How do we save the Comic Industry

[jackdaw53]

The reality is that superhero comics don't pay well because you don't own what you create so while the Big Two avoid creators rights they ensure the door is closed to anyone who might bring a new perception to superhero comics.

Compared to what? Very few (non-comic) writers make any money by copyrighting their characters. And it strikes me that DC/ marvel writers are pretty well paid for effort they put in, compared to most other writers of equivalent ability.

[Mat001]

You're really reaching if you think a seven year old wouldn't know the difference. C'mon, man. At that age I could easily distinguish between Amazing and Spectacular Spider-Man, and I had preferences in the art and writing. I knew that "Marvel Tales Presents: Spider-man" were just reprints and was more interested in the current storylines that everyone else was talking about.

But that's not talking down to you the reader. That's not patronizing you, either. At the very least, a reprint gives you an opportunity to view the history. You're also assuming that a seven year old is aware of what's being talked about. I haven't kept up with Marvel, but are they printing letter columns? There aren't any magazines anymore like Wizard. What are the odds of these seven year olds going onto the internet with their parents and coming to CBR? What makes you think that other kids that age wouldn't be reading Marvel Adventures Spider-Man?

A seven year old isn't going to know the difference off hand, if all they had to go on was MA Spider-Man. If they do figure it out, it's not like they couldn't read those stories. Maybe not off the newsstand, but if they're one of the growing number of families with computers and tablets, they can get those downloaded. And if not, well, they can still read MA Spider-Man if they really wanted to.

As to Marvel Tales, I dunno, I didn't mind reading reprints and I don't think to many at that age didn't either. To me, it was all good. I got to see older stories and newer ones.

I'm familiar with the Target books you're referring to. They collected a few issues of the Ultimate books, and never (or perhaps rarely) reprinted any subsequent storylines, they were cheaply made compared to the other books they were placed alongside (not to mention more expensive), and most of them were visibly bent or torn since the covers weren't even up to the quality of your average Archie Digest; and these books sat there, for years, never replaced despite being manhandled and damaged, and likely never sold. That's the very definition of half-assed.

The same things happened with the comics on the spinner racks and the shelves in all the locations. Cheap newsprint paper? Check. Bent and sometimes torn covers? Check. Cost? Christ, these kids are getting expensive action figures that cost seven dollars and video games that cost forty. $3.99 is cheap in comparison.

I do think it's funny that King Mob said "Kids aren't stupid" and your answer to that was essentially "Kids are stupid though". If the kids are too dumb to realize they're being patronized, then why aren't the books selling, Mat? I'm sorry, but you'll never convince me that it's because kids only like TV shows and videogames and just don't read anymore when there are several popular series of children's novels and when Harry Potter is such a success.

Kids read, but not comics. I never said that they don't read at all.

What does it matter when they were created anyway? That's like saying that no DC characters, not even Superman or Batman, should be allowed to outshine Dr. Occult (from 1935).

He's like that. He's a bit too keen on the creators rights, where if someone else has a different interpretation, it's somehow wrong and a disservice to the creators.

You've just patronised kids in exactly the way I mean. Of course a seven year old knows when they're getting something that isn't the 'real' version.

They're all "real" versions. The kid who reads "Peanuts" comics isn't going to claim that the cartoons and animated films are any less real, because it comes from another medium. No more than they'd argue that "Batman: The Animated Series" isn't the real Batman seen in various DC books. Same with comics themselves. They're only going to know that Marvel Adventures Spider-Man isn't "real" compared to Amazing Spider-Man unless someone tells them that they exist in two separate universes.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

You're freaking ridiculous. 90% of times you answer to someone your answer is completely unrelated with what was told. I made three points and your answer barely relates to the second one. And you're talking about villains while I've given plenty of examples of heroes. You're also talking about the more important character. How does that freaking matter?
I'm still not sure why I bother answering to you. This one seriously tired me. Allways the same crap. So, labyrinths.

Maybe I'm "freaking ridiculous" (what a starter!) or maybe you lack intelligence to associate. I rarely do point by point, I mostly provide my general opinion. I think it's futile to treat the comments of people with a generally opposite position as if they needed to be dismantled bit by bit. Many points might be common ground.

Specifically, I was interested in your view of DC and Marvel producing. Observe this image:

Most of them are '40-'60 characters, a few '60-'90 and even less '90-present. Too convenient?:


There might actually be a constant creation of characters, but they rarely get spotlight. They normally have a brief period of hype and then they move to the back of the supporting cast or rogues gallery of one of the classics. If DC's priorities were stories, graphic novels and new concepts would be a priority, and not the classic properties. My bet is that comics funtion as a sustainable brainstorming to generate new story ideas for Warner's classic properties.

On DC, you have Booster Gold from 1986 that is supposed to have a TV series in development, and Lobo from 1983 who has a movie coming. Blue Beetle III is pretty much a new character with an old name and he had a huge role on Batman: Brave and Bold. When you get to villains and supporting cast you have much bigger numbers
Like I said, you don't really get a new Superman every decade, but there are still concepts being created that are valuable to WB.

Yes, 80s characters, progressively less important than the ones from the 60s, but easier to find than trascendent, new characters. BB III is a re-fried character. There's a reason his name is not "Alien bug" or "Weapons kid".

As long as we're criticizing each other's replies, I have to say, you're terribly personal. Which is utterly useless. Disqualifying the person doesn't prove his point wrong. Once in a while is a common mistake, on a regular basis, is just a dumb attitude. However, I think it's just frustration (particularly since you seem to be practically alone on this one), instead of backing your view (which you can't), or finding an agreeable angle to it, you prefer to insult the person. Whatever makes you happy.

Oh, you're freaking serious? I give up.

There's nothing particularly new or unreasonable about what I said. Your answer is basically Cartman's "screw you guys, I'm going home". To actually be able to tell, we'd need at least the sum of all the printed material of both. Or maybe easier, the sales of each in a recent year (which would produce an idea of current popularity). That would still leave out TV and film popularity, but it's a start. Unilateral numbers are pointless (or a start, but not really informative on their own).

[Kurosawa]

You're offering up an extremely good arguement that superhero comics should not go on forever and ever and eventually have definitive endings.

And while Claremont managed to sell that romance, the writers of the cartoon (which is what we're talking about) did not. Nor did most other X-Men comicbook writers.
Morrison wrote them very believable as a married couple who have drifted appart.

The X-Men cartoon was garbage. And I think that if characters arrive to a place where ending them is the logical thing to do, then end it. Scott and Jean ended in Uncanny X-Men #137 as far as I am concerned and I will never accept anything else with the characters.

I like the modern Cyclops. He's not a million miles apart from Kirby Cyclops. Morrison gave him back his balls.
Most other Cyclopses though...
All that tragic backstory doesn't help the character when his writers choose to portray him ad dull as dishwater.

I'll never accept anything with either of those characters that Marvel does. They are dead to me, and I never want to see them again. I can't help it that most modern comic writers are pure garbage. It's not the character's fault that those writers suck and worship a Len Wein creation over a Jack Kirby creation. Morrison is an exception but I don't want to see Cyclops written by anyone.

Like Cyclops, there's very few writers who have been able to do him justice... One of the last and best ones was Greg Rucka, and that was back in 2003.

And really, is there any character in the MU that should not be able to outshine Angel?
What does it matter when they were created anyway? That's like saying that no DC characters, not even Superman or Batman, should be allowed to outshine Dr. Occult (from 1935).

I hate Wolverine no matter who writes him. I have hated the character since 1974 and I'll always hate him. And it's not a matter of when he first appeared, it's the fact that he is a shitty character and he is used to humiliate Kirby's creations. It would be different if he was a character who was built on his own merits without being used as a Mary Sue for John Byrne to get over. Now, things like the Punisher story with him I don't care about because Punisher is also a shitty character created by a nobody, but I wouldn't have minded if they had killed each other instead.

Anyway, I hate the character and that ain't gonna change. And that's why I can't read much Marvel.

[Kurosawa]

There are two main reasons why there are no new characters that matter nowadays: 1. Most current writers are total garbage and are incapable of creating anything that is worth a crap and 2. The writers who are talented enough to create characters that are good are smart enough not to give them to two corporations like DC and Marvel. The last Marvel characters that have made it big were Wolverine and Punisher, and they are almost 40 years old. Neither company will ever create or develop a new major character again.

[Mr. Holmes]

I said this on the manga/anime forum, but I went to a new Barnes and Noble in the mall, and the manga section is three times the size of the Graphic Novels/Comics section, and it was crowded with teens. I realize this is just anecdotal, but it has convinced me that manga has basically served whatever purpose comics have basically failed to serve as for younger demographics.

[carabas]

There are two main reasons why there are no new characters that matter nowadays: 1. Most current writers are total garbage and are incapable of creating anything that is worth a crap and 2. The writers who are talented enough to create characters that are good are smart enough not to give them to two corporations like DC and Marvel. The last Marvel characters that have made it big were Wolverine and Punisher, and they are almost 40 years old. Neither company will ever create or develop a new major character again.

3. The newer characters are not in any way inferior to anything they came up with back in the silver and golden ages, but because of the nature of fandom and the really tiny and limited audience for superhero comics, the fans won't give them any chance.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

The X-Men cartoon was garbage.

Are you kidding? One thing is you disliking it that much. But it gave strength to the U turn BTAS was giving animation. Both extended the audience age, BTAS went for the acclaim and recognition, XTAS demonstrated that comic storylines are a gold mine. BTAS was more about detective procedure and fantastic criminal psychology; XTAS was more about politics, relationships and sci-fi. I'd say that BTAS had a broader audience in terms of age, I think XTAS was a success in that it directly introduced teenagers to comics. They changed animated series forever.

I think you just don't enjoy anti-heroes. Which is very different from haing any grounds to think a charater is bad. Characters are not bad, only writers.

I think you are confused about the term Mary Sue. Mary Sue's are introspective and insecure rookies who get prominent protagonism for no reason. Wolverine is a savvy, confident veteran, with good instincts and a short temper, which is the opposite. Contrary to most Sue's he's widely accepted and popular.

I agree that most of the current writers are garbage. It's not like the classics are mindblowing, some of them sucked, but at least they rarely resoured to sensationalism to sell.

[Darrell D.]

No, he's right, the X-men cartoon from the 90s is incredibly bad, almost hilariously so.
Bad animation, worse voice acting....it's doesn't even hold up from a nostalgic viewpoint.
The rest of his rant was...um, interesting.

[carabas]

I4m of two minds about the X-Men cartoon. I enjoyed it a lot, but I can see that it is terribly written and acted. It's cheap trash, but still enjoyable. It's the McDonalds of superhero cartoons.

Characters are not bad, only writers.

People really should parroting that old Stan Lee lin because it oh so obviously is not in any way at all true. It implies that it is as easy to write good Batman stories as it is to write good Booster Gold stories.
Some characters are simply not made to go on for ever and ever.

[sunofdarkchild]

The X-Men cartoon was good, all things considered. It pushed the envelope in in what cartoons could do, and dealt with some deep subject matter. It stands head and shoulders above earlier cartoons like Thundercats and He-Man. The problem was it came out just before the Batman animated revolution, so it could not benifit from the era of improved animation, hiring of actors instead of voice and emphasis on more mature storytelling Batman ushered in. The stories could be complex, until the episodes reached their climax. At that point they'd devolve in Transformers faire. And there are moments when the voice acting is awful. It was a good show that was hurt by coming out 2 years too early.

[glennsim]

Well, back to the thread subject, whatever else that X-Men animated series did I know it brought in a lot of new readers. I've heard several people say they became interested in the X-Men because of the cartoon and sought out the comics because of it.

[carabas]

Well, back to the thread subject, whatever else that X-Men animated series did I know it brought in a lot of new readers. I've heard several people say they became interested in the X-Men because of the cartoon and sought out the comics because of it.

Didn't it run before the direct markert ghetto was established and comics were still freely available in lots of other venues?

[Darrell D.]

Didn't it run before the direct markert ghetto was established and comics were still freely available in lots of other venues?

Yeah, it did.
It ran through the speculator boom, same as Batman: TAS.

[carabas]

Yeah, it did.
It ran through the speculator boom, same as Batman: TAS.

Well, that would explain why it was able to expand X-Men comics sales while The X-Men films could not.