3 people are defecting from DC and moving to Marvel [Archive]

kingdom2000

03-10-2008, 06:26 PM

Other then Geoff Jones, I can't really think of any writers or artists at DC that would make a huge difference if they left or not since its now an editorally driven company and the writers are mostly just filling in the outlines and the artists can't seem to do anything on a timely basis (and editorial can't force the schedule ahead enough to give them time). Now if Brubaker or Bendis (and few others) left Marvel, that would be interesting news.

Stressfactor

03-10-2008, 06:32 PM

scout1279

03-10-2008, 06:41 PM

I'm betting at least one is Rucka. Seems to me he's been dropping some hints and I'd bet Marvel would love to get Rucka and Brubaker back tag-teaming on a title.

Winnick? Oh I wish... maybe then someone could save Green Arrow before he's too far gone... and stop Black Canary before Winnick gets her in any deeper.
Wasn't it already announced that Rucka would be writing Daredevil with Brubaker starting...sometime. I don't remember the details.

I got the impression that the creators making the move would be 2 artists and 1 writer, and that the writer was someone who has turned a crappy title around. This isn't a jab at Winick, but would he fit that description?

stamen

03-10-2008, 07:02 PM

I got the impression that the creators making the move would be 2 artists and 1 writer, and that the writer was someone who has turned a crappy title around. This isn't a jab at Winick, but would he fit that description?

Certainly he would not.

I can't think of any crappy titles that have been turned around in the DCU except for Wonder Woman, and that one hasn't translated into a sales boost.

As much as I love Waid, Flash is still in the toliet.

Aquaman got canned, no fault of Kurt's or Tad's, the concept just didn't pan out. Same thing could be said of Blue Beetle and All New Atom. Writing isn't poor at all, but the concepts just aren't catching on.

We know Johns isn't going, but he did totally turn JSA and GLC around with the reboot... but then again, it could be Dave Gibbons. We know its not Busiek, with him being on Countdown.

I honestly can't think of a single ongoing title that has turned any sort of corner for DC in the past three or four years outside of cross-over events.

jerrymcl89

03-10-2008, 07:04 PM

The description he offers doesn't help me much (turned a lightly regarded book into one of the best ever). Geoff Johns recently re-upped, and I'm also pretty sure Morrison isn't going anywhere. It could, of course describe Gail, but I'm sure she wouldn't leave Wonder Woman anytime soon. Not sure if she'd consider becoming non-exclusive, like Rucka has, to work for both companies.

Netley

03-10-2008, 07:09 PM

Wasn't it already announced that Rucka would be writing Daredevil with Brubaker starting...sometime. I don't remember the details.

I got the impression that the creators making the move would be 2 artists and 1 writer, and that the writer was someone who has turned a crappy title around. This isn't a jab at Winick, but would he fit that description?

Brubaker/Rucka/Lark's DD starts with May's #107.

Gail Simone

03-10-2008, 08:14 PM

I wonder where Rich gets this stuff.

Gail

TomStillwell

03-10-2008, 08:14 PM

Please don't let it be Frank Miller and Jim Lee.

I can't really seeing it be Jim Lee. Jim is the head of Wildstorm, a division of DC, and he's also handling the art design chores for the DCU MMO.

Is it possible Mike Norton or Nicola Scott? Jamal Igle?

scout1279

03-10-2008, 08:21 PM

I can't imagine Frank Miller signing exclusive with any company at this point. Why would he need to? I do think Marvel has been trying to make peace with him though. Why else make such a big deal about Elektra being a skrull? Who else would care besides the guy who was all pissed off about them bringing her back to life in the first place?

Sabrinaset

03-10-2008, 08:24 PM

Actually, I'm more concerned about Miller and Lee being given a book together at Marvel. They'd make Millar and Hitch look like speed demons.

KevinTBrown

03-10-2008, 08:26 PM

My guess for the artists are the Kuberts.... They signed a 3-year exclusive in early June of 2005.

The writer.... who knows? Geoff Johns, Gail, Grant Morrison, Kurt Busiek, Sean McKeever, Judd Winick... are all exclusive. I know I'm missing a LOT too. I'm wondering if Justin Gray and Jimmy Palmiotti are exclusive to DC though. I think so.

Netley

03-10-2008, 08:28 PM

Actually, I'm more concerned about Miller and Lee being given a book together at Marvel. They'd make Millar and Hitch look like speed demons.

Ha, I could see Miller offering to do a post-Secret Invasion Elektra book (assuming the real Elektra is OK afterwards) and just delaying it for years on purpose. Then he would be laughing to himself that he finally found the one way to make sure she stays dead haha!

Infra-Man

03-10-2008, 08:44 PM

My guess for the artists are the Kuberts.... They signed a 3-year exclusive in early June of 2005.

Not a bad guess. Wonder if Adam actually finished the last part of that Johns/Donner Action Comics arc. The penultimate issue of that came out, what, 9 months ago?

How many cumulative issues have Andy and Adam put out during their stint at DC so far, anyways?

The writer.... who knows? Geoff Johns, Gail, Grant Morrison, Kurt Busiek, Sean McKeever, Judd Winick... are all exclusive. I know I'm missing a LOT too. I'm wondering if Justin Gray and Jimmy Palmiotti are exclusive to DC though. I think so.

Rucka may be the person to make the full-on move. However, by "transformed one ill-regarded book into an all time classic," does Rich necessarily mean a DC book? Could it have been a Marvel book that was transformed?

Given that, my uninformed, out-of-the-blue pick is this: Walt Simonson goes back to Marvel as an exclusive and takes the writing reins of Thor once JMS finishes a couple more issues.

ComicbookJeff

03-10-2008, 09:09 PM

Aren't those Dodson covers on Young X-Men?

So, provided that the LITG info is accurate, and there is a writer and two artist headed to Marvel...

Rucka and the Dodsons?

JeffreyWKramer

03-10-2008, 09:11 PM

I'd like to see Bill Willingham write a marvel series. Perhaps take over Runaways when Whedon bails

Please no. Ugh, what a horrid idea.

Michael P

03-10-2008, 09:22 PM

Please no. Ugh, what a horrid idea.

Yeah, after what happened to Spoiler, let's keep him the fuck away from the Runaways. I'd rather not see Jigsaw sodomize Molly with a corkscrew, thanks.

JeffreyWKramer

03-10-2008, 09:31 PM

Yeah, after what happened to Spoiler, let's keep him the fuck away from the Runaways. I'd rather not see Jigsaw sodomize Molly with a corkscrew, thanks.

Yeah, there's definitely that factor. The other one is that while Willingham isn't a terrible writer, he's probably the most over-rated writer in comics. FABLES, while a pretty good book, is by far his best work, probably followed by ELEMENTALS, and both demonstrate a mindset that wouldn't really work on so magical a book as RUNAWAYS. Other than some mildly amusing stuff with Detective Chimp, none of the DC stuff he's written outside FABLES is the least bit memorable. I gave up on SHADOWPACT early on because if you didn't look at the pictures, most of the time it was completely impossible to differentiate one character's dialogue from that of any other character.

Dedagda

03-10-2008, 09:49 PM

Yeah, after what happened to Spoiler, let's keep him the fuck away from the Runaways. I'd rather not see Jigsaw sodomize Molly with a corkscrew, thanks.

Spoiler was editorial from what I understand. Willingham took the brunt of that as the writer, but it wasn't his choice. Again I can't speak as fact with quotes or anything...

JeffreyWKramer

03-10-2008, 09:53 PM

Spoiler was editorial from what I understand. Willingham took the brunt of that as the writer, but it wasn't his choice. Again I can't speak as fact with quotes or anything...

A) If a person chooses to go along with something shitty, they're engaged in something shitty. Period.

B) If writers want to be credited with their good stuff, then they should also be willing to take responsibility for their shitty stuff.

At the risk of being charged with a Godwin's Law violation, I really have to point out that "I was just following orders" stopped being a legitimate excuse for anything many decades ago.

Dedagda

03-10-2008, 10:06 PM

A) If a person chooses to go along with something shitty, they're engaged in something shitty. Period.

B) If writers want to be credited with their good stuff, then they should also be willing to take responsibility for their shitty stuff.

At the risk of being charged with a Godwin's Law violation, I really have to point out that "I was just following orders" stopped being a legitimate excuse for anything many decades ago.

You've already pegged yourself as a Willingham hater right before my post.

They're all contract writers at DC and Marvel. Editorial is involved in every plot. So only good editorial is worth praise to the writer. And bad editorial is the writers fault for going along?

stealthwise

03-10-2008, 10:53 PM

You've already pegged yourself as a Willingham hater right before my post.

They're all contract writers at DC and Marvel. Editorial is involved in every plot. So only good editorial is worth praise to the writer. And bad editorial is the writers fault for going along?

Wow, that's the opposite of what he said.

Anyways, I'm only chiming in because Willingham would be a terrible choice for Runaways. Although there are worse choices...

K-DoG7p7

03-10-2008, 11:04 PM

I'm betting at least one is Rucka. Seems to me he's been dropping some hints and I'd bet Marvel would love to get Rucka and Brubaker back tag-teaming on a title.

.

Rucka has 3 yet to be announced things going on at DC..

Suzanne

03-10-2008, 11:42 PM

I hope Ed Benes and Rags Morales aren't among of them if this is true.

Lester C.

03-11-2008, 12:02 AM

I wonder where Rich gets this stuff.

Gail

Where all rumor and leaks come from. Disgruntled employees.

As for my guess we already know about Rucka doing Marvel work and JMS doing DC stuff so my guess is three new people besides those two. Here is my guess. There are plenty of people that are unhappy with their jobs so they like to screw with their own company.

1. Bruce Jones. What has he done since becoming a DC exclusive years ago other than a Vigilante mini no longer in continuity and a couple of Batman oneshots?
2. Geoff Johns. He's been at DC for his entire career so might be hungry for new characters.
3. The married artist couple that worked on Wonder Women with Josh Whedon. Due to delays on the book they didn't work much and are probably looking for a stable gig where they can get paid on a monthly basis.

Sarah Beach

03-11-2008, 12:58 AM

Rucka has 3 yet to be announced things going on at DC..

Does he though?

If you're thinking the much-talked-about Batwoman book is one of those things, at WonderCon, DiDio said there would NOT be a Batwoman book any time soon.

Oh, and Lester? Geof Johns has in fact worked for Marvel in the past. Four or five years ago in fact. I distinctly recall being at a panel in San Diego of MARVEL'S stable of major writers which consisted of ... Joe Straczynski, Mark Waid, Greg Rucka, Geof Johns, Jeph Leob ... I have a nagging suspicion there was one other Name on that panel, but I forget who. I don't think it was Brubaker.

Lester C.

03-11-2008, 01:15 AM

Does he though?

If you're thinking the much-talked-about Batwoman book is one of those things, at WonderCon, DiDio said there would NOT be a Batwoman book any time soon.

Oh, and Lester? Geof Johns has in fact worked for Marvel in the past. Four or five years ago in fact. I distinctly recall being at a panel in San Diego of MARVEL'S stable of major writers which consisted of ... Joe Straczynski, Mark Waid, Greg Rucka, Geof Johns, Jeph Leob ... I have a nagging suspicion there was one other Name on that panel, but I forget who. I don't think it was Brubaker.

I just assumed that Johns first work was The Flash as I hadn't heard of him before that book.

Netley

03-11-2008, 02:13 AM

I just assumed that Johns first work was The Flash as I hadn't heard of him before that book.

I think Johns started writing Flash first, but did a brief stint on Avengers later, while still on Flash. I'm surprised his Avengers run didn't catch on, given his midas touch with sales in the last few years. Perhaps he is just a DC writer down to the bone.

Flamebird

03-11-2008, 02:30 AM

I can't really seeing it be Jim Lee. Jim is the head of Wildstorm, a division of DC, and he's also handling the art design chores for the DCU MMO.

Is it possible Mike Norton or Nicola Scott? Jamal Igle?

Mike Norton just got the nod for Green Arrow/Black Canary, as of issue 7, I believe.
http://www.thecomicforums.com/forum2//index.php?showtopic=127693&hl=

Jamal Igle just recently re-upped his exclusive with DC and is doing the Tangent: Superman's Reign books with Dan Jurgens.
http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/120361624145183.htm

Nicola, I supposed we'd have to ask; but it sure seems like she's happy with DC and the Birds.

Flamebird

03-11-2008, 02:39 AM

Where all rumor and leaks come from. Disgruntled employees.

As for my guess we already know about Rucka doing Marvel work and JMS doing DC stuff so my guess is three new people besides those two. Here is my guess. There are plenty of people that are unhappy with their jobs so they like to screw with their own company.

1. Bruce Jones. What has he done since becoming a DC exclusive years ago other than a Vigilante mini no longer in continuity and a couple of Batman oneshots?
2. Geoff Johns. He's been at DC for his entire career so might be hungry for new characters.
3. The married artist couple that worked on Wonder Women with Josh Whedon. Due to delays on the book they didn't work much and are probably looking for a stable gig where they can get paid on a monthly basis.

Bruce Jones is on Checkmate starting with issue 26. :(
http://ruckawriter.livejournal.com/37730.html

Geoff Johns is gonna be very busy at DC till at least 2010, with Green Lantern: if nothing else.

Who is Josh Whedon? If you meant Joss Whedon from "Buffy", he was never on WW; that was Heinberg.

PatrickG

03-11-2008, 03:23 AM

Johns did Avengers not long ago...

I'd predict:

Talent Caldwell, Ed Benes and either Brad Meltzer or Joe Kelly.

Netley

03-11-2008, 03:27 AM

Johns did Avengers not long ago...

I'd predict:

Talent Caldwell, Ed Benes and either Brad Meltzer or Joe Kelly.

Of all those I think Joe Kelly would be the best fit for Marvel. Hell, give him back Deadpool, that'd be sweet!

the4thpip

03-11-2008, 03:35 AM

I wonder where Rich gets this stuff.

Gail

He uses the name "scream gurl" when he chats with your son on myspace.

JeffreyWKramer

03-11-2008, 05:31 AM

You've already pegged yourself as a Willingham hater right before my post.
And you just pegged yourself as lacking in reading comprehension skills.

They're all contract writers at DC and Marvel. Editorial is involved in every plot. So only good editorial is worth praise to the writer. And bad editorial is the writers fault for going along?

So, you argue that writers essentially are irrelevant? If that's the case, why isn't every comic published by DC or Marvel as well-written as, say, a Brian K. Vaughan comic?

But yes, if a writer goes along with something stupid, they are still responsible for what they write, and especially when the result is something as gratuitous as the Spoiler stuff Michael mentioned, or as boring as the dialogue in SHADOWPACT was. Similarly, when a script rises above the demands, the writer deserves credit. I don't "hate" Willingham's stuff, but I also don't see any indication that he'd be a good choice for a book that has been as consistently good as RUNAWAYS. He'd probably be an improvement on BLACK PANTHER, though.

JeffreyWKramer

03-11-2008, 05:33 AM

Anyways, I'm only chiming in because Willingham would be a terrible choice for Runaways. Although there are worse choices...

Well, yes. Millar, Austen, Winick, Johns, Meltzer... those would all be worse.

JeffreyWKramer

03-11-2008, 05:36 AM

2. Geoff Johns. He's been at DC for his entire career so might be hungry for new characters.

He wrote AVENGERS for awhile. Some of his run wasn't bad - he wrote one of the most badass Black Panther bits ever, when the Panther pounded the shit out of the Red Skull. On the other end of the quality spectrum, he wrote that absolutely horrid and gratuitious issue focusing on Hank and Jan.

3. The married artist couple that worked on Wonder Women with Josh Whedon.
You must mean Heinberg's WW.

LewisH

03-11-2008, 08:20 AM

Marvel is almost certainly going to throw whoever these are into that rotation. That's a machine that needs constant feeding. Neither company has very many writers or artists that are critical anyway that aren't already tied up for at least the next 2 or 3 years. Johns and Morrison aren't going anywhere. Gail has her dream job with Wonder Woman.

The thing is for the most part the characters are still bigger than the writers.
With all the controversy over Spiderman of late, it's still a top selling book.
Despite the dislike for Amazons Attack, it was failure to meet deadlines not
hatred of the story that drove down sales on Wonder Woman.

And if there are any writers that do drive down sales, well editors can read sales figures as well as we can and make sure not to use them. You would think with all the hate Judd Winick gets on-line he was unpopular but he keeps getting work so I can only assume that he does in fact generate a profit for the titles he works on. (Cue the arguments that sales don't mean quality but cue the counter argument that when you're running a publishing
BUSINESS sales are ALL that really matters.)

JeffreyWKramer

03-11-2008, 08:36 AM

And if there are any writers that do drive down sales, well editors can read sales figures as well as we can and make sure not to use them. You would think with all the hate Judd Winick gets on-line he was unpopular but he keeps getting work so I can only assume that he does in fact generate a profit for the titles he works on. (Cue the arguments that sales don't mean quality but cue the counter argument that when you're running a publishing
BUSINESS sales are ALL that really matters.)

Does anyone have sales figures on GA/BC?

K-DoG7p7

03-11-2008, 08:55 AM

scout1279

03-11-2008, 09:54 AM

Mike Norton just got the nod for Green Arrow/Black Canary, as of issue 7, I believe.
http://www.thecomicforums.com/forum2//index.php?showtopic=127693&hl=

Cliff Chiang isn't going to be drawing Green Arrow/Black Canary anymore? I'm very sad now. His art is the best thing about that book. I'm not familiar with Mike Norton's work though, so maybe it'll be OK.

MartinRedmond

03-11-2008, 10:02 AM

1. Bruce Jones. What has he done since becoming a DC exclusive years ago other than a Vigilante mini no longer in continuity and a couple of Batman oneshots?

You forgot Warlord and Deadman. I feel I wasted so much money on his work that I'd be happy if he just quit comics forever. I mean, I've met him in person once and he was beyond cool but his comics work of late as been horrid.

MartinRedmond

03-11-2008, 10:03 AM

Or rather, keep forgeting them, sorry.

K-DoG7p7

03-11-2008, 10:14 AM

Cliff Chiang isn't going to be drawing Green Arrow/Black Canary anymore? I'm very sad now. His art is the best thing about that book. I'm not familiar with Mike Norton's work though, so maybe it'll be OK.

http://www.cliffchiang.com/

Stressfactor

03-11-2008, 10:18 AM

Meltzer really cannot be an "exclusive". The man is a novelist and has made no bones about the fact that books are his bread-and-butter and comic books are something he does for fun when he has time in-between writing books.

He might do a story arc or a mini-series or something for Marvel if he has time but he's never going to be an "exclusive".

Another possibility for artist might be Tim Sale? I think Sale's contract may be up soon and both Sale and Loeb have made no secret about the fact that they enjoy working with one another. In fact, Loeb has hinted (after he went Marvel exclusive) that he had some Marvel-based stories he would really want to do with Sale once Sale's contract was up.

And yes, Geoff Johns wrote a couple of Avengers arcs before he went DC exclusive. I don't think I've ever heard and rumbles, though, that Marvel is all that interested in Johns... Perhaps Geoff's writing style just doesn't really fit Marvel?

Calamas

03-11-2008, 10:30 AM

You forgot Warlord and Deadman. I feel I wasted so much money on his work that I’d be happy if he just quit comics forever. I mean, I've met him in person once and he was beyond cool but his comics work of late as been horrid.
I can’t agree more. At Marvel I liked his Hulk and thought his "Kingpin" mini-series was just a couple notches short of brilliant. When he moved to DC I was left thinking, What happened?

Still haven’t figured it out.

stamen

03-11-2008, 10:47 AM

Does anyone have sales figures on GA/BC?

Issue #4 sold at around 35,000 which is down about 5,000 from issue #3. It's too early for people to be dropping it, and the drops are fairly consistent 5K increments, so stores are probably just adjusting their order quantities.

Even so, to slap a fresh set of numbers on two of DC comics better characters after a highly touted event, those numbers have to be beyond disappointing. To put it in perspective, GA was holding around the 80k mark when Meltzer left. It was topping 100K when Smith rebooted with a fresh set of numbers in Volume II.

In my opinion, DC wasted a fresh set of numbers when they chose not to give readers a fresh voice for Ollie. But that's just my opinion.

K-DoG7p7

03-11-2008, 11:02 AM

Issue #4 sold at around 35,000 which is down about 5,000 from issue #3. It's too early for people to be dropping it, and the drops are fairly consistent 5K increments, so stores are probably just adjusting their order quantities.

Is that the fixed January sales or the original one that was WAY off on every book?

Chris Hansbrough

03-11-2008, 11:08 AM

You forgot Warlord and Deadman. I feel I wasted so much money on his work that I'd be happy if he just quit comics forever. I mean, I've met him in person once and he was beyond cool but his comics work of late as been horrid.

D
E
N
he never did warlord....that book doesn't exist...it never happened...I don't know what makes you think Watlord as noone has written Travis Morgan as a character....I think since he popped up in imenez' wonder women run......it's been a long while though. Hopefully travis morgan wll mae a return but he sure as fuck wasn't written by Bruce Jones....
I
A
L

K-DoG7p7

03-11-2008, 11:15 AM

D
E
N
he never did warlord....that book doesn't exist...it never happened...I don't know what makes you think Watlord as noone has written Travis Morgan as a character....I think since he popped up in imenez' wonder women run......it's been a long while though. Hopefully travis morgan wll mae a return but he sure as fuck wasn't written by Bruce Jones....
I
A
L

As you might know... Mike Grell is working on a proposal for a new WarLord series

stamen

03-11-2008, 11:15 AM

Is that the fixed January sales or the original one that was WAY off on every book?

Those were the adjusted numbers, but they were an estimate. 35,039 units.

http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/12096.html

ETA: note that DC Comics only had one book (JLA) in the top 18, with Countdown rounding off the top 20 at slots #19-#20.

Chris Hansbrough

03-11-2008, 11:16 AM

Those were the adjusted numbers, but they were an estimate. 35,039 units.

http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/12096.html

you know the sad thing is that they will probably end up breaking em up because people didn't want it rather than, we had a writer who doesn't get the characters

K-DoG7p7

03-11-2008, 11:18 AM

i knew #4 would have a HUGE drop .. but GA/BC is now at GA solo numbers.. (after a few years under winick )
and that just can't be right!

stamen

03-11-2008, 11:24 AM

i knew #4 would have a HUGE drop .. but GA/BC is now at GA solo numbers..
and that just can't be right!

It does seem hard to believe. Not only because Black Canary is in the book to help boost sales, but with GA's appearances on Smallville, The Batman on WB, and one of the leading roles (outside the original 7) in JLU, one would expect at least some of that to migrate over to the book.

When you add in a fresh starting point for fans with a new #1, and a massive advertising campaign for a major comic event (the wedding), one can only assume that fans have left and aren't coming back to the character.

Sad really. So much potential there. I'm worried now though that DC will chalk it up to the character being a loss, as opposed to owning up to the fact that they jerked fans around when almost every other title got new writers during the OYL reboot, and every title rebooted with fresh numbers got new writers, except for Green Arrow.

Also fans were duped into buying a dangling plot line in a single event when they put out the Wedding issue, then suffered the same basic plot redeux only having Connor's "near death experience" substituted in for Ollie "near death experience."

On second thought, I'm not so surprised afterall.

MartinRedmond

03-11-2008, 11:37 AM

D
E
N
he never did warlord....that book doesn't exist...it never happened...I don't know what makes you think Watlord as noone has written Travis Morgan as a character....I think since he popped up in imenez' wonder women run......it's been a long while though. Hopefully travis morgan wll mae a return but he sure as fuck wasn't written by Bruce Jones....
I
A
L

Deadman was even worse, I didn't even know which issue was which. At some point I thought I had bought issues in duplicata until I assembled them all back to back.

Chris Hansbrough

03-11-2008, 11:52 AM

Deadman was even worse, I didn't even know which issue was which. At some point I thought I had bought issues in duplicata until I assembled them all back to back.

um......fuck no it wasn't....it can't be worse than something that doesn't exist....something that totally wasn't inked by a 5 year old with a crayon and colored with crayola markers....I am so glad that Bruce Jones has never written warlord. I'm pretty sure if he did it would set me off in a seething violent rage just thinking about what he would have done to the concept. Only way I could see making it worse is by having bart sears put out promo art that's in a completely different style of the book which fools me into buying it thinking it's gonna look pretty awesome and instead getting the afformentioned crayola job. sweet....my copy of the nextwave crayon edition would have probably looked better than that kind of book if it was ever produced...

I'm glad warlord has been away for a long time....hopefully grell will come back and make it all awesome again

JeffreyWKramer

03-11-2008, 11:56 AM

Issue #4 sold at around 35,000 which is down about 5,000 from issue #3. It's too early for people to be dropping it, and the drops are fairly consistent 5K increments, so stores are probably just adjusting their order quantities.

Even by current comics sales numbers, those aren't very good.

Corrina

03-11-2008, 12:50 PM

K-DoG7p7

03-11-2008, 12:55 PM

Well, there's really no incentive whatsoever for BC fans to read the book. She's a supporting character, despite the title, and all the arc have centered on Ollie--she's basically like Sharon Carter over in Captain America now except Captain America is better written---and Sharon is written as far more three-dimensional with her own set of problems that Dinah, who seems to basically be stuck in "i'm worried about Ollie and his family" phase.

*Yes, I have been checking in on the book, hoping for something good. But nothing good enough for me to plunk down money has shown up yet. Except the artwork. The artwork is sublime.
It is what EVERYONE knew was going to happen..
Its one thing to relaunch Green Arrow as Green arrow/Black Canary.. but when the writer thats written Green arrow for 50 issues also stays on.. you just know that it will be focused on Green arrow anyway.
But its not like Judd didn't try..
Issue #1 only had 2 pages of Ollie :P

stamen

03-11-2008, 12:58 PM

Corrina

03-11-2008, 01:18 PM

K-DoG7p7

03-11-2008, 01:44 PM

I agree both characters haven't been handled that well lately, though BC had the great advantage of being written by Gail for a long time.

And, yeah, no GA in GA/BC #1. But it was all Canary angsting after GA and not that well-written, either. Really, we all knew that he wasn't dead. A whole issue was wasted to get that over with and get on with the plot.

Now.. #1 did have quite a bit of Win..
like
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h209/7p7/PaneloftheWeek-1.jpg

and

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h209/7p7/miarates.jpg
from #2

MacQuarrie

03-11-2008, 02:20 PM

It is what EVERYONE knew was going to happen..
Its one thing to relaunch Green Arrow as Green arrow/Black Canary.. but when the writer thats written Green arrow for 50 issues also stays on.. you just know that it will be focused on Green arrow anyway.
But its not like Judd didn't try..
Issue #1 only had 2 pages of Ollie :P
I've bitched a lot about the fact that Winick doesn't know thing one about archery and isn't interested in learning, but here's the point: Archery is a philosophy. Archers are not like other sportsmen or hunters. There is a process and a discipline; it's more like a martial art than a sport, and the practice of archery has an impact on the personality and behavior of the archer. And Winick's Ollie does not think or act like an archer.

Archery is a sport of precision, patience, focus and deliberate action. Archers are a weird mix of confidence and humility; they're self-assured, even a bit arrogant, but usually generous and helpful. They tend to skew more toward the libertarian and communitarian than the socialist mindset. They know what they can do, and they know how much better or worse everybody else is. They know how to block out distractions and get down to business, and how to have a good time doing it. They are egalitarian; most archers will readily concede that women tend to do better at it than men. And they never trash-talk.

I don't get any of that from Winick's version of Oliver Queen.

JeffreyWKramer

03-11-2008, 02:22 PM

I've bitched a lot about the fact that Winick doesn't know thing one about archery and isn't interested in learning, but here's the point: Archery is a philosophy. Archers are not like other sportsmen or hunters. There is a process and a discipline; it's more like a martial art than a sport, and the practice of archery has an impact on the personality and behavior of the archer. And Winick's Ollie does not think or act like an archer.

Archery is a sport of precision, patience, focus and deliberate action. Archers are a weird mix of confidence and humility; they're self-assured, even a bit arrogant, but usually generous and helpful. They tend to skew more toward the libertarian and communitarian than the socialist mindset. They know what they can do, and they know how much better or worse everybody else is. They know how to block out distractions and get down to business, and how to have a good time doing it. They are egalitarian; most archers will readily concede that women tend to do better at it than men. And they never trash-talk.

I don't get any of that from Winick's version of Oliver Queen.

Winick more likely than not just views archery as a big phallic metaphor.

K-DoG7p7

03-11-2008, 02:27 PM

I've bitched a lot about the fact that Winick doesn't know thing one about archery and isn't interested in learning, but here's the point: Archery is a philosophy. Archers are not like other sportsmen or hunters. There is a process and a discipline; it's more like a martial art than a sport, and the practice of archery has an impact on the personality and behavior of the archer. And Winick's Ollie does not think or act like an archer.

Archery is a sport of precision, patience, focus and deliberate action. Archers are a weird mix of confidence and humility; they're self-assured, even a bit arrogant, but usually generous and helpful. They tend to skew more toward the libertarian and communitarian than the socialist mindset. They know what they can do, and they know how much better or worse everybody else is. They know how to block out distractions and get down to business, and how to have a good time doing it. They are egalitarian; most archers will readily concede that women tend to do better at it than men. And they never trash-talk.

I don't get any of that from Winick's version of Oliver Queen.

you are the kind of guy that can write 1000 pages about a grain of sand aren't you?

MacQuarrie

03-11-2008, 02:29 PM

you are the kind of guy that can write 1000 pages about a grain of sand aren't you?

Is that a compliment, or a complaint?

scout1279

03-11-2008, 02:36 PM

At least Canary fans get to read their character in JLA. Ollie fans have been pretty much screwed, and screwed for a long time. I guess now he's in Batman and the Outsiders, so we have that... but he should have been leading that group from the start, since he was funding it.

Black Canary fans really don't have JLA though, because she's not so much a character there as the object of Benes' ass obsession. I should have dropped the book after the issue with the panel that featured Batman literally having a conversation with Dinah's ass. I stayed for another two issues. It did not get better.

K-DoG7p7

03-11-2008, 02:39 PM

Black Canary fans really don't have JLA though, because she's not so much a character there as the object of Benes' ass obsession. I should have dropped the book after the issue with the panel that featured Batman leterally having a conversation with Dinah's ass. I stayed for another two issues. It did not get better.

WHAT ISSUE WAS THAT!"!! :p

scout1279

03-11-2008, 02:48 PM

WHAT ISSUE WAS THAT!"!! :p

Heh. I can't remember the issue number. It was the last issue of McDuffie's first arc about the Injustice Society.

K-DoG7p7

03-11-2008, 02:50 PM

well.. i feel like posting this
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h209/7p7/motivator2703817.jpg

diana_fan

03-11-2008, 02:51 PM

Yeah, but otoh, you felt like posting the brilliant observation that GA/BC is selling the same as GA was, with the same writer.

So, what am I supposed to make of that?

Stressfactor

03-11-2008, 03:28 PM

*Sigh* why can't the GA/BC series be wwritten like the JLU episode "Double Date"?

Why do I now like JLU Ollie better than comic book Ollie when it used to be a tie?

scout1279

03-11-2008, 03:33 PM

*Sigh* why can't the GA/BC series be wwritten like the JLU episode "Double Date"?

Why do I now like JLU Ollie better than comic book Ollie when it used to be a tie?
I never read DC at all before I started watching JLU, and after seeing "Double Date" I instantaneously fell in love with all four of those characters and ran out to buy comic books. It was a bit of a disappointment in some cases to say the least.

diana_fan

03-11-2008, 03:34 PM

*Sigh* why can't the GA/BC series be wwritten like the JLU episode "Double Date"?

Why do I now like JLU Ollie better than comic book Ollie when it used to be a tie?

*sigh*

Oh well. Good thing that JLU exists, eh?

No one forcing you to buy a $2.99 comic.

Tobias March

03-11-2008, 03:55 PM

*sigh*

Oh well. Good thing that JLU exists, eh?

No one forcing you to buy a $2.99 comic.

Well aside from the fact that you'd have to force me...

d newton

03-11-2008, 04:05 PM

But yes, if a writer goes along with something stupid, they are still responsible for what they write, and especially when the result is something as gratuitous as the Spoiler stuff Michael meant.
Is this a reference to War Games or War Crimes?

Rattlehead

03-11-2008, 04:12 PM

Is this a reference to War Games or War Crimes?

The two are parts of a whole. A really, really shitty whole.

K-DoG7p7

03-11-2008, 04:13 PM

*Sigh* why can't the GA/BC series be wwritten like the JLU episode "Double Date"?

Why do I now like JLU Ollie better than comic book Ollie when it used to be a tie?

yeah i wish the writer of that episode could do GA/BC.. who was it again?.. Dini? ..McDuffie? No wait! it was a woman.. hmmmm who was it :p

JeffreyWKramer

03-11-2008, 04:13 PM

The two are parts of a whole. A really, really shitty whole.

Excellently stated!

the4thpip

03-11-2008, 04:24 PM

Those were the adjusted numbers, but they were an estimate. 35,039 units.

http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/12096.html

ETA: note that DC Comics only had one book (JLA) in the top 18, with Countdown rounding off the top 20 at slots #19-#20.

Their second-best selling book, JSoA, was on skip-month. That did not help.

Sarah Beach

03-11-2008, 04:27 PM

I've bitched a lot about the fact that Winick doesn't know thing one about archery and isn't interested in learning, but here's the point: Archery is a philosophy. Archers are not like other sportsmen or hunters. There is a process and a discipline; it's more like a martial art than a sport, and the practice of archery has an impact on the personality and behavior of the archer. And Winick's Ollie does not think or act like an archer.

Archery is a sport of precision, patience, focus and deliberate action. Archers are a weird mix of confidence and humility; they're self-assured, even a bit arrogant, but usually generous and helpful. They tend to skew more toward the libertarian and communitarian than the socialist mindset. They know what they can do, and they know how much better or worse everybody else is. They know how to block out distractions and get down to business, and how to have a good time doing it. They are egalitarian; most archers will readily concede that women tend to do better at it than men. And they never trash-talk.

I don't get any of that from Winick's version of Oliver Queen.

You inspire me! I was just thinking yesterday (looking at my beautiful new bow) that it's time for me to get back on the range!

:)

JeffreyWKramer

03-11-2008, 04:28 PM

Their second-best selling book, JSoA, was on skip-month. That did not help.

Yow, DC's standings really bite.

On the plus side, it's neat to see a good non DC or Marvel title (BUFFY) consistently making good sales.

diana_fan

03-11-2008, 04:58 PM

Well aside from the fact that you'd have to force me...

Good. Don't. So, what's your point?

(That is, assuming you have one.)

MacQuarrie

03-11-2008, 06:59 PM

You inspire me! I was just thinking yesterday (looking at my beautiful new bow) that it's time for me to get back on the range!

:)
New bow? What do you have?

Saturday mornings, 9:00 AM. Lower Arroyo Park, Pasadena. Half a mile south of the Colorado street Bridge. I'm at target #1 with about a bunch of teenagers.

stealthwise

03-11-2008, 07:45 PM

Good. Don't. So, what's your point?

(That is, assuming you have one.)

You could always just put "No one's forcing you to buy any book" into your signature and save yourself carpal tunnel.

;)

Red Jack

03-11-2008, 08:13 PM

Black Canary fans really don't have JLA though, because she's not so much a character there as the object of Benes' ass obsession. I should have dropped the book after the issue with the panel that featured Batman literally having a conversation with Dinah's ass. I stayed for another two issues. It did not get better.

It helps if you read the words. McDuffie is top drawer.

scout1279

03-11-2008, 08:27 PM

It helps if you read the words. McDuffie is top drawer.
Well, I did in fact read the words, and while McDuffie is very good, the stories just aren't good enough to make up for the fact that Benes' art severly undercuts them. Besides the ass obsession, a lot of his page layouts make it hard to follow the action. It's just a big mess. This wasn't the case when Meltzer was writing, and I don't know why the art is devolved so much, but it has. Maybe if the stories were not just lead ins to a bunch of crossovers that I couldn't care less about, I would feel differently, but for right now, I actually prefer GA/BC.

stamen

03-11-2008, 08:39 PM

I should have dropped the book after the issue with the panel that featured Batman literally having a conversation with Dinah's ass.

I wish it talked back. I'm thinking it has a lot to say. To me. :p

Michael P

03-11-2008, 09:25 PM

Well, I did in fact read the words, and while McDuffie is very good, the stories just aren't good enough to make up for the fact that Benes' art severly undercuts them. Besides the ass obsession, a lot of his page layouts make it hard to follow the action. It's just a big mess. This wasn't the case when Meltzer was writing, and I don't know why the art is devolved so much, but it has. Maybe if the stories were not just lead ins to a bunch of crossovers that I couldn't care less about, I would feel differently, but for right now, I actually prefer GA/BC.

It's even worse when Benitez is drawing it. Between the terrible art and shoehorning in every possible Countdown tie-in they can, it's like DC is making a concerted effort to have JLA be one of their worst titles.

d newton

03-11-2008, 09:39 PM

The two are parts of a whole. A really, really shitty whole.
We had some good Selina / Steph moments in WG not to mention Tim vs Ventriloquist / Scarface.

JeffreyWKramer

03-12-2008, 06:38 AM

We had some good Selina / Steph moments in WG not to mention Tim vs Ventriloquist / Scarface.

None of that makes up for the loathesomeness of the gratuitious sadism and unnecessarily misogynism of the prolonged scenes featuring the torture of a teenage girl, though. That's sort of like putting some nice gravy over a plate of turds and saying the whole thing is tasty.

Not to mention that the underlying plot was mostly stupid.

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 06:42 AM

You could always just put "No one's forcing you to buy any book" into your signature and save yourself carpal tunnel.

;)

HAHA! Well-played, sir. Well-played. :)

d newton

03-12-2008, 06:58 AM

None of that makes up for the loathesomeness of the gratuitious sadism and unnecessarily misogynism of the prolonged scenes featuring the torture of a teenage girl, though.
Who fought back against Black Mask IIRC.

Not to mention that the underlying plot was mostly stupid.
No - stupid would be doing nothing to fix your mistake.

JeffreyWKramer

03-12-2008, 07:05 AM

Who fought back against Black Mask IIRC.

I fail to see your point here. Superheroes fight villains. That's a major aspect of the genre. Sometimes they get put in bad situations as a dramatic ploy. That's fine. Even the idea of torture under some situations is dramatically appropriate.

None of that excuses extended, gratuitious scenes of pointless sadism and degradation, sometimes including sexualized comments, toward a teenage girl. And in an all-ages comic no less.

No - stupid would be doing nothing to fix your mistake.
What exactly was "fixed" in any of the crapfest that was "War Games" and "War Crimes?"

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 07:13 AM

I fail to see your point here. Superheroes fight villains. That's a major aspect of the genre. Sometimes they get put in bad situations as a dramatic ploy. That's fine. Even the idea of torture under some situations is dramatically appropriate.

None of that excuses extended, gratuitious scenes of pointless sadism and degradation, sometimes including sexualized comments, toward a teenage girl. And in an all-ages comic no less.

I don't want to get into the whole "War Games"/"War Crimes" thing again. But really, how are the Bat-books "All-Ages"?

Or am I mis-understanding the term?

Rattlehead

03-12-2008, 07:50 AM

I don't want to get into the whole "War Games"/"War Crimes" thing again. But really, how are the Bat-books "All-Ages"?

Or am I mis-understanding the term?

Well, taken at face value, they are. DC doesn't have an internal rating system like Marvel, and the only things to come out of DC to have "Mature Readers" on them are Vertigo. Sometimes. There's certainly no warnings of adult content being in them, and they still sport the Comics Code logo, even though that's meaningless, but there's no way of knowing what's in the books until you crack them open.

JeffreyWKramer

03-12-2008, 08:00 AM

I don't want to get into the whole "War Games"/"War Crimes" thing again. But really, how are the Bat-books "All-Ages"?

Or am I mis-understanding the term?

The default for DC, which does not use a rating system akin to TV or what Marvel uses, is that if it doesn't have a "mature audiences" or "mature content" notation, it's considered appropriate for general audiences so long as they're old enough to read and understand the book.

All too often that hasn't actually been the case in recent years for DC's books.

Now one can argue whether core titles featuring characters that are marketed to kids should contain adult content in the first place, but if they are to do so, it's probably better if they at least carry the warnings. If things like "War Games" and IDENTITY CRISIS had carried those warnings, they'd still be shitty comics, but I'd have somewhat less problem with them.

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 08:05 AM

The default for DC, which does not use a rating system akin to TV or what Marvel uses, is that if it doesn't have a "mature audiences" or "mature content" notation, it's considered appropriate for general audiences so long as they're old enough to read and understand the book.

All too often that hasn't actually been the case in recent years for DC's books.

Now one can argue whether core titles featuring characters that are marketed to kids should contain adult content in the first place, but if they are to do so, it's probably better if they at least carry the warnings. If things like "War Games" and IDENTITY CRISIS had carried those warnings, they'd still be shitty comics, but I'd have somewhat less problem with them.

See, I see the default at DC as being generally "adult" titles. That doesn't mean naked people or graphic violence. But it means that Batman as written by Grant Morrison isn't really aimed at 8 year-olds.

Something like Teen Titans: Year One? Sure. But the Bat-books? No way.

OTOH, I got into comics as an adult, so maybe my perspective is just skewed. (Actually, "War Games" was one of the first Bat-stories I read, as chance would have it.)

JeffreyWKramer

03-12-2008, 08:15 AM

See, I see the default at DC as being generally "adult" titles. That doesn't mean naked people or graphic violence. But it means that Batman as written by Grant Morrison isn't really aimed at 8 year-olds.

Something like Teen Titans: Year One? Sure. But the Bat-books? No way.

TT: YEAR ONE and the "War Games" books have exactly the same audience ratings on the cover, i.e., none. That's the problem. From the cover, how is a potential reader - or parent of a reader - supposed to know for whom it is appropriate, especially since DC continues to license the images of Batman, Superman, etc. for stuff aimed specifically at kids or all-ages audiences?

Morrison's BATMAN isn't aimed at kids, but really neither was the O'Neil and Adams BATMAN in the 70s, which I read voraciously as a kid. But the key is that neither is really *inappropriate* for kids. A kid probably wouldn't follow all of the stuff in the current BATMAN, but there wouldn't really be any clearly inappropriate content, either. If there was, then there should be a content warning/mature readers label.

It's really not a complex concept. I don't know why you don't get it, and I certainly don't know why DC doesn't get it.

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 08:18 AM

I'm not arguing with you. And I realize that there isn't a ratings system, for DC.

JeffreyWKramer

03-12-2008, 08:29 AM

I'm not arguing with you. And I realize that there isn't a ratings system, for DC.

And do you see why this is problematic, given that they continue to market the images of their characters to general audiences, and in some cases to kids?

It's not like NBC or the studio are marketing LAW AND ORDER: SVU Halloween costumes andcoloring books, after all.

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 08:38 AM

And do you see why this is problematic, given that they continue to market the images of their characters to general audiences, and in some cases to kids?

It's not like NBC or the studio are marketing LAW AND ORDER: SVU Halloween costumes andcoloring books, after all.

Yes an no.

Yes in the sense that I understand the underlying concept.

No in the sense that I neither have kids nor deal with children. So, it really doesn't affect me one way or the other.

Alan Lynch

03-12-2008, 09:10 AM

Yes an no.

Yes in the sense that I understand the underlying concept.

No in the sense that I neither have kids nor deal with children. So, it really doesn't affect me one way or the other.
That doesn't mean that age appropriate content isn't an issue with regards to Spoiler's treatment in War Games; which if I've been following right was how this whole discussion of DC's lack of content warnings got here. That whole torture thing was wildly inappropriate for a book avaliable to children, whether it directly affected me or not.

JeffreyWKramer

03-12-2008, 09:22 AM

That doesn't mean that age appropriate content isn't an issue with regards to Spoiler's treatment in War Games; which if I've been following right was how this whole discussion of DC's lack of content warnings got here. That whole torture thing was wildly inappropriate for a book avaliable to children, whether it directly affected me or not.

I can understand the average reader not caring a lot about that, even though that is a fairly self-centered perspective, but I really don't understand DC's apparent lack of concern about such things.

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 09:31 AM

I can understand the average reader not caring a lot about that, even though that is a fairly self-centered perspective, but I really don't understand DC's apparent lack of concern about such things.

I think, and I'm only tossing stuff out here, that given the multiple horrific acts that occur weekly in Big 2 comics, they probably didn't consider it that much different.

Or maybe they did, but only after. I honestly don't know.

It was certainly grim, there's no way around that. And I'm not at all trying to imply otherwise. But to me (and JUST to me) professing that a completely selfish fucktard like Tony Stark is a "hero," even after everything he did during Civil War, seems far more of a crime than one nasty, grim scene that isn't that different from what people (including kids) see on tv all the time.

Now, I will admit, I don't always "connect" with this overall argument about kids. When I was 10 or so, I was seeing movies like "Apocalypse Now" and "The Shining" in the theatre, and watching "A Clockwork Orange" on cable.

I'm not trying to diminish your argument at all, Jeffrey. I'm just explaining my reaction to it.

Michael P

03-12-2008, 02:04 PM

Someone asked for the numbers on Green Arrow/Black Canary a page or so back. From the January Month-to-Month Analysis:

59 - GREEN ARROW/BLACK CANARY
01/2002: Green Arrow #12 — 75,978*
01/2003: Green Arrow #21 — 52,554*
01/2004: Green Arrow #34 — 35,986
01/2005: Green Arrow #46 — 32,469
01/2006: Green Arrow #58 — 30,990
———————————–
01/2007: Green Arrow #70 — 31,798 (- 1.4%)
02/2007: Green Arrow #71 — 31,470 (- 1.0%)
03/2007: Green Arrow #72 — 31,144 (- 1.0%)
04/2007: Green Arrow #73 — 30,652 (- 1.6%)
05/2007: Green Arrow #74 — 30,751 (+ 0.3%)
06/2007: Green Arrow #75 — 35,022 (+13.9%)
07/2007: Year One #1 of 6 — 37,090 (+ 5.9%)
07/2007: Year One #2 of 6 — 32,222 (-13.1%) [34,962]
08/2007: Year One #3 of 6 — 32,971 (+ 2.3%)
08/2007: Year One #4 of 6 — 31,885 (- 3.3%)
09/2007: Year One #5 of 6 — 31,504 (- 1.2%)
10/2007: Year One #6 of 6 — 30,943 (- 1.8%)
10/2007: Arrow/Canary #1 — 52,183 (+68.6%)
11/2007: Arrow/Canary #2 — 42,827 (-17.9%)
12/2007: Arrow/Canary #3 — 40,321 (- 5.9%)
01/2008: Arrow/Canary #4 — 35,039 (-13.1%)
—————-
6 months: + 1.1%
1 year : +10.2%
2 years : +13.1%

Well, that’s quite a horrible drop, isn’t it? Green Arrow/Black Canary #4 was the first issue without a variant cover edition to boost sales on its side, and sales duly respond. The book is barely 5,000 units ahead of the solo Green Arrow title now - not counting the final issue, mind you - and it’s yet to find its level. This isn’t a good omen.

Sarah Beach

03-12-2008, 04:13 PM

New bow? What do you have?

Saturday mornings, 9:00 AM. Lower Arroyo Park, Pasadena. Half a mile south of the Colorado street Bridge. I'm at target #1 with about a bunch of teenagers.

Custom built Howard Hill design four layer bamboo laminate long bow. She's really sweet, though I haven't had her on the range much.

I usually shoot at Rancho Park, in Cheviot Hills. It's sort of on my way home from the studio, and since it's lit in the evenings and open if you've got your own equipment, it's very handy.

I often have a screenwriters group meeting Saturday mornings, but I'll keep it in mind. I've never been over to the Pasadena range.

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 04:15 PM

In other words, GA?BC is selling to the same numbers that it did with same writer before?

Wow. I'm amazed.

Rattlehead

03-12-2008, 04:21 PM

In other words, GA?BC is selling to the same numbers that it did with same writer before?

Wow. I'm amazed.

It's shedding readers quickly, and aren't relaunches supposed to sell more books? It certainly doesn't look like any of Canary's fans came over, which defeats the whole purpose of the title.

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 04:24 PM

It's shedding readers quickly, and aren't relaunches supposed to sell more books? It certainly doesn't look like any of Canary's fans came over, which defeats the whole purpose of the title.

No it's not.

It's doing the same numbers that it did before. Why can't people deal?

K-DoG7p7

03-12-2008, 04:26 PM

No it's not.

It's doing the same numbers that it did before. Why can't people deal?

Because at #1 now starring one more A lister it should be selling above 40 atleast!

People hated the Wedding special ending.. and they HATEEEEEEEEEEDDDD the ending of #3..

and making people drop a book out of anger is NOT!! a good way to start a new series..

Rattlehead

03-12-2008, 04:28 PM

No it's not.

It's doing the same numbers that it did before. Why can't people deal?

Then why bother with a relaunch? You could have put Canary in the book without giving her marquee billing. Except I suspect DC wanted her fans to pick up the book as well, which hasn't happened.

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 04:34 PM

Because at #1 now starring one more A lister it should be selling above 40 atleast!

People hated the Wedding special ending.. and they HATEEEEEEEEEEDDDD the ending of #3..

and making people drop a book out of anger is NOT!! a good way to start a new series..

Then why bother with a relaunch? You could have put Canary in the book without giving her marquee billing. Except I suspect DC wanted her fans to pick up the book as well, which hasn't happened.

Last readers for Green Arrow, Green Arrow #75: 35,022
Readers for Green Arrow/Black Canary #4: 35,039

And the DIFFERENCE IS WHAT?!

Give me a FUCKING break. Yes you hate Winick. Yes you want to make the whole thing a nightmare.

But it's the same fucking numbers! God almighty. What is wrong with you?!

K-DoG7p7

03-12-2008, 04:41 PM

Last readers for Green Arrow, Green Arrow #75: 35,022
Readers for Green Arrow/Black Canary #4: 35,039

And the DIFFERENCE IS WHAT?!

Give me a FUCKING break. Yes you hate Winick. Yes you want to make the whole thing a nightmare.

But it's the same fucking numbers! God almighty. What is wrong with you?!

Its the same and STILL DROPPING! I guarantee you that when the Febuary numbers come out you will see UNDER! 33.000

also its the same number.. After a restart, and with a popular high profile co-star.. that just never happens! and even worse.. many people say that they only stick around because of the art!..
Fact is this book should be selling in the high-mid 40's, but the shitty "It was Everyman" and "Lets shoot connor hawke and put him in a coma.. or braindead.. ahh hell i can't decide so ill say both even thou that can't be"
Also i feel alot ot people are upsett that Sin was written out so fast... and the fact that Tony actually said he wrote her out because he wanted to protect her kinda tells the tale of "Whats wrong with Winick.."

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 04:43 PM

Yeah, to go from 35k to 35k is just a mess.

Whatever.

K-DoG7p7

03-12-2008, 04:43 PM

I can guarantee that if they change Writers now.. even if they put an unknown n00b writer on the series it will go up at least 10.000..
and if they put someone like.. ohh lets say.. Gail on it it will go up 20.000

Mike Grell would probably push it up to around 80's :P and he wants to write more Ollie :p..

Astonishing X-Fan

03-12-2008, 04:55 PM

I may get shot for saying this, but...

I like Winnick's work on Arrow/Canary.

Rattlehead

03-12-2008, 04:59 PM

Last readers for Green Arrow, Green Arrow #75: 35,022
Readers for Green Arrow/Black Canary #4: 35,039

And the DIFFERENCE IS WHAT?!

Black Canary's addition to the book was supposed to make numbers on the book go UP, that's the difference. That didn't happen. It's going to level off BELOW the numbers Green Arrow's solo book was doing.

Give me a FUCKING break. Yes you hate Winick. Yes you want to make the whole thing a nightmare.

I don't hate comic book writers. It's a fucking comic book at the end of the day. I'm not one of the lifeless assholes that lives and dies by a fictional character.

But it's the same fucking numbers! God almighty. What is wrong with you?!

Black Canary's addition to the book was supposed to make the numbers GO UP. WHICH THEY DIDN'T!

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 05:03 PM

Black Canary's addition to the book was supposed to make numbers on the book go UP, that's the difference. That didn't happen. It's going to level off BELOW the numbers Green Arrow's solo book was doing.

Yes, because Black Canary is such a HUGE character!

Are you kidding me?

Rattlehead

03-12-2008, 05:06 PM

Yes, because Black Canary is such a HUGE character!

Are you kidding me?

Theoritcally, they had an oppurtunity to bring over the 20k or so that was reading Canary in Birds of Prey over, which would have doubled the readership. Which is why the book is called Green Arrow/Black Canary, not Green Arrow #80. They failed miserably.

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 05:10 PM

Theoritcally, they had an oppurtunity to bring over the 20k or so that was reading Canary in Birds of Prey over, which would have doubled the readership. Which is why the book is called Green Arrow/Black Canary, not Green Arrow #80. They failed miserably.

And the 20k that are fans of Canary HATE Winick.

You know this. We all know this. It's not a secret.

K-DoG7p7

03-12-2008, 05:16 PM

And the 20k that are fans of Canary HATE Winick.

You know this. We all know this. It's not a secret.

yes.. thats what we are saying.. Winick is the reason this series is down at pre-relaunch levels..

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 05:20 PM

yes.. thats what we are saying.. Winick is the reason this series is down at pre-relaunch levels..

I don;t get the point, actually.

It's selling exactly the same as it was before. ????

K-DoG7p7

03-12-2008, 05:22 PM

I don;t get the point, actually.

It's selling exactly the same as it was before. ????

yes.. and STILL DROPPING!
how many relaunches have you seen where the numbers end up at the pre relaunch Levels at #4?

i'll tell you.. ZERO!

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 05:24 PM

yes.. and STILL DROPPING!
how many relaunches have you seen where the numbers end up at the pre relaunch Levels at #4?

i'll tell you.. ZERO!

Meh.

It's 35k. Pretty steady. When you see something like 17k, give me a call.

K-DoG7p7

03-12-2008, 05:25 PM

Meh.

It's 35k. Pretty steady. When you see something like 17k, give me a call.

you call a 5000 drop from #3 to #4 steady? thats the opposite of steady!

K-DoG7p7

03-12-2008, 05:28 PM

Look at these numbers
01/2007: Green Arrow #70 — 31,798 (- 1.4%)
02/2007: Green Arrow #71 — 31,470 (- 1.0%)
03/2007: Green Arrow #72 — 31,144 (- 1.0%)
04/2007: Green Arrow #73 — 30,652 (- 1.6%)
05/2007: Green Arrow #74 — 30,751 (+ 0.3%)
06/2007: Green Arrow #75 — 35,022 (+13.9%)
10/2007: Arrow/Canary #1 — 52,183 (+68.6%)
11/2007: Arrow/Canary #2 — 42,827 (-17.9%)
12/2007: Arrow/Canary #3 — 40,321 (- 5.9%)
01/2008: Arrow/Canary #4 — 35,039 (-13.1%)

Thats not a steady drop.. thats what we call a rush or readers abandoning a series..
It lost 5300 readers in ONE MONTH! after it appeard to slow down..
and i garantee you that #5 will be well below 33.000 readers..

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 05:34 PM

Look at these numbers

Thats not a steady drop.. thats what we call a rush or readers abandoning a series..
It lost 5300 readers in ONE MONTH! after it appeard to slow down..
and i garantee you that #5 will be well below 33.000 readers..

Are you on drugs:!

31k is actually LESS than 35k. What planet are you from?

K-DoG7p7

03-12-2008, 05:40 PM

What? what? whats going on.. what does 31K have to do with anything?

there is no denying the fact that GA/BC is sheading readers in an increasing pace.. and that GA/BC #4 sold just as many as GA #75

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 05:44 PM

What? what? whats going on.. what does 31K have to do with anything?

there is no denying the fact that GA/BC is sheading readers in an increasing pace.. and that GA/BC #4 sold just as many as GA #75

DUH!

Wow. It might actually EQUAL its old total! Wow! I'm shocked. Same writer. Same character. Same totals. Totally shocking.

Uh-huh. Call me when something interesting happens.

K-DoG7p7

03-12-2008, 05:46 PM

DUH!

Wow. It might actually EQUAL its old total! Wow! I'm shocked. Same writer. Same character. Same totals. Totally shocking.

Uh-huh. Call me when something interesting happens.

Here is the thing.. its NOT the same characters.. now there is one more character that could hold this kinda of numbers by her self..

Also those numbers at the top are due to the line wide OYL drop..

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 05:56 PM

Here is the thing.. its NOT the same characters.. now there is one more character that could hold this kinda of numbers by her self..

Also those numbers at the top are due to the line wide OYL drop..

Are you serious?!

Dinah, Helena, and Babs, TOGETHER were doing something like 20k, when it was one of the BEST books on the market.

You are telling me that adding Dinah to GA is gonna improve sales by the thousands?!

I think you are confusing what you LIKE and what you actually SEE.

I'll tell you what will increase sales: Have Brad Meltzer or Kevin Smith wright the book again. Otherwise? Nope.

K-DoG7p7

03-12-2008, 06:00 PM

Are you serious?!

Dinah, Helena, and Babs, TOGETHER were doing something like 20k, when it was one of the BEST books on the market.

You are telling me that adding Dinah to GA is gonna improve sales by the thousands?!

I think you are confusing what you LIKE and what you actually SEE.

I'll tell you what will increase sales: Have Brad Meltzer or Kevin Smith wright the book again. Otherwise? Nope.

Actually Gails run on BOP was at 30.000
and yes .. the addition of Dinah to Green arrow should have spiked the sales to above 40.. at least for the first 10 issues..

And YES! Any other writer would increase the sales.. thats what we've said for the last 5 pages..

ANY OTHER!! even Mr Amazons AtazzzZZzzzZzZZzzzzZZZzzzzzz

jerrymcl89

03-12-2008, 06:03 PM

Are you serious?!

Dinah, Helena, and Babs, TOGETHER were doing something like 20k, when it was one of the BEST books on the market.

You are telling me that adding Dinah to GA is gonna improve sales by the thousands?!

I think you are confusing what you LIKE and what you actually SEE.

I'll tell you what will increase sales: Have Brad Meltzer or Kevin Smith wright the book again. Otherwise? Nope.

Sales for BOP did start to decline when Dinah left the title, even before Gail did. So it's somewhat reasonable to think adding her to GA would generate some additional sales. Of course, her fans and Judd's fans may not be the same people.

Michael P

03-12-2008, 06:14 PM

Regardless of where the numbers level off, Green Arrow/Black Canary has shed all of the readers it picked up from the relaunch in three months. By any standard DC can reasonably have been hoping for, that's bad.

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 06:35 PM

Riiiiiight.

Adding Black Canary, whom I LOVE, is gonna add 10k in sales. Where did you get this info? Got a spreadsheet?

Come on.

Corrina

03-12-2008, 06:53 PM

Weeellll, presumably *DC* thought it would add sales or they wouldn't have done it. Because that's the bottom line for them, yes? Sell more books.

diana_fan

03-12-2008, 07:01 PM

Weeellll, presumably *DC* thought it would add sales or they wouldn't have done it. Because that's the bottom line for them, yes? Sell more books.

And it did. For the first few issues.

Now everything is back to normal, and I'm not surprised that it is. It's still Winick, it's still Ollie. Add in Dinah, whom I LOVE again, but really. Let's face it.

The book is Green Arrow Family: Ollie, Dinah, Connor, Mia, Roy. People are NOT that interested in it.

I wish they were.

TCJohnson

03-12-2008, 07:56 PM

Weeellll, presumably *DC* thought it would add sales or they wouldn't have done it. Because that's the bottom line for them, yes? Sell more books.

Most of the time.

But then again there are books li,e Manhunter.

Michael P

03-12-2008, 09:08 PM

And it did. For the first few issues.

And that's BAD. They wanted a LONG-TERM increase in sales. They ALWAYS want a long-term increase in sales.

Do I need to say it with flash cards or something?

stamen

03-12-2008, 09:15 PM

I live in a very small town, and even I know a half a dozen people that didn't pick it up and even give it a shot because Winick's name was on it.

I thought I would be one of those, but I did pick it up. It's not that bad really, not compared to Volume II.

Point is, if it's happening in this tiny corner of the comics world, I can only imagine that failing to put a fresh writer on the title ultimately doomed the relaunch. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe there is no way for me to determine anything "trendy" in this title from my tiny window of the world. I'll fess up to making an educated guess.

But I can't imagine that comic fans around the country are all that different.

the4thpip

03-13-2008, 04:16 AM

From the beat:

59 - GREEN ARROW/BLACK CANARY
01/2002: Green Arrow #12 — 75,978*
01/2003: Green Arrow #21 — 52,554*
01/2004: Green Arrow #34 — 35,986
01/2005: Green Arrow #46 — 32,469
01/2006: Green Arrow #58 — 30,990
———————————–
01/2007: Green Arrow #70 — 31,798 (- 1.4%)
02/2007: Green Arrow #71 — 31,470 (- 1.0%)
03/2007: Green Arrow #72 — 31,144 (- 1.0%)
04/2007: Green Arrow #73 — 30,652 (- 1.6%)
05/2007: Green Arrow #74 — 30,751 (+ 0.3%)
06/2007: Green Arrow #75 — 35,022 (+13.9%)
07/2007: Year One #1 of 6 — 37,090 (+ 5.9%)
07/2007: Year One #2 of 6 — 32,222 (-13.1%) [34,962]
08/2007: Year One #3 of 6 — 32,971 (+ 2.3%)
08/2007: Year One #4 of 6 — 31,885 (- 3.3%)
09/2007: Year One #5 of 6 — 31,504 (- 1.2%)
10/2007: Year One #6 of 6 — 30,943 (- 1.8%)
10/2007: Arrow/Canary #1 — 52,183 (+68.6%)
11/2007: Arrow/Canary #2 — 42,827 (-17.9%)
12/2007: Arrow/Canary #3 — 40,321 (- 5.9%)
01/2008: Arrow/Canary #4 — 35,039 (-13.1%)
—————-
6 months: + 1.1%
1 year : +10.2%
2 years : +13.1%

Well, that’s quite a horrible drop, isn’t it? Green Arrow/Black Canary #4 was the first issue without a variant cover edition to boost sales on its side, and sales duly respond. The book is barely 5,000 units ahead of the solo Green Arrow title now - not counting the final issue, mind you - and it’s yet to find its level. This isn’t a good omen.

http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/03/12/dc-mowoodnth-to-month-sales-january-2008/

MacQuarrie

03-13-2008, 05:01 AM

MacQuarrie

03-13-2008, 05:05 AM

And it did. For the first few issues.

Now everything is back to normal, and I'm not surprised that it is. It's still Winick, it's still Ollie. Add in Dinah, whom I LOVE again, but really. Let's face it.

The book is Green Arrow Family: Ollie, Dinah, Connor, Mia, Roy. People are NOT that interested in it.

I wish they were.
"Normal" is supposed to be an improvement over where it was before. It isn't.

And you really need to up your meds, dude. You get way too worked up and abusive over this shit. Chill the fuck out.

diana_fan

03-13-2008, 07:19 AM

You're missing the point. A relaunch is supposed to boost sales. If the numbers stay the same or decline, the relaunch is a failure. "The same fucking numbers" means Winick failed to deliver.

No, it means that there as many GA readers as there were before.

Slapping a #1 on an issue can get you extra readers, which this did. But beyond that? No.

Oh, and I apologize for losing my temper. That was uncalled for.

the4thpip

03-13-2008, 07:21 AM

No, it means that there as many GA readers as there were before.

Slapping a #1 on an issue can get you extra readers, which this did. But beyond that? No.

Oh, and I apologize for losing my temper. That was uncalled for.

They did not slap a #1 on the issue. They did that with Flash and Wonder Woman. This time, they canceled a series featuring one character and launched a series featuring two characters, the second one co-starring in 2 popular team books.

But maybe they forgot to tell Judd they were doing that.

scout1279

03-13-2008, 08:54 AM

MacQuarrie

03-13-2008, 02:37 PM

No, it means that there as many GA readers as there were before.

Slapping a #1 on an issue can get you extra readers, which this did. But beyond that? No.
DC is a business, and as a business, their primary concern is money. That means selling more books, and not just a few thousand extra copies of a new #1 issue. When they change the title of the book, change the cast, and start over with a new first issue, the purpose is to increase sales and make more money.

That didn't happen. QED, Winick failed in his mandate. He was supposed to bring in more regular readers and sell more copies. He didn't.

Oh, and I apologize for losing my temper. That was uncalled for.
Accepted. Look, we're all just fat guys talking about comics; it's nothing to get upset about. Let's just relax and enjoy the conversation, right?

K-DoG7p7

03-14-2008, 04:43 PM

Live from a Marvel panel at WWLA its!
Joe Kelly and Mike McKone ..
and Terry as we allready know..

NickThompson

03-14-2008, 06:48 PM

Live from a Marvel panel at WWLA its!
Joe Kelly and Mike McKone ..
and Terry as we allready know..
And Tim Sale.

bert

03-14-2008, 06:56 PM

hmmm. . what book did Kelly "save" that Rich was talking about?

jerrymcl89

03-14-2008, 08:57 PM

I've liked Kelly's work. But since he wasn't doing any significant work at DC, that's ok with me. (Personally, I'd have liked to see him write Superman/Batman on an ongoing basis, but so be it).

d newton

03-14-2008, 11:10 PM

hmmm. . what book did Kelly "save" that Rich was talking about?
Supergirl.

PatrickG

03-15-2008, 09:18 AM

I've liked Kelly's work. But since he wasn't doing any significant work at DC, that's ok with me. (Personally, I'd have liked to see him write Superman/Batman on an ongoing basis, but so be it).

I believe he is doing another annual before his contract is up.

And I hear the new writer, Green, is recapturing a lot of the Loeb charm and getting new readers excited too.

I haven't picked up his issues yet.

diana_fan

03-15-2008, 09:29 AM

Supergirl.

Deadpool. Many people believe his Deadpool run to be a classic.

Hardly anyone (outside of myself, and a few others) would say that about his Supergirl run. And even I admit that his work with Kara was cut woefully short, and this hurt the overall image of what could have been.

Still, some of Kelly's Supergirl issues are real favorites, such as #9-#11.

diana_fan

03-15-2008, 09:37 AM

DC is a business, and as a business, their primary concern is money. That means selling more books, and not just a few thousand extra copies of a new #1 issue. When they change the title of the book, change the cast, and start over with a new first issue, the purpose is to increase sales and make more money.

That didn't happen. QED, Winick failed in his mandate. He was supposed to bring in more regular readers and sell more copies. He didn't.

I get that. But that's a pretty shitty mandate, honestly.

"Here, we're gonna give you the same character, add a character who, while she has a vocal and devoted fan-base, is not really that popular of a character. Also, we're going to give you an artist who, again, while his work is sublime, is not at all a big name. You're still on the book, as you've been for the past 377 issues.

"Bring in another 20k, ok?"

That's a fairly tough task to live up to, to be frank.

It's like an owner in baseball telling his GM, "Look, I know we have the 3rd lowest payroll in all the Major Leagues. And I know our stadium sucks. Here's an extra 10 grand this year. Raise revenues by 30%. OK, later."

:)

Accepted. Look, we're all just fat guys talking about comics; it's nothing to get upset about. Let's just relax and enjoy the conversation, right?

Agreed.

I believe he is doing another annual before his contract is up.

And I hear the new writer, Green, is recapturing a lot of the Loeb charm and getting new readers excited too.

I haven't picked up his issues yet.

Yes, Superman/Batman Annual #2 ships this week. That will be Kelly's last DC work for the foreseeable future. If it's half as good as his SM/BM Annual #1, then it will be great.

I got so turned off by DC hiring Pat Lee for SM/BM, that once I dropped it, I just never really wanted to go back, even with Shane Davis on art. And I thought his work on Mystery in Space was brilliant.

Maybe I will take a look at the collections, some day.