|
|
Post by masterofquackfu on Sept 29, 2017 20:43:34 GMT -5
If there is one thing that I find really annoying, it is when a character that I initially enjoy becomes oversaturated to such a degree that I can barely stand them. I blame a lot of it on greed and wanting to sacrifice the character for financial gain. Number one on my list...Venom. In 1990, he was nice breath of fresh air....he was in his prime...and then Marvel kept using him and using him and using him some more. It is now to the point that I don't feel the same about the character. I won't say that I dislike him, but I cringe when I see him. The same would also apply to Ultron, and Thanos. I enjoy them, but they don't hold the same degree of enthusiasm or excitement that they did whenever they appeared in a comic book many, many years ago. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Sept 29, 2017 20:48:36 GMT -5
I think most of us feel that way about Wolverine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2017 21:02:39 GMT -5
Comic fans get the comics their buying habits deserve. Characters get the exposure that fan's buying habits determine. If fans don't buy it, publishers won't put it out. If a character is overexposed, its because there is a market for it and demand by fans will determine how much supply the publishers make available. It's not greed, it's the way businesses operate, and Marvel and DC are businesses first and foremost. Fans have no one to blame but their own buying habits for the overexposure of characters and the types of books they get.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Sept 29, 2017 21:09:03 GMT -5
It's a fundamental problem with human nature. Wolverine at one time WAS a breath of fresh air, but once he started showing up in every other Marvel Comic by the late 80's, he started to lose his appeal. Those that liked him well enough in his proper place as part of the X-Men got sick of him and those that fixated on him help support a lot of bad comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2017 21:15:22 GMT -5
It's a fundamental problem with human nature. Wolverine at one time WAS a breath of fresh air, but once he started showing up in every other Marvel Comic by the late 80's, he started to lose his appeal. Those that liked him well enough in his proper place as part of the X-Men got sick of him and those that fixated on him help support a lot of bad comics. That's the fundamental nature of the problem though-the problem wasn't there were too many Wolverine stories, it was that there were to many bad comics featuring Wolverine, yet people still bought them, and when you buy bad comics you incentivize making bad comics for publishers and get more bad comics. If bad comics featuring Wolverine (or fill in whatever character you want) didn't sell better than good comics featuring other characters, then there would be no incentive to make those kinds of bad comics. But the problem is fans flock to bad comics all the time for whatever reason (got to keep the run going, got to have every appearance by so-and-so, got to buy it because of a label on the trade dress, got to buy it for whatever reason), so more bad comics get put on the market because they sell. Publishers respond to the marketplace. Customers establish the parameters of the marketplace, especially in niche or hobby products, so it comes down to what do the fans/customers buy, because that's what will be available in the market. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Sept 29, 2017 21:41:24 GMT -5
I can't argue with that. The problem here of course is that the fans will NEVER see the problem for what it is and blame themselves, nor will the publisher's ever blame them for giving them money while allowing them skim by with minimal effort and little to know artistic integrity (cause that's virtually impossible to mass produce). Everyone wins who doesn't care about good comics!
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 29, 2017 22:28:54 GMT -5
Comic fans get the comics their buying habits deserve. Characters get the exposure that fan's buying habits determine. If fans don't buy it, publishers won't put it out. If a character is overexposed, its because there is a market for it an demand by fans will determine how much supply the publishers make available. It's not greed, it's the way businesses operate, and Marvel and DC are businesses first and foremost. Fans have no one to blame but their own buying habits for the overexposure of characters and the types of books they get. -M As a group, perhaps, but as individuals perhaps not, in many cases: I'm sure there are lots of individual fans who dislike Wolverine - or Superman or Batman or what have you - and don't buy their books, but the characters are still over-exposed. If one of those fans happened to mention this fact, it wouldn't seem to make much sense to tell them it's their own fault. |
|
|
|
Post by batusi on Sept 29, 2017 22:36:31 GMT -5
Some collector's have the mentality they have to buy everything put out there on their favorite character(s). I was like that at times, especially in the 80's when I convinced myself I had to buy every comic featuring a mutant or mutant team...in the long run I bought a bunch of mediocre comics, some good, some great, but overall not satisfying as a whole. I am so glad I do not collect in this manner anymore because it can be quite exhausting.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Sept 30, 2017 3:22:28 GMT -5
I think most of us have had that type of mentality at some time, at least to some degree.
I broke mine by trying to catch up on Uncanny X-Men I had fallen behind with in college. Normally I don't read a title unless I've got the back issues I want without having any missing issues or gaps in the storyline.
I took the plunge reading some of the issues and bending my own aforementioned rule.
The results were good and bad.
First the bad : While the art was nice (Jim Lee, Marc Silvestri), the writing was not.
The good : Disgusted, I decided to give up on a title I never thought I'd give up. I could see over time it just got worse and worse and the characters I used to love were abused and unrecognizable.
In hindsight, it was one of the best things I ever did, and by not continuing to slavishly adhere to a "complete run", I re-purposed my money into other things that were more appealing, like lots of fresh indie titles.
These days with the average price of a comic at $ 4, more people have this philosophy and have been forced to narrow the scope of what they still follow.
There are still characters, or creators, I will follow, but even then, it's not the long list it used to be.
Previous creators I'd buy anything they did include Chris Claremont, John Byrne, Howard Chaykin, and Jim Starlin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 30, 2017 6:34:51 GMT -5
They certainly did that with The Avengers around the success of their blockbuster motion picture. They're even doing it today with silly books like USA Avengers and others. But even the other forms of entertainment do the same. Law and Oder had 3 different shows and CSI has multiple versions of the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Sept 30, 2017 7:31:02 GMT -5
I think we'd have to include the Punisher in this discussion. Here is a character whose occasional appearances in ASM I had loved in the 70s, but by the early 90s had multiple titles as well as monthly appearances alongside seemingly every character Marvel published, and even some they did not (Archie). Even the Punisher's equipment received its own title (Armory). That would be like Batman's utility belt having an ongoing series.
The ultimate effect was to diminish my love for the character and to greatly dilute his impact.
|
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 30, 2017 9:42:53 GMT -5
It's a fundamental problem with human nature. Wolverine at one time WAS a breath of fresh air, but once he started showing up in every other Marvel Comic by the late 80's, he started to lose his appeal. Those that liked him well enough in his proper place as part of the X-Men got sick of him and those that fixated on him help support a lot of bad comics. That's the fundamental nature of the problem though-the problem wasn't there were too many Wolverine stories, it was that there were to many bad comics featuring Wolverine, yet people still bought them, and when you buy bad comics you incentivize making bad comics for publishers and get more bad comics. If bad comics featuring Wolverine (or fill in whatever character you want) didn't sell better than good comics featuring other characters, then there would be no incentive to make those kinds of bad comics. But the problem is fans flock to bad comics all the time for whatever reason (got to keep the run going, got to have every appearance by so-and-so, got to buy it because of a label on the trade dress, got to buy it for whatever reason), so more bad comics get put on the market because they sell. Publishers respond to the marketplace. Customers establish the parameters of the marketplace, especially in niche or hobby products, so it comes down to what do the fans/customers buy, because that's what will be available in the market. -M I understand your underlying theory about publishers pushing certain characters to appease and entice readers into spending more money and their rush to release such material may have an effect on it's inherent quality but you seem to be labeling every Wolverine comic during this time as 'bad' which is a very bold statement to make. Besides broaching the fact that the quality of any given comic is a purely subjective opinion based on the needs and views of any particular reader, there is such a concept as 'diamond in the rough'. Yes, not every single comic nor appearance is an instant worthy classic but there were some stories and issues featuring Wolverine during this time that I quite enjoyed and still do to this day. For me, the enduring mystery surrounding Logan's past was a huge part of his appeal to me. That's why Barry Windsor Smith's Weapon X story from Marvel Comics Presents was such a huge game-changer for me. But as time wore on, Marvel felt the need to fully disclose everything so my love of the character has diminished equally. Although I do like the fact that recently Logan is viewed (and used) more as a elder statesman in the role and future of mutants, a position one who hardly think he was capable of taking given his early and enraged years. |
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 30, 2017 9:48:51 GMT -5
I think we'd have to include the Punisher in this discussion. Here is a character whose occasional appearances in ASM I had loved in the 70s, but by the early 90s had multiple titles as well as monthly appearances alongside seemingly every character Marvel published, and even some they did not (Archie). Even the Punisher's equipment received its own title (Armory). That would be like Batman's utility belt having an ongoing series. The ultimate effect was to diminish my love for the character and to greatly dilute his impact. Agreed, in fact I would move Frank Castle above Logan in this regard because Marvel's overexposure of him helped in part to foster the whole grim' n' gritty age of anti-heroes during that time. Although I will say, the Armory minis were quite good and entertaining, offering insights and details into the weapons and tactics that can be employed with them, all written and illustrated in wonderful detail by Elliot R Brown. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Sept 30, 2017 10:00:57 GMT -5
Getting back to the OP, with the understanding that @mrp is completely right in that the publishers print what is goimg to make them the most money, I've written before on my feelings about Deadpool.
Yes, he was a Liefeld creation, but the concept (amoral mercenary willing to do anything for a paycheck, with a healing factor unique to him due to his cancer) was solid. I actually enjoyed his first apperances, as they were few and far between, and when he showed up, chaos ensued.
Then he became the fourth-wall breaking, wacky hijinx-causing Looney Tunes character he is today, and Marvel pushed him to the moon. For me, the appeal was gone, as he could no longer be taken seriously, and then they started him down a road to semi-redemption, always keeping just enough bad behavior to avoid making him a total good guy so that he continued to draw in anti-hero fans but not so much that he couldn't be put into situations with the heroes of the MU.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2017 10:03:02 GMT -5
That's the fundamental nature of the problem though-the problem wasn't there were too many Wolverine stories, it was that there were to many bad comics featuring Wolverine, yet people still bought them, and when you buy bad comics you incentivize making bad comics for publishers and get more bad comics. If bad comics featuring Wolverine (or fill in whatever character you want) didn't sell better than good comics featuring other characters, then there would be no incentive to make those kinds of bad comics. But the problem is fans flock to bad comics all the time for whatever reason (got to keep the run going, got to have every appearance by so-and-so, got to buy it because of a label on the trade dress, got to buy it for whatever reason), so more bad comics get put on the market because they sell. Publishers respond to the marketplace. Customers establish the parameters of the marketplace, especially in niche or hobby products, so it comes down to what do the fans/customers buy, because that's what will be available in the market. -M I understand your underlying theory about publishers pushing certain characters to appease and entice readers into spending more money and their rush to release such material may have an effect on it's inherent quality but you seem to be labeling every Wolverine comic during this time as 'bad' which is a very bold statement to make. Besides broaching the fact that the quality of any given comic is a purely subjective opinion based on the needs and views of any particular reader, there is such a concept as 'diamond in the rough'. Yes, not every single comic nor appearance is an instant worthy classic but there were some stories and issues featuring Wolverine during this time that I quite enjoyed and still do to this day. For me, the enduring mystery surrounding Logan's past was a huge part of his appeal to me. That's why Barry Windsor Smith's Weapon X story from Marvel Comics Presents was such a huge game-changer for me. But as time wore on, Marvel felt the need to fully disclose everything so my love of the character has diminished equally. Although I do like the fact that recently Logan is viewed (and used) more as a elder statesman in the role and future of mutants, a position one who hardly think he was capable of taking given his early and enraged years. In the direct market, in which there is not a lot of market manipulation via advertising and marketing budgets, there is a more direct correlation between fans desires and their buying habits. Especially in a day and age where you can see how many will sell before it hits the stands because of non-returnability. Revealing the mystery of Wolverine in stories like Weapon X and later the Origins mini series was a response to fan demand for those types of stories. The massive sales boost those BWS stories gave to Marvel Comics Presents and the massive sales Origin garnered only reinforced that this is what fans want and will sell. And I wasn't implying every Wolverine comic was bad, in fact I still quite like the character and he is one of my wife's favorites (and she's the bigger X-Men fan in the house), but that said, considering Sturgeon's Law, 90% of all comics are bad or "crap" so there's a lot of bad comics on marketplace at any given time, and if the types of comics that sell consistently are among that 90% and have a commonality to them (appearances by X or Y character for instance), then that type of stuff will be what is given preference in production. -M |
|
