Marc Gugenheim- WTF?

[KJ_81]

From http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=007464;p=1#000 003

Speaking of "judging" Guggenheim said a lot of people who aren't reading Spider-Man or refuse to read Spider-Man are judging it based on misunderstandings. "Part of the problem with the controversy behind One More Day is the understanding of what was retconned overstates the extent of what was done," he said. "Everything that happened in the last twenty plus years of comic book history happened! The only difference is that Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson weren't married. They still dated. They still lived together. They still love each other. They just weren't married. Judging from the letters and death threats we received, I think some people were confused. It all still happened."

"Here's my attitude, if anyone is upset about the marriage going away, then they must all be pro gay marriage," he continued. Because if you're pro gay marriage, you understand the distinction between a marriage and a civil union -- that a civil union is not equal to a marriage. We downgraded Mary Jane and Peter to a civil union. If that bothers you, then you're pro gay marriage."
--------

What the heck is he trying to say?

[the4thpip]

He clearly is saying that Peter is gay for Harry Osborne.

[General Grievous]

They will be years living this retcon down IMHO.

[Lester C.]

If you look at the "sell out" issues of Brand New Ways To Die the book is still tanking. Fans are still mad. For me it isn't the fact that MJ and Peter are no longer together it's that the marrage never happened. I don't care what they say, if you retcon the marrage out you retcon many of the stories that we all grew up reading either all or in part. That makes me mad. Very, very mad.

[Brian Cronin]

What the heck is he trying to say?

People against gay marriage say, "You don't need to get married, you can just have a civil union - it's just like a marriage, but it's not technically a marriage."

People for gay marriage say, "We want actual marriage, not some substitute."

Marvel is saying, "Peter and Mary Jane were not married, but they basically had a civil union - it is just like a marriage, they just technically weren't officially married."

Therefore, Guggenheim is saying that if you're upset that Peter and Mary Jane lived for all these years in a civil union and that it doesn't count because it's not a real marriage, then you're agreeing that civil unions are not substitutes for marriage, and hence, you would be in agreement with gay marriage supporters, who feel the same way.

It's a convoluted and honestly, kinda specious, argument (almost akin to Godwin's Law - comparing debates about superhero continuity to gay rights issues is not the best mix), but it follows a certain logic.

-Brian

[Alan Lynch]

It's a pointless argument anyway. There are plenty of other things to hate about Brand New Day without even touching on whether Peter and MJ were married or not.

[PatrickG]

While I don't think this is exactly what OMD was originally designed to do and is evidence Gugenheim needs a publicist...

This is pretty much how I thought it should work. Nothing retconned except the actual ceremony.

mj still got pregnant with Peter's baby, they still lived together... Everything intact.

Just that funky little m-word taken out so that you could tell stories about them with other people without a press freakout.

[the4thpip]

But really, who wouldn't be gay for Harry Osborne, as long as he's played by James Franco?

http://www.hollywoodville.com/main/images/2007/05/02/james_franco.jpeg

[TCJohnson]

If you look at the "sell out" issues of Brand New Ways To Die the book is still tanking. Fans are still mad. For me it isn't the fact that MJ and Peter are no longer together it's that the marrage never happened. I don't care what they say, if you retcon the marrage out you retcon many of the stories that we all grew up reading either all or in part. That makes me mad. Very, very mad.

How is the book tanking? According to Whacker, sales are still slightly better than before the OMD thing.

[the4thpip]

How is the book tanking? According to Whacker, sales are still slightly better than before the OMD thing.

Only if you average out the sales of Amazing S-M, Friendly Neighborhood S-M and Spectacular S-M or whatever the 3rd book was. And even so, only barely.

And to advertisers, it might be clear that the total amount of people seeing their ads was higher when Amazing Spider-Man had much higher sales than now, considering reader overlap with the other books.

[KevinTBrown]

No, I'm not reading it because I think it was a fucking idiotic idea to have Mephisto do away with the marriage. That's not a judgment on the work currenly being done, that's a judgment of the work that has been done.

I'll not give my hard earned money to the crap that is Marvel Comics.

[Corrina]

Okay, a divorced Spider-Man is a bad example and shouldn't happen, according to Quesada, but an unmarried Spider-Man who lives with his girlfriend and knocks her up is a better example??????

I really don't follow that logic whatsoever.

[Alan Lynch]

Okay, a divorced Spider-Man is a bad example and shouldn't happen, according to Quesada, but an unmarried Spider-Man who lives with his girlfriend and knocks her up is a better example??????

I really don't follow that logic whatsoever.
But he's young and hip! Nobody wants to read about a divorcee superhero! That'd be neither young nor hip!

Man, fuck that story.

[TCJohnson]

Okay, a divorced Spider-Man is a bad example and shouldn't happen, according to Quesada, but an unmarried Spider-Man who lives with his girlfriend and knocks her up is a better example??????

I really don't follow that logic whatsoever.

Quesada never said it was a bad example...he said that divorce would make Spider-Man too much an adult and depressing.

Besides, they retconned away the pregnancy long before OMD came along.

[the4thpip]

Okay, a divorced Spider-Man is a bad example and shouldn't happen, according to Quesada, but an unmarried Spider-Man who lives with his girlfriend and knocks her up is a better example??????

I really don't follow that logic whatsoever.

I think Joe Q meant that readers can't really relate to a married man or divorcé.

So Spider-Man today is written for the Levi Johnstons of this world.

[MartinRedmond]

At least he's honest about his political opinions. Or is he?

[scout1279]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Quesada did say that Peter and MJ getting a divorce would be a bad example, because it would mean they gave up on their love.

All I have to say is that, I do think marriage is different than a civil union, and I do support gay marriage, so yeah, he's right, I guess. I'm still not really sure what the point is.

Anyway, I don't really care if Peter and Mary Jane are married. Actually, post-OMD, I'm glad they're not, because Peter really doesn't deserve MJ. That's not even the problem with OMD though. The problem was that it was a horrendous story, and on top of being a horrendous story, it was a story that never should have been told. Magic and mystical stories and Spider-Man just don't mix. Spider-Man's supposed to be the character that tries to do the right thing, but sometimes makes the wrong decisions and bad things happen. And then Spider-Man has to live with that.

Also, Guggenheim should consider the fact that he's just not a very good comic book writer. I mean, I don't hold a grudge. I've picked up a few issues of the Brand New Day stuff. I was really looking forward to his "Kraven's First Hunt" story, and it was pretty damn bad. Nothing but nostalgia for a much better story, while lacking the elements that made the original story great. This is why I'm not so keen to pick up "Brand New Day." Maybe if he can come up with a convincing argument as to how his writing would be better if gay marriage was legalized, I would give him another chance.

[PatrickG]

In all honesty, I think they just should have said that a divorce would have created too much bad press.

Maybe instead of Mephisto, they could have just used the old staple sitcom plot (I remember it on Green Acres and Dick Van Dyke) where Peter and MJ could discover that their minister was a fraud and that their marriage license was never filed... and then decide not to actually get married (again).

Hokey? yes. Hokey as selling your marriage to the Devil? Not really.

[Alan Lynch]

In all honesty, I think they just should have said that a divorce would have created too much bad press.

Maybe instead of Mephisto, they could have just used the old staple sitcom plot (I remember it on Green Acres and Dick Van Dyke) where Peter and MJ could discover that their minister was a fraud and that their marriage license was never filed... and then decide not to actually get married (again).

Hokey? yes. Hokey as selling your marriage to the Devil? Not really.
Fuck it - just throw 2 horrible stories together and say Nightcrawler performed the ceremony. The callback to Chuck Austen would make anything Joe Q did to Spider-Man look like genius by comparison.

[MartinRedmond]

Mary Jane is a man!? :0

[Red Jack]

I think Mr. G is a wee bit too sensitive.

And I think his description of something that was touted as an earthshaking event is a bit too much of a soft sell. And I also I think it was a mistake.

Peter wasa gawky teenager with a messd up life. He grew up and got married to the hottest most outgoing girl in the world. His life of adventure put them on equal footing so he's not going to be insecure or jealous. She's solid enough of a personality not to be suffering while he's off fighting bad guys or on some alien world. They both grew up in NYC for God's sake.

Start there. Erasing a ceremony and a legal document seems, to me, a bizarre means of getting back to basics or, really, improving anything. And I don't believe Gugenheim's description is apt.

The backlash was predictable. suck it up. ride it out.

[Michael P]

Okay, a divorced Spider-Man is a bad example and shouldn't happen, according to Quesada, but an unmarried Spider-Man who lives with his girlfriend and knocks her up is a better example??????

I really don't follow that logic whatsoever.

What I really like is how, as CSBG pointed out, the Puma gave them a week at his beach house as a "moving in together" present.

Quesada never said it was a bad example...he said that divorce would make Spider-Man too much an adult and depressing.

Besides, they retconned away the pregnancy long before OMD came along.

No they didn't. They just never mentioned it.

In all honesty, I think they just should have said that a divorce would have created too much bad press.

Maybe instead of Mephisto, they could have just used the old staple sitcom plot (I remember it on Green Acres and Dick Van Dyke) where Peter and MJ could discover that their minister was a fraud and that their marriage license was never filed... and then decide not to actually get married (again).

Hokey? yes. Hokey as selling your marriage to the Devil? Not really.

Except they weren't married by a minister. They were married by a judge. MJ's uncle, in fact.

[Michael P]

Oh, and MJ's from Pittsburgh.

[scout1279]

What I really like is how, as CSBG pointed out, the Puma gave them a week at his beach house as a "moving in together" present.


I thought they got their honeymoon from MJ's old boyfriend "Bruce."

[Charles RB]

"Everything that happened in the last twenty plus years of comic book history happened! The only difference is that Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson weren't married.

Which, as this impacted on quite a few stories, means things didn't "all still happen".

And they're no longer together, so an unknown number of other stories didn't happen.

And Aunt May was never shot, so most of Back In Black didn't happen - and she doesn't know his ID, so a lot of JMS stories didn't happen.

And Harry isn't dead and Norman doesn't know Peter's ID, so all stories related to that didn't happen. And that's a LOT OF STORIES.

As one reviewer put it: (http://spiderfan.org/comics/reviews/spiderman_amazing/568.html)

Part of the attraction of Norman Osborn, what makes him such a fantastic villain for Spider-Man, is the history that they share. The death of Gwen Stacey, the fact that Osborn knows Peter's secret identity - those are the elements that make confrontations like Peter Parker: Spider-Man (Vol. 2) #47 so powerful. Because we know how much these two hate one another, and why they hate one another, any conflict becomes a significant character study.

Brand New Day has ruined that for me. Yes, we know the two have a history, but we no longer know what it is. Obviously, Norman has forgotten Peter's identity along with the rest of the world, but did he ever know it? There are too many unanswered questions, and every one of them diminishes the impact of the story.

The problem is that the whole mystery of what changed because of One More Day, and what happened in the six months between issues #545 and #546, is not actually a mystery to the characters. Peter knows exactly what happened in the new history, it's we readers who are puzzled. We're not discovering the truth with Peter, we're just waiting for the odd narrative crumb from the writers - such as Peter's throwaway line "I have bad mojo with weddings" in this issue.

This is all immensely frustrating. Read the story as a stand-alone event and it holds up very well. Put it in the context of Spidey's wider history and it's a horrible let down. This story doesn't have the impact it would have done if One More Day had never happened.

And so we come to One More Day. Again. It's been eleven months since that story was published, I don't want to keep coming back to it!

[Michael P]

I thought they got their honeymoon from MJ's old boyfriend "Bruce."

Puma was involved as well. It's a long story.

[scout1279]

Yeah, they've created a lot of questions that need answering, and while I understand the desire to set up the new status quo before getting to the answers, it's damn confusing. I'm sure it's fine for the people who are picking up the book for the first time, or the first time in a long time, but for people who had been reading the title before "One More Day," it just doesn't make a lot of sense. That probably accounts for as many people dropping the title as the bitterness does.

And since this is a Guggenheim thread, and we are addressing questions created by "Brand New Day," would the military really take Flash Thompson back after the massive brain damage he suffered, since, apparently, everything happened?

[Michael P]

And since this is a Guggenheim thread, and we are addressing questions created by "Brand New Day," would the military really take Flash Thompson back after the massive brain damage he suffered, since, apparently, everything happened?

[easy joke]Are you kidding? He's officer material now![/easy joke]

Although you do have to love Brevoort making all that talk about moving forward and not rehashing old stories anymore, and then hey, it's off to the current brushfire war with Flash!

[kingdom2000]

At this point fandom just needs to let this dog die. You either like the change to the status quo or you don't. Constantly harping about it (and death threats!?!?) six months later (or is it a year later) does nothing.

[scout1279]

[easy joke]Are you kidding? He's officer material now![/easy joke]

Although you do have to love Brevoort making all that talk about moving forward and not rehashing old stories anymore, and then hey, it's off to the current brushfire war with Flash!

And what about that cover that was just solicited with Spider-Man trapped under rubble? No...they're not playing off nostalgia at all. Though I'm inclined to give it a little bit of a pass since it's Mark Waid and Marcos Martin. The "Kraven's First Hunt" story gets no free pass though. Complete nostalgia trip, and the child out for revenge angle has not only been done to death in comics, it's been done to death with Kraven. The fact that said child is a girl isn't enough to make it new or different.

[Charles RB]

Yeah, they've created a lot of questions that need answering, and while I understand the desire to set up the new status quo before getting to the answers, it's damn confusing.

And the bits that aren't confusing are stories that, as far as I can tell and with the exception of him having a room-mate, didn't need the marriage to be gone. Spider-Man is having job problems and had to be papparazi to pay the bills? The Daily Bugle's been bought up? Dodgy villains involved with Aunt May and others in NY politics? Why does he need to be non-married for that?

And since this is a Guggenheim thread, and we are addressing questions created by "Brand New Day," would the military really take Flash Thompson back after the massive brain damage he suffered, since, apparently, everything happened?

Goooood question. Even the current US army wouldn't be desperate enough to hire people who've gone through that (and can he even fully remember being a soldier before? He was missing memories when Peter David brought him back IIRC).

That story actually sounds like a good one and something they should be doing - as with when Flash was drafted for Vietnam - but it only works if Flash never was comatose.


Although you do have to love Brevoort making all that talk about moving forward and not rehashing old stories anymore, and then hey, it's off to the current brushfire war with Flash!

And the Bugle's in trouble, and there's a Kravinoff hunting, and Brock's got a symbiote again & is no longer dying of cancer, and Spider-Man has a room-mate, and him being trapped under rubble on that cover...

(Actually the cover could work if they give Peter a thought bubble with the words "oh not again", as at least then they're playing with the cliche)

[Charles RB]

The "Kraven's First Hunt" story gets no free pass though. Complete nostalgia trip, and the child out for revenge angle has not only been done to death in comics, it's been done to death with Kraven. The fact that said child is a girl isn't enough to make it new or different.

That's now three children Kraven's had, that guy sure got around.

[KevinTBrown]

That's now three children Kraven's had, that guy sure got around.

I think they're about to change his name to Kraven the MILF Hunter....

[Michael P]

And the bits that aren't confusing are stories that, as far as I can tell and with the exception of him having a room-mate, didn't need the marriage to be gone. Spider-Man is having job problems and had to be papparazi to pay the bills? The Daily Bugle's been bought up? Dodgy villains involved with Aunt May and others in NY politics? Why does he need to be non-married for that?

Because... hey, look! Green Goblin!

[Charles RB]

Because... hey, look! Green Goblin!

Good point - I should be clearly complaining more about how OMD/BND has buggered up the Green Goblin by making him unaware of Peter's ID when that was one of his big things.

He still knows in Thunderbolts, right up until Ellis' last issue - that's more canon than Amazing Spider-Man, damn it!

[Joshua Pantalleresco]

The thing that gets me with this is that Marvel screwed the audience. There is no other word for it. They should have done what Alan Moore did with Superman after crisis and actually FINISH the story that people grew up with.

"Whatever Happened to the Man Of Tomorrow?" is still one of the all time best superman stories and wraps up very nicely the SA Superman run. It gave that story a sense of closure.

There's a good argument for getting rid of the marriage. I'd say if they had wrapped up the story and just finished it in some way there wouldn't have been a backlash. But Mephisto?! The execution of what they did completely got rid of my trust to ever read a Spider Man comic again. I don't like that everything JMS did is gone. I thought his run, especially in the first few years was incredibly well done. It makes me mad that all my hard earned money got that kind of a payoff. As an audience member I'm pissed and refuse to read anything Spider Related again.

The worst part is that fixing this is going to screw what BND audience they have as well. History repeats itself I guess. They didn't learn from the Clone Saga. Hopefully they'll learn this time.

JP

[Hybrid2]

From http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=007464;p=1#000 003

Speaking of "judging" Guggenheim said a lot of people who aren't reading Spider-Man or refuse to read Spider-Man are judging it based on misunderstandings. "Part of the problem with the controversy behind One More Day is the understanding of what was retconned overstates the extent of what was done," he said. "Everything that happened in the last twenty plus years of comic book history happened! The only difference is that Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson weren't married. They still dated. They still lived together. They still love each other. They just weren't married. Judging from the letters and death threats we received, I think some people were confused. It all still happened."

"Here's my attitude, if anyone is upset about the marriage going away, then they must all be pro gay marriage," he continued. Because if you're pro gay marriage, you understand the distinction between a marriage and a civil union -- that a civil union is not equal to a marriage. We downgraded Mary Jane and Peter to a civil union. If that bothers you, then you're pro gay marriage."
--------

What the heck is he trying to say?

I dont know....What was the point of remouving the mariage then?
I dont understand the deal with Mephisto then. removing the marriage = not being togetter.

They said they did'nt want to have Peter divorce but have them brake up off panel anyway? O_o

Why is he talking about being pro gay marriage like it's a bad thing?



That's why I will keep not buying Spider-Man comics.Even if Gail was to read it.
Dan Slott is a very good writer and I still wont get it.

But I'm sure he could fix it all if he could.

[Hybrid2]

But he's young and hip! Nobody wants to read about a divorcee superhero! That'd be neither young nor hip!

Man, fuck that story.

Divorce,broke up IT"S THE SAME @&*%# THING!!!





....sorry.
The lack of sence is geting on my nerves.

[MartinRedmond]

What further amuses me, is that having sex with the same WOMAN every night is equal to a gay marriage. Then what's with the new status quo of Peter dating Norman Osborn? :rolleyes: They're not dating, but metaphorically, their relationship is a kind of courtship.

I know that when I was a kid, I enjoyed seeing MJ and Peter interacting much more than reading about the Osborne's disturbing obsession with Peter Parker, issue after issue. And somehow, my opinion hasn't changed. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[DaeJi]

The thing that gets me with this is that Marvel screwed the audience. There is no other word for it.

That's actually a lot of the problem with BND. Look at the very page of the very first issue; Peter kissing some random girl. And look at Joe Q's comment on it, "...a slap of reality to long time readers...". That attitude has not wavered. Yeah, BND doesn't deserve fans as far as I'm concerned. And looking at the stories, it hasn't anything to earn them either. And hey, all the problems that Spider-Man has before OMD... are still there!!!! Oh, and there's a new one too, continuity screw up.

As for Gug's comment... that's known in logic as a fallacy. Would work wonders in a Monty Python short or movie, but in the real world it's just stupid.

Though I do support gay marriage (a civil union is not the same thing) and I do hate BND with every ur of my being.

[carabas]

At this point fandom just needs to let this dog die. You either like the change to the status quo or you don't.The problem with that of course is that after a year or so, Marvel still refuses to tell us exactly what this new status quo is. There is way too many unanswered questions to just accept what happened.

Also, no way am I buying what is essentially a weekly anthology book. Life's too expensive.

[Sean Walsh]

.......buh?

I guess I'm glad I stopped reading Spider-Man years ago.

Years ago.....when PP & MJ were married, and it was the quality of the stories and the interpretations of those working on it that turned me off to reading any more of Marvel's Amazing Spectacular Sensational Web of claptrap.

[JKCarrier]

"Here's my attitude, if anyone is upset about the marriage going away, then they must all be pro gay marriage," he continued. Because if you're pro gay marriage, you understand the distinction between a marriage and a civil union -- that a civil union is not equal to a marriage. We downgraded Mary Jane and Peter to a civil union. If that bothers you, then you're pro gay marriage."

Does anyone else think this sounds a lot like The Chewbacca Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense)? :confused:

[Paul McEnery]

People against gay marriage say, "You don't need to get married, you can just have a civil union - it's just like a marriage, but it's not technically a marriage."

People for gay marriage say, "We want actual marriage, not some substitute."

Marvel is saying, "Peter and Mary Jane were not married, but they basically had a civil union - it is just like a marriage, they just technically weren't officially married."

Therefore, Guggenheim is saying that if you're upset that Peter and Mary Jane lived for all these years in a civil union and that it doesn't count because it's not a real marriage, then you're agreeing that civil unions are not substitutes for marriage, and hence, you would be in agreement with gay marriage supporters, who feel the same way.

It's a convoluted and honestly, kinda specious, argument (almost akin to Godwin's Law - comparing debates about superhero continuity to gay rights issues is not the best mix), but it follows a certain logic.

-Brian

So he's saying that anyone who doesn't buy his comic is a nazi. :evilsmile:

[Paul McEnery]

I think they're about to change his name to Kraven the MILF Hunter....

This is entirely amusing.

[Hybrid2]

Does anyone else think this sounds a lot like The Chewbacca Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense)? :confused:

So my head wanting to explode was normal? Oh thank god.

[Sean Walsh]

So he's saying that anyone who doesn't buy his comic is a nazi. :evilsmile:


.....Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!!

[Major Comma]

Any chance its a Skrull Plot?

[stealthwise]

I'm... pro-gay-marriage. Is that like, a bad thing or something? WTF is Guggenheim talking about? The poor bastard keeps getting tossed into things that aren't really his fault, and then runs his mouth trying to defend them. First having to kill off Impulse and now this garbage. He's kind of a prime candidate for Kirkman's manifesto for creator-owned books, at least then you don't have to deal with this kind of shit on a daily basis. I mean, death threats? Really?

Anyways, I've been reading New Ways to Die, and while it has all the elements of a cool Spider-Man story: Venom, Norman as GG again, Peter facing impossible odds, Bullseye, etc, it all feels like paint-by-numbers generic Marvel comic circa 1970-1990. I guess that's what they've been aiming for, but it really highlights the weakness of this idea of "moving forward," which I don't blame the writers for, as they're just doing their damn job, providing the kind of story they've been contracted to do, but it's really nonsensical in terms of where Spider-Man and the Marvel Universe as a whole are at right now.

Which is part of the problem: you can't change fundamental elements of continuity (and yes, we've established that with Harry back, obviously major things have changed) without having a bleed-over effect into everything else. Introducing the Thunderbolts and changing Gargan (even if only temporarily) is one effect, will things stay the same? How does affect their own title? Why does Secret Invasion play no part in Spider-Man currently? (other than the lead time issues, and the editorial statement that they didn't want to "confuse readers" which I find hilarious).

Basically they've gotten to the point where Quesada made a dictate, for whatever reason, and even though people may not understand or like it, they have to follow it through and ride it out in hopes that it goes away, much like the Clone Saga, but I can't imagine it being much fun having to deal with the fan backlash for months on end.

That's not to say that fans shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion, but when the entire new premise is based completely on a very faulty old one, I don't think that this is something Marvel will ever be able to live down. They better have built in a fairly satisfactory back door to get out of this one.

[Red Jack]

Mephisto is a liar. So, once they figure out how crappy this choice was, it's a pretty easy fix.

[Charles RB]

I guess that's what they've been aiming for, but it really highlights the weakness of this idea of "moving forward," which I don't blame the writers for, as they're just doing their damn job

Plus they didn't say it was moving forward - IIRC, it was editorial who said that. I think the writers were saying this was classic old-school Spidey stuff.

Introducing the Thunderbolts and changing Gargan (even if only temporarily) is one effect, will things stay the same? How does affect their own title?

Gargan-as-Venom's in the December Thunderbolts issue, so we know the symbiote's not gone really.

They better have built in a fairly satisfactory back door to get out of this one.

Probably just have Mephisto undo the deal.

[The Xenos]

He clearly is saying that Peter is gay for Harry Osborne.

Well we all knew Mysterio was already gay for Peter.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5988/spidey745883ju5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Reptisaurus!]

Okay, a divorced Spider-Man is a bad example and shouldn't happen, according to Quesada, but an unmarried Spider-Man who lives with his girlfriend and knocks her up is a better example??????

I really don't follow that logic whatsoever.

I think any and all babies/pregnancies are out of continuity now.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Someone posted on the Spiderman forum weeks back that when they complained about the ASM sales tanking a fast death , Quesada responded that they would go up. That its taking time and would go up .

Now this bucks every trend we see in comics currently and its a stubborn resolve to keep going....and going. Gugenheim and the rest are following orders and have to try and be good soldiers for this. But the writing is on the wall.... not many are picking up the books and sales after "New Ways to Die" will be at the 50,000 level by November or December.

[MacQuarrie]

So he's saying that anyone who doesn't buy his comic is a nazi. :evilsmile:

There's something else going on here that not one single person has commented on.

The guy is trying to shift responsibility for the success or failure of the book onto the fans. Acting as if the readers have a moral responsibility to buy the comic, and if they don't it's due to a flaw in their character.

This underlying assumption runs rampant in the comics industry. A few months back it was that hack who writes "Bomb Queen" going on about the what comics fans are supposed to be reading, and how the readers are failing the comic industry by not supporting the right books.

Here's how it works: the publisher (or any other manufacturer of any other product) creates a product that he believes a significant number of people will want. He then markets that product, either to the general public or to a specialized segment of it, in ways that inform them of its existence and encourage them to buy it.

The buyer's only obligation is to pay for the product if they decide to buy it. If they decide not to buy it, the failure is on the manufacturer's part. He has failed to create a desirable product and/or failed to market it effectively. The burden is his, not the consumer's. Period.

I'm not buying any Spider-Man books. It would take a dramatic shift in content to get me to change that, and I don't care how they want to pretend that their product failure is somehow my fault, or that I'm somehow defective for not recognizing or appreciating their fantastic product. Oh well,

[Red Jack]

Jimmie Robinson is not a hack.

[Charles RB]

Someone posted on the Spiderman forum weeks back that when they complained about the ASM sales tanking a fast death , Quesada responded that they would go up. That its taking time and would go up . .... not many are picking up the books and sales after "New Ways to Die" will be at the 50,000 level by November or December.

This leaves us with four options:

a) Nobody new has come in, while older people have left.
b) New people have come in but not in enough numbers to replace those who left.
c) New people have come in and then they left because it didn't interest them, on top of the previous folk leaving.
d) Skrulls.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

This leaves us with four options:

a) Nobody new has come in, while older people have left.
b) New people have come in but not in enough numbers to replace those who left.
c) New people have come in and then they left because it didn't interest them, on top of the previous folk leaving.
d) Skrulls.

I think all of the above and the last one is that Marvel is ran by Skrulls now. :tongue:

I do think MacQuarrie's answer is basically hitting it on the head. Marvel and the people responsible for this have taken a stance it seems that those against "Brand New Day" need to get a life. That their losers holding back ASM from reaching new hieghts. It reminds me of when they did the Spider-Clone saga in the mid 90's.

In one assistant editors opinion once Marvel saw the distast fans had for the Spiderman they read being a clone for 20 years and sales dropped... he says many were like "How fucking dare they....how dare these fans who like Spiderman not accept this ? Can't they see what we planned works ?"

In the office I can see that reaction each month the ICV2 estimates are read. I can imagine the editors like Brevoort , Wacker and Quesada all sit there cursing the old fans .. "How fucking dare these people not read this greatness we have done ! Cleary they are at fault for being such losers and caring for some female character !"

Its a sad stance to take. But one we all can see is doomed to fail.

[drwho]

To say everything still happened, but Peter and MJ were never married is impossible and a crazy explanation since so many past stories were connected to the fact they were married. Marvel hasnt even stated exactly when the marriage was supposed to take place in the new time line.I just take what was said as hypage from the Joe Q hype machine.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

To say everything still happened, but Peter and MJ were never married is impossible and a crazy explanation since so many past stories were connected to the fact they were married. Marvel hasnt even stated exactly when the marriage was supposed to take place in the new time line.I just take what was said as hypage from the Joe Q hype machine.

Its essentially the same excuse Joe Quesada used for "Sins Past". With it he and JMS became so angry and defensive over the storyline they told fans they would have to connect the dots . Of course once the fans refused to even do this it became a joke. The biggest question is why would and should fans have to connect their own damn dots to make a story make sense ? Either you do that with what your printed or it doesn't.

The funniest thing was Stan Lee according to JMS or Quesada . Weeks before the story hit its said Quesada showed him the story. Its said Stan Lee gave his approval then. But once the story came out and became such a turd he changed his stance and went with the fans take that it was complete garbage. :tongue:

[drwho]

Its essentially the same excuse Joe Quesada used for "Sins Past". With it he and JMS became so angry and defensive over the storyline they told fans they would have to connect the dots . Of course once the fans refused to even do this it became a joke. The biggest question is why would and should fans have to connect their own damn dots to make a story make sense ? Either you do that with what your printed or it doesn't.

The funniest thing was Stan Lee according to JMS or Quesada . Weeks before the story hit its said Quesada showed him the story. Its said Stan Lee gave his approval then. But once the story came out and became such a turd he changed his stance and went with the fans take that it was complete garbage. :tongue:

Stan wont trash marvel. He is too much of a professional plus he gets those movie cameos.

I still dont get BND because who wants to go into a story with such a cr@ppy backstory that comes with it where they will supposedly get around to having it make sense.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Stan didn't exactly trash Marvel. Its said he told fans he agreed with them that the storyline was bad. In the end Stan Lee will always side with the vast majority of his fanbase that made him.

BND feels like a Ultimate Spiderman retry in the main Marvel Universe . Why they at Marvel felt that the mainstream Spiderman needed to fit a 16-18 yearold they have in USM makes me laugh. At what point can you make a mid 20's character fit that ?

Plus the fact is no one at Marvel knows Peter Parker's age . One guy claims its 28-29 , another says 23 ...so take a guess at Peter Parker's age as Marvel seems to do now in this BND World.

[MacQuarrie]

Stan didn't exactly trash Marvel. Its said he told fans he agreed with them that the storyline was bad. In the end Stan Lee will always side with the vast majority of his fanbase that made him.

BND feels like a Ultimate Spiderman retry in the main Marvel Universe . Why they at Marvel felt that the mainstream Spiderman needed to fit a 16-18 yearold they have in USM makes me laugh. At what point can you make a mid 20's character fit that ?

Plus the fact is no one at Marvel knows Peter Parker's age . One guy claims its 28-29 , another says 23 ...so take a guess at Peter Parker's age as Marvel seems to do now in this BND World.
I think they realized that nobody but hardcore fans can tell the difference between Ultimate and mainstream. Nor should they be expected to. To the casual reader (or the new reader), Spider-Man is Spider-Man. If they pick up one issue and he's a long-married college professor, and pick up another and he's a high school student, they get confused, and confusion creates disinterest. The multiple lines thing does not work if you're attempting to attract new readers. If they're not trying to attract new readers, their stockholders and board might once again suggest dumping the comics line entirely and focusing on promoting the characters as licensed properties.

[Charles RB]

I dunno about that - the fact Ultimate Spider-Man has a different name and logo to other Spider-titles, and in trade form has a specific numbering, would help them differentiate. I don't know of anyone over here getting confused between the Astonishing Spider-Man reprint monthly and the Spectacular Spider-Man Adventures kiddie title, which are quite easy to tell apart.

Heck, young kids seem capable of working out Transformers the film and the current Transformers Animated cartoon, while featuring similarities and characters with identical names, are not the same story with no problem.

[Black Atom]

Wait...that's actually dumber. So they were still together all that time, just not married? What was Mephisto's point, then?

Minor Demon: I don't get it. You said you wanted to claim the "pure love" the Parkers had for eachother. They still had that, just not under the banner of the legal institution the humans call "marriage".

Mephisto: Oh, yes they kept their love...but without all of the tax and property benefits! They lost hundreds in potential refunds! Hundreds!! Also, I secretly switched their insurance from Geico to another, more expensive company! The pitiable fools!

[MacQuarrie]

I dunno about that - the fact Ultimate Spider-Man has a different name and logo to other Spider-titles, and in trade form has a specific numbering, would help them differentiate. I don't know of anyone over here getting confused between the Astonishing Spider-Man reprint monthly and the Spectacular Spider-Man Adventures kiddie title, which are quite easy to tell apart.

Heck, young kids seem capable of working out Transformers the film and the current Transformers Animated cartoon, while featuring similarities and characters with identical names, are not the same story with no problem.
I'm talking about the general public, not regular readers. The guy who saw the Spider-Man movies and eventually walked into a comic shop looking for Spider-Man comics. The different logos and names mean nothing to that guy.

As always, everybody connected in any way to the industry looks at it as an insider, never once stopping to consider how it looks to the 99.7% of people who don't read comics. That's where the new generation of readers will come from, but we all make damn sure the welcome signs are down. They might as well publish the damn things in Klingon.

[Tobias March]

I'm talking about the general public, not regular readers. The guy who saw the Spider-Man movies and eventually walked into a comic shop looking for Spider-Man comics. The different logos and names mean nothing to that guy.

As always, everybody connected in any way to the industry looks at it as an insider, never once stopping to consider how it looks to the 99.7% of people who don't read comics. That's where the new generation of readers will come from, but we all make damn sure the welcome signs are down. They might as well publish the damn things in Klingon.

I now realize I want this...

"K'Plah Spider-man! K'Plah!!!

[stillanerd]

There's something else going on here that not one single person has commented on.

The guy is trying to shift responsibility for the success or failure of the book onto the fans. Acting as if the readers have a moral responsibility to buy the comic, and if they don't it's due to a flaw in their character.

This underlying assumption runs rampant in the comics industry. A few months back it was that hack who writes "Bomb Queen" going on about the what comics fans are supposed to be reading, and how the readers are failing the comic industry by not supporting the right books.

Here's how it works: the publisher (or any other manufacturer of any other product) creates a product that he believes a significant number of people will want. He then markets that product, either to the general public or to a specialized segment of it, in ways that inform them of its existence and encourage them to buy it.

The buyer's only obligation is to pay for the product if they decide to buy it. If they decide not to buy it, the failure is on the manufacturer's part. He has failed to create a desirable product and/or failed to market it effectively. The burden is his, not the consumer's. Period.

I'm not buying any Spider-Man books. It would take a dramatic shift in content to get me to change that, and I don't care how they want to pretend that their product failure is somehow my fault, or that I'm somehow defective for not recognizing or appreciating their fantastic product. Oh well,

This leaves us with four options:

a) Nobody new has come in, while older people have left.
b) New people have come in but not in enough numbers to replace those who left.
c) New people have come in and then they left because it didn't interest them, on top of the previous folk leaving.
d) Skrulls.

I think all of the above and the last one is that Marvel is ran by Skrulls now. :tongue:

I do think MacQuarrie's answer is basically hitting it on the head. Marvel and the people responsible for this have taken a stance it seems that those against "Brand New Day" need to get a life. That their losers holding back ASM from reaching new hieghts. It reminds me of when they did the Spider-Clone saga in the mid 90's.

In one assistant editors opinion once Marvel saw the distast fans had for the Spiderman they read being a clone for 20 years and sales dropped... he says many were like "How fucking dare they....how dare these fans who like Spiderman not accept this ? Can't they see what we planned works ?"

In the office I can see that reaction each month the ICV2 estimates are read. I can imagine the editors like Brevoort , Wacker and Quesada all sit there cursing the old fans .. "How fucking dare these people not read this greatness we have done ! Cleary they are at fault for being such losers and caring for some female character !"

Its a sad stance to take. But one we all can see is doomed to fail.

You guys pretty much summed up my feelings regarding the current state of Spider-Man to a tee. Even in New Ways to Die, it's still clear that One More Day is the 800 pound gorilla in the room which is creating all kinds of confussion and detaches one from the story. And when Marvel has to go out and make ridiculous statements like Guggenheim made, or what Tom Breevort and Joe Quesada have also made to explain what the status of Peter and MJ's relationship actually is after One More Day, then what does that say about Marvel's ability to actually tell a story that requires no need to explain it outside of the story?

Also, with regards to Marc Guggenheim's comments, why should we be surprised? This guy used to be a lawyer, after all, and this does sound like something a lawyer would use to argue his case, regardless of how fallacious the argument actually is.

[stillanerd]

Double post.

[The Ray]

I think OMD-BMD wasn't the boon they were looking for. It's not doing horrible, but it's not doing fantastic either. They wanted BMD to be the new jumping on point for people who don't read Spider-Man regularly and so far, they're doing…Civil-War Spider-Man numbers? A little less? It's not a mass exodus, but it's not a surge of new readers. It's neither great nor horrible.

[Alan Lynch]

I think OMD-BMD wasn't the boon they were looking for. It's not doing horrible, but it's not doing fantastic either. They wanted BMD to be the new jumping on point for people who don't read Spider-Man regularly and so far, they're doing…Civil-War Spider-Man numbers? A little less? It's not a mass exodus, but it's not a surge of new readers. It's neither great nor horrible.
Which I would say is horrible, considering the huge push that went into this. I think Marvel wanted big numbers, and they haven't got that. It's been, essentially, a huge waste of time near as I can tell.

[carabas]

Depends on how you look at it. If you look at total copies sold per month, it is essentially a null operation at this point.

But if you look at how many people are reading the book, at how well the individual issues sell, it is worst they have been in almost ten years (since before JMS started his run (not taking into account this month's big sales bump due to Mark Waid and John Romita Jr.)

[Lester C.]

I think they realized that nobody but hardcore fans can tell the difference between Ultimate and mainstream. Nor should they be expected to. To the casual reader (or the new reader), Spider-Man is Spider-Man. If they pick up one issue and he's a long-married college professor, and pick up another and he's a high school student, they get confused, and confusion creates disinterest. The multiple lines thing does not work if you're attempting to attract new readers. If they're not trying to attract new readers, their stockholders and board might once again suggest dumping the comics line entirely and focusing on promoting the characters as licensed properties.

No comic attracts new readers. Just readers from other books but never new readers from off the street. The lack of comic book sales bump from the movies proves this point. The exception to this is magna but people buy that in the book store. By alienating their fan base their sales will continue to decrease as all the readers from the other books that came aboard BND have left and the old readers want nothing to do with it until the marriage issue is resolved.

[MartinRedmond]

Well we all knew Mysterio was already gay for Peter.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5988/spidey745883ju5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

More like the Osbornes are hot for a piece of Petey~

[Charles RB]

I'm talking about the general public, not regular readers.

So am I.

If the general public genuinely can't tell "this book has a different name and logo to this one, so it's a different product" then they'd also get massively confused when they read either comic and find out it's not exactly the same as the movie.

Now, as far as I can tell, large numbers of the general public are capable of working out different branding will equal a different product, and they're also familiar with the basic concept of "this thing with the similar name isn't like that thing" because films, TV etc have been doing adaptations and remakes for yonks. Children have seen this.

Plus the general public would be most likely to get trades (they're easier to find) and Ultimate Spider-Man trades are clearly numbered, so from volume one they'd know it's starting from the beginning.

[Stressfactor]

So am I.

If the general public genuinely can't tell "this book has a different name and logo to this one, so it's a different product" then they'd also get massively confused when they read either comic and find out it's not exactly the same as the movie.

If that were true then people would also be buying the Marvel Adventures SPider-Man line -- the all-ages version of the comic and yet you don't see Marvel trying to change ANY of their Adventures line books to line up with the main Marvel U. Heck, the Marvel Adventures Avengers has the weirdest Avengers team EVER -- Spider-Man, Iron Man, Captain America, Wolverine, Storm, and Giant Girl!

PLUS honestly, how many people are actually going into comic book shops? Marvel and DC HAVE been starting to put some re-print editions into stores like Target and Wal-Mart now and those are geared towards kids and they are getting bought by the parents.

I mean, if you HONESTLY like a movie or hear something on the news that intrigues you enough to want to go pick up a comic book are you, Joe Q. Public, going to bother to:

1) Figure out that you are actually looking for a comic book shop because comic books aren't on the spinner rack at your local grocery store or convenience mart? A LOT of people don't even know that comic books have moved into their own specialty shops.

2) Get on the internet to SEARCH for a local comic book shop and figure out where it's located.

3) Actually drive, probably out of your way, to go to a comic book shop.

Because all that other crap -- about the different logo and stuff like that -- well, that's an easy fix with a helpful, knowledgable comic shop owner who will likely recognize a newbie customer and OFFER to explain the differences and find out what the customer REALLY WANTS.

Face it, in this day and age, just getting someone to walk INTO a comic book shop is the key.

[Charles RB]

If that were true then people would also be buying the Marvel Adventures SPider-Man line -- the all-ages version of the comic and yet you don't see Marvel trying to change ANY of their Adventures line books to line up with the main Marvel U.

Who is buying them? Clearly someone is cos they keep making more of them, but I wonder who? The audience is presumably young kids, but do we know how big a percentage of the readers are them?

I mean, if you HONESTLY like a movie or hear something on the news that intrigues you enough to want to go pick up a comic book are you, Joe Q. Public, going to bother to:

1) Figure out that you are actually looking for a comic book shop because comic books aren't on the spinner rack at your local grocery store or convenience mart?

Or he could go to a bookstore. Lots of them sell trades, especially the ones with characters that have films out. Or Amazon. Or libraries.

Comics are not hard to find, if you actually feel like reading one. It could be most people aren't actually intrigued at all - how many people who watch a film based on a novel actually go buy the book?

[JKCarrier]

It could be most people aren't actually intrigued at all - how many people who watch a film based on a novel actually go buy the book?

It happens sometimes. Sales of WATCHMEN got a huge bump (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/arts/14arts-FILMTRAILERA_BRF.html), just based on the teaser trailer.

[Charles RB]

This is true, but that's still a fraction of the amount of people who've seen the trailer. Even with stuff like Harry Potter, the book hasn't sold to as many people as saw the film (unless I've really missed something).

[Stressfactor]

Who is buying them? Clearly someone is cos they keep making more of them, but I wonder who? The audience is presumably young kids, but do we know how big a percentage of the readers are them?



Or he could go to a bookstore. Lots of them sell trades, especially the ones with characters that have films out. Or Amazon. Or libraries.

Comics are not hard to find, if you actually feel like reading one. It could be most people aren't actually intrigued at all - how many people who watch a film based on a novel actually go buy the book?

If people are going to buy the trades from stores like Borders, though, then they'll be able to leaf through them and see if the stories are what they want or not. I just don't think people are that dense that they can't figure out that there are different versions of the same character.

As for the Marvel Adventures line -- I think a lot of people are buying them for their kids. I buy them for my nephew and he loves it!

But getting back to the matter at hand -- which was Guggenhiem's defense of a crappy story...

I think they really timed this all wrong. If they wanted to lure in new readers then the time to do it was around the time of the last movie not years later. In addition, they did seem to underestimate fan backlash and the fact that there was really no way in hell they could lure in enough NEW readers to replace those who would drop the title.

The thing is, I think they underestimated, as well, the REASONS why fans dropped the title. As much as Joey Q and the rest try to make it sound like this is just disaffected Peter and MJ shippers it isn't. SOME people left because they didn't like getting rid of the marriage but SOME people left because they felt Peter and MJ making a deal with the devil was a betrayal of their basic characters. SOME people left because the underlying story was so stupid, out-of-the-blue, and rice paper thin it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Personally, I know a lot of people who would have accepted the marriage breaking up. They would have even accepted some kind of deus ex machina that erased the marriage from existence BUT they wanted the story to have some meat, they wanted the story to have some kind of build up. Instead it was get Aunt May shot, a quickie deal with a devil and the whole thing over with and swept under the rug. I know a lot of fans who were insulted by how shoddily the story was constructed and Marvel's attitude of just "Deal with it and buy the new stuff coming down the pike because it will be new and improved!" A lot of people, me included, took that as an insult to our intelligence and a denegration of our desire to see GOOD stories, not dreck.

[Stressfactor]

This is true, but that's still a fraction of the amount of people who've seen the trailer. Even with stuff like Harry Potter, the book hasn't sold to as many people as saw the film (unless I've really missed something).

Actually, considering the millions of copies the books have sold AND the fact that the books were out for years before the movies started being made there probably HAVE been at least equal numbers of people who have bought or at least read the books (through borrowing from a library or borrowing from friends) as have seen the movies.

[Charles RB]

I also admit I've become disillusioned with the idea that the general public would buy comics in large numbers if they were easy to find when Johanna Carlson listed Archie Comics' sales. (http://comicsworthreading.com/2008/02/25/archie-sales-figures-almost-complete/)

Archie, so I've been told, is a well-known and iconic character/property. His comics sell in newsagents and supermarkets. He's kid friendly. Sales should, under conventional logic, piss on the direct market.

Now the digests, they sell. The highest-selling on sells 96,971 on average and the lowest 54,219. That means Betty & Veronica Double Digest outsells a lot of the direct market and would be a Top Ten title if it sold like that in comic shops. That's a good number, though it'd still be #5 on the direct market.

Non-digests? The highest selling is Sonic The Hedgehog, a licensed property. Archie is second-highest and he sells 27,498.

Nationally-recognised and popular character, kid-friendly, easy to pick up in the States - and he sells 27,498? That'd net him #94 in the direct market Top 300 circa August (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/13296.html) - that's a bit rubbish. Orthodox logic says he should be selling gangbusters.

[Charles RB]

I just don't think people are that dense that they can't figure out that there are different versions of the same character.

That's what I'm saying.


I think they really timed this all wrong. If they wanted to lure in new readers then the time to do it was around the time of the last movie not years later.

Agreed - though Back In Black did quite well at the time of Spidey 3. Did better than One More Day, as I remember (the Amazing issues that is); Spider-Man wearing a different costume and being moody sold more than the heavily-promoted status-quo changing epic You Must Read.

In addition, they did seem to underestimate fan backlash and the fact that there was really no way in hell they could lure in enough NEW readers to replace those who would drop the title.

Not the first time either. One guy (http://spideykicksbutt.com/YearinReview/BlandNewDay.html) noticed the rhetoric coming out of OMD/BND - and some of the subplots 0- is eerily similar to what Marvel said in the 1999 reboot of the Spider-Man comics.

Y'know, the one that didn't do very well and nobody talks about.

[Alan Lynch]

This is true, but that's still a fraction of the amount of people who've seen the trailer. Even with stuff like Harry Potter, the book hasn't sold to as many people as saw the film (unless I've really missed something).
As an aside to all this, sales are probably affected by avaliability. I've given my copy to 3 people since the teaser hit, and only one of them has been able to find the book on sale. Once DC does another printing in the New Year we'll be able to judge the impact that trailer had.

[MacQuarrie]

No comic attracts new readers. Just readers from other books but never new readers from off the street. The lack of comic book sales bump from the movies proves this point. The exception to this is magna but people buy that in the book store. By alienating their fan base their sales will continue to decrease as all the readers from the other books that came aboard BND have left and the old readers want nothing to do with it until the marriage issue is resolved.

Exactly my point. Why can't comics attract new readers? They managed to do it consistently for over 50 years, then all of a sudden forgot how?

People buy manga in book form at the book store because that's how it's offered to them. They don't buy it because of the format, they don't buy it because of where it's sold, and they sure don't buy it because of big eyes and an absence of noses. They buy it for the stories. Stories in a variety of genres that are not offered in American comics anymore. Historic fiction, sci-fi, romance, mystery, magic. Stories that occasionally have an ending and a point.

Actually, though, in my opinion, comics went off the rails back in the '60s, when they responded to rising costs by reducing size and page-count rather than increasing price. Golden Age comics were 64 pages, 7.5" x 10.25", in other words, approximately the same size, thickness and cover price of most other magazines of the time. Today, the average magazine is 8" x 10.25", and a comic book is about 6.5" x 10.25", 24 pages, with virtually no ads.

If comics had kept pace with other general-interest magazines all along, there never would have been any speculator-driven explosions or implosions, and comics would be part of the popular landscape in a way that they haven't been in 30 years.

It's a niche-market item of interest only to people who have already been buying them for years, and utterly dependent upon the fanbase to act as evangelists to bring in the few new readers a year that do show up.,

Which is where this topic began, with the attitude among comics pros that the fans aren't doing their job, failing to support the right books, failing to deliver to the publishers the audience that they feel entitled to have.

But maybe if Marvel were in the business of publishing a line of periodical entertainment magazines, they would understand that the consumers are under no obligation to do any such thing. The burden is on the publishers to attract a market for their product, the market is not responsible for ensuring the success of any company. Instead, Marvel is in the business of making films now, and comics are produced and marketed as collectibles to be sealed in plastic and preserved, or as a legal necessity for securing trademarks, or as a source of material to be collected in books and sold to the very same people who used to buy the comics because those people have decided to switch over to buying the book format.

Meanwhile, some 300 million Americans who don't buy comics are completely ignored, even though they do buy a mountain of magazines on every subject under the sun.

[Stressfactor]

We are also not MAKING any new comic book readers....

My nephew for example. I started buying him comic books before he could even read. When I was a kid I loved Archie comics and my mom didn't know anything about comics but the stuff was there in the grocery store so I could ASK her for them. Now, it comes the responsibility of those of us who are comic book fans to put the stuff in the hands of younger readers because it is harder for them to ASK for it. Years later my nephew is still addicted to comics -- to the point where his non-comic book parents are starting to take him into the comic book shop rather than relying on me to buy the stuff for him.

Over Labor Day weekend I went into a comic book shop with my sister and nephew and we were going through some back issue boxes looking for stuff for him and she spotted one of those horror comics based on a video game -- Silent Hill or something and she held it up and said "Now see, THIS is something I might be interested in -- something scary." Since that sort of stuff isn't MY cup of tea I don't have anything to loan her to let her try it out BUT it goes to show. EVERYONE has some kind of interest, it's just a matter of us, the comic book experts, to target that interest and put a matching comic into their hands.

My nephew loved Spider-Man so that was the first comics I gave him. When he started loving the Sonic the Hedgehog video games I put THOSE comics into his hands and he loved those too. My sister has expressed an interest in horror comics and I've been thinking about picking up "30 Days of Night" or "The Walking Dead" for myself recently. If I do I'll certainly loan them to her and let her try them out.

[MartinRedmond]

People buy manga in book form at the book store because that's how it's offered to them. They don't buy it because of the format, they don't buy it because of where it's sold, and they sure don't buy it because of big eyes and an absence of noses. They buy it for the stories.

Manga has been steadily available here for over 20 years, if not 30. How come it wasn't a huge success until recent years ago, once they took it to bookstores?mmmm??MMMM???

[MartinRedmond]

Now the digests, they sell. The highest-selling on sells 96,971 on average and the lowest 54,219. That means Betty & Veronica Double Digest outsells a lot of the direct market and would be a Top Ten title if it sold like that in comic shops.

That isn't very good. From what I remember, in 2003, I was told they printed around 250 000 copies.

[Charles RB]

250,000 on that title alone or multiple titles included together? (Publishers sometimes say they produce X number of stuff because they count all their titles together)

[MartinRedmond]

250,000 on that title alone or multiple titles included together? (Publishers sometimes say they produce X number of stuff because they count all their titles together)

250 000 per digest. Maybe it's still that high and they end up trashing more than half of it. Cause it doesn't always sell.

[MacQuarrie]

Manga has been steadily available here for over 20 years, if not 30. How come it wasn't a huge success until recent years ago, once they took it to bookstores?mmmm??MMMM???
It became popular due to the importing of the related cartoons and card games. The fact that it's in book stores is coincidence and convenience, but had zero to do with its popularity. Kids hooked on Pokemon would buy anything with Pikachu on it. That led them to Yu-gi-oh, then eventually to Bleach. Tokyopop and related companies were smart enough to not let their product get locked up in collectors' stores.

[MacQuarrie]

So am I.

If the general public genuinely can't tell "this book has a different name and logo to this one, so it's a different product" then they'd also get massively confused when they read either comic and find out it's not exactly the same as the movie.

Now, as far as I can tell, large numbers of the general public are capable of working out different branding will equal a different product, and they're also familiar with the basic concept of "this thing with the similar name isn't like that thing" because films, TV etc have been doing adaptations and remakes for yonks. Children have seen this.
"Capable of working out different branding" is not at all the same as being willing to do so. Give them a comic that's somewhat similar in tone to the film and they will read it. But if the next one they pick up is an entirely different guy with an entirely different life, they're done. You lose them.

They don't want to stand in the supermarket trying to puzzle out the difference between the 15 different types of Crest toothpaste, and they don't want to try to figure out the three or four different versions of Spider-Man. If you don't straight-up TELL them which one is the one they're looking for, they won't buy any of them.

Plus the general public would be most likely to get trades (they're easier to find) and Ultimate Spider-Man trades are clearly numbered, so from volume one they'd know it's starting from the beginning.
Only the seriously interested are more likely to buy trades. Most people are not going to drop $15 on a comic book unless they already have some idea what it is.

The fact that trades are easier to find is exactly the problem I was talking about. They'd sell a hell of a lot more trades if there was a magazine out there that people could pick up on impulse at the checkout stand, read and enjoy, and then find an ad for the related books.

[MacQuarrie]

This is true, but that's still a fraction of the amount of people who've seen the trailer. Even with stuff like Harry Potter, the book hasn't sold to as many people as saw the film (unless I've really missed something).

Marketing truth: People need to hear about a given thing at least three times in three different contexts before they will remember the name or become interested in finding out more about it.

[MacQuarrie]

I also admit I've become disillusioned with the idea that the general public would buy comics in large numbers if they were easy to find when Johanna Carlson listed Archie Comics' sales. (http://comicsworthreading.com/2008/02/25/archie-sales-figures-almost-complete/)

Archie, so I've been told, is a well-known and iconic character/property. His comics sell in newsagents and supermarkets. He's kid friendly. Sales should, under conventional logic, piss on the direct market.

Now the digests, they sell. The highest-selling on sells 96,971 on average and the lowest 54,219. That means Betty & Veronica Double Digest outsells a lot of the direct market and would be a Top Ten title if it sold like that in comic shops. That's a good number, though it'd still be #5 on the direct market.

Non-digests? The highest selling is Sonic The Hedgehog, a licensed property. Archie is second-highest and he sells 27,498.

Nationally-recognised and popular character, kid-friendly, easy to pick up in the States - and he sells 27,498? That'd net him #94 in the direct market Top 300 circa August (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/13296.html) - that's a bit rubbish. Orthodox logic says he should be selling gangbusters.
The digests are readily available everywhere. The comics are only available in comic shops.

[MacQuarrie]

We are also not MAKING any new comic book readers....

My nephew for example. I started buying him comic books before he could even read. When I was a kid I loved Archie comics and my mom didn't know anything about comics but the stuff was there in the grocery store so I could ASK her for them. Now, it comes the responsibility of those of us who are comic book fans to put the stuff in the hands of younger readers because it is harder for them to ASK for it. Years later my nephew is still addicted to comics -- to the point where his non-comic book parents are starting to take him into the comic book shop rather than relying on me to buy the stuff for him.
That's exactly my point. It's NOT our responsibility to put it in anybody's hands, any more than it's my responsibility to convince people to buy Toyotas or IBC Root Beer or watch ABC. I will happily tell people about stuff I like, but I have no duty to do so. It's insane for any company to build their business model to depend entirely on viral marketing to the point that it becomes the customer's responsibility to sell the product. Customer loyalty is a great thing, but it should be an indicator of a company's success rather than a prerequisite.

It's Marvel's responsibility to put their product in people's hands, just like it's Disney's responsibility to convince people to see their movies.

[scout1279]

That's exactly my point. It's NOT our responsibility to put it in anybody's hands, any more than it's my responsibility to convince people to buy Toyotas or IBC Root Beer or watch ABC. I will happily tell people about stuff I like, but I have no duty to do so. It's insane for any company to build their business model to depend entirely on viral marketing to the point that it becomes the customer's responsibility to sell the product. Customer loyalty is a great thing, but it should be an indicator of a company's success rather than a prerequisite.

It's Marvel's responsibility to put their product in people's hands, just like it's Disney's responsibility to convince people to see their movies.

But the comics industry is obviously doing a piss poor job of it, and maybe they should figure out how to solve that problem be for they start alienating the readers that they do have in order to accommodate all the hypothetical new readers, who are, so far, nonexistent. Because the movies haven't gotten new readers into the comic shops, and even if they did, it's not like what they've turned Amazing Spider-Man into actually resembles the Spider-Man in any other media.

[Corrina]

It became popular due to the importing of the related cartoons and card games. The fact that it's in book stores is coincidence and convenience, but had zero to do with its popularity. Kids hooked on Pokemon would buy anything with Pikachu on it. That led them to Yu-gi-oh, then eventually to Bleach. Tokyopop and related companies were smart enough to not let their product get locked up in collectors' stores.

Do not underestimate the power of Shonen Jump being available through Scholastic book orders.

[Red Jack]

What's the status of Manga in general? has it leveled off growth-wise or still burgeoning?

[Charles RB]

"Capable of working out different branding" is not at all the same as being willing to do so.

It takes about a second of observation though.

Give them a comic that's somewhat similar in tone to the film and they will read it. But if the next one they pick up is an entirely different guy with an entirely different life, they're done. You lose them.

That's the logic that led to Ultimate Spider-Man being made.

Now if the presence of more than one type of Spider-Man story is genuinely this confusing and they will also be confused if the comic is not like the film, the choices are:

a) Cancel the original title and replace it with Ultimate, i.e. make the source material more like the adaptation.

b) Make the film more like the comic. Which won't work.

They'd sell a hell of a lot more trades if there was a magazine out there that people could pick up on impulse at the checkout stand, read and enjoy, and then find an ad for the related books.

There are single issues in newsagents and supermarkets and even in bookstores (in the States anyway, not seen that done here). Are the trades of those titles the ones selling the most?

Actually, related to mass-market selling, the mass-market available-in-newsagents-everywhere comics of the UK have been losing sales in recent years, which isn't too big a deal for the majority which are licensed titles (the TV/cartoon/whatever won't be the hot new property forever) but is also affecting older kid-aimed titles too. For adults, comic Striker!, a mass-audience sold-to-newsagents title based on a popular newspaper strip, went under due to low sales.

2000AD and adult-humour comic Viz though, their average sales have literally frozen at an okay level due to a core fanbase (which obviously won't last forever). And I know 2000AD tries to make itself inviting to new readers and get whatever press attention it can afford, and yet, sales remain static. It's doing really well with its trade paperback program in bookstores though, every bookstore selling comics that I've been in here has had 2000AD trades in good numbers. I don't know how much the newsagent presence supports the trade sales though.

The digests are readily available everywhere. The comics are only available in comic shops.

I was under the impression they too could be found outside comic shops, and had been for years. Have the non-direct market shops been dumping the singles in recent years?

[Michael P]

I was under the impression they too could be found outside comic shops, and had been for years. Have the non-direct market shops been dumping the singles in recent years?

I still see single issues in Barnes & Noble, in news stands, in drug stores, in some supermarkets. In New York, at least, they're available in other venues.

Incidentally, the digests are, of course, comics.

[Charles RB]

But the comics industry is obviously doing a piss poor job of it, and maybe they should figure out how to solve that problem be for they start alienating the readers that they do have in order to accommodate all the hypothetical new readers, who are, so far, nonexistent.

Agreed - though MacQuarrie's right that it's their job to bloody figure it instead of expecting us to pimp it to bods (and I do pimp comics to people, but usually people who already read comics).

Of course, money's an issue - most companies may not have the cash for big campaigns. On the other hand, that's hardly an unknown problem in the history of business.

And Marvel can afford the odd TV ad, as they just did one. I have no idea how effective it is on people who don't know about Secret Invasion though - nor who decided to advertise it when it's nearly over and the trade isn't for months.

[Charles RB]

Incidentally, the digests are, of course, comics.

Different format and price range though, which is what I presume Mac meant.

But the monthly floppies are still around outside the direct market? Good to know, I was worried I was years out of the loop.

[Michael P]

Different format and price range though, which is what I presume Mac meant.

No, he pretty much means that, by his definition, they're not "really" comics. There was a round-and-round about this last week over on Comm.

[MacQuarrie]

No, he pretty much means that, by his definition, they're not "really" comics. There was a round-and-round about this last week over on Comm.
The question in that thread was specifically about standard monthly comics, but everyone wanted to pretend they aren't in the toilet sales-wise by changing the subject to graphic novels and other such entities.

Digests are by definition repurposing of material originally published in another format.

[hichaec]

What's the status of Manga in general? has it leveled off growth-wise or still burgeoning?

ICv2 says it's still growing (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/12416.html) as of 2007, but at a slower rate than previous years.

[MacQuarrie]

I still see single issues in Barnes & Noble, in news stands, in drug stores, in some supermarkets. In New York, at least, they're available in other venues.

Incidentally, the digests are, of course, comics.

Most magazine dealers have refused to deal with comics for years, because the profit margin is too little, and the loss due to handling and theft is too great.

That's why I say comics went awry way back when they decided to hold the price down by reducing the format all those years ago. They kept the rice down, but also dramatically reduced the margin, so it wasn't worth it to the retailer to stock them or the distributors to list them. That's one of the ways Diamond got their monopoly, the distributors who didn't go under or get acquired decided not to bother with comics anymore.

Which is why I say that a radical ("to the root") approach, creating a comic magazine that looks like a magazine, could do very well indeed, particularly if it were successful in attracting advertisers.

That's the third part of the problem; magazines without advertising are either expensive specialty publications aimed at niche markets or they barely break even. Put 64 pages of comics into a 96-page magazine, and it's profitable before it hits the stands.

[MacQuarrie]

No, he pretty much means that, by his definition, they're not "really" comics. There was a round-and-round about this last week over on Comm.

Anyway, what I said was, the non-comics reading person doesn't think of graphic novels as comics. They think of them as more like illustrated books. They are book size, book shape, book price, and sold in book stores. Comics are those things that used to be on the spinner racks years ago.

[Sabrinaset]

That's the third part of the problem; magazines without advertising are either expensive specialty publications aimed at niche markets or they barely break even. Put 64 pages of comics into a 96-page magazine, and it's profitable before it hits the stands.

I think I saw that at Wal-Mart the other day, a Spider-Man magazine that reprinted 3 or 4 Spidey comics. I don't remember checking for ads though.

[JKCarrier]

Which is why I say that a radical ("to the root") approach, creating a comic magazine that looks like a magazine, could do very well indeed, particularly if it were successful in attracting advertisers.

Seems to work for HEAVY METAL. On the other hand, Harris tried a VAMPIRELLA magazine a couple of years ago (with a mix of comics and articles), and that sank pretty quickly. It would be interesting to see DC try a Vertigo title in magazine format -- something really slick and trippy aimed at the college/artsy crowd.

[Charles RB]

That's the third part of the problem; magazines without advertising are either expensive specialty publications aimed at niche markets or they barely break even. Put 64 pages of comics into a 96-page magazine, and it's profitable before it hits the stands.

I was going to bring up Judge Dredd Megazine as a magazine-format comic, but that doesn't have 30+ pages of ads (thank CHRIST, I hate when ads get in the middle of the strips). It's traditionally used text features and reprints to keep the price down.

It's also constantly changing its precise format - more reprint, less reprint, currently "free graphic novel (actually seperate magazine)!" reprint; different page sizes; different strip lengths; price changes - to keep afloat. Now it's a spin-off from another title, so it's not the best example as sales are not going to go above 2000AD, but despite its mag format, being in newsagents, often value for money et al, sales keep dipping (and then going up, then dipping, then etc) and it's had a very shaky history.

It also outlasted multiple magazine-format comics like the critically acclaimed Crisis and Deadline, which came out at the same time, were also widely available, and got mainstream press attention. Poor Crisis only lasted four, five years. Though to be fair (or rather unfair), Crisis had some severe problems behind the scenes - management killing strips and trades, disagreement of what Crisis was for etc.

The basic point to all my rambling being that the magazine format has been tried, and unless masses of ads will make a huge difference, profitability and continued publication is not assured - and that's even if the editors and/or their parent company aren't thinking like puddings. Not that I wouldn't mind more mag-format comics being published, they're a good buy.

I think I saw that at Wal-Mart the other day, a Spider-Man magazine that reprinted 3 or 4 Spidey comics. I don't remember checking for ads though.

We got those here - about six for Marvel, and three or four for DC (different company but same format). Very little ads in either of them, and they seem profitable (unsurprising, they're bloody reprints!)

[Matt Algren]

Okay, after 20 minutes of careful study and a detailed flowchart on my whiteboard, I think I've got it!

Guggenheim likes Spider-Man post-Mephisto, which means he disagrees with people who don't like Spider-Man post-Mephisto. (We'll call them Group X)

For the sake of convenience, we'll call people who are pro-gay marriage Group Y.

Guggenheim says that if you're in Group X, you must necessarily be in Group Y.

Therefore, Guggenheim necessarily disagrees with people who are in Group Y.

And to unpack that last step, Guggenheim necessarily disagrees with people who are pro-gay marriage.

To unpack further, Guggenheim necessarily disagrees with people who are pro-civil rights.

At which point, I agree with Dorian (http://www.postmodernbarney.com/2008/09/marc-guggenheim-is-ass.html) and say "Fuck you, Marc Guggenheim."But really, who wouldn't be gay for Harry Osborne, as long as he's played by James Franco?

http://www.hollywoodville.com/main/images/2007/05/02/james_franco.jpeg
Right-click, Save Image As, "Income Taxes 2003"

[Charles RB]

And to unpack that last step, Guggenheim necessarily disagrees with people who are pro-gay marriage.

To unpack further, Guggenheim necessarily disagrees with people who are pro-civil rights.

BURN. .
.

[MartinRedmond]

Isn't Marc G also the guy that killed Barry Allen?

[Charles RB]

Bart Allen.

DC told him to do it.

[Matt Algren]

Bart Allen.

DC told him to do it.
Ain't that a kick in the face.

Wait...

[Village Idiot]

I think what Guggenheim is saying is that Marvel is anti gay marriage.

But he worded it so oddly that I am confused.

[Ian Boothby]

I think it's clear that Spider-Man had a gay marriage that we've all just forgotten about thanks to magic.

I'm going to guess it was him and the Human Torch.

[Tobias March]

I think what Guggenheim is saying is that Marvel is anti gay marriage.

But he worded it so oddly that I am confused.

Because Marvel, as we know, is all about the pussy.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/134/327241641_85c63db3a3.jpg?v=0

[Red Jack]

Because Marvel, as we know, is all about the pussy.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/134/327241641_85c63db3a3.jpg?v=0

holy crap. that was one of the first comics i remember reading.

[Danny Donovan]

As someone who is very much against One More Day (but I'm all for gay marriage, everyone should have the right to lose half their stuff when things go bad.) it's NOT the marriage being retconned that people have a problem with for the most part.

It's that a very crucial character from the mythos was marginalized, and someone who was a big part of why people love Spider-Man is told that this person, people have grown to relate to, to enjoy, and was a big part of your formative years (hell, every story from 1987-2008 had MJ in it just about) is just an albatross, and was not really important after all.

ALSO, the way they did it was so haphazard and retarded fans revolted. Fans for the most part can take a lot of things in comics. Characters die, get replaced, come back in 20 years, whatever. But this is saying "No, I don't care what you think, I am in charge and I want Peter to be single" and sticking their tongue out at the fanbase that made them millions with said character.

The stories themselves, are not TERRIBLE (not all of them) but they're not that great. So you are replacing good stories with less than stellar stories, and having a rather contempt for their audience by the silly pokes and winks at how they don't care what people like they're going to get this and thank the company.

It was a terrible story leading to the retcon, it was a terrible handling of the whole thing explaining WHY this had to happen and HOW it was going to be "new" and the same at the same time. and a terrible handling of the backlash!

[Charles RB]

Not to mention, it involves the main hero and his wife doing a deal with THE ACTUAL FUCKING DEVIL.

Which makes Spider-Man look fucking stupid because it's A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL. Has he not seen any work of fiction with the Devil in it ever?!

[scout1279]

Not to mention, it involves the main hero and his wife doing a deal with THE ACTUAL FUCKING DEVIL.

Which makes Spider-Man look fucking stupid because it's A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL. Has he not seen any work of fiction with the Devil in it ever?!

I think I would have been much more OK with it if it actually was Spider-Man taking charge and responsibility and being the hero, instead of Mary Jane. Because I saw it as her doing everything to make everything OK for him, and him doing jack all for anyone else. That bothered me. And it bothered me more when interviews tried to make it out like MJ was somehow at fault for this behavior and Peter was completely blameless in the whole affair.

Also, for me, the marginalization of Mary Jane has been a problem. It would be nice to think that the writers could find a place and a purpose for her, even if she's not being featured as a love interest for Peter. Especially since, IMO, so many writers have taken pains to make her a really well developed character.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I think I would have been much more OK with it if it actually was Spider-Man taking charge and responsibility and being the hero, instead of Mary Jane. Because I saw it as her doing everything to make everything OK for him, and him doing jack all for anyone else. That bothered me. And it bothered me more when interviews tried to make it out like MJ was somehow at fault for this behavior and Peter was completely blameless in the whole affair.

Also, for me, the marginalization of Mary Jane has been a problem. It would be nice to think that the writers could find a place and a purpose for her, even if she's not being featured as a love interest for Peter. Especially since, IMO, so many writers have taken pains to make her a really well developed character.

Current Marvel's stance on Mary-Jane is pretty damn sad. It shows they hate the character and will make her a stupied , lovelorn idiot who nails ego-centric movie stars. Nevermind that fans love this character... FUCK THEM.

Its all about WHAT WE AT MARVEL want. Ohhh and sales continue to drop showing fans don't want what you at Marvel want.

In a wild development weeks back...when MJ returned in 560# ...the following issue according to ICV2 actually lost 4,000 sales. So in 561# it dropped...so how do we explain this maybe its the fact ..Marvel fucked up her major return to be childish and poke at their readers some more.

I heard about the solicts for ASM 600#. So expect more grazing those fans some more. At some point when will they realize...many have said FUCK SPIDERMAN and won't be back ?

[DaeJi]

The thing I hate most is that the writers and editoral staff at Marvel just seem intent on sticking it to the people who do not like BND. From the very first page of BND to the interviews to Mary Jane they just seem like they enjoy mocking them. It's sad and petty and that alone would make me never touch another Spider-Man book again. And again, there are still a host of problems with the Spider-Man line, which OMD/BND failed to fix (and in some cases it made it worse), only adding news to the mix.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

The thing I hate most is that the writers and editoral staff at Marvel just seem intent on sticking it to the people who do not like BND. From the very first page of BND to the interviews to Mary Jane they just seem like they enjoy mocking them. It's sad and petty and that alone would make me never touch another Spider-Man book again. And again, there are still a host of problems with the Spider-Man line, which OMD/BND failed to fix (and in some cases it made it worse), only adding news to the mix.

I poked fun back in Jan. with Dan Slott where I asked when he and Marvel was gonna have the new SINGLE , wild Peter Parker involved in love triangles and 3-ways. I think it hit a bit close to home as he never answered. Now their revealing that soon Peter is gonna have a new GF show up soon and be involved in a love triangle.


Theres enough comedy here and hell if CBR had a Chris Hyatte they could ride Marvel's balls hard and make the editors look sad. Thats what CBR is missing...someone who can be wild and not give a shit about impressing important people.

If there was a Hyatte type on CBR I bet you'd see some wild fireworks ...:evilsmile: