C2E2: Mark Waid Announces Thrillbent, "Insufferable"

[CBR News]

At his C2E2 panel, Mark Waid announced the May 1 launch of Thrillbent.com where he and "Irredeemable" artist Peter Krause will reunite on "Insufferable," a series about a former sidekick who turns out to be a full-on jerk.


Full article here.

[Jimmy Bond]

What an intriguing concept of a series.

[BrotherUnitNo_4]

I wish John Rogers would write comics again.

[DarkKnghtJared]

Premise for the first series sounds fun enough. I'm definitely willing to give this a shot. :)

[chastmastr]

A print edition is also part of Waid's digital strategy

Thank you, Mark. That's all I'm asking for. Even if it's a year or more later, as long as it makes it into print, I will be happy.

[Hatiko]

Thank you, Mark. That's all I'm asking for. Even if it's a year or more later, as long as it makes it into print, I will be happy.

YES! This is good!

[fever00]

Two points:
A: Kanye West is a genius, but also kind of a douchebag
B: Mark Waid is a douchebag, but not so much of a genius.

[DarkSynopsis]

This seems like a interesting way to go, I hope he can do well selling digitally which would then allow him to do more print in the future.

Looking forward to seeing how Insufferable turns out! Have to say I'm a huge fan of Irredeemable and Incorruptible! Was sad to hear they would be ending soon but at least he is putting out something new and hopefully its just as awesome! :)

[Hatiko]

Back in 2010 Waid said that he had a third "I" title planned but was waiting for Irredeemable and Incorruptible to get to the right point. Maybe this is what he was thinking of. I wonder if it will connect to the other two in any way.

[zetomenn]

"The cost of printing eats up another 80 to 90 cents, leaving the remainder to pay the writer, artist, colorist, letterer and any other expenses."

I disagree. This depends on your business model. If they publish these periodicals as books then yes, but if they published them as magazines, where 30% of pages are adverts so the bills are paid for before the thing is printed (and the importance of circulation numbers is solely to determine the value of the ad space) then no.
Newspapers and magazines are run as vehicles to create ad revenue, with the actual content present to bring readers in and create a value to the advertising space. Of course, most newspapers and magazines distribute as widely as possible so as to maximise the reach for their advertising clients, which = $.
Whereas modern comics have taken the counter intuitive model of lower unit sales risk via the preorder direct market, which is all fickle about adverts 'ruining' the books, thereby narrowing their demographic and exposure to the point that advertisers rarely bother. Meanwhile the in-house adverts don't really pay at all.
The direct market made sense when there was also a non-direct market against which the no-advert prestige formats had value while the ads on the newsstands actually paid for everything anyway. If print changes its model, and did what it does best, then it wouldn't be failing at the hands of people who only see the potential of cuts to production.

I'd rather spend money on something in my hands than spend it on rented rights to access it through comixology with the risk that my access could always be shut off if the company fails, or has a falling out with the publisher or platform provider (like whats happening with Kindle).

[MichaelPaytonMZ]

I wish John Rogers would write comics again.

Still waiting patiently for Dungeons & Dragons #16. :(

[Steve Broome]

"The cost of printing eats up another 80 to 90 cents, leaving the remainder to pay the writer, artist, colorist, letterer and any other expenses."

I disagree. This depends on your business model. If they publish these periodicals as books then yes, but if they published them as magazines, where 30% of pages are adverts so the bills are paid for before the thing is printed (and the importance of circulation numbers is solely to determine the value of the ad space) then no.
Newspapers and magazines are run as vehicles to create ad revenue, with the actual content present to bring readers in and create a value to the advertising space. Of course, most newspapers and magazines distribute as widely as possible so as to maximise the reach for their advertising clients, which = $.
Whereas modern comics have taken the counter intuitive model of lower unit sales risk via the preorder direct market, which is all fickle about adverts 'ruining' the books, thereby narrowing their demographic and exposure to the point that advertisers rarely bother. Meanwhile the in-house adverts don't really pay at all.
The direct market made sense when there was also a non-direct market against which the no-advert prestige formats had value while the ads on the newsstands actually paid for everything anyway. If print changes its model, and did what it does best, then it wouldn't be failing at the hands of people who only see the potential of cuts to production.

I'd rather spend money on something in my hands than spend it on rented rights to access it through comixology with the risk that my access could always be shut off if the company fails, or has a falling out with the publisher or platform provider (like whats happening with Kindle).

If you realize that the circulation numbers are so low that the heavy advertising model doesn't apply, I'm not really sure why you brought it up in the first place.