|
Post by freedomfighter on Jul 11, 2009 4:47:42 GMT -5
www.icv2.com/articles/news/15149.htmlIs Dark Reign the crossover that finally kills the crossover mentality at Marvel? Or does it keep it alive because the best selling book is a focal point for their latest crossover? As mercenary as it sounds, I am glad to see that NA is selling under a hundred k. Maybe people are starting to get tired of this take and if sales keep taking a plunge maybe it'll end Bendis' Dark Reign... I find it interesting that five out of Marvel's top ten titles either star or feature Wolverine. He's the best at what he does and what he does is move product!
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jul 11, 2009 7:03:19 GMT -5
This is very interesting--- and thanks for posting the link. I had no idea there was such a comprehensive sales-tracking site out there. I must say, I don't understand the economics of this industry very well (well, heck, I don't have any knowledge of economics at all!), and it clearly has completely changed in the last 25 years. That 100K-per-issue sales goal Nirvana strikes me as so low compared to the numbers we saw long ago in the annual distribution boxes. And clearly advertising revenue has been all-but-totally abandoned (the ad pages are almost exclusively in-house, as far as I can tell). But, of course, at $3/issue minimum, there's a LOT more money to be made per unit than in earlier times-- even with adusting for inflation. A title selling 100K issues a month will gross (maximum), what, $3.6 million dollars annually? Wow, can that be right? Now, would I be right in guessing that MOST major titles, industry-wide, are probably selling, like, 20K to 40K units per month? (and maybe that's generous?) So at the low end, they'd each be pulling in about $720K per year gross? Let's knock a third off, accounting for discounts, subscriptions, etc. $480K/year for a 20K unit/month title. Wow, these are actually much larger numbers than I was imagining. And yet the prevailing thinking is that this isn't a profitable industry, is that right? Salaries, production costs, business expenses, materials-- those all combine to completely eat away those numbers? Wow again. Please someone tell me if I'm just letting my credulous imagination run away with me here, and I've made comletely false assumptions on how the industry kinda works.
HB
|
|
|
Post by sph683 on Jul 11, 2009 17:24:37 GMT -5
A big part of the slumping sales is no doubt due to the price increase. Jacking up prices in the middle of a major recession is not a smart move.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jul 11, 2009 18:00:37 GMT -5
Ha! Yes, point well-made. Truly, I wonder if pulling back on some of the "cadillac" production standards while still paying enough to keep top artists/writers on a few choice titles would make an actual DECREASE in price possible?
I don't pop into our local comic shop much these days, but when I did very recently, I overheard the poor manager trying to explain to a rather disgruntled regular customer that even with the price increase, if you look at how much you're paying PER PAGE it's still a heck of a bargain. Man, I don't think that's a wise sales tactic to commit to! ('Cause then it eventually leads to how much you're paying "per panel", and that's a ratio no major Marvel title's gonna be able to take advantage of!)
Say, aren't at least a couple of you fine teammates out there Comic Shop owners? Dare I ask what your take is on this? Or is it too much of a drag to talk shop in this forum?
HB
PS- Wow, sph683-- you must be, like, the oldest New Avenger ever! It's an honor to post next to you---
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jul 11, 2009 19:40:41 GMT -5
www.icv2.com/articles/news/15149.html As mercenary as it sounds, I am glad to see that NA is selling under a hundred k. Maybe people are starting to get tired of this take and if sales keep taking a plunge maybe it'll end Bendis' Dark Reign... I agree. I don't even feel guilty when I see Marvel having sales slumps. I want a better product. If crap sells, then they'll keep producing crap. If it stops selling, they'll be forced to make changes. Maybe those changes will be better and maybe they'll be worse but right now I'm only buying 2 regular monthly titles and that's got nothing to do with the price. Most of Marvel's current titles, I wouldn't take if you gave it to me. It can't get much worse than that.
|
|
|
Post by starfoxxx on Jul 12, 2009 13:23:17 GMT -5
Yeah, I hate saying things like this (usually) , but I would like to see Quesada get canned. and ditto what spiderwasp said: i usually agree with spiderwasp. I'm down to Mighty (for now), Initiative, FF ('til Millar's done), Marvel Zombies 4,the occasional Hulk or Cap, the last ish of OldManLogan, and Handbooks. I did pick up Cap:Reborn and Xmen:FirstClass on the recommendation of these very boards (haven't read them yet), but the forseeable future looks pretty bleak. Guess they don't want MY money anymore, oh well.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jul 12, 2009 16:41:36 GMT -5
I don't know... I would agree if only certain books had dropped, but it looks like the entire market slumped. The current best selling titles are more or less the same of the past few months', they only sold less copies. Considering that Dark Reign is a quieter, more long term type of event, not unlike president Luthor after all, this slump could very well convince Marvel to do another huge, universe shaking, all different, all new crossover like SI or WWH I'd be happier if the more classic books had gained something on the Bendis style ones. If the entire market falls, are the small titles that are going to suffer.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jul 12, 2009 17:06:12 GMT -5
I don't know... I would agree if only certain books had dropped, but it looks like the entire market slumped. The current best selling titles are more or less the same of the past few months', they only sold less copies. Considering that Dark Reign is a quieter, more long term type of event, not unlike president Luthor after all, this slump could very well convince Marvel to do another huge, universe shaking, all different, all new crossover like SI or WWH I'd be happier if the more classic books had gained something on the Bendis style ones. If the entire market falls, are the small titles that are going to suffer. well if it makes you feel any better NA slipped again to the eighties this June while Mighty Avengers stayed pretty consistent in the mid 60s, so less than about 25 K separated the two titles and Slott is not a top ten writer and most of the characters are obscure compared to Spidey Wolverine, etc...
|
|
|
Post by scottharris on Jul 12, 2009 17:07:24 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Shiryu. I think this data actually shows that Marvel and DC are going to probably be doing even more event comics, and that Bendis is probably on Avengers for as long as he wants to be.
First, the event question. The main reason that the sales for this month are so down compared to other months and compared to last year is because there is no big event. Dark Reign doesn't have a main title to spur interest in crossovers, but even so there are something like 8 Dark Reign issues in the top 25. But look at what was going on last year in May as far as the sales chart:
1. Secret Invasion #2 -- 182,443 2. Final Crisis #1 - 144,826 3. New Avengers #41 - 109,185
Secret Invasion was doing nearly double the sales of this year's top book, New Avengers. The second book was also a big selling event comic. And the sales for New Avengers #41 were boosted because it was a Secret Invasion crossover. What I get from this is that Marvel and DC's sales are massively driven by events, meaning there will likely be more events in our future, not less. Indeed, the site listed above just posted the June sales, and the top two books by a long ways were Batman and Robin #1, part of the ongoing New Batman storyline, and Captain America #600, leading into the Cap Reborn story. I suspect that if there were in fact a Dark Reign main series being published, it would have topped NA as well.
The other this last year's number point out is the strength of New Avengers. The figures from #41 are up somewhat because it is an official Secret Invasion crossover, but in a very real sense, every issue of NEw Avengers between #31 and #53 was a Secret Invasion crossover. The last issue before the "official" crossover started, #39, sold around 103k copies. Now we're here almost a year and a half later, and the sales for New Avengers #53 are at 94k.
That's a pretty small drop, all told, are more impressive is the fact that after over 4 1/2 years, New Avengers is still the #1 sales book in the entire industry. That's pretty amazing when you think about it. I can't recall a comic being that consistently the best selling book since the late 80's and early 90's with X-Men. Now, I personally think a lot of this success is simply because NA has Spider-man and Wolverine in it rather than because Bendis is a genius, but whatever the reason, he's been behind the biggest book in comics for nearly half a decade. I don't think there's much chance of him leaving the title any time soon unless he himself decides to quit.
So while I do have some hope for Marvel becoming more what I like to read (because of the Cap storyline), I think in general we've got a lot more Bendis and a lot more event driven stuff coming in our future.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jul 12, 2009 18:16:28 GMT -5
I certainly agree that it would be better if only the DR crossovers slumped or that the slumps were bigger, however I don't know of any titles that are really that good so an across the board slump is better than nothing. Even MA had the DR title at the top for the past 2 issues. Granted the tie-ins were weak but they were still there. If the drop in quality is across the board, then I can't be disappointed if the sales slump is across the board.
I don't read any current DC but from the sound of it, the same lack of quality is existing there. Actually, I don't know any details of this President Luther thing but it sounds like exactly the same thing as DR. When Lex Luther and Norman Osborne rule the 2 Universes at the same time and the sales slump for both at the same time, there has to be a connection. I know the argument can be made that it is because of the economy but I know that, for me personally, my decrease in buying has absolutely nothing to do with the money. I want to spend more money on comics.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jul 12, 2009 23:20:45 GMT -5
I don't even feel guilty when I see Marvel having sales slumps. I want a better product. If crap sells, then they'll keep producing crap. If it stops selling, they'll be forced to make changes. Maybe those changes will be better and maybe they'll be worse but right now I'm only buying 2 regular monthly titles and that's got nothing to do with the price. Most of Marvel's current titles, I wouldn't take if you gave it to me. It can't get much worse than that. It's sad to say, but I'm happy that sales are down. Maybe even ecstatic. Only financial pain will force change at Marvel. And really, only a LOT of financial pain will force change at Marvel. As ScottHarris points out, Marvel probably will at least in the short run turn to even greater extremes of big event/shock storylines, because they believe that the numbers prove that kind of storytelling is what sells. For the younger fans, the short-term fans, that is true. They will pay to see a train wreck, and Marvel will give it to them. Meanwhile, the long-term fans, who have supported Marvel for 20+ years, have been alienated by the process. I for one am not coming back in the forseeable future. The real financial pain will hit when the sensationalist fans lose interest, and the alienated long-term fans refuse to be good little sheep and come back Marvel's sh*t product. At that point, Marvel will be in very serious trouble. Then, and only then, will Marvel consider than they've been going down the wrong road.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jul 13, 2009 1:40:25 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Shiryu. I think this data actually shows that Marvel and DC are going to probably be doing even more event comics, and that Bendis is probably on Avengers for as long as he wants to be. First, the event question. The main reason that the sales for this month are so down compared to other months and compared to last year is because there is no big event. Dark Reign doesn't have a main title to spur interest in crossovers, but even so there are something like 8 Dark Reign issues in the top 25. But look at what was going on last year in May as far as the sales chart: 1. Secret Invasion #2 -- 182,443 2. Final Crisis #1 - 144,826 3. New Avengers #41 - 109,185 Secret Invasion was doing nearly double the sales of this year's top book, New Avengers. The second book was also a big selling event comic. And the sales for New Avengers #41 were boosted because it was a Secret Invasion crossover. What I get from this is that Marvel and DC's sales are massively driven by events, meaning there will likely be more events in our future, not less. Indeed, the site listed above just posted the June sales, and the top two books by a long ways were Batman and Robin #1, part of the ongoing New Batman storyline, and Captain America #600, leading into the Cap Reborn story. I suspect that if there were in fact a Dark Reign main series being published, it would have topped NA as well. The other this last year's number point out is the strength of New Avengers. The figures from #41 are up somewhat because it is an official Secret Invasion crossover, but in a very real sense, every issue of NEw Avengers between #31 and #53 was a Secret Invasion crossover. The last issue before the "official" crossover started, #39, sold around 103k copies. Now we're here almost a year and a half later, and the sales for New Avengers #53 are at 94k. That's a pretty small drop, all told, are more impressive is the fact that after over 4 1/2 years, New Avengers is still the #1 sales book in the entire industry. That's pretty amazing when you think about it. I can't recall a comic being that consistently the best selling book since the late 80's and early 90's with X-Men. Now, I personally think a lot of this success is simply because NA has Spider-man and Wolverine in it rather than because Bendis is a genius, but whatever the reason, he's been behind the biggest book in comics for nearly half a decade. I don't think there's much chance of him leaving the title any time soon unless he himself decides to quit. So while I do have some hope for Marvel becoming more what I like to read (because of the Cap storyline), I think in general we've got a lot more Bendis and a lot more event driven stuff coming in our future. Well the difference is I think the mopey sales of Dark Reign and the downturn are due to general dissatisfaction with Secret Invasion. I mean the concept was interesting if overdone, but the execution was terrible and the finale was Godawful. I think that was a real eye opener, the way that SI unfolded. For example, the Embrace Change ads had virtually nil to do with the story and "He Loves You" which everyone was saying turned out to be a minor plot point at best. It was just a poor series. And I think doing another big event and another big event will just lead further down the spiraling drain of lowered sales and reader apathy.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jul 13, 2009 4:56:12 GMT -5
I wouldn't count on it too much. WWH was just as bad as SI, and yet SI sold really well. I think that if they build up enough hype for another event, sales will probably skyrocket again. The only main deterrent I can see is that young readers may not be able to afford too many tie-ins due to increased price and recession. It's sad to say, but I'm happy that sales are down. Maybe even ecstatic. Only financial pain will force change at Marvel. And really, only a LOT of financial pain will force change at Marvel. As ScottHarris points out, Marvel probably will at least in the short run turn to even greater extremes of big event/shock storylines, because they believe that the numbers prove that kind of storytelling is what sells. For the younger fans, the short-term fans, that is true. They will pay to see a train wreck, and Marvel will give it to them. Meanwhile, the long-term fans, who have supported Marvel for 20+ years, have been alienated by the process. I for one am not coming back in the forseeable future. The real financial pain will hit when the sensationalist fans lose interest, and the alienated long-term fans refuse to be good little sheep and come back Marvel's sh*t product. At that point, Marvel will be in very serious trouble. Then, and only then, will Marvel consider than they've been going down the wrong road. This is certainly possible, but I wonder: will sensasionalist fans lose interest anytime soon? And by the time some do, won't they be replaced by another wave of sensationalist fans? Marvel has been doing events and big crossovers since the '90s, and the likes of Onslaught, Maximum Security etc haven't really been decreasing the overall numbers of readers too much (well, that is considering the general flexion of the market and the increasing success of manga). On the other hand, except for Busiek's Avengers, I can't really think to many classic style comics which were a sales success in the last 10 years, which worries me. If readers really do jump ship, will Marvel go back to old style, or just close down and rely solely on movies?
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 13, 2009 10:07:43 GMT -5
I sense of course the common and ongoing anguish older enthusiasts feel about Marvel (and DC) today.
Be certain that as we are in full-swing convention season, both of these publishers will be up to their eyeballs in fanboys at the various panels around the country. Dissenters don't tend to go to those and with good reason -- to stand up and ask a legitimate question would be to be shot down. Look at some of the interviews with Quesada and Bendis over the past few years -- this-or-that classic story doesn't hold up, etc.
I don't go to WizardWorld Chicago anymore, so my dissenting opinion won't be one that's heard there in a few weeks. When it got to the point where tickets for myself and my sons, tolls, and parking set me back well over $100, I got to thinking of how much I could purchase on Ebay or Amazon.com with that money -- it wasn't a tough decision to make!
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jul 13, 2009 22:48:21 GMT -5
I wouldn't count on it too much. WWH was just as bad as SI, and yet SI sold really well. I think that if they build up enough hype for another event, sales will probably skyrocket again. The only main deterrent I can see is that young readers may not be able to afford too many tie-ins due to increased price and recession. It's sad to say, but I'm happy that sales are down. Maybe even ecstatic. Only financial pain will force change at Marvel. And really, only a LOT of financial pain will force change at Marvel. As ScottHarris points out, Marvel probably will at least in the short run turn to even greater extremes of big event/shock storylines, because they believe that the numbers prove that kind of storytelling is what sells. For the younger fans, the short-term fans, that is true. They will pay to see a train wreck, and Marvel will give it to them. Meanwhile, the long-term fans, who have supported Marvel for 20+ years, have been alienated by the process. I for one am not coming back in the forseeable future. The real financial pain will hit when the sensationalist fans lose interest, and the alienated long-term fans refuse to be good little sheep and come back Marvel's sh*t product. At that point, Marvel will be in very serious trouble. Then, and only then, will Marvel consider than they've been going down the wrong road. This is certainly possible, but I wonder: will sensasionalist fans lose interest anytime soon? And by the time some do, won't they be replaced by another wave of sensationalist fans? Marvel has been doing events and big crossovers since the '90s, and the likes of Onslaught, Maximum Security etc haven't really been decreasing the overall numbers of readers too much (well, that is considering the general flexion of the market and the increasing success of manga). On the other hand, except for Busiek's Avengers, I can't really think to many classic style comics which were a sales success in the last 10 years, which worries me. If readers really do jump ship, will Marvel go back to old style, or just close down and rely solely on movies? I can name others, like Mark Waid/Ron Garney then Andy Kubert on Captain America although Waid's version of Cap really started it's rise a little more than 11 or so years ago then got derailed by Onslaught for a year. However consider that Cap, Thor, Iron Man, Avengers etc. hadn't been the flagship titles or sales juggernauts at all since the eighties. Marvel had its best sales with Spider Man, X-Men, Punisher, Wolverine and whatever someone who is now at Image was drawing. And they went back to basics on those titles (i.e. Spidey's Brand New Day, reuniting many members of previous X-teams like the New Mutants), so there's hope should sales slump. And sales usually do slump, tastes change, and audiences outgrow certain creators. It just happens; anybody remember when Rob Liefeld artwork was selling a million copies of X-Force? Now he can't give away his work. And he had a fairly long reign at the top, but people just get tired of certain types of creators after a while...
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Jul 14, 2009 9:28:24 GMT -5
Freedom--I used to read Wizard through the 90's and I seem to recall the Avengers were always in the top 5. Am I wrong about that? It seemed like the X-Men, Avengers and Justice League were always battling for 1st place.
I think two things are resulting in a sales slump--one: too many titles to choose from and two: the recession. I live in Austin and we have been somewhat sheltered from this severe recession, but I know it is really, really bad in some areas of the country.
I wonder if overall comic sales are down or if sales are just spread over so many titles that it appears like nothing is selling well. I go to Austin Books and there are so many different comics it's almost dizzying.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jul 14, 2009 12:16:47 GMT -5
Freedom--I used to read Wizard through the 90's and I seem to recall the Avengers were always in the top 5. Am I wrong about that? It seemed like the X-Men, Avengers and Justice League were always battling for 1st place. I think two things are resulting in a sales slump--one: too many titles to choose from and two: the recession. I live in Austin and we have been somewhat sheltered from this severe recession, but I know it is really, really bad in some areas of the country. I wonder if overall comic sales are down or if sales are just spread over so many titles that it appears like nothing is selling well. I go to Austin Books and there are so many different comics it's almost dizzying. Maybe when Busiek was writing the book (circa 97 or so), but before that we had Heroes Reborn for a year and before that Harras, Kavanagh (I think), and Waid for a brief stint. I don't think any of those runs were top sellers. I could be wrong. However, X-Men, Spidey, Wolverine, maybe Ghost Rider and Punisher et al were all really tearing up the charts during the nineties... I think it has more to do with event fatigue. I mean the recession was most scary several months ago (remember when all the banks and auto industry and insurers were falling like dominoes?? and no one knew when it was going to stop?) and people had the holiday season, which is the biggest money crunch of the year and sales stayed consistent. This sales drop just seems inconsistent with the pattern of how the recession has affected people. My two cents on it...
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Jul 14, 2009 13:36:29 GMT -5
I see. Yeah I know I stopped buying Avengers during the Heroes Reborn era, so I wouldn't be surprised if sales slumped at that time if even a hardcore like me wasn't buying.
Re: the recession. This recession is anything but over. It is only beginning. Obama's Stimulous Package was basically just giving money to various banks and businesses creating the impression that things were/are improving, but it only that--a temporary, illusory effect (not getting into politics here, just economics). Unemployment is far worse than it was six months ago and it is still climbing. California is close to 20% right now and those are Depression era stats. And those stats only count people taking unemployment benefits--it does NOT count people whose benefits ran out, people who stopped looking for work, and people who are under-employed. Everybody I know is scared of losing their jobs right now--and when people feel that way they don't spend money.
Obama just now said we are months away from any kind of recovery, and that unemployment will "keep ticking upwards for months."
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jul 14, 2009 14:07:15 GMT -5
Okay, I'll be the first to admit that the rising cost of comics and the poor economy make it tough to buy a lot of comics. However, I think that placing too much blame on that is too easy of a way out for the comics industry to excuse poor quality. The truth is comics are a habit for those of us who are long time readers. Just like a poor economy or a large rise in the price of cigarettes doesn't have a huge impact on a lot of people's smoking - we, the comic addicts are likely to want our fix of comics. Serious comic book buyers who are accustomed to paying serious bucks for valuable back issues are going to buy books they like even in a bad economy. I'm just glad that comic books don't cause cancer (To our knowledge)
Looking at the time lines mentioned above. For Avengers, there was a serious slump with Heroes Reborn and the era preceeding it - and there was a major rise when Busiek took over. That is because Heroes Reborn contained good writing and followed one of the worst periods in Avengers history. Before that, I got so tired of hearing the words Kree and Shiar that I considered dropping the books. That was followed by the Crossing which was even worse than Disassembled (Yes, I said it). Sales were so bad then that they tried something drastic and went with Heroes Reborn - the first time I've ever thought the Avengers was bad enough to drop. Busiek took over with the Return and the quality soared. So did sales. There is currently a repeat of the kind of quality from that period. Blaming the slump on the economy simply lets Marvel off the hook.
The key question is this: How many of you would buy New Avengers and Dark Reign if the price was lower or if you made more money? For me, the answer is clear. I would not, just like economics had nothing to do with not buying Heroes Reborn. Maybe I am in the minority here and maybe most of you or most comic fans would buy these things if they could afford them but I don't think I'm alone. I can totally understand why Marvel or DC would want to blame falling sales figures on the economy but why do we want to do the same. The economy is only a factor if people want the product but can't afford to buy it.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Jul 14, 2009 15:39:49 GMT -5
Waspie--I agree that there is a lot of blame to be placed on today's overall sorry state of story writing. No doubt about it.
I also think the serious lack of battles is hurting Marvel, too. I mean what is going on? Look at Busiek's run--battles, battle and more battles. There was a time in Marvel history where you were guaranteed to have at least one battle per issue. When I look at old comic covers--it is always the issues with classic battles that I remember most fondly. Thing vs Sub Mariner, Thor vs. Silver Surfer, Defenders vs Avengers, Hulk vs Thing, all that stuff.
Now it seems like comics for the most part are just endless sub-par dialogue, standing and posing, and plots that go nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jul 14, 2009 16:00:48 GMT -5
I see. Yeah I know I stopped buying Avengers during the Heroes Reborn era, so I wouldn't be surprised if sales slumped at that time if even a hardcore like me wasn't buying. Re: the recession. This recession is anything but over. It is only beginning. Obama's Stimulous Package was basically just giving money to various banks and businesses creating the impression that things were/are improving, but it only that--a temporary, illusory effect (not getting into politics here, just economics). Unemployment is far worse than it was six months ago and it is still climbing. California is close to 20% right now and those are Depression era stats. And those stats only count people taking unemployment benefits--it does NOT count people whose benefits ran out, people who stopped looking for work, and people who are under-employed. Everybody I know is scared of losing their jobs right now--and when people feel that way they don't spend money. Obama just now said we are months away from any kind of recovery, and that unemployment will "keep ticking upwards for months." I don't think the Recession is anywhere near over, however people were most scared to spend money at the very beginning at least from my own empirical evidence. I recall there being a long several week period where everyone seemed to be holding their collective breath and wanted to see what was happening. I'm in the fitness industry (a very discretionary spending market) and people weren't doing anything- training packages, memberships, etc. for a long period initially, even people making 200K a year. People now are spending money. There may be fewer of them, but those who do spend seem comfortable in their ability to use those discretionary funds in my experience. Now there are more people out of work now, but that initial stage I think was still the most terrifying, collectively as everyone felt they could lose their jobs and virtually everyone was hoarding their money. At this point people know if their relative sphere is stable, unstable or completely out of kilter. I still contend that the initial period where no one had that relative safety should have had some impact on the comic industry, but didn't seem to.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Jul 14, 2009 16:09:41 GMT -5
Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by badgermaniac on Jul 15, 2009 1:35:43 GMT -5
I know very little about the modern market for comics, but I can chime in as being a former fan that no longer purchases much due to the excessive crossovers. I have told my story before, but basically, I was a former Avengers fan who stopped buying when I hit a certain age. In recent years, I have finished my collection and have everything up to New Avengers. As I caught up on about 20 years of reading, there were certainly many highs and lows, but my thirst was certainly created for getting back into a monthly title.
However, after looking at the modern books, I had no idea where to start. I wanted one title that I could purchase monthly, but instead, I found a world cluttered with so many crossovers/spin-offs/alternate reality lines, that I knew I would never be able to follow storylines without buying multiple titles.
For all I know, many fans love this and maybe it makes business sense, but they have lost me as a customer until they go back to more classic storytelling.
I am not holding my breath.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Jul 15, 2009 8:51:53 GMT -5
Hi Badger and welcome to the forum. There are some titles that are somewhat self-focused, like Fantastic Four, Black Panther and Captain America--but not many.
Hey have you guys read the Resurrection of Captain America? By Brubaker and the awesome Bryan Fitch? The way they are bringing back CA is, for once, actually pretty damned cool. And it is a thrill for me to see Fitch render Hank Pym, the Vision and the Falcon. The beauty of his art almost made me forget what a stupid idea it was to kill off the Wasp and make Pym the new Wasp--I mean seriously, how many personas is Hank Pym going to have?
Ant Man Giant Man Goliath Yellowjacket Hank Pym The New Wasp
By the way, is the Wasp (the real one) really dead? With all the alternate realities and general incoherence these days it's hard for me to tell what's real and what's not
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jul 15, 2009 11:53:59 GMT -5
We differ here. I think that resurrection via time travel is the biggest cop-out in comics.
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Jul 16, 2009 10:26:11 GMT -5
Really? You don't like that? I thought it was good!
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jul 16, 2009 11:57:55 GMT -5
First of all, I dropped Cap permanently due to the whole Bucky resurrection, so I already despised that element of the story. Second, yeah, I have to say that resorting to time travel to undo a death -- any death -- is the lamest possible solution, and for me even good execution of the story cannot overcome this fact. IMHO if the only solution you can think of is time travel, you'd better rewrite the story. Third, whatever I think, good execution can and does cover up for a lot of sins. So, while IMHO time travel is uber lame in any case, IF Ed Brubaker's execution of it was well-written and clearly understandable, everyone would probably give it a pass. The problem is that, if the internet is any indication, fans aren't giving it a pass because many don't find it to be well-executed and clearly understandable. A few problems: 1)The perception that he is ripping off "Lost," which Ed Brubaker both denies and partly admits to in referring to Sharon as "the constant." Mr. Brubaker may have intended to pay "homage" to Slaughterhouse 5, but I think he failed to consider that by and large the comic book fanbase is not so literate. 2)The perception that Ed Brubaker is ripping off Quantum Leap. 3)The perception that events in Cap are paralleling events in Batman to an uncomfortable degree. 4)Most problematic for me, the explanation of the "time gun" and Steve's death is confusing and nonsensical. OK, it's a Kirby-Tech time gun, but it also shot bullets that killed him. IMHO, as a story element it would have worked better if Crossbones had killed him, and Sharon's "time gun" had been only that, and not "time gun plus bullets." Ed Brubaker says that Steve was "frozen in time" within his own body. This is highly confusing given events on the page. Steve's body was autopsied. How do you have someone frozen in time, inside his own body, which is being autopsied? How and why does that body, supposedly frozen in time, suddenly decay? What happened to the body that was autopsied and buried at sea (which apparently really was Steve) after Steve started jumping around through time? IMO Mr. Brubaker has introduced an element of "alternate reality" that he probably didn't mean to or even think about. It's his job to communicate his story, and if people are confused (and they are), it's poor writing. RSC
|
|
|
Post by scottharris on Jul 16, 2009 16:12:50 GMT -5
resorting to time travel to undo a death -- any death -- is the lamest possible solution I'm not sure I agree with this. I do think time travel is an iffy way to bring people back, but the lamest solution? I think you are underestimating how lame some of these resurrections can get. For instance, I don't think time travel is any lamer than saying Mockingbird was a skrull. Or, for example, that Jason Todd sprung back into being because Superboy-Prime punched the walls of reality too hard or whatever the hell happened in that story. Plus, I am still holding on to the hope that Cap: Reborn ties in to 1602, which featured a time displaced Cap who had been shot in the head and killed during a government crackdown on superheroes. If this does tie into 1602 it will go instantly from iffy concept to the greatest thing ever written. A few problems: 1)The perception that he is ripping off "Lost," which Ed Brubaker both denies and partly admits to in referring to Sharon as "the constant." Mr. Brubaker may have intended to pay "homage" to Slaughterhouse 5, but I think he failed to consider that by and large the comic book fanbase is not so literate. 2)The perception that Ed Brubaker is ripping off Quantum Leap. 3)The perception that events in Cap are paralleling events in Batman to an uncomfortable degree. 4)Most problematic for me, the explanation of the "time gun" and Steve's death is confusing and nonsensical. Well, you are right that these are problems because of reader perception, but 1 2 and 3 are all problems of perception and not reality in my opinion. Lost was explicitly referencing the same source material in Slaughterhouse 5 as Brubaker, so it's no wonder they are so similar; and Quantum Leap is basically the same thing. Obviously, if readers aren't familiar with these stories they will be comparing Cap to what they are familiar with, which is a real problem if it causes them to dislike the Cap story but is not a real problem in terms of the actual story itself, if you know what I mean. It's not Brubaker's fault that people haven't read Vonnegut. The similarities between Cap and Batman (and to extent, Lost as well) are also out of Brubaker's hands. He has been setting up this story for over two years, putting hints and clues all along. It's clear that he intended for this story from the beginning (although he originally was only planning to have Cap stay dead for a few months and expanded it when he came up with the Bucky-as-Cap arc). The issue where the word "constant" first shows up came out before season 5 of Lost (though the term popped up at the end of Season 4 in a couple episodes). And I have no idea how long Batman was planning their thing, but it's just a case of parallel development. It happens all the time. Now, again, I agree that for a lot of readers, they don't know this stuff so they just assume Brubaker is ripping things off, but he's not; he just unintentionally got caught up in a larger zeitgeist of time travel stories in pop culture. And the cultural context doesn't materially change the story on the page, it just affects how some readers react to it. Having said that, #4 on your list -- that the story is confusing and nonsensical -- that I have to agree with. I've read Slaughterhouse 5 and I've read pretty much every issue of Captain America (I did miss a few earlier this decade and some GA issues of course) and I've read literally hundreds of time travel science fiction stories, and I have to say, I still didn't understand what the heck Arnim Zola was saying about his time gun and being frozen at the moment of his detah or... whatever was going on... I understand the consequence just fine with the unstuck in time thing, but the whole time gun/freezing/Doom's time machine thing... really confusing and weird. I'm not sure how else Brubaker could have done it. Since he planned on this story all along, he set up the death with this return in mind, so the manner of his death and the aftermath rule out some possibilities in terms of having him return. But even though the basic concept is something I don't necessarily have an issue with, the way it is playing out is really hard to follow. The autopsy thing isn't an issue with me since Skull has Cap clones (well, he has them when it's convenient for the story and then loses them when it's not) and could have just slipped a dead clone into the mix for the autopsy. I guess a much simpler way would have just been for Cap to get shot (but not killed), replaced by a dead clone and kept in suspended animation by Skull, frozen perpetually on the brink of death but never quite dying. It's close enough to the actual story but much easier to understand. Still, I'm not going to give up. Even though I was aghast when they brought Bucky back, I've more than come around, as I think Brubaker's run on Cap is the best run in the history of the title. For me, Bru gets a pass, because I have confidence (or hope, at least) that he's going to pull this story together. There's still a lot left to tell. After all, he hasn't gone back to 1602 yet.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jul 16, 2009 17:09:50 GMT -5
Some fresh data on sales www.diamondcomics.com/public/default.asp?t=1&m=1&c=3&s=5&ai=84974I definitely agree. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that instances were writers really, consciously, willingly rip-off someone else's ideas are actually really rare. Mostly, because they know they would immediately be discovered, but also because writers are, in general, fairly proud. They can admire or acknowledge each other, but it's really unusual that they copy each other (this kind of behaviour is more likely to come from the manager or the higher office). Today writers all come from a similar cultural background and are exposed to the same sources, so it's natural that similar ideas can spring to mind at the same time. Heck, it happened even to me with a story I was writing ^^'' This being said, I haven't really understood the time gun thing either (even though I quite like the idea. As far as I understand, the present Cap has been frozen in time and going back through the ages, so saving him will be different than saving an earlier version of him and using it to replace the dead Captain).
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jul 17, 2009 0:15:09 GMT -5
I'm not sure I agree with this. I do think time travel is an iffy way to bring people back, but the lamest solution? I think you are underestimating how lame some of these resurrections can get. For instance, I don't think time travel is any lamer than saying Mockingbird was a skrull. Or, for example, that Jason Todd sprung back into being because Superboy-Prime punched the walls of reality too hard or whatever the hell happened in that story. I will grant you that time travel as a solution is equally as lame as any one of the following: 1)the "it was a Space Phantom" method, of which "it was a Skrull" is a subset. 2)The "it was all a dream" method. 3)The "Explanation? We don't need no stinking explanation!!!" method -- see Cap V3 #50, or Dr. Faustus in the current Captain America run. 4)The "Where the F*CK did THAT come from?" method. See the wall-punching example, or Captain America & Falcon #14, where Cap is shot through the head, pronounced dead, and then wakes up all better. Perhaps I'm missing one or two, but to me the fact that there are other stupid methods isn't an excuse. I assume you're a fan of 1602 and I don't begrudge you that. I browsed it a little and thought it was terrible, so we have to agree to disagree. I think two maxims apply here: "perception is reality," and "know your audience." Ed Brubaker's job is to communicate his story to the audience. If there are problems of perception, I blame Ed Brubaker, not the audience. It may not be his fault that not enough people reading comics have read Vonnegut, but it IS his fault that he didn't appreciate that fact beforehand. Especially because catching the reference is critical to understanding the story. Comics, Ed Brubaker's book included, have a lot more in common with "Lost" and "Quantum Leap" than they do with Slaughterhouse 5. I'd say that almost every comic fan I know personally is a "Lost" fan, and almost all the older comic fans are also "Quantum Leap" fans. I'd even speculate that most of Ed Brubaker's fans who are screaming "IT'S A SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE HOMAGE," haven't in fact read Slaughterhouse 5. Ed Brubaker chose to use a reference that would -- quite obviously to me -- either be misinterpreted by or fly over the heads of his audience, and it backfired on him. As to Batman: yes, honest parallel development happens. However, when you have two books at rival companies, both of which concurrently feature nearly identical plots, that creates a problem of perception, and perception is reality. It's Ed Brubaker's problem because he does have control over the story he's writing. He has the choice of altering his plot to differentiate it, or going forward and creating the perception of derivative-ness. That may not be an easy choice, but it is a choice. Given that (IMO) Ed Brubaker's plot is crap as he wrote it, I think the tougher choice would have been far better in the long run. Furthermore, it is absolutely inarguable that Ed Brubaker's plot has changed drastically numerous times, so this is not really an issue. In this question you have your answer -- if you can't think of anything better, you've done a bloody poor job in writing the story. It's far from clear to me that this is all going to some long-term plan by Ed Brubaker. When he first took over the book, he used to post at the Alvaro CAMB where I was a regular. (He's actually a very respectful man whom I appreciated the opportunity to talk to.) When I asked him on CAMB about the "death" of the Red Skull in issue #1, he quite candidly admitted that it was in part due to the fact that he "thought clones were stupid as a plot device." Recall that the clone device was a legacy of Mark Gruenwald. Since then, we've seen from Ed Brubaker soul trasferrence, clones, time travel, and various other devices. Having heard what I did from the horse's mouth, I had to conclude that he considers such plot devices "stupid" only when they are other people's plot devices. Also, remember Jack Monroe? From the new Bucky's early appearances, Ed Brubaker got flak because of the perception that he had merely recreated Jack Monroe as a character under another name. And he had. So, Jack Monroe was promptly offed to remove that impediment. Ed Brubaker also admitted that his initial idea involved a take on the Red Skull as the prototypical cackling Nazi villain, and that Joe Quesada (of all people) was the one to suggest toning him down into what he has been in this run. It's also very clear (and admitted to) from issues before the CW crossover that what eventually happened was in fact cobbled together at the last minute to serve CW goals. The only thing I believe Ed Brubaker had in mind from the beginning that he consistently stuck to was his goal of replacing Cap with his retconned Bucky. Sadly, for the first half-dozen issues of the book I was really high on his run. At length, my opinion of him as the writer of Captain America took a nose dive. It seems clear to me that he never had any intention of writing "Captain America," but intended to use the title to make a name for himself and push his own creation. RSC
|
|