Should Cap stay dead?

[Doctor Doom]

Okay, point taken RSC but what about when it comes to fringe titles? To take an example Friendly Neighbourhood Spider-Man was at best tangentially rleated to Civil War (It had an unmasked Spider-Man, that's about it) but has a VERY different tone to the other Spidey books- more light, much more oldschool. So if I read all the Spidey books, and then disliked the current direction of the main one- Amazing Spider-Man, do you think I should drop ALL the spidey books to prove the point that I don't like the direction Spidey is going in?

Because the problem there is that Friendly Neighbourhood garners lower sales anyway, so if everyone who dislikes the spidey direction dropped ALL the books, Friendly would drop the lowest and thus Marvel could conclude "They REALLY don't like the light tone of this book", and then change it. Whereas if all who disliked thge main tone dropped ASM but KEPT Friendly, then Marvel would see it's sales hold as the other sales dropped and say "Well hang on, people like this tone more, maybe we should change the others to this."

Basically, my view is that it's useless telling Marvel what you DON'T LIKE unless you tell them what you like as well, so they know what to change it to.

[balok]

redstatecap explained it better than I did.

[redstatecap]

docdoom said:

Okay, point taken RSC but what about when it comes to fringe titles? To take an example Friendly Neighbourhood Spider-Man was at best tangentially rleated to Civil War (It had an unmasked Spider-Man, that's about it) but has a VERY different tone to the other Spidey books- more light, much more oldschool. So if I read all the Spidey books, and then disliked the current direction of the main one- Amazing Spider-Man, do you think I should drop ALL the spidey books to prove the point that I don't like the direction Spidey is going in?

Yes, absolutely. An unspoken issue is that Marvel expects that the hardcore fanboy will not be able to wean himself from their product. They hope to both attract new customers because of the new direction, and keep the majority of these completists even if they don't like the new direction.
I can't really blame Marvel for this assumption. Across many boards, I notice the same unfortunate attitude -- the attitude among many comic fans that they just have to be buying something Marvel. They have to, even when they simultaneously say they can't stand it. In order to break out of this paradigm and be heard, one has to be willing to spend his entertainment dollars elsewhere. It's really that simple.

Because the problem there is that Friendly Neighbourhood garners lower sales anyway, so if everyone who dislikes the spidey direction dropped ALL the books, Friendly would drop the lowest and thus Marvel could conclude "They REALLY don't like the light tone of this book", and then change it. Whereas if all who disliked thge main tone dropped ASM but KEPT Friendly, then Marvel would see it's sales hold as the other sales dropped and say "Well hang on, people like this tone more, maybe we should change the others to this."

It's certainly possible that "fringe" books would suffer the most. On the other hand -- see above. There are many, many other things to spend your entertainment dollar on. Anyone that needs to have a reason to spend that dollar only on comics is part of the problem.
I believe that voting with my wallet to punish Marvel's net sales is a more productive course of action than voting with my wallet for books I least disliked. Because, again, even if I don't buy the titles that I consider the biggest offenders, I know that some people will. Therefore my "no" vote there can diluted or covered up. For example, do you think Marvel hears my "no" vote on New Avengers? Of course not, it's consistently a high seller. Where my "no" vote cannot be covered up is in the bottom line -- total net sales.

Basically, my view is that it's useless telling Marvel what you DON'T LIKE unless you tell them what you like as well, so they know what to change it to.

I don't like the new direction of Marvel. In fact I despise it. It was Marvel's decision to give people like me the finger and chase new sales elsewhere. What Marvel is saying is: "F*ck you, but keep buying."
Actions have consequences, and if Marvel has decided that this is their new direction, I can and will go elsewhere with my entertainment dollar. Permanently, if need be. I don't need to buy their product.

RSC

[Alchemist-X]

RSC

That logic is works well for already established Marvel Characters, but what about some of our newer tiles and teams like the New X-men or the Runaways. (or the Order, but Sinec I don't like the Order, forget I mentioned it)

Sure if you boycott Marvel all together they'll see a decline and try a new direction, and for characters like Spider-man or Cap, that means some change to their title, writer, artist or direction.

To Characters like Darkhawk, or the New Warriors of the 90s, or the Runaways, New X-men or Order of now, this will just result in permentant cancelation/removal from the Marvel universe since these characters don't have an established history to fall back on.

If Marvel Tanks, Spider-man, the X-men, Cap, IM THor and the Avengers will all be re-launched in some form, but the B list and lower is likely to fade out of existance.

But RSC wherever else you go with your entertainment dollar, you should try to spend it on an entertainment model/concept you think Marvel should take some hints from, I mean, who knows maybe someday Marvel will see that companies success and take some hints.

[von Bek]

alchemistx said:

To Characters like Darkhawk, or the New Warriors of the 90s, or the Runaways, New X-men or Order of now, this will just result in permentant cancelation/removal from the Marvel universe since these characters don't have an established history to fall back on.

If Marvel Tanks, Spider-man, the X-men, Cap, IM THor and the Avengers will all be re-launched in some form, but the B list and lower is likely to fade out of existance.

No, they probably won´t fade out of existence. Marvel would do exactly waht they do with the A-list, wait a couple of years and then try another take on the team or solo character.
Want examples: Nova, Cage, Iron Fist, Excalibur, Power Pack, even the Order is a Champions of LA reboot, but Marvel couldn´t use the name Champions anymore due to legal problems.

[Alchemist-X]

Good point, but when B and C listers get brought back, they're so changed up that original fans are often left out in the cold. Not to mention the timetable on their return isn't as firm as it is with A-list heroes, how long did it take for Cage and Ironfist to make any serious kind of comeback?

Also, Powerman and Iron Fist, I read tonnes of their old stuff, and these new guys are great for updated versions that can interact with other heroes without seeming like a joke, but what happens if I liked the original better? (As long as it wasn't a team up, or a fight with someone elses Villian, the old stories were quite likeable)

If you liked the Original New Warriors, your gonna see a terrible desecration of your team

I never read the Champions of LA, but it had to be beter than the Order #1




But ya, the total ban definately sends a message, I won't deny that, I just feel that I should support things that I like so hopefully they stay around and don't change into something I don't recognize, even if I don't agree with every title that publisher has.

[balok]

alchemistx said:

To Characters like Darkhawk, or the New Warriors of the 90s, or the Runaways, New X-men or Order of now, this will just result in permentant cancelation/removal from the Marvel universe since these characters don't have an established history to fall back on.

True, but as they say - you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. If you like those characters, buy their books. Perhaps your crowd outnumbers our crowd in which case you'll continue to get what you like (I almost said what you deserve). But if our crowd has the stronger economic voice, and we do not use it to force change, then we have no legitimate basis for complaint about the quality of what's out there.

[redstatecap]

alchemistx said:

That logic is works well for already established Marvel Characters, but what about some of our newer tiles and teams like the New X-men or the Runaways. (or the Order, but Sinec I don't like the Order, forget I mentioned it)
Sure if you boycott Marvel all together they'll see a decline and try a new direction, and for characters like Spider-man or Cap, that means some change to their title, writer, artist or direction.
To Characters like Darkhawk, or the New Warriors of the 90s, or the Runaways, New X-men or Order of now, this will just result in permentant cancelation/removal from the Marvel universe since these characters don't have an established history to fall back on.

My response to that is: "so what?"
These are not real people that I have the power of life and death over. These are fictional characters owned by Marvel comics and published in order to make money for Marvel comics. Neither you, nor I, nor any other customer out there has some kind of obligation to keep Marvel properties on "life support." Marvel would like you to believe that you have some kind of obligation, and hard-core completists seem to feel that they have some kind of obligation, but I find that idea laughable in the extreme. It's like saying: "Buy this comic, or this fictional character will drown this fictional puppy."

If Marvel Tanks, Spider-man, the X-men, Cap, IM THor and the Avengers will all be re-launched in some form, but the B list and lower is likely to fade out of existance.

Not so, as proven time and again. The vast majority of times, these properties are merely shelved. Sometimes they get used for cannon fodder, but even then they are usually resurrected.
And again -- so what?

But RSC wherever else you go with your entertainment dollar, you should try to spend it on an entertainment model/concept you think Marvel should take some hints from, I mean, who knows maybe someday Marvel will see that companies success and take some hints.

That's not really practical. Marvel might notice that their bottom line is short my couple of hundred bucks a year, but they will not notice that I spent that money on booze and strippers.
I suppose I could spend it on DC, boosting the sales of their only real competitor, but I don't have any interest in doing that. I have no interest in the DC universe, and from what I hear it seems that they are guilty of pretty much the same crap that Marvel is.
No, the point is not where the money goes instead, it's that it isn't in Marvel's pocket as a vote for their product.

RSC

[The Night Phantom]

For those of you who wish to send Marvel a message by withholding your money—

That’s fine, but as messages go, it’s pretty vague. If you stop buying their product, they won’t know why. So far as Marvel knows, your reasons might not have anything to do with them—maybe you lost your job, or maybe your mom started charging you basement rent. If you drop ten of Marvel’s comics, they won’t even know that all ten were dropped by the same person.

Go ahead and drop their comics if you choose, but I recommend articulating your reasons. Write Marvel a letter. Talk to them at a convention. Post your reasons on a forum they monitor (I’m not sure that this is one—if it is, then I’d say there’s been some pretty good articulating already). Otherwise, the message could end up being fairly incoherent.

[redstatecap]

nightphantom said:

For those of you who wish to send Marvel a message by withholding your money—
That’s fine, but as messages go, it’s pretty vague. If you stop buying their product, they won’t know why. So far as Marvel knows, your reasons might not have anything to do with them—maybe you lost your job, or maybe your mom started charging you basement rent. If you drop ten of Marvel’s comics, they won’t even know that all ten were dropped by the same person.
Go ahead and drop their comics if you choose, but I recommend articulating your reasons. Write Marvel a letter. Talk to them at a convention. Post your reasons on a forum they monitor (I’m not sure that this is one—if it is, then I’d say there’s been some pretty good articulating already). Otherwise, the message could end up being fairly incoherent.

That is a nice sentiment, and it's a sentiment that makes common sense to the average fan. After all, Marvel wants to hear how to improve their product, right?
Wrong.
On another board I used to talk to a guy named David Medinnus. David worked for Stan Lee on some projects, and communicated with various Marvel editors over the years. He shared some insights about what really goes on behind the scenes.
According to him, Marvel editors are quite frank in admitting privately that they do not care what fans say to them in letters, at conventions, or whatever.
They do not care.
What they care about is whether or not sales numbers are where the editors think they should be. Period. Addressing fan opinion is lip service, a part of their job description, and nothing more.
While I won't say I care much for Mr. Medinnus any more, he did open my eyes about why things are as they are, and what is an effective tactic for promoting change.
If it makes you personally feel better to write a letter expressing your displeasure, by all means go ahead. However, understand that, to Marvel, your complaint is literally not worth the paper it is printed on.

RSC

[balok]

nightphantom said:

That’s fine, but as messages go, it’s pretty vague. If you stop buying their product, they won’t know why. So far as Marvel knows, your reasons might not have anything to do with them—maybe you lost your job, or maybe your mom started charging you basement rent. If you drop ten of Marvel’s comics, they won’t even know that all ten were dropped by the same person.

This is true as far as it goes, but the reason things like this work is because when enough people do it, and sales fall enough, THEN the editors HAVE TO CARE because that's their only real concern - keeping sales where they want them. On that is based their stock options, bonuses, even whether Quesada keeps his job or not. My goal, and it will work if enough others feel the same way, is not to ask politely. That never works with corporations. What works is when you punch them in the stomach, economically, and then tell them what you want while they're still struggling for breath. One of my goals is to see Quesada sacked for what he has done, and all the polite letters in the world will never accomplish it. But taking my money from them, and other people taking their money, will.

You may tell me, next, that whatever Marvel does next might be worse, but from my perspective, this is unlikely to be true. I have so little use for Marvel now that almost any change it makes can only be for the better.

[redstatecap]

I wish I had thought to include this rather obvious example in my previous post.
For those who think that writing letters of complaint is a worthwhile tactic -- is there any better example against this than Bendis on the Avengers?
Those who oppose his direction on the Avengers have done so since Avengers Dissassembled over three years ago. Strenuously. Continuously. Politely. Not-so-politely. Online. Letters. In person.
And what was the result?
Bendis got a second Avengers title in addition.
Why? Because his sales were where his editors wanted them to be.
So, those of you out there who believe that Marvel gives a flying F what you think, take a good look at the current situation and reconsider. Marvel might take a look at what you are saying once they are being punished financially, but not before.

RSC

[Doctor Doom]

Now maybe this is a very silly question, RSC, but why exactly does this prove Marvel don't "give a flying F about us"? I mean, yes, you have complained vocally, online, in person, by letters... isn't it not completely, WILDLY out of the question that those who support New Avengers and the Avengers titles have voiced their approval by all these means, and there are more of them, ergo Marvel are satisying the majority? Why is that so insanely improbable according to you?

[von Bek]

Do you really want to play that game, Doom?
OK, here´s some basic math for ya:
Avengers vol 3 #01 outsold NA #01 by almost 100K. So there are more readers willingly to support a vol 3- type of Avengers than BENDIS! Avengers.

[balok]

As things stand now, you're right, Doom. Sales justify Marvel's current direction; they're writing comics that sell to more people. It could be, and perhaps it IS, the case that comics and I have moved in different directions. That what I will accept is different from what those spending all that money will accept.

But someone has to be first to protest. I cannot keep buying what I regard as trash. Either they'll change, or they and I will part company. At this point, either one works for me.

[redstatecap]

docdoom said:

Now maybe this is a very silly question, RSC, but why exactly does this prove Marvel don't "give a flying F about us"? I mean, yes, you have complained vocally, online, in person, by letters... isn't it not completely, WILDLY out of the question that those who support New Avengers and the Avengers titles have voiced their approval by all these means, and there are more of them, ergo Marvel are satisying the majority? Why is that so insanely improbable according to you?

I assume you mean "Is it completely, wildly..." not "Isn't it not..." which is confusing.
Sure, your side has its say as well, but ultimately even that is meaningless. Marvel doesn't care that you say you like it any more than they care that I say I dislike it.
What has meaning to Marvel is where the rubber meets the road -- quantifiable sales numbers.
A good example? How about Dan Slott. Both his She-Hulk and Thing comics were, by an measure, well-regarded by fans. I don't think I've ever heard much complaint online about either. On the contrary, anecdotally speaking, I've heard almost exclusively nothing but positives about his writing and his books.
But for whatever reason they don't sell well, ergo he's no longer on She-Hulk and last I heard, The Thing was cancelled.
People can express whatever opinions they want to -- positive or negative -- the only thing that matters to Marvel is whether enough people are buying the product.

RSC

[Doctor Doom]

That's actually a pretty bad example with Dan Slott, RSC.

Thing was cancelled for poor sales, yes. But Dan Slott left She-Hulk voluntarily and actually helped pick out his succesor, another fan favourite. Then he himself went onto a much much much bigger book- the biggest, some would say- where the fans have been crying out for him for some time, as WELL as taking over another A-list book. (Avengers: The Initiative)

His stuff never sold that well but he was a fan vourite.... and then he was put onto two massive books. So that kind of flies in the face of the point you're trying to make.

[balok]

Suppose (for the sake of this argument) that 100,000 people purchase "Captain Heroic." Suppose Marvel changes the book, and immediately 25,000 of those people start writing angry letters (the remainder are divided among those okay with the change, those too apathetic to care, and those who, for whatever reason, do not write comic companies). But all of them continue to buy the book, so sales are still at 100,000.

Now suppose that Marvel makes a change, and 35,000 people abandon the book. That's the original 25,000 malcontents, plus 10,000 people for whom it's easier to just stop buying than to articulate what they want changed. Now sales are at 65,000.

Which one of those situations prompts the editors to look hard at what they've done, and perhaps even to make changes?

Clearly, if you don't like what Marvel under Joe Quesada has done, but you are still buying books, the best you're doing is sending a mixed message. The worst is no message at all. If you don't like what Marvel is doing, stop buying their books. All of them. Make it clear to them in the only way that matters. They don't care at all what you say. They care about what you do in the comic book store. Stop buying, or resign yourself to purchasing books you don't like. It really is that simple.

[Doctor Doom]

No, better comparison Balok.

Suppose 100,000 people are buying Captain Heroic. Captain Heroic is a big, dark story about heroes at each other's throats and no real heroism.

Now suppose 30,000 people are buying "Adventures of Lan-Man", "Tales of the Titan!" and "Farlandar, the Greatest Hero Of Them All!" These are all very light hearted books, about old fashioned heroics- all very oldschool heroics.

Now let's take your example, and say it goes through as above, with sales falling to 65,000.

Now those people who leave also all end up dumping other books- which include Lan-Man, Titan and Farlandar. Sales on those books fall to about 15,000- cancellation level. Now Marvel are worried, what will they do? These fun, light-hearted, cheery books have all fallen to cancelling level- Captain Heroic has fallen too, but these are just as big a loss.

But hang on, Captain Heroic is STILL doing waaay better than those other titles. And it's dark and angsty... so they replace the creative teams and radically shift the direction on Lan-Man, Titan and Farlandar to be dark and angsty. And now a portion of those who read Captain Heroic go to read THISE books, and suddenly sales on all of them rise to 40,000, way above what they were before! And then they decide- well, this method must be working, so they do it to MORE books- but Captain Heroic is still down at 65,000... not to worry, big summer company crossover time with a nice big stunt- unmasking Captain Heroic? Killing him? and suddenly, sales are WAAAY up again.

And now Marvel are more dark and angsty than ever and doing even better than before.

And THAT is why a marvel wide blockade does as much harm as good if you're blocking the books you like.

[redstatecap]

docdoom said:

That's actually a pretty bad example with Dan Slott, RSC. Thing was cancelled for poor sales, yes.

And that's a bad example?

But Dan Slott left She-Hulk voluntarily and actually helped pick out his succesor, another fan favourite.

The bottom line is that neither of these well-regarded books sold well, and Dan Slott is no longer writing them. If She-Hulk and Thing sold 75,000 instead of 25,000, Dan Slott would still be there.

Then he himself went onto a much much much bigger book- the biggest, some would say- where the fans have been crying out for him for some time, as WELL as taking over another A-list book. (Avengers: The Initiative)

First, as you should know, Avengers: Initiative was supposed to be a limited series. That was what he was brought on for. Subsequently it was moved to ongoing.
Second, while the Avengers name is certainly an important property, Dan Slott has been given a bunch of third-stringers and non-entities to work with.
Third, my opinion is that Avengers: Initiative in the long run has "failure" written all over it.
Was Slott himself tired of writing marginal properties? How much easier would it be for a writer to guarantee good sales in a title featuring Spider-Man vs. a title featuring The Thing?

His stuff never sold that well but he was a fan vourite.... and then he was put onto two massive books. So that kind of flies in the face of the point you're trying to make.

He's getting a chance on two prominent titles.
You know what will happen if he doesn't deliver numbers? Exactly what happened to She-Hulk and Thing.
At least Spider-Man has it's own built-in audience of completists who don't need much excuse to keep buying.

RSC

[Doctor Doom]

redstatecap said:

And that's a bad example?

It is when half your case is wrong.

The bottom line is that neither of these well-regarded books sold well, and Dan Slott is no longer writing them. If She-Hulk and Thing sold 75,000 instead of 25,000, Dan Slott would still be there.

No actually, he wouldn't. He's written more issues of She-Hulk than any other writer, I'm pretty sure, and claims he has said all he wants to say on the character and wants to move on, so even if She-Hulk sold 150,000... he CHOSE to leave.

First, as you should know, Avengers: Initiative was supposed to be a limited series. That was what he was brought on for. Subsequently it was moved to ongoing.

And any account will tell you EVERYONE except Dan Slott and Dan Buckley wanted it to be an ongoing but he chose to make it a limited at first.

the Avengers name is certainly an important property, Dan Slott has been given a bunch of third-stringers and non-entities to work with.

And yet still managed to claim top sales chart positions?

Third, my opinion is that Avengers: Initiative in the long run has "failure" written all over it.

Right, but your opinion is irrelevant when it comes to Marvel assigning writers. Especially considering it was incorrect on Civil War and incorrect on THunderbolts so far.

Was Slott himself tired of writing marginal properties? How much easier would it be for a writer to guarantee good sales in a title featuring Spider-Man vs. a title featuring The Thing?

Well... Fantastic Four tends to get good sales. And it's not like Marvel would let Dan Slott write these a-list teams just because he asked if they had no faith in him. Don't try to change the subject- you claimed that he was a fan favourite writer and yet the fans were rewarded with him being forced off his books, which is a lie. He is a fan favourite writer who never got huge sales and was rewarded with two cushy major A-list books, including Marvel's flagship title. THe OPPOSITE of what you claim Marvel would do.

His stuff never sold that well but he was a fan vourite.... and then he was put onto two massive books. So that kind of flies in the face of the point you're trying to make.

He's getting a chance on two prominent titles.

You know what will happen if he doesn't deliver numbers? Exactly what happened to She-Hulk and Thing.

Well nothing happened with She-Hulk, you were just wrong and are trying to preserve your case. But in any case that's totally irrelevant to your argument, the exact same thing would happen to New Avengers if IT spontaneously fell to 10,000 sales!

[redstatecap]

docdoom said:

It is when half your case is wrong.

According to you.

No actually, he wouldn't. He's written more issues of She-Hulk than any other writer, I'm pretty sure, and claims he has said all he wants to say on the character and wants to move on, so even if She-Hulk sold 150,000... he CHOSE to leave.

As can be seen from Tom Brevoort's New Invaders blog, what is put out for public consumption does not always reflect what is really going on behind the scenes.
For example, what if Slott left because he was not able to generate sales with the She-Hulk property? Perhaps he felt that he was doing the best he could, and was not being rewarded by the fans. Time to move on to a property where he felt he could be more successful. That would still be "his choice," but it would be a choice made under less-than-favorable circumstances.

And any account will tell you EVERYONE except Dan Slott and Dan Buckley wanted it to be an ongoing but he chose to make it a limited at first.

So, why did he want it to be a limited?

And yet still managed to claim top sales chart positions?

For now. The title is still trading on CW customers. Let's see where the title is in a year.

Right, but your opinion is irrelevant when it comes to Marvel assigning writers. Especially considering it was incorrect on Civil War and incorrect on THunderbolts so far.

How was I incorrect on the assignment of the writer to Civil War?
How was I incorrect on the assignment of the writer to Thunderbolts?
Cite posts, please.

Well... Fantastic Four tends to get good sales. And it's not like Marvel would let Dan Slott write these a-list teams just because he asked if they had no faith in him. Don't try to change the subject- you claimed that he was a fan favourite writer and yet the fans were rewarded with him being forced off his books, which is a lie. He is a fan favourite writer who never got huge sales and was rewarded with two cushy major A-list books, including Marvel's flagship title. THe OPPOSITE of what you claim Marvel would do.

Isn't your argument "half wrong," as you state above? Remember the Thing? Cancelled due to low sales?
The proof will be in the pudding. If he delivers numbers on these titles he will stay. If he doesn't, he's gone. It's that simple.

Well nothing happened with She-Hulk, you were just wrong and are trying to preserve your case. But in any case that's totally irrelevant to your argument, the exact same thing would happen to New Avengers if IT spontaneously fell to 10,000 sales!

And you are trying to preserve your case by ignoring the Thing.

RSC

[Doctor Doom]

redstatecap said:

According to you.

Actually, let's be precise here. According to me, Tom Brevoort, Peter David and Dan Slott. As opposed to.... according to you. I haven't heard anyone else claim what you are.

As can be seen from Tom Brevoort's New Invaders blog, what is put out for public consumption does not always reflect what is really going on behind the scenes.
For example, what if Slott left because he was not able to generate sales with the She-Hulk property? Perhaps he felt that he was doing the best he could, and was not being rewarded by the fans. Time to move on to a property where he felt he could be more successful. That would still be "his choice," but it would be a choice made under less-than-favorable circumstances.

And yet never REMOTELY suggested by any of those involved. Slott has his own message board, you can ask him if you want but he has legions of devoted cultists online who love his books and he has made it quite clear that he thinks he has enough to say. And even if he left under the circumstances you suggest, that's still a world away from making him leave the book, which you tried to claim editorial is doing.

So, why did he want it to be a limited?

According to him, initially he didn't want to get ahead of himself (This is when he had less time due to writing She-Hulk) and he wasn't sure he had the ideas to generate an ongoing.

For now. The title is still trading on CW customers. Let's see where the title is in a year.

Absolutely fine by me. My betting is it will have slipped to a high position á la Thunderbolts and you'll be heralding this as a complete victory because it slipped.

How was I incorrect on the assignment of the writer to Civil War?
How was I incorrect on the assignment of the writer to Thunderbolts?
Cite posts, please.

I don't follow your logic. From the start, you claimed CW was suffering an incredibly extreme case of train wreck phenomenon, and you've been pretty much predicting a sudden downfall for over a year. Then you claimed Thunderbolts' new direction would never hold up as well as the old one. Are you denying you said these things?

Isn't your argument "half wrong," as you state above? Remember the Thing? Cancelled due to low sales?

No, because your argument is that they don't care that the fans love Dan Slott, they just cancel his books or make him leave, which is totally, utterly wrong. The cancellation of The Thing has nothing to do with that, if anything it smacks of impartiality on Marvel's part.

The proof will be in the pudding. If he delivers numbers on these titles he will stay. If he doesn't, he's gone. It's that simple.]

Probably, but if Marvel acted as you claim they do he would NEVER have been given these books.

And you are trying to preserve your case by ignoring the Thing.

The Thing is not remotely related to my case. No book survives on
writer accolade alone, of course. But the "case" is yours- that the fans love Slott and Marvel don't care and get rid of his books, when all the evidence completely contradicts this.

[balok]

docdoom said:

Suppose 100,000 people are buying Captain Heroic. Captain Heroic is a big, dark story about heroes at each other's throats and no real heroism.

Now suppose 30,000 people are buying "Adventures of Lan-Man", "Tales of the Titan!" and "Farlandar, the Greatest Hero Of Them All!" These are all very light hearted books, about old fashioned heroics- all very oldschool heroics.

Now let's take your example, and say it goes through as above, with sales falling to 65,000.

Now those people who leave also all end up dumping other books- which include Lan-Man, Titan and Farlandar. Sales on those books fall to about 15,000- cancellation level. Now Marvel are worried, what will they do? These fun, light-hearted, cheery books have all fallen to cancelling level- Captain Heroic has fallen too, but these are just as big a loss.

But hang on, Captain Heroic is STILL doing waaay better than those other titles. And it's dark and angsty... so they replace the creative teams and radically shift the direction on Lan-Man, Titan and Farlandar to be dark and angsty. And now a portion of those who read Captain Heroic go to read THISE books, and suddenly sales on all of them rise to 40,000, way above what they were before! And then they decide- well, this method must be working, so they do it to MORE books- but Captain Heroic is still down at 65,000... not to worry, big summer company crossover time with a nice big stunt- unmasking Captain Heroic? Killing him? and suddenly, sales are WAAAY up again.

And now Marvel are more dark and angsty than ever and doing even better than before.

And THAT is why a marvel wide blockade does as much harm as good if you're blocking the books you like.

That's certainly one possible outcome. I never claimed change was guaranteed to be good - but if you don't like what they're doing now, forcing change is still better than maintaining the status quo. If the change Marvel makes doesn't regain readers (in your example, total sales still aren't what they were before people followed my advice and deserted the company), then perhaps additional change is possible.

And, as I have said, it is possible that Marvel will *never* be what I want it to be again. Realizing that was painful at first, but I have come to accept this possibility with more equanimity now. If Marvel chooses to continue pumping out what I regard as garbage, there are many, many other ways for me to amuse myself.

Meanwhile, I probe boards like this one from time to time to keep a sense of what they're doing.

I note that you no longer seem to counter arguments that sales are all that matters to Marvel. Have you accepted this, or am I misreading? Frankly, given that they're a modern American company, and known what I know about our capitalism, RSC's view that the editors care only about sales makes perfect sense.

And that's where my position comes from: if they care about sales, take sales away from them. Any other tactic is a total waste of time and effort.

Edit: You're also assuming Marvel is producing books I like. A number of the titles I dropped, I do not miss - I was collecting them out of a completest fetish, not because they were still any good. I can thank Quesada for burning the completest out of me. Other books, I dropped because I've set the bar for Marvel higher than it is for DC at the moment because I do not wish to support the Initiative era.

[The Night Phantom]

redstatecap said:

nightphantom said:

For those of you who wish to send Marvel a message by withholding your money—
That’s fine, but as messages go, it’s pretty vague. If you stop buying their product, they won’t know why. So far as Marvel knows, your reasons might not have anything to do with them—maybe you lost your job, or maybe your mom started charging you basement rent. If you drop ten of Marvel’s comics, they won’t even know that all ten were dropped by the same person.
Go ahead and drop their comics if you choose, but I recommend articulating your reasons. Write Marvel a letter. Talk to them at a convention. Post your reasons on a forum they monitor (I’m not sure that this is one—if it is, then I’d say there’s been some pretty good articulating already). Otherwise, the message could end up being fairly incoherent.

That is a nice sentiment, and it's a sentiment that makes common sense to the average fan.

It is not a sentiment; it is my clinical opinion—well, it would be if I had a clinic.

You’ve apparently misunderstood my point—ironic, since my point was in favor of making one’s messages understood.

Perhaps this will clarify. In this thread, there was discussion about boycotting product in order to send messages. For reasons including but not limited to the ones I gave in my examples, my feeling is that such boycotts either fail to send messages or else send vague, incoherent messages. My advice was that, if one wanted to send a message, one should articulate it.

Now, whether articulating the message will, by itself or in tandem with other actions such as boycotts, result in meeting other goals is not one I attempted to address. I was speaking specifically of the goal of sending a message.

---

balok said:

nightphantom said:

That’s fine, but as messages go, it’s pretty vague. If you stop buying their product, they won’t know why. So far as Marvel knows, your reasons might not have anything to do with them—maybe you lost your job, or maybe your mom started charging you basement rent. If you drop ten of Marvel’s comics, they won’t even know that all ten were dropped by the same person.

This is true as far as it goes, but the reason things like this work is because when enough people do it, and sales fall enough, THEN the editors HAVE TO CARE because that's their only real concern - keeping sales where they want them. On that is based their stock options, bonuses, even whether Quesada keeps his job or not. My goal, and it will work if enough others feel the same way, is not to ask politely. That never works with corporations. What works is when you punch them in the stomach, economically, and then tell them what you want while they're still struggling for breath. One of my goals is to see Quesada sacked for what he has done, and all the polite letters in the world will never accomplish it. But taking my money from them, and other people taking their money, will.

You may tell me, next, that whatever Marvel does next might be worse, but from my perspective, this is unlikely to be true. I have so little use for Marvel now that almost any change it makes can only be for the better.

What I will tell you next is that I have the impression that you have the false impression that I was advising articulating a message in lieu of all other action. I will also tell you that I never mentioned anything about politeness—but for the record, I would hope that any letter written by me should bear some modicum of courtesy, even if it doesn’t meet Judith Martin’s standards.

Let’s look at your hypothetical example:

balok said:

Suppose (for the sake of this argument) that 100,000 people purchase "Captain Heroic." Suppose Marvel changes the book, and immediately 25,000 of those people start writing angry letters (the remainder are divided among those okay with the change, those too apathetic to care, and those who, for whatever reason, do not write comic companies). But all of them continue to buy the book, so sales are still at 100,000.

Now suppose that Marvel makes a change, and 35,000 people abandon the book. That's the original 25,000 malcontents, plus 10,000 people for whom it's easier to just stop buying than to articulate what they want changed. Now sales are at 65,000.

Which one of those situations prompts the editors to look hard at what they've done, and perhaps even to make changes?

Let’s suppose 25,000 of the departing readers articulate their reasons for departing. Assuming those messages show a goodly degree of agreement with one another, and assuming they state or imply demands that are possible and reasonable to accommodate, isn’t it remotely possible that the messages could increase the odds that Marvel might take some action that would please those departing readers—as opposed to a scenario in which Marvel does not know why sales have dropped 35%, and might therefore be more likely to make a change that is also dissatisfactory?

While I cannot guarantee that adding a little clarity will get the departing readers what they want, it just seems that it might help.

---

redstatecap said:

Marvel might take a look at what you are saying once they are being punished financially, but not before.

So, we are in agreement, then?—i.e., an articulate message might be better than incoherence? (For the record: yes, now I am talking about the effectiveness of articulate messages vis-à-vis other goals.)

[balok]

nightphantom said:

What I will tell you next is that I have the impression that you have the false impression that I was advising articulating a message in lieu of all other action. I will also tell you that I never mentioned anything about politeness—but for the record, I would hope that any letter written by me should bear some modicum of courtesy, even if it doesn’t meet Judith Martin’s standards.

Ah, well, that's my mistake then. I apologize for mischaracterizing what you meant.

nightphantom said:

Let’s look at your hypothetical example:
Let’s suppose 25,000 of the departing readers articulate their reasons for departing. Assuming those messages show a goodly degree of agreement with one another, and assuming they state or imply demands that are possible and reasonable to accommodate, isn’t it remotely possible that the messages could increase the odds that Marvel might take some action that would please those departing readers—as opposed to a scenario in which Marvel does not know why sales have dropped 35%, and might therefore be more likely to make a change that is also dissatisfactory?

While I cannot guarantee that adding a little clarity will get the departing readers what they want, it just seems that it might help.

I agree with you if - and that 'if' is very important - those writers follow through with their threat to stop purchasing immediately, rather than waiting to see whether editorial listens. Because I still hold the opinion that the *only* think Marvel's editors care about (in a corporate environment, the only they're *allowed* to care about) is profits. As long as money hits their bank, they must assume what they're doing is right. So at best the individual who writes a letter expressing dissatisfaction but continues to purchase is sending a mixed message. At worst, they're sending the wrong message. And that was my point.

[The Night Phantom]

balok said:

Ah, well, that's my mistake then. I apologize for mischaracterizing what you meant.

You’re ever the gentleman, whatever your comments on polite writing!

[steed]

Cap's dead? Ithought that was a skrull.