Let's argue about diversity in comics and what censorship is here

[Prince Namor]

I'm for the NEW characters being introduced and I stated that Star Wars was a mover. New characters are who I'm hoping is in the books. I'm a Star Wars reader and I'm ready for the movie.

 

Incentive covers have been around for years. I remember the Superman 204 RRP being a big deal when it was produced. Now, every book has an incentive cover.

 

Not even close.

 

Your 25 books probably don't have much impact on the overall print run but you think maybe Midtown Comics, DCBS, and TFAW aren't ordering enough to get lots and lots of 1:100 copies ? Go to Midtown's site on Wednesday and then check out all of the ebay sellers who preorder. One guy posted 13, count 'em, 13 copies of the AH Spider-Gwen #1.

 

Thats why I didn't choose the month Spider-Gwen #1 came out. That was the month it sold 254,000 copies. I choose the least skewed month I could. Sales are still outstanding.

 

That required ordering 1300 regular cover #1's. Star Wars sold almost 1,000,000 copies of #1. How many people do you sell to who don't have multiple copies ? Who is still buying those 6 months later that couldn't get their hands on one the 1st month it came out. How about Spider-man #1 ? superman Unchained with it's 1;300 variants ? How many regular covers "sold" ?

 

I just sold a Star Wars #1 variant yesterday. People are still buying Star Wars. The market is healthy.

 

Despite 'change'.

 

What's your point?

 

Btw, the month Star Wars 1 came out, the top 20 books averaged well over 100,000 copies. It really 3 months really isn't that long ago.

 

That's why I didn't choose that month... I realize you would prefer to think the market isn't so good, so you're trying to sound educated and informed by nit picking as much and anywhere you can in the argument.... ask another retailer on here. The 'change' is welcome. The excitement is there.

 

You can deny it all you want.

 

You use Spider-Gwen and Silk as part of your sales increase. New characters like this will be long term winners because they are "grass roots" type characters and especially in the case of Gwen.

 

They will? Isn't Spider-Woman a 'grass roots' (as you call it) character? They've been trying 'long term' to make her 'long term' successful.

 

Is the point you're trying to make that, if you make a Lady Captain America, as opposed to making a Sam Wilson (i.e. 'black') Captain America, you'll make less fans angry and your sales numbers will still be successful and good?

 

I'll pass that along to Marvel, if I can interrupt them in the midst of counting all their extra money from being successful doing it the way they already are.

 

I stated that the only book that had changed that had improved sales was Thor so of course you bring up Star Wars. They didn't change Boba Fett into a female, they ADDED females which again is what I've suggested is a positive form of creativity.

 

They didn't ch-cha-change Thor into a girl.

 

Once agin, someone complaining about changes in a book they don't even read.

 

Quit trying to change the debate unless you want to continue pushing my side as a "win" as you just did ? Who's wrong ?

 

You may want to know what you're talking about before acting like you know what you're talking about.

 

You also used Ms. Marvel. Thank you for pointing out my side once again.

 

Here, I'll explain this one to you: Marvel decided to put an average looking (i.e. non-sexualized) female character, that was MUSLIM, and actuality included her family life and the differences in culture VS once again bringing back the over sexualized Good Girl Art az cheek showing cheesecake pin-up Ms. Marvel.

 

The new one sells just as well. That's a WIN for diversity, son.

 

You can tell good stories in comics, with non-traditional characters and have it sell just as well as the stuff geared towards the internet porn crowd.

 

Not everything is going to sell 100, 000 copies. The books you listed as 'favs' certainly don't. Doesn't mean they're not successful in their own way.

 

If you'd like to continue, I have nothing but time but please stay on your side of the debate unless I'm changing your mind.

 

Changing my mind about what?

 

I'm schooling you, kid.

 

Change is electrifying the market.

 

If you can't see it, that's not MY fault.

 

So lets revisit shall we ? You picked out Spider-man's sales 5 years ago as a point to measure against so I'll use your date. I couldn't be any more fair than using your pick of time comparisons could I ?

 

First Marvel had a very healthy 45% in April of 2010.

 

http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2010/2010-05.html

 

versus a 36% share of the market in April 2015.

 

http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2015/2015-04.html

 

You run a business. If you lost 9% of your market, would you think, "Wow, I'm the man" ? I'd be fired but lets not quibble over numbers like this. What else could have had any impact on the market ?

 

God, you're too easy.

 

I'd be fine if I lost 9% of the market share, if the market had GROWN by 120 Million dollars.

 

Let's see: 45% of 419 Million is $188 Million

and

36% of $549 Million is $194 Million which is a GAIN of $6 MILLION

 

Yeah, less market share, but overall sales increase of $6 MILLION

 

WITH

 

2015 already shaping up to beat the hell out of that total.

 

Nice try.

 

Well, how about movies and TV shows that have come out since April of 2010 ?

This is weird but by April of 2013, the Avengers or Avengers related books had 8 of the top 22 slots in sales.

In between the X-men (2000) and Spider-man (2002) movies that in April of 2001 X-men and Spider-man titles made up 6 of the top 8 sellers. It seems impossible that these things could be related.

 

Related to what? Make your point.

 

Are you saying movies and TV shows are helping bring people into stores and increase comic sales? Duh. No one ever denied that or made an opposing claim to that.

 

But it helps KEEP people there if the comics are actually GOOD.

 

I could pull up the sales tables all day and give you an example like Star Wars by Dark Horse featuring Han, Luke, Leia, and the crew sold between 40-50,000 copies per month. Fast forward 2 years and switch to Marvel and a movie coming in a few months and voila ! You now have the same book selling 200,000 to 1,000,000 copies. Well, it probably has nothing to do with variants right ? You said they increase sales by 10%. It probably doesn't have anything to do with the new movie either. It probably just happened because Jason Aaron is writing it because all of his books do these numbers right ?

 

Never said that. What point are you trying to make?

 

TV shows like The Walking Dead, Flash, Green Arrow, and others must not be what drives them to the LCS either. It couldn't have anything to do with millions of people watching these characters weekly.

 

Never said that, never alluded to that. But if the books aren't relatable to new customers, they won't stay. And thus far they're staying and enjoying the comics.

 

People have been raving about the MOVIES for years... NOW we're actually hearing people who are really enjoying the comics more. It's nice, ya know.. those of us who earn a living selling comics for more than just speculation reasons, but because people actually enjoy reading them.

 

Go ahead and paint me as someone who wants the market to fail as if I have nothing invested in it myself. My comments aren't a shot at comics. They're pointing out laziness in storytelling. I'll be here stuck in reality and unfortunately upsetting you by pointing out facts.

 

If you say so.

 

So lazy storytelling is introducing brand new characters of different lifestyles, but rehashing the same old thing for aging fanboys who don't even buy the books they criticize is... creative???

 

I see art and creativity and... the world, a bit differently than that.

 

Since you can't seem to win,

 

You haven't won a single point.

 

you keep trying to move the goal line or change the subject

 

I never changed the subject or moved the goal posts. All of my original statements stand. Now you're just making stuff up.

 

and like every single other time you lose, you resort to name calling.

 

Lose? There is no win or lose. This is all facts and opinions. You're the one that keeps getting that confused, not me. And I never called you a name.

 

I can assure you that there is nothing "boy" about me and the only man who ever called me "son" was my deceased father. I've seen you resort to this over and over. Boy, racist, son, fanboy, misogynist, and the list goes on. If that is all you have to offer, that explains your lack of understanding on a plethora of things. Let me know when you get tired of having your tail handed to you.

 

That's your final argument? "He called me a fanboy! Foul!"

[the authority]

I'm not even sure what is being debated here anymore...

 

I have to assume that the people arguing against Chuck don't like diversity in the modern comics that they don't read.

 

 

You know what they say about assuming and you'd be incorrect. We are talking about comics we did read and have since dropped. In fact, people on this board convinced me to pick up Jason Aaron's Thor and I was enjoying it then the premise of change was just blah to me. Different strokes.

 

So what is it exactly that you are arguing against?

 

I think Marvel and other companies would do better by creating new characters as opposed to rehashing old ones. I would prefer they add to their character count and not highjack and reuse old characters by modifying them. It changes their motivations and purpose. What got me into this particular debate was it seemed to me some were bullying people of a different opinion than their own. To me, that isn't acceptable anywhere. Even on message boards. I could have just as easily taken the other side of the argument.

[the authority]

I'm for the NEW characters being introduced and I stated that Star Wars was a mover. New characters are who I'm hoping is in the books. I'm a Star Wars reader and I'm ready for the movie.

 

Incentive covers have been around for years. I remember the Superman 204 RRP being a big deal when it was produced. Now, every book has an incentive cover.

 

Not even close.

 

Your 25 books probably don't have much impact on the overall print run but you think maybe Midtown Comics, DCBS, and TFAW aren't ordering enough to get lots and lots of 1:100 copies ? Go to Midtown's site on Wednesday and then check out all of the ebay sellers who preorder. One guy posted 13, count 'em, 13 copies of the AH Spider-Gwen #1.

 

Thats why I didn't choose the month Spider-Gwen #1 came out. That was the month it sold 254,000 copies. I choose the least skewed month I could. Sales are still outstanding.

 

That required ordering 1300 regular cover #1's. Star Wars sold almost 1,000,000 copies of #1. How many people do you sell to who don't have multiple copies ? Who is still buying those 6 months later that couldn't get their hands on one the 1st month it came out. How about Spider-man #1 ? superman Unchained with it's 1;300 variants ? How many regular covers "sold" ?

 

I just sold a Star Wars #1 variant yesterday. People are still buying Star Wars. The market is healthy.

 

Despite 'change'.

 

What's your point?

 

Btw, the month Star Wars 1 came out, the top 20 books averaged well over 100,000 copies. It really 3 months really isn't that long ago.

 

That's why I didn't choose that month... I realize you would prefer to think the market isn't so good, so you're trying to sound educated and informed by nit picking as much and anywhere you can in the argument.... ask another retailer on here. The 'change' is welcome. The excitement is there.

 

You can deny it all you want.

 

You use Spider-Gwen and Silk as part of your sales increase. New characters like this will be long term winners because they are "grass roots" type characters and especially in the case of Gwen.

 

They will? Isn't Spider-Woman a 'grass roots' (as you call it) character? They've been trying 'long term' to make her 'long term' successful.

 

Is the point you're trying to make that, if you make a Lady Captain America, as opposed to making a Sam Wilson (i.e. 'black') Captain America, you'll make less fans angry and your sales numbers will still be successful and good?

 

I'll pass that along to Marvel, if I can interrupt them in the midst of counting all their extra money from being successful doing it the way they already are.

 

I stated that the only book that had changed that had improved sales was Thor so of course you bring up Star Wars. They didn't change Boba Fett into a female, they ADDED females which again is what I've suggested is a positive form of creativity.

 

They didn't ch-cha-change Thor into a girl.

 

Once agin, someone complaining about changes in a book they don't even read.

 

Quit trying to change the debate unless you want to continue pushing my side as a "win" as you just did ? Who's wrong ?

 

You may want to know what you're talking about before acting like you know what you're talking about.

 

You also used Ms. Marvel. Thank you for pointing out my side once again.

 

Here, I'll explain this one to you: Marvel decided to put an average looking (i.e. non-sexualized) female character, that was MUSLIM, and actuality included her family life and the differences in culture VS once again bringing back the over sexualized Good Girl Art az cheek showing cheesecake pin-up Ms. Marvel.

 

The new one sells just as well. That's a WIN for diversity, son.

 

You can tell good stories in comics, with non-traditional characters and have it sell just as well as the stuff geared towards the internet porn crowd.

 

Not everything is going to sell 100, 000 copies. The books you listed as 'favs' certainly don't. Doesn't mean they're not successful in their own way.

 

If you'd like to continue, I have nothing but time but please stay on your side of the debate unless I'm changing your mind.

 

Changing my mind about what?

 

I'm schooling you, kid.

 

Change is electrifying the market.

 

If you can't see it, that's not MY fault.

 

So lets revisit shall we ? You picked out Spider-man's sales 5 years ago as a point to measure against so I'll use your date. I couldn't be any more fair than using your pick of time comparisons could I ?

 

First Marvel had a very healthy 45% in April of 2010.

 

http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2010/2010-05.html

 

versus a 36% share of the market in April 2015.

 

http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2015/2015-04.html

 

You run a business. If you lost 9% of your market, would you think, "Wow, I'm the man" ? I'd be fired but lets not quibble over numbers like this. What else could have had any impact on the market ?

 

God, you're too easy.

 

I'd be fine if I lost 9% of the market share, if the market had GROWN by 120 Million dollars.

 

Let's see: 45% of 419 Million is $188 Million

and

36% of $549 Million is $194 Million which is a GAIN of $6 MILLION

 

Yeah, less market share, but overall sales increase of $6 MILLION

 

WITH

 

2015 already shaping up to beat the hell out of that total.

 

Nice try.

 

Well, how about movies and TV shows that have come out since April of 2010 ?

This is weird but by April of 2013, the Avengers or Avengers related books had 8 of the top 22 slots in sales.

In between the X-men (2000) and Spider-man (2002) movies that in April of 2001 X-men and Spider-man titles made up 6 of the top 8 sellers. It seems impossible that these things could be related.

 

Related to what? Make your point.

 

Are you saying movies and TV shows are helping bring people into stores and increase comic sales? Duh. No one ever denied that or made an opposing claim to that.

 

But it helps KEEP people there if the comics are actually GOOD.

 

I could pull up the sales tables all day and give you an example like Star Wars by Dark Horse featuring Han, Luke, Leia, and the crew sold between 40-50,000 copies per month. Fast forward 2 years and switch to Marvel and a movie coming in a few months and voila ! You now have the same book selling 200,000 to 1,000,000 copies. Well, it probably has nothing to do with variants right ? You said they increase sales by 10%. It probably doesn't have anything to do with the new movie either. It probably just happened because Jason Aaron is writing it because all of his books do these numbers right ?

 

Never said that. What point are you trying to make?

 

TV shows like The Walking Dead, Flash, Green Arrow, and others must not be what drives them to the LCS either. It couldn't have anything to do with millions of people watching these characters weekly.

 

Never said that, never alluded to that. But if the books aren't relatable to new customers, they won't stay. And thus far they're staying and enjoying the comics.

 

People have been raving about the MOVIES for years... NOW we're actually hearing people who are really enjoying the comics more. It's nice, ya know.. those of us who earn a living selling comics for more than just speculation reasons, but because people actually enjoy reading them.

 

Go ahead and paint me as someone who wants the market to fail as if I have nothing invested in it myself. My comments aren't a shot at comics. They're pointing out laziness in storytelling. I'll be here stuck in reality and unfortunately upsetting you by pointing out facts.

 

If you say so.

 

So lazy storytelling is introducing brand new characters of different lifestyles, but rehashing the same old thing for aging fanboys who don't even buy the books they criticize is... creative???

 

I see art and creativity and... the world, a bit differently than that.

 

Since you can't seem to win,

 

You haven't won a single point.

 

you keep trying to move the goal line or change the subject

 

I never changed the subject or moved the goal posts. All of my original statements stand. Now you're just making stuff up.

 

and like every single other time you lose, you resort to name calling.

 

Lose? There is no win or lose. This is all facts and opinions. You're the one that keeps getting that confused, not me. And I never called you a name.

 

I can assure you that there is nothing "boy" about me and the only man who ever called me "son" was my deceased father. I've seen you resort to this over and over. Boy, racist, son, fanboy, misogynist, and the list goes on. If that is all you have to offer, that explains your lack of understanding on a plethora of things. Let me know when you get tired of having your tail handed to you.

 

That's your final argument? "He called me a fanboy! Foul!"

 

If your fine losing market share and think its okay, then you don't really understand how businesses work. People still rent movies but how is Blockbuster doing ? You also seem to fail to grasp buying power. A silver quarter would buy a gallon of milk in 1964. It still will but now the milk is $2 to $3. How does this happen ? I'm making more money, I should be able to buy more milk.

 

 

I will give you that it helps to tell a good story to keep them coming back but that isn't all it takes. I think we both agree. Overall reviews of Image comics score much higher on Image Comics than they do for Marvel but sales numbers don't reflect that quality. Good writing is a small part of the equation unfortunately.

 

You said that variant covers only raised sales 10% and now you say you didn't say it ?

 

No you didn't call me a name. I'm YOUR son, YOUR boy.

 

You never said said that shows and movies didn't drive sales but you did insinuate that Marvel's sales were up due to these changes and I say that the gross dollars are up and market share is down because of them.

 

So tell me. Would you like to see new original characters or do you prefer rehashing ? You've pointed to Kamala Khan, 2 new female Star Wars characters, Silk, and Spider-Gwen as being reasons to bring new people in. I agree. That is the point I've been debating from the beginning.

 

 

 

[Comicopolis]

I'm not even sure what is being debated here anymore...

 

I have to assume that the people arguing against Chuck don't like diversity in the modern comics that they don't read.

 

 

You know what they say about assuming and you'd be incorrect. We are talking about comics we did read and have since dropped. In fact, people on this board convinced me to pick up Jason Aaron's Thor and I was enjoying it then the premise of change was just blah to me. Different strokes.

 

So what is it exactly that you are arguing against?

 

I think Marvel and other companies would do better by creating new characters as opposed to rehashing old ones. I would prefer they add to their character count and not highjack and reuse old characters by modifying them. It changes their motivations and purpose. What got me into this particular debate was it seemed to me some were bullying people of a different opinion than their own. To me, that isn't acceptable anywhere. Even on message boards. I could have just as easily taken the other side of the argument.

 

Which characters have been rehashed?

 

Old characters have to stay the same?

[the authority]

I'm not even sure what is being debated here anymore...

 

I have to assume that the people arguing against Chuck don't like diversity in the modern comics that they don't read.

 

 

You know what they say about assuming and you'd be incorrect. We are talking about comics we did read and have since dropped. In fact, people on this board convinced me to pick up Jason Aaron's Thor and I was enjoying it then the premise of change was just blah to me. Different strokes.

 

So what is it exactly that you are arguing against?

 

I think Marvel and other companies would do better by creating new characters as opposed to rehashing old ones. I would prefer they add to their character count and not highjack and reuse old characters by modifying them. It changes their motivations and purpose. What got me into this particular debate was it seemed to me some were bullying people of a different opinion than their own. To me, that isn't acceptable anywhere. Even on message boards. I could have just as easily taken the other side of the argument.

 

Which characters have been rehashed?

 

Old characters have to stay the same?

 

The lead in the title is a female. Thor is Odin's son. So, why call the book Thor if it isn't Thor ? Captain America isn't Steve Rogers. Its Sam Wilson or Bucky Barnes or whoever. Azrael was Batman but now its Jim Gordon's turn. I could literally go on for paragraphs about characters being played or mimicked by different characters that aren't them. Here is a novel idea. Instead of making gay a focal point of Alan Scott, how about creating a naturally gay character like oh, Midnighter and Apollo ? That is what Ellis did and it sure didn't seem like a square peg in a round hole. How about Nick Fury ? Same look ? No ? Same attitude ? Not close. How difficult would it have been to come up with a new name ? Maybe people view this as being a form of growth. I view it as forced and agenda driven like instead of a title saying Goliath or Lightning which would have been cool names, they chose call them Black Lightning and Black Goliath. history tends to repeat itself. The good news is that for all of the books that I perceive as fails, they have produced some characters worth reading without pandering.

 

Old characters should evolve but to completely change who they are is ridiculous. One month black, one month white, one month Chinese, one month Norwegian. That isn't growing a character is it ?

 

What do you think ? Do you think that Marvel can't sell these books and characters under their own titles ? If that turns out to be the case and its strictly a business decision, why make these stories at all ? Disney doesn't make 50 different types of Snow White or change her at her core. Instead of making Mickey Mouse a lion, they made Simba, the Lion King. What a novel idea.

 

 

[Comicopolis]

I'm not even sure what is being debated here anymore...

 

I have to assume that the people arguing against Chuck don't like diversity in the modern comics that they don't read.

 

 

You know what they say about assuming and you'd be incorrect. We are talking about comics we did read and have since dropped. In fact, people on this board convinced me to pick up Jason Aaron's Thor and I was enjoying it then the premise of change was just blah to me. Different strokes.

 

So what is it exactly that you are arguing against?

 

I think Marvel and other companies would do better by creating new characters as opposed to rehashing old ones. I would prefer they add to their character count and not highjack and reuse old characters by modifying them. It changes their motivations and purpose. What got me into this particular debate was it seemed to me some were bullying people of a different opinion than their own. To me, that isn't acceptable anywhere. Even on message boards. I could have just as easily taken the other side of the argument.

 

Which characters have been rehashed?

 

Old characters have to stay the same?

 

The lead in the title is a female. Thor is Odin's son. So, why call the book Thor if it isn't Thor ? Captain America isn't Steve Rogers. Its Sam Wilson or Bucky Barnes or whoever. Azrael was Batman but now its Jim Gordon's turn. I could literally go on for paragraphs about characters being played or mimicked by different characters that aren't them. Here is a novel idea. Instead of making gay a focal point of Alan Scott, how about creating a naturally gay character like oh, Midnighter and Apollo ? That is what Ellis did and it sure didn't seem like a square peg in a round hole. How about Nick Fury ? Same look ? No ? Same attitude ? Not close. How difficult would it have been to come up with a new name ? Maybe people view this as being a form of growth. I view it as forced and agenda driven like instead of a title saying Goliath or Lightning which would have been cool names, they chose call them Black Lightning and Black Goliath. history tends to repeat itself. The good news is that for all of the books that I perceive as fails, they have produced some characters worth reading without pandering.

 

Old characters should evolve but to completely change who they are is ridiculous. One month black, one month white, one month Chinese, one month Norwegian. That isn't growing a character is it ?

 

What do you think ? Do you think that Marvel can't sell these books and characters under their own titles ? If that turns out to be the case and its strictly a business decision, why make these stories at all ? Disney doesn't make 50 different types of Snow White or change her at her core. Instead of making Mickey Mouse a lion, they made Simba, the Lion King. What a novel idea.

 

 

The emboldened bit above - where did this happen?

 

Thor not being Thor - yes, that has't happened before.

 

Steve Rogers not being Captain America - yes, that has't happened before.

 

Someone who wasn't gay suddenly is - yes, that never happens in the real world.

 

Seriously, I like you and find your posts interesting - I just don't understand all of the angst.

[the authority]

I'm not even sure what is being debated here anymore...

 

I have to assume that the people arguing against Chuck don't like diversity in the modern comics that they don't read.

 

 

You know what they say about assuming and you'd be incorrect. We are talking about comics we did read and have since dropped. In fact, people on this board convinced me to pick up Jason Aaron's Thor and I was enjoying it then the premise of change was just blah to me. Different strokes.

 

So what is it exactly that you are arguing against?

 

I think Marvel and other companies would do better by creating new characters as opposed to rehashing old ones. I would prefer they add to their character count and not highjack and reuse old characters by modifying them. It changes their motivations and purpose. What got me into this particular debate was it seemed to me some were bullying people of a different opinion than their own. To me, that isn't acceptable anywhere. Even on message boards. I could have just as easily taken the other side of the argument.

 

Which characters have been rehashed?

 

Old characters have to stay the same?

 

The lead in the title is a female. Thor is Odin's son. So, why call the book Thor if it isn't Thor ? Captain America isn't Steve Rogers. Its Sam Wilson or Bucky Barnes or whoever. Azrael was Batman but now its Jim Gordon's turn. I could literally go on for paragraphs about characters being played or mimicked by different characters that aren't them. Here is a novel idea. Instead of making gay a focal point of Alan Scott, how about creating a naturally gay character like oh, Midnighter and Apollo ? That is what Ellis did and it sure didn't seem like a square peg in a round hole. How about Nick Fury ? Same look ? No ? Same attitude ? Not close. How difficult would it have been to come up with a new name ? Maybe people view this as being a form of growth. I view it as forced and agenda driven like instead of a title saying Goliath or Lightning which would have been cool names, they chose call them Black Lightning and Black Goliath. history tends to repeat itself. The good news is that for all of the books that I perceive as fails, they have produced some characters worth reading without pandering.

 

Old characters should evolve but to completely change who they are is ridiculous. One month black, one month white, one month Chinese, one month Norwegian. That isn't growing a character is it ?

 

What do you think ? Do you think that Marvel can't sell these books and characters under their own titles ? If that turns out to be the case and its strictly a business decision, why make these stories at all ? Disney doesn't make 50 different types of Snow White or change her at her core. Instead of making Mickey Mouse a lion, they made Simba, the Lion King. What a novel idea.

 

 

The emboldened bit above - where did this happen?

 

Thor not being Thor - yes, that has't happened before.

 

Steve Rogers not being Captain America - yes, that has't happened before.

 

Someone who wasn't gay suddenly is - yes, that never happens in the real world.

 

Seriously, I like you and find your posts interesting - I just don't understand all of the angst.

 

 

I like you too. Maybe my words are coming out in print different than in my head.

I really don't feel angst ridden over any of this stuff. I hint I just got wrapped up in debating points and kept rolling with it. I do prefer slow and steady over short term shots that don't stand the test of time. I know people liked Beta Ray Bill but I like Thor. Same with Cap and Supes and really all of them. these stories feel like filler to me. I'm also a continuity guy and I can barely keep up with the changes. It feels more right to me that if a character or book is going to go completely off course that it happen in an Elseworld's or What If type story like Kingdom Come or The Dark Knight Returns.

 

Anyway, I'm out of this debate. It doesn't seem very productive and may be giving an appearance of something more than I mean for it to be. I would like to see your Marvel updates from time to time. I pick up a lot of your winner picks in trades and avoid a lot of the books that you don't seem to care for.

[Comicopolis]

Sadly I had to give up reading modern comics.

 

Without a doubt Image publish the best modern books.

[natevegas]

Sadly I had to give up reading modern comics.

 

Without a doubt Image publish the best modern books.

+1

[Mr 9.8]

Sadly I had to give up reading modern comics.

 

Without a doubt Image publish the best modern books.

+1

+2

[the authority]

Sadly I had to give up reading modern comics.

 

Without a doubt Image publish the best modern books.

 

That is a bummer. I hate to hear it. On the other hand, my brother hasn't purchased a new comic in years though he does steal some of mine from time to time. Still, he never seems to run out of stuff to read.

[Prince Namor]

I'm for the NEW characters being introduced and I stated that Star Wars was a mover. New characters are who I'm hoping is in the books. I'm a Star Wars reader and I'm ready for the movie.

 

Incentive covers have been around for years. I remember the Superman 204 RRP being a big deal when it was produced. Now, every book has an incentive cover.

 

Not even close.

 

Your 25 books probably don't have much impact on the overall print run but you think maybe Midtown Comics, DCBS, and TFAW aren't ordering enough to get lots and lots of 1:100 copies ? Go to Midtown's site on Wednesday and then check out all of the ebay sellers who preorder. One guy posted 13, count 'em, 13 copies of the AH Spider-Gwen #1.

 

Thats why I didn't choose the month Spider-Gwen #1 came out. That was the month it sold 254,000 copies. I choose the least skewed month I could. Sales are still outstanding.

 

That required ordering 1300 regular cover #1's. Star Wars sold almost 1,000,000 copies of #1. How many people do you sell to who don't have multiple copies ? Who is still buying those 6 months later that couldn't get their hands on one the 1st month it came out. How about Spider-man #1 ? superman Unchained with it's 1;300 variants ? How many regular covers "sold" ?

 

I just sold a Star Wars #1 variant yesterday. People are still buying Star Wars. The market is healthy.

 

Despite 'change'.

 

What's your point?

 

Btw, the month Star Wars 1 came out, the top 20 books averaged well over 100,000 copies. It really 3 months really isn't that long ago.

 

That's why I didn't choose that month... I realize you would prefer to think the market isn't so good, so you're trying to sound educated and informed by nit picking as much and anywhere you can in the argument.... ask another retailer on here. The 'change' is welcome. The excitement is there.

 

You can deny it all you want.

 

You use Spider-Gwen and Silk as part of your sales increase. New characters like this will be long term winners because they are "grass roots" type characters and especially in the case of Gwen.

 

They will? Isn't Spider-Woman a 'grass roots' (as you call it) character? They've been trying 'long term' to make her 'long term' successful.

 

Is the point you're trying to make that, if you make a Lady Captain America, as opposed to making a Sam Wilson (i.e. 'black') Captain America, you'll make less fans angry and your sales numbers will still be successful and good?

 

I'll pass that along to Marvel, if I can interrupt them in the midst of counting all their extra money from being successful doing it the way they already are.

 

I stated that the only book that had changed that had improved sales was Thor so of course you bring up Star Wars. They didn't change Boba Fett into a female, they ADDED females which again is what I've suggested is a positive form of creativity.

 

They didn't ch-cha-change Thor into a girl.

 

Once agin, someone complaining about changes in a book they don't even read.

 

Quit trying to change the debate unless you want to continue pushing my side as a "win" as you just did ? Who's wrong ?

 

You may want to know what you're talking about before acting like you know what you're talking about.

 

You also used Ms. Marvel. Thank you for pointing out my side once again.

 

Here, I'll explain this one to you: Marvel decided to put an average looking (i.e. non-sexualized) female character, that was MUSLIM, and actuality included her family life and the differences in culture VS once again bringing back the over sexualized Good Girl Art az cheek showing cheesecake pin-up Ms. Marvel.

 

The new one sells just as well. That's a WIN for diversity, son.

 

You can tell good stories in comics, with non-traditional characters and have it sell just as well as the stuff geared towards the internet porn crowd.

 

Not everything is going to sell 100, 000 copies. The books you listed as 'favs' certainly don't. Doesn't mean they're not successful in their own way.

 

If you'd like to continue, I have nothing but time but please stay on your side of the debate unless I'm changing your mind.

 

Changing my mind about what?

 

I'm schooling you, kid.

 

Change is electrifying the market.

 

If you can't see it, that's not MY fault.

 

So lets revisit shall we ? You picked out Spider-man's sales 5 years ago as a point to measure against so I'll use your date. I couldn't be any more fair than using your pick of time comparisons could I ?

 

First Marvel had a very healthy 45% in April of 2010.

 

http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2010/2010-05.html

 

versus a 36% share of the market in April 2015.

 

http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2015/2015-04.html

 

You run a business. If you lost 9% of your market, would you think, "Wow, I'm the man" ? I'd be fired but lets not quibble over numbers like this. What else could have had any impact on the market ?

 

God, you're too easy.

 

I'd be fine if I lost 9% of the market share, if the market had GROWN by 120 Million dollars.

 

Let's see: 45% of 419 Million is $188 Million

and

36% of $549 Million is $194 Million which is a GAIN of $6 MILLION

 

Yeah, less market share, but overall sales increase of $6 MILLION

 

WITH

 

2015 already shaping up to beat the hell out of that total.

 

Nice try.

 

Well, how about movies and TV shows that have come out since April of 2010 ?

This is weird but by April of 2013, the Avengers or Avengers related books had 8 of the top 22 slots in sales.

In between the X-men (2000) and Spider-man (2002) movies that in April of 2001 X-men and Spider-man titles made up 6 of the top 8 sellers. It seems impossible that these things could be related.

 

Related to what? Make your point.

 

Are you saying movies and TV shows are helping bring people into stores and increase comic sales? Duh. No one ever denied that or made an opposing claim to that.

 

But it helps KEEP people there if the comics are actually GOOD.

 

I could pull up the sales tables all day and give you an example like Star Wars by Dark Horse featuring Han, Luke, Leia, and the crew sold between 40-50,000 copies per month. Fast forward 2 years and switch to Marvel and a movie coming in a few months and voila ! You now have the same book selling 200,000 to 1,000,000 copies. Well, it probably has nothing to do with variants right ? You said they increase sales by 10%. It probably doesn't have anything to do with the new movie either. It probably just happened because Jason Aaron is writing it because all of his books do these numbers right ?

 

Never said that. What point are you trying to make?

 

TV shows like The Walking Dead, Flash, Green Arrow, and others must not be what drives them to the LCS either. It couldn't have anything to do with millions of people watching these characters weekly.

 

Never said that, never alluded to that. But if the books aren't relatable to new customers, they won't stay. And thus far they're staying and enjoying the comics.

 

People have been raving about the MOVIES for years... NOW we're actually hearing people who are really enjoying the comics more. It's nice, ya know.. those of us who earn a living selling comics for more than just speculation reasons, but because people actually enjoy reading them.

 

Go ahead and paint me as someone who wants the market to fail as if I have nothing invested in it myself. My comments aren't a shot at comics. They're pointing out laziness in storytelling. I'll be here stuck in reality and unfortunately upsetting you by pointing out facts.

 

If you say so.

 

So lazy storytelling is introducing brand new characters of different lifestyles, but rehashing the same old thing for aging fanboys who don't even buy the books they criticize is... creative???

 

I see art and creativity and... the world, a bit differently than that.

 

Since you can't seem to win,

 

You haven't won a single point.

 

you keep trying to move the goal line or change the subject

 

I never changed the subject or moved the goal posts. All of my original statements stand. Now you're just making stuff up.

 

and like every single other time you lose, you resort to name calling.

 

Lose? There is no win or lose. This is all facts and opinions. You're the one that keeps getting that confused, not me. And I never called you a name.

 

I can assure you that there is nothing "boy" about me and the only man who ever called me "son" was my deceased father. I've seen you resort to this over and over. Boy, racist, son, fanboy, misogynist, and the list goes on. If that is all you have to offer, that explains your lack of understanding on a plethora of things. Let me know when you get tired of having your tail handed to you.

 

That's your final argument? "He called me a fanboy! Foul!"

 

If your fine losing market share and think its okay, then you don't really understand how businesses work. People still rent movies but how is Blockbuster doing ?

 

Terrible, but that's because the physical rental market is SHRINKING.

 

I understand very much how business works, and it's much simpler than people make it out to be:

 

Which is better:

Having 45% of a $419 Million market and making $188 Million

or

Having 36% of a $549 Million market and making $194 Million?

 

In the second scenario, you end up with $6 MILLION more in revenue.

 

Blockbuster is actually a good example for ME, as they probably owned at one time a majority of market - as the market decreased, they owned a LARGER chunk of it. Didn't help.

 

Doesn't matter how much of the market you own, if the market no longer exists.

 

Marvel is making more money now than 5 years ago, and this year they may or may not go up in market share, but their revenue dollars will be up up UP.

 

The first chairperson to complain about market share will get a big fat bonus check shoved down his throat.

 

You also seem to fail to grasp buying power. A silver quarter would buy a gallon of milk in 1964. It still will but now the milk is $2 to $3. How does this happen ? I'm making more money, I should be able to buy more milk.

 

Oh no, I grasp it completely. $6 million LESS dollars in 2010 is $6 MILLION dollars LESS than it would be in 2014. It wasn't 1964, it was 2010. The difference is in 2010 it was ZERO additional revenue, and in 2014 it was $6 MILLION in additional revenue. That means it's worth $6 MILLION dollars today.

 

I will give you that it helps to tell a good story to keep them coming back but that isn't all it takes. I think we both agree. Overall reviews of Image comics score much higher on Image Comics than they do for Marvel but sales numbers don't reflect that quality. Good writing is a small part of the equation unfortunately.

 

It's all about trying. Image tries. People have responded.

 

Marvel put a top writer in Jason Aaron on Star Wars with an exceptional artist in John Cassaday - they didn't have to, but they did.. they're trying... people are responding.

 

Believe me, as a retailer, Marvel didn't just put movies out and people started storming the doors for comics. THAT scenario is completely over rated. My Avengers sales after the Age of Ultron movie is not even noticeable. But I HAVE been able to SHOW people the interior to the new Star Wars comic and win them over with how good it looks and explaining the talent of Jason Aaron as a writer.

 

Having quality material to sell in the stores has been a benefit. A HUGE benefit.

 

You said that variant covers only raised sales 10% and now you say you didn't say it ?

 

I never went back on that. I just said it doesn't make the impact on overall sales of general books that you made it out to be. Anyone with any knowledge of the market in retail will tell you the same.

 

No you didn't call me a name. I'm YOUR son, YOUR boy.

 

I'm 51 years old, most everyone is a kid to me. Don't be so thin skinned. Call me 'gramps' if it'll make you feel better.

 

You never said said that shows and movies didn't drive sales but you did insinuate that Marvel's sales were up due to these changes and I say that the gross dollars are up and market share is down because of them.

 

Their market share is down from 2010 because the market is expanding. Image is creating DIVERSE comics and getting bigger. Boom Studios is creating DIVERSE comics and getting bigger. Other publishers are trying to expand and grow. There are NEW publishers joining in. It's created a bigger pie and SOME of it Marvel CAN'T get. Transformers, TMNT, Vampirella, Conan - these are books you HAVE to go through other publishers to get.

 

Despite this, Marvel is averaging so far THIS year (2015) about 38.5% (though slightly higher, I'm simply averaging monthly totals - the increase in sales means the percentage will actually be higher) in DOLLAR share and $40.77 UNIT share (because their books are priced higher).

 

So if this trend continues, Marvel will have a year where they increased market share from 2014 (34% Dollar and 36% Unit) almost 5%! While increasing sales dramatically.

 

Despite fanboy crying.

 

(Not directed at YOU, but in general)

 

They will see that as the moves they are making, the DIRECTION they're going, seems to be working.

 

Yes, Marvel Studios helps, yes Star Wars helps, and in it's own small way so does Ms. Marvel, because the perception amongst READERS is that there are as many of them out there hungry for something NEW as there were for 'Manara Spiderwoman spread booty cover' material.

 

And in order to GET good writers who can do GREAT work, Marvel needs to sell a wider variety of material than 'Manara Spiderwoman spread booty cover' material.

 

They have show they're willing to grow and change and be diverse.

 

Or else the Brubaker's and Phillips will just go to Image and publish their own material that's more diverse, leaving Marvel with whoever is left.

 

So tell me. Would you like to see new original characters or do you prefer rehashing ? You've pointed to Kamala Khan, 2 new female Star Wars characters, Silk, and Spider-Gwen as being reasons to bring new people in. I agree. That is the point I've been debating from the beginning.

 

I don't read a lot of superhero stuff anymore, but when I do and it's new, I prefer to see something that surprises me and intrigues me.

 

One of the reasons I enjoy Brubaker and Phillips work so much is that it always intrigues me, and it always surprises me.

 

I don't want to be pacified with the same old stuff.

 

I thought Snyder's Batman, what I've read of it, is entertaining and interesting. Jason Aaron's Thor is fantastic. I've never been a Thor fan, but he's made me one. Scott's Spider-man isn't for me, but I'm not sure, barring a radical change in direction for the character, that there's anyone who could write my once favorite character today. I read Inferno and liked it (the Secret Wars reboot) so far. Secret Wars #1 was enjoyable.

There's a sense of fun at Marvel.

 

I just don't understand the negativity I hear.

[Prince Namor]

Sadly I had to give up reading modern comics.

 

Without a doubt Image publish the best modern books.

+1

+2

 

No doubt.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

 

No you didn't call me a name. I'm YOUR son, YOUR boy.

 

I'm 51 years old, most everyone is a kid to me. Don't be so thin skinned. Call me 'gramps' if it'll make you feel better.

 

 

I don't have a dog in this part of the fight, but I do think running around calling people "Son" and "Boy" on the internet comes across a bit arrogant. Someone recently kept calling someone "Old Sport" and everyone attacked them for it. It is a similar thing. The nicknames come across very condescending.

 

You have to remember, tone is lost on the internet.

 

 

I don't read a lot of superhero stuff anymore, but when I do and it's new, I prefer to see something that surprises me and intrigues me.

 

One of the reasons I enjoy Brubaker and Phillips work so much is that it always intrigues me, and it always surprises me.

 

I don't want to be pacified with the same old stuff.

 

I thought Snyder's Batman, what I've read of it, is entertaining and interesting. Jason Aaron's Thor is fantastic. I've never been a Thor fan, but he's made me one. Scott's Spider-man isn't for me, but I'm not sure, barring a radical change in direction for the character, that there's anyone who could write my once favorite character today. I read Inferno and liked it (the Secret Wars reboot) so far. Secret Wars #1 was enjoyable.

There's a sense of fun at Marvel.

 

I just don't understand the negativity I hear.

 

Now this is where we agree. People always say "Everything Marvel puts out is " and that just isn't true. Sure some titles are garbage, but a lot of what you mention above is very good.

 

I've also really enjoyed Waid's Daredevil. The Hawkeye book has been very good. I've found that Silk is surprisingly good, which I never expected. Bends stinks at writing team books, but Ultimate Spider-Man has maintained its quality.

 

It is the same with DC books. Batman has been really solid and so have a few other titles.

 

The market has always changed to meet their audience. Look at what Stan did in the 60s. He tweaked things to make it appeal to his market and suddenly all types of people were reading books.

[Comicopolis]

Chuck is the same age as me.

[the authority]

..and 2 years older than me.

[the authority]

Hey Gramps...no I don't feel any better but it was worth a try

 

You really make a lot of good points and I've mostly had fun discussing this stuff with you.

 

 

[Comicopolis]

Hey Gramps...no I don't feel any better but it was worth a try

 

You really make a lot of good points and I've mostly had fun discussing this stuff with you.

 

 

I'll buy you both a drink.

[Prince Namor]

Hey Gramps...no I don't feel any better but it was worth a try

 

You really make a lot of good points and I've mostly had fun discussing this stuff with you.

 

 

And

 

We put on a pretty good show!

[Awax]