Comic Book Quarterly - Looking for an Anti-Moderns Article

[seank]

 

In the 30', 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and into the 80's, the average comic book reader/buyer was predominantly much younger than an adult.

 

Or a soldier during WWII. But I don't think our soldiers today are much into comics when you can get a PS3 and a laptop into a warzone nowadays.

[joe_collector]

I'm pretty sure Maus has sold more and will continue to sell more copies than Blackest Night Wonder Woman #3.

 

For the month of February 2010?

[codfish]

Umm...it's exactly what he said: JC's paragraphs one and three, taken together, argue that:

 

"Moderns suck (and young readers aren't reading) because neither Marvel nor DC have successfully introduced popular new characters in the past 10-20 years but have only reused/ret-conned tired old ones in an attempt to appease the 30 year-old adult nerds."

 

So Codfish's response is perfectly on point.

 

Fallacy 1: that young readers would read if comics were "more fun" and geared toward kids again (they wouldn't--the internet and video games have killed the appeal of comic books for that demographic)

 

Fallacy 2: that the success of comic books must be measured on new character introductions.

 

Fallacy 3: That those new character introductions must be from Marvel/DC and somehow, indies don't count.

 

Let me be absolutely clear:

 

Even Marvel has *attempted* to inject a few new characters. But without that necessary "link to the GA/SA/BA past", they have all failed to catch on. The blame falls squarely on the "me no like change" adult readers and Marvel/DC following their lead into oblivion.

 

Codfish misread THIS SPECIFIC paragraph, and responded incorrectly because he misread it.

 

No I didn't. Because you need the familiar to try and keep not only current readers but the older readers as well. Do you think a 40 year old collector would have any interest in Marvel and DC if they ditched all the mainstays?

 

The statement is also false because there ARE characters that Marvel and DC have introduced in the last 20 years that have "caught on" and are enjoyed by a decent sized audience. JC has a sliding standard though on what successful character introduction is. Not only that he would probably just shift his argument to say that the new characters were not unique enough to catch on like he excluded Deadpool and Cable from his 10 year character introduction window.

 

The fact that many of these new characters have hung around and been used and reused by many creators alone renders the whole critique false.

[comicdonna]

Maybe JC needs a regular editorial column. You know, Andy Rooney style.

 

It has my vote. Although, we'd need to balance with a column that is all sweetness and light.

 

I'll do it.

 

 

I am sure Mike (Monkeyman) can find you a spot. (thumbs u

[joe_collector]

Umm...it's exactly what he said: JC's paragraphs one and three, taken together, argue that:

 

"Moderns suck (and young readers aren't reading) because neither Marvel nor DC have successfully introduced popular new characters in the past 10-20 years but have only reused/ret-conned tired old ones in an attempt to appease the 30 year-old adult nerds."

 

Don't quote your own uneducated, low-brow, misread BS as verbatim of what I stated.

 

Me and Rocky have had some dustups, but he seems pretty smart and you should really take his advice and read my posts. You're not even comprehending the most basic of concepts.

 

Adult nerd readers DO NOT WANT new characters, new stories, new concepts, new anything... it has NOTHING to do with younger readers, but the fact that these adult nerds want to see the SAME CHARACTERS THEY GREW UP WITH, only a "little different".

 

So we get Ultimate Universe versions of the same old characters, SA/BA revamps of existing ones, characters like Bucky coming back from the long, long, long-dead, a "character death" fad akin to the BA, old SA and BA stories being exhumed and retcon'd, and one big Event after another.

 

But at Marvel for example, it ALL concerns major characters, stories and concepts first introduced between 1961 and the early-90's. It's like an old starlet getting facelift after facelift, and having Hollywood tell us it's "something new".

[dupont2005]

Umm...it's exactly what he said: JC's paragraphs one and three, taken together, argue that:

 

"Moderns suck (and young readers aren't reading) because neither Marvel nor DC have successfully introduced popular new characters in the past 10-20 years but have only reused/ret-conned tired old ones in an attempt to appease the 30 year-old adult nerds."

 

Don't quote your own uneducated, low-brow, misread BS as verbatim of what I stated.

 

Me and Rocky have had some dustups, but he seems pretty smart and you should really take his advice and read my posts. You're not even comprehending the most basic of concepts.

 

Adult nerd readers DO NOT WANT new characters, new stories, new concepts, new anything... it has NOTHING to do with younger readers, but the fact that these adult nerds want to see the SAME CHARACTERS THEY GREW UP WITH, only a "little different".

 

So we get Ultimate Universe versions of the same old characters, SA/BA revamps of existing ones, characters like Bucky coming back from the long, long, long-dead, a "character death" fad akin to the BA, old SA and BA stories being exhumed and retcon'd, and one big Event after another.

 

But at Marvel for example, it ALL concerns major characters, stories and concepts first introduced between 1961 and the early-90's. It's like an old starlet getting facelift after facelift, and having Hollywood tell us it's "something new".

This is only a modern comics problem? Back in the silver age Superman and Batman had already done it all.

[joe_collector]

The statement is also false because there ARE characters that Marvel and DC have introduced in the last 20 years that have "caught on" and are enjoyed by a decent sized audience.

 

Then name some major new characters that have been introduced by Marvel and DC after the early-90's, let's say over the past 15 years?

 

Then go back in 15 year increments and compare the numbers... you might be surprised.

[joe_collector]

[back in the silver age Superman and Batman had already done it all.

 

Which is why Marvel took over and DC changed gears in the early-70's.

 

Plus, DC had some new SA heroes and teams, which is why I feel the JLA was the true start of the SA. That kick-started everything.

[dupont2005]

I'm pretty sure Maus has sold more and will continue to sell more copies than Blackest Night Wonder Woman #3.

 

For the month of February 2010?

In general. 30 years from now I'm sure Blackest Night Wonder Woman #3 will be as highly regarded as Maus...

 

 

If new characters is what you're after, you're not going to find them in vintage comics. Marvel and DC may not introduce a whole lot of new ones, but today we have plenty of publishers that do.

[joe_collector]

Again, I'm talking about mainstream comics, the top sellers, the most popular NEW comics printed every month. I do agree that there are some interesting niche books, but they hardly rate as mainstream.

 

And I would also remind you that Maus started out in 1972, before being lengthened to the basic story we know in 1977 as a magazine serial.

[codfish]

BTW adults have always run the comic industry.

 

How old are you, 12?

 

In the 30', 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and into the 80's, the average comic book reader/buyer was predominantly much younger than an adult. That's not even up for debate, and if you actually think that adults made up the majority of new comic readers in 1945, good luck with proving that.

 

My argument is quite simple, comic used to be written for smart kids, now they're written for dumb adults.

 

So typical of you. Turn to personal attacks. The demo graphic changed not because of who is in the front offices of the publishers it changed because of who was reading the books the age demographic started changing in the 60's and 70's and completed by the mid 80's. I started collecting in '79 and even back then it was obvious that it was mostly a teenager/young adult hobby. In the mid 80's it was clear to publishers that the demographic they need to focus on was the 16-30 year olds. Sales to older and younger demographics no longer made sense.

 

They continue to try and make stuff for young folks but they just can't do it since light and fluffy is not what most kids want. Heck they are far more interested in TV and video games.

 

For someone who like to think you know it all your concept of the "problem" is rather narrow.

[joe_collector]

Again, you stated this gem:

BTW adults have always run the comic industry.

 

Which is absolutely, totally wrong. End of story.

[dupont2005]

Again, I'm talking about mainstream comics, the top sellers, the most popular NEW comics printed every month.

 

I do agree that there are some interesting niche books, but they hardly rate as mainstream.

I don't consider super hero books published by the third and fourth largest comic book publishers to be "niche" books. If you're only talking the top twenty books distributed by Diamond then your scope is entirely too narrow. If you won't even consider the possibility of reading a book not published by those two publishers then you are exactly the reason there isn't more variety at the top of the Diamond list. Plenty of new super heroes and super hero teams have been introduced in the past fifteen years.

 

Outside of super heroes, I wouldn't call horror, western, or crime drama "niche" genres either. As a matter of fact, I consider shared universe super hero comics a very niche genre.

[Monstro]

I'm thinking you missed my point JC because I was actually validating your argument. Sheesh.

 

Nope, you're saying they "ran out of new ideas", while I'm stating that there are plenty of new ideas/characters/concepts to be tried, only that the "adult fanboy" audience doesn't want to read them.

 

Marvel and D.C. may think us "adult fanboys" don't want to read new ideas/concepts, but I think they are wrong.

[joe_collector]

Marvel and D.C. may think us "adult fanboys" don't want to read new ideas/concepts, but I think they are wrong.

 

You might be correct, but the sheer lack of movement is quite scary.

 

For example, I finally got a cheap Gold copy (with embedded DLC) of Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1 to play through with the kids - I was amazed that ALL of the characters seemed to be from the SA/BA, and all the villains so far are also SA/BA mainstays, with a few retcons like the revived Bucky.

 

That's pretty sad and should illustrate how long Marvel has been coasting on Stan, Jack and Steve's work.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Umm...it's exactly what he said: JC's paragraphs one and three, taken together, argue that:

 

"Moderns suck (and young readers aren't reading) because neither Marvel nor DC have successfully introduced popular new characters in the past 10-20 years but have only reused/ret-conned tired old ones in an attempt to appease the 30 year-old adult nerds."

 

So Codfish's response is perfectly on point.

 

Fallacy 1: that young readers would read if comics were "more fun" and geared toward kids again (they wouldn't--the internet and video games have killed the appeal of comic books for that demographic)

 

Fallacy 2: that the success of comic books must be measured on new character introductions.

 

Fallacy 3: That those new character introductions must be from Marvel/DC and somehow, indies don't count.

 

Let me be absolutely clear:

 

Even Marvel has *attempted* to inject a few new characters. But without that necessary "link to the GA/SA/BA past", they have all failed to catch on. The blame falls squarely on the "me no like change" adult readers and Marvel/DC following their lead into oblivion.

 

Codfish misread THIS SPECIFIC paragraph, and responded incorrectly because he misread it.

 

No I didn't.

 

Sigh.

 

Let me explain it again, and though JC doesn't need me to explain him, it bothers me when people misread things, and then respond incorrectly because of it. It happens all the time on these boards, and if people would just take the time to really comprehend what was said, instead of just what they "read", communication would be a lot more effective around here...and I'm not trying to be mean, I'm guilty of the same thing at times....

 

JC said:

 

Even Marvel has *attempted* to inject a few new characters. But without that necessary "link to the GA/SA/BA past", they have all failed to catch on. The blame falls squarely on the "me no like change" adult readers and Marvel/DC following their lead into oblivion.

 

YOU responded by saying:

 

And? Again your point is lost on me. Do you think that if Marvel or DC dreamed up a whole new line of characters that they would have more young readers? Then you blather on about the new characters requiring a link to the past to catch on? WTF?

 

Please note the large, bolded section of your statement, because that's the key to your misunderstanding.

 

JC did NOT "blather on about the new characters requiring a link to the past to catch on." He said nothing of the sort. What he SAID was that the "older nerd comic readers" were the ones REQUIRING Marvel/DC to retain that "link to the GA/SA/BA past" which was why, in his opinion, Marvel/DC were unable to attract younger readers...those new characters didn't catch on because Marvel/DC didn't/wouldn't link them to the past, so the older nerd readers...to which Marvel/DC have been catering since the late 80's...rejected them.

 

JC didn't say there needed to be a link to the past for the characters to succeed...he said the nerds holding back the industry were the ones FORCING Marvel/DC to have a link to the past.

 

All clear?

 

The greater issues of the discussion aside, this is a key point to JC's argument, so it was important that it be understood.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Umm...it's exactly what he said: JC's paragraphs one and three, taken together, argue that:

 

"Moderns suck (and young readers aren't reading) because neither Marvel nor DC have successfully introduced popular new characters in the past 10-20 years but have only reused/ret-conned tired old ones in an attempt to appease the 30 year-old adult nerds."

 

So Codfish's response is perfectly on point.

 

Fallacy 1: that young readers would read if comics were "more fun" and geared toward kids again (they wouldn't--the internet and video games have killed the appeal of comic books for that demographic)

 

Fallacy 2: that the success of comic books must be measured on new character introductions.

 

Fallacy 3: That those new character introductions must be from Marvel/DC and somehow, indies don't count.

 

The significant part of JC's argument, and one he's 100% correct on, is "attempt to appease the 30-year-old adult nerds." I don't think it matters whether or not the characters are new or old. What matters is that many superhero comics are aimed at readers who are vested in lengthy continuity. The fan boys aren't necessarily interested in orginality or new characters. And this mindset from the fan boys and the publishers isn't going to bring in any new readers.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much spot on. When DC comics was most successful...1938-1945...they created a whole "universe" from nothing. How did they repeat that success in the 60's (remembering that DC beat Marvel throughout the 60's)? By the genius of Julius Schwartz and Gardner Fox, who decided NOT to rehash the same old stories they told 20 years earlier, but instead invented new characters, with new identities, costumes, the works, who happened to share the same names as their predecessors.

 

What did Marvel do? The same thing. Sure, Lee eventually brought back Cap and Subby, but they were clearly NOT the stars of the Marvel Age of comics...Spidey, FF, Avengers, Iron Man, and Thor were, among others.

 

All new characters, with little to no ties to "what had gone before."

 

Now? 50-75 years of "what has gone before" with the market....a market created by Marvel and DC in the 1980's, to which they have now become enslaved...forced to deal with all of that, or risk rejection by the only customer base left. Scary stuff indeed for the suits at 666 Fifth Aven...er, I mean, 1700 Broadway (I still love the old addy.)

 

Crisis on Infinite Earths was meant to streamline the laborious 50 year DC continuity...every single "Universe Shaking Event" since then has sought to UNDO what Crisis sought to DO.

 

Coincidence? And now, Marvel faces the exact same thing.

 

And for the record, the Batman "Hush" story is a big pile of *spoon* gilded by Jim Lee's art.

 

It sure is pretty, though, ain't it?

 

"Hush" among some of the greatest Batman stories of all time...? I daresay those readers never read Dark Knight Returns, Year One, Killing Joke, Lonely Place of Dying, The Laughing Fish, Joker's 5-Way Revenge, Daughter of the Demon, or even Loeb's own Long Halloween.

 

 

[mica]

Rock is doing a pretty good job of explaining how JC's posts get misinterpretted.

 

Perhaps he should be JC's publicist from now on.

[RockMyAmadeus]

[Gatsby77]

I've read all of those Batman stories listed, and I'd still put Hush in that pantheon--as I would add Year One, Year Three, "One Bullet Too Many" (Batman 217) and one of your own favorites, "Trash" (Detective 613, was it?)

 

Hush accomplished what both Batman 400 and Knightfall attempted and failed miserably at--artwork aside, it created a scenario where Batman had to face nearly all of his rogue's gallery at once, while showcasing the "detective" aspect of the character as he tries to uncover both the "who" and "why" of Hush and the Riddler. It was a great story for longtime fans.