|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2019 17:33:31 GMT -5
It's as bad as when the WWF and WCW started monthly PPVs. Less is more. Always. I don't want Raw to be 3 hours long. I don't want monthly PPV events. I want fewer events and a 2-hour Raw. And I want fewer events, fewer tie-ins and fewer big crossovers. I'm a football fan. I like the FIFA World Cup. It takes place every four years. DC and Marvel, let's have an event every four years. And make it a limited series, e.g. 12 issues without the need for 17,834,201 tie-in issues. And how do you propose they make up for the lost revenue in the intervening 3 years and from not having the 17,834,201 tie ins? They have to be able to answer that to their shareholders and those in the corporate cost-benefit analysis. Whomever cuts that revenue stream without an adequate replacement won't be working for Marvel or DC for very long, and whomever replaces them's first move will likely to be to reinstate those revenue streams. They have to answer to quarterly reports before they answer to fans, or they won't have a position where they are answering to any one (or getting a paycheck). The publishing wings aren't big money makers in the corporate structure, but they have to make sure they are not money losers or they might not be able to justify their existence at all. -M Lighten up! I'm expressing a preference, not getting to the semantics of shareholders and the like. One can do that, you know. I'd like orange-flavoured Pepsi. That's a preference. But if I told you that, I suppose I'd be lectured about how the Pepsi Corporation couldn't do that because there isn't the financial demand. In an ideal world, I'd like to see fewer crossovers, events, tie-in issues, etc. That's a preference based on free speech. I'm not saying that WWE or comic publishers should *willingly* and *knowingly* lose money. It's a frivolous comment (my comment) based on a preference. Don't take it too seriously. Sometimes we can make comments based on an ideal world. In an ideal world, I'd live in Guernsey, have a universal basic income and WWE's Raw would revert to one hour. In reality, none of those things are happening. But I can talk about them or dream, right? |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 10, 2019 17:43:39 GMT -5
It's as bad as when the WWF and WCW started monthly PPVs. Less is more. Always. I don't want Raw to be 3 hours long. I don't want monthly PPV events. I want fewer events and a 2-hour Raw. And I want fewer events, fewer tie-ins and fewer big crossovers. I'm a football fan. I like the FIFA World Cup. It takes place every four years. DC and Marvel, let's have an event every four years. And make it a limited series, e.g. 12 issues without the need for 17,834,201 tie-in issues. And how do you propose they make up for the lost revenue in the intervening 3 years and from not having the 17,834,201 tie ins? They have to be able to answer that to their shareholders and those in the corporate cost-benefit analysis. Whomever cuts that revenue stream without an adequate replacement won't be working for Marvel or DC for very long, and whomever replaces them's first move will likely to be to reinstate those revenue streams. They have to answer to quarterly reports before they answer to fans, or they won't have a position where they are answering to any one (or getting a paycheck). The publishing wings aren't big money makers in the corporate structure, but they have to make sure they are not money losers or they might not be able to justify their existence at all. -M But that is justifying the mass production of crap in order to exist / bleed pennies from consumers, which is why moviegoers have had to sit through conveyor belt dreck like the Transformers movies, The Fast and the Furious series, and yes, many of Marvel/Disney's films. When an industry only exists for quantity / money grabs instead of quality, the work is not worth it anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Oct 10, 2019 18:13:03 GMT -5
I guess like anything, when it works it's great, when it doesn't... it's Secret Wars II.  CGI doesn't inherently suck, I liked Finding Nemo, Final Fantasy, The Incredibles, Toy Story... but there is a lot of it that is not good. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 10, 2019 18:58:06 GMT -5
I'm just reading Avengers from #123-135 for the first time and it's irritating how many issues end telling you to make sure to read the new Giant-Size issue, Captain Marvel, Fantastic Four, or Captain America for either the conclusion of the issue's story, or an answer to a question raised in the issue... arrgh! So they were driving people nuts in 1974 with this stuff, but I wish I could get the Captain Marvel #33 or Fantastic Four #150 I'm directed to at the 1974 price. At the time, it was pretty cool when they continued stories somewhere or did a crossover. They were rare and often special, as in Starlin ending the Thanos saga in Avengers and Two-In-One annuals. They gave you a heads up, and in those times you could buy every Marvel comic that came out anyway. (or at least all the ones you liked).
Today's event driven publishing is vastly different.
The interesting part of the Starlin conclusion to the Thanos story was that the Warlock series was cancelled and they didn't have anywhere to put it, thus the Avengers and Two in one Annuals. I wonder if he originally meant to include the Avengers and Captain Marvel in the finale? |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 10, 2019 18:59:57 GMT -5
I'm just reading Avengers from #123-135 for the first time and it's irritating how many issues end telling you to make sure to read the new Giant-Size issue, Captain Marvel, Fantastic Four, or Captain America for either the conclusion of the issue's story, or an answer to a question raised in the issue... arrgh! So they were driving people nuts in 1974 with this stuff, but I wish I could get the Captain Marvel #33 or Fantastic Four #150 I'm directed to at the 1974 price. When they do reprint COLLECTIONS, it is absolutely imperitive that crossover issues like that be included. Sometimes, I've seen it go both ways... like when they did the AVENGERS-DEFENDERS crossover, I'm pretty sure every issue of the story was included in BOTH sets of ESSENTIAL or MASTERWORKS series. And there was also a separate TPB of just that crossover.
A simpler example would be when Roy Thomas was writing both DR. STRANGE and AVENGERS, and did that 2-parter involving the Norse Fire and Ice demons. It's a B**** if you're trying to buy the original comics, especially in cases where those specific crossover issues cost WAY more than the rest of a run.
I'll say it again... when they started doing MASTERWORKS and ESSENTIAL books, they were decades overdue!
I would have to check My Essentials to see if the crossovers were there but they left out the GS issues relating to the Mantis Celestial Madonna story. That's what made the Essentials kind of sucky. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 10, 2019 19:54:18 GMT -5
Obviously, as a lifelong JSA fan, I'm more than okay with shared universes. Nonetheless, I despise big crossover "events," especially when they wreak havoc with individual titles and.or gratuitously kill off or alter characters, and have done so going clear back to Secret Wars and Crisis on Infinite Earths. I prefer crossovers as rare treats (outside of team or team-up books), not as overblown, yearly ordeals designed solely to separate me from my money. So I vote with my wallet and don't support them or the publishers ho indulge in them. My loss, I suppose.
Cei-U!
I summon the four-color overdose!
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 10, 2019 20:04:43 GMT -5
At the time, it was pretty cool when they continued stories somewhere or did a crossover. They were rare and often special, as in Starlin ending the Thanos saga in Avengers and Two-In-One annuals. They gave you a heads up, and in those times you could buy every Marvel comic that came out anyway. (or at least all the ones you liked).
Today's event driven publishing is vastly different.
The interesting part of the Starlin conclusion to the Thanos story was that the Warlock series was cancelled and they didn't have anywhere to put it, thus the Avengers and Two in one Annuals. I wonder if he originally meant to include the Avengers and Captain Marvel in the finale? I think they would have been present but played a smaller role - and certainly I would hope that Spider-Man wouldn't have been there at all.
Much as I like those two comics, I would much prefer that the finale would have been told in the Warlock series, everything else being equal - e.g. that it would have been allowed as many pages, or even more if Starlin wanted them). |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 10, 2019 20:12:08 GMT -5
mrp, I realize all that. I am an old codger who loved the Silver and Bronze ages. They no longer make comics for me. That is fine, there are other publishers that do. If that is what fans want, that is what they get. Mores the pity. Yeah, same here. I don't expect Marvel and DC to make comics I like, they have an audience for their product, one that doesn't include me and that's fine with me.
But here on the message boards, if some modern comic comes up for discussion and I happen to have seen or even just heard enough of it to have an opinion, I feel free to share it. Just like when Tom Cruise was cast as Jack Reacher, I might have felt free to criticise the choice just on general principle, even though I hadn't seen the movie or read the Reacher books. Or if someone was talking about 50 Shades of Blue or whatever it was, I would feel free to say, yeah, that sounds pretty stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 10, 2019 20:52:02 GMT -5
Obviously, as a lifelong JSA fan, I'm more than okay with shared universes. Nonetheless, I despise big crossover "events," especially when they wreak havoc with individual titles and.or gratuitously kill off or alter characters, and have done so going clear back to Secret Wars and Crisis on Infinite Earths. I prefer crossovers as rare treats (outside of team or team-up books), not as overblown, yearly ordeals designed solely to separate me from my money. So I vote with my wallet and don't support them or the publishers ho indulge in them. My loss, I suppose. Cei-U! I summon the four-color overdose! As Mrp is fond of saying, they aren't writing comics for us old-timers anymore and todays buyers keep purchasing those crappy crossovers and # 1's. My LCS is closing and I think I'm out of the new comic game. |
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Oct 10, 2019 21:36:17 GMT -5
I would have to check My Essentials to see if the crossovers were there but they left out the GS issues relating to the Mantis Celestial Madonna story. That's what made the Essentials kind of sucky. WHAT??? They did that???
Those B******s!!!!!
The ESSENTIALs allowed me to catch up on-- pretty much-- the ENTIRE Roy Thomas run of THE AVENGERS, real cheap.
Once I got to the end of the AVENGERS-DEFENDERS WAR story, I didn't have to buy any more, because I had the originals.
My copy of GIANT-SIZE AVENGERS #2, I had signed by Dave Cockrum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2019 22:01:59 GMT -5
And how do you propose they make up for the lost revenue in the intervening 3 years and from not having the 17,834,201 tie ins? They have to be able to answer that to their shareholders and those in the corporate cost-benefit analysis. Whomever cuts that revenue stream without an adequate replacement won't be working for Marvel or DC for very long, and whomever replaces them's first move will likely to be to reinstate those revenue streams. They have to answer to quarterly reports before they answer to fans, or they won't have a position where they are answering to any one (or getting a paycheck). The publishing wings aren't big money makers in the corporate structure, but they have to make sure they are not money losers or they might not be able to justify their existence at all. -M But that is justifying the mass production of crap in order to exist / bleed pennies from consumers, which is why moviegoers have had to sit through conveyor best dreck like the Transformers movies, The Fast and the Furious series, and yes, many of Marvel/Disney's films. When an industry only exists for quantity / money grabs instead of quality, the work is not worth it anymore. Comics has always been an industry of quantity over quality and quick money grabs from the 1930s to the present. Comic fans just don't want to accept that it was that when when they liked hte comics being produced and want to blame that for the comics when they don't like the ones being produced. Fantastic Four #1 was a money grab by Martin Goodman, if it weren't for Goodman's desire for money grabs there would be no Marvel Comics as we know it. Most of the super-hero titles created after Action #1 were attempts for money grabs and to flood the market with a quantity of books to make revenue. Super-heroes as a genre exist because publishers made a money grab. It is the driving force of the comic industry and always has been, not a flaw of modern comic publishers. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2019 22:08:53 GMT -5
And how do you propose they make up for the lost revenue in the intervening 3 years and from not having the 17,834,201 tie ins? They have to be able to answer that to their shareholders and those in the corporate cost-benefit analysis. Whomever cuts that revenue stream without an adequate replacement won't be working for Marvel or DC for very long, and whomever replaces them's first move will likely to be to reinstate those revenue streams. They have to answer to quarterly reports before they answer to fans, or they won't have a position where they are answering to any one (or getting a paycheck). The publishing wings aren't big money makers in the corporate structure, but they have to make sure they are not money losers or they might not be able to justify their existence at all. -M Lighten up! I'm expressing a preference, not getting to the semantics of shareholders and the like. One can do that, you know. I'd like orange-flavoured Pepsi. That's a preference. But if I told you that, I suppose I'd be lectured about how the Pepsi Corporation couldn't do that because there isn't the financial demand. In an ideal world, I'd like to see fewer crossovers, events, tie-in issues, etc. That's a preference based on free speech. I'm not saying that WWE or comic publishers should *willingly* and *knowingly* lose money. It's a frivolous comment (my comment) based on a preference. Don't take it too seriously. Sometimes we can make comments based on an ideal world. In an ideal world, I'd live in Guernsey, have a universal basic income and WWE's Raw would revert to one hour. In reality, none of those things are happening. But I can talk about them or dream, right? Expressing preferences is all well and good, but any discussion of a direction for comics that does not take into account the business realities of the industry is just wishful thinking and unrealistic expectations, and those things only lead to more disappointment and bitterness. If you want to have a meaningful discussion of the direction comics should move in, you have to have a starting point that is based in reality, because any real plan has to address what actually is and why it is before there can be any effective or meaningful change. Without starting from reality and addressing the whys as to how it got that way, you might as well be calling for unicorns streaming rainbows in their wake every time you turn a page for all the realistic chance of it happening. -M |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 10, 2019 22:42:01 GMT -5
I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I would have thought that a thread titled "I Really Hate ..." was meant to be exactly about personal preferences, without regard to business or any other sort of realities, necessarily, though I'd have no objection myself if anyone wanted to bring those subjects up. I wouldn't think they should be mandatory, though.
What, I'm not allowed to say (to return to the movie analogy) "I don't like Tom Cruise for this part" because he makes the studios a lot of money, and therefore it makes good business sense to cast him in it? Every single discussion or thread has to be about "the industry"? Nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Oct 10, 2019 23:21:52 GMT -5
It's as bad as when the WWF and WCW started monthly PPVs. Less is more. Always. I don't want Raw to be 3 hours long. I don't want monthly PPV events. I want fewer events and a 2-hour Raw. And I want fewer events, fewer tie-ins and fewer big crossovers. I'm a football fan. I like the FIFA World Cup. It takes place every four years. DC and Marvel, let's have an event every four years. And make it a limited series, e.g. 12 issues without the need for 17,834,201 tie-in issues. And how do you propose they make up for the lost revenue in the intervening 3 years and from not having the 17,834,201 tie ins? They have to be able to answer that to their shareholders and those in the corporate cost-benefit analysis. Whomever cuts that revenue stream without an adequate replacement won't be working for Marvel or DC for very long, and whomever replaces them's first move will likely to be to reinstate those revenue streams. They have to answer to quarterly reports before they answer to fans, or they won't have a position where they are answering to any one (or getting a paycheck). The publishing wings aren't big money makers in the corporate structure, but they have to make sure they are not money losers or they might not be able to justify their existence at all. -M Ms. Marvel (2014). Make comics that people will actually want to read even in six months when the crossover is ended, sell half a million copies. |
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Oct 11, 2019 0:10:34 GMT -5
Super-heroes as a genre exist because publishers made a money grab. It is the driving force of the comic industry and always has been, not a flaw of modern comic publishers. -M I wouldn't say always. There were definite wanings (later '40s to '50s) in the popularity and supremacy of superheroes. They have been the majority of titles though starting somewhere in the '60s. Animals, westerns, jungle, crime, war, horror, sci-fi, romance, little kids, teen humor, parody, and most recently Japanese, all have had their strong eras and even supremacy over superheroes in terms of sales. I do know publishers, run mainly by fans turned pro, have done things that were not connected to money... like cancelling titles that made money that weren't superheroes... although once the focus was comic shops a lot of those titles were probably doomed eventually. The Marvel Hanna-Barbera comics sold very well and made money, but a lot of New York staff didn't like them (later such comics were distanced from 'their' Marvel under the Star name), and a lot of the point of getting the rights was to simply take it from Charlton (like they wanted to take ERB from DC, and I suppose DC take it from Western before that, plus Charlton did a terrible job). I think the focus of the majority of creators from the '60s onward on superheroes regardless of commercial success has been detrimental in some ways to the industry. What used to be a mass medium has shrunk significantly along with subject matter, it's lost place filled by manga imports and Scholastic when it need not have been that way. |
|
