GeeksAreMyPeeps

Maybe. But his smartarseness wasn't all that different from Spider-man's to begin with, I'd say. The breaking of the 4th wall is what made it different enough. (And yes, Byrne did that well before with She-Hulk, but people were too busy with the latest hot artist to care much at that time)

People need a reminder that the credit for Deadpool becoming insanely popular doesn't go to Liefeld.

Thanks. Only examined an extra copy through the bag so far, but there's nothing obviously knocking it down yet

Is there a common defect on Wolverine 35 that keeps the 9.8 results down?

Well, it's true that their talent did boost sales, but that only matters if it's a good read. I think we're basically on the same page, but the character doesn't matter so much as the writer. A good writer can write an interesting book about a character that everyone previously thought was , and a bad writer can write unreadable books about beloved characters. The initial problem with Image is that they didn't try to pair with decent writers, but also that they didn't have decent editorial guidance pushing them to work out the kinks in their books and keep their deadlines. Lateness more than anything else killed the hype. People can't read books that are never published.

I have to credit Bogdanove for one thing; for me, his Warlock is the definitive Warlock. But agreed that the rest of the characters could have been better

I just realized that "every issue of every title" suggests they're making Legends of the Geomancer available in another format other than the incentives for the first time.

I wish they'd do silver bags and boards as an option

If you posted this on ebay, you'd probably end up with enough to buy the digital collection.

1. There's not a whole lot of wiggle room in interpreting what was said. 2. You have sales numbers from an alternate universe from the books he would have otherwise appeared in? I'd love to see that info. Otherwise, the sales numbers of books have no connection with the reasons why Venom did not appear in other books, if his use was being held back.

It's not *my* alternate reason, it's the reason presented by someone who created the books. And you've presented no evidence that invalidates that reason. Maybe find an interview with Salicrup that contradicts it? That would seem to be the one thing that could do it.

So what happens when USB goes away? You can't read any more, I guess?

I don't remember exactly when Cable took off, but I do remember that I went out and picked up more copies of New Mutants 86 because the art seemed to have a similar quality to McFarlane's and all of his issues were increasing in value. In only have my one copy of 87, but I still have a few 86s. That's one thing that's really important in this whole conversation; at the time, back issue values were being driven by hot artists far more so than character appearance. (Yes, random appearances of hot characters were important too — Punisher War Journal 6 & 7 are great examples of this — but as I remember it, the books with McFarlane, Lee, Liefeld, etc.'s work were the books to have for a few years.

A valid example of the appeal to authority fallacy would be if I claimed "Erik Larsen was the worst artist on Venom. See, Micheline says that his style is too cartoony." That's an opinion. That's not what I'm offering up here, so you're incorrect to dismiss what I presented with that fallacy. The reason I brought up the Michelinie interview was to establish that there was an alternate valid reason you didn't see Venom in guest appearances all over the place other than "he wasn't that popular." I agree with the idea that we shouldn't take every aspect of the recollection decades after the fact as gospel, but I think the larger ideas are still valid. I doubt that the reason for Venom's limited use is a complete fabrication. The idea that this was done despite the sales data, maybe that's a detail he would be sketchy on. Certainly during his tenure as writer, Venom started selling a lot more books (leading to the transition to a heroic character with his own book).

If Cry for Dawn was released just a month later it would probably be a contender

I've got to think that that can't last. The market is silly

Granted not all copies go for 500+, but there have been some that have

Uncanny X-Men 266

Sorry that the primary source evidence of those that worked on the books isn't enough for you

Ummmm… This is speculation.

Again, I'm not suggesting that Venom was insanely hot out of the gate. That's someone else's claim. I'm giving evidence as to the lack of appearances compared to other hot characters at the time. (The fact that Venom is a villain rather than a hero or anti-hero probably has something to do with it too; you can't have him defeated every month in multiple books if you want the character to seem like a threat.) I *do* remember as a reader than when he showed up, it seemed like a big deal to my teenage mind

Her's what I find interesting about the appearances you're calling out: Quasar: Part of a line-wide crossover. While editors might be protective of characters in their family of books, you were right that they're not going to have complete control when it comes to something like this. Does Micheline's comment that Salicrup was protective mean that he NEVER EVER let others use the character? Obviously not, because there are a few other appearances. But I see no reason to doubt that there were requests from others to use the character. Also, note that while he's one of four villains in the book, he gets a special callout on the cover. That suggests that they already anticipated that Venom would sell. Avengers Annual: "appearance" is in a recap of Acts of Vengeance, and he's one of dozens of characters in the recap. Doesn't really count as an appearance, I would say. His inclusion here is due to his inclusion above. What If?: One-time alternate timeline stories is different from an in-continuity appearance. Also, while he's not central to the story, he's featured on the cover. That suggests that they already anticipated that Venom would sell. Deathtrap: The Vault: Written by the new Spidey-editor as Salicrup was close to the end of his run. Note that Venom is the most prominent character on the cover. That suggests that they already anticipated that Venom would sell. Your speculation about what happened is speculation. I would say that the take of those who actually created the books holds more weight.

A few things: • The drop in sales could be fallout from McFarlane no longer being on the title. That takes a few issues to have an effect, and his last issue was 328. • Claremont, as a writer, would have had less control than an editor • While I don't disagree that a lot of direction comes from outside the Creative department, I don't think that kicked into high gear until a few years into the '90s, when every character that had an ongoing suddenly had a family of titles (Thunderstrike, War Machine, an explosion of X-books, etc.) • Since McFarlane's art was certainly a very visible reason for the popularity of Spider-man, management may not have been as acutely aware of a demand for more Venom. I doubt management is reading letters from readers. Read the link I posted. I'd say that Micheline's version of events is a much better indication of what happened than our speculation as to what we think happened inside the Marvel offices

https://www.comiccrusaders.com/comics-icon-david-michelinie-talks-about-the-early-development-of-one-of-spider-mans-greatest-villains/

I'm not taking a position one way or another in the conclusion to this argument, but the number of Venom's appearances is not necessarily a good indicator of his popularity in the period. I read an interview with David Michelinie that there was a call to use Venom more, but Salicrup (ASM editor at the time) wanted to save him for special occasions. Salicrup was also the editor on the Adjectiveless Spider-man while McFarlane was on it, except for McFarlane's last issue, which was an X-Force crossover, so that might explain why he was never used in those early issues. Salicrup left Marvel in late 1991/early 1992 to go be the editor in chief of Topps, so that might explain the explosion of Venom around that time.