|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2014 1:01:24 GMT -5
Why would a corporate owned entity create a new character and launch a title that will sell 30-40K for a first issue and likely drop to half of that within 6 months and be cancelled in a year when they can get the same results recycling a known name and get the financial benefit of renewing a trademark that needs it in the process, or can launch another title with a known commodity and get better sales with a slower entropy curve? It doesn't make sense for their bottom line, and like it or not the business model comics publishers operate under in 2014 is vastly different than that of 1974, or even 2004. New characters used to sell comics, now they don't. They create lots of extra legal costs, creator rights issues, require more marketing and thus more expense, and sell less so you cannot afford A level talent on them, which will in turn limit initial sales and hasten their decline.
Lots of people say they want new characters, but they haven't sold well for the big 2 is over 20 years, so why keep throwing good money after bad on new characters when you already have properties with a track record and unused properties needing a use to maintain trademarks on them?
If new characters were economically feasible for publishers and the market were receptive to them from the big two with sustained sales, you would see new characters out the wazoo from the big 2. It's not feasible and the market doesn't sustain them, so you don't.
Don't look for innovation from the people at the top of the food chain, they benefit form the status quo because they are on top. Innovation is going to come from people looking to climb up the food chain, and they will support innovation only until such a time as they reach the top of the food chain and establish a new status quo that benefits them-then they too will become moribund trying to sustain success rather than achieve it, and new up and comers will come into play if the market is still big enough for new players...
-M
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Jul 18, 2014 1:11:05 GMT -5
Well, I might argue that since the real value of the characters isn't in the publishing arm but in merchandising and other media ventures like movies, creating new comic characters is a cheap investment, and publishing a new title is a relatively cost efficient way of market testing to see which ideas are potential hits.
But you're right, the innovation these days is going to come from outside the Big 2. There's just no incentive for creators to come up with new ideas for the company when they can do it at somewhere like Image and keep the rights for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 18, 2014 1:13:01 GMT -5
I think creators and editors long ago came to the conclusion (an incorrect conclusion in my mind) that it's all but impossible for a new minority character to break through when you're dealing with a fan-base that's 95% white and male.
The mantra I see most is that there is nothing inherently "white" about the persona of Spider-Man, Captain America, Batman, etc, so it really doesn't matter who dons the costume. But is this really the case? I think it goes without saying that it would have been unthinkable for the original Captain America to have been anything other than a white male. This of course doesn't preclude someone else wearing the outfit in modern times, but you can't really escape the fact that the basis for the character is interwoven with the sociopolitical reality of the 1940's. Spider-Man is probably the best example of a character that could have been of virtually any ethic background without straining plausibility. Batman's an interesting case as well, but how many billionaire African-American families that operate at the apex of the business world are there even today?
What this all means is that while you can put a Muslim or whatever in any of the costumes, they're still tied to a legacy that's inherently white, American and male. Conversely, you have characters like Black Panther and Storm; these are original characters that not only have no ties to previous characters, but they were designed to oppose, or at least contrast, any inherent Western trappings. These are the kinds of characters that we need more of, and would generate real progress, but ironically were apparently only able to be created by much older, more conservative, white guys in the 60's and 70's.
I've also been a bit dubious of certain modern creators real motives and beliefs. Isn't it strange that John Stewart, as originally created by Neal Adams, was changed from an educated architect to a far more cliche inner-city origin marine in the animated series? What character gets a big push by Bendis and Marvel? Luke "Sweet Christmas" Cage not Black Panther, Storm, hell, or even Black Goliath (a scientist). They did sacrifice BG to a Thor clone, of course. I certainly wouldn't accuse anyone of anything, but there is some slightly insidious about a lot of this type of behavior to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2014 1:15:02 GMT -5
Well, I might argue that since the real value of the characters isn't in the publishing arm but in merchandising and other media ventures like movies, creating new comic characters is a cheap investment, and publishing a new title is a relatively cost efficient way of market testing to see which ideas are potential hits. But you're right, the innovation these days is going to come from outside the Big 2. There's just no incentive for creators to come up with new ideas for the company when they can do it at somewhere like Image and keep the rights for themselves. But selling existing characters with built in audiences is easier than all new unproven content/characters, and probably gets better money from the studio as it is considered lower risk. And merchandising new characters takes a lot more marketing than selling a Superman comforter or Spider-Man pjs to kids who already recognize the characters, so the margins are much better on exisiting properties than new ones. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 18, 2014 2:02:04 GMT -5
Can't blame you. I still love You-Know-Where as a news site, source of interviews, videos and previews, and so on, but at this point I feel that I'd have to intellectually and ethically castrate myself to function on the message boards. Pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by travishedgecoke on Jul 18, 2014 3:24:13 GMT -5
Ok, I just replied to a thread in the Marvel section of You-Know-Where and said they haven't gone far enough and suggested some ideas. Since I'll probably get banned, I also replied to * ahem * another poster I strongly disagree with, and tonight, I blasted back at his ignorance. Really. Diplomacy only goes so far. This ignorant savage got corrected by me and he knows it. Frankly, there's only so much crap like his I can only read for so long without throwing up. Never done that before, and I frankly don't care if they lifetime ban me or not. I don't care, even though my reply was not obscene or anything, but strong-ish. It felt kinda good actually, may Jack Kirby R.I.P. For those of us in the dark, what exactly made them an ignorant savage? What crap are you having to put up with? |
|
|
|
Post by comicscube on Jul 18, 2014 5:45:41 GMT -5
It's a controversial topic, and I'm spent on it, and I honestly don't understand the complaint of "These things will never stick," because, well, these things have never stuck. When I got into comics, I was reading scattered eras: Spider-Man in a black costume. Spider-Man in the red and blues. Spider-Man single. Spider-Man married. Spider-Man dating the Black Cat. Seeing multiple takes on a character and having it eventually return to the baseline is something I've been used to since I was five. I enjoy the journey, even if the journey is a spiral. I am a market analyst. The first question I get all the time from clients is how to reach their target audience so they can increase revenue. I'm sure Marvel has market analysts. Are they out for profit? Yes, just like every company that is not nonprofit is out for profit. But at the same time, they're doing their part to diversify, which means so much more to me than retaining the status quo, sticking to continuity, or any of those silly things only we as hardcore fans care about. instead of changing these characters, why not make NEW characters? Easy, the fanfare/controvery and hype associated with changing a character is likely to generate more sales than a new character that no one heard of. Especially in these times when many comics sell below 30,000 copies (especially where a NEW character is involved). Cap isn't new...Miles Morales has already been there. Exactly. This is not the cynical view; it's the practical view. When Ultimate Spider-Man killed off Peter Parker a while back to replace him with Miles Morales, I spoke to one African-American kid who was reading the Cube at the time who told me that Miles Morales was the first hero he found himself able to relate to. And that's cool. I'm glad that happened. And I'm glad Richard Pace overheard this at his local comics shop.  |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 18, 2014 7:50:53 GMT -5
The problem in that comic strip isn't so much the blatant ignorance of the old fans, it's that they're 40 something year old's who think that the stories should be written for them. I haven never once understood the bitching about Miles Morales. It's an alternate universe! Plus, it's a new character not race swapping issue.
That said, I genuinely feel that race swapping is an unintentional insult to minority fans. Sadly, it's an insult that most don't perceive. (This is not a couched excuse to hide racism on my part; I genuinely feel this is the case. )
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 18, 2014 8:54:59 GMT -5
And, for the fourth time in three days, people are getting nasty with each other.
Thread locked.
I'm seriously losing my patience with all of this.
|
|
