Complete Marvel Reading Order News and Reviews

by Josh Starnes, CMRO Editor

A better way to ask that question might be ‘Can We Get Too Much Robert Downey, Jr.?’

No. At least it doesn’t look that way yet.

In just two short months “Iron Man 3” will be hitting the big screen, almost a year to the day since “Marvel’s The Avengers” opened last May which will make this the fourth summer a major “Iron Man” film will be getting released out of the last six. And if they could have fit at least one more in there (somewhere in between “Sherlock Holmes” films, I guess) I’m sure they would have. By comparison, Hugh Jackman, the only other actor to be so definitely linked to a major Marvel character, will have managed only two more appearances as Wolverine by the end of this summer (though of course he is jumping right from filming “The Wolverine” to “X-Men: Days of Future Past”) and that has taken him nearly 13 years to manage. (Yes, Bryan Singer’s original “X-Men” is verging on being 15 years old. Yes, that makes you old).

Even among major tent-pole franchises that’s a lot of exposure and though contracts will need to be re-negotiated, someone somewhere is certainly already talking about “Iron Man 4” and of course there will be great desire for him to appear in “The Avengers 2” in 2015. Which means Downey, Jr. will have to be suiting up again this time next year for his fifth go round.

That much exposure seems to beg the question – how much “Iron Man” is the world ready for?

From a business perspective it makes sense. Marvel Comics doesn’t pause in making “Iron Man” books because they just finished publishing 12 issues in a row. They push and push and push to see what the market will endure. Case in point, the launching of the Invincible Iron Man as a second Iron Man book in 2009 (by Matt Fraction and Salvador Larossa) to see if the popularity of the first film would rub off in increased comic sales. When it quickly became apparent that the world really was only big enough for one Iron Man comic Marvel editorial took a long hard look at what they had and cancelled the longer running Iron Man book (longer running by about 15 issues as the series had been relaunched just two years earlier to capitalize on Warren Ellis joining the book as regular writer) to make room for Fraction and Larossa’s more well-regarded opus.

Movie economics by necessity work out of a different rule book. They cost more, take longer to make and as such can’t make easy course corrections. Tent pole franchise making is an endurance sport, like soccer. It takes a real Iron Man to make it work.

Which is what makes the Paramount’s (and now Disney’s) decision to make as much “Iron Man” as they can while they can both an obvious necessity and a true risk. It is not only possible to likely to run a franchise into the ground to the point where it must be either abandoned or restarted from the ground up (observe Warner Bros. successful relaunch of “Batman” or Paramount’s work with “Star Trek”).

However. Moreso than any of Marvel’s other major properties (barring perhaps Wolverine, though that remains to be seen) “Iron Man” the film is more tightly associated with the actor bringing the character to life – Downey, Jr.—than any other Marvel character. Iron Man’s popularity on film has far outpaced his popularity in print. He is by far the most popular of the Disney owned film projects; in fact after Spider-Man he is the second most popular individual film character Marvel has yet produced. Considering his niche within Marvel characters in print, far closer to Captain America, Thor and the like, it is difficult to say that is not due Downey’s presence.

If so, does the constant presence of Downey and his now signature character risks overexposure or burning out its star on the character? The same way the absence of Johnny Depp would make the continued success of “Pirates of the Caribbean” films at their old levels a difficult proposition, the absence of Downey, Jr. may well mean the same for “Iron Man.”

It’s not a perfect one-to-one comparison, of course. While it is easy to see Disney halting the pirate films after Depp tires of them, it is less likely the same would happen to its potent Marvel brand, particularly with the need to keep “The Avengers” going for as long as possible. And if “Amazing Spider-Man” proved anything else it is that it is possible to continually replace the actors in these films, moving them to a model more like the James Bond films. It wouldn’t even be the first time for Iron Man (Terrence Howard’s James Rhodes now being but a distant memory).

Still, if that is the case it seems we are long way from reaching that tipping point if the reaction to the Super Bowl “Iron Man 3” ad—not to mention Downey, Jr.’s hilarious ‘extended look’ version of the ad—is anything to go by.

And with “Avengers 2” likely a mandate to be as successful as the first, and the immense bargaining power that gives to all involved as contracts are renegotiated, it’s probably not something anyone has to worry about for some time to come.

No matter what happens though, what is sure is, like master himself James Bond, we will all likely look back on the “Downey era” as the best of the “Iron Men.”

by Lindsey Young, CMRO Contributing Writer

It seems to be a problem with a lot of superhero movies–what do we do with the women? There’s usually a love interest in these types of films, and usually she ends up being rescued, but over time, it seems like we as moviegoers and storytellers have evolved past the damsel in distress stereotype. More and more, superhero’s girlfriends are expected to have some agency, some character beyond simply ‘Peter Parker’s girlfriend’ or ‘Captain America’s love interest.’ The damsel trope just seems tired and dated now, especially if your movie has only one female character and she inevitably falls into this role.

That’s not to say that damsel characters can’t also be fun and interesting, but I’m also encouraged by the seemingly conscious effort in the majority of Marvel movies to try giving their love interests a bit more agency, and to avoid the traditional “hero rescues the girl and saves the day” finale. Be warned: some spoilers abound.

Iron Man 2: Pepper Potts becomes CEO of Stark Industries. Tony swoops in and saves her at one point, but it’s only a brief moment, not an entire third act or action set piece. She also does not swoon. Not to mention: Black Widow, Black Widow, Black Widow. Sexualized? Yes, but so damn awesome!

Captain America: Peggy Carter has a position of authority in the military in the freaking 1940s, and while she experiences sexism as a result, it’s used more as a means for her to relate to puny little Steve than as a constant reminder that “LOOK! I’M A WOMAN DOING SOMETHING A MAN CAN DO!” (since movies that do nothing but make a big deal about the gender of their ass-kickers, pointing it out constantly, is obnoxious, clichéd, and usually not that empowering.)

Thor: Jane is a constant active participant in the entire movie, even if Thor does most of the heavy lifting, mostly for comedy and/or storytelling purposes. While her team does need to be protected at the end, I think I can give them a pass because A) It’s a freakin’ mech thing powered by a god and it’s okay that Jane is not a physical fighter, and B) it’s more about Thor’s noble sacrifice for his friends (which includes a dude) than rescuing Jane in the traditional sense. Besides, Sif, though sometimes Thor’s lover in mythology/the comics, is a badass warrior chick who participates in the action and there’s no mention of her gender after one sort of cringe-worthy line, which admittedly does have a funny comeback that seems to be a response to the whole “A WOMAN?!” thing, so I forgive it. (As a note, Thor also briefly lets the camera linger on Thor’s body in a way that is usually reserved for female characters in films, while simultaneously keeping the ladies clothed. Necessary? No, but definitely a nice change of pace for a female viewer like myself.) Thor also gets points for having more than one major female character, and all of them very different.

The Avengers: Black Widow. Need I say more? Also, Maria Hill. So the movie has more than one active female character, even though, unfortunately, to my memory they don’t get to speak to one another.

The Amazing Spiderman: Gwen Stacy is capable as HELL in this movie! Regardless of my issues with it, this girl works at a lab out of high school, gets the cure Peter sorely needs, responds sensibly to a monster attack and avoids getting kidnapped, and actually participates in the action of the story in ways that make sense for her character. Though they tease the idea of a rescue, it manages to avoid Gwen actually being put in the traditional sort of peril, mainly because she’s too damn smart to let herself be snatched up so easily.

It’s not that Marvel movies are perfect in this regard, and Black Widow has yet to get her own movie and give us an actual starring role for a female hero, but looking back, I have to say I’m pretty impressed that Marvel seems to be trying to move away from the–well, let’s face it, the final act to most superhero movies.

by Josh Starnes, CMRO Editor

The short answer is: no.

That probably sounds incongruous considering how much time and money each has invested into their competing continuity re-launches in a bid to entice new readers who might be scared away by decades of continuity they can’t understand.

They have also simultaneously spent a great deal of time and money creating major products that can only before long-time readers and would be inscrutable to anyone looking in from the outside – Flashpoint and AVX come immediately to mind – but there’s no rule saying you can’t try to do both at the same time and in fact they should be doing that.

On a purely publishing basis DC and Marvel have done everything which could be expected of them. They have rebooted continuity to make regular, easy jumping on points for new readers. DC has kept their regular line at a static level to keep from potentially saturating readers (though mini-series schedules have not noticeably changed) and have engaged in regular customer satisfaction surveys to analyze how well such measures have caught on and what they could be doing better on editorial. Marvel has crafted newer ongoing series to reflect the realities of their film franchises, such as Avengers Assemble, in order to produce a product to fit new fans who only know the company through its film series.

None of that really matters. For all the hard work editorial is trying to do to take advantage of newfound interest in superheroes, someone at the upper levels of the two largest comics publishers in the United States has decided that new readers are not as important as trying to wring every last dime from the existing fan base which is all comics publishing is good for. And the proof is in the pricing.

A little over four years ago Marvel announced it would be shifting its price point for monthly issues to $3.99/issue, citing increased production costs and studiously avoiding the real issue of a falling readership base. Shortly afterwards DC followed suit with some of its titles.

At the time the monthly average issue cost for a Marvel comic was around $3.30-$3.40 due to the many premium priced mini-series. After the increase, which was not line wide, the average price was $3.60-$3.80 depending on the given month, less than $1 increase popularly derided. And in fact, for readers of smaller publishers such as IDW or Boom!, a $3.99 or $3.95 price point was not that unusual due to the costs associated with producing a book selling 5,000 copies or less versus the bottom line 15,000 copies a Marvel book was allowed to move or risk being summarily cancelled.

Those numbers don’t fully cover the psychological impact of the $3.99 price point for 16-22 pages of monthly story, particularly considering the increasing average age of regular comic’s reader means began reading comics when monthly prices were $1 to $1.25. More to the point, they don’t cover the psychological impact of a new potential reader viewing the cost for the first time and doing a quick mental cost-benefit analysis as to the cost per page and whether it’s worth it. Most conclude it’s not and as a result annual sales figures continue to slowly decline year-over-year and market share becomes a zero-sum calculation with readership numbers flowing from major title to major title as regular readers – who are being counted on to stay regular readers despite the price under the calculation that the fix is more important than what it costs – begin making choices about what books they have to give up in order to continue to support their core titles. For the most part, these tend to be fringe titles as well-known superheroes make up the bulk of monthly comics purchases.

What happened next is what always happens when a market is faced with a major paradigm shift: the fringes of the business became forced by shrinking margins to make more and more radical experiments with their business models. Once they found an innovation which worked it was quickly subsumed by the larger corporations. In this case, digital comics.

The idea of digital distribution isn’t new to readers or publishers. The attraction is obvious; by removing the cost of printing and distribution publishers can offer competitive prices without taking a hit on already slim margins. It has been less a question of when as how. How will it be delivered and how will it be priced. The most recent major step in the acceptance of digital comics are software packages such as Comixology which to take advantage of mobile devices as reading platforms, untethering comics from PCs, while at the same time attempting to ape the pay model of iTunes at $1 an issue. Over the four years since Comixology and its competitors emerged costs and short-term sales potential have become better understood and prices have stabilized around the $1.99 price point. Congruently digital comics have become a quickly growing piece of the comic pie for publishers who have embraced it. IDW announced in the first quarter of 2012 that digital comics made up 10% of its periodical sales in 2011. The publishers who have seen similar success all share several elements in common – a universal comic reading platform, price point around the $1.99 level, and day and date release of new material. Treating digital comics exactly as shelf comics with the savings from distribution turned towards price competition instead of profit margin. In other words, using digital comics as a platform for building readership. It’s become such a standard that most entrants into digital publishing are picking it up, with two gigantic glaring exceptions.

By far the largest is Marvel. Similar to its decision to try and ignore certain distribution realities in the 1990s, Marvel’s digital publishing division has tried to re-write the rules of digital publishing as if by its sheer size it can force the world into the shape it wants. Marvel has created its own digital platform that is only useful for reading digital Marvel comics. Marvel only publishes back issues digitally and seemingly arbitrarily with readers looking for the latest issues required to buy physical copies. And most importantly, Marvel prices its digital comics at the same price point as its print comics. If the $3.99 price point was forced upon Marvel due to cost then there is no reason to keep that price point for an objectively cheaper distribution channel, except to channel savings into profit margin. Doing so means making a conscious choice not to try and use competitive pricing to bring in new readers despite slowly declining readership numbers.

The case is not so strident at DC. DC does use a standard platform and belatedly began issuing some of their core titles day and date digitally, but at least they showed up. They do, however, continue to price their issues at parity to comic stand, with some noise made about holding onto the $2.99 print price versus Marvel’s digital practices, and completely ignoring the standard pricing of the rest of the digital realm.

The reasons for this are obvious. They are the biggest boys on the block by several orders of magnitude; increased readership is important for them but not life or death as it is for other publishers. As major print publishers they derive a hefty percentage of their revenue from ad sales, something which digital comics have not adequately duplicated, and are not in a rush to harm those sales by potentially reducing stand readership.

But none of that is the real story. The real story is that as long as Marvel and DC are willing to enforce a stand price on digital comics, as long as they are unwilling to price competitively for digital readership, they are basing their revenue stream on squeezing as much money as possible on current readers as possible. New readers, with no built in emotional attachment to the characters or the books will be looking for value for money and that cannot be had by increasing prices. Refusing to change pricing structure even when costs go down means the guiding business strategy is not taking potential new readers into account; it means they are taking it as read that there is a finite number of readers which has already been reached and the only way to make more money is to charge them more. There are other reasons as well – charging more for major books forces readers to make choices as to what they will and won’t buy, ultimately tilting market share in favor of those major books (never mind that Marvel and DC each sell roughly six times as many books as their nearest other competitors). Part of that is an old world view of comics publishing success which has seen market share as the end all and be all of the comics industry, a world view which helped lead to Marvel’s bankruptcy filing once before.

History won’t repeat at that level but it does shed light on a point of view which regards readers as a finite resource not as something which can be grown and developed and replenished. In that light of course they must price everything at stand price points – it’s the only way to make their projections. Any noises they make about trying to gain new readers is just that: noise. And why should they want to build comics industry readership anyway? They have the bulk of them and if overall readership grows there’s a chance their market share might decrease. That’s actually a more cynical view than is likely but the end result is the same.

As long as Marvel and DC price digital comics at the same level as print comics, they are not trying to build readership. They are contenting themselves to re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic of print comic’s readership.