Marvel's Falling Sales 6 6

[Prince Namor]

2 hours ago, romanheart said:

titling-at-windmillls-259-what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-marvel-comics-anyway

Here's someone's take on their downfall.

Good article. Nailed it.

[Prince Namor]

17 minutes ago, Ken Aldred said:

As far as the current type of Captain America plotline is concerned, Chuck, eventually it'll be double and triple secret agents, and then eventually even more convoluted, until at some point in the future this type of plotting will get as ridiculous and intolerable as it did in the Alias TV series. There's already a bad case of diminishing returns, though.

Sure. The idea of doing a 'Marvel Saga' comic book now would be a nightmare, as the continuity now is like a box of puzzle pieces...

[Logan510]

25 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Simple economics.

If a retailer buys 100 copies of ASM every month, that’s $3.99 cover priced and his discount is 58%, he makes $231.42 off those comics. (If he sells them all)

At $1.00 (58% discount)….he would have to sell FOUR TIMES as many copies to make the same amount of money.

Meaning EVERYONE who sells Amazing Spider-man, would have to sell 4 times as many copies of that, as well as EVERY Marvel Comic they sell…

It just wouldn’t work.

 

We like to believe there’s a huge number of people out there who don’t buy comics anymore because of the price…

But I can think of a whole bunch of other reasons…. my own personal one’s, as I can afford to buy whatever it is I want to read.

 

The stories are the same derivative stuff I’ve seen for the 45 years I’ve been reading comics. Somebody else is Iron Man, really? Been done. Norman Osborn is back? Yawn. Captain America has been brainwashed into teaming up with the bad guys? Seen it. Crossover? Every year. New #1? Again?

Why would I want to read the same damn thing over and over again for 45 years?

 

And those stories are, in the first place, aimed at a younger mind set. I thought regular comics (even superhero comics) were mostly for kids, even when I was 14.

I got spoiled by Tales of the Zombie, Savage Tales, Savage Sword of Conan, Heavy Metal, Creepy, Eerie… Mainstream superhero comics just read like kid stuff to me. 

Guys like Ed Brubaker and Scott Snyder know how to spice things up and make it read like quality entertainment… but broken down… mainstream superhero comics are editorially protected from any real sense of danger or suspense.

 

That’s why I can’t help but chuckle (and I know someone will get mad at me for saying it but), when Captain America turns out to be a Hydra Agent for some storyline.

Not only will it ‘be ok’, because, Jiminy Freakin’ Christmas it’s just a comic, BUT, it’ll be okay because a year or two from now it may not even have happened in the ‘Marvel Universe Proper’ or it wasn’t even Cap or whatever they do to retro it or fix.

 

It’s a gimmick. A Card Trick. A slight of hand.

 

And I’ve SEEN it in one form or another so many times, it just doesn’t entertain me.

 

You may as well be still sitting there dumbfounded at 33 or 44 or 50 years of age watching your Uncle do that hand trick that makes his thumb look like it’s broken off - to me it looks like the same thing.

Why at 50 years of age would you still be entertained and fooled by THAT?

 

I’m not saying you all are wrong. Some people just like it because… they like it. It's cool. I just don’t personally get it. I need MORE than what any superhero comic can provide me.

I LOVE comics. I just need more than what ‘superhero’ comics can provide me. And no amount of discounting of the price has anything to do with it.

 

They were really never intended for the 50 year old Chuck in the first place. Of course with them desperately trying to cling to any existing reader / collector they have and no influx of "younger" readers coming in every few years.....

[ComicConnoisseur]

19 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

I don't understand what that means.

Shooter didn't pander to the press or group thinks. He was an Alpha-Dog. He did it his way.His vision. Marvel seems to have no clear direction. Just throw something at the wall and see if it sticks.

 

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

42 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Quote

Keven Feinge has a long-term plan,while Alonso is all about the flavor of the month.

 

I have no idea what that means.

Keven Feinge has a well-thought out long-term plan as Marvel Phase 3 was announced in 2013 compared to Alonso who if we look at sales and the upcoming go back to basics Legacy has no long-term plan. 

The perfect examples of this is Keven Feinge's Marvel Cinematic Universe is a well-structured and in order universe,while Alonso's Marvel Comics Universe  is a chaotic mess.

Kevin Feinge = Marvel Cinematic Universe has a strong identity.

Alex Alonso = Marvel Comics Universe has a confused identity and doesn't know what it wants to be.

 

Edited April 26, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[kav]

56 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Simple economics.

If a retailer buys 100 copies of ASM every month, that’s $3.99 cover priced and his discount is 58%, he makes $231.42 off those comics. (If he sells them all)

At $1.00 (58% discount)….he would have to sell FOUR TIMES as many copies to make the same amount of money.

Meaning EVERYONE who sells Amazing Spider-man, would have to sell 4 times as many copies of that, as well as EVERY Marvel Comic they sell…

It just wouldn’t work.

 

We like to believe there’s a huge number of people out there who don’t buy comics anymore because of the price…

But I can think of a whole bunch of other reasons…. my own personal one’s, as I can afford to buy whatever it is I want to read.

 

The stories are the same derivative stuff I’ve seen for the 45 years I’ve been reading comics. Somebody else is Iron Man, really? Been done. Norman Osborn is back? Yawn. Captain America has been brainwashed into teaming up with the bad guys? Seen it. Crossover? Every year. New #1? Again?

Why would I want to read the same damn thing over and over again for 45 years?

 

And those stories are, in the first place, aimed at a younger mind set. I thought regular comics (even superhero comics) were mostly for kids, even when I was 14.

I got spoiled by Tales of the Zombie, Savage Tales, Savage Sword of Conan, Heavy Metal, Creepy, Eerie… Mainstream superhero comics just read like kid stuff to me. 

Guys like Ed Brubaker and Scott Snyder know how to spice things up and make it read like quality entertainment… but broken down… mainstream superhero comics are editorially protected from any real sense of danger or suspense.

 

That’s why I can’t help but chuckle (and I know someone will get mad at me for saying it but), when Captain America turns out to be a Hydra Agent for some storyline.

Not only will it ‘be ok’, because, Jiminy Freakin’ Christmas it’s just a comic, BUT, it’ll be okay because a year or two from now it may not even have happened in the ‘Marvel Universe Proper’ or it wasn’t even Cap or whatever they do to retro it or fix.

 

It’s a gimmick. A Card Trick. A slight of hand.

 

And I’ve SEEN it in one form or another so many times, it just doesn’t entertain me.

 

You may as well be still sitting there dumbfounded at 33 or 44 or 50 years of age watching your Uncle do that hand trick that makes his thumb look like it’s broken off - to me it looks like the same thing.

Why at 50 years of age would you still be entertained and fooled by THAT?

 

I’m not saying you all are wrong. Some people just like it because… they like it. It's cool. I just don’t personally get it. I need MORE than what any superhero comic can provide me.

I LOVE comics. I just need more than what ‘superhero’ comics can provide me. And no amount of discounting of the price has anything to do with it.

 

I have no idea what that all means.

[Prince Namor]

2 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Shooter didn't pander to the press or group thinks. He was an Alpha-Dog. He did it his way.His vision. Marvel seems to have no clear direction. Just throw something at the wall and see if it sticks.

 

 

How does Marvel pander to the press or 'group thinks', whatever that is?

And I think you're somewhat confused about Shooter. He took the #1 publisher of comics in America (already), and put the creators on a deadline, so that Marvel was able to publish MORE comics, for more money, over a shorter period of time. Which is good. Until he disrespected many legendary creators who he callously shoved out the door including Roy Thomas, Gene Colan, John Byrne, Frank Miller, Len Wien, Gerry Conway, Jim Starlin and more. He helped create many of the money hungry gimmicks that everyone here is crying about now (yearly crossover events, added titles of the same characters full of watered down additional stories, price increases), and eventually got shown the door himself as his idea to create a whole new comics universe failed in spectacular fashion (funny how without established Marvel characters and great creators, it didn't work)

He then went to Valiant where he helped play a part in the speculative boom by using Wizard to hype his new line of comics (isn't payola a form of pandering to the press?) and used gimmicks (mail away cards, foil covers, crossovers), and a hand full of established creators to oversaturate a market that couldn't sustain and live up to that hype and it basically fell apart.

He then created Defiant and tried using all the same gimmicks, without ANY established characters (Valiant had Magnus and Solar to launch their line), and less of a line up of creators (still wet under the ears Latpham and Steve Ditko) and it failed miserably.

Oh, and he played THE key role in destroying the newsstand distribution system, which has robbed the industry of decades of new young readers, all so Marvel could 'maximize' their profits.

Roy Thomas, one of the nicest guys in the business, STILL has a hard time saying anything good about the guy.

[Logan510]

3 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

How does Marvel pander to the press or 'group thinks', whatever that is?

And I think you're somewhat confused about Shooter. He took the #1 publisher of comics in America (already), and put the creators on a deadline, so that Marvel was able to publish MORE comics, for more money, over a shorter period of time. Which is good. Until he disrespected many legendary creators who he callously shoved out the door including Roy Thomas, Gene Colan, John Byrne, Frank Miller, Len Wien, Gerry Conway, Jim Starlin and more. He helped create many of the money hungry gimmicks that everyone here is crying about now (yearly crossover events, added titles of the same characters full of watered down additional stories, price increases), and eventually got shown the door himself as his idea to create a whole new comics universe failed in spectacular fashion (funny how without established Marvel characters and great creators, it didn't work)

He then went to Valiant where he helped play a part in the speculative boom by using Wizard to hype his new line of comics (isn't payola a form of pandering to the press?) and used gimmicks (mail away cards, foil covers, crossovers), and a hand full of established creators to oversaturate a market that couldn't sustain and live up to that hype and it basically fell apart.

He then created Defiant and tried using all the same gimmicks, without ANY established characters (Valiant had Magnus and Solar to launch their line), and less of a line up of creators (still wet under the ears Latpham and Steve Ditko) and it failed miserably.

Oh, and he played THE key role in destroying the newsstand distribution system, which has robbed the industry of decades of new young readers, all so Marvel could 'maximize' their profits.

Roy Thomas, one of the nicest guys in the business, STILL has a hard time saying anything good about the guy.

Your information is not entirely accurate here 

[Prince Namor]

2 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Keven Feinge has a well-thought out long-term plan as Marvel Phase 3 was announced in 2013 compared to Alonso who if we look at sales and the upcoming go back to basics Legacy has no long-term plan. 

There's a plan, regardless of if it's successful or not. Comparing the planning for a movie franchise with a monthly publishing schedule is apples to oranges.

2 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

The perfect examples of this is Keven Feinge's Marvel Cinematic Universe is a well-structured and in order universe,while Alonso's Marvel Comics Universe  is a chaotic mess.

Kevin Feinge = Marvel Cinematic Universe has a strong identity.

Alex Alonso = Marvel Comics Universe has a confused identity and doesn't know what it wants to be.

 

What happened to the Inhumans movie? Didn't go as planned - it'll be a TV show.

How'd the Hulk movies do? Not so good.

What about the failure of Avengers Age of Ultron to do as well as the original? Or Iron Man 2? Or Thor: Dark World?

The best laid plans, sometimes don't always go as you want. 

[Prince Namor]

8 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

Your information is not entirely accurate here 

Which part?

[Readcomix]

8 hours ago, Chadwick said:

+1

I haven't read this whole thread, but why doesn't marvel just go back to printing on newsprint and drop the price point to $1? They are just going to end up in a trade anyway, if you enjoy heavy glossy pages get them there. I know I would buy into way more runs if they were a dollar an issue. Let LCS's and conventions do variants.

I recently picked up a dozen or so of the $1 true believers to give to a friend's 12 year old and they blew his mind, she said he couldn't wait to bring them to school to show off. I gave the same kid a few issues of superior spider-man last year - he thumbed through them and went back to halo, but give him Xmen #1, GSXM 1, wolverine 1, hulk 181, etc and he went nuts. So, now that I got him hooked, what am I supposed to tell him? Go spend $4.99 on an issue of the new wolverine run? Nope, get a trade that has a full story.

Marvel needs to bring back a single unified voice to the brand, give me a soapbox to read, give me back a bullpen, house ads, give me back the feeling of being in a club and grow excitement for new artists and writers in the books and not on variant covers or online. Bring back legacy numbering, and when they hire Starlin and Perez to do 12 issues of Spider-gwen, just put the run number on the cover next to the series number, then stick those issues in a trade.

I would be way more interested in a marvel with 10 solid running series and not the mess I see when I look at the racks now. 

 

What a thought...cheap comics as a loss leader for eventual tob's on more durable stock....maybe circulation would even go up and they could sell advertising again, which is after all a time-honored proven publishing model that works in print and online, albeit somewhat differently.

[Logan510]

17 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Which part?

I'm far from the biggest Shooter supporter as there is enough evidence that his memory on many events might not be entirely accurate. But when he got rid of the writer / editor title I think most would agree that was a wise move. I know it upset those guys, but they weren't exactly shoved out the door ( except for maybe Colan who I do believe was fired ), the cirumctances changed and they didn't like it so they left.

Can we really blame him for raising prices? Prices hadn't been raised before his tenure? Was it really his say to raise prices as the EiC?

How many titles during his stint at Marvel were created that deuniqued the product? There had already been 3 Spider-Man titles and other spinoffs well before his tenure as EiC.

 

There was definitely a point where he was a force for good at that company. Most pros ( who were there at the time ) I've spoken with personally all pretty much point to Secret Wars as the time the tide turned against him.

 

[Readcomix]

I think the real takeaway about Shooter is things have fallen so far we miss him as an exec (always missed him as a writer) but the decline began under him. Long fall from late Copper, the occasional nugget notwithstanding. He did pilot some gimmickry and oversaw some crappy storytelling (the Beyonder etc) under his watch, and smoothly over to DeFalco. It's been a long decline.

[kav]

46 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Which part?

this part:

 

How does Marvel pander to the press or 'group thinks', whatever that is?

And I think you're somewhat confused about Shooter. He took the #1 publisher of comics in America (already), and put the creators on a deadline, so that Marvel was able to publish MORE comics, for more money, over a shorter period of time. Which is good. Until he disrespected many legendary creators who he callously shoved out the door including Roy Thomas, Gene Colan, John Byrne, Frank Miller, Len Wien, Gerry Conway, Jim Starlin and more. He helped create many of the money hungry gimmicks that everyone here is crying about now (yearly crossover events, added titles of the same characters full of watered down additional stories, price increases), and eventually got shown the door himself as his idea to create a whole new comics universe failed in spectacular fashion (funny how without established Marvel characters and great creators, it didn't work)

He then went to Valiant where he helped play a part in the speculative boom by using Wizard to hype his new line of comics (isn't payola a form of pandering to the press?) and used gimmicks (mail away cards, foil covers, crossovers), and a hand full of established creators to oversaturate a market that couldn't sustain and live up to that hype and it basically fell apart.

He then created Defiant and tried using all the same gimmicks, without ANY established characters (Valiant had Magnus and Solar to launch their line), and less of a line up of creators (still wet under the ears Latpham and Steve Ditko) and it failed miserably.

Oh, and he played THE key role in destroying the newsstand distribution system, which has robbed the industry of decades of new young readers, all so Marvel could 'maximize' their profits.

Roy Thomas, one of the nicest guys in the business, STILL has a hard time saying anything good about the guy.

[Prince Namor]

18 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I'm far from the biggest Shooter supporter as there is enough evidence that his memory on many events might not be entirely accurate. But when he got rid of the writer / editor title I think most would agree that was a wise move. I know it upset those guys, but they weren't exactly shoved out the door ( except for maybe Colan who I do believe was fired ), the cirumctances changed and they didn't like it so they left.

I have some issues of the Comics Journal where Roy Thomas and then Len Wein both give interviews after their Marvel exit, and... maybe 'shoved' isn't the right word, but they left because Shooter was a db and it was a toxic environment.

Even Byrne has said he left because the environment was impossible to work in, and he was a company man through and through.

They may not have had Shooter hand prints on their backs, but he was the overall reason they left.

18 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

Can we really blame him for raising prices? Prices hadn't been raised before his tenure? Was it really his say to raise prices as the EiC?

How many titles during his stint at Marvel were created that deuniqued the product? There had already been 3 Spider-Man titles and other spinoffs well before his tenure as EiC.

 

There was definitely a point where he was a force for good at that company. Most pros ( who were there at the time ) I've spoken with personally all pretty much point to Secret Wars as the time the tide turned against him.

 

I've heard those same things and I have no problem with it. It sounds like that is what happened. And it's basically what I said: "He took the #1 publisher of comics in America (already), and put the creators on a deadline, so that Marvel was able to publish MORE comics, for more money, over a shorter period of time."

And then: "Until he disrespected many legendary creators"

Surely you've read some of Byrne's stories on his forum of what was going on during that time. He was disrespectful.

[kav]

2 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

they left because Shooter was a db and it was a toxic environment.

 

please post the comics journal article that stated this.

[ComicConnoisseur]

7 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

I've heard those same things and I have no problem with it. It sounds like that is what happened. And it's basically what I said: "He took the #1 publisher of comics in America (already), and put the creators on a deadline, so that Marvel was able to publish MORE comics, for more money, over a shorter period of time."

And then: "Until he disrespected many legendary creators"

Surely you've read some of Byrne's stories on his forum of what was going on during that time. He was disrespectful.

Yet, John Byrrne's best work was under Jim Shooter's editorship.Those great runs of Uncanny X-Men and Fantastic Four by John Byrne were under Jim Shooter deadlines. Jim Shooter demanded the best from Byrne, and he got the best work John Byrne has ever done.

Same thing with Walter Simonson's Thor.

Shooter had a way with getting the best work out of talented creators. Shooter was a taskmaster. Think of Steve Jobs at Apple. People hated working for Jobs, but in the end Jobs pushed them to be the best.

Jim Shooter had that talent to bring out the best in creators that Alonso does not.

The best proof is Valiant. Valiant was awesome until they replaced Shooter.  Shooter got the Valiant creators to do great work, as soon as he left it went all downhill for Valiant.

[Logan510]

26 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

I have some issues of the Comics Journal where Roy Thomas and then Len Wein both give interviews after their Marvel exit, and... maybe 'shoved' isn't the right word, but they left because Shooter was a db and it was a toxic environment.

Even Byrne has said he left because the environment was impossible to work in, and he was a company man through and through.

They may not have had Shooter hand prints on their backs, but he was the overall reason they left.

I've heard those same things and I have no problem with it. It sounds like that is what happened. And it's basically what I said: "He took the #1 publisher of comics in America (already), and put the creators on a deadline, so that Marvel was able to publish MORE comics, for more money, over a shorter period of time."

And then: "Until he disrespected many legendary creators"

Surely you've read some of Byrne's stories on his forum of what was going on during that time. He was disrespectful.

I've also read where Byrne said he would follow Shooter through the gates of hell ( said in the late 1970's ). Perspective changes and I'm sure that over time things got more difficult as Shooter tightened his grip.

[kav]

2 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

I've also read where Byrne said he would follow Shooter through the gates of hell ( said in the late 1970's ). Perspective changes and I'm sure that over time things got more difficult as Shooter tightened his grip.

yes but the more he tightened his grip the more star systems fell through his fingers

[Logan510]

Just now, kav said:

yes but the more he tightened his grip the more star systems fell through his fingers

I think Star comics did OK under him