June Sales Estimates: Here We Go Again!

**George Berryman** · 07-23-2008, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by fanboyspodcast

Where's George Berryman with his "REMAIN CALM! ALL IS WELL!" picture. I'd like to add that to my signature for all future BND posts.

Originally Posted by stillanerd

And in the meantime, he can bestow you with your Delta Tau Chi name, since all anti-BND fans are honorary inductees to that fraternity.

Indeed I can.

Fanboyspodcast...

From now on, your Delta Tau Chi name is... Crawfish.

**Mister Mets** · 07-23-2008, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by stillanerd

Hmm, I admit I overlooked that part about there being more than four writers. But again, Joe Kelly and Mark Waid are pretty big names when in comes to comics. Also, I would think that because Gale, Wells, and Guggenheim have work outside of comics that, apart from not being always on board, it works as being part of the attraction. After all, Marvel in part of their promotion of Gale did make an emphasis on him being the screenwriter for Back to the Future.

I don't think Joe Kelly's a bigger name than any of the other braintrust guys. He was popular in the 90s when he wrote X-Men, but since then, the only thing he's written that was truly notable was one really acclaimed Superman story.

Waid's a bigger name than Joe Kelly, but his most recent projects (Brave & The Bold, The Flash) weren't exactly massive hits, and I'm not even sure he'd qualify as one of Marvel's A-list writers (a list that includes Bendis, Millar, Loeb, Ellis, JMS and Brubaker.)

Both just strike me as appropriate choices for the braintrust, but not examples of Marvel putting all their resources into Amazing Spider-Man.

**stillanerd** · 07-23-2008, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Mister Mets

I don't think Joe Kelly's a bigger name than any of the other braintrust guys. He was popular in the 90s when he wrote X-Men, but since then, the only thing he's written that was truly notable was one really acclaimed Superman story.

You better not let the Deadpool fans hear you say that he hadn't written anything noteworthy.

Waid's a bigger name than Joe Kelly, but his most recent projects (Brave & The Bold, The Flash) weren't exactly massive hits, and I'm not even sure he'd qualify as one of Marvel's A-list writers (a list that includes Bendis, Millar, Loeb, Ellis and Brubaker.)

Don't forget, Waid also wrote a very acclaimed Fantastic Four run. And his earlier Flash run was also a highlight. Plus, this IS the guy who also wrote Kingdom Come which was is considered one of the best limited series to ever come out of the 1990s. So I'd say Waid certainly has more than enough "street cred."

**Mister Mets** · 07-23-2008, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by stillanerd

You better not let the Deadpool fans hear you say that he hadn't written anything noteworthy.

Joe Kelly left Deadpool before he left the X-Men. Deadpool fans have no reason to be upset.

Don't forget, Waid also wrote a very acclaimed Fantastic Four run. And his earlier Flash run was also a highlight. Plus, this IS the guy who also wrote Kingdom Come which was is considered one of the best limited series to ever come out of the 1990s. So I'd say Waid certainly has more than enough "street cred."

Plus he was one of the four writers of 52.

He definitely has street cred. He's probably on par with Peter David, another writer who doesn't guarantee sales. PAD's run on FNSM sold pretty damn poorly for a core Spider-Man title. Right now, we're debating about what it means to have three issues of Spider-Man a month in the Top 20. Mr David's final issue of FNSM didn't even crack the top 60. And we still have a lot of posters who want him to write Amazing Spider-Man.

**Matt Linton** · 07-23-2008, 10:49 PM

I think there are only a handful of writers at Marvel and DC who would qualify as "superstars" - Bendis, Millar, Morrison, Ellis, Johns, JMS, Loeb, and Gaiman (and maybe Vaughan), plus some outside folks like Miller or Moore. And even some of those folks aren't guaranteed draws (Millar's FF isn't selling nearly as well as expected, for example).

**stillanerd** · 07-24-2008, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by Mister Mets

Plus he was one of the four writers of 52.

He definitely has street cred. He's probably on par with Peter David, another writer who doesn't guarantee sales. PAD's run on FNSM sold pretty damn poorly for a core Spider-Man title. Right now, we're debating about what it means to have three issues of Spider-Man a month in the Top 20. Mr David's final issue of FNSM didn't even crack the top 60. And we still have a lot of posters who want him to write Amazing Spider-Man.

Well, as most have argued, most Spider-Man fans wanted to read Amazing Spider-Man over it's satellite books, even if PAD was on it. Course PAD on Friendly Neighborhood never did seem to find his stride on that title like he has with X-Factor or when he was doing the Incredible Hulk, even though he's written some very good Spider-Man stories in the past.

Originally Posted by Matt Linton

I think there are only a handful of writers at Marvel and DC who would qualify as "superstars" - Bendis, Millar, Morrison, Ellis, Johns, JMS, Loeb, and Gaiman (and maybe Vaughan), plus some outside folks like Miller or Moore. And even some of those folks aren't guaranteed draws (Millar's FF isn't selling nearly as well as expected, for example).

I'd also add Brubaker, Fraction, and Kirkman to being part of those superstar writers, or pretty darn close to being on that list. As for writer's who aren't guaranteed draws, you also have to factor in the character or characters they're working on. For example, the Fantastic Four doesn't have quite the popularity as characters as some of Marvel's other creations like Spider-Man or Wolverine. Even so, you do have a point.

**The Shadow** · 07-24-2008, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by stillanerd

The only times BND got a spike was when one of the four creative teams made their debut. One could make the case that once fans got their fill of what Slott, Guggenheim, Gale, and Wells had to offer, then it was enough to decide whether or not to stick on board or not. By bringing on Kelly and Waid, Marvel hope to repeat the results.

So... why wouldn't all comics have rotating creative teams even if they aren't almost weekly? This makes little sense and wouldn't explain why JMS would stay on a title for 5 or 6 years straight or why, if your theory is true, Marvel would keep anyone on a title long term.

In fact Brubaker's Cap has shown an upswing in readers and it's only had one writer and a couple of artists the whole time.

**Badfish40oz** · 07-24-2008, 06:50 AM

Wow. So maybe us crazy net-fans in the minority were actually onto something, huh?

**ShaggyB** · 07-24-2008, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Badfish40oz

Wow. So maybe us crazy net-fans in the minority were actually onto something, huh?

depends... do you think ASM will sell less than 34,000 copies for the rest of the year or not. Because as ive shown if it sells 35,000 copies per issue for the rest of the year it beats both 2006 sales and 2007 sales.

Originally Posted by ShaggyB

see this quote for details

**Jim Thompson** · 07-24-2008, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by ShaggyB

depends... do you think ASM will sell less than 34,000 copies for the rest of the year or not. Because as ive shown if it sells 35,000 copies per issue for the rest of the year it beats both 2006 sales and 2007 sales.

Well, running at three times a month as opposed to once a month, it should beat the 2006/2007 sales -- shouldn't it?

**Matt Linton** · 07-24-2008, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by Jim Thompson

Well, running at three times a month as opposed to once a month, it should beat the 2006/2007 sales -- shouldn't it?

He was counting the three times a month sales for 2006/2007 as well (FNSM/SSM).

**Mister Mets** · 07-24-2008, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by stillanerd

Well, as most have argued, most Spider-Man fans wanted to read Amazing Spider-Man over it's satellite books, even if PAD was on it. Course PAD on Friendly Neighborhood never did seem to find his stride on that title like he has with X-Factor or when he was doing the Incredible Hulk, even though he's written some very good Spider-Man stories in the past.

One of the core Spider-Man titles not making the Top Sixty is fairly rare, so it's not just a matter of fans preferring Amazing Spider-Man to the satellite books, which sold fairly well until recently (plus, Sensational Spider-Man's last issue was ranked 18 slots higher).

I'd also add Brubaker, Fraction, and Kirkman to being part of those superstar writers, or pretty darn close to being on that list. As for writer's who aren't guaranteed draws, you also have to factor in the character or characters they're working on. For example, the Fantastic Four doesn't have quite the popularity as characters as some of Marvel's other creations like Spider-Man or Wolverine. Even so, you do have a point.

Brubaker's unambiguously a star writer right now, given the success of his Captain America and Uncanny X-Men.

Fraction's probably going to be a superstar writer soon enough (once Uncanny X-Men's a hit.)

I'm not so sure about Kirkman (Marvel Zombies was a success, while Marvel Team Up was not and Ultimate X-Men was outsold by the three core X-titles, at a time when those titles weren't doing the best.)

If New Ways to Die is a hit, we could probably add Slott to the list of Marvel's star writers.

**Jim Thompson** · 07-24-2008, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Matt Linton

He was counting the three times a month sales for 2006/2007 as well (FNSM/SSM).

Well, I'm sure that opened up a whole cans of worms about comparative sales. Suffice it to say personally I think there are too many independant variables in such a comparison to make it worthwhile.

**Endless Flight** · 07-24-2008, 07:25 AM

I agree.

Marvel might be making more money, and more books might be selling, but I think they've got fewer readers than they had before. I think that's more important to their success despite their pockets being lined temporarily. I think they might be forced to stick with this 3x schedule for years because of the damage that's been wrought.