance or weight to the fight scenes as you know they are all going to survive to the next film.
(Though I did love The Winter Soldier-more of a spy thriller than comic book film, Iron Man-because it was the first and still feels fresh, Ant Man-for the off kilter comedy, and Guardians Of The Galaxy-just thought it was a great film, felt like Firefly crossed with Star Wars)
|
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Oct 20, 2016 10:13:29 GMT
Not really a comic book fan, but for me personally alot of the Marvel films have felt kinda generic and made by committee, almost all the leads are signed into multiple film contracts so there's rarely a sense of menance or weight to the fight scenes as you know they are all going to survive to the next film. (Though I did love The Winter Soldier-more of a spy thriller than comic book film, Iron Man-because it was the first and still feels fresh, Ant Man-for the off kilter comedy, and Guardians Of The Galaxy-just thought it was a great film, felt like Firefly crossed with Star Wars) I can see that point but equally I'd say they're widely different. Iron Man is a thriller, Thor is a fish out of water comedy, Guardians of the Galaxy is an 80s feel-good blockbuster etc.... |
|
