You've got a good mix of things I agree with, disagree with, and partially agree with. I can't hit them all, but just a few thoughts off the top of my head:
Yes to #6 -- I've long thought the X-Men needed to be their own thing, for the reason you stated. Marvel missed an opportunity to do this when it launched its Ultimate line circa 2000.
I do think the Fantastic Four work in the same universe as the Avengers, but I can see an argument for separating them out.
The no-killing rule has always struck me as an important part of what makes a superhero a superhero -- having all that power but still being able to restrain yourself and find a better solution. It represents an ideal. That said, sometimes the idea gets executed poorly -- too focused on the letter of the law and not the spirit -- and I wrote about one example on my own Substack several months ago: https://danielsherrier.substack.com/p/the-wrong-way-to-show-a-no-kill-rule
And while Wolverine is also great, I completely agree that Daredevil is better.
In that comic Superman should have just killed the Joker to save Lois. That's the clearly ethical thing to do. For the record the only ethical thing to do was for Batman to have killed the Joker LONG AGO.
The Joker has nearly super natural in his ability to plan and create chaos. The Joker is also 100% evil. The Joker also always finds a way out of prison and faced few consequences for his psychopathic actions.
The Joker is also a fantastic villain and thus not really a killable character because the Joker and his evil hijinx sell comic books.
This leads into a major criticism I have about DC and Marvel. Their comics never end. There is no conclusion. It's a never ending soap opera and that gets old. It's very hard to maintain a fandom of either major comic publisher over the course of a lifetime.
This is why a lot of mini-series or story arches are better to read once they have gotten some critical acclaim even if they are not actually cannon or are just a piece of a much larger story.
The only reason I suggested the Fantastic Four being in and other universe is for the reason of reducing the amount of super heroes. The Silver Surfer is pretty cool, very weird and very much connected to the Fantastic Four. A weird cool character like the Silver Surfer is more at home with the outlandish Guardians of the Galaxy, that like the Fantastic Four mostly exist in space. I just feel like a self contained world with wild sci-fi/fantasy elements and a hugely expanded universe would be it's good own world. Whereas the more earth based kind often NY based Superheroes who are not mutants count be their own thing.
It's not really because the Avengers and Fantastic 4 don't work together it's more of a method of making a reasonable amount of superheroes. In each separate universe and having three universes that can adhere to different rules.
Back to the "no killing" rule. I do think there is a place for it. I think it actually works with the "lawful good" personality of Superman and even Batman. It's just taken to such a comically high degree of insanity that it just blatantly doesn't make sense.
Even then for Daredevil the insanity of it is actually explored. Daredevil is a tortured constantly guilty Catholic guy who breaks some rules but not others and is constantly questioning himself. He is literally not right in the head. His not killing enemies is often seen as a real moral question. Whereas it's just assumed in say most Superman and Batman comics that this is how heroes act. It's actually an ethical dilemma that is not actually clear. That Superman comic you mentioned is kind of pointing that out. Whether or not that should be pointed out in that way is a bit of an open question.
That's a fair point about the never-ending stories, and it creates a conundrum for Marvel and DC: Do they conclude each series and then reboot at the risk of creating a jumping-off point for a bunch of fans, or do they keep going with a sort of elastic continuity, keeping all the good and quietly forgetting the worst stories? DC pulled off a good reboot in the 80s, but not with its more recent New 52. Marvel has a stronger continuity overall, making it harder to pull the plug on it.
I see what you're saying about the FF and large number of superheroes. I'm pretty sure I've read a few Spider-Man stories where he's had to step up and face something outside of his weight class because the Avengers, FF, and X-Men are ALL conveniently out of town at the same time. It does start to strain credibility after a certain point.
And the Guardians aren't really superheroes in the traditional sense, which is another reason to separate them. But the original comic book Guardians were at least separated by time -- they were a thousand years in the future (though time-travel did facilitate some team-ups).
Marvel and DC suffer from being old and reliant on really established characters. They are forced to find all sorts of creative ways to make things fresh. Some work some don't. Some are just done to get publicity. It makes the whole product seem to matter less as time goes on.
That is why it is probably a better idea to allow a single creator or small team to kind of begin and end their own idea. The negative of this is that you have to constantly come up with new ideas and new products to entice continued readership. It makes sense that Marvel and DC opted to go with never ending soap operas. At the time there characters were created the audience was more limited, they had no guarantee that a successful comic would necessarily result into other media revenue streams like TV/Movies.
But now it's fairly clear that if a comic is very successful it will be adapted into a show or a movie or even a series of shows/movies. Comics are not the only source of revenue. There less risk in letting stories end, letting stories have beginning middle and end. There are more benefits to focusing on quality rather than quality.
Look at the most beloved comic storylines, arches and mini-series from the past that most of the movies and TV shows draw from? Most of them were noticably better than average quality and risky for the time.
I mean the position DC and Marvel are in is difficult they have already rebooted and restarted countless times. They will again.
This is why I like the Image creator-centered separate imprint business model. It allows for a lot more variety and creative control. Ultimately that is going to pay off down the road.
You've got a good mix of things I agree with, disagree with, and partially agree with. I can't hit them all, but just a few thoughts off the top of my head:
Yes to #6 -- I've long thought the X-Men needed to be their own thing, for the reason you stated. Marvel missed an opportunity to do this when it launched its Ultimate line circa 2000.
I do think the Fantastic Four work in the same universe as the Avengers, but I can see an argument for separating them out.
The no-killing rule has always struck me as an important part of what makes a superhero a superhero -- having all that power but still being able to restrain yourself and find a better solution. It represents an ideal. That said, sometimes the idea gets executed poorly -- too focused on the letter of the law and not the spirit -- and I wrote about one example on my own Substack several months ago: https://danielsherrier.substack.com/p/the-wrong-way-to-show-a-no-kill-rule
And while Wolverine is also great, I completely agree that Daredevil is better.
Thanks for a fun list!
In that comic Superman should have just killed the Joker to save Lois. That's the clearly ethical thing to do. For the record the only ethical thing to do was for Batman to have killed the Joker LONG AGO.
The Joker has nearly super natural in his ability to plan and create chaos. The Joker is also 100% evil. The Joker also always finds a way out of prison and faced few consequences for his psychopathic actions.
The Joker is also a fantastic villain and thus not really a killable character because the Joker and his evil hijinx sell comic books.
This leads into a major criticism I have about DC and Marvel. Their comics never end. There is no conclusion. It's a never ending soap opera and that gets old. It's very hard to maintain a fandom of either major comic publisher over the course of a lifetime.
This is why a lot of mini-series or story arches are better to read once they have gotten some critical acclaim even if they are not actually cannon or are just a piece of a much larger story.
The only reason I suggested the Fantastic Four being in and other universe is for the reason of reducing the amount of super heroes. The Silver Surfer is pretty cool, very weird and very much connected to the Fantastic Four. A weird cool character like the Silver Surfer is more at home with the outlandish Guardians of the Galaxy, that like the Fantastic Four mostly exist in space. I just feel like a self contained world with wild sci-fi/fantasy elements and a hugely expanded universe would be it's good own world. Whereas the more earth based kind often NY based Superheroes who are not mutants count be their own thing.
It's not really because the Avengers and Fantastic 4 don't work together it's more of a method of making a reasonable amount of superheroes. In each separate universe and having three universes that can adhere to different rules.
Back to the "no killing" rule. I do think there is a place for it. I think it actually works with the "lawful good" personality of Superman and even Batman. It's just taken to such a comically high degree of insanity that it just blatantly doesn't make sense.
Even then for Daredevil the insanity of it is actually explored. Daredevil is a tortured constantly guilty Catholic guy who breaks some rules but not others and is constantly questioning himself. He is literally not right in the head. His not killing enemies is often seen as a real moral question. Whereas it's just assumed in say most Superman and Batman comics that this is how heroes act. It's actually an ethical dilemma that is not actually clear. That Superman comic you mentioned is kind of pointing that out. Whether or not that should be pointed out in that way is a bit of an open question.
That's a fair point about the never-ending stories, and it creates a conundrum for Marvel and DC: Do they conclude each series and then reboot at the risk of creating a jumping-off point for a bunch of fans, or do they keep going with a sort of elastic continuity, keeping all the good and quietly forgetting the worst stories? DC pulled off a good reboot in the 80s, but not with its more recent New 52. Marvel has a stronger continuity overall, making it harder to pull the plug on it.
I see what you're saying about the FF and large number of superheroes. I'm pretty sure I've read a few Spider-Man stories where he's had to step up and face something outside of his weight class because the Avengers, FF, and X-Men are ALL conveniently out of town at the same time. It does start to strain credibility after a certain point.
And the Guardians aren't really superheroes in the traditional sense, which is another reason to separate them. But the original comic book Guardians were at least separated by time -- they were a thousand years in the future (though time-travel did facilitate some team-ups).
Yeah absolutely. All good points.
Marvel and DC suffer from being old and reliant on really established characters. They are forced to find all sorts of creative ways to make things fresh. Some work some don't. Some are just done to get publicity. It makes the whole product seem to matter less as time goes on.
That is why it is probably a better idea to allow a single creator or small team to kind of begin and end their own idea. The negative of this is that you have to constantly come up with new ideas and new products to entice continued readership. It makes sense that Marvel and DC opted to go with never ending soap operas. At the time there characters were created the audience was more limited, they had no guarantee that a successful comic would necessarily result into other media revenue streams like TV/Movies.
But now it's fairly clear that if a comic is very successful it will be adapted into a show or a movie or even a series of shows/movies. Comics are not the only source of revenue. There less risk in letting stories end, letting stories have beginning middle and end. There are more benefits to focusing on quality rather than quality.
Look at the most beloved comic storylines, arches and mini-series from the past that most of the movies and TV shows draw from? Most of them were noticably better than average quality and risky for the time.
I mean the position DC and Marvel are in is difficult they have already rebooted and restarted countless times. They will again.
This is why I like the Image creator-centered separate imprint business model. It allows for a lot more variety and creative control. Ultimately that is going to pay off down the road.
Spot on...but what is wrong with the punisher😲
A rip off of 70s era exploitation movies, as a mostly PG-13 comic. With much less introspection than say a movie like "Taxi Driver."
I think the character can be interesting, but isn't really a "superhero" and isn't really inherently interesting in concept or personality alone.
I actually thought the Netflix show was relatively well done, and the character was done well and acted well in Daredevil Season 2 as well.
To me he is just kind usually an out of place mildly dark and gritty usually unexamined 70s/80s dad movie trope.
I was referring to the Netflix show version of him.
That's probably the best version of the character that has ever been put to screen. It's better than almost all comic versions of the character imo.