Why do Comic Books HATE NEW READERS

[jetflash]

Just a bit of personal backdrop. I'm 19. I came to reading comic books from reading manga constantly and looking for more material. I am chinese-canadian.

I don't understand why series such as Blue Beetle and Initiatives coming close to getting canceled. Comics like those appeal to me highly and by consensus other people I know too. These comics strive well with attracting a younger generation like myself. Instead of try to plunge us into comics that have over our age in backdrop and constantly reminiscent or visit it like X-Men, these comics are a large improvement. But why do they falter in sales so much? Does the aging generation hate the new stuff with such a passion that they would rather continue buying comics with the same characters like Wolverine or Batman that go on forever? Or is our demographic that poor that my gen isn't buying enough?

[jetflash]

Oh and OMD is horrible and thats coming from someone who started reading Spider-Man at Back in Black then backtracked till the Other. Even I feel cheated out of time and investment.

[Alex Dragon]

Well, basically when it comes down to it a big majority of the present comic readers simply have no interest in new characters, concepts, or books. many claim they do but they really just want a continuation of the same old familiar stuff.

As much as some complain about there being too many X-books, Superman books, Spider-man books, and Batman books the reason there are so many of those books and books starring those characters is because those are the characters people seem wanting to read about. Even with the older characters and concepts if the writers/companies change it too much many of the fans cry bloody murder.

That's why if you look at Marvel's comic line up it's basically the same as it was 30 years ago. The only real difference is the amount of titles starring the same characters. Every time they come up with a new character or give a character their own title it usually (not every time) gets canceled after awhile.
If you were to ask many fans why they aren't readering those books they'll throw the say excuses at you. They'll say the books "suck" (even if they've read them or not) and it isn't worth reading. However if you read messageboards like this one and others you'll see an annoying amount of readers who rush out to buy/read the same old stuff and complain endlessly how bad it is every month.

It's obvious that not every new title "sucks" but many fans generally have their minds made up before the book hits the stands and will ignore it. The only time a new title has a good shot at sticking around for awhile is if it has a big name "superstar" creative team working on it. The superstar creative team will sell well as long as they're on the book but when they leave the numbers will almost always drop off.

Many fans will blame the comicbook companies for the lack of new titles and how quickly they get cancelled but it's really the fans fault for not supporting new stuff even if it's well done. Both DC and Marvel would be thrilled to be able to sell new characters and concepts instead of trying to survive off only a hand full of sellable characters.

[Alex Dragon]

Oh and OMD is horrible and thats coming from someone who started reading Spider-Man at Back in Black then backtracked till the Other. Even I feel cheated out of time and investment.

OMD is the other side of the coin why new concepts don't catch on. There are many writers/artists who simply want to write the characters the way they were when they used to read them as kids no matter how out of date that would seem in present time. They don't care that the character has grown and changed and may even work better now. In many cases the charcter has changed with the times or has changed to make the character more appealing to a wider audience. Some writers simply don't care and can't get their heads out of the past and change the character back to something that's dated or just doesn't work as well.

In the case of OMD, Joe Quesada wanted Spider-man back to what it was when he started reading the character (I could be wrong about this). He wanted to put back various things from the past that most of today's audience doesn't really care about. I can't believe there was a cry from fandom to bring Harry back. His stories have been told and it's time to move on. All bringing him back does is give today's writers a easy way to rehash stories that've been done.
The marriage of MJ and Peter isn't anywhere near the problem that Quesada made it out to be. It wasn't the best idea to have them married but it's far from a roadblock having good Spider-man stories. It was done and it's been done for a couple of decades. It's only as big a problem as the writers want it to be. If Stan had married the to of them off way back when he was writing the book then it would've been cemented in Joe's mind that that the "right" thing for the character and he'd be coming up with excuses to rationalize why they should always be married.

Artist Alex Ross dislikes Wally West as the Flash and Kyle Raynor as Green Lantern simply because they weren't the ones he grew up reading. Whenever he does a story about the JLA he puts them in the story even though Barry Allen's been dead for many years and until recently Hal Jordan wasn't Green Lantern. You'd think he'd care more about the fans and the current (at the time) continuity and just use the then current Flash and green Lantern but no...He uses characters that had been out of the current books for many years. Plus to make matters worse, you'd think he'd attempt try and show why the old version were better (at least to him) but no...in my mind he shows exactly why those characters needed to be changed or updated. He made them seem as boring as ever.

There are far too many examples to mention here but the general idea is that this is a big part of the reason why comics and comic characters have a hard time evolving or changing with the times. there are just too many fans and creators who won't let go of the past no matter if the past stuff doesn't makes sense or just doesn't work anymore.
There are writers and creators who actually try to move some characters forward and broaden their appeal but then a another creator will take all those changes and change them back to the old way that doesn't always work as well or just confuses everyone.

[jetflash]

That's a real shame because I find its these newer series that appeal more towards new readers.

[TROUBLEZ]

Alex Dragon, seems like you hit the nail on the head.

I'm always complaining about how Spider-man or Batman sucks (although I don't buy them if I don't like them). But I rarely ever give new characters, or new books a try.

I was disappointed how Batman and Detective Comics were awhile back, and yet I never gave Batman: Dark Detective a chance. Just now am I realizing how good those issues were and now I'm back issue hunting.

I think part of the problem is, that there is not enough new comic consumers like there used to be, to support new projects and the older fans usually stick with what they are used to, regardless of quality.

[Michael P]

The books themselves are soulless, inanimate objects, and as such neither like nor dislike anyone or thing.

The people in charge of making the books, in theory, do in fact like new readers, as they translate to more money. They just don't know how to attract and/or keep them, and show no apparent interest in learning. This paradox has been the crux of much debate, but it appears to rely on the old definition of insanity as being the repetition of behavior while expecting new results.

In short, a great number of people at certain companies are out of touch with economic reality. But this is true for many people outside of comics as well.

[TROUBLEZ]

Oh yeah, and about Spider-man OMD, the only valid point I think Joe Quesada made in regards to his perceived problem, is that Spider-man didn't have as strong a supporting cast as he did back in the 60s or 70s. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that way. Then again, Norman Osborn died, Harry Osborn died, Aunt May died and all came back except one, so I dunno.

Either way, an easy remedy would have been to introduce some new characters for a supporting cast. Peter Parker already has J.Jonah Jameson, Joe Robertson, Aunt May, Mary Jane, Flash Gordon, Felicia Hardy, Betty Brant is still alive I think...

[O'Blivion]

Well, basically when it comes down to it a big majority of the present comic readers simply have no interest in new characters, concepts, or books. many claim they do but they really just want a continuation of the same old familiar stuff.

... That's why if you look at Marvel's comic line up it's basically the same as it was 30 years ago. The only real difference is the amount of titles starring the same characters. Every time they come up with a new character or give a character their own title it usually (not every time) gets canceled after awhile.

I've really enjoyed "The Order," all the "Seven Soldiers of Victory" miniseries, "Irredeemable Ant-Man," "Uncle Sam and the Freedom Fighters," "Agents of Atlas" and other new or different series put out by the big two in between mega-crossovers. Unfortunately, I must be in the minority, since the new ongoing books are almost inevitably canceled and limited series don't evolve into ongoing titles. Both companies have the talent to develop new characters or new takes on obscure characters, but not enough people are buying. It's a damn shame.

[Shellhead]

Comic books hate new readers because they fold over the pages, which damages the spine of the comic.

[Omega Alpha]

Alex Dragon got it right. Specially here:



Many fans will blame the comicbook companies for the lack of new titles and how quickly they get cancelled but it's really the fans fault for not supporting new stuff even if it's well done. Both DC and Marvel would be thrilled to be able to sell new characters and concepts instead of trying to survive off only a hand full of sellable characters.

And here:



There are far too many examples to mention here but the general idea is that this is a big part of the reason why comics and comic characters have a hard time evolving or changing with the times. there are just too many fans and creators who won't let go of the past

[jetflash]

Alex Dragon got it right. Specially here:



And here:

But I support the new stuff. It's all I really read. :(

[howyadoin]

But I support the new stuff. It's all I really read. :(Right. And you represent a potential market niche that, for various reasons, the comic industry is too myopic to court.

[roguespirit]

Right. And you represent a potential market niche that, for various reasons, the comic industry is too myopic to court.

The comic industry or the big 2?

[howyadoin]

The comic industry or the big 2?Fair question. I'd say the big 2, plus (to a lesser extent) Image and maybe even Dark Horse.

[mrjayberry]

I don't know jetflash but don't let it be said that comic book fans hate new readers, recommend one book with "the new stuff" and I will try to pick it up during my next visit to a comic book store. Right now I'm only buying The Savage Dragon and The Immortal Ironfist so I have a couple of extra bucks to spend.

[Rattlehead]

Fair question. I'd say the big 2, plus (to a lesser extent) Image and maybe even Dark Horse.

As for Image and Dark Horse, it really depends on your comics source. If you go to eithier companies website, you'll find both companies offer a wide variety of genres and concepts to check out. Image produces a huge number of titles, but for whatever reasons, comic shops only want to order the Kirkman stuff and Spawn. I see Greg Burgas talking all kinds of off-beat stuff coming out from the Image camp, but my shop never gets any of it. Comic shop owners with narrow views of things that will turn a profit are just as much to blame as the companies churning out the spandex set.

[Huh?]

First off, we should cut jetflash some slack on his grammer as it is clear from his background that english is a second language. I thought he did a pretty good job conveying what he wanted to.

With that out of the way, I think there are two barriers to entry.

1. Comics are hard to find. You can only buy them at comic stores and some large bookstores.

2. Monthly comic books no longer contain a full story. In order to read an entire story, you need to buy 5 or 6 issues.

So, with those barriers in mind, the readerbase is: anyone that goes to comic shops and/or anyone that is aware of or willing to deal with the fact that modern comic stories are told in arcs.

Who are these people: Today's Comic Fans, who started reading comics (for most part) when neither of these barriers existed. They have adapted over the years (slowly) to the point we are at today.

So, if Marvel or DC releases a new title starring a new character, their ONLY market is Today's Comic Fans. There will never be a book that is just starting out that can attract a large enough percentage of this small group to make publishing the book economically feasible. Comic fans are already spending a lot of money on the books they like, and can't throw $18 (price of 6 issues) at a new book with any great regularity. And, in a relatively short amount of time the number of units sold will dip to a level where Marvel and DC are losing money on each new issue.

The obvious answer is to remove both of those two barriers. But, sadly, they have positioned themselves now to perpetuate the problem of arc length by targeting the TPB market. This makes them more accessible, but also more expensive in the context of it being a "single" item.

It is like putting your faith in a strategy that relies on every senior citizen running out and buying a computer to order their medication - not going too happen.

*I am referring, of course, only to the big 2, and superhero comics in general. So lay off, Cunard!

[Alex Dragon]

With that out of the way, I think there are two barriers to entry.

1. Comics are hard to find. You can only buy them at comic stores and some large bookstores.

2. Monthly comic books no longer contain a full story. In order to read an entire story, you need to buy 5 or 6 issues.

So, with those barriers in mind, the readerbase is: anyone that goes to comic shops and/or anyone that is aware of or willing to deal with the fact that modern comic stories are told in arcs.

Who are these people: Today's Comic Fans, who started reading comics (for most part) when neither of these barriers existed. They have adapted over the years (slowly) to the point we are at today.

So, if Marvel or DC releases a new title starring a new character, their ONLY market is Today's Comic Fans. There will never be a book that is just starting out that can attract a large enough percentage of this small group to make publishing the book economically feasible. Comic fans are already spending a lot of money on the books they like, and can't throw $18 (price of 6 issues) at a new book with any great regularity. And, in a relatively short amount of time the number of units sold will dip to a level where Marvel and DC are losing money on each new issue.

The obvious answer is to remove both of those two barriers. But, sadly, they have positioned themselves now to perpetuate the problem of arc length by targeting the TPB market. This makes them more accessible, but also more expensive in the context of it being a "single" item.


This is a nice theory but it falls apart when you consider a "new" concept/character has trouble catching on in the present market but if Marvel or DC puts out another Spider-book, Superman-book, X-book or Bat-book then somehow many fans seem to be able to find the money to purchase those books. Those books almost always end up being good sellers. Many fans seem to be able to come up with the extra money for the old familiar stuff and even blow more money on the hardcover editions of the same ol' same ol'.

I don't think that cost to fans have that much effect with the majority of fans. I think they just aren't interested in much other than the old stuff they grew up with or the most popular stuff.

[Alex Dragon]

I don't know jetflash but don't let it be said that comic book fans hate new readers, recommend one book with "the new stuff" and I will try to pick it up during my next visit to a comic book store. Right now I'm only buying The Savage Dragon and The Immortal Ironfist so I have a couple of extra bucks to spend.

If that's the case you obviously aren't trying "new stuff" either because if you were you'd be reading more than 2 books a month.

[Darth Joker]

This is a nice theory but it falls apart when you consider a "new" concept/character has trouble catching on in the present market but if Marvel or DC puts out another Spider-book, Superman-book, X-book or Bat-book then somehow many fans seem to be able to find the money to purchase those books. Those books almost always end up being good sellers. Many fans seem to be able to come up with the extra money for the old familiar stuff and even blow more money on the hardcover editions of the same ol' same ol'.

I don't think that cost to fans have that much effect with the majority of fans. I think they just aren't interested in much other than the old stuff they grew up with or the most popular stuff.

I think the truth of the situation falls a bit inbetween your stance, and Huh?'s stance.

I think that with an old, familiar, beloved character like Batman, Superman, one of the X-Men, or Spiderman, comic fans know that they'll get to see one of their favourites in action at least, and hence will shell out the money for any new series featuring them, even if it means buying lengthy arcs.

With new/secondary characters in new comic book titles, I think that existing fans may be willing to experiment , and buy an issue or two, but they want a good self-contained story within the first issue or two to judge for themselves if they like this new title enough to pay for it on a monthly basis. They don't want to risk $20 (for a lengthy story arc) on experimenting on a new title that they might not like.

With new/secondary characters, and new comic book titles, you need to really bring in the existing fans with your first issue, or your first two issues at most. A relatively short (2 issues or less) story of great quality is a must to sell existing fans on new characters.

You have to save the longer, story-arc based stories for later on when you have already built up a good, established fanbase (including both existing, and new, fans).

Speaking personally, when I was a bigger comic book collector in the past, and I'd try something new, if what I tried had a good, self-contained story in the first issue or two that really impressed me and made me care about the characters, I'd keep coming back for more.

If it tried to get me into a long story-arc right off the bat, that was a turn-off for me, I must admit.

[jetflash]

First off, we should cut jetflash some slack on his grammer as it is clear from his background that english is a second language. I thought he did a pretty good job conveying what he wanted to.

With that out of the way, I think there are two barriers to entry.

1. Comics are hard to find. You can only buy them at comic stores and some large bookstores.

2. Monthly comic books no longer contain a full story. In order to read an entire story, you need to buy 5 or 6 issues.

So, with those barriers in mind, the readerbase is: anyone that goes to comic shops and/or anyone that is aware of or willing to deal with the fact that modern comic stories are told in arcs.

Who are these people: Today's Comic Fans, who started reading comics (for most part) when neither of these barriers existed. They have adapted over the years (slowly) to the point we are at today.

So, if Marvel or DC releases a new title starring a new character, their ONLY market is Today's Comic Fans. There will never be a book that is just starting out that can attract a large enough percentage of this small group to make publishing the book economically feasible. Comic fans are already spending a lot of money on the books they like, and can't throw $18 (price of 6 issues) at a new book with any great regularity. And, in a relatively short amount of time the number of units sold will dip to a level where Marvel and DC are losing money on each new issue.

The obvious answer is to remove both of those two barriers. But, sadly, they have positioned themselves now to perpetuate the problem of arc length by targeting the TPB market. This makes them more accessible, but also more expensive in the context of it being a "single" item.

It is like putting your faith in a strategy that relies on every senior citizen running out and buying a computer to order their medication - not going too happen.

*I am referring, of course, only to the big 2, and superhero comics in general. So lay off, Cunard!

... English isn't my second language ... I typed that up in 30 seconds and didn't bother proofreading it. In fairness, my grammar is atrocious but I'm still able to maintain an 85% average in my 3rd year University English. It's just depressing to hear relatively new series getting canceled. Also, if your curious how I buy comics, I technically don't. I buy the book collections whenever they come out and to stay relevant I read cbrs. Their are the odd few that I monthly buy but it becomes more of a hassle than anything.

[howyadoin]

Comic shop owners with narrow views of things that will turn a profit are just as much to blame as the companies churning out the spandex set.Absolutely true. And I consider comic stores to part of the industry as well.


... to stay relevant I read cbrs.Which makes you part of the problem, too.


Their are the odd few that I monthly buy but it becomes more of a hassle than anything.Well, if you're not actually buying much, why would the industry bother catering to you? As we've already said, part of the reason the big companies won't take a chance on new material is that a lot comic fans aren't buying it. This is a profit-driven medium; the only thing that counts is voting with your wallet.

[Alex Dragon]

As for Image and Dark Horse, it really depends on your comics source. If you go to eithier companies website, you'll find both companies offer a wide variety of genres and concepts to check out. Image produces a huge number of titles, but for whatever reasons, comic shops only want to order the Kirkman stuff and Spawn. I see Greg Burgas talking all kinds of off-beat stuff coming out from the Image camp, but my shop never gets any of it. Comic shop owners with narrow views of things that will turn a profit are just as much to blame as the companies churning out the spandex set.

In all fairness to comic shops, to stay in business they have to determine what's going to sell and stick with the stuff that does. In a perfect world they'd be able to carry most of everything but the ugly reality is that they can afford to carry stuff that doesn't move.
With Image SPAWN and Kirkman's stuff tends to sell better. SPAWN has a sizable fanbase and Kirkman's is growing because of his work elsewhere. The TOPCOW stuff seems to do okay with certain titles.

Yeah, the spandex stuff sells better. I predict it always will (at least in comic shops). Superheroes are an easier sell and impulse buy compared to many non-superhero books and especially indy books. Here's why...

Superhero books are mostly visual. When I say that I mean superheroes have bright colorful costumes to catch you eye on the covers. They're usually in dynamic poses. When you pick up the book and thumb trough it it has some sort of action going on. You can pretty much tell what the story's about in general by looking at a few pages. There are more things to grab your attention by just looking at it.
With many non-superhero books (not all books, not all genres) it's a tougher sell because there isn't that much visually going on to grab you. The covers are usually much more "quiet" and when you pick up the book and flip through it it might be mostly all talking heads. These types of books you'd have to actually read to determine if they're any good or if you'd be interested. The art might rope you in but often times the art on those books aren't as strong as on some of the books from the bigger companies.

There are plenty of well written stuff out there that you or I would probably never pick up unless it was recommended because visually the book doesn't stand out or grab you. It has to be read to be appriceated.

[Lord Destiny]

Does the aging generation hate the new stuff with such a passion that they would rather continue buying comics with the same characters like Wolverine or Batman that go on forever?

I buy what I like, and I don't apologize for it. You should buy what you like, and you shouldn't apologize for it either.

The free market is very democratic. If enough people buy something, it will continue. But it is not my obligation to fund new projects that I don't want.


Or is our demographic that poor that my gen isn't buying enough?

No, it's not poverty. Your gen is buying an awful lot of video games at $60 a pop. So it's not the money.

It's a lack of interest.

[Shellhead]

No, it's not poverty. Your gen is buying an awful lot of video games at $60 a pop. So it's not the money.

It's a lack of interest.

Which offers more entertainment value per dollar? A video game or 20 comic books?

[Endless Flight]

Which offers more entertainment value per dollar? A video game or 20 comic books?

That's a fairly subjective question. I suspect the answers will vary wildly.

[Shellhead]

That's a fairly subjective question. I suspect the answers will vary wildly.

Though still subjective, what about 20 average quality comics versus 1 average quality video game? And what about 20 random comic versus 1 random video game?

[Endless Flight]

I still can't give you an objective answer. Personally, I think the 20 comics would provide me with long-term joy, while the game might provide a few weeks tops. I've gotten a lot more enjoyment out of my comic collection than I have over the video game systems that I've owned in the last 25 years. While I could have grown up without video games, I don't think I could have made it without my monthlies. :)

It'd be like asking somebody whether they'd rather spend $10 buying a movie ticket, or spending it on a book. It's totally subjective and it depends on who you ask.

[Liberty Belle Fan]

A lot of new readers are actually entering throught the TPB business. Large chain bookstores like Barnes & Noble have significant sections dedicated to trades. I've seen people enter the old comic store I frequented after picking up Kingdom Come, Watchmen, DKR, and others asking what else was good and/or what monthly comics they should read. Trades have made it easier for the "casual" reader to head to a large bookstore or find it from an online retailer.

I do feel a bit of the frustration that some new readers must have when they want to get into comics. I recently moved this past week and there is no comic store for miles in any direction so I had to set up an online mail order subscription. Honestly, it's inconvenient because I'll be reading everything 2-2 1/2 weeks late due to bi-monthly shipping, have to pay shipping costs, and truly have to commit to the titles I want to read. Picking up a new title just for kicks or just to give it a shot is a thing of the past. I truly wish there was a way for the comic industry to distribute their products in places other than the LCS but then what would happen to the LCS?

Trades have made it easier for the "casual" reader to head to a large bookstore or find it from an online retailer.

[BADunn]

Though still subjective, what about 20 average quality comics versus 1 average quality video game? And what about 20 random comic versus 1 random video game?

If we're talking about average comics versus video games then the game wins only because the game will provide more entertainment in the long run because it will be more fun to go back to. Video games are more fluid than normal comics ever be because they are directly manipulated by the consumer.* The comics might have more artistic value but they only change according to the consumer's perspective. No matter how you see them, the book will always be the same. In video games everything changes according to how you play. It's mostly just in the minutiae like how many points you score or how you get from point A to point B (and sometimes even that's fixed) but it can be changed. That's part of the fun of games.

As for the randoms: random comics versus random games will give you a random answer - 42.

*I hate that term but it's what's most appropriate in this sense.

[stealthwise]

Though still subjective, what about 20 average quality comics versus 1 average quality video game? And what about 20 random comic versus 1 random video game?

My answer is the comic, but I read comics a hell of a lot more than I play video games.

The experience is entirely different as well; I can sit and read one comic in a few minutes, while I need to actually set out a block of time to sit down and play a video game.

Video games are also more interactive, with multi-player and online options available for many of them, while comics are something you have to basically sit and read yourself.

[hmnut73]

My answer is the comic, but I read comics a hell of a lot more than I play video games.

The experience is entirely different as well; I can sit and read one comic in a few minutes, while I need to actually set out a block of time to sit down and play a video game.

Video games are also more interactive, with multi-player and online options available for many of them, while comics are something you have to basically sit and read yourself.

I think the person who said it is subjective is completely right.

We could list the pros and cons of video games versus comic books until we are blue in the face. The bottom line is it depends on what a person likes more.

But how it relates to this topic is, there are far more forms of entertainment gear mostly for young people than there were when our parents were kids. Comic books back then were pretty much one of the few (for lack of better words) "single player toys" in the day.

Kids today have a lot more options than they did in the 50's as to what they can spend their money on.

[mgs]

I still can't give you an objective answer. Personally, I think the 20 comics would provide me with long-term joy, while the game might provide a few weeks tops. I've gotten a lot more enjoyment out of my comic collection than I have over the video game systems that I've owned in the last 25 years. While I could have grown up without video games, I don't think I could have made it without my monthlies. :)

It'd be like asking somebody whether they'd rather spend $10 buying a movie ticket, or spending it on a book. It's totally subjective and it depends on who you ask.

I'd totally agree with this. While there are a few video games that have been a big part of my life that I enjoyed, there are more moments I've enjoyed with my comic books. Also, even though I valued those video games. Basically, they're worth zero to me after about 2-3 years. Comics have had much longer value time.

[Just a Shadow]

I don't think it is a matter of the companies hating new readers. Publishing comics is a business and the older characters sell. However the new ones usually don't, which is why those comics get put on the chopping block.

It's not that the companies dislike new readers. They love getting them. But there aren't enough of them to justify losing money on a monthly basis because a new comic isn't selling.

[earl]

Another reason I think there are less new characters is that many writers and artists for the past 20 years or so have been really tepid about creating new characters for the big two. Why give away the bank?

Because of what has happened in the past, I think you find many artists and writers are just fine with playing in another company's characters. If they have an idea of their own, they usually put it out where they get a bigger piece of the cash with some ownership and say in the characters.

I'd say the biggest moment when that really changed is when Eastman and Laird started raking in huge cash off of the Ninja Turtles.

It isn't really an answer why comics hate new readers, but it does partially explain why there hasn't been that many big new characters from DC or Marvel.

[howyadoin]

Another reason I think there are less new characters is that many writers and artists for the past 20 years or so have been really tepid about creating new characters for the big two.It doesn't seem to bother Peter David any.

[Grimm]

Which offers more entertainment value per dollar? A video game or 20 comic books?

In my opinion I'd say that video games are much more value. Some games will take you around 30-40 hours to complete. And if you wanna farm out all the extras can take you even longer than that.

20 comics will take you, like 4 hours to read? And that's being extremely generous.

People say it's subjective, but I think your point is in that comic books don't provide as much value as other sources of entertainment. That is totally true.

I can buy a novel for the price of 3 comics. The comics will take me around 30 mins or so to read. The book? Can take me a number of hours to read, all depending on the book.

Ditto a box set for a TV show. I can buy one for the price of of 10 comic books. So 2 hours entertainment v 14 hours entertainment.

My friends son can play with a toy for hours and hours, value of toy between two and ten comics usually. No contest.

Comics just don't have the same value for money as most other forms of entertainment.

[Endless Flight]

I think there's some fallacy in saying that comics only provide a few minutes of pleasure each. I remember spending an hour or more reading and re-reading individual issues when I was a kid, sometimes just glazing over the art, looking at all the details, or re-reading the script to glean any new information that I missed the first five times I read it. I remember spending much more time reading comics when I was 10 than I ever do now.

I wore the spines out on some of my comics reading them, until the covers were ready to fall off, when they were dog-eared from being carried all over the house.

Maybe I was one in a million for comics fans, but I doubt it.

[Grimm]

I think there's some fallacy in saying that comics only provide a few minutes of pleasure each. I remember spending an hour or more reading and re-reading individual issues when I was a kid, sometimes just glazing over the art, looking at all the details, or re-reading the script to glean any new information that I missed the first five times I read it. I remember spending much more time reading comics when I was 10 than I ever do now.

I wore the spines out on some of my comics reading them, until the covers were ready to fall off, when they were dog-eared from being carried all over the house.

Maybe I was one in a million for comics fans, but I doubt it.

As a 10 year old? Sure. I spent longer with my comics too.

But then that same rules applies for other forms of entertainment.

Watching films and cartoons over and over again? I used to bug my parents soo much :)

Computer games also used to take longer to play back then. About 8-10 minutes just to load the cassette! And computer games were so much more about gameplay back then, and considerably cheaper to boot.

Buying a cheap colouring book and colouring it all in, then tracing the images so you could colour your favourite things together? That took me appreciably longer than reading a comic.

I spent an awful lot of time playing football with my friends, hours upon hours. Price of a football between friends? A comic each.

I mean if you spent all your time reading comic books, more power to you. How you can imply that there aren't many, many other ways for kids and adults to be entertained for better value for money? I can't honestly agree.

[Endless Flight]

I mean if you spent all your time reading comic books, more power to you. How you can imply that there aren't many, many other ways for kids and adults to be entertained for better value for money? I can't honestly agree.

Like I said earlier, it's entirely subjective and depends on who you ask. A baseball costs a few bucks and can provide hours and hours and hours of value, but what if you don't like sports?

What if you are a kid with bad coordination who doesn't like to play video games because you get flustered too easily trying to master the controls?

On a personal note, the other thing I remember is that when I was a kid, money wasn't rolling in, so if I had a couple bucks to spend, it was going to be spent on something inexpensive like 75 cents for a comic. I hardly ever saved my money for months on end to buy video games. I didn't get those usually unless it was my birthday or Christmas. I cherished reading my books more than I ever did playing my Intellivision and other game consoles, but like I said, that's a personal anecdote.

[The Batman]

In my opinion I'd say that video games are much more value. Some games will take you around 30-40 hours to complete. And if you wanna farm out all the extras can take you even longer than that.

20 comics will take you, like 4 hours to read? And that's being extremely generous.

People say it's subjective, but I think your point is in that comic books don't provide as much value as other sources of entertainment. That is totally true.

I can buy a novel for the price of 3 comics. The comics will take me around 30 mins or so to read. The book? Can take me a number of hours to read, all depending on the book.

Ditto a box set for a TV show. I can buy one for the price of of 10 comic books. So 2 hours entertainment v 14 hours entertainment.

My friends son can play with a toy for hours and hours, value of toy between two and ten comics usually. No contest.

Comics just don't have the same value for money as most other forms of entertainment.

Entertainment value isn't entirely dependent on time though. At least it shouldn't be. It should be about how much enjoyment something brings you, not how much of your time it takes up.

Is a three hour movie that's boring giving you a better value for your dollar than one that's only 75 minutes long but fantastic? I know what my answer is.

It's the same thing with comics. Even if they don't take as long to get through, I might still enjoy those 10 comics more than that TV show, that movie, or that video game.

[stealthwise]

Entertainment value isn't entirely dependent on time though. At least it shouldn't be. It should be about how much enjoyment something brings you, not how much of your time it takes up.

Is a three hour movie that's boring giving you a better value for your dollar than one that's only 75 minutes long but fantastic? I know what my answer is.

It's the same thing with comics. Even if they don't take as long to get through, I might still enjoy those 10 comics more than that TV show, that movie, or that video game.

Also, I will re-read a good comic many, many times over days, weeks, months, years.

Not being a huge gamer, I might replay a game maybe two or three times, if it's really good.

For a lot of people who are busy as hell with work or school or whatnot, it's sometimes better to have something that you can enjoy in only a few minutes or hours, rather than having to commit a lot of time to it.

[The Batman]

Also, I will re-read a good comic many, many times over days, weeks, months, years.

Not being a huge gamer, I might replay a game maybe two or three times, if it's really good.

For a lot of people who are busy as hell with work or school or whatnot, it's sometimes better to have something that you can enjoy in only a few minutes or hours, rather than having to commit a lot of time to it.

Well that's one of the things that I like about single issues: They force me to stop and take a break until the next part of the story comes out. Even with trades, the temptation is there to keep on going and all too often I've lost a good bit of an afternoon to one.

Likewise, I've never understood the comment that comics only provide a few minutes of entertainment. I mean, I'm pretty thorough when I go through my books anyways, but doesn't anyone else reread things anymore or at least flip through to admire the artwork? I know I get alot more than five or ten minutes out of a book.

[howyadoin]

Even with trades, the temptation is there to keep on going and all too often I've lost a good bit of an afternoon to one.You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Shellhead]

Likewise, I've never understood the comment that comics only provide a few minutes of entertainment. I mean, I'm pretty thorough when I go through my books anyways, but doesn't anyone else reread things anymore or at least flip through to admire the artwork? I know I get alot more than five or ten minutes out of a book.

Sure. For example, I loved JLA/Avengers. I've probably read it at least a half dozen times and just looked at the art on other occasions. But I bought one of my favorite PC games for about the same price. I have played that game all the way through several times, taking at least 30 hours each time. Tons of entertainment. I would say that it takes about a short box full of comics to equal one PC game. And that short box takes up a lot more space.

[mgs]

Entertainment value isn't entirely dependent on time though.

this is true, using the arguement that time is what makes entertainment value is asinine. If that were true, there would be no reason for museums, theatrical releases of movies would not be cut down, they'd just let the 'fun' go on and on. I could let my brain rot by watching 18 hours of crappy tv, or read a good book in 3 hours. It's quality, not time that determines the value of something.

[Grimm]

Like I said earlier, it's entirely subjective and depends on who you ask. A baseball costs a few bucks and can provide hours and hours and hours of value, but what if you don't like sports?

What if you are a kid with bad coordination who doesn't like to play video games because you get flustered too easily trying to master the controls?

On a personal note, the other thing I remember is that when I was a kid, money wasn't rolling in, so if I had a couple bucks to spend, it was going to be spent on something inexpensive like 75 cents for a comic. I hardly ever saved my money for months on end to buy video games. I didn't get those usually unless it was my birthday or Christmas. I cherished reading my books more than I ever did playing my Intellivision and other game consoles, but like I said, that's a personal anecdote.

My point was, that there are many other things you can do for less cash.

So the subjective thing isn't true whatsoever. It doesn't have to be video games, or sports or novels or coloring books. It can be whatever you like. These are other things *I* like. Or liked.

And when I was reading comics, they were 40 pence. Games for my Amstrad were 2.99. Saving for weeks for games just isn't true. I can go to my blockbuster video and hire out games for days for the price of 1 comic book.

It's rare to only have just one interest. Like I said maybe for you it was your onlt interest, and that's fair enough. I find it hard to believe it would be that way for many though.

[Grimm]

Entertainment value isn't entirely dependent on time though. At least it shouldn't be. It should be about how much enjoyment something brings you, not how much of your time it takes up.

Is a three hour movie that's boring giving you a better value for your dollar than one that's only 75 minutes long but fantastic? I know what my answer is.

It's the same thing with comics. Even if they don't take as long to get through, I might still enjoy those 10 comics more than that TV show, that movie, or that video game.

The point is, there are just as many things that I find as entertaining and even more so than comics. And these things also happen to provide similar entertainment value for longer. Is this such a mind blowing concept?

Of course what you find interesting will be different, which is where the subjective part will come into play. Are you honestly trying to say comics are the best form of pleasure you get?

[Grimm]

this is true, using the arguement that time is what makes entertainment value is asinine. If that were true, there would be no reason for museums, theatrical releases of movies would not be cut down, they'd just let the 'fun' go on and on. I could let my brain rot by watching 18 hours of crappy tv, or read a good book in 3 hours. It's quality, not time that determines the value of something.

I guess the term entertainment is different for you and I then.

I wouldn't call letting my brain rot being entertained, and obviously from your wording neither would you. So right away your argument doesn't really hold up.

I could mention how long it takes to actually view the Louvre. Then again I find it entertaining, you could find it mind numbingly boring. Although I'm not sure if you would still classify that as entertaining?

[The Batman]

The point is, there are just as many things that I find as entertaining and even more so than comics. And these things also happen to provide similar entertainment value for longer. Is this such a mind blowing concept?

Of course what you find interesting will be different, which is where the subjective part will come into play. Are you honestly trying to say comics are the best form of pleasure you get?

It's hardly a mind blowing concept. Comics aren't worth the value for you because these other things provide you with a similar level of entertainment for longer periods of time.

Thing is, that's not a case that need apply to anyone else. That's where the subjective thing comes in. You can't just assume that everyone is going to feel the same way, just towards some different form of entertainment, and that's what you're doing.

[Endless Flight]

My point was, that there are many other things you can do for less cash.

So the subjective thing isn't true whatsoever. It doesn't have to be video games, or sports or novels or coloring books. It can be whatever you like. These are other things *I* like. Or liked.

And when I was reading comics, they were 40 pence. Games for my Amstrad were 2.99. Saving for weeks for games just isn't true. I can go to my blockbuster video and hire out games for days for the price of 1 comic book.

It's rare to only have just one interest. Like I said maybe for you it was your onlt interest, and that's fair enough. I find it hard to believe it would be that way for many though.

Who said I had one interest? I played video games, played with toys, and read comics, just like every other red-blooded American boy. I still found comics to be worth the entertainment dollar even back then. Saving for weeks is true. I couldn't buy a new game for a couple bucks back in the late 80s.

[Endless Flight]

Are you honestly trying to say comics are the best form of pleasure you get?

Where are we posting again?

[Grimm]

Where are we posting again?

"Comics should be good". I'll let you ponder on that for awhile.

[Grimm]

It's hardly a mind blowing concept. Comics aren't worth the value for you because these other things provide you with a similar level of entertainment for longer periods of time.

Thing is, that's not a case that need apply to anyone else. That's where the subjective thing comes in. You can't just assume that everyone is going to feel the same way, just towards some different form of entertainment, and that's what you're doing.

So are you really trying to argue the case that comics provide your only real source of entertainment? I mean, as I've said in the thread before, that is entirely fine. I just don't find that to be a common attitude.

I'll break it down real simple here. Comics are expensive. You might find that subjective but to the average kid I've found that to be true. There are an awful lot of ways a kid can be entertained that are much more affordable.

Sure I can afford to read comics I enjoy. If I couldn't I'll tell you right now there are so many other ways I could find to entertain myself I'd have trouble listing them on this page. I'm lucky, not everyone is.

[The Batman]

The point isn't that there are other things out there besides comics to enjoy. Of course there is.

The point is that it is possible that comics, dollar for dollar, can bring at least as much enjoyment as any of those other things for people.

[Carla222]

This thread is very interesting and I would like to go back to the original debate that focuses on trying to get readers to look into new projects. It's easy to see why this simply doesn't work. The entire industry is based on the past and the traditions that were created in the first place.

People talk how comics are hard to find and there's not enough entertainment value compared to other medias but the comic people love being difficult.

You like the hunt to find that comic, you don't want to try out new series bc it's not what your used to. There is this immediate sense of "selling out".

I would love to see someone try and discuss an online comic or a superhero podcast. It's laughable -it would get ripped apart and because of that nothing will ever change the industry won't get any better or keep up with movies, video games, or the internet ( which all improve and change rapidly)

The comic industry's only defence it to make new readers and everyone else feel like “they don't get it" and that makes the industry prestigious but as far as growth / improvement I don't see much happening!

Now this is one trend and I sure it wouldn't apply to everyone but my comments would relate to a large majority of comic book fans. So it's pointless to reply with “well I'm not like that" I'm not talking about individuals here it's the industry I am speaking about.

[stealthwise]

Now this is one trend and I sure it wouldn't apply to everyone but my comments would relate to a large majority of comic book fans. So it's pointless to reply with “well I'm not like that" I'm not talking about individuals here it's the industry I am speaking about.

So... you're basically saying that the system as a whole is flawed, but we shouldn't argue what you're saying, even if we don't necessarily agree?

[Just a Shadow]

Does any comic reader like having trouble finding a specific book? Seriously, what kind of masochistic freak likes the difficulty in it? Sure it feels great when you find the hard to find issue, but that's only because it'd been pissing you off for days/weeks/months or even years beforehand.

[Radioactive Zombie]

Only if you're a collector, maybe.

[howyadoin]

Does any comic reader like having trouble finding a specific book?Finding a specific book was a huge problem in the spinner-rack days. Today, I don't see where the difficulty lies.

Unless you don't have internet access, of course. In which case, this conversation wouldn't even be possible.

[Just a Shadow]

Finding a specific book was a huge problem in the spinner-rack days. Today, I don't see where the difficulty lies.

Unless you don't have internet access, of course. In which case, this conversation wouldn't even be possible.

Well I was referring to the comment about comic readers liking the difficulty made by Carla222.

In my case I have plenty of problems because i only make it to comic shops every 3-4 months. So if one of the things on my pull list is forgotten one month, I sometimes have an awfully hard time tracking it down. For instance right now I'm still looking for issue 30 of Captain America, with no luck. I can't do it on ebay or online in general because I don't have any credit cards or paypal.

[The Batman]

I don't like not being able to find new books, and that was probably the most annoying thing about getting comics off the rack. I do think that hunting down all back issues can be fun though.

[Carla222]

So... you're basically saying that the system as a whole is flawed, but we shouldn't argue what you're saying, even if we don't necessarily agree?

hmmm I am much more interested in what you agree with. You would be able to respect / enjoy a comic book that was online? What about one that you can download and view on yr phone??

I just don't see the comic book fans getting into that. Am I wrong to assume so?

Also I don’t think the whole thing is flawed but I don’t see it advancing or changing any time soon. It’s a very traditional industry, again is that wrong to assume?

[Alex Scott]

I just don't see the comic book fans getting into that. Am I wrong to assume so?
Comic book fans are one thing. Comic book readers are another. And as the state of the industry shows, with manga (among other things) dominating bookstores and superheroes dominating comic stores, there can be a huge difference.

Which is why saying comics "hate new readers" rings kind of hollow for me. Obviously Marvel and DC have serious problems appealing to anyone outside their traditional audience, but there are several publishers nowadays with more than enough to offer to a general audience, and a proven track record of selling to their intended audience.

Besides which, we have a thriving webcomic culture, and enough people reading pirated comics online (not just superheroes, but also fan translations of manga -- leaving aside the legality or morality of it altogether), and even a growing interest in online prose novels that I think, yeah, digital comics have a shot.

[Reptisaurus!]

Besides which, we have a thriving webcomic culture, and enough people reading pirated comics online (not just superheroes, but also fan translations of manga -- leaving aside the legality or morality of it altogether), and even a growing interest in online prose novels that I think, yeah, digital comics have a shot.

Yeah.

They're not so much my favorite thing, but I think that (A) younger generations will feel more comfortable using the computer for more stuff, and (B) the technology for reading online comics and books will get smaller and comfier.

So I'd honesetly be surprised if we don't see digital (or some other kind of electronic, non paper) comics supplanting the current form in my lifetime.

[Dr. Banner]

I do think that hunting down all back issues can be fun though.

Very true. LOVE the thrill of the hunt at a convention, looking for the back issues and whatever I consider (at the time) to be my "holy grail" of comics to own.

[Carla222]

Besides which, we have a thriving webcomic culture, and enough people reading pirated comics online (not just superheroes, but also fan translations of manga -- leaving aside the legality or morality of it altogether), and even a growing interest in online prose novels that I think, yeah, digital comics have a shot.[/QUOTE]

Do they have a shot for the readers or the fans? Are there any respected webcomics at the moment?

[stealthwise]

There are tons of great, well-respected webcomics at the moment.

www.penny-arcade.com
www.pvponline.com
www.somethingpositive.net
www.shortpacked.com
www.ctrlaltdel-online.com
http://pbfcomics.com
www.drmcninja.com
www.samandfuzzy.com

[ultramandingo]

Very true. LOVE the thrill of the hunt at a convention, looking for the back issues and whatever I consider (at the time) to be my "holy grail" of comics to own.

......me too . luckily i live in nerd town usa ( sf bay area) theres about 15/20 comic book shops in about a 30 mile radius from me - used to be alot more

[Carla222]

[QUOTE=stealthwise;6361634]There are tons of great, well-respected web comics at the moment.

Any opinion on this webseries, it's going to be a comic book also:

www.teamepic.tv

They just put up a behind the scenes thing you see some new characters. I've been following this show and think it's very entertaining, this is a prefect example of something that a traditional comic fan may not like. I would love to know what you think.

[NormanB]

"Comics should be good". I'll let you ponder on that for awhile.

Flawless victory.

[stealthwise]

[QUOTE=stealthwise;6361634]There are tons of great, well-respected web comics at the moment.

Any opinion on this webseries, it's going to be a comic book also:

www.teamepic.tv

They just put up a behind the scenes thing you see some new characters. I've been following this show and think it's very entertaining, this is a prefect example of something that a traditional comic fan may not like. I would love to know what you think.

From what I've found, and I'm not sure exactly why this is the case, online comics tend to move away from the superhero stuff, for the most part. And the superhero stuff I have seen online has been pretty lame.

[Alex Scott]

From what I've found, and I'm not sure exactly why this is the case, online comics tend to move away from the superhero stuff, for the most part. And the superhero stuff I have seen online has been pretty lame.
It seems to me that most webcomic creators are just doing their own thing, and are more influenced by newspaper comics and manga than American superhero comics.

[Carla222]

[QUOTE=stealthwise;6374714][QUOTE=Carla222;6369367]


Well what is the difference then? What makes a good webcomic? I think webcomics are more humorous, off beat. My example with Team Epic, is it not dark enough? Team Epic is going for an action / comedy does this not work with the comic book / superhero feel?

[Ryan Day]

Do they have a shot for the readers or the fans? Are there any respected webcomics at the moment?

Time named Achewood (www.achewood.com) its best "graphic novel" of 2007, so yeah. And there's a growing number of webcomics that sell very well when they're collected in print editions - Perry Bible Fellowship did huge business, so did Penny Arcade.

[stealthwise]

[QUOTE=stealthwise;6374714][QUOTE=Carla222;6369367]


Well what is the difference then? What makes a good webcomic? I think webcomics are more humorous, off beat. My example with Team Epic, is it not dark enough? Team Epic is going for an action / comedy does this not work with the comic book / superhero feel?

Keep in mind that most online comics are often shaped like newspaper strips or half-pages, with something like 3-6 panels per "issue," often coming out anywhere from once a week to every day. This isn't exactly conducive to a ton of action sequences, and often the format leads to different story-telling beats, structured around the episodic structure, i.e. punchlines.

Now think about the superhero comics that come out. They often are made around 22-24 page issues, many of which are part 1 of a six part arc. Much more decompression, as opposed to the webcomics that usually focus on shorter stories.

[Carla222]

So in a sense it is 2 totally different markets? A great online comic and a great superhero comic wouldn't exactly have the same following based on the different styles?

Keep in mind that most online comics are often shaped like newspaper strips or half-pages, with something like 3-6 panels per "issue," often coming out anywhere from once a week to every day. This isn't exactly conducive to a ton of action sequences, and often the format leads to different story-telling beats, structured around the episodic structure, i.e. punchlines.

Now think about the superhero comics that come out. They often are made around 22-24 page issues, many of which are part 1 of a six part arc. Much more decompression, as opposed to the webcomics that usually focus on shorter stories.[/QUOTE]

[stealthwise]

Carla,

Yes and yes.

Keep in mind accessibility as well. I can guide anyone with an online connection towards any given webcomic, and they'll be able to download it and read it within a few minutes. If they hate it, that's fine, they can move onto something else. However, if they enjoy it, they can bookmark it and check it periodically. Routine and continual enjoyment will create a stable and loyal readership for any given webcomic.

A printed comic book requires more effort though. One has to be able to go to the local comic shop (provided that there is one) and either add it to his or her own pull list, then pay $3 or more each and every month (or longer) in order to get what usually amounts to a piece of a longer story arc. Many times, in the case of the superhero books, there's a longer, over-arching continuity that asks the reader to make a larger commitment towards researching and/or reading back issues in order to understand what's going on. There's often no instant gratification in many monthly titles, although there are exceptions (i.e. The Goon).

The point I'm getting at is that both are entirely different animals, one is based on an older, outdated model that services an ever-shrinking, niche market and fanbase, and the other is an innovative, ever-growing approach that both borrows from the past and looks towards growing and changing in the future.

[ewan the didge]

Just a bit of personal backdrop. I'm 19. I came to reading comic books from reading manga constantly and looking for more material. I am chinese-canadian.

I don't understand why series such as Blue Beetle and Initiatives coming close to getting canceled. Comics like those appeal to me highly and by consensus other people I know too. These comics strive well with attracting a younger generation like myself. Instead of try to plunge us into comics that have over our age in backdrop and constantly reminiscent or visit it like X-Men, these comics are a large improvement. But why do they falter in sales so much? Does the aging generation hate the new stuff with such a passion that they would rather continue buying comics with the same characters like Wolverine or Batman that go on forever? Or is our demographic that poor that my gen isn't buying enough?

i agree with uou on that one i love bying and reading the new comics bun here in england we dont get the newones that go into obscurity becouse thay didnt sell in the u.s and forthis im pritty peeved

[Carla222]

stealthwise;
What's favourable is that once a reader is committed to that comic they are devoted and will continue to follow the story and stay invested in that comic? How do you get online fans to that commitment level? What will keep them coming back? With the amount of online comics how do you make one stand out?

Yes and yes.

Keep in mind accessibility as well. I can guide anyone with an online connection towards any given webcomic, and they'll be able to download it and read it within a few minutes. If they hate it, that's fine, they can move onto something else. However, if they enjoy it, they can bookmark it and check it periodically. Routine and continual enjoyment will create a stable and loyal readership for any given webcomic.

A printed comic book requires more effort though. One has to be able to go to the local comic shop (provided that there is one) and either add it to his or her own pull list, then pay $3 or more each and every month (or longer) in order to get what usually amounts to a piece of a longer story arc. Many times, in the case of the superhero books, there's a longer, over-arching continuity that asks the reader to make a larger commitment towards researching and/or reading back issues in order to understand what's going on. There's often no instant gratification in many monthly titles, although there are exceptions (i.e. The Goon).

The point I'm getting at is that both are entirely different animals, one is based on an older, outdated model that services an ever-shrinking, niche market and fanbase, and the other is an innovative, ever-growing approach that both borrows from the past and looks towards growing and changing in the future.[/QUOTE]

[stealthwise]

stealthwise;
What's favourable is that once a reader is committed to that comic they are devoted and will continue to follow the story and stay invested in that comic? How do you get online fans to that commitment level? What will keep them coming back? With the amount of online comics how do you make one stand out?


You can get the reader hooked by producing something unique, by appealing to a specific desire of the audience, whether it's humour, romance, etc. Not much different than any other artform, except that the immediacy of webcomics (or indeed, any other online product) produces a need to be consistent.

Readers will commit to a webcomic that is constantly good, on a daily or weekly basis. Each and every strip needs to deliver, on-time, and provide whatever it was that hooked that audience in the first place.

I'm not sure if there's a formula to being successful, but look at something like Pvponline. Scott Kurtz is constantly delivering arcs along with one-off jokes, and although I don't think that the comic is as good as it once was (a common occurrence in any long-running art), there are still some expectations that are met almost each and every time. Whether it's the comfortable way that he deals with the characters he's established or specific long-running jokes (i.e. Bret and the panda attacks), the reader knows what to expect from the comic, and there's enough variation within that specific comic's formula to avoid stagnation, or at least enough variation to avoid shedding the audience.

[Red Jack]

The answer to the topic question is "Because Comic Books are cool and new readers are a bunch of jerks who are stupid and spotty." Comic Books are married to Angelina Jolie and only wear Versace (and only once for each piece). Comic Books hate the paparazzi because they're always up in Comic Books' grill. Just chill with that, yo. Give the comics some breathing room.

Why would anyone care about new readers? Who needs the headache?

"Why did she smack that robot?"
"Howcum he can't fly when that light is on him?"
"Who is that guy with the white eyes who never says anything?"
"Why didn't they just shoot the monster down when it was in space? What's that symbol on its chest?"

Come on. Nobody wants to deal with all that. Go read your manga and shut up.

Old readers are all that matter. Especially those who are obsessed with periods twenty and thirty and forty years behind the current times. They're the ones comics should care about. Jeez. Of course they are. They're the biggest possible audience and getting bigger all the time.

What?

The audience shrinks every year? No, that's not- that can't be pos-

Wait. I have to go check something. I'll be right back.

[GHalecki]

Here is the thing on this topic.

There is no "this is the way to get new readers" vs "this is the way to keep old readers".

One might think that the Alex Ross/Geoff Johns "bring everything back to the Silver Age" would appeal to me, as I am a very long time reader (3 decades). But it doesn't. I hate it. But since I am not a fan of the SIlverage, then you would think that I appreciate the newer style of story telling with multipart arcs and decompressed storytelling. But I don't.

The thing is, older readers need to be appealed to in one of two ways. Either give them the old charachters that they love, or give them the kind of stories that can get them to learn to love the new charachters.

I saw the new Thor book and picked it up. It was Thor, and I love Thor, so I tried it. I wasn't completely sold on it after the first issue, but it was Thor so i gave it a while, and it grew on me. On the other hand, I tried the new Ant Man. I had no affinity or interest in the charachter, but decided to give it a shot any way. It also didn't sell me, and I dropped it because I had no reason not to. On the other hand The Initiative was pretty much largely about charachters that I didn't know or care about, or that have been previously ruined (like Hank Pym). However, after picking it up I liked it a lot. I am not surprised. Slott writes good, old fasioned comic stories, and they are what I like, no matter who they are written about.