How do we save the Comic Industry

[Jadenewt]

Which is symptomatic of the short termism of how these companies think. If they can't work out how to reduce costs by getting the sort of advertisers who would pay to advertise in niche products like superhero comics then you don't have to think hard about why they're in trouble.

A couple of dozen people could easily do it.

You are correct about finding advertisers it will probably be hard but regular comics have that revenue stream to divert some of the costs of publishing and digital at this point doesn't.

Yes a couple of dozen people at 20 dollars an hour(because Tech doesn't come cheap) plus benefits and employment taxes. Hiring people isn't free. Also there is a constant need to upgrade hardware and purchase new hardware. Lights and other utilities not to mention space to store all the equipment. It's not all just given to them. Rent must be paid. Internet Service bills have to be paid.

[glennsim]

But what EXACTLY are the costs now that the infrastructure has been set up, is what I'd like to know. I realize that it does cost Marvel something to put them online, but I'd be shocked if it was close to what it costs, overall, to publish a traditional paper book. If I'm wrong and it costs Marvel and DC just as much to host a comic online as it does to print and distribute an actual physical product, I'll never mention the price again.

Comixology takes 33% of the cost, and ITunes takes another 33%. So for a $2.99 download, Marvel gets $.99.

[glennsim]

This has been the debate for the last dozen or so pages.


If you mean novels, then why on earth would a writer of any sex want to write for superhero comics when they'll get treated as just another hack? Where's the incentives from anyone outside of the superhero ghetto to write superhero comics?

I dunno, ask any of the several novelists who have worked for DC in the past. As I understand it, it's because they actually love the specific characters and want to make a contribution to them.

[Darkspellmaster]

I dunno, ask any of the several novelists who have worked for DC in the past. As I understand it, it's because they actually love the specific characters and want to make a contribution to them.

Not only that but writers that write fiction in general like to try out different areas to write in. Also don't forget that a lot of writers started off in some cases writing fanfiction about superheros when they were younger. Some of them aren't treated like hacks, there's also web comic creators too that could infuse new blood and possibly new readers.

[Mat001]

They looked horrible and ugly, plus they didn't know what was happening.

And this somehow wouldn't happen with modern comics? Much less older comics?

You don't have kids, nor do you speak to kids though so how do you even know what they like?

Because I was a kid once, as you were. As the people working on the comics themselves were. It is almost universal that kids, usually young boys, like violence. Which is why the typical toy and animation market for boys 6-12, contains varying degrees of violent content. With crossover appeal from the more violent and adult level media.

This isn't to say some kids don't enjoy gore and violence. When I was young I lapped up Action, and EC Comics reprints along with Warren and Skywald comics, but equally I had peers who were turned off by the comics I read because of the gore and violence.

That's my point. It all varies. So toning down the books or amping them up, isn't going to make much difference. At the very least having something like Johnny DC and Marvel Adventures can appeal to those who are turned off by such imagery, while those who aren't bothered, can read the harder material.

Think about why not buying or picking up a first issue is problematic.

If you don't buy the one comic, there are plenty of other choices out there.

Because they're not doing some basic parenting if they just let their kids read it.

Ah, but this is not universal. Not every parent is the same, just as not every child is the same. Did your parents look at the EC comics that you read as a kid? If they did, doesn't that make them bad parents for letting you read them? If they didn't, then by your definition, they're bad parents. Just because a parent doesn't look through Batman #1 (2011), or Batman #427, doesn't mean that they're bad parents. You can agree or disagree, but it is what it is. It really doesn't warp minds.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

Uh... You do know that the movie failed because it was terrible and not because Seline Kyle wasn't in it, right? I mean, people currently don't have any problem treating John Blake as Robin, for example.

I agree that it failed because it was bad. However, there's a point to what SteveGus said. Hollywood can't expect to cash in on just a name without putting much talent and effort into it.

Although the movie was awesome for me, I can't say that I'm not a little let down by John not being Dick somehow.

[Bruce Kent]

I agree that it failed because it was bad. However, there's a point to what SteveGus said. Hollywood can't expect to cash in on just a name without putting much talent and effort into it.

Although the movie was awesome for me, I can't say that I'm not a little let down by John not being Dick somehow.

Having him simply be named Robin was the weakest option to me. Considering his back story, it would made every sense if he had changed his name to John Drake from Richard Grayson, Jason Todd or Tim Drake.
Of course, Nolan could simply had done nothing even refering to Robin. I prefer what we got to that.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

Having him simply be named Robin was the weakest option to me. Considering his back story, it would made every sense if he had changed his name to John Drake from Richard Grayson, Jason Todd or Tim Drake.
Of course, Nolan could simply had done nothing even refering to Robin. I prefer what we got to that.

I agree. But I understand Nolan's dilemma. The middle name was a decent way to keep his role secret until the end and make it clear to a wider audience. Revealing the name a name change from Dick Grayson, would require common movie goers to get the tip from Batman fans... Well, it doesn't make that much of a difference not that I just wrote it. Everybody who doesn't know would have started asking "what's up with the name change?".

[Brannon]

Comixology takes 33% of the cost, and ITunes takes another 33%. So for a $2.99 download, Marvel gets $.99.

I'm assuming that Marvel's subscription site, that doesn't use either of these to my knowledge, helps them make up some of those costs. Doesn't ITunes only factor in if used with ITunes, though? Is that expense also tied in with the Comixology tech in some way? (I don't use ITunes, sorry for the ignorance)

Do you happen to know how those expenses compare to what they have to pay for traditional shipping and distribution methods? I do realize, like one poster commented, that even if Marvel didn't have to spend half the money, they'd still be reticent to lower prices because of nervous comic retailers.

[Bruce Kent]

Comixology takes 33% of the cost, and ITunes takes another 33%. So for a $2.99 download, Marvel gets $.99.

Source? Seems questionable.

[Mr. Holmes]

Having him simply be named Robin was the weakest option to me. Considering his back story, it would made every sense if he had changed his name to John Drake from Richard Grayson, Jason Todd or Tim Drake.
Of course, Nolan could simply had done nothing even refering to Robin. I prefer what we got to that.

Nolan wasn't interested in any of those characters, just the idea of Batman's protege.

[Rafa-Rivas-2099]

Nolan wasn't interested in any of those characters, just the idea of Batman's protege.

Well, I've herad that before, but he could have just have the idea of Batman's police contact or the idea of a DA ally becoming a deformed crazy villain.

[glennsim]

Source? Seems questionable.

http://comicsbeat.com/the-money-mode...nd-what-works/

Noted that I was off by a few percents, I was simplifying it in my head.

[glennsim]

I'm assuming that Marvel's subscription site, that doesn't use either of these to my knowledge, helps them make up some of those costs. Doesn't ITunes only factor in if used with ITunes, though? Is that expense also tied in with the Comixology tech in some way? (I don't use ITunes, sorry for the ignorance)

Do you happen to know how those expenses compare to what they have to pay for traditional shipping and distribution methods? I do realize, like one poster commented, that even if Marvel didn't have to spend half the money, they'd still be reticent to lower prices because of nervous comic retailers.

ITunes and Comixology are the engines behind both Marvel and DC. When you buy through the Marvel app, it's just a different branding for the most part - ITunes is still involved in the background somewhere. Even if you bought through some Android app, someone else is hosting the files.

Marvel is neither in the business of hosting servers to store the files nor are they in the business of accepting orders and keeping track of who bought what. Comixology and ITunes (or equivalent) do that. And those entities want to get paid.

EDIT: I just realized that you might mean Marvel's "pay one price monthly to get to read as much as you want" site, which I think is a completely different thing.

Also, according to Wikipedia, Diamond takes 60-70% of the cover price.

EDIT: According to more recent and potentially reliable data, the retailer gets 47% and the distributor gets 16% http://www.jimzub.com/?p=1953

[Kurosawa]

I agree that hating him and antiheroes in general is a valid view; in particular to those who had to made the transition from modern to postmodern writing. However, I suggest to avoid the Mary Sue claim, it's so excentric for such widely known topics, that it distracts on a bad light from your most insightful points: A culture in which morally gray characters (Batman, Wolverine, Punisher, Guy Gardner, Lobo, Catwoman) are idolized as heroes and the outstanding examples of emotional balance, civic attitude and kindness (Superman, Flash, Elongated Man, Blue Beetle II, Batgirl II, Captain America) are less and less common.

I don't hate antiheroes in general, I just hate crappy characters. Wolverine is a crappy character. I like Guy Gardner just fine, for example. Or Ghost Rider, he's okay. Even Punisher is okay if it's clear he's a villain. My main issue with Wolverine is they made other characters look bad in order to build him up. Hell, the first character to suffer so they could push Wolverine was Thunderbird, and he was an antihero himself.