Marvel could learn something from Stan Lee!!

[jmreas]

[nosocialize100]

Nice post. What issue is this from or what year?

[Dog]

It sounds like you're asking for exactly what's already happened this year.

[CrazyOldHermit]

It sounds like you're asking for exactly what's already happened this year.

In a way.

In another way, Marvel is doing the opposite. While Lee is talking about paring down the peripheral titles to lower the amount of books published each month Marvel is just paring down the peripheral titles to make room for double shipping and .1s. Lee mentions a concern for both quality vs quantity and fan's budgets while double shipping and releasing .1s is doing the opposite.

[Dog]

Unless I'm mistaken, Marvel is still publishing fewer books than at this time last year.

[XPac]

The notion of publishing less books will always be a double edged sword.

Truthfully I do think they publish more books than they need to. But at the same time, every book has some sort of fan base and people will always be unhappy when something gets cancelled.

Looking at the numbers of the recent Black Panther book for example, I can't honestly fault marvel for cancelling it. But in my view that book was as good if not better than any other book on the shelf in terms of quality. I was sad to see it go.

Marvel could probably do just fine publishing X-Men, Avengers, Spider-Man, etc... but sometimes we do see some good stuff on the lower end of the sales charts.

[RDMacQ]

The notion of publishing less books will always be a double edged sword.

Truthfully I do think they publish more books than they need to. But at the same time, every book has some sort of fan base and people will always be unhappy when something gets cancelled.

Looking at the numbers of the recent Black Panther book for example, I can't honestly fault marvel for cancelling it. But in my view that book was as good if not better than any other book on the shelf in terms of quality. I was sad to see it go.

Marvel could probably do just fine publishing X-Men, Avengers, Spider-Man, etc... but sometimes we do see some good stuff on the lower end of the sales charts.

Thing of it is, I do think there is a bit of a glut at this point with the Marvel books. I really don't think we need THREE Avengers titles, especially when there is little distinction between the three of them and several of them share the same cast members. We get good stories, but it also seems like they're hogging attention as well, you know? Comic Book stores are more willing to set aside shelf space for the Avengers books, and group them together, which kind of means less space for other Marvel titles on their shelves. It does kind of seem that Marvel is cannibalizing itself when it comes to its books at this point- some books are doing very well, but at the expense of their other titles. Just feels like Marvel needs to take a step back and refocus their efforts on something more than just the next three months.

[XPac]

Thing of it is, I do think there is a bit of a glut at this point with the Marvel books. I really don't think we need THREE Avengers titles, especially when there is little distinction between the three of them and several of them share the same cast members. We get good stories, but it also seems like they're hogging attention as well, you know? Comic Book stores are more willing to set aside shelf space for the Avengers books, and group them together, which kind of means less space for other Marvel titles on their shelves. It does kind of seem that Marvel is cannibalizing itself when it comes to its books at this point- some books are doing very well, but at the expense of their other titles. Just feels like Marvel needs to take a step back and refocus their efforts on something more than just the next three months.

That's sort of how comics works though. For a long time there were like 3 Superman books, 3 Batman books, and 3 Spider-Man books. Obviously all those books were about the exact same character... but they sold well so they kept publishing them.

Kind of the same thing with the X books and lately the Avenger books.

I do understand the criticism... but I'm not sure canelling an Avengers book would mean a Heroes for Hire or an Alpha Flight book would sell better in it's place. If it did, I'd support that instead.

[Mr. Rice]

I miss the days when Marvel acted like they liked their fans... It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, talk about how loyal the fans are, and the fans will be more loyal.

Instead of just telling us that we're anonymous nobodies who just want them to fail... That self-fulfilling prophecy doesn't work out well for them...

[XPac]

I miss the days when Marvel acted like they liked their fans... It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, talk about how loyal the fans are, and the fans will be more loyal.

Instead of just telling us that we're anonymous nobodies who just want them to fail... That self-fulfilling prophecy doesn't work out well for them...

That kind of works both ways though. Remember when the facts actually acted like they liked marvel?

And I'm not just talking about comic books. Wrestling fan, TV show fans, etc... internet is filled with haters. And that's kind of tough to ignore. Things did seem more positive from both sides when the net didn't exist and the most interaction we got were on letter pages or at cons (where 90% of the haters switch pull a face turn when they're actually face to face with the people they spend hours hating on).

I'm not saying that marvel and really every other medium that decides to interact with the net shouldn't do their best to be positive and respectful to the fans... but given the mount loads of negativity errupting from the net literally every hour of everyday I at least understand some of the eye rolling they do.

[RDMacQ]

That's sort of how comics works though. For a long time there were like 3 Superman books, 3 Batman books, and 3 Spider-Man books. Obviously all those books were about the exact same character... but they sold well so they kept publishing them.

Kind of the same thing with the X books and lately the Avenger books.

I do understand the criticism... but I'm not sure canelling an Avengers book would mean a Heroes for Hire or an Alpha Flight book would sell better in it's place. If it did, I'd support that instead.

I think we're in a bit of a different marketplace, though. Yes, during the 80s and 90s Spider-Man was published on average of at least 3 times a month. However, I don't think it's a secret that the marketplace was a bit stronger back then, feeding a larger number of people. Having 3 Spider-Man books didn't seem to take anything away from any other comics. It wasn't a guarantee that books like Darkhawk or Sleepwalker- brand new properties- would fold within a few years. Marvel and other comics did seem to try to be a little more experimental with their properties, banking on new concepts as well as established favorites.

These days, it seems like these titles come at the expense of smaller ones. Not that I'm saying that if we cancel one Avengers title, it will automatically make Heroes for Hire a better seller. Just that this sort of bombardment (for lack of a better term) of one franchise or another kind of sends the message that other, newer properties or titles not tied to a larger franchise aren't as "important." I look at something like the new 52, and how they managed to give ALL new titles the same prominence. Yes, some of them didn't make it. But DC did manage to promote titles like Animal Man on the same level as the newest Batman title, and avoided newer titles from being lost in the haze.

It just seems like with Marvel these days, its just either a new X-Book or a new Avengers title. Which is OK, but it doesn't seem all that creative or exciting. It's expected. It's safe. It's not risky. It's not daring. And that's part of what I think Marvel kind of lacks these days.

I really don't know what the "solution" is. But I think there is some room for improvement in this area.

[RDMacQ]

That kind of works both ways though. Remember when the facts actually acted like they liked marvel?

And I'm not just talking about comic books. Wrestling fan, TV show fans, etc... internet is filled with haters. And that's kind of tough to ignore. Things did seem more positive from both sides when the net didn't exist and the most interaction we got were on letter pages or at cons (where 90% of the haters switch pull a face turn when they're actually face to face with the people they spend hours hating on).

I'm not saying that marvel and really every other medium that decides to interact with the net shouldn't do their best to be positive and respectful to the fans... but given the mount loads of negativity errupting from the net literally every hour of everyday I at least understand some of the eye rolling they do.

OK, let's be fair though. This isn't "Marvel" we're talking about. It's certain individuals who WORK for the company, but probably don't represent the views of the ENTIRE company.

[Huthaifa]

Everyone does see that Stan was just sugarcoating canceling titles and not putting out books that would not sell well.That was Bishop Don Magic Juan pimp game right there:)

[XPac]

I think we're in a bit of a different marketplace, though. Yes, during the 80s and 90s Spider-Man was published on average of at least 3 times a month. However, I don't think it's a secret that the marketplace was a bit stronger back then, feeding a larger number of people. Having 3 Spider-Man books didn't seem to take anything away from any other comics. It wasn't a guarantee that books like Darkhawk or Sleepwalker- brand new properties- would fold within a few years. Marvel and other comics did seem to try to be a little more experimental with their properties, banking on new concepts as well as established favorites.

These days, it seems like these titles come at the expense of smaller ones. Not that I'm saying that if we cancel one Avengers title, it will automatically make Heroes for Hire a better seller. Just that this sort of bombardment (for lack of a better term) of one franchise or another kind of sends the message that other, newer properties or titles not tied to a larger franchise aren't as "important." I look at something like the new 52, and how they managed to give ALL new titles the same prominence. Yes, some of them didn't make it. But DC did manage to promote titles like Animal Man on the same level as the newest Batman title, and avoided newer titles from being lost in the haze.

It just seems like with Marvel these days, its just either a new X-Book or a new Avengers title. Which is OK, but it doesn't seem all that creative or exciting. It's expected. It's safe. It's not risky. It's not daring. And that's part of what I think Marvel kind of lacks these days.

I really don't know what the "solution" is. But I think there is some room for improvement in this area.

As far as the marketplace goes... I'd assume that's just how it works.

When the economy is good and the market is healthy, they probably publish more books and are willing to try new stuff.

When it's shrinking, I would imagine they'd focus on the stuff they know would sell and use the better selling franchise to try and prop up the lesser selling ones under their banner when possible.

[Mr. Rice]

OK, let's be fair though. This isn't "Marvel" we're talking about. It's certain individuals who WORK for the company, but probably don't represent the views of the ENTIRE company.

*cough* >_>

But yeah, I love Marvel. I highly doubt any of us would rather see them fail than succeed.