Pop Culture as Self-Indulgent Fantasy

I once wrote an extremely popular/useful comics gossip and speculation column for over a decade. I was also the news editor of the same magazine the gossip column was in. I prided myself on my, sometimes, uncanny ability to forecast the future. In reality, what I was doing was not a lot different than people who gamble on the stock market; experience is usually better than intuition, but the more experience you have makes it feel like intuition, especially if you read the tea leaves in the right way. It's a bit like insider trading without actually making any money.

The only reason I'm telling you this is because what follows is essentially a form of the thinking that went behind my Movers & Shakers column, that mixed with something I'd call 'logical wishful thinking' - not on my part, but, logically, on the part of the people this bit of whimsical fantasy is about.

Logical wishful thinking is one of the routes to experience and intuition, grasshopper.

I sat and watched Avengers: Endgame again, a few weeks back, and while I enjoyed it more this time around, I still picked more holes in it than I can remember, but this isn't about that, at least not entirely. It did make me think about how I used to foresee events in the comics' universes and how that 'insider knowledge' once allowed me to be more than accurate about the future...

Spoiler warning if you still haven't seen this film and know nothing about it then this will ruin it for you.

*
*
*

The Marvel Cinematic Universe was held together with a glue called The Avengers; the three main players are no longer in the game. The other half of the original sextet that remain are - in the MCU version of things - not really suitable to lead the Avengers (or a box-office charge), even if they appear in them.

With Iron Man, Captain America and the Black Widow now all gone, what remains doesn't feel as 'box office' as you would expect from the franchise - like a top football team without three of their star players. Naturally there's the scheduled anachronistic flashback movie - Black Widow but that almost seems like an afterthought (a thank you, perhaps), unless something happens in it that has a bearing on what's to come

Looking at who's left of the major players in Earth's Mightiest Heroes; Captain Marvel is okay but far too new, wooden and arguably dis-likeable (and powerful) to become leader of a new Avengers and of the remaining 'original' team of Avengers, we're set to have a new Thor (Jane Foster) while the old one swans off across the galaxy with those pesky Guardians; there is no actual Hulk film planned and Hawkeye is going to be a TV series rather than a film - pretty much cementing his place as a non-box-office draw. Outside of the remaining Avengers 'mainstays' there's Spider-Man (after a fashion), Doctor Strange (both had never actually been Avengers in my day), Ant-Man and the Black Panther - otherwise, Marvel's Cinematic Universe'd future is all down to new (to film) characters...

What I'm trying to say is while there are no definite Avengers movies even planned at the moment, the franchise is far from dead - it makes too much money for starters - and more importantly Marvel now has just about all its own toys back in the same pram. We now have a Fantastic Four and an entire X-continuity to put (back) in to the MCU.

However, the problem is the MCU probably needs replacements for Steve Rogers, Tony Stark and Natasha Romanov (who, as we all know, should be Romanova); maybe there's new characters, like the Thing, Human Torch and Wolverine who can captivate the audiences or lead the Avengers like their predecessors? 

Nah. The new additions will just add to (and complicate) the already rich tapestry of the MCU; they won't replace.

Looking at the proposed MCU schedule - after Black Widow there's The Eternals - which seems to be shrouded in mystery at present. It also, in my humble opinion, risks a lot with what has pretty much always been a marginal bunch of poorly thought-out characters (essentially a poor imitation of The Inhumans, which itself is already a failed MCU project) - that said, the Guardians of the Galaxy wasn't exactly iconic and look how that did. There's a Shang-Chi film (possibly set outside what we currently think of as 'our' MCU, but also might supply a hint of what's to come), another Spider-Man with Sony (which will concentrate mainly on the Marvel/Sony continuity), the fourth Thor film (with a female Thor) and then the film I believe could be pivotal to the future of a franchise - Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Then there's Black Panther II and Captain Marvel II both, I expect will steer the new major story arc along further.

Disney now has at least 10 more years planned of milking this cash cow, if they do it right - post coronavirus, maybe more. I believe 'doing it right' pretty much requires including (or re-introducing) the three most prominent and important characters to the franchise so far. The main problem here is Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr and Ms Johansson are all getting on a bit, even with the aid of stunt doubles. The thing is, Evans said he's open to do cameos, Downey Jr has not written off coming back (and may well be in a future movie if his cryptic comments are anything to go by) and Scarlett probably wants out, because I haven't heard anything to the contrary. They all now have limited shelf-lives regardless of what they do; as do many of the other, more middle-aged, actors like Paul Rudd, Don Cheadle, Jeremy Renner and Mark Ruffalo. The coronavirus, other jobs, scheduling and life means we might not see another big 'Avengers' finale for 15 years, by which time Tom Holland will be a 40-year-old Spidey, Scarlett will be 50 and RDJr will be 70. Superhero films with geriatrics or incredibly old teenagers doesn't sound to me like a great ongoing idea for the MCU.

Now, entering into pure speculation (the above was based on common sense): the reason I believe the next Dr Strange film will be so pivotal is because I believe the title possibly gives away a lot of clues, the main one being the admittance of a multiverse - different universes that look similar to our own but are not. I believe The Eternals will sow a seed that will grow into the main plot for the second Strange film (which I've heard also has Scarlet Witch in it and possibly Bruce Banner, which would make sense given what I think they should do). That seed, I believe will be either what part the Celestials - godlike creatures and adversaries of the Eternals (who have been seen/mentioned in the Guardians film) - will play in it and what will we learn about what they can do or where they come from.

As things stand, mutants don't exist in the MCU, neither do the Fantastic Four or supporting characters. The films made by Fox might as well be tales from any number of multiverse realities or simply something to be forgotten about. If Marvel and Disney are able to wait at least another two years before even dropping hints on us about 'newcomers', I expect in the next Doc Strange film we'll be introduced to several new faces and maybe some old ones or probably some old ones with new faces...

Imagine a MCU with the myriad characters introduced in the FF? New heroes and a host of villains. Equally, imagine the MCU with Wolverine - because he's the kind of character who actually does (and has) transfer(ed) well to the screen. Personally, I don't think The X-Men will work as well, not because they're not great characters, but because visually they lack the visual 'brilliance' many of the heroes of the MCU have already got. They'd need to be done either as they were in the comics or re-imagined completely and we all know what happens when re-imaginings take place?

The most logical wishful thinking of Kevin Feige, the man behind the MCU, would be to be able to have Captain America, Iron Man and Black Widow back, either in their own films or as co-stars in others. It makes sense, Iron Man kickstarted the MCU; Cap was the lynchpin and Natasha was the most present without her own film; she became as heroic as her two more elderly team mates and died helping save the universe. The future wouldn't be the same without them.

The thing is the MCU hasn't really been complete without the Fantastic Four; readers of the comics for many years would tell you the FF are pretty much one of the most important cogs in the Marvel universe wheel. I like to think Feige knows this and without three of his big hitters, he can replace them with four, except, he can do much better than that...

Imagine (in his next film) Doc Strange with Wanda (and the Hulk) manage to discover a way to jump between different multiverses, perhaps attempting to track something. On their way they bump into many familiar characters (and some not so). In world's where Wanda is believed to be a mutant; the Hulk is a menace in most places and Stephen Strange sometimes doesn't even exist or is completely different to how he actually is? Maybe their multi-universal adventures have them meet an FF, a bunch of mutants and maybe new threats that don't exist in the current MCU continuity?

Obviously, 'Our' heroes will win out and the day will be saved, except maybe in one of the credits sequences, we'll return to the world of the FF and something is wrong there. Then in the second credits sequence we'll return to one of the other worlds and they also have a problem - the multiverses are crumbling or maybe even merging...

Maybe something will happen in the 2nd Black Panther film; he could be leading the Avengers by then, so his next solo effort might be like Cap's 'solo' efforts, or maybe they might skip a film and the next Captain Marvel film will pick of the gauntlet - so to speak - of discovering why the multiverse is merging together?

Eventually, all the heroes unite to defeat whatever the new bad guy is - maybe the Beyonder, a god from another dimension (created in the crossover Marvel comic series Secret Wars) released by the same accident that started merging the universes. Yes, it's a bit Crisis on Infinite Earths (a DC reunification project and the first of its kind), but Avengers: Endgame was essentially Lord of the Rings, so why not?

Eventually, in what could be the next big 'Endgame' finale, the remaining universes merge together and all the heroes, whether played by the same or new actors, are in one reality again, allowing, if they want, for new Captain America, Black Widow, Iron Man films as well as all the others to keep them going until 2035. Even if it sounds like fan fiction, it makes perfect (financial) sense; what better marketing tool than introducing the new/old new/same but different Captain America! Played by whichever one of the de rigueur mid-20s actors currently floating around who can safely take the mantle on for another 15 years; ditto Iron Man and Black Widow, maybe the Hulk, Hawkeye, possibly they're already starting with Thor - Marvel/Disney can do whatever they want to reflect whatever era they want to pilfer from Marvel's comicbook history?

Maybe the next big culmination will see the 'original' Avengers together (again), but with different actors playing the parts. You see, in the Marvel Comics Universe - nobody dies forever. It's not like we don't already have at least 3 different Spider-Mans existing in films from the last 20 years; obviously not in the same way, but that was before they could play with all their own toys. It's not like Marvel/Disney and Feige are just going to forget about these iconic characters; that would make any accountant baulk at the idea of discarding cash cows in the hope other characters will take their mantle.

In conclusion; the powers that be will want to milk as much from this franchise as they can until superhero movies no longer command the returns they currently enjoy. With the face of cinema changing because of the pandemic, the time scale might be even longer and the longer it goes on the ravages of time will affect the actors currently inhabiting the roles. If I was a betting man, I'd expect the clock to be reset, allowing a kickstart within an already successful franchise; they never have to just re-start it, because they can tinker, change and fiddle as much as they like while keeping everything on an apparent linear track.

It could be, for some, that Avengers: Endgame might be a great jumping off point, especially for people who really don't think they'll be alive (or compos mentis) by the time the next great conclusion is arrived at. One thing is for certain - while Marvel/Disney rule the cinematic box office, they're not going to lose their main characters for the sake of common sense, especially not in a 'universe' where anything is possible.

A Book Review

The lengths that I appear to have gone to extricate myself from comics meant I wasn't even aware this book existed until it arrived on my doorstep - a present from my brother-in-law. This biography is eight years old.

I actually put down another book I was a third of the way through to read this and yet it left me feeling even more negative about an industry that I'd grown up with and worked in for many years...

As a (former) fan and 'blessed' with having earned a reasonable living from comics - some of it from Marvel - I approached this book pretty much knowing the bulk of it. What I wasn't aware of was some of the anecdotal stories passing back and forth about creators, nor the specifics of Marvel Comics as a publishing entity.

Generally though, despite its brevity it is something of an interminably boring study. Once the main protagonists had been reduced to bit part players (Lee, Kirby & Ditko), it was simply a cycle of wash, rinse, repeat over and over again. One thing overrides everything else in this account, there were very few periods in the company's history where it was anything like the pictures vividly described by Stan Lee in his soapboxes or in letter columns.

The book also sits squarely on the fence about copyright and ownership rights issues - returning to it regularly but treating it like magnolia paint. Yet Howe had two of the three chief protagonists still alive when he wrote this; maybe he asked them, maybe he didn't bother? Now, if someone wanted to approach this subject again, they'd probably end up with the same largely dull story with no one really able to add any insight - with Lee's death last year, there are only a few people left - all from the periphery - to consult and, of course, those consultations would be only anecdotal and difficult to verify.

What the book does do is show Marvel as an Arsehole Magnet and not just any common or garden arseholes, but extremely rich, powerful arseholes, who are painted in such a way as to confuse the reader into wondering how these massive vile human sphincters ever managed to make fortunes in the first place. Marvel has been owned, since Martin Goodman sold it off, by a list of people you wouldn't piss on if they were on fire and rarely was it run by the right people.

It also brings into clarity periods of Marvel's history that were often rumoured about, especially when I was writing my comics gossip column throughout the 1990s, and confirmed some stories that my former employer cut because he didn't want to upset an already precarious apple cart. In fact, Howe's exploration of the 1990s left me wondering why Comics International (the magazine I had been news editor of for nearly a decade) never did anything more than product promotion, especially given the ignorant treatment we got from Marvel (after Lou Bank left). I know the magazine's 'brief' was for brevity, lack of controversy and to act as a promotional tool for the comics industry (which, incidentally never afforded the magazine much more than a cursory nod, let alone buying adverts or offering anything to repay us for essentially doing their respective PR department's job for 10 years+), but it was ignoring real comics news to promote spandex.

Probably the most interesting section of the book was during Jim Shooter's reign, because it was essentially one of the few times when the Editor-in-Chief of Marvel was more of an arsehole than the executives holding the purse strings. That's not to say the owners of Marvel at the time weren't cut from the same cloth as those who preceded or succeeded them, but Shooter went from child prodigy who everyone looked up to into some horrible monster with scant regard for those who were under him. Perhaps he felt he needed to be as much of a cunt as his bosses, or perhaps with great power comes greater capacity to be a twat? Who can say? I met Shooter in 1993; he was offensive, aloof and very much a pompous arsehole - history taught him nothing.

The biggest problem with the book is that it's simply just a tad repetitive, a little like the medium it's covering. However, while Howe doesn't exactly write with any dynamism, it might be because his subject material followed similar cycles throughout its existence. He could possibly have avoided falling into this trap with some more interesting asides, maybe some editorialising in the margins, or perhaps covering the entire story rather than just the bits he relished in repeating. This book has the briefest of brief mentions to Marvel UK (or any of the other countries that took Marvel Comics on for their own markets). Marvel UK from Stan Lee's infamous appearance on Pebble Mill @ One through its Pet Shop Boys connection, my former employer's period there, how it spawned a number of big stars and then how it boomed in the wake of the comics boom of the 1990s - all completely overlooked and I kind of find that unforgivable...

Or its failure to mention the many dodgy business practices employed by (both) Marvel (and DC) throughout the '80s and '90s, nor how Marvel essentially spent their time, once the Direct Market was established, treating retailers like they were there to exploit, with scant regard to anyone's future. There was a brief mention from my old pal Lou Bank about Marvel's lack of support for the people paying their wages and then it was back to who's stabbing who in the back stories.

90% of the book covers up to the late 1990s; presumably it was written between 2010 and 2012 (for the cursory mentions of the Iron Man and Hulk films); the period after 1998 is almost breezed over - almost a decade and a half condensed into the last few fleeting chapters. It was like Howe avoided that period because he might write about people who still worked there or had aspirations to work there; the only people he concentrated on were former-employees many with grudges. No one with any - at the time - current connections (or gripes) were spoken to or made the final cut.

I always thought biographers, good ones, at least, were not frightened to burn some bridges to get the best story and I felt there were some good stories Howe simply didn't pursue. It might be because he's a biographer rather than someone who lived and worked in comics during that period; maybe it's because he's not a journalist and that was what was needed.

The whole thing needed to have a feel that the author was an expert about the subject he was writing about and that simply didn't come through at all. It was simply perfunctory. Comics is a weird and nuanced genre and doesn't conform to the real world of business in the same way as any other 'entertainment' industry, this probably needed to be reflected in the book, it wasn't.

While it has interesting moments and was an enjoyable read, it does feel like it was marketed as some wild and sexy expose of the company and yet reads like all the wild and sexy has been omitted.

Ultimately, it will leave comics historians, fans and those interested slightly empty and doesn't really offer enough to tempt non-comics fans from delving into its pages. There's too much Machiavellian shit in it and not enough informal general interest shit - it manages to take four colour brilliance and transform it into dull and boring monochrome.