InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "how do I look"

espanolbot (espanolbot) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-10-12 23:26:00

Entry tags:

creator: kevin smith, creator: mark millar, medium: videos, title: the ultimates

Two Comics Related Things that Amused me

Mark Millar and Kevin Smith do BBC Newsnight review, Jeanette Winterton hates all comics,
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2009/10/09/mark-millar-and-kevin-smith-do-bbc-newsnight-review/

And an edited together Batman vs. Blade movie trailer,

For legality, here's a supervillain attacking Ultimate Captain America with a lightsaber,

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

psychop_rex
2009-10-13 07:22 am UTC (link)

That's partially true, but I think you may be going a little far in one direction here. Look at the brouhaha that arose when 'Blue Beetle' was cancelled, just as an example. That was a popular book - it didn't have anywhere near the name recognition that a Batman or Superman book would have, but it was steadily growing in popularity, it had a devoted following, and fans howled like mad when it was cancelled. One could argue, of course, that it was, in a sense, a legacy book, and therefore more of the same, but it was doing some new and innovative things, and it starred a character who had never even been seen before that. For that matter, check out 'Agents of Atlas' - that was a miniseries based on obscure characters from back in the '50's, and it's still around, and gaining name-recognition.
I think the problem is, yes, partially with the fans, but more to do with the publishers not giving the comics a long enough period to attract a fanbase. Unless you keep your ear constantly pressed to the grapevine, most people are going to miss out on the launching of many new comics - and even for those who do pay that much attention, a lot of stuff speeds right past them. These things take time - you have to get past first impressions, see what the book is like. Maybe you pick up issue #5, and decide not to continue with the series until you've tracked down the first four issues. Unless something has instant name recognition, a lot of readers are only going to learn about it after the fact, because the people in charge don't WANT to give the readers time to get acquainted. They want money - now. That's all they care about. If a book doesn't make a certain amount of money in a certain amount of time, it gets yanked, whether it's built up a readership or not.
Also, one could argue that while, yes, comic fans do tend to raise a stink when writers change things around, that has something to do with the fact that for some time now, most of those changes have been played for shock value. Look at the constant cavalcade of deaths, turmoil, and general Earth-shattering kabooms we've had in the last few years - I'd complain, too. When you're dealing with a fan who bombards DC with hate mail when they give Green Lantern a new logo, then you're talking about a dyed-in-the-wool fanatic who needs to get out more - when you're deailing with someone who complains because his favorite character has had ten close friends and family members wiped out in the last year, then you're talking about someone with a reasonable grievance.
ALSO also, in my opinion, the whole 'no changes' thing can only last so long, because at the moment, Marvel and DC are pretty much pandering to the long-time fans whose devotion to comics goes back to the Silver Age. Eventually, however, time will take its toll, and they'll have to start focusing more on the younger readers - which arguably they've already started doing with things like the 'Ultimate' and 'All-Star' books. There's nothing wrong with mining the past for inspiration, but eventually that inspiration will dry up, and they'll be forced to look more to the future.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stolisomancer
2009-10-13 07:38 am UTC (link)

Two things:

I think the problem is, yes, partially with the fans, but more to do with the publishers not giving the comics a long enough period to attract a fanbase.

How long a period do they need? One year? Three years? A decade?

Blue Beetle was given three years and still failed to get readers. Manhunter was given three years and a relaunch. Captain Britain and MI-13 got a year and a launch that tied directly into a major company crossover event. The Order spawned directly from Civil War, had a hot artist, and lasted one year. New Exiles only got six months, but it sank like a goddamn rock. Spider-Girl got two different relaunches, three letter-writing campaigns, and two separate stays of execution from the editor-in-chief and still didn't survive. Everyone from fans to critics to pros said these books were good, and it did not translate into the sales needed to survive.

You cannot blame publishers for wise business decisions. Good original books do not last in the comics market unless they are tying into decades-old franchises, and that is one hundred percent on us. Comic fans vocally ask for new, innovative, ground-breaking work, then ignore it when it shows up in favor of buying Spider-Man again.

...at the moment, Marvel and DC are pretty much pandering to the long-time fans whose devotion to comics goes back to the Silver Age.

DC is, sure, with their continuity porn. It's just like the Silver Age except people are getting decapitated on panel.

Marvel couldn't be pandering less to the continuity crowd if it was personally dishing out cockslaps at conventions. Quesada and Bendis give no fuck for continuity and change it any time they feel like it.

People aren't pissed at Marvel because they're too mired in the past; they're pissed at Marvel because every single comic's status quo is in a constant state of flux, even when it involves people going OOC to do it. There isn't a single Marvel franchise where the 616 status quo hasn't dramatically changed at least twice in the last five years, with the possible exception of Fantastic Four. The fans have whiplash.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

psychop_rex
2009-10-13 09:02 am UTC (link)

I'm not blaming them for bad business decisions - I'm simply saying what's good for business isn't necessarily good for the book itself. Well... no duh, if they're cancelling it; bad choice of words. What I mean is that sales logic, necessary though it may be to run a company, does not always translate to the logic of public opinion. From everything I've read, Blue Beetle was on the cusp of making it big when it was cancelled - 'The Brace and the Bold' had just been launched, with Jaime as a central character and marketing possibilities galore. I firmly believe that, had they waited just a liiiittle bit longer, BB would have been a top-selling book - it was already growing in readership.
OK, you have a point about Marvel. Still, like DC, this can't last forever.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stolisomancer
2009-10-14 07:35 pm UTC (link)

Blue Beetle had three years, and still couldn't get sales. At the three-year mark, the company is losing enough cash on the book that that point of argument - "Just a little bit longer and we'll succeed" - isn't going to fly any longer. That says to me that DC held off as long as they could on canceling the book, but just couldn't justify the expense any longer.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	psychop_rex 2009-10-14 10:12 pm UTC (link)
	Perhaps so, but it's still a shame. I mean, thanks to 'The Brave and the Bold', the Jaime Beetle is now arguably more recognizable to the youth of today than Ted Kord. They'd be going 'Ooh, I recognize that guy! He's on 'Brave and the Bold'! Let's check out his comic!' (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -