Tilting at Windmills - Jul 27, 2012

[supamike]

You know how Bendis got Avengers to become a hit? He rebooted it (and threw in Spider-Man and Wolverine).

Why is that bad? He looked at it from a whole different angel and made moves that paid off.Look at what he did with Luke Cage.He took what was at the time a character that hadnt had any sucess to really speak of and made him basically a quintessential Avenger.Kind of on the same lines as Hawkeye.

[Wolf_Leader]

Isnt it being exciting good enough? Ppl that are excited about it will tell other ppl that arent reading it and hopefully that will bring in new readers.

Sure, but how do you describe what is exciting about it? I mean I am excited that Dan Jurgens is taking over Fury and Firestorm (is that right? as you can see I am just excited to follow Jurgens on a book) but how would I spread that to others without being able to give them something more than just my appreciation of the creator.

Why is that bad? He looked at it from a whole different angel and made moves that paid off.Look at what he did with Luke Cage.He took what was at the time a character that hadnt had any sucess to really speak of and made him basically a quintessential Avenger.Kind of on the same lines as Hawkeye.

It isn't bad, but the success Bendis had with the Avengers isn't proof they wouldn't resort to a reboot. It could be used to show that the people they have there have seen it can work and can do it well.

[bskell]

Rebooting the entire marvel universe would be reactive solution, and wouldn’t do much for the larger problem at hand. Yes, it got DC in all the media outlets talking about the reboot, and a huge surge in sales, but that’s declining already. Action comics is down over 100K readers as per http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales.html from its relaunch.

Maybe I don’t get it, there’s a good chance I don’t, it’s been 15+ years since I ran a comic shop. Seem to me like both DC and Marvel keep sacrificing long term growth that has been the bread and butter of comics, with these short term gimmicks. Marvel has gotten even worse in the game by double shipping titles, when your readership is declining the right answer isn’t to get a bigger truck. In fact most people I know, have dropped titles as they can’t afford to keep up with it all. I’ve dropped a bunch of titles and somehow am still paying the amount I used to. I remember reading Byrne go off about how the direct market started the decline of comics as we know it. Where once the companies worked hard for new readership, now it’s replaced with a industry that caters to a small group (the loyal comic readers) and not attempting to grow out of that. As that small group continues to dwindle, they counter by attempting to find new ways go get more money out of that group rather than attempt to court new readers. DC at least pretended to court new readers, but that was also out of desperation more than trying to create better stories. As far as digital being the Shangri-La at courting new readers, it’s still overlooking the price point. How are younger readers, who grow up to be loyal readers, supposed to afford books running $4-5? It’s more an insult when you attempt to charge the same price for something that I can’t even physically hold. They need to get back to cheaper priced books, but increased places to buy them. Get them back into the gas stations next to the People magazines. The people that start buying them there will end up in a comic shop when they’ve missed an issue, or see an ad for a comic shop only comic.

[Blade X]

The only thing that is debatable is doing a 100% reboot like the New52 or maybe do a line-wide relaunch that doesn't restart continuity. I can see the pros and cons of both."

IMO, I think that they should do what Byrne suggested several times on his forum that Marvel should roll back the clock on the entire MU to where the characters were in 1978,and then move on from there in new and different directions.

How is new creative teams not a hook?If a team that i like and have read before is coming to a book that im currently not reading then im definatley interested in that book.
Also how is new creative teams not a hook but you want "real hooks based on creative teams"?

Based on the info gathered from the sales guestimates charts, popular/critically acclaimed creative teams are no longer a major factor in selling books.

[rolacka]

Interested in your thoughts as ever Brian. I wasn't sure what your opinion would be on the sudden reboot of DC's 52 vs. the staggered release of Marvel Now would be. Personally I have never really got into DC (have read a few series, but never followed an ongong) for whatever reason and new 52 I was intested in, but there were just too many titles for me to differentiate so I have still not tried anything yet. With Marvel Now I will be able to consider each title on its own without as much competition. That is as an existing reader though, ot a new/lapsed reader so my experiences are not applicable to the target audiences.

Ultimately I think both Marvel and DC's main competition is their own series. In a world where distribution wasn't an issue I think the Marvel and DC universes could probably support about 15 titles each and still have each title special and unique enough to attract attenion and be able to reach a wider audience.

[bskell]

IMO, I think that they should do what Byrne suggested several times on his forum that Marvel should roll back the clock on the entire MU to where the characters were in 1978,and then move on from there in new and different directions.



Based on the info gathered from the sales guestimates charts, popular/critically acclaimed creative teams are no longer a major factor in selling books.

As much as I admire and like Byrne, please don't let that ever happen. I knew a guy that used to write Star Trek TNG, he told me in great detail how much he hated the job. No matter what he wanted to do, he had to always put things exactly back where he found them. Any growth in the characters was an accident. Those kind of "fallbacks" are the same thing, and would confuse people more than a complete reboot. This would be like Stan Lee saying everything show go back to the 60s, it just doesn't work in this day and age. Funny how he wants to go back to when he was a huge influence on all comics.

[Blade X]

No disrespect to you Blade X but the creative teams Marvel has now are and have been really good. I know thats a subjective statement but look at what they've done.Look at Avengers.Before Bendis came on board this book had been pretty irrelevant since the Busiek/Perez run. I think they guys they got there now "Get it"

If the guys they got working on the books now actually "got it", the books would be selling to a hell of a lot more people other then the current and quickly shrinking aging fan base who have been reading these books since the 60's,70's,80's,and 90's. What Bendis and his buddies are doing is essentially writing fan fiction stories that would have only saw print as WHAT IF stories 15+ years ago. The high sales of Bendis's AVENGERS run were PARTLY due to most of his run being one huge gimmic/stunt fest (variant covers,crossovers,"deaths",and new controversial members) and Marvel's then newly "no over print" policy. A large part of is runs high sales was due to speculators and completist. The more recent sales guestimates for the non gimmick/stunt issues of his AVENGERS run are selling around the Chuck Austen run on the book. Bendis and most (if not all) of the so called "Architects" are nothing more then naked emperors and many fans are starting to realize that now. They have been elevated to "superstar status" by telling "taboo" stories that creators and editors before them discussed, but did not tell because it would screw up the characters in the long run.

[Alan 59]

I have to say that choosing to retain the history of the Marvel Universe was the right decision. Making the entirety of the past irrelevant is very dangerous. It hurt DC less because, though it was the most radical reboot yet, it was the fourth time (after 1986, 1994, and whichever year the multiverse was re-established). Marvel should consider carefully consider pruning its continuity, but not dump it enitrely. For instance, in AVENGERS, Kurt Busiek gave us a quick explanation of 1995-96's "The Crossing," and then suggested that we never refer to it again (which sounded great to me). Many Marvel characters have periods that would be better forgotten, if only we had the editorial and authorial wisdom to determine which to discard, and the authority to enforce those decisions once made.

However, there's a bigger problem, and that is that you have to be telling stories that a large number of buyers want to read. I am going to speak some heresy now, but the past decade has convinced me that the general public is not as opposed to super-heroes as many in the industry like to believe. It seems that the closer a movie gets to presenting its super-hero(es) in a traditional, comic-booky way, the more positively the public responds. The first SPIDER-MAN in 2002 demonstrated this, and it's been reinforced by THE AVENGERS. People who are willing to accept our heroes are willing to accept skintight costumes and altruistric motives, and even seem to prefer them. Dark leather and darker lighting can generate box office too, but not the same feeling of "That was great, let's go to the comic book store to get some more of that!"

Marvel, however, seems to be embarassed to be publishing comic book super-heroes, and I believe that it is a factor in driving readers away. Among the devices that are out of fashion, but that used to work perfectly well, are thought balloons, footnotes, letters pages, word balloons on covers, and covers that illustrate a scene from the story inside. Let's take a look at the cover of the ballyhooed UNCANNY AVENGERS #1. The logo runs vertically, next to the characters, rather than horizontally in the top third. If you're creating a movie poster, that's no problem, because your work will likely be displayed in its entirety. For a magazine cover, it's not so good, because after the first week (if you're lucky), you are likely to be racked so that only a portion of the cover is visible. If Marvel actually cared about selling more comics, rather than trying to create movie storyboards or video game scenarios, then this would be of greater concern to them.

I could go on, but the main reason that Marvel NOW, ReEvolution, or whatever "hot" slogan Axel comes up with next, will not succeed is that it is little more than a renumbering scheme to generate extremely short-term cash. While it is possible that AVENGERS will sell better without Bendis or that CAP will sell better without Brubaker, I, as a comic book retailer, will not be ordering comics with those expectations.

[Blade X]

Isnt it being exciting good enough? Ppl that are excited about it will tell other ppl that arent reading it and hopefully that will bring in new readers.

Trust me, it will bring in very few (if any) new readers.

[Blade X]

Why is that bad? He looked at it from a whole different angel and made moves that paid off.Look at what he did with Luke Cage.He took what was at the time a character that hadnt had any sucess to really speak of and made him basically a quintessential Avenger.Kind of on the same lines as Hawkeye.

Again, his ideas were not original. Spidey joined the Avengers as a reserve member back in the early 90's (and Byrne and Stern were planning on him joining the team back in the early 80's). I recently found out that Stern was planning on having Cage join the Avengers before he left the book. Wolverine joining the Avengers is pure fan fiction.

[bskell]

Again, his ideas were not original. Spidey joined the Avengers as a reserve member back in the early 90's (and Byrne and Stern were planning on him joining the team back in the early 80's). I recently found out that Stern was planning on having Cage join the Avengers before he left the book. Wolverine joining the Avengers is pure fan fiction.

It's only fan fiction when you don't get paid by the people who own the copywrites. This is canon. I personally don't care for it, as I think Wolverine is way overused and over hyped (really? Wolverine and the X-men like they're a backup band?) but it is canon.

[nieman]

The major component is that comics are just not attracting new readers. The stereotype exists that comic books are for the "geeks", and no matter how many movies are record-breaking blockbusters, it still doesn't carryover into comic book sales. Children, teenagers, girls just aren't reading them; the stores are filled with 20somethings on up. Until that staple is erased, sales will continue to dwindle....we are literally a dying breed. So first, parents have to get their children/grandchildren interestd in comics. It can't continue to be a "not cool" thing if the industry is going to thrive in any medium.

As for digital vs print argument (completely irrelevant here), I prefer print. I love that tangibility factor, and handing a book to my nephew/nieces, letting them hold it, taking it back home or leaving it with him. Storage, I will worry about that later, but there are always creative ways to store them.

The relaunches are just gimmicks that the Marvel reader is getting tired of. I do agree with keeping a creative team for years to fully develop stories. I am a believer in maintaining continuity, and I believe that the sliding timescale works; especially since they are now into multi-issue story-arcs.

[Blade X]

As much as I admire and like Byrne, please don't let that ever happen. I knew a guy that used to write Star Trek TNG, he told me in great detail how much he hated the job. No matter what he wanted to do, he had to always put things exactly back where he found them. Any growth in the characters was an accident. Those kind of "fallbacks" are the same thing, and would confuse people more than a complete reboot. This would be like Stan Lee saying everything show go back to the 60s, it just doesn't work in this day and age. Funny how he wants to go back to when he was a huge influence on all comics.

2 quick points.

1. When it comes to the MU and DCU characters it's more about the illusion of change and less about actual long lasting permanent change. Any changes made should be superficial or surface changes. By their very nature and marketability, these characters are meant to be timeless and appealing to kids and all ages. In a nutshell, these characters should be treated like James Bond and BEN 10 (the latter which had superficial surface changes).

2. Byrne (and his work) wasn't a huge influence on comics 1978.

[Blade X]

I have to say that choosing to retain the history of the Marvel Universe was the right decision. Making the entirety of the past irrelevant is very dangerous. It hurt DC less because, though it was the most radical reboot yet, it was the fourth time (after 1986, 1994, and whichever year the multiverse was re-established). Marvel should consider carefully consider pruning its continuity, but not dump it enitrely. For instance, in AVENGERS, Kurt Busiek gave us a quick explanation of 1995-96's "The Crossing," and then suggested that we never refer to it again (which sounded great to me). Many Marvel characters have periods that would be better forgotten, if only we had the editorial and authorial wisdom to determine which to discard, and the authority to enforce those decisions once made.

I would go a step further and do a hard selective retcon without any explanation. In other words, any stories that Marvel feels were bad/stupid ideas that were or are harmful to the characters/franchises would be completely retconned and ignored. Heck, Marvel could put out a book (be it a hand book or a regular comic book) that details the CANNON history of each of the characters.

However, there's a bigger problem, and that is that you have to be telling stories that a large number of buyers want to read. I am going to speak some heresy now, but the past decade has convinced me that the general public is not as opposed to super-heroes as many in the industry like to believe. It seems that the closer a movie gets to presenting its super-hero(es) in a traditional, comic-booky way, the more positively the public responds. The first SPIDER-MAN in 2002 demonstrated this, and it's been reinforced by THE AVENGERS. People who are willing to accept our heroes are willing to accept skintight costumes and altruistric motives, and even seem to prefer them. Dark leather and darker lighting can generate box office too, but not the same feeling of "That was great, let's go to the comic book store to get some more of that!"

Marvel, however, seems to be embarassed to be publishing comic book super-heroes, and I believe that it is a factor in driving readers away. Among the devices that are out of fashion, but that used to work perfectly well, are thought balloons, footnotes, letters pages, word balloons on covers, and covers that illustrate a scene from the story inside. Let's take a look at the cover of the ballyhooed UNCANNY AVENGERS #1. The logo runs vertically, next to the characters, rather than horizontally in the top third. If you're creating a movie poster, that's no problem, because your work will likely be displayed in its entirety. For a magazine cover, it's not so good, because after the first week (if you're lucky), you are likely to be racked so that only a portion of the cover is visible. If Marvel actually cared about selling more comics, rather than trying to create movie storyboards or video game scenarios, then this would be of greater concern to them.

I could go on, but the main reason that Marvel NOW, ReEvolution, or whatever "hot" slogan Axel comes up with next, will not succeed is that it is little more than a renumbering scheme to generate extremely short-term cash. While it is possible that AVENGERS will sell better without Bendis or that CAP will sell better without Brubaker, I, as a comic book retailer, will not be ordering comics with those expectations.

Quoted for the ever lovin blue eyed idol of millions truth.

[Blade X]

It's only fan fiction when you don't get paid by the people who own the copywrites. This is canon. I personally don't care for it, as I think Wolverine is way overused and over hyped (really? Wolverine and the X-men like they're a backup band?) but it is canon.

You're absolutely right, it's not fan fiction. It's "fan turned pro fiction". It's pros getting paid to write fan fiction.