Bendis on Cancelling X-Men Titles

[Phil]

His body was alive and his consciousness was alive.
No part of him was ever dead; he just wasn't in control of his own body.

[Flightpath07]

If you are in somebody else's body, and that body dies with you in it, and you cannot go back into your own body...I call that being dead.

[Phil]

If you read ASM #698-700 and Superior Spider-Man it's made clear he never died.
The clues were there all along; Slott had it planned from the start.

[MistressMerr]

Replace the word "cancel", though, with "pause", and re-read your statements again. Think about it, how many times have a character or team or series been "paused", or put on hold, or killed off to be brought back at a later time? Even Wolverine is going to die at last, and presumably be gone for at least a year or so, in order to revive the character. And Peter Parker was killed off, as well. Suddenly, not so ridiculous?

No, it's still pretty ridiculous. Killing off a single character isn't the same as shelving an entire corner of the universe for no reason other than pettiness. Even when they "killed" Peter Parker (which, as mentioned, they didn't really), it didn't mean they suddenly weren't publishing Spider-Man books.

Whatever they do with Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in order to make them (and possibly some variation on mutants in general) viable for the MCU isn't going to suddenly rearrange the entire mutant corner of the comic world, especially since the movie isn't even finished being made yet.

[Flightpath07]

Whatever they do with Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in order to make them (and possibly some variation on mutants in general) viable for the MCU isn't going to suddenly rearrange the entire mutant corner of the comic world, especially since the movie isn't even finished being made yet.

Really?

Well, isn't it possible that Marvel has come up with a plan of action that has some big cosmic character coming along, The Collector or The High Evolutionary or Thanos, or whomever, and this character then reveals that "mutants" were never any such thing. That they aren't the next stage of human evolution, but something implanted into humans on purpose.

That is really all that it would take to "suddenly rearrange the entire mutant corner of the comic world" - it makes perfect sense, at that point, to have all "mutant" titles drop the terms mutant and mutie, even drop the "X" out of the titles, change things up and go on, somewhat sort-of status quo, but with a big change in behind the scenes.

That also alleviates any pressure when it comes to Marvel Studios now using characters that were 'previously associated' with the X-Men, as the X-Men are no more.

You see, that is the problem here; I can see PLENTY of perfectly logical reasons for Marvel to change up the mutant corner of its universe.

And, let's be honest of two things here; (1) Fans of a certain book, aren't going to drop it suddenly because its characters no longer call themselves mutants (or Marvel changes the title of the series), and (2) Marvel doesn't make much money on comics, they are MUCH more concerned with movies and other merchandising where they make the real bucks.

[Phil]

Well, isn't it possible that Marvel has come up with a plan of action that has some big cosmic character coming along, The Collector or The High Evolutionary or Thanos, or whomever, and this character then reveals that "mutants" were never any such thing. That they aren't the next stage of human evolution, but something implanted into humans on purpose.

Why would they stop calling themselves X-Men though?
They still have the "x-factor" even if that "x" is implanted.
They still have "x-tra" powers.
They were still founded by "X-avier"

Your fix doesn't explain why they'd stop being X-Men which is what you say this whole mess is to avoid.

it makes perfect sense, at that point, to have all "mutant" titles drop the terms mutant and mutie, even drop the "X" out of the titles, change things up and go on, somewhat sort-of status quo, but with a big change in behind the scenes.

It makes no sense at all.
X-Men is a brand that sells.
You lose that brand name you lose money.
Marvel may as well burn their profits.

That also alleviates any pressure when it comes to Marvel Studios now using characters that were 'previously associated' with the X-Men, as the X-Men are no more.

What pressure though?
Where is this pressure?

You see, that is the problem here; I can see PLENTY of perfectly logical reasons for Marvel to change up the mutant corner of its universe.

Change, yes. Cancel, no.

Fans of a certain book, aren't going to drop it suddenly because its characters no longer call themselves mutants (or Marvel changes the title of the series)

Disagreed.
A name can mean a lot.

Marvel doesn't make much money on comics, they are MUCH more concerned with movies and other merchandising where they make the real bucks.

Absolutely completely untrue.

The money does not go to the same place.

Marvel Comics and Marvel Entertainment/Studios are two completely unconnected beasts finance-wise; one does not fund the other, the money never swaps hands. A deficit in comics is never filled with a surplus from the films.

Marvel Comics wants to make as much money as they can from Comics.

People at Disney may not want to give Fox free advertising for their films but it doesn't mean they'll risk their comics publishing arm to do so.
This is shown by the high volume of Disney books starring Marvel characters there has been since the buy-out; they aren't just interested in the films.

[Flightpath07]

Okay, let's add to the list of "Things Marvel Would never Do Because It Sounds Stupid" -

http://www.newsarama.com/21572-thor-...his-place.html

Um, how about replacing Thor with a brand-new Thor? Also, I see in this article that we are also getting a brand-new Captain America this fall as well.

Yup, there is No Way that Marvel will stop putting out X-Men books. LOL. Think Again, true believers!

[Tawmis]

Okay, let's add to the list of "Things Marvel Would never Do Because It Sounds Stupid" -

http://www.newsarama.com/21572-thor-...his-place.html

Um, how about replacing Thor with a brand-new Thor? Also, I see in this article that we are also getting a brand-new Captain America this fall as well.

Yup, there is No Way that Marvel will stop putting out X-Men books. LOL. Think Again, true believers!

Indeed. New Captain America is coming. Thor will be a brand new female character. (Even though there is already an existing Thor Girl).

And with the popularity of both of these characters (Cap and Thor) with their movies - and they're making these bold moves... if one thinks they won't tamper with the X-Men in a major way (or all "mutants" - well that's just silly!) Like I have been saying - they won't cancel the X-Men - EVER - but I have a feeling they're going to do something that allows Disney not to fook around with FOX and movie rights.

They had Dark Horse stop their run of STAR WARS (here very soon) - and what is Marvel doing?
http://www.nerdist.com/2014/07/marve...ibus-editions/

Releasing their old Star Wars comics again.

Disney wants to capitalize in every regard. And if it means changing X-Men to something else - I see it happening.

[Phil]

Okay, let's add to the list of "Things Marvel Would never Do Because It Sounds Stupid"

Why is it stupid though?
What's wrong with young female readers having a big three Avenger they can look up to?
Eric Masterson has been Thor, Beta-Ray Bill has been Thor, hell, a Frog has been Thor. Why can't a woman become Thor?

We all know it'll be reversed by the time Avengers 2 is in theatres so why not enjoy the storyline if it's good. Or y'know, actually wait and see if it is before calling it stupid?

Also, I see in this article that we are also getting a brand-new Captain America this fall as well.

Again, See Bucky-Cap, Nomad, etc etc.

Yup, there is No Way that Marvel will stop putting out X-Men books. LOL. Think Again, true believers!

They won't.

(Even though there is already an existing Thor Girl).

That's the equivalent of saying because there was Xavier there couldn't be Jean Grey, or Emma Frost, Or Psylocke.

They had Dark Horse stop their run of STAR WARS (here very soon) - and what is Marvel doing?
Releasing their old Star Wars comics again.

That was always part of the license though.
What's wrong with a new generation being able to finally read these comics for the first time?
And new material is coming.

Disney wants to capitalize in every regard.

Which is the job of any company, surely?
Do you work for free?

And if it means changing X-Men to something else - I see it happening.

Changing, possibly. Cancelling, no.
As you said above the point is to capitalize; X-books sell, Inhuman books don't. Marvel aren't going to destroy profits just to spite Fox.

[Flightpath07]

Why is it stupid though?
What's wrong with young female readers having a big three Avenger they can look up to?
Eric Masterson has been Thor, Beta-Ray Bill has been Thor, hell, a Frog has been Thor. Why can't a woman become Thor?

We all know it'll be reversed by the time Avengers 2 is in theatres so why not enjoy the storyline if it's good. Or y'know, actually wait and see if it is before calling it stupid?

My point was, people are calling the rumours of cancelling (or halting, stopping, or momentarily ceasing, or ultimately changing) the X-Men comics Stupid...things Marvel would never do. Yet here are examples of huge changes coming, ones which people would never have believed would be happening, yet here they are.

My comment was more about those who call the rumours of what is coming Stupid.

And I don't necessarily think that changing Cap and Thor is a Bad Thing, not at all. Actually, I don't collect those titles (or any Marvel titles), so I couldn't care less. Heck, at this point, I am all for it! It is a 'plot' that Marvel has come up with, one to freshen up stories, and to sell more merch...which should indeed be expected of them. In the same way, whatever change comes to the X-Men comic franchise, will be done with the same thoughts in mind - and I likely won't think THAT is Stupid, either.

[Phil]

My point was, people are calling the rumours of cancelling (or halting, stopping, or momentarily ceasing, or ultimately changing) the X-Men comics Stupid...things Marvel would never do.

Changing is totally different though.

The thread title specifically says the word 'Cancelling' which is ludicrous.

There have been X-Men titles since 1963.

Even when the title wasn't publishing new stories it reprinted old issues and thus there were X-titles.
Even when the Age of Apocalypse were on there were X-titles.

X-titles practically got Marvel through bankruptcy in the 90's.

If you took out every X-title in the Top 300 Marvel would seriously lose their marketshare and not make a profit.

Yet here are examples of huge changes coming, ones which people would never have believed would be happening, yet here they are.

Changes are not 'Cancelling' though - There will still be a Thor title and a Captain America title.

My comment was more about those who call the rumours of what is coming Stupid.

You're the only one that's used the word stupid though.
Panicking that the sky is falling or prematurely dancing on Marvel's grave based on unsubstantiated rumours of 'Cancelling' X-titles is pointless.
If we get an official press release from Marvel saying that the X-Titles have been 'cancelled' then people can deal with it (and you can fully rub this thread in my face)

In the same way, whatever change comes to the X-Men comic franchise, will be done with the same thoughts in mind - and I likely won't think THAT is Stupid, either.

Then I'm really lost as to what your point is.

The whole thing stemmed from rumours regarding the Fantastic Four title.
Fantastic Four is a different beast; it's less profitable and it's one single title.
I can totally see another FF situation or a Heroes Reborn situation; but again that's a change, not a cancellation.
However I admit cancellation could be possible for that particular title based solely on money.

The X-titles won't be cancelled.
Changed, is a possibility; and I've never disagreed with that.

Even if the only X-titles are ones without the word "X-Men" (ie. Cyclops, Storm, X-Factor, whatever...) there will still be X-titles.

Wolverine, even in death hasn't been cancelled; there are at least a year's worth of books with Wolverine in the title coming out while he's dead.

[Flightpath07]

Then I'm really lost as to what your point is.

The whole thing stemmed from rumours regarding the Fantastic Four title.
Fantastic Four is a different beast; it's less profitable and it's one single title.
I can totally see another FF situation or a Heroes Reborn situation; but again that's a change, not a cancellation.
However I admit cancellation could be possible for that particular title based solely on money.

The X-titles won't be cancelled.
Changed, is a possibility; and I've never disagreed with that.

Even if the only X-titles are ones without the word "X-Men" (ie. Cyclops, Storm, X-Factor, whatever...) there will still be X-titles.

Wolverine, even in death hasn't been cancelled; there are at least a year's worth of books with Wolverine in the title coming out while he's dead.

Actually, Phil, the 'whole thing' came from this thread, originally.

http://community.comicbookresources....e-to-the-X-Men

And I'm not quick to dismiss this as mere fiction.

And, X-Titles without the word "X" in them are still X titles?!? That makes very little sense.

I'm talking about the potential to limit the use of most of the mutant characters, pick and choose a few to use (on teams called Avengers, Defenders, whatever, just not a 'mutant team'), and then wait a few years for the hullabaloo to die down, see what they want to do down the road. It may not make sense from a comics viewpoint, but from a Financial viewpoint, big-picture? Considering that another movie company is getting filthy rich off of Marvel's mutant characters? Yeah, it makes a Lot of sense.

[Tawmis]

Which is the job of any company, surely?
Do you work for free?

No. And that's my point. Why would Disney sit on making an X-Men movie, because Fox has the rights to Marvel's mutants?
As a way to get around it, they're making Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver Inhumans in Avengers.
We have seen already that the Terigan Mist or whatever - has restored mutant powers to MANY mutants who lost their powers thanks to Scarlet Witch's "No More Mutants."
Is it a far stretch to say - the mist restored these powers - because they were mutants? And those humans, who have recently gained powers, did so because they had the "X" factor in their genes (let's not call it the Mutant Gene). And the Mist simply awakened their powers.
And thus, couldn't we logically say, that all "mutants" are indeed Inhumans?
Is that such a far leap?
I think not.

[MistressMerr]

No. And that's my point. Why would Disney sit on making an X-Men movie, because Fox has the rights to Marvel's mutants?
As a way to get around it, they're making Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver Inhumans in Avengers.
We have seen already that the Terigan Mist or whatever - has restored mutant powers to MANY mutants who lost their powers thanks to Scarlet Witch's "No More Mutants."
Is it a far stretch to say - the mist restored these powers - because they were mutants? And those humans, who have recently gained powers, did so because they had the "X" factor in their genes (let's not call it the Mutant Gene). And the Mist simply awakened their powers.
And thus, couldn't we logically say, that all "mutants" are indeed Inhumans?
Is that such a far leap?
I think not.

No, but it would still be completely pointless. Retroactively calling them Inhumans isn't going to magically let Marvel Studios make movies about X-Men characters, that's not how licensing works. They can use Quicksilver specifically because he's an Avengers character every bit as much as he's an X-Men character and so fell into a tricky grey area regarding who can and can't use him. They're not allowed to use the twins BECAUSE they're not calling them mutants, mutantdom is just the one PART of them that Fox inextricably owns. Just because you say "turns out Gambit was an Inhuman all along" doesn't make him eligible for Avengers 3, he's still an X-Men character and Fox still owns the movie rights to him.

So no, while it wouldn't be IMPOSSIBLE for Marvel to rebrand the entire X-Men line (not even remotely close to 'cancelling' it, as this thread starting out by saying), it would be completely pointless and would only serve to hurt their sales by completely altering a flagship property, in name if nothing else. If all McDonalds changed all their signs to Burgerville overnight, it probably wouldn't go so well. Branding counts for a lot. It's never gonna happen.

[Phil]

No. And that's my point. Why would Disney sit on making an X-Men movie, because Fox has the rights to Marvel's mutants?

Because of the legal contracts signed before Disney were on the scene, that Marvel made to stop them going bankrupt.
Marvel Studios will not risk getting sued.

As a way to get around it, they're making Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver Inhumans in Avengers.
We have seen already that the Terigan Mist or whatever - has restored mutant powers to MANY mutants who lost their powers thanks to Scarlet Witch's "No More Mutants."

We haven't seen that at all.
The Phoenix Force and Hope Summers un-did Scarlett Witch's hex at the end of AvX.

The Terrigan Mist had absolutely nothing to do with it.

All the Terrigan bomb did, at the end of Infinity a year after AvX & a year after new mutants, was re-awaken the hidden Inhumans.

And they're not making them Inhumans in the films as far as we know so far - they were clearly called 'Miracles'

Is it a far stretch to say - the mist restored these powers - because they were mutants? And those humans, who have recently gained powers, did so because they had the "X" factor in their genes (let's not call it the Mutant Gene). And the Mist simply awakened their powers.

Yes it's a complete stretch in the Marvel mythology.

And thus, couldn't we logically say, that all "mutants" are indeed Inhumans?
Is that such a far leap?

It really is though.

It's the IP and branded trademark of the character/series that's the problem; not the word mutant. The word mutant isn't copyrighted. There are varying films with mutant in the title and there still can be.
The mutant gene isn't the problem it's the trademarked character names under the X-Men umbrella.

The agreement between Disney and Fox for Scarlett Witch & Quicksilver so that both companies and universes can freely use the characters is that they're not referred to as mutants in MCU films so as not to cash in on each other's films - a fair compromise and one that certainly doesn't stop X-Men comics being created.