InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "It fills the void."

Doop (xdoop) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-08-06 08:33:00

Entry tags:

char: jewel/jessica jones, char: mary jane watson, char: spider-man/peter parker, creator: brian michael bendis, creator: joe quesada, creator: mario alberti, creator: mark waid, publisher: marvel comics, title: amazing spider-man

Amazing Spider-Man #601

Mary Jane sets a date with Peter, but when he gets there she never shows up.

There's also a back-up story by Bendis and Quesada, where Jessica Jones tells Peter how she was there when he fought Sandman at their high school (from Amazing Spider-Man #4; it turns out she was the brown-haired girl next to Flash), and that it inspired her to become a superhero.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	aaron_bourque 2009-08-06 02:36 pm UTC (link)
	No way he'd quit, unless some tragedy in his personal life occurs, or he burns out or something. And they pretty much can't fire him. Marvel sales are still too good. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	colonel_green 2009-08-06 03:05 pm UTC (link)
	At this point, he's on track to become the second-longest-serving EIC in Marvel's history (pulling ahead of Jim Shooter); though nobody is ever going to beat Stan Lee's #1 record (1942-1972). (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	skalja 2009-08-06 04:56 pm UTC (link)
	Wasn't Jim Shooter really unpopular too, or was that with people he worked with rather than with fans? Interesting dichotomy there between length of tenure and controversy. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

colonel_green
2009-08-06 05:15 pm UTC (link)

He wasn't notably unpopular with readers in that era (I'm not sure how far you can reasonably go to say Quesada is really unpopular either; Marvel's output under his regime has sold very well generally).

Shooter rubbed a ton of his creators the wrong way because he was pretty aggressive with controlling what was going on in his comics, generally aiming to protect Marvel's image (suing Eclipse to get Marvelman's name changed because he didn't want a viciously amoral character to have 'Marvel' in their name, ordering Bill Mantlo's Northstar storyline rewritten to excise him being gay because that wasn't PG-rated stuff back then). Not all of this was bad, of course; his intervention in the "Phoenix Saga" is probably example #1 of executive meddling making a story better.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	xdoop 2009-08-06 05:23 pm UTC (link)
	Bill Mantlo's Northstar storyline involved Northstar getting AIDS and dying. Then, when Mantlo had to rewrite it, he made Northstar a fairy. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	darkknightjrk 2009-08-06 06:18 pm UTC (link)
	Made...Northstar...a fairy. ... You're shitting me. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	colonel_green 2009-08-06 06:22 pm UTC (link)
	They retconned that a few years later. (Reply to this) (Parent)

icon_uk
2009-08-06 07:18 pm UTC (link)

Northstar and Aurora were revealed to be half-elven. This "explained" Aurora's multiple personality disorder as being a side effect of her dual nature, and also Northstars pointy ears, and presumably his proclivity for wanting to have sex with men (Though whether that came from the human or elven halves of his nature was, amusingly, never defined). That storyarc ended, IIRC, with both of them being welcomed to Asgard... or somesuch.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

drsevarius, 2009-08-06 07:20 pm UTC

(no subject) -

colonel_green, 2009-08-06 07:25 pm UTC

(no subject) -

icon_uk, 2009-08-06 07:35 pm UTC

(no subject) -

colonel_green, 2009-08-06 11:56 pm UTC

	colonel_green 2009-08-06 06:21 pm UTC (link)
	Which was, at the time, a very new and immediate social problem that entertainment media (heck, the White House) had very little to say on. The latter thing I always took as a jab at editorial for not wanting to depict homosexuals in comics. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	xdoop 2009-08-06 06:57 pm UTC (link)
	IDK, from the way it sounded like the story was written, I think it was more a case of Mantlo being homophobic and less a case of him trying to increase AIDS awareness or something. http://www.lonelygods.com/h/80s.html (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

colonel_green, 2009-08-06 07:09 pm UTC

(no subject) -

xdoop, 2009-08-06 07:29 pm UTC

	skalja 2009-08-06 06:49 pm UTC (link)
	For a second there I was like, "Dude, homophobic slur!" and then I realized that you meant, you know, an actual fairy. Sorry, doop, I know you're not that kind of guy. XD (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	thandrak 2009-08-06 08:39 pm UTC (link)
	It's much funnier if you take it both ways at once. If you know what I mean. And I think that you motto. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	aaron_bourque 2009-08-06 05:18 pm UTC (link)
	Among the people he worked with. He had rather draconian work ethic and editorial policies, but his time as EIC was a creative and economic high-point for Marvel, and there was always a new issue on the stands, month in, month out. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	box_in_the_box 2009-08-06 05:57 pm UTC (link)
	Marvel's sales are only good relative to their competition. When you have entire months when neither of the Big Two is able to get more than a few titles above the 100K? That's BOB HARRAS level sales, right there. This should concern Quesada, since Harras' firing led to his hiring as EiC. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	colonel_green 2009-08-06 06:16 pm UTC (link)
	This should concern Quesada, since Harras' firing led to his hiring as EiC. There's a little something called the Great Recession going on. I don't think think the bosses are going to be firing anybody over that. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-08-06 06:45 pm UTC (link)

Yes, because companies certainly don't fire executives whose profits go down during down economies.

Except for the fact that they do, all the time, and they have been doing so quite a bit during this recession, too (which is why I got a new boss a few months ago, since the old boss got fired for not bringing up profits enough, even in a down economy), because companies believe, and correctly so, that the only way to get out of a down economy is to stop losing money.

The comic industry as a whole was seriously hurting at the end of the '90s, thanks to the boom-and-bust of both the speculators' market and the dot-com industry, and Marvel in particular was hurting for reasons that had nothing to do with its editorial content, thanks to Ron Perelman LITERALLY BANKRUPTING them, and moreover, Marvel was still doing about as well against DC as it's doing now, but that didn't stop Harras from getting fired, because according to HIS bosses, he should have been able to turn the success of the first Blade and X-Men films into sales success for the publishing wing.

How many runaway blockbuster RECORD-BREAKING movie hits has Marvel had since then? How much mainstream acceptance has the comics industry as a WHOLE gained since then? Even people who don't even LIKE superhero comics now consider them a creative and commercial juggernaut to be capitalized on, and until very, VERY recently, Watchmen - a 22-year-old graphic novel, starring characters that nobody outside of comics fandom had ever heard of - managed to top the NON-comic book bestseller charts for A FULL YEAR, which is well outside what you'd expect for a tie-in to even a WILDLY POPULAR movie, which the movie version of Watchmen was NOT.

Superhero comics were a fucking GHETTO in the late '90s, and in very real terms, the industry was all but DEAD ON ITS FEET. Now? Now, superhero comics are part of the LINGUA FRANCA of nerd dominance of popular culture - even THE GODDAMN PRESIDENT is a Spider-Man fan now - and yet, they're STILL clocking Harras-level sales.

Tell me that people don't want to read superhero comics, and I'll throw Watchmen in your face. Tell me that they're not willing to go to comic stores to buy them, and I'll throw the Obama issue of Amazing Spider-Man in your face, which is STILL selling a few thousand NEW REPRINT copies each month, in spite of the fact that all the following issues' sales have continued to go down. Tell me that kids today just aren't into reading as much, and I'll throw Harry Potter and Twilight at you. Tell me that superhero comics don't have enough mainstream media exposure, and I'll throw the latest SDCC, Colbert's constant Marvel references, Quesada's countless mainstream media news interviews, and the RECORD-BREAKING box office of the Spider-Man movies at you.

Even in a down economy, THERE IS NO EXCUSE for comic sales to be anywhere NEAR what they were in Harras' era, because the modern era has all sorts of built-in advantages that Harras couldn't have hoped for even if he'd sold his soul to Mephisto, and guess what? HARRAS STILL GOT FIRED.

You say "it's the recession" as though that will SAFEGUARD Quesada, or ANYONE, from getting fired, but the fact that it IS a recession makes it MORE likely that ANYONE can get fired, not LESS. Speaking as someone who's working in a down industry in a down economy, I'm here to tell you that that's what a recession means.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

colonel_green
2009-08-06 07:04 pm UTC (link)

Tell me that people don't want to read superhero comics, and I'll throw Watchmen in your face.

Bookstore sales (and, for a period, hyped by a movie that drove a lot of new people into comic shops), which are rather different from shops; Marvel maintains visible collections in those, though there are no reliable sales figures for them.

Also, in Watchmen's case (and with other specifically-adapted GNs like 300) there's a single, specific book to buy, not scores of potential Spidey trades that aren't direct sources for the film.

Tell me that they're not willing to go to comic stores to buy them, and I'll throw the Obama issue of Amazing Spider-Man in your face, which is STILL selling a few thousand NEW REPRINT copies each month, in spite of the fact that all the following issues' sales have continued to go down.

That's marketed as a special collectable.

Tell me that kids today just aren't into reading as much, and I'll throw Harry Potter and Twilight at you.

Kids aren't into reading as much today. Those are exceptions; there will always be those.

Tell me that superhero comics don't have enough mainstream media exposure, and I'll throw the latest SDCC, Colbert's constant Marvel references, Quesada's countless mainstream media news interviews, and the RECORD-BREAKING box office of the Spider-Man movies at you.

SDCC is primarily about film and TV these days, despite its name, as has been widely remarked upon; Colbert is one show with a fairly small (though influential) audience, and Quesada's occasional interviews certainly do provide visibility; what does the success of the movies have to do with people wanting to read comics again?

Really, though, you just want him fired.

As for revenues, the just-released Q2 numbers show Marvel's publishing weathering the recession decently (down about $100,000 (31.8 to 31.7 million) compared to last year, down 7% in "operating income, whatever that means). That's pretty solid, I should think.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-08-06 07:16 pm UTC (link)

what does the success of the movies have to do with people wanting to read comics again?

Because it's THE SAME DAMN CHARACTERS, so if they're STILL selling wildly in movies, but not in comics, in spite of the fact that they WERE selling wildly in comics, then the problem is not with the economy, but with the comics. In this sense, Quesada's earlier success will actually be his ultimate downfall, because the movies are now more successful than they've EVER been, even in a down economy, and yet, the comics are floundering, in spite of the fact that Quesada himself once achieved impressive sales successes with them. All of the excuses that you're making for why comics can be expected to do poorly now have NOTHING to do with the down economy, and thus, they should have been expected to hinder sales as much BEFORE the economic downturn as AFTER, expect they DIDN'T. So, "kids read less" and all the other excuses obviously didn't stop Quesada from succeeding BEFORE the economic downturn, and the movies haven't stopped succeeding AFTER the economic downturn, so the fault lies with NEITHER your excuses NOR the economic downturn, but with THE COMICS THEMSELVES.

Really, though, you just want him fired.

And you're just an apologist for him, which means there's no point in talking to you.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	colonel_green 2009-08-06 07:21 pm UTC (link)
	I opposed OMD/BND and dislike some of the other things he's done (M-Day, for example), but I've enjoyed many of the other things that have happened on his watch. He's neither God nor Satan. I'm not an apologist, I think you accentuate the negative to absurd degrees to achieve your desired result. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

box_in_the_box, 2009-08-06 07:24 pm UTC

(no subject) -

box_in_the_box, 2009-08-06 07:34 pm UTC

box_in_the_box
2009-08-06 07:07 pm UTC (link)

In fact, here's a real-world example:

Bush has received a lot of the blame for our current recession, to the extent that Obama can still credibly lay the blame for the majority of our current economic problems at his feet.

Past a certain point, though, if the economy doesn't recover, then even a lot of the people who had originally blamed Bush for the economy will start blaming Obama. He inherited this mess at first, but if he doesn't fix it, he will eventually own it, to the point that people will blame him for it. Maybe that's an appropriate response, and maybe it's not, but that's simply the reality of how people will respond.

The same dynamic applies here. Even as much as I hate a lot of what Quesada and DiDio have done to comics, I'm not going to blame them for the initial downturn in comics sales that occurred at the same time as the downturn in the overall economy, and more importantly, neither did their bosses, because they could read the stock market pages as well as anyone else. That being said, down economy or not, there comes a point at which Quesada and DiDio's bosses WILL expect sales as a whole to go back UP, and it's going to be a lot sooner than the minimum three-year estimate that even upbeat economists are expecting it will take for the economy as a whole to recover. The comics industry as a whole was still in the shitter when Harras got fired - again, in relative terms, Marvel was actually doing quite well - but it didn't matter, because businesses do not stay in business by simply bunkering in and waiting for bad economic storms to blow over. Businesses who expect to survive by doing that will go OUT of business.

Now, Marvel is not going to go out of business just because its publishing wing is doing poorly, especially since its other media and merchandising wings are actually doing quite well, but if anything, that makes Quesada MORE likely to get fired, not LESS, because sooner or later, Quesada's bosses are going to say, "You know, even in this down economy, we're still making a fucking MINT on video games and movies and action figures of all these characters, and yet, the same Iron Man character who made multiple millions for us at the box office is barely even cracking the 50K mark in monthly sales." Businesses are not CHARITIES - they're not going to look at their HUGE sales GAINS in merchandise and other media, and then look at their CONTINUED sales LOSSES in publishing, and just shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh, well, it all evens out; we're making so much money through other venues that we can AFFORD to BANKROLL the floundering publishing wing."

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

colonel_green
2009-08-06 07:17 pm UTC (link)

As posted elsewhere, the publishing wing isn't doing that badly, based on their Q2 numbers.

"You know, even in this down economy, we're still making a fucking MINT on video games and movies and action figures of all these characters, and yet, the same Iron Man character who made multiple millions for us at the box office is barely even cracking the 50K mark in monthly sales."

Unless somebody presents them with a surefire plan to completely change the existing market paradigms and says Quesada is in the way of that, there'd be little reason to get rid of someone who presided over a steady increase in sales until the onset of the recession and has kept things going fairly well since.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-08-06 07:29 pm UTC (link)

Unless somebody presents them with a surefire plan to completely change the existing market paradigms and says Quesada is in the way of that, there'd be little reason to get rid of someone who presided over a steady increase in sales until the onset of the recession and has kept things going fairly well since.

Even as much as I hate Quesada, I will freely admit that this would be a very logical, sensible standpoint for them to take.

But guess what? You could have said the exact same thing about Bob Harras, and once again, he still got fired, which was the point that you seemed to have missed in my previous post, with my comparison to Bush versus Obama.

Given how much I personally blame Bush for our current economy, and how long I think it will take for us to recover fully from Bush's damage, I think it would be illogical to vote Obama out of office in 2012, even if the economy isn't fully recovered by then, but by the same token, if the economy isn't on the mend by 2012, I'm enough of a realist to worry that Obama WILL be voted out as a result.

Do you get what I'm saying here? Even if I WANTED Quesada to stay, I'd be worried that he'd be on his way out, for all the reasons that I've outlined here. By ignoring them, you're literally ignoring history - you know, like Marvel is doing right now, by reintroducing hologram and foil covers, and wanting to "do the '90s right" (which Quesada apparently did NOT support, for which I will give him credit).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	kusonaga 2009-08-07 09:53 am UTC (link)
	Watching a movie does not equate to wanting to read a character's monthly adventures. That's the whole difference between the movie and comic mediums. Comics are a continous investment, which 'few' people want to or are even interested in committing themselves to. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	box_in_the_box 2009-08-07 09:58 am UTC (link)
	And yet, Quesada's own earlier sales successes prove your assertions WRONG, because LOTS of people DID commit themselves to quite a few Marvel titles, to the tune of sustained sales GROWTH that lasted for YEARS on many titles. Marvel is now failing EVEN BY THE RELATIVE STANDARDS OF COMICS, as measured by the standards set DURING QUESADA'S OWN TENURE. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kusonaga
2009-08-07 01:31 pm UTC (link)

Has it been shown that this is a direct result of the movies? As it is, Joey Q made a lot of good business decisions in the beginning of his tenure. I think it's pretty clear the movies have little effect on sales, otherwise a Blade title would've actually done well in those days.

I was talking about this with a friend of mine lately, and it basically comes down to this:
Me: "You loved The Dark Knight, didn't you?"
Him: "Definitely, best movie of 2008."
Me: "Did it make you want to read Batman comics?"
Him: "No."

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -