|
|
Post by DubipR on Mar 25, 2015 13:19:30 GMT -5
I actually had every intention of supporting and buying most everything. then I saw the prices. (and yes, I emailed DC and told them they should be ashamed of themselves). I won't support the individual issues, and only perhaps will buy some trades of it later, if I find them used or cheap at Half Price Books. but nope, won't support $3.99 an issue 22 page books, or $4.99 and issue 30 page books. And they had an excellent chance of getting this lapsed reader back *(I dropped everything with the NU52-- excellent jumping OFF point, and have only been buying the weeklies (Futures End & EarthII)). Agreed Bert.
I'll pick up maybe 1 or 2 but not all of the titles I wanted to pick up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 13:26:18 GMT -5
I will be buying anything original Wally West, but if they do not bring him back for good (not holding my breath), then DC can suck it *shakes fist*!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 14:28:11 GMT -5
DC (and Marvel) would get me back tomorrow in a big way if they'd simply stop with the events. This won't happen because both companies are convinced that they'd have to close shop on publishing tomorrow if they did so. Sorry, but I'm not buyin it. Somehow Image is doing just fine producing comics without events, at a lower price, and offering DRM-Free downloads to boot! What gets in the way is the nebulous "profit margin" that Marvel and DC use as an excuse when someone brings up Image. I simply don't buy that Marvel or DC would have to cancel their lines if they allowed all of the titles to function event-free (more or less) like Batman or Daredevil. I MIGHT consider giving DC a chance if they'd come off the absurd DRM stance (I only collect collected editions, the occasional old newsprint comic and digital comics currently) but as is, I'm not about to pay 3.99 a pop for mediocre event driven comics that I wouldn't even own. Shaxper is absolutely right that the advent of the event was a monolithic change in the way comics were marketed and how the marketing departments, in turn, pushed editorial. We all know that DC and Marvel have always been about making profits, but up until Secret Wars in 1984, the comics people were more or less left to their own devices to build a more or less coherent shared universe. Now that wasn't the ultimate goal of the publishers, but that's how it all came to pass creatively. Those above editorial didn't care how they did it, as long as they did it. For all the toy tie-ins and various gimmicks of the past, the event comic was something completely different. Now you have editors (or even marketing) coming up with sweeping storylines and telling writers and artists specifically what to do. Before the event, the companies wanted to make money, obviously, but the modus operandi of the editors and creators was to maintain the core of the characters while at the same time maintaining the cohesion of the interconnected universe. The only "event" that would take place was when a new villain was created or a supporting member died. This is what the fans wanted and it worked for a long time. It was a long-term approach to turning a profit by producing superhero comics. The ironic thing about all of these soft-reboots/reboots and continuity altering events, is that every single one has been a long-term failure. Look no further than to Infinite Crisis, New 52, Heroic Age, Marvel Now, etc. The increase in frequency is absurd. My one quibble with this is that I do not think DC was concerned at all, creators, editors, or marketing, with creating a cohesive universe until COIE their first major event. Things like the "Haneyverse" and the fact that a good chunk of their output had nothing to do with a DCU, shared or otherwise, that until the late 70s and 80 events in character's solo books rarely if ever affected their appearances in books like JLA or appearances elsewhere (and characters with multiple books rarely had the events in one affect the other-there are exceptions like when Moench wrote both Tec and Batman,but those were exceptions not the norm), that aside from the JLA/JSA and other Earth 1/Earth 2 crossovers (which were sold better in many cases than the non x-over issues of the books they appeared in) here was very little DCU world building, when editors like Julius Schwartz would meet with his writers each month to decide/guide/assign the stories they would tell and most (if not all) of the stories were pretty much editorially driven before the late 70s/early 80s just prior to COIE in '85. The whole point of their first event was to create a cohesive universe from all the diverse elements of of the Pre-Crisis DCU milieu, and almost every event they have had since then has been to refine, redefine, or reshape that cohesive universe. In fact I will say it is the very desire for a "cohesive universe" by fans that drives these event type storytelling from editorial because they are what sells better-from the JLA/JSA annual cross-overs onwards. If fans didn't buy them (and demand them not with words but with dollars) they wouldn't be happening. But until consumers put their money (i.e. not buying these things) where their mouth is (complaining about them online incessantly) they will continue to be the driving force of mainstream super-hero comics. DC is trying something different post-Convergence, about half their line won't be tied to events/cohesive universe type stories. If those books don't sell well compare dot the event/continuity driven books, then it will be a short term experiment because the market will have spoken. Fans continue to vote with their dollars for event driven cohesive universe type books, so publishers will continue to supply. A handful of us here (and in other places) decrying these types of comics and not buying them doesn't make up for the fact that the bulk of the modern comic buying audience keeps snapping up this stuff no matter what is posted on the internet, because they want comics that "matter" in terms of continuity and cohesive universes. That road lead to events for big 2 comics and its not going to change unless the buying habits of the majority customer base changes. But it won't. That majority is content to keep buying and usually don't participate in forums like this or CBR. As an anecdotal example-when I helped out at my lcs, I helped manage the sub list and would try to talk to customers about what was coming up to help frame our orders, out of the entire sub list there were 4 customers who frequented any kind of newssites, and maybe a third would know what was coming slightly ahead of time when stuff hit major media outlets (like USA Today, or google news picked up an article somewhere to display the headline, or when a movie news site linked a comic article). The rest, i.e. most of the customer base, just bought the books they liked featuring the characters they liked and if something new came out that caught their eye added it, and bought events because it was a chance to see a lot of characters in the same story making it feel more epic or important... all the hand wringing over the rest of the stuff wasn't even on their radar and they would happily buy whatever event or version of the character that was out there. -M |
|
|
|
Post by The Cheat on Mar 25, 2015 16:37:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 25, 2015 19:01:06 GMT -5
As I see it, event comics are selling "cohesive universe" as the product, not character or genre.
Which is weird, 'cause continuity was originally just a marketing gimmick to cross-promote Marvel product. It's like Taco Bell stopped selling food and is now only selling stuffed Chihuahuas.
This is important and you guys need to believe me: Everything has always been driven by marketing. Those characters in mrp's avatar? All those DC Sword and Sorcery boosk that lasted six issues? They existed because marketing wanted to compete with Marvel's Conan. Marketing has ALWAYS called the shots, and editorial and creative have ALWAYS had to do what marketing told 'em. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Mar 25, 2015 19:09:58 GMT -5
I'm not denying that fans buy events and support them with their dollar, mrp. This is a fact. However this is also where we get into that annoying/tricky territory where we're all suppose to say "good comics are subjective." Sure, on an individual basis that's absolutely true, but there is also the general consensus among knowledgeable fans and critics (generally, people with a bit more perspective and understanding of the genre) that even the best event books are inferior to the best non-event titles. I think most of us here, having read event books and having read good non-event runs on titles, would agree that events are almost always mediocre. That said, I think it's a tad coy of Marvel and DC to proclaim the success of the event when said events are almost always isolated to the flagship titles: Justice League, Avengers, Spider-Man and to a lesser extent Batman. Of course events sell given this fact! On the flipside, it's usually the creative teams working with B and C list characters (I hate that term) that garner the acclaim of critics and hardcore fans. Books like Daredevil are as close to being objectively better to all those poorly written and plotted events books as something subjective can be. All I can do at the end of the day is vote with my wallet and only support books that seem to be, at least in part, a function of good old creativity and not simply a product of market-driven greed and short-term thinking.
I do agree that Crisis is a cut above all the other events because it actually served a function beyond hype, half-baked nostalgia and the inflation of sales. It was a valiant attempt at reordering the DC universe and put it in a position to once again compete with Marvel as a rival. It can't be denied that it was part of the creative zeitgeist of the time that also gave us Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns and Man of Steel. I simply don't perceive what DC and Marvel are about to do as being anything near this from a creative standpoint.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 25, 2015 21:03:09 GMT -5
As I see it, event comics are selling "cohesive universe" as the product, not character or genre.
Which is weird, 'cause continuity was originally just a marketing gimmick to cross-promote Marvel product. It's like Taco Bell stopped selling food and is now only selling stuffed Chihuahuas.
This is important and you guys need to believe me: Everything has always been driven by marketing. Those characters in mrp's avatar? All those DC Sword and Sorcery boosk that lasted six issues? They existed because marketing wanted to compete with Marvel's Conan. Marketing has ALWAYS called the shots, and editorial and creative have ALWAYS had to do what marketing told 'em. That's correct. I think the difference is that today's marketers have become much more hands-on and micro-managing. Not only are characters and series driven by marketing, now you seem to have specific story-lines driven by marketing. I think there was more space for creators back then to be creative between the broader guidelines set by marketers, or a marketing viewpoint. For example, a series like Master of Kung Fu came about for marketing reasons - to cash in on the then-current kung fu craze - but it appears that after that simple decision to have a martial arts series it was left to the creators to do everything else. Same with the horror series like Tomb of Dracula. If MoKF or ToD were started today, we'd probably be reading about how Marvel had a "retreat" where some committee decided on the direction of the series, how it tied in to the rest of the MU, blah, blah, blah. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 22:00:59 GMT -5
As I see it, event comics are selling "cohesive universe" as the product, not character or genre.
Which is weird, 'cause continuity was originally just a marketing gimmick to cross-promote Marvel product. It's like Taco Bell stopped selling food and is now only selling stuffed Chihuahuas.
This is important and you guys need to believe me: Everything has always been driven by marketing. Those characters in mrp's avatar? All those DC Sword and Sorcery boosk that lasted six issues? They existed because marketing wanted to compete with Marvel's Conan. Marketing has ALWAYS called the shots, and editorial and creative have ALWAYS had to do what marketing told 'em. That's correct. I think the difference is that today's marketers have become much more hands-on and micro-managing. Not only are characters and series driven by marketing, now you seem to have specific story-lines driven by marketing. I think there was more space for creators back then to be creative between the broader guidelines set by marketers, or a marketing viewpoint. For example, a series like Master of Kung Fu came about for marketing reasons - to cash in on the then-current kung fu craze - but it appears that after that simple decision to have a martial arts series it was left to the creators to do everything else. Same with the horror series like Tomb of Dracula. If MoKF or ToD were started today, we'd probably be reading about how Marvel had a "retreat" where some committee decided on the direction of the series, how it tied in to the rest of the MU, blah, blah, blah. Marvel retreat back then consisted of the guys who were roommates (as most of the young turks of that Bronze age generation were rooming together or crashing on each other's couches to survive the high cost of living in NYC) getting together over takeout and a bong deciding what would be cool to do in the various books....and Marvel's editorial freedom wasn't by design but because whichever one of them was the guy who was EIC for that year was overworked and had too much to do to be hands on for most of the titles on the line so writers were their own editors if they were experienced to cope with the overload. It wasn't some idealistic grand plan of creative freedom but a by-product of the times and how little staff Marvel actually had. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 25, 2015 22:25:27 GMT -5
Yeah, that's a point. I guess that Marvel from, say, 1960-1978 does actually feel a lot more organic in it's development than Marvel before (where the marketers would just cancel 16 romance titles and replace them with Westerns, or vice versa) or after (Jim Shooter) or DC, ever. Although Skull the Slayer was a pretty great book.  |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 25, 2015 23:00:17 GMT -5
That's correct. I think the difference is that today's marketers have become much more hands-on and micro-managing. Not only are characters and series driven by marketing, now you seem to have specific story-lines driven by marketing. I think there was more space for creators back then to be creative between the broader guidelines set by marketers, or a marketing viewpoint. For example, a series like Master of Kung Fu came about for marketing reasons - to cash in on the then-current kung fu craze - but it appears that after that simple decision to have a martial arts series it was left to the creators to do everything else. Same with the horror series like Tomb of Dracula. If MoKF or ToD were started today, we'd probably be reading about how Marvel had a "retreat" where some committee decided on the direction of the series, how it tied in to the rest of the MU, blah, blah, blah. Marvel retreat back then consisted of the guys who were roommates (as most of the young turks of that Bronze age generation were rooming together or crashing on each other's couches to survive the high cost of living in NYC) getting together over takeout and a bong deciding what would be cool to do in the various books....and Marvel's editorial freedom wasn't by design but because whichever one of them was the guy who was EIC for that year was overworked and had too much to do to be hands on for most of the titles on the line so writers were their own editors if they were experienced to cope with the overload. It wasn't some idealistic grand plan of creative freedom but a by-product of the times and how little staff Marvel actually had. -M That's right - but the end result was the same: more creative freedom. Granted, it may never have been sustainable as a business model. But by rationalising the business aspect - a process that probably began with Shooter - the creative side went down the drain, IMO. Ironically, if it's true that the comics are now just idea factories for the bigger companies that own the DC and Marvel, providing characters and stories for the real revenue-generators, the movies, tv, and merchandising, it should now be possible to allow the comics creators more creative freedom than ever: if comics sales isn't where the real money is made anyway, let them go wild, forget all marketing considerations and trust that out of that creative ferment they'll get X number of marketable ideas for their movies, etc. Instead we have more nitpicking editorial oversight and control than ever, it seems to me. |
|
|
|
Post by The Cheat on Mar 26, 2015 16:51:22 GMT -5
That's correct. I think the difference is that today's marketers have become much more hands-on and micro-managing. Not only are characters and series driven by marketing, now you seem to have specific story-lines driven by marketing. I think there was more space for creators back then to be creative between the broader guidelines set by marketers, or a marketing viewpoint. For example, a series like Master of Kung Fu came about for marketing reasons - to cash in on the then-current kung fu craze - but it appears that after that simple decision to have a martial arts series it was left to the creators to do everything else. Same with the horror series like Tomb of Dracula. If MoKF or ToD were started today, we'd probably be reading about how Marvel had a "retreat" where some committee decided on the direction of the series, how it tied in to the rest of the MU, blah, blah, blah. Yup, the cart is well and truly in front of the horse now. Everything's backwards. Instead of a writer saying, for example, 'Hey, I've got an idea for a cool story that involves a female Thor', the starting point now is someone in marketing saying 'We need a female Thor! Just make it happen, I don't really care how.' Writers are just there to guide the properties from saleable point A, to flavour-of-the-month saleable point B. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 18:13:38 GMT -5
That's correct. I think the difference is that today's marketers have become much more hands-on and micro-managing. Not only are characters and series driven by marketing, now you seem to have specific story-lines driven by marketing. I think there was more space for creators back then to be creative between the broader guidelines set by marketers, or a marketing viewpoint. For example, a series like Master of Kung Fu came about for marketing reasons - to cash in on the then-current kung fu craze - but it appears that after that simple decision to have a martial arts series it was left to the creators to do everything else. Same with the horror series like Tomb of Dracula. If MoKF or ToD were started today, we'd probably be reading about how Marvel had a "retreat" where some committee decided on the direction of the series, how it tied in to the rest of the MU, blah, blah, blah. Yup, the cart is well and truly in front of the horse now. Everything's backwards. Instead of a writer saying, for example, 'Hey, I've got an idea for a cool story that involves a female Thor', the starting point now is someone in marketing saying 'We need a female Thor! Just make it happen, I don't really care how.' Writers are just there to guide the properties from saleable point A, to flavour-of-the-month saleable point B. You men alike marketers coming to guys and saying hey Conan is selling for Marvel, give us a bunch of sword and sorcery books-claw, Stalker, Warlord, etc. etc. or Captain Marvel is selling better than Superman make Superman more like him, or X is selling for Y publisher, give us a bunch of those type of books that has been going on since the Golden Age and driving publisher's output? Because sales has never determined publisher output until the modern era of comics we don't like right? That cart has always been leading the horse we are just privy to more behind the scenes info and have constant access to stuff before it hits the stands now biasing the way we look at things. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 18:56:41 GMT -5
In fact, I would go as far to say if it weren't for marketers, bean counters and other aspects of the publishing ownership putting the cart before the horse and saying hey that Superman strip in Action sells well, I don't care how or what you do, get us some superheroes, make it happen, the comic book industry as we know it and the super hero genre would never have existed. Creators didn't have a bunch if unused super hero ideas just waiting to be sprung on publishers, publishers saw profit and made it happen no matter what the story was as long as it hit those notes that were selling to the audiences of the time. So no, I don't thinks things are different today, I think people are making scapegoats out of marketing for books/storytelling styles/publishing decisions they don't like and not acknowledging those same forces were also responsible for many of the boos/characters/styles/decisions they do like.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Mar 26, 2015 20:51:45 GMT -5
There has always been a general desire to sell as many issues as possible, sure, but the bean counters weren't always involved in the day-to-day business of making comics. Where marketers and such have best served the characters is by way of outside merchandising. I know that toys, games, etc, was hugely influential to me as a kid when I was developing my love of superheroes. Still, there wouldn't have been any toys to make if there were no creators to formulate the concepts.
I'm a bit puzzled at giving corporate suits any credit at all for, say, the brilliant concepts of Jack Kirby. Beyond employing creators like Kirby and overseeing the physical aspect of producing the actual comics, they played no part at all in the conceptual side of things. The only way you can give some of those guys credit for concepts was when obvious toy tie-ins were created. Virtually all of the great characters were created by professional writers and artists. It's not like they had marketers over their shoulder giving them design points. "Art", commercial or no, is the one area where the corporate masters can never lay claim no matter how they spin it. (Like when Shooter claimed in a testimonial that it was "Marvel" that wrote the X-Men, not Chris Claremont. Almost as if they had a cybernetic link plugged into his brain feeding him ideas.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 26, 2015 22:42:43 GMT -5
You've zoned in on the thing I find most interesting about mainstream comics - The tension between commercial and creative.
The Fantastic Four existed because Martin Goodman wanted a superhero team to compete with the Justice League. So he certainly gets some credit for the idea, but none for the execution, which was far more than he ever bargained for.
The All-New-ALl-Different X-men were, likewise, were created as a vehicle to increase Marvel's international sales, which had been steadily rising while domestic sales were falling. The execution was different, better, and more commercially profitable than anyone had ever dreamed, but the original idea was born of simple commerce.
This isn't a knock against any of the creators involved - In fact, quite the opposite. I think it's really inspiring that they can do brilliant work while still doing basically whatever marketing tells them to do.
Chris Claremnont wrote the X-men and Kirby designed the Avengers and the Fantastic Four, but each of them was working within the narrow constraints of a commercial system that's designed to maximize profitibilty over art. Which makes their work more impressive and - to me at least - in a lot of ways more interesting.
|
|
