|
|
Post by The Cheat on Jun 16, 2020 13:46:48 GMT -5
What, people don't like Marvel's "On Sale Wednesday" variants?
|
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Jun 16, 2020 17:14:56 GMT -5
People my age (45) and older, we still remember the pre-netflix/go tot he store and buy the season days.. you watched what was on TV, and if you missed an episode, you hoped to catch it in re-runs someday. It's kind of a shame that that kind of mentality is lost. People often forget how different the world was before the prominence of the internet |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 16, 2020 18:19:01 GMT -5
I think the mindset of 'I have to start at the beginning' is actually a big problem for Marvel and DC. IN today's streaming world. people my daughter's age (she's 20) and younger are absolutely horrified at the thought of watching a show or reading books out of order, and can't conceive of the concept of not having access to do so. To be honest, I'm 47 and I am also horrified at that thought. I literally read the first 64 issues of Daredevil, then stopped because I didn't own #s 65, 67 & 68, even though I owned the ENTIRE REST OF THE RUN. The idea that I might miss something critical or interesting or even just kind of cool bothers me to no end. Same with TV shows. If I can't see the entire series from the beginning, I won't watch it. Random episodes without context don't entertain me, but rather stress me out, because I always feel like there is something I'm not going to understand, and that kills my enjoyment of the experience. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2020 19:15:01 GMT -5
If there is a series I like but there are a lot of seasons and I don't think I will be able to watch all of them... I am ok with only watching the first and last seasons. I have done this with my daughters when they watched something.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Jun 16, 2020 19:32:41 GMT -5
Reboots are also fine points to end. I still read some new series, but not super hero books for the most part.
I got a couple modern series that are still ongoing that I follow, but I'm pretty much at a back issues/used or trade reader at this point. To be honest, I probably could not buy a comic for a decade and have stuff to read or re-read.
As a collector, I'm kind of looking to end collections - no more to get.
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jun 17, 2020 9:48:50 GMT -5
On the other hand with regard to TV shows and binging straight versus watching episodes when you can and hoping for reruns, TV shows are made a lot differently now than they used to be. I'm sure some of the historians here could point me to the exceptions, but my general understanding is that most shows were episodic and done-in-one, occasionally two, but generally returned to the status quo in short term no major changes.
At some point around the mid-late 90s between The X-Files and 24, the major shift to serialized and arc-based formats started taking over. Missing an episode 25 years ago was at most risking missing a few memorable scenes but nothing major, whereas today missing an episode is like missing a random 15 minute chunk of a movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 17, 2020 10:03:31 GMT -5
On the other hand with regard to TV shows and binging straight versus watching episodes when you can and hoping for reruns, TV shows are made a lot differently now than they used to be. I'm sure some of the historians here could point me to the exceptions, but my general understanding is that most shows were episodic and done-in-one, occasionally two, but generally returned to the status quo in short term no major changes.
At some point around the mid-late 90s between The X-Files and 24, the major shift to serialized and arc-based formats started taking over. Missing an episode 25 years ago was at most risking missing a few memorable scenes but nothing major, whereas today missing an episode is like missing a random 15 minute chunk of a movie.
Yeah what we now know as "arc television" was extremely rare in the past and the few shows that tried it, "V," for example, tended to have a hard time maintaining an audience. It was the advent of DVR and DVD tech, shortened seasons, and even shorter seasons on premium and cable channels that lead to the type of season-long arc television that is fairly standard now. When most of us were growing up you could start with pretty much any episode of a TV show and it didn't matter. You could miss half the episodes in a season and you missed nothing of importance. While that may still be the case with some TV, it isn't the case with a lot of TV now. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jun 17, 2020 10:10:53 GMT -5
I will concede at least one partial exception in The Simpsons. It was much closer to the done-in-one than an arc-based show (they even did an episode referencing this), but there were some recurrent elements that carried over. A lot of it was in-jokes made for people who had seen earlier episodes and knew characters, and some were more major changes that persisted. Maude Flanders' death, Apu being married, having kids etc.
I couldn't tell you much of what happens after around season 10 though as I virtually stopped watching after that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jun 17, 2020 10:22:15 GMT -5
On the other hand with regard to TV shows and binging straight versus watching episodes when you can and hoping for reruns, TV shows are made a lot differently now than they used to be. I'm sure some of the historians here could point me to the exceptions, but my general understanding is that most shows were episodic and done-in-one, occasionally two, but generally returned to the status quo in short term no major changes.
At some point around the mid-late 90s between The X-Files and 24, the major shift to serialized and arc-based formats started taking over. Missing an episode 25 years ago was at most risking missing a few memorable scenes but nothing major, whereas today missing an episode is like missing a random 15 minute chunk of a movie.
Yeah what we now know as "arc television" was extremely rare in the past and the few shows that tried it, "V," for example, tended to have a hard time maintaining an audience. It was the advent of DVR and DVD tech, shortened seasons, and even shorter seasons on premium and cable channels that lead to the type of season-long arc television that is fairly standard now. When most of us were growing up you could start with pretty much any episode of a TV show and it didn't matter. You could miss half the episodes in a season and you missed nothing of importance. While that may still be the case with some TV, it isn't the case with a lot of TV now. V did OK in ratings but like Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers was hideously expensive (1 million dollars per episode) for special effects and makeup, despite lifting shots whenever possible from the even higher budgeted miniseries that preceded it. It had story problems as well since the V:The Final Battle mini-series came to a conclusive climax which had to be undone to justify the series. You're right that V was one of the rare pre-90s American genre TV series to attempt an ongoing story. Twin Peaks (beginning 1990) and X-Files (beginning 1998) made the style more popular with mainstream audiences. They didn't need special effects though. Babylon 5 (1993-8), while not as popular, was a great example of both serialization and arc-based stories. Deep Space 9 was more serialized than The Next Generation had been. Space:Above and Beyond (1995) had a definite sense of forward motion. Buffy the Vampire Slayer (beginning 1997) and its spin-offAngel (beginning 1999) committed to seasonal arcs integrated with "monster of the week." |
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Jun 17, 2020 10:42:09 GMT -5
Yep, the times have changed. Used to be EVERYTHING whether comic book, television, books and so forth was made with the ideology that EACH was possibly the !ST TIME SOMEBODY would see it, so certain aspects would be utilized in every episode to introduce or present the basic premise. For much of elevation that was the ENTIRE purpose of the Introduction: space, the final frontier, these are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise, it's 5 year mission to boldly go where no-one has gone before: cue intro music and names and or faces of actors and WHAMMO, you could move on from there. Every week you could present new stories and have them be singular episodic entertainment that you could use as reference in future episodes without having to connect every detail. If Trek had done the whole arc concept then Khan's episode would have been a season long set up and play with before defeating him in the finale of the season.
These days even books are sold/crafted with the "trilogy" or arc aspect as part of their sales pitch. Try to find a one and done fantasy book anymore, it is very rare. Everyone wants their books to be the "next classic" big seller and few write today with enough clarity and detail of characters since they utilize entire pages of foreshadowing and hidden meanings in portraying the characterizations, which may be more realistic if you were actually meeting and interacting with someone in "real time" but it makes for damn poor reading within a few hours for a novel.
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jun 17, 2020 12:03:57 GMT -5
brutalis great point on all those shows that had ongoing elements. It does seem a lot of sci fi made more of an attempt before everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Jul 1, 2020 12:22:12 GMT -5
If you're as old as I am (born 1950) the major change I have seen the flooded marketplace (too many titles, variations of characters, etc.) Marvel and DC basically exist as IP/trademark farms. The numerous volume restarts (#1's), one-shots, mini-series, etc make my mind numb from the collector/reader's POV. I never signed up for that!They aren't aimed at you. There's the problem. They are aimed at an extremely narrow and possibly nonexistant audience. Why not aim for the BROADEST audience possible, cast the widest net, to attract new readers, as well as retain the current customer. If these were hot dogs they were selling, would they make a strawberry flavored hot dog that might appeal to one curious weirdo, or make the best hot dogs possible, at the best possible price point, with the least confusing packaging, at the highest quality possible, with the widest possible appeal? |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 1, 2020 13:21:09 GMT -5
They aren't aimed at you. There's the problem. They are aimed at an extremely narrow and possibly nonexistant audience. Why not aim for the BROADEST audience possible, cast the widest net, to attract new readers, as well as retain the current customer. If these were hot dogs they were selling, would they make a strawberry flavored hot dog that might appeal to one curious weirdo, or make the best hot dogs possible, at the best possible price point, with the least confusing packaging, at the highest quality possible, with the widest possible appeal? Is the widest possible audience 45+ year old males who have been reading superhero comics for 35+ years? Because in my experience that's what is being asked for. The number of industries that are going to cater to people born in 1950 is incredibly small because, quite frankly, they aren't going to be customers for much longer. I'm not aware that they're making strawberry flavored hot dogs to appeal to one weirdo. They may well, however, no longer be making hot dogs from the same pig snouts and ash that they were in 1960. That may upset a half dozen 70 year olds but it likely will attract more people who are going to be consumers for more than another 5-10 years. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jul 1, 2020 13:39:22 GMT -5
That's pretty much the reason the industry as we know it is a dead man walking. There are no new readers, just the same aging folks still buying floppies. I imagine if they thought they would sell more issues with the original numbering than # 1 gimmicks that's what they would do.
Anecdotally, I agree. The constant renumbering, redundant titles and rising prices drove me off sooner than I otherwise might have dropped, but I don;t necessarily represent all monthly comic buyers. In any case, that specific medium is on borrowed time like most print periodicals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2020 13:47:06 GMT -5
Pretty much, the direct market customer i.e. the Wednesday Warrior is quite possibly the narrowest audience to try to appeal to. And considering the age of the demographics, it will soon be a non-existant audience. Publishers are faced with a choice of continuing to appeal to a shrinking aging customer base that has maybe 15 years of viability left init at best, or trying to find a new wider audience that could sustain the business in the long term.
The problem is not just one of content, it is of format, accessibility and market reach.
Older fans want to hang on to the periodical format and feel it is the only true format for comic books, even though other format more appealing to a modern audience are available. It makes as much sense as if the music industry was trying to retain 78 rpm vinyl records as the primary means of delivering its product to the market. It was one of the original formats for delivering music to the market and a popular one in its time, but other formats for delivering music came along and supplanted it. Sure there are still fans and collectors of 78 vinyl records, but it is not enough to sustain a music industry. If music didn't adapt and change to the delivery format that appealed to the mass market, it would have become a niche shrinking market only appealing to a very narrow customer base. This is exactly what the comic industry has done and a big reason why it is such a narrow niche market today. There are lots of potential customers for comics out there, they just have no interest in getting it in a monthly periodical pamphlet only sold in destination shops that only fans of that format of comic shop at.
The failure of the industry currently is that they are trying to please two masters-they are trying to sell content that appeals to a wider mass audience in a format that it has no interest in, and selling a format to collectors with content not targeting them. The result is a product nobody wants. The other issue is that the entire infrastructure of the industry is built on the periodical format as its model-it's retail partners are dependent on that format for the bulk of their revenue and the compensation of their talent is based on that path to market. For them to successfully evolve, it will require a shift in compensation models and the creation of an entirely new infrastructure to get product to market to reach potential new customers. Unfortunately, investing capital into creating a new infrastructure holds no appeal or interest to the corporate entities who own the two biggest publishers in the direct market. The don't see the potential return on investment to be worth it, so they will likely ride the status quo until it is no longer viable and then move on to something else, with occasional half-assed efforts to reach new audiences that miss the market because they don't take into account the market realities of the antiqued dinosaur format of traditional comic books.
The content is just about irrelevant. The antiqued format prevents newer style content form reaching its intended audience. And even if they stuck to classic content in that antiquated format and targeted the hardcore audience, it is not a growth market and sales would not increase appreciably to sustain the viability of such a market beyond its limited lifespan. Entropy has already taken root in that market and won't be reversed.
There's growth potential in comics. There is a viable audience out there to be reached. Sales numbers form the book trade bear this out. It's just not going to be reached by periodical comics sold through the direct market no matter what the content is.
-M
|
|
