shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 16, 2015 19:30:56 GMT -5
I left because nothing mattered anymore. All major changes were done without artistic purpose as sales generators, everything ultimately got undone in favor of the status quo, and thus characters and titles never truly grew. This reversal on The Nu 52 only further emphasizes these problems. I want to invest in my characters and properties, not jump on for the latest thing until it's buried and forgotten four years later. DC did some quality stuff during Nu 52 and, undoubtedly, will do so again, but they have no respect for the long view; only short term sales. I can't get behind that mentality. This is pretty much my mentality here too. Convergence just seems like DC's last attempt to drain a few dollars from pre-Nu52 fans who don't like their current line before kicking them off the cliff again. I've spent way too many years getting invested in the old universe to follow this new universe and know DC has no intention of going back to it again. I'm not crawling back to them anytime soon. I think it would be even worse if they did go back to the old universe now that they've spent four years building a new one. That sends an even worse message that, truly, everything is a passing fad with DC. What an f-you to all the loyal fans who have been following the Nu 52 for all this time. I left because nothing mattered anymore. All major changes were done without artistic purpose as sales generators... At least they are following tradition! You could say the same thing in 1956, 1968, 1971, 1986, or the year 2000 and it would be equally true. I always feel that you're shocked that comic editors are putting money ahead of artistic merit, but that is what they always do and what they always have done, and that is their job.
Certainly it's fine to be annoyed at the nature of mainstream comics - obviously I'm still pissed at the 1986 Crisis attempts to switch out the cool Moorcookian science fiction of the Pre-Crisis DC Universe for waaangst based Claremontian post-crisis tearful dramatics - but you gotta keep in mind when reading mainstream comics that they are there to turn a profit. If the editors are thinking that anything is more important than generating sales, they are not doing their job and should probably be fired.
I disagree with you on this, though. When DC did Crisis in 1985, it was more to straighten out their continuity in reaction to fans essentially saying "we'd like you to do more of what Marvel is doing." While sales were inevitably a part of the decision, there was a true quality consideration as well. The idea was that this would make DC comics better, even if that didn't end up being the case. 1956 -- It was a new generation of fans with an almost total clean break from the old generation, so giving them a new continuity apart from the old just plain made sense. Not sure what happened in 1968 and 1971 beyond the Batman titles, but, again, those were done with real quality considerations in place and a sincere question of how to better deliver qualitative change that fans would appreciate. It's only been a money-making stunt since the Crisis, and each new stunt has become even more transparent than the last. 1993 is pretty much my cut-off for reading Big Two comics, as that's when the companies got more into marketing than telling a story (previously, they'd told stories to make money), but if that wasn't my line in the sand, Zero Hour most certainly would have been. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 19:56:24 GMT -5
This is pretty much my mentality here too. Convergence just seems like DC's last attempt to drain a few dollars from pre-Nu52 fans who don't like their current line before kicking them off the cliff again. I've spent way too many years getting invested in the old universe to follow this new universe and know DC has no intention of going back to it again. I'm not crawling back to them anytime soon. I think it would be even worse if they did go back to the old universe now that they've spent four years building a new one. That sends an even worse message that, truly, everything is a passing fad with DC. What an f-you to all the loyal fans who have been following the Nu 52 for all this time. At least they are following tradition! You could say the same thing in 1956, 1968, 1971, 1986, or the year 2000 and it would be equally true. I always feel that you're shocked that comic editors are putting money ahead of artistic merit, but that is what they always do and what they always have done, and that is their job.
Certainly it's fine to be annoyed at the nature of mainstream comics - obviously I'm still pissed at the 1986 Crisis attempts to switch out the cool Moorcookian science fiction of the Pre-Crisis DC Universe for waaangst based Claremontian post-crisis tearful dramatics - but you gotta keep in mind when reading mainstream comics that they are there to turn a profit. If the editors are thinking that anything is more important than generating sales, they are not doing their job and should probably be fired.
I disagree with you on this, though. When DC did Crisis in 1985, it was more to straighten out their continuity in reaction to fans essentially saying "we'd like you to do more of what Marvel is doing." While sales were inevitably a part of the decision, there was a true quality consideration as well. The idea was that this would make DC comics better, even if that didn't end up being the case. 1956 -- It was a new generation of fans with an almost total clean break from the old generation, so giving them a new continuity apart from the old just plain made sense. Not sure what happened in 1968 and 1971 beyond the Batman titles, but, again, those were done with real quality considerations in place and a sincere question of how to better deliver qualitative change that fans would appreciate. It's only been a money-making stunt since the Crisis, and each new stunt has become even more transparent than the last. 1993 is pretty much my cut-off for reading Big Two comics, as that's when the companies got more into marketing than telling a story (previously, they'd told stories to make money), but if that wasn't my line in the sand, Zero Hour most certainly would have been. I will respectively disagree here, in that it has been about making money for DC from the start-they didn't spin Batman and Superman off into their own titles from Action and Detective because of any artistic reason, but to sell more comics. Those were marketing, not creative decisions, and pretty much ever since the primary concern behind their decisions is how can we sell more comics? If better comics sell more then that becomes a primary concern, but selling more is the main issue from '38 to present, not just since 1993. -M |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 16, 2015 20:00:36 GMT -5
I will respectively disagree here, in that it has been about making money for DC from the start-they didn't spin Batman and Superman off into their own titles from Action and Detective because of any artistic reason, but to sell more comics. Those were marketing, not creative decisions, and pretty much ever since the primary concern behind their decisions is how can we sell more comics? If better comics sell more then that becomes a primary concern, but selling more is the main issue from '38 to present, not just since 1993. -M 1993 is pretty much my cut-off for reading Big Two comics, as that's when the companies got more into marketing than telling a story ( previously, they'd told stories to make money) I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement. It's not a matter of integrity; if the editors at National in 1940 had known how to generate hype and artificially boost sales, they would have, but they didn't know, so all they could do was give the reader more of the kinds of characters they wanted and produce semi-quality stories in order to do so. Hype didn't enter the equation until the 1980s and didn't fully take hold until the 1990s. These days, it's more about pre-orders based upon previews and teasers, and getting folks to invest in five issue arcs and major crossover events, rather than selling a single book based solely upon its contents and quality in and of itself, nevermind a continuity that has grown organically over time thanks to artistic decisions made by writers and artists as opposed to editors and marketing strategists. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 20:22:15 GMT -5
Hype didn't enter the equation until the 1980s and didn't fully take hold until the 1990s. I guess all those Bullpen Bulletin Pages, Amazing World of DC Comics magazines, MMMMs, FOOM, etc. weren't part of the equation then, because they were the hype machine available to the level of tech/media available to the publishers at the time in the 60s and 70s. They have always hyped books to the level available and as "fandom" organized and got bigger as fanzines became fan press publications and became available to publishers (CBG, Amazing Heroes, Comics Interview etc.)and then became websites the hype grew sure, but it was always about getting word out and selling more. Stan touring college campuses to spread the word of Marvel wasn't hype either I guess. WE don't want to see through our rose colored glasses that it has always been a business about sales (Captain Marvel is outselling Superman, how can we get rid of the competition so we can sell more..., Superman sells how about a Superboy then to help readers identify...our readers are kids let's add a kid to Batman so maybe we sell more because a dark vigilante serving justice is so well-served creatively by a bright colored kid sidekick, etc. etc.) but it really always has been, but what was behind the curtains before and out of fan's sight is now front and center in the information age. We can't deny it any more because it's out in the open, but it's always been there, just more subtly and behind the scenes, not trumpeted out loud for all to see on websites and interviews with sales VPs. -M |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 16, 2015 20:28:45 GMT -5
Hype didn't enter the equation until the 1980s and didn't fully take hold until the 1990s. I guess all those Bullpen Bulletin Pages, Amazing World of DC Comics magazines, MMMMs, FOOM, etc. weren't part of the equation then, because they were the hype machine available to the level of tech/media available to the publishers at the time in the 60s and 70s. They have always hyped books to the level available and as "fandom" organized and got bigger as fanzines became fan press publications and became available to publishers (CBG, Amazing Heroes, Comics Interview etc.)and then became websites the hype grew sure, but it was always about getting word out and selling more. Stan touring college campuses to spread the word of Marvel wasn't hype either I guess. WE don't want to see through our rose colored glasses that it has always been a business about sales (Captain Marvel is outselling Superman, how can we get rid of the competition so we can sell more..., Superman sells how about a Superboy then to help readers identify...our readers are kids let's add a kid to Batman so maybe we sell more because a dark vigilante serving justice is so well-served creatively by a bright colored kid sidekick, etc. etc.) but it really always has been, but what was behind the curtains before and out of fan's sight is now front and center in the information age. We can't deny it any more because it's out in the open, but it's always been there, just more subtly and behind the scenes, not trumpeted out loud for all to see on websites and interviews with sales VPs. -M I think there's a big difference between your examples and mine, though. Stan Lee didn't kill off characters, dissolve universes, and reboot characters, then undo all that a short time later, solely to temporarily raise sales figures because corporate looked at the numbers and told him these strategies were working. Stan Lee was a carnival barker, to be sure, but he did so with some integrity and honesty. His bullpen never sacrificed the integrity of the book nor the trust of the fandom in order to turn another buck. The team-ups could be shameless at times, they didn't otherwise disrupt the comic beyond providing a guest appearance. That's a little different than erasing Peter Parker's marriage to Mary Jane and then replacing him with Dr. Octopus. So, when I say "hype," I really mean creating an event for the sole purpose of generating more sales, regardless of the impact on the property or the fandom. |
|
fred2
Junior Member
Posts: 78 
|
Post by fred2 on Mar 16, 2015 20:40:14 GMT -5
I know many have stopped reading DC Comics recently due to the New 52. Many feel that the new costumes, origins, and directions just aren't to their liking. I have to admit that I like at least 50% of the New with some notable exceptions(Azzarello's Wonder Woman, Lobdell's Teen Titans, & Cyborg being on the JL). If you feel that strong about the New 52 that you quit reading DC Comics all together, Convergence is your chance to put your money where your mouth is and tell DC you are still willing to pay for comics that focus on the more classic interpretations of their characters. Converence mini-series will offer fans from all eras of DC Comics the opportunity to buy and read stories featuring their beloved characters from yester-year and you can be sure that if sales of these comics are high enough, DC will definitely make them an ongoing thing, especially if sales of some of these comics equal or surpass their New 52 counterparts. Convergence starts up in April.  ...and what does this have to do with classic comics? I come here for classic comics not for anything "nu". I suspect the OP is a corporate shill for DC. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 20:41:54 GMT -5
-Killing a character to bring her back-Gwen Stacy clone check, the whole clone thing was a sales generating gimmick
-making more books because a strategy is working-Conan sells, let's do Kull, Savage Sword, Red Sonja, Weird World, etc. etc. check, what else is selling as we get sales numbers back...oh ok let's make more of those type of books...
-dissolve universe and reboot characters-Englehart destroys the MU leaving Dr. Strange the only survivor in an exact duplicate of the MU in the early 70s, check bring back Captain America (and Sub-Mariner, and Invaders etc.) to boost sales...check
-alternate futures...Deathlok, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc. etc. Starhawk destroyed and recreated by Shooter to facilitate an event story in the Korvac saga..check...
-no fan press available, let's hype books on the bottom of every page of our comics in the small print at the bottom of the page, because that adds to the artistic integrity of the presentation...
oh and let's include Marvel Value Stamps in our books and offer something to redeem them so people by 2 copies, one to cut out the stamp and one to remain intact...just to turn another buck for our company...
and...
-M
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 16, 2015 20:43:01 GMT -5
I know many have stopped reading DC Comics recently due to the New 52. Many feel that the new costumes, origins, and directions just aren't to their liking. I have to admit that I like at least 50% of the New with some notable exceptions(Azzarello's Wonder Woman, Lobdell's Teen Titans, & Cyborg being on the JL). If you feel that strong about the New 52 that you quit reading DC Comics all together, Convergence is your chance to put your money where your mouth is and tell DC you are still willing to pay for comics that focus on the more classic interpretations of their characters. Converence mini-series will offer fans from all eras of DC Comics the opportunity to buy and read stories featuring their beloved characters from yester-year and you can be sure that if sales of these comics are high enough, DC will definitely make them an ongoing thing, especially if sales of some of these comics equal or surpass their New 52 counterparts. Convergence starts up in April. ...and what does this have to do with classic comics? I come here for classic comics not for anything "nu". I suspect the OP is a corporate shill for DC. I kind of hope you're joking here, Fred. Dr. Poison is an established member of this community who runs the Hall of Justice section of our forum, which follows current DC titles and merchandise. His enthusiasm for DC is a matter of record here, so lets not insult the man. As for what it has to do with Classic Comics, I think the connections are obvious. His point is that DC is returning to the classic continuities that we spend our days discussing here. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 16, 2015 20:52:43 GMT -5
-Killing a character to bring her back-Gwen Stacy clone check, the whole clone thing was a sales generating gimmick What's your point? That was done in the '90s. The original death of Gwen Stacey in the 1970s was most certainly anti-Hype. It was not solicited in advance. No one went out to buy that book because a character was going to die. I doubt that book's sales were much higher than the issue before it, even in spite of the caption on the cover. And, most importantly, it was handled tastefully and with lasting impact for the character. I think you're missing my point. Again, if the editors at National in 1940 had known how to generate hype and artificially boost sales, they would have, but they didn't know, so all they could do was give the reader more of the kinds of characters they wanted and produce semi-quality stories in order to do so Was it advertised in advance as a major selling point? Did it disrupt the quality and integrity of other Marvel titles? If so, this is the first I'm hearing of it. And again, it was the writer's decision for artistic reasons, not a gimmick mandated by editorial. To renew copyrights, actually. And it was done with integrity. Avengers #4 is still many people's favorite classic story. Integrity and artistry were heavily considered. I'm not familiar with any of these. If you mean the reboots of those franchises, both occurred in or after the 1990s. Thus my point. Sure sounds like artistry mattered on that one. Not simply a sales gimmick. I sincerely doubt many went out to purchase the Korvac Saga simply because Starhawk was coming back. Really not appreciating the sarcasm, here. Can we discuss this civilly, please? And I don't see those little ads as disruptive to the book or inconsiderate of artistic integrity. When I recently posed the question on our CCF facebook page, many responded that they actually LIKED being told what was happening in other books so that they could check them out and had a sense it was all interrelated. Soliciting a book is not the same as creating stunt events in order to boost sales without consideration for artistic integrity. It had been a standard since day one of comicdom to have coupons you could cut out of magazines because no one even began considering their collectibility until the mid to late 1970s (Marvel Value Stamps were 1975, right?). Had they pulled this stunt in the 1990s (oh wait, they did) THAT would be a manipulative stunt. Many of my books from the 1980s still had coupons you cut out in order to get a subscription to the book. I can't imagine that was some sinister intention to trick us into buying two copies. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 21:14:24 GMT -5
I had typed up a long response that got lost befor eI clicked send and I have no desire to recreate it, but one point of clarification-The Gwen clone I was referring to was the Conway Jackal story that brought back Gwen a year or so after she died, not the clone saga of the 90s that riffed off that Conway saga...
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 16, 2015 21:48:15 GMT -5
I disagree with you on this, though. When DC did Crisis in 1985, it was more to straighten out their continuity in reaction to fans essentially saying "we'd like you to do more of what Marvel is doing." While sales were inevitably a part of the decision, there was a true quality consideration as well. The idea was that this would make DC comics better, even if that didn't end up being the case. 1956 -- It was a new generation of fans with an almost total clean break from the old generation, so giving them a new continuity apart from the old just plain made sense. Not sure what happened in 1968 and 1971 beyond the Batman titles, but, again, those were done with real quality considerations in place and a sincere question of how to better deliver qualitative change that fans would appreciate. It's only been a money-making stunt since the Crisis, and each new stunt has become even more transparent than the last. 1993 is pretty much my cut-off for reading Big Two comics, as that's when the companies got more into marketing than telling a story (previously, they'd told stories to make money), but if that wasn't my line in the sand, Zero Hour most certainly would have been. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I think that you're coming at it from the wrong angle.
It's not so much that the fans were saying "I'd like you to do what Marvel is doing" it's that they thought that they could emulate a more profitable franchise and make more money. When they tried to clean up continuity it wasn't out of any respect for continuity per se but they wanted to make their books more accesable to casual readers. They wanted to broaden their audience to make more money.
And I think those were secondary considerations. The real reasons for the Crisis were (A) The first Secret Wars made a boatload of money and DC wanted some of THAT, and (B) It gave them a chance to release a bunch of new, collectible # 1 issues with hot artistic talent - The first factor being as or more important than the second. The outer space Zebra Batman of the '50s was an attempt to copy elements of the more profitable Superman franchise and make more money. The villain resurgence of the late '60s was an attempt to capitalize on the success of Burgess Meredith and Frank Gorshin et. al. in the Batman tv show and make more money. The darkening of the Batman in the '70s was an attempt to distance the character from dated pop culture (IE the TV show) and keep in touch with current pop culture trends towards darker/more film noir type of movies and make more money. The Batman of the late '70s and early '80s was driven by Marvel writers because Marvel had been beating DC in market share, and they thought they could capture some Marvel Magic and make more money. The Dark Knight Returns was trying to get fans to pay A LOT MORE MONEY for four issues by a popular artist. As you yourself have noticed, Denny 'O Neil's editorial decisions were all financially based.
This is equally true of Batman, Superman, Spider-man et. al. Every decision is made because the company thinks that it will be the most profitable. Editors have to defend their decisions to THEIR bosses in terms of potential profit, not artistic merit.
Likewise, I think that the New 52 is an attempt to deliver sincere, qualitative changes to gain themselves new fans - I think DC was prepared to shed some old time nostalgic readers, but wanted to broaden their appeal in bookstores and digitally. Just because they don't seem to view nostalgia as the single most important element of their books doesn't mean they're not trying to appeal to fans. That's how you make money!
It's all about money. It's ALWAYS been all about money. Superman became more Captain Marvel-like in the '40s because Captain Marvel was selling better. Fawcett gave up fighting DC in court because superheroes weren't selling and it wasn't worth the money to keep fighting. The early Fantastic Four was a mish-mash of superhero, horror, romance, and science fiction adventures - essentially trying to capture the widest possible portion of comic readers and make money of fans of all those genres.
Every decision made about a mainstream character needs to be justified in financial terms - historically the marketing and sales departments have had more pull in the corporate structure than the creators. The company views characters as revenue streams - revenue streams that some people look at with affection, sure, but revenue streams first. And any other considerations "art" "continuity" are second to that, unless they figure that going all arty or following continuity will make the company money.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 16, 2015 21:56:22 GMT -5
Again, I don't deny that it's always been about making more money. My point remains that there was a tipping point in the late '80s, early '90s, in which publishers realized they could make even more money by pulling high profile stunts without consideration to the long-term impact on the characters and franchises. Maybe Crisis was a part of that, after all. I can see that. But I don't see distancing Batman from the campiness of the 1960s TV show (a move that had long term ramifications for the character and was adhered to as a sincere change in tone/direction) as being on par with killing Superman off and bringing him back six months later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 22:31:28 GMT -5
I think the difference in marketing comes down to market though-the direct market changed the way you had to market books. When newsstands sales were the norm and the heart of the business, you hyped books as they were coming out so people could look for them and find them on the stands. Hype didn't affect how many you produced because you had a set print run and what didn't sell was returned-hype was geared to minimize returns. Hype too soon and people went to look for books that weren't there and forgot about them before they did come out.
Once the direct market was established, it wasn't about how many sold out of the print run, you could now make an educated guess as to the size of the print run needed because there were no returns so hype was geared to hit before the books were even ordered to increase orders. It was no longer about getting people to look for the books on the stands, but to order the books from shops before they hit the stands.
What didn't change was that it was still about giving people more of the type of stuff that was selling in the current market-whether that was more of a characters [let's do 5 Spidey books (Amazing, Spectacular, Team Up, Marvel Tales and Super Stories in the 70s), let's spin off Wolverine and add young mutants to the X-Men because X-Men are hot in the early 80s, or tons of Superman books in the 60s], more of a genre (sword and sorcery sells lets do more, horror is selling let's do more), crossovers, or today events because events top the charts regularly) and using whatever means was available at the time to hype the books to the audience in the most effective means possible for the current sales model. The difference in marketing was one of scale, not kind, the nature of the hype changing because the way comic books were sold had changed.
-M
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 16, 2015 22:44:30 GMT -5
I think the difference in marketing comes down to market though-the direct market changed the way you had to market books. When newsstands sales were the norm and the heart of the business, you hyped books as they were coming out so people could look for them and find them on the stands. Hype didn't affect how many you produced because you had a set print run and what didn't sell was returned-hype was geared to minimize returns. Hype too soon and people went to look for books that weren't there and forgot about them before they did come out. Once the direct market was established, it wasn't about how many sold out of the print run, you could now make an educated guess as to the size of the print run needed because there were no returns so hype was geared to hit before the books were even ordered to increase orders. It was no longer about getting people to look for the books on the stands, but to order the books from shops before they hit the stands. Totally agreed. The kind of hype I abhor came about almost at exactly the same time as the rise of the direct market. This I still disagree with, and I think I've made my case enough times on this page alone, so I'll spare you a reiteration of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2015 22:47:18 GMT -5
Just be glad CBR didn't exist then or Stan's weekly soapbox column there (in the vein that Quesada's Cup of Joe and Alonso's Axel in Charge columns were inspired by Stan's Bullpen pages) would have given you a whole different perspective of that era of comics  -M |
|
