justadude

Yeah, I can see how they were trying radically different stuff, but Spawn needed that. It feels fresher today in a lot of ways than it was when Jonboy and Larsen were trying their hand. I honestly can't blame them. While the Krudanski art may have been better, his entire run was a muddled mess behind McFarlane's writing. I get that Spawn has pretty much only been about the art, but at some point in 30 years you'd think writing would become a priority. Sadly, I think Hellspawn is the most well-written Spawn thing to date, and that lasted about 10 issues before McFarlane took it over.

Regarding Larsen. His art isn't for everyone, but the lowest sales were around #220. In reading through the entire series, Larsen was a serious UPGRADE to the writing and storytelling from about #100-#240. Even the incredibly basic story of going to Hell to save his wife was a huge improvement from the meandering and pointless writing of McFarlane. It's honestly one of the most coherent arcs in Spawn over the last 200 issues, which is a bummer to say.

On 11/16/2023 at 10:01 AM, Paul (GG) © ® ™⚽️💙 said:

Or it could just be that we like collecting junk.

If that was all it was, you wouldn't feel so strongly about "comics today."

Here's what Jean Baudrillard has to say on collecting and collectors:

"Because [the collector] feels alienated and abolished by a social discourse whose rules escape him, the collector strives to reconstitute a discourse that is transparent to him, a discourse whose signifiers he controls and whose referent par excellence is himself. In this he is doomed to failure: he cannot see that he is simply transforming an open-ended objective discontinuity into a general validity. This kind of totalization by means of objects always bears the stamp of solitude. It fails to communicate with the outside, and communication is missing within it. . . . The collector is never an utterly hopeless fanatic, precisely because he collects objects that in some way always prevent him from regressing into the ultimate abstraction of a delusional state, but at the same time the discourse he thus creates can never -- for the very same reason -- get beyond a certain poverty and infantilism."

Collecting is made to feed your ego, your sense of nostalgia, your unshakable belief that everything made today is simply worse than when you were a kid simply because you were a kid. While the quote above doesn't cover every collector on this board, it easily describes most. You don't understand this world, so you can hide away in the comforting thought that you know what the best of [insert collectible here] is. The world is "going to hell" not because you don't understand, but because you refuse to understand.

This is also not universal. Many retired pro athletes say younger players are "soft," but it's an indication of their own insecurity when compared to younger, sometimes even better players. The way they can remove themselves from comparisons. Many players celebrate the wonder of younger players and it's clear that they're much more secure about their position in the pantheon of X sport by doing so.

This mentality is one cultivated by decades of thinking your tastes are unilateral, of being convinced that your world is the only correct one, of living years of mental solitute. Thankfully, you have always, and will always, be wrong.

On 11/15/2023 at 7:15 PM, ttfitz said:

Thanks for that link - not only does it not contradict what I've been responding to (as in, I haven't claimed anything about what your second sentence says, at all), but it supports it. I know Brian Hibbs (the author of the link), and I trust what he says. So...

"Hey honey, I'm going to have some people over for dinner."

"Oh, yeah? How many can we expect?"

"Oh, just 89."

Lastly, Hibbs is estimating what's reported in his article is 85% of sales, only sales reported through NPD Bookscan, and admits that "In some cases, those numbers could potentially be many multiples of the retail trade." He's also counting zero digital sales.

Looks "all time" to me.

On 11/15/2023 at 11:27 AM, ttfitz said:

Ah, I see where the problem is - you responded to my disputing that "comic sales are at an all time high" to say that "comics are selling well for some people" which I've never argued with.

It's not some people. Again, almost everyone on this board equates superhero comics with comics more broadly.

On 11/15/2023 at 8:58 AM, Stefan_W said:

I agree that it is not the best way to sell to the current comic crowd. But the current comic crowd skews older and male, and unless the audience broadens out comics are dead in the long term.

Absolutely not true. Kids are reading comics, a whole lot more than adults reading comics as 15 of the top 20 sellers in 2022 were childrens and middle aged titles. They just aren't reading superhero comics which weren't even in the TOP 250 titles sold. And who would blame them for not reading a genre where less than 5% of published stories EVER were any good?

The whole discussion just confirms again and again how narrow-sighted collectors on this board, and collectors in general, really are. They collect specific eras or artists or titles because they are so sure they're the "best" era in some way. It's an incredibly limited view and one that furthers their own egotism to think the only thing that matters is what they like.

Superhero comics =/= comics.

Thank _________ god.

@Brock You nailed it. Thank you.

In a lot of ways I'm surprised why anyone is bothered by the collapse of the superhero comic market. After hearing years and years of complaints about how "my captain america would never . . ." isn't this a good thing? Those crypto-Maoist corporations will finally leave your beloved 10-cent nostalgia alone and you can take these characters with you to the grave.

Shouldn't most of the board be celebrating?

On 11/14/2023 at 12:39 PM, ttfitz said:

I don't know what current comic sales are, but I'm guessing this is true only if "all time" only goes back a decade or two. Superman, Batman, Captain Marvel, and others regularly sold over a million copies a month in the 40s. 

Gross sales. Manga, children's comics, and trade paperbacks are all "comics" and make up the vast majority of the comics market. While they don't sell more in quantity than pre-code, they sell more in gross sales.

In a market where comic shops regularly "don't receive" the hot issue only to hoard them and put them in back issue bins at 5x the price the next month, good riddance. I'll preorder online with a larger discount.

Again, comics aren't failing. Comics are at an all time high in sales. Superhero comics are failing. And again, good riddance.

Worth about $5 a piece. People do buy them though.

Sold 4 pieces, 3 of which were under $100, and bought a great one I thought was below FMV. Definitely seemed like less buyers overall but that follows consumer confidence at the moment. There are always the outrageous prices but I see those as a "price it'll take for me to sell" more than FMV. Didn't quite understand the ComicLink $0 previews...

At least there wasn't a $3 million dollar asking price piece?

On 10/5/2023 at 6:06 PM, VintageComics said:

So how can we still be having the same argument year after year while the numbers continue to drop?

In 2020, the comics industry made $1.26 billion. In 2015, $900 million. It's been steadily growing for the past 25 years.

But I'm probably just in denial.

I'd guess these forums are made up of mostly of superhero collectors, which is totally fine, but it's not reflective of the actual comics market. Marvel and DC aren't litmus tests for the comic industry. Manga, Scholastica, independents, web comics, etc. make up the majority of the market by far, and it's not even close.

My last point and then I'll see myself out. It is incredibly grating for younger collectors to be a part of a hobby that continually sh_ts on everything. This is not unique to this time period. Fans in the 90s berated the changes to superheroes in the same. exact. way. they berate them today. It's why the comic book fan stereotypes are accurate when it comes to sniveling dorks pointing out continuity errors and how "My (insert character) would never do that." It's the same rhetoric. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and it's BORING. It's uninteresting. It's pointless. And it's just old men whining.

The "sky has been falling" since humans invented the word for "sky." And things have gotten worse at times, but on the whole, they've gotten a hell of a lot better. It's not even up for debate. In all the metrics that actually matter: war, disease, preventable causes of death, car accidents, work hours, famine, cancer, abject poverty, birth survival, and I could go on, have decreased per capita across the globe over the last 500 years. It's really in vogue to say the world's going to hell because it fits really well with a nihilistic ideology that "nothing matters, so I'll look out for myself" which translates to "I'll buy whatever I want." You become the perfect consumer because nothing matters, it's all going down the drain, and I might as well "get mine" and not worry about anyone else. Not only is it really cynical and a tough way to wake up every morning, but it's also wrong, as in the world always feels like it's getting worse because human skepticism is what breeds ingenuity. If you want to live like this, then fine, but it's a choice, not a reality, and I only ask that people on these boards, and just people in general, stop stating a belief as "fact."

I'm gonna go read a comic . . .

On 10/5/2023 at 8:29 AM, Dr. Balls said:

We're not going to collapse overnight, but we've shot past the point of no return years ago.

This has been repeated in Western Civilization for the past 2200 years. But I'm sure this time it's going to happen.

On 9/30/2023 at 7:07 AM, Cat said:

I want to read X-Men. Where do I start? 

I want to read Goblin Slayer. Where do I start. Easy. Volume 1. Oh, and the story will end. It will have a proper ending. It's going somewhere. Not going to be the same characters doing the same things when I die. That's a nice plus, wouldn't you say? 

This is dead on and gets at the largest problem of DC and Marvel: continuity. The biggest gripe I hear from readers about a new series is "that's not how X's character is." It's this push from the older generation to write stories to fit their (impossible to recreate) nostalgia while coming up with new ideas and fresh takes on characters. Spider-Boy is then both derivative, and the only solution Marvel can offer because it's boxed in by continuity.

It's also important to point out that the vast majority of Superhero books are simply bad, as in soap opera bad. Lots of rosy colored glasses are worn in this forum but if you go and read Marvel or DC from any point in time, they're generally overwritten comics. Manga is generally faster, allows for more expressionistic art style, and sparser. Words don't repeat the same thing in the panel, which happens ALL THE TIME in bad comics.

An alternative model, which is probably their best option, is to move away from monthly publishing altogether, scale down in size, and only sell standalone graphic novels. I, for one, would welcome a world where there aren't boring tie-ins and unfinished plots just for the sake of continuity. It's inefficient and uninspired storytelling. People point to Claremont X-Men and Miller Daredevil, but has there really been a good run of superhero comics, ever? As in, the story and all of its characters arc properly, there's a thematic through line, and a satisfying resolution? I've only ever found those things in miniseries.

On 2/16/2023 at 1:20 PM, KirbyCollector said:

Argumentum ergo decedo,  confessional writing, or a mix? A tough question, that. 

Yes, as stated, that was hyperbolic flair and in no way was intended as "argument" which could be then considered fallacious. But it is telling that after a barrage of points made about the collecting community that's the single line you'd like to point out. The "snowflake generation" really does get worked up over the smallest of things . . .

EDIT: On further thought, I'm puzzled by what you mean in that post. That my post is something about whataboutism? That's it's confessional writing? I'm unsure in which ways I'm acting like a "tastemaker" or "running my mouth" with a total of 39 posts over 3 years. A tough question given it has the same kind of disjointed reasoning it would take to argue that "Most new art looks the same." Points for consistency. Points for unrelated Latin, too? I guess?

On 2/16/2023 at 12:32 PM, MyNameIsLegion said:

I think you make a lot of great points. I really do, and I agree with many of them, even though I bet I’m 20 years older than you. Speaking from an aesthetics POV and not from Nostalgia I still contend most modern comic art produced today categorically sucks. Why? Method, training, lack of editorial direction, digital inking and lettering and anything done in post production, decompression (thank Joe Quesada for that, never was there a less competent EIC at Marvel) and the shift to story board style layouts. It’s stiff, boring, lacking depth, backgrounds and detail. Even “good” artists that draw modern books still look bland and boring compared to their older art. Artists like Mike Perkins are a rare exception, and he is still uneven and inconsistent. He doesn’t have a Romita or Giordano to direct him or at least fix or improve the end result. For 50 years we saw the comic book art style mature from an adaptation of comic strips to basic 6 panel layouts in the 50s, to realism in the 60s, (Adams) to more dynamism in the 90s. Then, most 2000 it started to devolve as it got more commoditized and commercialized for a shrinking audience shifting toward faster, more digestible and less sophisticated forms of expression and communication that ultimately summed down the art itself. 

I guess what's strange is that people think comic art has become "commoditized and commercialized" only recently. That's categorically false. It has always been commercialized because it is a commercial medium. I'm fine with people critiquing modern comic art, but not as exception to the rule of commercial art, but as it's defining aspect. Most commercial art isn't very good. It can't afford to be. Artists need to pump out as much as possible as quickly as possible. That's been the model since work-for-hire existed, but remains just as true for independent creators as the only way they can generate business is by putting out stuff fast. Again, this is generalizing (Alex Ross is an obvious contemporary exception), but it includes Golden Age (especially), Silver Age, Bronze Age, etc. If we're just thinking superhero art, which is commercial art as compared to underground comix which are not, there is no linear progression of improvement. There are simply different styles and changes like in all art. To say a third tier artist of the 70s is better than a third tier artist of the 2010s is just not a very interesting argument to make (not saying you're making it), and discounts that most commercial art is bad by nature. If someone puts realistic figure drawing as important to what they think is of high quality, then McFarlane, Lee, Liefeld etc. are all kicked out, but also Kirby and many artists from the beginning of the superhero genre. There is no more "realism" or "accuracy" in Kirby's grimaced and stretched characters than McFarlane's Spider-Man with opposable hip joints. If we had forums in the 40s and 50s, there'd be the same kind of lambasting of 60s comic art. And that would also be categorically not true.

On 2/16/2023 at 6:31 AM, Rick2you2 said:

I think you have drifted off into hyperbole when discussing some legitimate points. First, I am firmly in the 50+ segment of collectors, but I have regularly expressed my appreciation of newer artists and newer design approaches which have come a long way from the old 6 panel layout. There are quite a few people who have. But you haven’t paid attention to the fact that a lot of people here knowingly evaluate based on financial value, and that is mostly a function of nostalgia. They also recognize in many cases that “quality” is distinct from pricing, while diverging on what qualifies as quality, and that can be a matter of taste. Notice the debate involving Sal B? 

“Wretched excess” is a common thread in lots of areas. There is no good reason to pay for a rare, clear, flawless diamond to use as jewelry when cubic zirconium is at least as good (the main visibility difference involves single vs. double refraction)(unless you also want to use it for grinding, in which case, take an industrial grade diamond). They are both sparkly, and similarly sparkly. And I still can’t figure out why someone would want a house with a dozen bedrooms—except to show off their wealth—unless they are housing “Cheaper by the Dozen” kids. Do I think the purely artistic merit of much OA justifies the price or the gasps of praise? No. It is all about supply and demand, and the demand for people to buy what they grew up with. Which they still love.

By all means, start a thread on page composition, or inking lines, or panel borders. You will get a fair number of comments. Just bear in mind that some people here don’t buy many new comics, not even with the Phantom Stranger in them, so don’t be surprised if responses often relate to older pieces. 

I absolutely drifted off into hyperbole. Generalizations, by nature, are false, so in making sweeping summaries, I will of course be wrong on many accounts and should qualify those statements with "many," "often," etc.

The financial value of art is something I avoided because not only do many see price = quality, but they forget the relationship this kind of art has to the market. It's a commercial art, which means the product is very much the finished page, not the art used in making it. And I totally agree with you in that artistic merit has little to no impact on pricing of OA. Pricing is mostly about which character is represented and how big that character is on the page. I also find that odd in that the most valuable pages are often covers or splashes in a medium defined by its interrelated nature of panels, gutters, and the movement of the eye across the page. Instead, collectors often want the biggest depiction they can find of their favorite character. Which is totally fine, but it doesn't make it good art as it's not even an honest representation of the very medium it comes from.

I also don't mind that most discussion is about older art, but to continually bash new art just because it's new and doesn't resonate with you is totally self-defeating. If people want this niche community to grow (which is incredibly small even among comic collectors), the way to do that isn't by disparaging things you aren't interested in. Art can be good that we don't like. It seems so fundamental in saying that, but fandom often has this point of view to where if they don't like it, it can't be good. I just think art, especially, should be given careful consideration and nuanced argument when talking about it. We should hold ourselves to a more nuanced standard than simply arguing over the first panel appearance of so-and-so. But, this is coming from someone who genuinely loves art and its many forms. Comic OA just seems to treat it differently than many other mediums. And on the flip side, I'd rather put a bullet in my head before hearing someone wax poetic as if they were at MOMA about a Jack Kirby page. I think there's a happy medium.

@Carlo M I absolutely agree that the shift to digital has made new OA collecting more difficult. It's a bummer to find that many artists only offer commissions when they have otherwise amazing pages in books. I also think it's worth noting that covers and variants have simply become separate art objects. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but collecting Artgerm, for example, is to collect singular representations, or fancy pinups of famous characters. To me it stands a little oblique to the comics medium as a whole as these covers have artistic merit, but they're qualitatively different than a comics page in that they don't have to communicate movement across a page. If that makes sense.

On 2/5/2023 at 9:25 PM, Natty Bumpo said:

For anyone seriously trying to decide whether to go to ECCC, keep in mind that Chloe works for the Discovery Institute. You can go to their website and they’ll tell you what they’re about. And that news report is from a Sinclair station. If those are sources you trust than by all means skip the con, but if you’re less inclined to take their word for keep an open mind

Ah, gotta love a think tank still tackling the burning question of if evolution is real or not.

Most old art looks the same.

.

On 2/7/2023 at 5:55 PM, Dr. Balls said:

Of you've won everywhere else and trying to spread it to here. The last thing I'd want for this place to turn into is Reddit or Twitter.

Or you're a cancer and can't help but metastasize before killing your host.

On 1/28/2023 at 5:13 PM, fastballspecial said:

Ive got a couple from DC and a couple of Marvel. I see them very rarely, but as of yet they dont add value. 
Now were this a Spawn book it would be worth a pretty penny.

 

I haven't seen many either. I knew the Spawn ones were valuable. These are probably worth hanging onto then. Thanks for the info!