InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "too sweet??"

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)

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)

	box_in_the_box 2009-08-06 07:24 pm UTC (link)
	I see most of the positives as occurring earlier in his career as EiC, and most of the negatives as occurring later in that same career. Like Jim Shooter, I think he was the right guy for the job when he first took over, and like Jim Shooter, I think he's become enough of the wrong guy for that job that his firing is overdue. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	box_in_the_box 2009-08-06 07:34 pm UTC (link)
	And my apologies for mischaracterizing you. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -