Market bubbles (Comic Hero bubbles?)

[Bookery]

Tarzan came from the pulps while Spider-man came from the comic books. I see this as a big difference. With the other characters you mentioned none of them came from the comic books except maybe Casper. Most of those characters have little or no interest now because nobody has done anything for the most part in reviving them in the tv,movies or videogames the last ten years.Marvel and DC constantly have kept interest alive in their heroes by way of movies,tv shows and videogames.

 

Actually, I think coming from the comics will be even more detrimental to long-term popularity over time. Just like the pulps, comics are a medium that is fading away. Marvel has been clever jumping on new CGI technology to refresh popular interest in the characters (certainly comics haven't been doing that). But will the next generation care or the one beyond that? Disney has moved away from its original icons (Mickey, Donald et.al.) and moved on to Cars, Toys, Pirates of the Caribbean. To be successful, they will keep having to come up with new franchises for each new generation.

 

There is one other caveat, however, which got me thinking. It's quite possible we are entering an era where little if anything will be "collected". That's the ringer no one talks about. In a digital world, nothing is really tangible. You pile music onto iPods and download movies onto computers. But today's youth, so far, aren't really collecting much in the way of tangible physical collectibles. When I was a kid, I collected coins, and accumulated (more than collected per se) comic books and matchbox cars and monster mags, etc.

 

One grandson buys lots of WWF hats and shirts (at age 10 he's already lost all interest in the Spider-Man and Hulk stuff he liked a couple of years ago). But aside from wearing apparrel he doesn't really collect. The 12-year old doesn't collect anything. Most of the kids that come in with their comics-buying parents are into iPods and gadgets but don't collect anything that isn't downloadable.

 

So who knows? That age-old, and somewhat odd, fetish of acquiring stuff to collect for the sake of collecting may be becoming a thing of the past. Like books, we may be on the brink of observing a hundreds-of-years old tradition disappear.

 

Not saying it's good or bad... just observing an interesting and dynamic new phenomena.

 

[Wally's Comics]

Cable was on almost as many covers a month than venom, gambit and ghost rider

of the 90's...

 

 

maybe that should've told me something.

 

 

 

 

 

[NewWorldOrder]

Dale, you may be correct in that it won't fall much more from here, but I doubt that you would disagree that the bottom has dropped out on that book a ton from its peak. 9.6s have fetched over $30K, and the one that closed a few days ago did around $10K. The 9.8s are now selling for what 9.6s used to get, and in some cases not even that high (if you look at the peak 9.6 prices). So the 9.8s may be safe now, assuming no more show up (which I would not bet on), but prices have plunged in the last year or so and may very well keep correcting (certainly for the 9.4-9.6 levels). If I cared about this book (which I don't), I would not be a buyer here. Too much of a gamble until the dust settles.

 

The bubble hasn't popped on that book.

 

Just like everything in life to the first batch of blu ray players or the first GL 76 9.8.

 

Someone is going to waaaaaaaaay over spend for the item to feed their collecting needs because they are scared another one will not come into the market, or they have so much money they just want to fill their hole in their run & be done with it.

 

Just take the ASM 35 CGC 9.8 that just sold $31K, so when the next 9.8 comes into the market (which it will eventually) do you think the book will sell even close to that number?

 

No chance.

 

It is not a good measure of how healthy a book is just by looking at what the highest graded copies for, especially if there is just a couple in 9.8 or 9.6.

 

I would look at a bubble pop on a book like GL 76 if the more quantitative data on the book shows massive declines on the more traded numbers like 9.0-9.4.

 

You can almost guarantee on most books from 1965-present the 2nd 9.8 CGC copy will usually go for a good amount less that the 1st CGC 9.8. Obviously as more of the same issue come out in 9.8 the value will keep dropping. So we are talking more about supply/demand as opposed to a bubble being popped.

 

[MR SigS]

The TRUE 1st app of VENOM (small but impactfull -pardon the pun) seemes to have been lost. I'm keeping my

 

[Dale Roberts]

Tarzan came from the pulps while Spider-man came from the comic books. I see this as a big difference. With the other characters you mentioned none of them came from the comic books except maybe Casper. Most of those characters have little or no interest now because nobody has done anything for the most part in reviving them in the tv,movies or videogames the last ten years.Marvel and DC constantly have kept interest alive in their heroes by way of movies,tv shows and videogames.

 

Actually, I think coming from the comics will be even more detrimental to long-term popularity over time. Just like the pulps, comics are a medium that is fading away. Marvel has been clever jumping on new CGI technology to refresh popular interest in the characters (certainly comics haven't been doing that). But will the next generation care or the one beyond that? Disney has moved away from its original icons (Mickey, Donald et.al.) and moved on to Cars, Toys, Pirates of the Caribbean. To be successful, they will keep having to come up with new franchises for each new generation.

 

There is one other caveat, however, which got me thinking. It's quite possible we are entering an era where little if anything will be "collected". That's the ringer no one talks about. In a digital world, nothing is really tangible. You pile music onto iPods and download movies onto computers. But today's youth, so far, aren't really collecting much in the way of tangible physical collectibles. When I was a kid, I collected coins, and accumulated (more than collected per se) comic books and matchbox cars and monster mags, etc.

 

One grandson buys lots of WWF hats and shirts (at age 10 he's already lost all interest in the Spider-Man and Hulk stuff he liked a couple of years ago). But aside from wearing apparrel he doesn't really collect. The 12-year old doesn't collect anything. Most of the kids that come in with their comics-buying parents are into iPods and gadgets but don't collect anything that isn't downloadable.

 

So who knows? That age-old, and somewhat odd, fetish of acquiring stuff to collect for the sake of collecting may be becoming a thing of the past. Like books, we may be on the brink of observing a hundreds-of-years old tradition disappear.

 

Not saying it's good or bad... just observing an interesting and dynamic new phenomena.

 

I don't know, Tim.

 

My kids love Mickey Mouse clubhouse on TV every morning. They also are crazy about all of the Disney Princess stuff, Batman/Superman Adventures, Scooby Doo.

 

I don't think you necessarily have to come up with new icons to replace the old ones. Perhaps new ways of reaching them. And they are doing that through TV and Media.

 

I think the future is bright for comic characters. I don't know how the delivery system will be, digital or otherwise, but I am strong in the belief that the characters will live on for a very long time. Between all of the wonderful animated stuff on TV (Avengers, Young Justice, Batman, etc), I am 100% sure that within the next 5 - 10 years, Disney will have full control over all Marvel properties and make some fantastic movies, and probably develop an entire theme park based on the Marvel Universe.

 

I see a bright long term future for the comic book super-hero genre. These 13 & 14 year old kids who are seeing Iron Man and Thor at the movie, could be the ones who purchase the JIM #83 when they turn 35 years old.

 

 

[the blob]

"Disney has moved away from its original icons (Mickey, Donald et.al.) and moved on to Cars, Toys, Pirates of the Caribbean."

 

My 5 year old has been watching Mickey Mouse Funhouse or whatever it's called for years. He knows Donald and Mickey (on Goofy, etc.) pretty well. These are new(ish) cartoons directed to young kids. When we're in a comic shop he goes right for the disney stuff (along with others). You just need to be up at 8:00 a.m. on a saturday morning to know this stuff.

 

Not to say they aren't pushing the other stuff. I'm not sure why they haven't done a movie recently pushing the duck characters (even if it focuses on the jr. woodchucks and/or those other late 80's/early 90's duck spin-offs). If done well it will make them plenty of money. Mickey would be a tougher sell, but I feel like Mickey has been #2 to Donald/The Ducks for decades and decades now anyway. In the late 60's/70's there were multiple Ducks titles and one Mickey title.

[Bookery]

I see a bright long term future for the comic book super-hero genre. These 13 & 14 year old kids who are seeing Iron Man and Thor at the movie, could be the ones who purchase the JIM #83 when they turn 35 years old.

 

Oh, I didn't say these characters' demise was imminent... just that at some point it will inevitably happen. And the 1st appearances of major characters will hold up if they are scarce enough... even if nobody else buys them, museums may someday still be shelling out big bucks to hang Spidey #1 beside their Picassos.

But the great bulk of these issues and even characters will fall by thre wayside.

When was the last time you saw anyone collecting Nicholas Nickleby lunch boxes? (okay... maybe I made that one up...)

 

As technology moves beyond even what we may envision now, old paper and even cinematic heroes are likely to not evolve so easily. Popeye had a time and place, but no one seems to pushing for a new multi-million $ 3-D animated feature film based on him.

 

As for the super-hero genre... I think it has a finite lifespan. The genre's only been around for a bit over 70 years, and has only been mega-popular since the 1960s (prior to that, practically every genre out-sold super-heroes in comics).

 

The western genre was uber-popular from about the 1880s (dime novels) through the 1960s, but after 80 years finally began to diminish considerably. The detective genre is still going strong, however, after about 150 years, as it seems to prove extremely adaptable to changing times. The cinematic musical, hot from 1930s-early 1960s, is virtually defunct, however. The symphony orchestra, popular for centuries, appears to be on life support.

 

 

 

[the blob]

The cinematic musical, hot from 1930s-early 1960s, is virtually defunct, however.

--------------

 

It has moved to TV in a show called "Glee".

 

But yes, we see so much song and dance on TV nobody is going to pay $15 to see it in the movie theatre outside of some unusual circumstances.

[adamstrange]

The cinematic musical, hot from 1930s-early 1960s, is virtually defunct, however.

--------------

 

It has moved to TV in a show called "Glee".

 

But yes, we see so much song and dance on TV nobody is going to pay $15 to see it in the movie theatre outside of some unusual circumstances.

Movie musicals became rare when Hollywood started to derive a substantial portion of their sales from international markets. Not only are there musical stylistic differences with many other cultures there was no easy way to dub the singers in the language of all the countries where the movies play. American sic-fi/spectacle/action movies sell the best overseas so that's why they get the biggest budgets.

[shadroch]

For reasons I don't care to discuss, I watch a lot of bollywood films, and it seems each and every one of them has a minimum of two song and dance numbers in it.

Recently I was watching a knock off of The Usual Suspects when they broke out into an incredibly designed dance number.

I'm told many bollywood films dwarf Us films in worldwide box office.

[Owls Head]

I see a bright long term future for the comic book super-hero genre. These 13 & 14 year old kids who are seeing Iron Man and Thor at the movie, could be the ones who purchase the JIM #83 when they turn 35 years old.

 

Oh, I didn't say these characters' demise was imminent... just that at some point it will inevitably happen. And the 1st appearances of major characters will hold up if they are scarce enough... even if nobody else buys them, museums may someday still be shelling out big bucks to hang Spidey #1 beside their Picassos.

But the great bulk of these issues and even characters will fall by thre wayside.

When was the last time you saw anyone collecting Nicholas Nickleby lunch boxes? (okay... maybe I made that one up...)

 

As technology moves beyond even what we may envision now, old paper and even cinematic heroes are likely to not evolve so easily. Popeye had a time and place, but no one seems to pushing for a new multi-million $ 3-D animated feature film based on him.

 

As for the super-hero genre... I think it has a finite lifespan. The genre's only been around for a bit over 70 years, and has only been mega-popular since the 1960s (prior to that, practically every genre out-sold super-heroes in comics).

 

The western genre was uber-popular from about the 1880s (dime novels) through the 1960s, but after 80 years finally began to diminish considerably. The detective genre is still going strong, however, after about 150 years, as it seems to prove extremely adaptable to changing times. The cinematic musical, hot from 1930s-early 1960s, is virtually defunct, however. The symphony orchestra, popular for centuries, appears to be on life support.

 

 

As someone who lives in the Philly area... this it true

 

 

Daniel J. Wakin writes:

 

"The Philadelphia Orchestra, which lifted classical music to new heights of public awareness when Leopold Stokowski conducted it for the 1940 Disney film “Fantasia,” is in trouble, even though it has remained one of the world’s finest musical ensembles."

[tth2]

I would look at a bubble pop on a book like GL 76 if the more quantitative data on the book shows massive declines on the more traded numbers like 9.0-9.4.

It`s happening. 9.4s sell for less than half of what they were selling for at the height of the GL 76 bubble.

[tth2]

Mickey would be a tougher sell, but I feel like Mickey has been #2 to Donald/The Ducks for decades and decades now anyway. In the late 60's/70's there were multiple Ducks titles and one Mickey title.

Ducks are the exception to the rule. Donald Duck is one of the few characters I can think of where the popularity in comics has exceeded the popularity in the original media source (cartoons, in this case). Uncle Scrooge and other members of the Duck universe (Gladstone Gander, Gyro Gearloose, etc.) first appeared in comics and have been fairly minor characters in the cartoon world, even when Uncle Scrooge had his own TV cartoon series. I think a lot of that can be credited to Carl Barks` unique genius.

 

Mickey, Bugs, Porky Pig, Tarzan, Lone Ranger, etc., who all first became stars in other mediums (cartoons, movies, pulps, radio, etc.) never became bigger stars because of their comics. Their comics were always ancillary.

[tth2]

The cinematic musical, hot from 1930s-early 1960s, is virtually defunct, however.

--------------

 

It has moved to TV in a show called "Glee".

 

But yes, we see so much song and dance on TV nobody is going to pay $15 to see it in the movie theatre outside of some unusual circumstances.

Tell that to all the parents who shelled out money to take their tweens to go see High School Musical 3!

 

I think the surprise massive success of the High School Musical franchise primed the pump for Glee`s success. In turn, you could say that the foundation for this was built on the integral role that music and songs played in Disney`s movies from the 1990s (Little Mermaid, Lion King, Beauty and the Beast).

 

Either way, I think we may see that a future generation of adults is surprisingly predisposed to the return of musicals.

[tth2]

The cinematic musical, hot from 1930s-early 1960s, is virtually defunct, however.

--------------

 

It has moved to TV in a show called "Glee".

 

But yes, we see so much song and dance on TV nobody is going to pay $15 to see it in the movie theatre outside of some unusual circumstances.

Movie musicals became rare when Hollywood started to derive a substantial portion of their sales from international markets. Not only are there musical stylistic differences with many other cultures there was no easy way to dub the singers in the language of all the countries where the movies play. American sic-fi/spectacle/action movies sell the best overseas so that's why they get the biggest budgets.

I`m not sure I agree with that. I think it was more the result of the counter-culture movement spawned by the 1960s and the ensuing grittier style of movie-making (think Bonnie and Clyde, Easy Rider, Scorcese, etc.), that rejected what was viewed as the sappy, saccharine movies of their parents` generation (which they were rebelling against).

 

No doubt musicals are harder to translate into multiple languages, but I think people around the world are actually pretty used to hearing songs sung in English. The rest of the movie could be dubbed or sub-titled.

 

My own observation is that the High School Musical and Glee franchises have been very successful in Asia, as were the 90s Disney movies before that. So language is not necessarily a barrier.

[Aman619]

yeah. realism in films killed musicals because audiences finally couldnt explain why a conversation suddenly turned into a song to explain feelings that a simple dialogue would have covered.

[Bookery]

The cinematic musical, hot from 1930s-early 1960s, is virtually defunct, however.

--------------

 

It has moved to TV in a show called "Glee".

 

But yes, we see so much song and dance on TV nobody is going to pay $15 to see it in the movie theatre outside of some unusual circumstances.

 

Well... for a true genre resurgence, there would probably have to be a dozen "Glee"-type shows on TV.

 

But you make a point... Just because a bubble has "burst", doesn't mean it can't ever arise again.

 

Burroughs was hugely popular in the 30s and 40s, but the books, at least, kind of waned a bit in the 50s. Then Ace and Ballantine brought out the paperbacks in the 60s, and another generation got into them all over again.

 

More recently the combination of Merchant-Ivory films and PBS re-makes caused an upsurge in sales of Jane Austen books for awhile,

[RustyStaple]

I agree that TV plays a role in popularity of characters.

On Free Comic Book Day the younger kids were grabbing for the ones they have watched - Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers and Darkwing Duck. I even see a pick up in popularity of the Smurfs and thought that bubble burst long ago.

[MisterX]

G.I. Joe?

[Shadow]

For me it was Dazzler #1...there was so much hype about that comic and of course there is like a gazillion of them and who the hell is Dazzler?

I was also thinking about this book...I bought 10 copies when it first came out, hoping to cash in...

 

Me too. Who would have known at the time that disco was dead?

 

I only bought 2. Hey, the X-Men were in it!