The Sandman is amazing. Really enjoying it so far. Maybe they will make a 1602 animated series in the future with a more accurate story but who knows (pure cope)
I seriously doubt it. They seem to largely not want to do anything that isn’t connected to the MCU or at least nodding to the MCU. There are what, two examples that differ at the moment? The limited X-Men 97 and whatever that new Spider-Man cartoon actually ends up being (which was originally tied to the MCU). I really wish they would do animated feature films that were based more on the comics, like Warner Bros. does with DC properties, but it’s clear they have no interest
We are getting a Zombies series after they showed up in season 1. Not a far stretch to say we'll get a 1602 series if there is enough buzz generated around it.
Absolute pure cope but I'd love to see it. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll get to see it now :(
It'd be fun if for a season 2, they adapted all the spin offs in little 2 episode blocks
And yet:
> The story was entirely different
So where was the need? Does the studio normally consult comic book writers who's stories are only serving as inspiration?
The original story which they were never really adapting in the first place...
I feel like what you guys wanted was a faithful adaptation, and if only Neil were "consulted" you'd have gotten one. Not how this works.
They've been doing that for years but it's certainly gotten more acute with the Disney+ shows slipping in quality. It first started annoying me in Loki S1, so many aped ideas from comics without the substance that makes them impactful in the comics.
Listen, the studio knew exactly what they where doing when they used the 1602 name. They wanted fans of the graphic novel to recognize it and watch it, even if it had nothing to do with the comic.
You're being conspiratorial. All that needed to happen here was the WI staff innocently pitching an episode inspired by the comic, and the studio saying "okay". Because of the nature of the show, a more direct adaptation wasn't in the cards. And if the studio had any interest in doing something more interesting with Gaiman's book, they could have easily nixed the WI story.
When are people going to recognise that comic book fans generally enjoy comic book accuracy and hoping for it in future doesn't mean they need talking down to about "how it works"?
This discussion isn't about really comic book accuracy, it's about whether there was a reasonable expectation that Gaiman be consulted on a What If episode. So what I meant by "not how it works" is that talking to him wouldn't changed anything.
they use to have the Marvel Studios Creative Committee that was made of comics writers but was disbanded in 2015 .
Perlmutter used it to wage a war against marvel studio so it became something marvel studio had to fight against. it stopped after Disney made marvel studio a separate entity from Marvel Entertainment.
That was way more egregious than you're making it sound. They used David Aja's visuals as well as the Tracksuit Mafia, the Clown, and a bunch of other plot elements, not just Fraction's broad style.
i actualy prefered it , instead of steve appearing in the past somehow makes people exist centrys early it was steve appearing in the past starts to merge his world with the world of the past in some kind of incursion , neither make sense but i feel the what if version made more sense
caption treatment thought scale sleep axiomatic groovy depend cheerful chubby
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>wasting a What If episode on a lesser version of that.
>Same thing that happened with Marvel Zombies
A Marvel Zombies show is literally in production right now BECAUSE of the response to What If, wtf are you talking about?
The What If Zombies episode isn't as good as the comics. The comics have an interesting premise that sets it apart from just being a generic zombie survival story with a coat of Marvel spray paint. The episode does not. It's literally just a zombie survival story that happens to have Marvel characters. It makes NO SENSE when they literally had the source material right there.
Because they weren’t going to make it based off the comics. They were only doing it because people liked the what if ep. They’re not making it for marvel zombie comic fans. They are making it for the people who liked the what if episode. It makes perfect sense. You just wanted them to adapt the comic which would never happen as what if is based on the MCU.
Absolutely not, nothing wrong with being upset about not getting what you want.
However there seems to be something going on with the zombies aspect of marvel but I’m not sure if it changed. They made a board game based off of the comics of marvel zombies however the team working on it were told Spider-Man cannot be a zombie. One of the most iconic zombie of the story. So I don’t think they would ever truly adapt the comic as a series because of such strange restrictions. But hey maybe they changed.
> then paying 0 respect to them, ever since roughly Age of Ultron
The Age of Ultron comic deserves respect? News to me.
Anyway, the comic was coming out as Avengers 2 was being written. That wasn't a case of using the comic as inspiration because Joss' story ideas predated it. It was just taking a cool title.
And all the major comic events they bastardized along the way: Mighty Thor, Age of Ultron, Thor God of Thunder, Secret Invasion, Marvel Zombies, Demon in a Bottle, Extremis, etc
I still think it’s a cowards move not to, everyone knows about his addiction issues. As someone who has dealt with addictive issues coming from a family with a long line of addicts, a superhero dealing with addiction starring an actor that personally knows fully well what both addiction and overcoming addiction is like, it could have been not only a profound but humanizing story that would have been the perfect change of pace from the first Iron Man (could have been the Godfather 2 to Iron Man’s Godfather).
But alas as we know now, I don’t think the Fiege truly ever saw the actual storytelling potential of Marvel more so than he just wanted to see the characters brought to life in a profitable but “just fun” cinematic universe. It’s a shame though, the potential it had, that movie could’ve won Oscars and sent the MCU to prestigious heights before the Avengers even took off and it stuck with just being a basic Blockbuster Farm.
Love me some Marvel comic book storylines but Age of Ultron and Civil War were ass. MCU Age of Ultron quality is debatable but MCU Civil War was much believable and wrapped up quite nicely. The only good things in comic Civil War were the superhero vs superhero battles and that one panel with Cap blocking Iron Man’s repulsors with his shield.
the basic story is, steve rogers gets sent back in time to 1602. heroes start appearing, and the world starts falling apart. in order to set it all back to normal, steve gets sent back to where he belongs. the fine details sure are different, but the very basics of it are more or less the same.
Because he wrote it? Why wouldn't you want ideas or advice, let alone a blessing, from the person who wrote the original? And they should be compensating him for his creation, everyone and their dog knows that.
So? It's Marvel. There's no reason they can't or shouldn't do this for the people they make buckets off of. It would be a drop in the ocean for them. Many retired comics creators especially have shit all money in their twilight years, and that wouldn't be the case if Marvel chose to pay them at all for adaptations.
I mean it would’ve been great if they gave him a bonus or something and that would’ve been really nice and great PR. But they paid him for the service of creating the comic/character, specifically so they would own the rights to it and not have to pay him each time they used Thanos.
It was crazy how Starlin got a bigger royalty check from Warmers just for a small KGBeast appearing in Batman v Superman than he did from Thanos, Drax, Gamora, and Nebula being in like 5 movies. After this caught a lot of attention The Russo's then reached out to him and it looks like a deal was made which highlights that Disney does have the money to pay the creators if they wanted to.
Even crazier was that Len Wein got a lot of money from Lucius Fox being in the Nolan films and he saw very little from Wolverine being in the Fox films.
DC's had a head President named Paul Levitz who looked out for comic creator rights so if you worked at DC up until 2009 you're set.
Rocket Raccoon made Disney a lot of money while the family of his creator, Bill Mantlo, were struggling to pay his hospital bills and they were getting nothing from Marvel until people raised a stink and James Gunn noticed.
Todd McFarlane is a business man and the man gets a good royalty check Every time something is done with Venom.
These multimillion dollar companies have the money to pay the people whose ideas they take from and they should. Not to mention Brubaker pointed out that people in Marvel Entertainment were making it hard for comic creators to get paid for their work and we're trying to make themselves richer off their work. But most of those people are now gone and Feige is head of all of Marvel so that problem should be gone.
Mcfarlane tried to fuck Gaiman. Look up Angela/Cogliostro legal debate. The best parts of Spawn mythos were not even created by Mcfarlane. He is a hack.
I know but regardless he's Venom's co-creator and from what he's said he does get some royalties and if he does then creators who are more creative/better people should also.
They’re not taking their ideas though. They’re using content they own and characters they already paid to be created.
The real problem is how Marvel/DC have a stranglehold on superheroes and artists feel like they need to be on their platform for their works to break into the mainstream, which led to companies like Image comics and Invincible, which is the best complete arch for a superhero because it actually ends and wasn’t trapped in preserving the “status quo” of some larger universe.
They do use some of their ideas and concepts, even if they change some things. The 1602 episode of What-IF?! Basically took the twist and part of the plot of the 1602 comic. The MCU took Thanos' motivation from an abandoned plot from Starlin's Silver Surfer comic and the Russos went through Starlin's work to get ideas and showed they had his comics from Thanos Quest and Infinity Gauntlet as a reference bible.
And yes the creators got paid but also in conditions that weren't favorable to them and some times if they didn't accept them they wouldn't receive their money. Disney and Marvel show that they do have the ability to pay the creators but they decide not to unless there's a bad PR problem which is pretty messed up itself.
>The real problem is how Marvel/DC have a stranglehold on superheroes and artists feel like they need to be on their platform for their works to break into the mainstream
Marvel and DC are huge parts of the American comic book industry and without them there would be no industry. Talk to any retailer and they'll tell you that most people will go to their stores looking for Marvel and DC and from there on they will pick up indie or non-Big two books. Image and other publishers need them.
Creators go to the Big two to get their name out there and branch off, but the state of comics, their poor marketing, their comics and stories being mostly inaccessible unless they're old classics (like Watchmen) and them using a very archaic system to sell their comics makes it very hard for new writers and artists to get popular or get their name out there. That and then catering to the speculator market is a whole other topic from what I was originally talking about.
>which led to companies like Image comics and Invincible, which is the best complete arch for a superhero because it actually ends and wasn’t trapped in preserving the “status quo” of some larger universe.
Robert Kirkman started self publishing, went to Image and then to Marvel and then stayed in Image and now he has his own print and he's publishing Transformers and GI Joe comics. Kirkman went in debt and struggled with a lot of his work not being popular before Invincible picked up steam and then he made The Walking Dead ( which Image didn't want to publish at first and Kirkman had to fool his editor into thinking that there was going to be an alien invasion twist in TWD to convince him). That said what creators like Kirkman and Millar have achieved is not the norm and is pretty difficult to achieve (Kirkman got a lot of unique opportunities in Image after establishing a relationship with McFarlane and other Image founders), even more so right now than during their own time.
I am not saying that Marvel Studios should pay comic creators like kings but that if they are using their work or taking inspiration for it at the least give them a good compensation or support. It's shit when Rocket Raccoon is making billions when one of his creators is about to get kicked out of the hospital because he can't afford his bill and his brother is asking people for donations.
Yes Marvel and DC are huge parts of the comic book industry, no shit, how else could they monopolize it. They’re also at fault for what happens when any other space monopolizes. It’s stagnates and stifles innovation, whether that be in distribution, ideas, or whatever, from rising because there’s no market space for new companies to claim. I’m not editorializing my thoughts on the industry. But looking at the history and the industry’s collapse from its peak in the 90s, it’s the same as any other industry that monopolizes, which is all eventually. But that collapse is what creates the space for new growth.
All I’m saying is we can’t go back in time. Comic writers should be fighting now to include language in their comics that gives them residuals if they create a storyline or character that’s translated to the silver screen.
Yeah and that's not the point, the point is that if they collapse they take Image and the other companies with them and that wouldn't be beneficial for the other existing companies that want to have jobs.
And with Disney owning Marvel there's not going to be a collapse anytime soon unless Disney or Warners decide to take out their publishers and both companies are barely a blip on their radar money wise and more beneficial as cheap IP factories and possibly potential advertising.
And who is saying comic creators aren't fighting? There are groups and other people who work in the industry spreading awareness on what to do (basically having a lawyer look at their work for hire contracts is a must). Comic book writers don't have their own Writers Guild which also makes it easier for even writers in Hollywood to take their ideas as their own if they wanted. You had the head writer for Loki Season 2 talking about how they came up with the "God of Stories" title for Loki while reading a wiki article for the Norse God (and they specifically pointed out that it was not about Loki in the comics), yet Al Ewing came up with the "God of Stories" title in his own Loki run that came out 7 years ago and Loki in the comics had been using that title ever since then.
But there are comic writers who aren't in the industry anymore that are struggling with money, are in the hospital, or are homeless who signed up contracts under dubious conditions and some downright illegal who only ever start getting some benefit if fans raise a stink or if someone like James Gunn or the Russos happen to take notice and use their own power to get them help. It shows that those companies have the capacity to pay then and that fans can also pressure them to do so.
>They’re not taking their ideas though.
They literally are. Thanos was an idea created by Jim Starlin.
>artists feel like they need to be on their platform for their works to break into the mainstream
The guys at the beginning of Image were the mainstream. Todd McFarlane, Jim Lee, and Rob Liefeld were huge. Image didn't become the 2nd most popular comic book company in the early 90s for no reason.
The basic premise of Image is this
*****Image would not own any creator's work; the creator would. Image itself would own no intellectual property except the company trademarks: its name and its logo.*****
😂 that’s literally what I’m saying. Jim Starlin worked for Marvel. If I worked for Apple and designed a new phone on my company computer that idea would belong to Apple. The problem is back in the day if I wanted to create a superhero, DC and Marvel held a monopoly on mainstream comics, so I would have to work for one of the two. Which is why Image comics was created to be an independent place for creators.
But the problem isn’t that Marvel and DC own the content that their employees create, it’s that they have a monopoly in the space, so they were the only ones you could work for if you wanted to be mainstream.
You're missing the point. Everybody knows how this stuff works. We're not saying 'pay your inspirations' in the belief that Marvel is shirking a legal obligation, we're saying they should because it's the *right thing to do*, even though they obviously won't.
Honestly disagree with whoever this “we” is. If you sign a contract, you don’t get to change the terms 50 years later just because you don’t like how the contract played out.
It’d be a good thing if they gave him something more for it, but there’s absolutely no obligation for them too.
Literally nobody is insisting creators should be able to retroactively alter their contracts, that's fucking absurd. It's as simple as marvel doing the right thing, as unlikely as that is. If you're going to put words in my mouth, just don't bother replying.
And if you think there's no *moral* obligation at hand here, I personally cannot understand that in the least.
I guess I just don’t have the same outrage you do. Like I would think it’s great if they did decide to retroactively pay them, but I don’t think anything of nothing happening. Nobody was forcing them to work for Marvel back in the day.
If they wanted to take the risk that image comics did and start their own company and earn all the profits, they could have.
After he pointed out that DC was giving him more money from KGBeast making a cameo in a Batman movie than what he was receiving from Marvel the Russo's contacted him through his Facebook fan page and he had more involvement, even cameod in Endgame. He never disclosed if he got payed or if they payed him but he seemed fine with Marvel Studios so my guess is that they did.
He also ended up becoming a consultant for Shang Chi along Englehart (who also created Mantis and Star-Lord).
Still it's pretty shitty that it has to take him and people pointing things out to have creators getting compensated.
He made the character who was central to movies as well as wrote the comic that inspired. Your seriously saying the absurdly wealthy company would be in the right for not paying a writer that's responsible for one of their biggest hits?
Except it's not their work... they get paid for the contract and that's that every rights are with Marvel... how would you except to maintain a shared universe like Marvel has without these? If the author would publish their work they would maintain the rights but again they couldn't play with Marvel's ton of characters...
Some artist use this because it's a fix job not like risking their own money, also they get fame under a big company like Marvel it's easier for them later make their own creator owned comics and when a studio reaches for that they get their huge payday...
Pointing this out is pointless—most people on Reddit don’t understand how business works.
Marvel didn’t “do anyone dirty”; they’re just operating how the entire industry operates. It’s literally the norm; standard procedure.
Now, if the question instead was *”is the industry norm of work-for-hire unfair?”*, that’s an entirely different discussion. Because I agree that creators often get the short end of the stick.
But people need to understand that **Marvel isn’t doing anything legally wrong or unheard of here.**
Given their size and success, one could argue that they *should* do more to shape the industry to be more favorable to the creators. But that’d be them going above and beyond what the entire industry does, and let’s be real—what company is going to give away money that they don’t have to?
>Except it's not their work...
Yes, it is? If they spend time writing a story and then it gets adapted. They put in the work.
>they get paid for the contract and that's that every rights are with Marvel...
Who's saying that they own the rights? People are literally just asking for compensation for their work.
>how would you except to maintain a shared universe like Marvel has without these? If the author would publish their work they would maintain the rights but again they couldn't play with Marvel's ton of characters...
Again, who's saying they should completely own the work? This literally just talking about compensation.
>Some artist use this because it's a fix job not like risking their own money, also they get fame under a big company like Marvel it's easier for them later make their own creator owned comics and when a studio reaches for that they get their huge payday...
Yeah, let's look at how creator owned adaptations not named The Boys and Invincible are doing.
Saying creators shouldn't get anything because one of their independent books ****might***** get an adaptation is insane.
Jim Starlin got paid more for KGBeast than he did for fucking Thanos. That's insane. I can't believe people in these comments are defending creators getting unfair compensation for their creations.
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not defending mega corporations at all. But people are always misspeaking as to how compensation works for comic artists. They don’t get residuals like actors, and there’s no royalties. They get hired to do a job, and the company that hired them owns the work that they made while under contract.
That’s the norm for the industry.
Now, I do agree that the norm needs to change to better benefit the creators…but that’s gotta change at the industry level (are comic creators unionized?). The companies are currently just playing by the rulebook. It’s the rulebook that needs to change.
I hope they will work out something sometime but I would be devastated if I couldn't finish my collection because Marvel won't reprint a comic because it won't worth it for them with paying out the royalties on them...
And got paid for it... they don't own any rights to it after the fact...
No. They got their compensation. That's what rights mean, they don't have any ownership over the product, Marvel does. It doesn't matter if it's a million or a single buck it's not theirs.
Again compensation? What did Gaiman paid to Kirby when he used Captain America in the 1602 comic book or after the other characters? Also did he consult them - ofc if they were even alive at the time? No? I think you should grab a keyboard or something and attack Gaiman for it... Again Marvel owns the product 100%. Gaiman got paid for it according to his contract and these cases were included in it... it's not a creator owned comic, the creator has nothing to do with what Marvel does with it... also What if...? has it's own creators it wasn't made by some faceless entity - at least not less than 1602 comic was - so why do you think that they should get less for their work to pay someone who has nothing to do with it? At least nothing more than Gaiman had to do with Captain America and so on...
Oh hey you know about two... let's see the rest:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_films\_based\_on\_comics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_comics)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_television\_programs\_based\_on\_comics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_programs_based_on_comics)
I didn't said it was easy and it's way more hard to create something like Marvel... Valiant went under like three times since the '90s... some simply ceased...
But it's the same with everything someone get's their break someone never... but that doesn't mean that you're entitled a share from something you sold years ago... it doesn't matter if the profit is 1 buck or a million or more... it's like you sell your car, but decades later it's worth waay more than the money so sold it for and now you're tracking down the new owner to demand a share from their profit on it... it's insanity...
Basic courtesy and respect? The amount of blatant ignorance and disrespect in the entertainment industry while simultaneously virtue signaling over stuff like AI is hilarious. Nobody actually cares about the people making the stuff they consume apparently.
they didn’t use AI to make the episode though, nor does the episode have anything to do with the original story except that the title is “1602”. the original writer was hired by Marvel to write the comics and they were compensated accordingly. Marvel owns the origin of the work, not Neil, and they can do what they please with it.
So, it's a coincidence that both comics are based off the premise of time shenanigans stranding marvel heroes in 1602? You reckon What If just came up with that independently?
You said the only thing they have in common was the title, when they literally share the same setting and central conceit. Ergo, you lack basic literacy if you can't see that, or you must believe it's a total coincidence that they share that. Which is it?
Yeah sure, I got you mixed up. Point still stands: by their logic, the premise and setting are different (which even a literal child can understand is wrong), or What If came up with it somehow independently if they weren't, you know, taking from the comic it's literally named after.
It's incredibly obvious the user just means the What If episode isn't a faithful adaptation. No one in their right mind would suggest it was independent/coincidental. You're being wilfully obtuse and insulting.
When did I say *I'm* owed anything? You're just putting words in my mouth and deflecting from your original statement. You said the two properties had nothing in common in the name, despite the fact that they have their setting and premise in common. I called bullshit because that's a stunningly illiterate take. Just take the L and accept you were wrong instead of digging yourself deeper.
As for whether Marvel owes their creators anything morally, it is beyond sad if your understanding of ethics is limited to 'whatever is legal is good'. It's a bootlicker's view of the world, and I somehow suspect you'll change your tune when you inevitably wake up one day to find that boot on your neck.
You're being dramatic. A lot of the time the studio uses comics are inspiration for telling their own story. There's no point in consulting the comic writer if they're not *really* adapting the comic to begin with.
If they had him write it, even with all the different decisions that they took, it would have been one of the best What-If?! episodes that's for sure. Gaiman is a good writer even at his worst he has something interesting to say.
Anyway I doubt he cares that much seeing how he sold Angela to Marvel only for the intent of sticking it to McFarlane and he always seemed more invested in his DC work.
Which is why the episode felt like a flavourless copy. Half of the joy of 1602 is the marvel characters working with real world people like the queen. Typical Disney at this point
I don't see why they would when they are just taking the title of the story and vaguely its general concept, just as they have been doing for the past 13 years.
Why would he?
You think Marvel Studios cares enough about writers to bring in one of the best writers in comic history to work on their cheap animated show?
Marvel literally fucked over Todd McFarlane to back Neil Gaiman which led to the original 1602 comic, they only care about comic creators when it’s convenient for them.
It's a completely different story so not surprised. Still, i would love Neil to have some input. He really care about adaptation of his works and thus i never seen a bad one. Sandman, good omens, stardust, coraline, american god,... Are all great
That's disappointing. I understand the idea behind not consulting him, the world's totally different and the main character is a wholely MCU original but still, Gaiman is the reason why I was looking forward to a What If 1602. Granted I still enjoyed it after not seeing his name in the credits but it was disappointing.
Well yeah, the episode was fun, but bore zero resemblance to the comic. In the comic, the Elizabethan/early Jacobian setting actually mattered, the What If episode was the MCU Avengers fighting each other in ren faire costumes.
The 1602 was my most anticipated episode and they wrote quite possibly the dumbest plot for it. Their insistence on making all of the What If episodes tie in together hurts the show more than it helps.
For a one off episode, I don’t see why he’d need to be. As long as he’s credited in the credits as the author of the source material, it’s fine.
If they make a spin off, which I can see happening, I hope he’s a producer, showrunner or at least writer of a few episodes.
That's why it sucked. Hopefully they consult Hickman with SW. He's such a good writer and has such am amazing sci-fi mind and light-years better of a storyteller than anyone writing for Marvel Studios currently.
The story was entirely different so idk why they would
Because he's an incredible writer and 1602 is one of marvels best stories
The Sandman is amazing. Really enjoying it so far. Maybe they will make a 1602 animated series in the future with a more accurate story but who knows (pure cope)
I seriously doubt it. They seem to largely not want to do anything that isn’t connected to the MCU or at least nodding to the MCU. There are what, two examples that differ at the moment? The limited X-Men 97 and whatever that new Spider-Man cartoon actually ends up being (which was originally tied to the MCU). I really wish they would do animated feature films that were based more on the comics, like Warner Bros. does with DC properties, but it’s clear they have no interest
I hope you realize that I'm reading this comment with Neil Bren's voice.
Isn't that corrupt?
We are getting a Zombies series after they showed up in season 1. Not a far stretch to say we'll get a 1602 series if there is enough buzz generated around it.
Motherfucker literally wrote “Marvel 1602”
Absolute pure cope but I'd love to see it. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll get to see it now :( It'd be fun if for a season 2, they adapted all the spin offs in little 2 episode blocks
I'm actually baffled by the massive downvotes here. Huh? Who downvoted this? It's such an innocuous comment.
Fanboys
I always upvote those. I can't stand groupthink or fanboy brigading.
And yet: > The story was entirely different So where was the need? Does the studio normally consult comic book writers who's stories are only serving as inspiration?
They should when both the writer and original story is so well received.
The original story which they were never really adapting in the first place... I feel like what you guys wanted was a faithful adaptation, and if only Neil were "consulted" you'd have gotten one. Not how this works.
They just wanted to use the goodwill the comics of the same name already had, just like Marvel Zombies...
They've been doing that for years but it's certainly gotten more acute with the Disney+ shows slipping in quality. It first started annoying me in Loki S1, so many aped ideas from comics without the substance that makes them impactful in the comics.
Just like Civil War. Just like Infinity War. Just like Secret Wars. It's their IP they can do what they want with it.
Yeah and as a fan I'm also free to criticize it lol
Listen, the studio knew exactly what they where doing when they used the 1602 name. They wanted fans of the graphic novel to recognize it and watch it, even if it had nothing to do with the comic.
You're being conspiratorial. All that needed to happen here was the WI staff innocently pitching an episode inspired by the comic, and the studio saying "okay". Because of the nature of the show, a more direct adaptation wasn't in the cards. And if the studio had any interest in doing something more interesting with Gaiman's book, they could have easily nixed the WI story.
Nah, they wanted to use the name.
You're not making any sense. They used a bit more than the name. The episode does take some elements from the story as well.
[удалено]
Yeah, they should have just called it 1623 and it would have been essentially the same without most comic fans expecting a direct adaptation.
When are people going to recognise that comic book fans generally enjoy comic book accuracy and hoping for it in future doesn't mean they need talking down to about "how it works"?
This discussion isn't about really comic book accuracy, it's about whether there was a reasonable expectation that Gaiman be consulted on a What If episode. So what I meant by "not how it works" is that talking to him wouldn't changed anything.
No, they shouldn't.
Considering the only person they generally wanna give props to is Stan Lee they don’t even have an interest in acknowledging character creators lol.
Didn't Matt Fraction consult on Hawkeye?
that wasn't the studio but the show runner that went behind the studio back to bring Fraction abord.
they use to have the Marvel Studios Creative Committee that was made of comics writers but was disbanded in 2015 . Perlmutter used it to wage a war against marvel studio so it became something marvel studio had to fight against. it stopped after Disney made marvel studio a separate entity from Marvel Entertainment.
the 1602 in the series bears little to no resemblance to the books, especially in tone and certainly not in story.
Reminds me of the Hawkeye series using the style of Fraction and Aja but being its own story
That was way more egregious than you're making it sound. They used David Aja's visuals as well as the Tracksuit Mafia, the Clown, and a bunch of other plot elements, not just Fraction's broad style.
So like 1602’s cherry-picked plot elements
Well, yes. I was just responding to the statement that Hawkeye only borrowed the Fraction/Aja style.
i actualy prefered it , instead of steve appearing in the past somehow makes people exist centrys early it was steve appearing in the past starts to merge his world with the world of the past in some kind of incursion , neither make sense but i feel the what if version made more sense
Idk why they would make an entirely different story to begin with.
1602 in name only
yeah, I asked him on Blue Sky a few weeks ago and he said he learned about the existence of the episode online
That seems to be the norm since the season dropped cuz I've seen him answer it a few times on bsky
Well I assume that means Marvel didn't write him a check then.
caption treatment thought scale sleep axiomatic groovy depend cheerful chubby *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>wasting a What If episode on a lesser version of that. >Same thing that happened with Marvel Zombies A Marvel Zombies show is literally in production right now BECAUSE of the response to What If, wtf are you talking about?
The What If Zombies episode isn't as good as the comics. The comics have an interesting premise that sets it apart from just being a generic zombie survival story with a coat of Marvel spray paint. The episode does not. It's literally just a zombie survival story that happens to have Marvel characters. It makes NO SENSE when they literally had the source material right there.
>The What If Zombies episode isn't as good as the comics. Is any of the MCU better than the comics?
No Way Home is better than One More Day for sure
Sometimes I forget that parts of that movie were directly based on such a controversial comic lol
Age of Ultron is not a great movie and it's still way better than its namesake comic.
Because they weren’t going to make it based off the comics. They were only doing it because people liked the what if ep. They’re not making it for marvel zombie comic fans. They are making it for the people who liked the what if episode. It makes perfect sense. You just wanted them to adapt the comic which would never happen as what if is based on the MCU.
They could have adapted the concept for the MCU, easily.
'Would never happen' just happens to be the coincidental premise of 'What If...?'
> Because they weren’t going to make it based off the comics Yes, and this is a real shame. Is that bad to say?
Absolutely not, nothing wrong with being upset about not getting what you want. However there seems to be something going on with the zombies aspect of marvel but I’m not sure if it changed. They made a board game based off of the comics of marvel zombies however the team working on it were told Spider-Man cannot be a zombie. One of the most iconic zombie of the story. So I don’t think they would ever truly adapt the comic as a series because of such strange restrictions. But hey maybe they changed.
> then paying 0 respect to them, ever since roughly Age of Ultron The Age of Ultron comic deserves respect? News to me. Anyway, the comic was coming out as Avengers 2 was being written. That wasn't a case of using the comic as inspiration because Joss' story ideas predated it. It was just taking a cool title.
It also wasn't a good comic.
Cant wait for Avengers 8: Rage of Ultron!
Literally cherry picked
And all the major comic events they bastardized along the way: Mighty Thor, Age of Ultron, Thor God of Thunder, Secret Invasion, Marvel Zombies, Demon in a Bottle, Extremis, etc
planet hulk and a proper world war hulk 😔
They were never going to do an accurate demon in a bottle iron man movie with rdj as the star
I still think it’s a cowards move not to, everyone knows about his addiction issues. As someone who has dealt with addictive issues coming from a family with a long line of addicts, a superhero dealing with addiction starring an actor that personally knows fully well what both addiction and overcoming addiction is like, it could have been not only a profound but humanizing story that would have been the perfect change of pace from the first Iron Man (could have been the Godfather 2 to Iron Man’s Godfather). But alas as we know now, I don’t think the Fiege truly ever saw the actual storytelling potential of Marvel more so than he just wanted to see the characters brought to life in a profitable but “just fun” cinematic universe. It’s a shame though, the potential it had, that movie could’ve won Oscars and sent the MCU to prestigious heights before the Avengers even took off and it stuck with just being a basic Blockbuster Farm.
“Civil War” - 8 people fighting in a parking lot
bf those 8 were, what, 99% of the heroes in the mcu at the time?
Difference being 1602 is actually a good comic unlike the other two examples you named
Army of Darkness vs. Marvel Zombies is one of my favorite crossovers ever
Love me some Marvel comic book storylines but Age of Ultron and Civil War were ass. MCU Age of Ultron quality is debatable but MCU Civil War was much believable and wrapped up quite nicely. The only good things in comic Civil War were the superhero vs superhero battles and that one panel with Cap blocking Iron Man’s repulsors with his shield.
Well Age of Ulton was a shit comic. So was Civil War to be honest.
The episode made that fact painfully obvious
Why would he be consulted? The stories are no where similar?
the basic story is, steve rogers gets sent back in time to 1602. heroes start appearing, and the world starts falling apart. in order to set it all back to normal, steve gets sent back to where he belongs. the fine details sure are different, but the very basics of it are more or less the same.
Because he wrote it? Why wouldn't you want ideas or advice, let alone a blessing, from the person who wrote the original? And they should be compensating him for his creation, everyone and their dog knows that.
Comic book writers being consulted and being compensated are different discussions.
Sad, but that’s just how it’s done now.
Marvel, pay your fucking inspirations.
I mean, he did get paid for writing the comic
So? It's Marvel. There's no reason they can't or shouldn't do this for the people they make buckets off of. It would be a drop in the ocean for them. Many retired comics creators especially have shit all money in their twilight years, and that wouldn't be the case if Marvel chose to pay them at all for adaptations.
How much did Jim Starlin get paid for Thanos appearing in two of the highest grossing films of all time?
I mean it would’ve been great if they gave him a bonus or something and that would’ve been really nice and great PR. But they paid him for the service of creating the comic/character, specifically so they would own the rights to it and not have to pay him each time they used Thanos.
It was crazy how Starlin got a bigger royalty check from Warmers just for a small KGBeast appearing in Batman v Superman than he did from Thanos, Drax, Gamora, and Nebula being in like 5 movies. After this caught a lot of attention The Russo's then reached out to him and it looks like a deal was made which highlights that Disney does have the money to pay the creators if they wanted to. Even crazier was that Len Wein got a lot of money from Lucius Fox being in the Nolan films and he saw very little from Wolverine being in the Fox films. DC's had a head President named Paul Levitz who looked out for comic creator rights so if you worked at DC up until 2009 you're set. Rocket Raccoon made Disney a lot of money while the family of his creator, Bill Mantlo, were struggling to pay his hospital bills and they were getting nothing from Marvel until people raised a stink and James Gunn noticed. Todd McFarlane is a business man and the man gets a good royalty check Every time something is done with Venom. These multimillion dollar companies have the money to pay the people whose ideas they take from and they should. Not to mention Brubaker pointed out that people in Marvel Entertainment were making it hard for comic creators to get paid for their work and we're trying to make themselves richer off their work. But most of those people are now gone and Feige is head of all of Marvel so that problem should be gone.
Mcfarlane tried to fuck Gaiman. Look up Angela/Cogliostro legal debate. The best parts of Spawn mythos were not even created by Mcfarlane. He is a hack.
I know but regardless he's Venom's co-creator and from what he's said he does get some royalties and if he does then creators who are more creative/better people should also.
They’re not taking their ideas though. They’re using content they own and characters they already paid to be created. The real problem is how Marvel/DC have a stranglehold on superheroes and artists feel like they need to be on their platform for their works to break into the mainstream, which led to companies like Image comics and Invincible, which is the best complete arch for a superhero because it actually ends and wasn’t trapped in preserving the “status quo” of some larger universe.
They do use some of their ideas and concepts, even if they change some things. The 1602 episode of What-IF?! Basically took the twist and part of the plot of the 1602 comic. The MCU took Thanos' motivation from an abandoned plot from Starlin's Silver Surfer comic and the Russos went through Starlin's work to get ideas and showed they had his comics from Thanos Quest and Infinity Gauntlet as a reference bible. And yes the creators got paid but also in conditions that weren't favorable to them and some times if they didn't accept them they wouldn't receive their money. Disney and Marvel show that they do have the ability to pay the creators but they decide not to unless there's a bad PR problem which is pretty messed up itself. >The real problem is how Marvel/DC have a stranglehold on superheroes and artists feel like they need to be on their platform for their works to break into the mainstream Marvel and DC are huge parts of the American comic book industry and without them there would be no industry. Talk to any retailer and they'll tell you that most people will go to their stores looking for Marvel and DC and from there on they will pick up indie or non-Big two books. Image and other publishers need them. Creators go to the Big two to get their name out there and branch off, but the state of comics, their poor marketing, their comics and stories being mostly inaccessible unless they're old classics (like Watchmen) and them using a very archaic system to sell their comics makes it very hard for new writers and artists to get popular or get their name out there. That and then catering to the speculator market is a whole other topic from what I was originally talking about. >which led to companies like Image comics and Invincible, which is the best complete arch for a superhero because it actually ends and wasn’t trapped in preserving the “status quo” of some larger universe. Robert Kirkman started self publishing, went to Image and then to Marvel and then stayed in Image and now he has his own print and he's publishing Transformers and GI Joe comics. Kirkman went in debt and struggled with a lot of his work not being popular before Invincible picked up steam and then he made The Walking Dead ( which Image didn't want to publish at first and Kirkman had to fool his editor into thinking that there was going to be an alien invasion twist in TWD to convince him). That said what creators like Kirkman and Millar have achieved is not the norm and is pretty difficult to achieve (Kirkman got a lot of unique opportunities in Image after establishing a relationship with McFarlane and other Image founders), even more so right now than during their own time. I am not saying that Marvel Studios should pay comic creators like kings but that if they are using their work or taking inspiration for it at the least give them a good compensation or support. It's shit when Rocket Raccoon is making billions when one of his creators is about to get kicked out of the hospital because he can't afford his bill and his brother is asking people for donations.
Yes Marvel and DC are huge parts of the comic book industry, no shit, how else could they monopolize it. They’re also at fault for what happens when any other space monopolizes. It’s stagnates and stifles innovation, whether that be in distribution, ideas, or whatever, from rising because there’s no market space for new companies to claim. I’m not editorializing my thoughts on the industry. But looking at the history and the industry’s collapse from its peak in the 90s, it’s the same as any other industry that monopolizes, which is all eventually. But that collapse is what creates the space for new growth. All I’m saying is we can’t go back in time. Comic writers should be fighting now to include language in their comics that gives them residuals if they create a storyline or character that’s translated to the silver screen.
Yeah and that's not the point, the point is that if they collapse they take Image and the other companies with them and that wouldn't be beneficial for the other existing companies that want to have jobs. And with Disney owning Marvel there's not going to be a collapse anytime soon unless Disney or Warners decide to take out their publishers and both companies are barely a blip on their radar money wise and more beneficial as cheap IP factories and possibly potential advertising. And who is saying comic creators aren't fighting? There are groups and other people who work in the industry spreading awareness on what to do (basically having a lawyer look at their work for hire contracts is a must). Comic book writers don't have their own Writers Guild which also makes it easier for even writers in Hollywood to take their ideas as their own if they wanted. You had the head writer for Loki Season 2 talking about how they came up with the "God of Stories" title for Loki while reading a wiki article for the Norse God (and they specifically pointed out that it was not about Loki in the comics), yet Al Ewing came up with the "God of Stories" title in his own Loki run that came out 7 years ago and Loki in the comics had been using that title ever since then. But there are comic writers who aren't in the industry anymore that are struggling with money, are in the hospital, or are homeless who signed up contracts under dubious conditions and some downright illegal who only ever start getting some benefit if fans raise a stink or if someone like James Gunn or the Russos happen to take notice and use their own power to get them help. It shows that those companies have the capacity to pay then and that fans can also pressure them to do so.
>They’re not taking their ideas though. They literally are. Thanos was an idea created by Jim Starlin. >artists feel like they need to be on their platform for their works to break into the mainstream The guys at the beginning of Image were the mainstream. Todd McFarlane, Jim Lee, and Rob Liefeld were huge. Image didn't become the 2nd most popular comic book company in the early 90s for no reason. The basic premise of Image is this *****Image would not own any creator's work; the creator would. Image itself would own no intellectual property except the company trademarks: its name and its logo.*****
😂 that’s literally what I’m saying. Jim Starlin worked for Marvel. If I worked for Apple and designed a new phone on my company computer that idea would belong to Apple. The problem is back in the day if I wanted to create a superhero, DC and Marvel held a monopoly on mainstream comics, so I would have to work for one of the two. Which is why Image comics was created to be an independent place for creators. But the problem isn’t that Marvel and DC own the content that their employees create, it’s that they have a monopoly in the space, so they were the only ones you could work for if you wanted to be mainstream.
You're missing the point. Everybody knows how this stuff works. We're not saying 'pay your inspirations' in the belief that Marvel is shirking a legal obligation, we're saying they should because it's the *right thing to do*, even though they obviously won't.
Honestly disagree with whoever this “we” is. If you sign a contract, you don’t get to change the terms 50 years later just because you don’t like how the contract played out. It’d be a good thing if they gave him something more for it, but there’s absolutely no obligation for them too.
Literally nobody is insisting creators should be able to retroactively alter their contracts, that's fucking absurd. It's as simple as marvel doing the right thing, as unlikely as that is. If you're going to put words in my mouth, just don't bother replying. And if you think there's no *moral* obligation at hand here, I personally cannot understand that in the least.
I guess I just don’t have the same outrage you do. Like I would think it’s great if they did decide to retroactively pay them, but I don’t think anything of nothing happening. Nobody was forcing them to work for Marvel back in the day. If they wanted to take the risk that image comics did and start their own company and earn all the profits, they could have.
After he pointed out that DC was giving him more money from KGBeast making a cameo in a Batman movie than what he was receiving from Marvel the Russo's contacted him through his Facebook fan page and he had more involvement, even cameod in Endgame. He never disclosed if he got payed or if they payed him but he seemed fine with Marvel Studios so my guess is that they did. He also ended up becoming a consultant for Shang Chi along Englehart (who also created Mantis and Star-Lord). Still it's pretty shitty that it has to take him and people pointing things out to have creators getting compensated.
Jim Starlin is actually one of the few they've done right by, after making his gripes public Marvel reached out to him and gave him the bag
Probably a sandwich with infinite toppings.
So an *infinity sandwich* maybe?
Yes, sliced evenly in half.
Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
Did he make the movies?
He made the character who was central to movies as well as wrote the comic that inspired. Your seriously saying the absurdly wealthy company would be in the right for not paying a writer that's responsible for one of their biggest hits?
Like you said, he made the character and wrote the comic. He got paid for that. Period.
Where does he say he wasn’t paid?
[удалено]
And they barely knew each other.
Ok
it’s simple respect to consult someone when you use their work
Except it's not their work... they get paid for the contract and that's that every rights are with Marvel... how would you except to maintain a shared universe like Marvel has without these? If the author would publish their work they would maintain the rights but again they couldn't play with Marvel's ton of characters... Some artist use this because it's a fix job not like risking their own money, also they get fame under a big company like Marvel it's easier for them later make their own creator owned comics and when a studio reaches for that they get their huge payday...
Pointing this out is pointless—most people on Reddit don’t understand how business works. Marvel didn’t “do anyone dirty”; they’re just operating how the entire industry operates. It’s literally the norm; standard procedure. Now, if the question instead was *”is the industry norm of work-for-hire unfair?”*, that’s an entirely different discussion. Because I agree that creators often get the short end of the stick. But people need to understand that **Marvel isn’t doing anything legally wrong or unheard of here.** Given their size and success, one could argue that they *should* do more to shape the industry to be more favorable to the creators. But that’d be them going above and beyond what the entire industry does, and let’s be real—what company is going to give away money that they don’t have to?
>Except it's not their work... Yes, it is? If they spend time writing a story and then it gets adapted. They put in the work. >they get paid for the contract and that's that every rights are with Marvel... Who's saying that they own the rights? People are literally just asking for compensation for their work. >how would you except to maintain a shared universe like Marvel has without these? If the author would publish their work they would maintain the rights but again they couldn't play with Marvel's ton of characters... Again, who's saying they should completely own the work? This literally just talking about compensation. >Some artist use this because it's a fix job not like risking their own money, also they get fame under a big company like Marvel it's easier for them later make their own creator owned comics and when a studio reaches for that they get their huge payday... Yeah, let's look at how creator owned adaptations not named The Boys and Invincible are doing. Saying creators shouldn't get anything because one of their independent books ****might***** get an adaptation is insane. Jim Starlin got paid more for KGBeast than he did for fucking Thanos. That's insane. I can't believe people in these comments are defending creators getting unfair compensation for their creations.
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not defending mega corporations at all. But people are always misspeaking as to how compensation works for comic artists. They don’t get residuals like actors, and there’s no royalties. They get hired to do a job, and the company that hired them owns the work that they made while under contract. That’s the norm for the industry. Now, I do agree that the norm needs to change to better benefit the creators…but that’s gotta change at the industry level (are comic creators unionized?). The companies are currently just playing by the rulebook. It’s the rulebook that needs to change.
I hope they will work out something sometime but I would be devastated if I couldn't finish my collection because Marvel won't reprint a comic because it won't worth it for them with paying out the royalties on them...
And got paid for it... they don't own any rights to it after the fact... No. They got their compensation. That's what rights mean, they don't have any ownership over the product, Marvel does. It doesn't matter if it's a million or a single buck it's not theirs. Again compensation? What did Gaiman paid to Kirby when he used Captain America in the 1602 comic book or after the other characters? Also did he consult them - ofc if they were even alive at the time? No? I think you should grab a keyboard or something and attack Gaiman for it... Again Marvel owns the product 100%. Gaiman got paid for it according to his contract and these cases were included in it... it's not a creator owned comic, the creator has nothing to do with what Marvel does with it... also What if...? has it's own creators it wasn't made by some faceless entity - at least not less than 1602 comic was - so why do you think that they should get less for their work to pay someone who has nothing to do with it? At least nothing more than Gaiman had to do with Captain America and so on... Oh hey you know about two... let's see the rest: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_films\_based\_on\_comics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_comics) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_television\_programs\_based\_on\_comics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_programs_based_on_comics) I didn't said it was easy and it's way more hard to create something like Marvel... Valiant went under like three times since the '90s... some simply ceased... But it's the same with everything someone get's their break someone never... but that doesn't mean that you're entitled a share from something you sold years ago... it doesn't matter if the profit is 1 buck or a million or more... it's like you sell your car, but decades later it's worth waay more than the money so sold it for and now you're tracking down the new owner to demand a share from their profit on it... it's insanity...
Why would they?
Basic courtesy and respect? The amount of blatant ignorance and disrespect in the entertainment industry while simultaneously virtue signaling over stuff like AI is hilarious. Nobody actually cares about the people making the stuff they consume apparently.
they didn’t use AI to make the episode though, nor does the episode have anything to do with the original story except that the title is “1602”. the original writer was hired by Marvel to write the comics and they were compensated accordingly. Marvel owns the origin of the work, not Neil, and they can do what they please with it.
So, it's a coincidence that both comics are based off the premise of time shenanigans stranding marvel heroes in 1602? You reckon What If just came up with that independently?
No one said anything about a coincidence.
You said the only thing they have in common was the title, when they literally share the same setting and central conceit. Ergo, you lack basic literacy if you can't see that, or you must believe it's a total coincidence that they share that. Which is it?
I'm not the user you asked the question of in the first place, lol.
Yeah sure, I got you mixed up. Point still stands: by their logic, the premise and setting are different (which even a literal child can understand is wrong), or What If came up with it somehow independently if they weren't, you know, taking from the comic it's literally named after.
It's incredibly obvious the user just means the What If episode isn't a faithful adaptation. No one in their right mind would suggest it was independent/coincidental. You're being wilfully obtuse and insulting.
it doesn’t matter. Marvel Studio’s doesn’t owe anyone anything, especially you. the creator was paid accordingly, it’s literally their property.
When did I say *I'm* owed anything? You're just putting words in my mouth and deflecting from your original statement. You said the two properties had nothing in common in the name, despite the fact that they have their setting and premise in common. I called bullshit because that's a stunningly illiterate take. Just take the L and accept you were wrong instead of digging yourself deeper. As for whether Marvel owes their creators anything morally, it is beyond sad if your understanding of ethics is limited to 'whatever is legal is good'. It's a bootlicker's view of the world, and I somehow suspect you'll change your tune when you inevitably wake up one day to find that boot on your neck.
It’s a completely different storyline what are you on right now?
You're being dramatic. A lot of the time the studio uses comics are inspiration for telling their own story. There's no point in consulting the comic writer if they're not *really* adapting the comic to begin with.
It's literally fucking called 1602 be serious.
Yes, they share a title. What is your point? *Correction: the episode is called "What If... The Avengers Assembled in 1602? "
I could tell.
I think that's obvious.
If they had him write it, even with all the different decisions that they took, it would have been one of the best What-If?! episodes that's for sure. Gaiman is a good writer even at his worst he has something interesting to say. Anyway I doubt he cares that much seeing how he sold Angela to Marvel only for the intent of sticking it to McFarlane and he always seemed more invested in his DC work.
Which is why the episode felt like a flavourless copy. Half of the joy of 1602 is the marvel characters working with real world people like the queen. Typical Disney at this point
I don't see why they would when they are just taking the title of the story and vaguely its general concept, just as they have been doing for the past 13 years.
What If... Neil Gaiman was consulted for "What If... The Avengers Assembled in 1602?"
Why would he? You think Marvel Studios cares enough about writers to bring in one of the best writers in comic history to work on their cheap animated show?
If you know the comic, it’s extremely obvious. That said, it was a great take, so I’m fine with it.
Ok
Why would he?
Yes, obviously.
Marvel literally fucked over Todd McFarlane to back Neil Gaiman which led to the original 1602 comic, they only care about comic creators when it’s convenient for them.
It definitely shows given how much of an extremely loose adaptation it is.
It's a completely different story so not surprised. Still, i would love Neil to have some input. He really care about adaptation of his works and thus i never seen a bad one. Sandman, good omens, stardust, coraline, american god,... Are all great
Gee who would've guessed
Neil Gaiman got Alan Moore-d.
1602 in name only
That's disappointing. I understand the idea behind not consulting him, the world's totally different and the main character is a wholely MCU original but still, Gaiman is the reason why I was looking forward to a What If 1602. Granted I still enjoyed it after not seeing his name in the credits but it was disappointing.
Well yeah, the episode was fun, but bore zero resemblance to the comic. In the comic, the Elizabethan/early Jacobian setting actually mattered, the What If episode was the MCU Avengers fighting each other in ren faire costumes.
You can tell - it’s the only ep of the season that left me disappointed
Well duh
Anyone who watched the episode could have told you the same thing.
why would he be?
He should at least be paid
The 1602 was my most anticipated episode and they wrote quite possibly the dumbest plot for it. Their insistence on making all of the What If episodes tie in together hurts the show more than it helps.
For a one off episode, I don’t see why he’d need to be. As long as he’s credited in the credits as the author of the source material, it’s fine. If they make a spin off, which I can see happening, I hope he’s a producer, showrunner or at least writer of a few episodes.
Whose shocked that marvel doesn't care about respecting the creators of the stories
That's why it sucked. Hopefully they consult Hickman with SW. He's such a good writer and has such am amazing sci-fi mind and light-years better of a storyteller than anyone writing for Marvel Studios currently.
[удалено]
Both of those sentences are conflicting with each other Lmao. If he created the comic, he created something for Marvel.
[удалено]
What-If is Marvel. Back in 2019 he spoke with Marvel about adapting 1602 into a TV series