|
Post by Duragizer on Apr 6, 2022 14:16:17 GMT -5
Like I've said numerous times before, the only new Big Two comics I ever bother reading anymore are out-of-continuity minis. I have zero interest/investment in the mainline comics or their characters anymore.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 6, 2022 15:04:37 GMT -5
I've yet to meet a moviegoer turned comic reader by watching the MCU. If they weren't already comic readers before they entered the theater. PAD had it right awhile back when he related a story of meeting a pair of brothers who liked the Rami Spider-Man films. But instead of going out to read the monthly adventures of Spidey (as PAD suggested to them), they were only interested in seeing the next Spidey film to get a new adventure of him. To their credit though, Marvel has been trying to adjust their characters and titles to fit the MCU mold. Tony Stark now talks like RDjr (read an Iron Man issue by Bendis and one by Michlenie/Layton, it's night & day difference). Matt Murdock begins looking like Charlie Cox. You can tell what the current focus of the MCU is by looking at the upcoming/current titles being released by Marvel. But again, it's more aimed at already existing comic readers than trying to attract new ones. But I'm the minority apparently, I still read and support current books and projects by both Marvel and DC. They are quality products being produced by excellent writers and artists today. If you don't like them, fine but at least read some of them first to form an actual honest opinion of their work instead of just knee-jerk bashing them outright because ' it's not the Marvel Universe of my youth.' Well, traditionally, neither nor Marvel has done a very good job of cross-promoting the comics to a theater audience. The comic side promotes the heck out of the movies; but, rarely the reverse and certainly not with a concerted effort. DC did a little bit, with the early Batman movies; but, Hollywood just seemed to want to distance themselves from the source. In fact, the local theaters in Charleston, SC, flat out told the comic shops that they would not do any comic-related promotions. Of the comic book movies of that era, The Rocketeer had a better presentation of comic stuff, though mostly the official adaptation, not the original story. That was despite Disney pretty much dumping the film and not supporting it with marketing, like their other films, after opening weekend (and this was an era when they still marketed the film for more than one weekend!) Peter David wrote a column about it, in CBG about the lost opportunity to introduce not just Batman comics but a wide range of DC titles, in theaters, particularly some of the critically acclaimed stuff, like Dark Knight and Watchmen. Marvel was then having enough problems just getting their movie adaptations on direct-to-video. Warner has always been a mess about cross-promotion, in general. When Babylon 5 debuted on the Warner TV distribution network, they didn't do any other promotion of the series, despite aiming for Star Trek and sci-fi fans. JMS had to go out, on his own, and secure book deals with Warner publishing and with DC Comics, let alone toy deals and other merchandise. He described the Warner divisions as competing fiefdoms and I haven't seen much evidence that it has changed in subsequent decades. Disney will promote the heck out of Disney animation and Star Wars; but, they have never been good about selling their comic books, when they have owned the publisher. PAD, in a similar column, spoke about the fact that you couldn't find Disney comics in the Disney stores or the parks, even after they took the license away from Gladstone and tried publishing themselves (and then failed and gave it back to Gladstone). I haven't been to a Disney park in decades; so, I don't know if they have any of the comics in the gift shops, since they bought Marvel or not. I'm sure they have Marvel toys and t-shirts, and tons of Star Wars merch.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Apr 6, 2022 15:16:19 GMT -5
I have zero interest/investment in the mainline comics or their characters anymore. Ditto, and I'm totally fine with that. Just like I'm fine with having no interest in Ed Sheeran or Game of Thrones or The Office. I have more entertainment--movies, TV, music, comics--at my fingertips that appeals to my tastes than I could possibly consume in one lifetime so why would I want or need to complain about the stuff that doesn't?
Cei-U! I summon the perspective!
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Apr 6, 2022 17:49:33 GMT -5
Every year when that report comes out it amazes me how poorly Marvel does.
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Apr 6, 2022 18:29:08 GMT -5
Every year when that report comes out it amazes me how poorly Marvel does. The only thing that's really caught my interest from modern Marvel is Moon Knight, anything Captain America, and whatever Al Ewing has his fingerprints on at the moment. The new Ghostrider looks decent too
They've also been doing a few throwback books like Venom and Silver Surfer
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 6, 2022 18:33:52 GMT -5
Every year when that report comes out it amazes me how poorly Marvel does. I think that is a reflection of how poorly they have handled their trade program. Over the years, Marvel has done a miserable job of keeping their trade collections available for the non-comic shop audience. DC has been far more successful because they have kept their books in print, over a longer period of time. Marvel seems to do a single print run and then washes their hands of them. The American Booksellers Association, over a decade ago, lamented that Marvel was unable/unwilling to keep material in print or go back to press. The demand was there; but, Marvel maintained their focus on the Direct Market. They also had a poor reputation for the quality of the product, in the 00s. Later releases seemed to solve some of the issues (loose covers were a massive problem). DC hasn't necessarily kept a wide range in print; but, they keep the evergreen titles (Dark Knight, Year One, Watchmen, etc) available. DC cultivated the book retailer market over a long period, starting in the late 80s. It helped that they got a lot of mainstream press for mature works, which helped things like Dark Knight, Watchmen and Sandman stand out. Outside of their original relationship with Waldenbooks, they (Marvel) kind of ignored that market and geared their trades to comic shops. I think the biggest issue, for them, is the returnable nature of retail bookselling. They seem to prefer the finite world of the Direct Market, where they know that it's a done deal. I could understand that if we were talking 30-40 years ago; but, printing technologies advanced to the point that you can have relatively rapid reprints and can print smaller runs. The book world struggled with this in the mid-late 90s, when a massively underwhelming year resulted in huge returns and nearly bankrupted some of the big publishers. There was a lot of reworking how they handled print runs to not glut the market at launch and be able to more quickly react to increased demand. Also, desktop publishing technologies advanced to where is was more economical for smaller publishers to print-on-demand. Granted, it is a bit different publishing text and pages of artwork and text, especially in color.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2022 5:27:44 GMT -5
DC hasn't necessarily kept a wide range in print; but, they keep the evergreen titles (Dark Knight, Year One, Watchmen, etc) available. Do DC publish any other evergreen titles? And what evergreen titles does Marvel do? And, opening it up, do Image, Dark Horse and others have any evergreen titles?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2022 6:18:37 GMT -5
DC hasn't necessarily kept a wide range in print; but, they keep the evergreen titles (Dark Knight, Year One, Watchmen, etc) available. Do DC publish any other evergreen titles? And what evergreen titles does Marvel do? And, opening it up, do Image, Dark Horse and others have any evergreen titles? DC also has a lot of Vertigo titles that are essentially evergreen as well-Sandman, Preacher, etc. Scott Snyder's Batman has been available in trade in one form or anther consistently since the run began in 2011 even though the run ended in 2016. There are others as well. Marvel doesn't do evergreen. They do not keep titles in print. They may reprint things occasionally, but nothing consistently to keep it in print. There are books Image and Dark Horse keep available, but sometimes it is in new editions rather than keeping the same edition in print. However at Image, it is the decision of the creator who owns the property rather than Image as to whether to keep a book in print since it is the owner who owns it and pays Image for their services. Image likely has some kind of veto if they choose not to do it if they do not think it will be profitable enough, but they can't print if the creator does not want to do so. Dark Horse has kept things like Hellboy available consistently. Some of their manga offerings have stayed in print as well. Image has things like Saga which has been in print and available since it was launched 10 years ago even when new issues went on hiatus for over a year. There are others form each publisher as well. -M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2022 6:21:32 GMT -5
Thanks @mrp, fascinating. Interesting how Marvel doesn’t tend to do evergreen.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 7, 2022 6:27:24 GMT -5
Thanks @mrp , fascinating. Interesting how Marvel doesn’t tend to do evergreen. Maybe its because Marvel always makes money and they don't care to expand their reach anymore. Dc is a struggling company and maybe their main money maker is the TPB and collected editions. They clearly don't know what to do with their characters.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2022 6:40:20 GMT -5
Thanks @mrp, fascinating. Interesting how Marvel doesn’t tend to do evergreen. Marvel's strategy seems to not be keep it available so people can buy it, but rerelease the same material so the completists keep rebuying it. If you're a Marvel zombie completist and you want to have ASM 1-10, (sometimes just AF 15 and 1-10, sometimes with more issues in the product as well, sometimes less) Marvel will sell it to you as a Hardcover Masterwork, a softcover masterwork, an Essential, an omnibus, an omnibus with a variant cover, an Essential, a $250 Taschen edition, a new version of Masterworks in hardcover with new covers and trade dress, a new edition of the omnibus with variations, and now a new softcover Masterworks edition with 2 different covers one for the direct market one for the mass market. Yet even with all that, none of those editions have stayed in print, or been kept in print and there were times you had to go to the secondary market to get it. And it seems to work as there is a certain segment of the customer base who buy it over and over again in each version as it is released. It's a strategy that almost seems exploitive of the existing audience rather than one that is intended to broaden the audience. -M
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 7, 2022 7:03:38 GMT -5
It is an amazing phenomenon. I was even tempted to try to get the JLA/Avengers recent reprint although I have it in the originals and omnibus.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Apr 7, 2022 8:17:14 GMT -5
It is an amazing phenomenon. I was even tempted to try to get the JLA/Avengers recent reprint although I have it in the originals and omnibus. I've got a friend who, I think, has every version of COIE that's come out.
I'm surprised, though, that Marvel doesn;t keep the Byrne/Clairemont X-Mens and Miller's Daredevils in print--you'd think those runs have enough of a reputation that enough newer readers would want to take a look.
But, as I've said, seeing the apparently endless amount of backstock that keeps showing up at Ollie's, they may be very leery about overprinting.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Apr 7, 2022 8:34:32 GMT -5
I've yet to meet a moviegoer turned comic reader by watching the MCU. If they weren't already comic readers before they entered the theater. PAD had it right awhile back when he related a story of meeting a pair of brothers who liked the Rami Spider-Man films. But instead of going out to read the monthly adventures of Spidey (as PAD suggested to them), they were only interested in seeing the next Spidey film to get a new adventure of him. To their credit though, Marvel has been trying to adjust their characters and titles to fit the MCU mold. Tony Stark now talks like RDjr (read an Iron Man issue by Bendis and one by Michlenie/Layton, it's night & day difference). Matt Murdock begins looking like Charlie Cox. You can tell what the current focus of the MCU is by looking at the upcoming/current titles being released by Marvel. But again, it's more aimed at already existing comic readers than trying to attract new ones. But I'm the minority apparently, I still read and support current books and projects by both Marvel and DC. They are quality products being produced by excellent writers and artists today. If you don't like them, fine but at least read some of them first to form an actual honest opinion of their work instead of just knee-jerk bashing them outright because ' it's not the Marvel Universe of my youth.' Well, traditionally, neither nor Marvel has done a very good job of cross-promoting the comics to a theater audience. The comic side promotes the heck out of the movies; but, rarely the reverse and certainly not with a concerted effort. DC did a little bit, with the early Batman movies; but, Hollywood just seemed to want to distance themselves from the source. In fact, the local theaters in Charleston, SC, flat out told the comic shops that they would not do any comic-related promotions. Of the comic book movies of that era, The Rocketeer had a better presentation of comic stuff, though mostly the official adaptation, not the original story. That was despite Disney pretty much dumping the film and not supporting it with marketing, like their other films, after opening weekend (and this was an era when they still marketed the film for more than one weekend!) Peter David wrote a column about it, in CBG about the lost opportunity to introduce not just Batman comics but a wide range of DC titles, in theaters, particularly some of the critically acclaimed stuff, like Dark Knight and Watchmen. Marvel was then having enough problems just getting their movie adaptations on direct-to-video. Warner has always been a mess about cross-promotion, in general. When Babylon 5 debuted on the Warner TV distribution network, they didn't do any other promotion of the series, despite aiming for Star Trek and sci-fi fans. JMS had to go out, on his own, and secure book deals with Warner publishing and with DC Comics, let alone toy deals and other merchandise. He described the Warner divisions as competing fiefdoms and I haven't seen much evidence that it has changed in subsequent decades. Disney will promote the heck out of Disney animation and Star Wars; but, they have never been good about selling their comic books, when they have owned the publisher. PAD, in a similar column, spoke about the fact that you couldn't find Disney comics in the Disney stores or the parks, even after they took the license away from Gladstone and tried publishing themselves (and then failed and gave it back to Gladstone). I haven't been to a Disney park in decades; so, I don't know if they have any of the comics in the gift shops, since they bought Marvel or not. I'm sure they have Marvel toys and t-shirts, and tons of Star Wars merch. I do remember seeing Watchmen, and there, in the candy display cases, were stacks of the Watchmen graphic novel, for a really low price of $12. People were buying them. Not sure how well they sold, but I saw several people buying them AFTER the movie.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 7, 2022 11:34:00 GMT -5
Thanks @mrp , fascinating. Interesting how Marvel doesn’t tend to do evergreen. Like I said, they are more focused on the comic shop model, where copies sold to the shops are non-returnable (with a few exceptions). Retail book stores can return unsold copies to publishers/distributors for credit, just like newsstand distribution. Marvel's real customers are not comic book readers but comic book distributors and shops. They then have to sell the product to their customers, which is why the failure rate, traditionally, has been so high for shops. You get a lot of starry-eyed fans who aren't good sales or business people and they sit on unsold inventory, until their cash flow is so bad they can't pay for new product (assuming they don't bail out before it gets that bad). DC also had the advantage of Jenette Kahn, who had worked for Scholastic and new the book market and had contacts in the publishing and distribution world. Marvel had a good presence, in the early 80s, in Waldenbooks stores, inside shopping malls, with a branded display of their graphic novels and some other product. However, the relationship didn't seem to continue for very long, as you would see the displays with non-Marvel product. I've never found much information about their relationship to learn how it worked and how long it actually lasted. At one point, while I was with Barnes & Noble, the B&N publishing operation (which produced many of the books in the bargain section), had reprint rights for paperback editions of some of the Masterworks titles and also that big Marvel coffee table book. B&N would pick up licenses like that, for different titles, including art and photo books from Taschen, the old Peanuts Treasury collection (from the late 60s/early 70s) and some other things. They'd also buy up remaindered copies from different publishers and distributors. At one point, we had the two-volume, slip-case collection of Bill Mauldin's Willie & Joe cartoons, from Fantagraphics, in our bargain section. I snapped that up.
|
|