|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 7, 2015 15:26:32 GMT -5
Well, as a back issue collector, I got turned on to lots of stuff that way... back in the mid-90s when I was buying alot of lowish price back issues. I guess if you were buying them off the newsstand it was tricky, but if they did that NOW, it certainly wouldn't be. Marvel and DC don't care if you are a back issue collector unless you are buying those back issues from them via digital or trades. -M ...which would sell alot better if a) they marketed them to current readers and b) they didn't make people feel like they didn't 'count' by changing all the characters beyond recognition. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 7, 2015 15:28:45 GMT -5
Continuity was very important. The more continuity got emphasized, the smaller the readership actually got and it and the loss of newsstands were the two most important factors in the ghettoization of comic books over the last 20-30 years. So it is important, just not in the way most hardcore fans think it is. Now with the movies, comics are moving out of the ghetto and suddenly continuity is becoming less important, and the hardcore fans can't accept the industry is moving away from the things that kept it in the ghetto and is now moving towards the mainstream where they can actually increase units moved and not watch sales shrink for 3 decades. -M I don't really understand why you think continuity has anything to do with newsstand distribution or sales... that doesn't make any sense to me. All I'm saying is if two books that are on the market at the same time are talking about the same character (Starfire, in this instance), that character should be the same in both books. Is that so wrong?It's no more right than having books aimed at different demographics or different buyers. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 7, 2015 15:29:17 GMT -5
t annoys a certain type of person. It annoys people who are concerned with that sort of minutiae. Or who have overly invested themselves in a certain character. For the casual fan or someone with a passing interest it makes little to no difference. Conan the Barbarian (I'm assuming you are talking about the original Arnold movie) was very successful. It more than tripled its budget in worldwide box office. It spawned a sequel and led to the spin-off of Red Sonja. I'm not arguing that making money equals quality. I'm simply saying that most people who aren't die-hard collector/obsessives don't care much about continuity. I'd argue it was successful because of the built in fans.. the sequel wasn't, when most of those fans realized what they were getting. If it had been good, it could have been a franchise. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 15:30:10 GMT -5
Continuity was very important. The more continuity got emphasized, the smaller the readership actually got and it and the loss of newsstands were the two most important factors in the ghettoization of comic books over the last 20-30 years. So it is important, just not in the way most hardcore fans think it is. Now with the movies, comics are moving out of the ghetto and suddenly continuity is becoming less important, and the hardcore fans can't accept the industry is moving away from the things that kept it in the ghetto and is now moving towards the mainstream where they can actually increase units moved and not watch sales shrink for 3 decades. -M I don't really understand why you think continuity has anything to do with newsstand distribution or sales... that doesn't make any sense to me. All I'm saying is if two books that are on the market at the same time are talking about the same character (Starfire, in this instance), that character should be the same in both books. Is that so wrong? Continuity drove mainstream audiences away. Part of the ghettoization of comics to the realm of only hardcore collectors. Moving comics off newsstands and putting them only in the direct market moved comics away from mainstream audiences and into the realm of hardcore collectors only. They are both part of the ghettoization process making comics insular form the mainstream audience and causing sales to shrink. They are not related to each other, but they are both contributing factors to the same downward spiral in comics sales that the industry is just now starting to shake off after 30 years. -M |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 7, 2015 15:30:10 GMT -5
It's no more right than having books aimed at different demographics or different buyers. But why use the same person? There's are literally 100s of characters in the DCU library. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 7, 2015 15:31:20 GMT -5
Marvel and DC don't care if you are a back issue collector unless you are buying those back issues from them via digital or trades. -M ...which would sell alot better if a) they marketed them to current readers and b) t hey didn't make people feel like they didn't 'count' by changing all the characters beyond recognition.This is a dog chasing its tail argument. They count if they're good stories with something to say. YOU are making them not count because of a slavish concern about continuity. 'The fault, dear Wildfire, is not in the comics, but in yourself.' |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2015 15:33:38 GMT -5
Speaking of different demographics, continuity free storybooks aimed at young readers featuring Marvel and DC characters are outselling their current comic output. Why is that? Perhaps because continuity isn't a driving force for sales?
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Poison on Jul 7, 2015 15:39:27 GMT -5
Speaking of different demographics, continuity free storybooks aimed at young readers featuring Marvel and DC characters are outselling their current comic output. Why is that? Perhaps because continuity isn't a driving force for sales? -M
Which out of continuity DC books are outselling their in-continuity counterparts?
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 7, 2015 15:40:31 GMT -5
The best way to get people to buy all the books is to make sure they are good, that seems to be what they're trying and it is definitely working. And unless I heard those other issues that the foot notes mentioned were really good, I didn't pick them up just because they were referenced. The only times an in story story reference has ever made me buy a book that wasn't on my radar have been times when they introduced new and interesting ideas, which again goes along with, "is it good?" a reference alone isn't going to sell me. Why can't they be both? That's what they used to do. That's what I'm saying. Personally, an interesting story note would be far more likely to entice me than others saying it's good, since I've often been disappointed by what fandom as a whole thinks is good, but to each their own  They can be and some are, but that has little to do with continuity being a deciding factor and more to do with a really good writer. And again, I think that points to not needing strong continuity, and why it isn't a negative point if a book doesn't reference other works. For instance, Batgirl references the events currently taking place in Batman with Jim Gordon as the new guy under the cowl; but it doesn't change its tone to fit in with that story and it doesn't do it just for continuity's sake but rather because her father being under the cowl has the makings for an interesting Batgirl story so that's why it was included. If it had been Joe Shmoe police guy under the cowl I doubt we'd be seeing any references to that in Batgirl but because it fits the creative team's story they've decided to tie in ever so slightly with the story taking place in Batman. And that's the way it should be, if it helps you to tie into another story then go for it(Batgirl and Gotham Academy), but if the events going on in other books don't serve the story you're telling then forget it( like Starfire or Bizarro). |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 7, 2015 15:41:06 GMT -5
t annoys a certain type of person. It annoys people who are concerned with that sort of minutiae. Or who have overly invested themselves in a certain character. For the casual fan or someone with a passing interest it makes little to no difference. Conan the Barbarian (I'm assuming you are talking about the original Arnold movie) was very successful. It more than tripled its budget in worldwide box office. It spawned a sequel and led to the spin-off of Red Sonja. I'm not arguing that making money equals quality. I'm simply saying that most people who aren't die-hard collector/obsessives don't care much about continuity. I'd argue it was successful because of the built in fans.. the sequel wasn't, when most of those fans realized what they were getting. If it had been good, it could have been a franchise. I don't see any way you can reasonably argue that that's the case. Conan Comics in 1982 were selling at most 200,000 copies (and I really doubt it was that much) at 60 cents a pop. And yes, you had the fans of the paperbacks. But sword & sorcery books were a very niche market then and now. Movie price in 1983 averaged $3/ticket. You don't generate $68 million worldwide box office with a fan-base of maybe a couple million people. Conan wasn't remotely a household name and still isn't. If you want to make that argument with Superman or Batman I'd still say you're almost certainly wrong. But with Conan...no way. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Poison on Jul 7, 2015 15:41:58 GMT -5
Folks - While I enjoy the passion that all of you are putting into this conversation, let's be sure to stick to the topic and not each other or groups of fans. I.E. please do not make comments about certain types of fans being obsessive or overly-committed as that adds nothing positive to this conversation. Stick to the topic not each other or groups of fans.
Thanks,
Dr. P |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 7, 2015 15:47:31 GMT -5
Folks - While I enjoy the passion that all of you are putting into this conversation, let's be sure to stick to the topic and not each other or groups of fans. I.E. please do not make comments about certain types of fans being obsessive or overly-committed as that adds nothing positive to this conversation. Stick to the topic not each other or groups of fans.
Thanks,
Dr. P With due respect, there's no way you can talk about the topic without talking about types of fans. Because it all boils down to who wants what and what the company is going to cater too. They're either going to try to cater to a broad market or they're going to cater to the same insular group that have been buying a shrinking diversity of "Big Two" comics for the last 25 to 40 years. And with that, I'll bow out. |
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Jul 7, 2015 16:14:59 GMT -5
Continuity itself isn't inherently bad. In fact, it's perhaps the greatest strength the superhero genre has. Where the problem lies, however, is when companies continually push stories (COIE for instance) that exist solely to move pieces of continuity around and restart some properties while keeping others stagnant. What you end up with is one mangled universe that can sometimes scare away new readers. The way to keep continuity manageable for new readers as well as to keep older fans happy is to focus on telling very compressed stories (1-2 issues per arc). With that model, the continuity of the universe is built organically through new characters/settings that are created in that story and new readers can readily jump into reading at any point since they don't have to wait forever for a new story to begin.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 7, 2015 19:09:51 GMT -5
Speaking of different demographics, continuity free storybooks aimed at young readers featuring Marvel and DC characters are outselling their current comic output. Why is that? Perhaps because continuity isn't a driving force for sales? -M Which books are those? The out of continuity DC books (which I love, btw), are digital first, and sometimes digital only.. they can't be selling that well. If you're taking stuff like Marvel and DC based little golden books, that's not a fair comparison.. the distribution channels for that sorta thing (as you well know) are completely different. You guys have me all wrong, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having every book be separate. I'm just saying if they want to do that, they should do it. It annoys me that they pretend everything happens in the same universe where clearly they take no steps to make that really be the case. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 7, 2015 19:14:20 GMT -5
I don't see any way you can reasonably argue that that's the case. Conan Comics in 1982 were selling at most 200,000 copies (and I really doubt it was that much) at 60 cents a pop. And yes, you had the fans of the paperbacks. But sword & sorcery books were a very niche market then and now. Movie price in 1983 averaged $3/ticket. You don't generate $68 million worldwide box office with a fan-base of maybe a couple million people. Conan wasn't remotely a household name and still isn't. If you want to make that argument with Superman or Batman I'd still say you're almost certainly wrong. But with Conan...no way. I find that to be a silly argument. Not every fan buys a comic, and not every comic fan buys every issue. IF you're talking worldwide box office, you're not taking into account later non-English reprints, I'm sure in 1983 there were easily 1 million people who were fans of the property that were excite to see it... if each of them brought a date and/or their family, that's a good chunk of the box office right there. The bottom line is if they felt the property didn't have a fan base, the movie wouldn't have been made with a property that cost money to license.. it would have just been Arnold the Barbarian or something. |
|
