For this year’s final MC2, we decided to take a slightly different approach to our usual set-up. While previous articles found us kicking ideas back and forth about various elements about where Marvel is that week (or, well, something along those lines anyway), to wrap-up up 2013 we wanted to do something a bit more encompassing. Unfortunately, trying to remember all the things you want to talk about from a year’s worth of comics is pretty tough! Honestly — try it. See how much you forget and then curse yourself for forgetting.
(Honestly, we’ll probably be in that boat as soon as you guys start commenting.)
So in an effort to change things up, we came up with 10 questions that we thought would help us look at and think about The Year in Marvel Comics. Going through the best and the worst of the year, it has allowed each of us to look into our longboxes and come up with some pretty solid answers to how we think Marvel did in 2013. After all, they did take the #2 spot in our Best Publisher article this year.
Read on to see each of our answers and sign off with some of your thoughts in the comments below!
Where did Marvel succeed the most?
Matt: I think the easy answer is in just not behaving like their biggest competitors. The comic landscape has changed and creator-owned books are certainly more mainstream now than they’ve ever been, but I think for Marvel it has always been about one-upping DC rather than worrying about the rest of the comic world; it’s one of those comic rivalries. And while DC has a myriad of problems over the years that are largely indicative of the issues that they’ve had since launching the New 52, Marvel essentially showed that they could take DC’s model of “re-launching” and make it work in a way that fans would actually respond well to.
And, ok, sure — the incessant re-launches and new #1s and jumping-on points and all that gets tiresome as a regular reader, but you’ve got to admit, they’re sticking tot heir guns and making accessible comics and trying out new things all the time with their line. It leads to the occasional quick-jump to rash conclusions about what the market wants, but they’re certainly trying to stay two-steps ahead of the game as opposed to continuously defending their actions from two years ago and leaning on stunts that make retailers heads spin.
David: They made good comics. There are a lot of things I could highlight, but the quality of Marvel’s line – in my opinion – is higher than it has been in quite some time. Between books like “Hawkeye”, “Wolverine and the X-Men”, “Young Avengers” and many others, Marvel’s producing a bevy of titles that bring indie sensibilities and fun back to their publishing line, and with Hickman on the Avengers books and Bendis over on the X-Men ones, some would argue that those books are healthier now than they have been in forever. Then you have random books like “Deadpool”, “Avengers Arena” and “Superior Foes of Spider-Man” that are far better than any reader could have ever believed they would be. All in all, their simple act of comic making was at the highest level it had been in forever, and that’s what I’ll remember Marvel for in 2013.
In what areas did they falter the most?
David: The biggest and most strangely frustrating place that Marvel struggles at is in the world of digital comics. Limited embrace of the more robust storytelling functionality digital offers, higher prices and a publishing line with no hook, for all the bluster about their coming out party at SXSW last year from yours truly), what followed was a pretty damn disappointing follow-up in actual application. I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but they really could learn a lot about what and how to publish digital comics by taking a page from DC’s playbook.
Besides that, the exhaustive double shipping robs their books of consistent art of the highest quality. They hamstring their own books from being all they can be by trying to maximize the volume of releases, and I think everyone would be better if they gave their creators time to make the best books they can.
Continued belowMatt: The biggest and most obvious answer to this is simply in diversity. I think that Marvel has a great line of straight, white male heroes that sit on the cover of shelves every week, doing all their big superheroic things as they are wont to do. And while I don’t want to push the idea of diversity for diversity’s sake and I do think that Marvel does a good job of stepping back and letting their creators create new and interesting POC and female characters, the company could certainly do more to make those characters matter and making sure they stick around.
Miles Morales is perhaps the definitive “Look at how progressive” we are character in the way that we now have a POC hero filling in the role of a major, well-known character, but you have little things like a female Venom that will be but a blip on the radar in a few years. Marvel is very much “comfortable” in its cast and it results in a lot of things being either a) insular to only one title or b) repeatedly regressive towards a small handful of heroes and villains, and I think it is time that Marvel really spruced up their line-up of characters with new heroes and villains that break the stereotypical molds and then stick around.
It seems like 2014 will be the year they put the most effort in this, so fingers crossed.
OH! And Age of Ultron. Come on.
What new Marvel books were the most exciting?
Matt: “Young Avengers”, easily. I mean, there’s no better option for this, is there? You put two creators who are very much mentally in sync on a book that is pretty much custom-made for them while the writer is hot off a critically acclaimed streak on a book that connects to this one… I mean, I could probably go all day in talking about how “Young Avengers” is the best, was the best new book from Marvel this year, but the proof is in the pudding. Just about anyone who read “Young Avengers” will agree; Kieron and Jamie told a year-long story that was very a Kieron/Jamie jam in all the right ways, and Marvel reaped the rewards on it.
I also really liked the first couple issues of “Amazing X-Men,” but that is very much in its early days.
David: It’s weird to think of “Young Avengers” as a “new book” because it is already ending, but this book has been an absolute delight. Kieron Gillen, Jamie McKelvie and friends created a book that really felt like youth in revolt, capturing what it means to be a young person – and superhero – in today’s world. Some may hem and haw at the incorporation of Tumblr and Instagram and other things into their work, but I think it makes sense in the grand scheme of the narrative. Ultimately though, this book is more substance than style, regardless of what the first issue’s title was, and its value was found in the brilliant character work throughout by Gillen and McKelvie. For me, this is THE Young Avengers book, and that’s a hell of a thing.
I’m going to hit this drum a lot here, but man, “Superior Foes of Spider-Man” from Nick Spencer and Steve Lieber is the most fun book in comics. Period. Comics can get pretty damn serious sometimes, and reading this book is a breath of fresh air and an absolute delight. Even if it is about conniving super criminals bumbling their way through life.
And as Matt said, “Amazing X-Men” is in its early days but man, that book has “classic X-Men book” written all over it. Except not literally, because that would be weird and would devalue the cover experience.
What cancelations were meant to be?
David: Sadly, it always felt like a matter of time until “Fearless Defenders” ended. Regardless of its quality, its creative team (as talented as they are) and its cast never really had much of a chance of succeeding in this marketplace. People often rage about the lack of diversity in comics, but with the way the sales of this book plummeted after launch, what do you expect Marvel to do? If you want books led by women characters to succeed, you better buy books with women characters. That’s how it works.
Continued belowMatt: I hate to say it as a huge fan of the writer and that I feel it might go against a point I made earlier, but I’d say “Red She-Hulk.” I really liked what Jeff Parker did with the Red Hulk, but I don’t think that when the title switched over to star his female counterpart that it ever managed to get the proper footing or direction. I think what worked with Parker’s make-over of Rulk just didn’t apply to the Red She-Hulk, and the clashes that this book had with the way her character had been portrayed by Greg Pak post-“World War Hulks” made for a disjointed read in the end. I still enjoyed it, but I can’t help but think that this wasn’t Parker at his most exciting and innovative best.
I also think that “Fearless Defenders” was sort of doomed from the start. It was a decidedly enjoyable book and one whose concept I was firmly behind, but I don’t think Bunn and Silney ever really took it as far as it could’ve gone. Or rather, I don’t think they ever really knew where to take it. You look at something like “Avengers Assemble” and I think that’s a smart prototype of what the book could’ve been, but the title wanted to be a mix of “Heroes for Hire” and “Journey into Mystery” and a bunch of other books rather than carve out an identity for itself, and that was what ultimately made it inaccessible.
How do you feel about all of the events in 2013?
Matt: Miserable. Does that sum it up well enough?
Look — Marvel’s events this year were big let-downs. No two-ways about it. “Age of Ultron?” After the amount of time we waited for it, it felt phoned in. It would’ve been better as an arc in Bendis’ “Avengers” left at five issues, as it was ostensibly always planned to be. “Battle of the Atom?” Jeepers creepers, that was the worst X-Event in the last decade — and the X-Events were always the best events! “Infinity?” Huge letdown from a writing perspective because it ultimately just went nowhere in the end, and it didn’t feel so much like an event as just an excuse to put Thanos on the shelves for a bit. And don’t get me started on “Cataclysm.”
I used to love Marvel events, and I think when they were all done alongside a clear plan — i.e., Bendis’ epic Avengers stories with “House of M” and “Secret Invasion” and “Siege” and all that — that it actually felt like events had a real purpose and meaning. Now it just feels like an annual tradition where you go to some relative’s house and they’ve half-assedly put together a meal and said, “Yeah, I forgot we did this every year, so here’s some burnt meat and store-bought mashed potatoes.” TRY HARDER, MARVEL.
David: I don’t really feel that much, to be honest. “Age of Ultron” was fun in a completely insane, certainly not good way. “Infinity” was a big ol’ mess of disconnectednesss and unfeeling action. If people liked them, more power to them If they didn’t, I don’t care either way. Neither made me feel strongly in any way, save for the fact that they were missed opportunities and that they distracted books I liked away from their current emphasis.
I think the biggest issue for Marvel though is that I feel nothing. Love them or hate them, events should make you feel something. The fact that Marvel’s efforts in 2013 never had me feeling strongly one way or another makes them a tremendous failure, and maybe their biggest in terms of publishing in 2013.
What was the biggest surprise from Marvel in 2013, either good or bad?
David: I mentioned this earlier, but for me it has to be “Superior Foes of Spider-Man”, and it’s VERY, VERY good. That book from Nick Spencer and Steve Lieber tells the story of Boomerang and his “Sinister Six” (there are only five), and it’s both hilarious and just straight up awesome. Sure, there are big overarching things that were surprising, but Spencer and Lieber turning this into one of the books I look forward to most each month? Now that’s some seriously special work. If you’re not buying this book, I strongly recommend it.
Continued belowMatt: I’d say the biggest surprise is a mix of both good and bad, and it’s that Marvel waited so long in the year to apparently get their act together.
Let me explain: if I look at the beginning of 2013, I see the echoes from the opening shots of Marvel NOW! creating ripples in the water that would eventually grow into something much bigger. Marvel put out a lot of books with top-tier creative teams and then sort of sat back to watch what happened. Some books they let go out and get a fighting chance; other, older books they put out to pasture or let simply run until their legs gave out. Marvel was all over the place in terms of what they tried to promote and do against what they probably should’ve been promoting or doing, and it only became clear what Marvel was hoping to accomplish around San Diego Comic Con and New York Comic Con when they announced all the books they planned to launch and revitalize in the tail-end of the year/2014.
This might seem like a reiteration of my statements in the “are they better?” question, but this year looks like Marvel had three phases: the watching phase, the planning phase, and the release phase. The first third of the year they watched, they saw, they got a feel for what we wanted to read and who we wanted to read it from. Then they went away and planned, covered our eyes with events and false flags of what would be important. Now they’re on the precipice of releasing all-new titles with amazing creators and exciting premises, and they seem poised to kick 2014 off with a bigger bang than 2013 had all year-round.
So that they were ultimately so passive to get to the point where they would be more proactive and really flood the market with the books it’d been calling for (or, at least, the books I want to read regularly) is what surprised me, looking back on it.
What was your favorite Marvel book?
Matt: That would have to be “Wolverine and the X-Men.” I think more than anyone else, Jason Aaron has been able to capture the magic of the X-Men and why they’ve ever mattered, why their stories have ever been something worth telling and reading and re-reading. This book has been fun, the art has been magnificent (Nick Bradshaw is now one of my favorite artists at Marvel) and even the worst stories of this book are leaps and bounds better than some of the stories from other X-Books right now.
Plus, the pay-off for the Hellfire arc? Man oh man.
Simply put, this is easily one of the most accessible and entertaining X-Books that Marvel still has, and that Aaron is leaving the title is sad, sad news. But, hey, Jason Latour and Mahmud Asrar make a great team, and there is always “Amazing X-Men” still!
David: Despite the Malekith arc that has done nothing for me besides spontaneously making me drop the book – I’ll be back after it’s over – “Thor: God of Thunder” gets the nod for me. I’ll cover the why of that more extensively in the next question, but let’s just say “Godbomb” and “Godkiller” were good arcs, and the 12th issue with art from Nic Klein was also absolutely, astonishingly great.
Besides that book, “Wolverine and the X-Men” was really fun, “Hawkeye” was a bit more inconsistent than year one but some issues (namely, the Pizza Dog-centric eleventh issue) were about as good as you can get in comics, and “Deadpool” had a stretch of 7 issues that were Joe Kelly-esque in quality, which is quite the compliment.
What was your favorite Marvel arc?
David: Godkiller and Godbomb from “Thor: God of Thunder” are my combined favorite Thor story ever. This was to be expected given that it was Jason Aaron writing and Esad Ribic drawing, but what they achieved was godlike, epic, mythic and all kinds of other extremely complimentary adjectives. The amount of jaw dropping moments per issue were unrivaled, and the scope and scale of Ribic’s art were unparalleled in comics in 2013. In short, this book floored me and satisfied me as a comic fan completely, in a way no comic – from any publisher – did in 2013.
Continued belowMatt: No question, no hesitation: the collected ‘Godkiller’/’Godbomb’ in Jason Aaron and Esad Ribic’s “Thor: God of Thunder.” It was the biggest story told this year from two of Marvel’s sharpest storytellers, and the pay-off for the book was just tremendous. I mean, when Marvel announced “Marvel NOW!” in the first place, Jason Aaron’s pitch of a Thor story told through three eras with one villain already sounded like the best pitch, and now that we see how it all wrapped up in the end I think it’s clear: Jason Aaron and Esad Ribic are Marvel’s National Treasures, and you better keep Nic Cage away from the Marvel offices because otherwise he’ll steal them.
Is Marvel in a better place than they were a year ago?
Matt: I’d actually probably say no to this one, astonishingly enough. Although, not in a particularly rude way or anything like that — I just think Marvel is in the same place they were a year ago. At least, in my eyes.
Look: I love Marvel. I’ll make no point in hiding it in a column called “The MC2” which was created as the opposite to the “The DC3” so that David and I can talk about how we’re big Marvel fanboys. But when you look at it from a distance, Marvel did enough this year to both push them up higher in my eyes and then push them back down to where they started. For every hit (“Hawkeye!”) there was a miss (massive “Hawkeye” delays!); for every arc I loved (‘Godkiller’ and ‘Godbomb’!) there was something I wish they didn’t publish (‘Battle of the Atom!’); for every smart hire they made (Ales Kot!), they lost a creator whose work is still sorely missed (Jeff Parker!).
Marvel took two steps forward and one-step backward this year, and if I adjust my own personal scales and whatnot they’re ultimately in the same place for me they were last year. “Better” is probably a relative term, but I don’t think they’re necessarily anywhere different than they were, and maybe it’s my problem and maybe it’s indicative of the market and maybe it’s something else, but I think Marvel could still stand to improve on quite a bit before they steal back their Publisher Of The Year place in my heart from a few years ago.
David: Yes.
No, that’s not right.
Hell yes.
Right around now, Marvel Now! was in full swing, but much of it was still uncertain. Would the books be good? If they were, would they maintain their quality? We’ve found that for the most part, both of those answers were strongly in the affirmative, and in the process they culled the herd a bit of some of the books that were found lacking, while also announcing a bevy of extremely exciting sounding books. Plus, they’re taking risks, bringing on newer creators like Ales Kot, Michael Walsh, Tradd Moore, Felipe Smith and many others, and having them do their thing in fully realizing Marvel’s characters. So not only do I think they’re in a better place, I think next year they’ll be in an even better place.
What book are you most looking forward to in 2014?
David: We already have a lot to look forward to in 2014, but I’d be lying if I said anything other than Warren Ellis, Declan Shalvey and Jordie Bellaire’s “Moon Knight.” I may have seen a bit more of this, and I can say 100% that this is going to blow people away. I think you’ll find a trio of creators completely in sync, elevating each other’s work and driving this book to new heights for the character, and becoming the new king of Marvel street level comics. If you don’t believe me, read the names of those creators once again. I shouldn’t need to sell you, but you’re going to want to pre-order this. It’s going to be one hell of a hit, and a character-defining run on top of that.
Matt: This is perhaps the toughest question of all, but I think it’d have to be the Marvelman/Miracleman reprints. Just because I’m really curious to see what they do with it all, how the pages look with the new coloring and what people will say in reaction to this rather important run in comics from The Original Writer finally arriving in accessible fashion.
Unless that doesn’t count because it’s not, like, a Marvel superhero book. In which case I’ll say James Robinson’s “Fantastic Four” because it is James Robinson’s “Fantastic Four.”
