Will we ever experience another Marvel Comics success? 2 2

[Aweandlorder]

When you think about it, Marvel Comics (circa 1961) catapulted while the industry was very healthy, with many comic book genres selling very well, not just superheroes.
It would seem to me that it was more difficult back then to market and brand a new line of superheroes among such a fierce competition. 
Since then, many companies tried to take a shot at the title (Image, valiant et al) and failed to achieve similar results.
Do you think it is likely that we will witness another Marvel success story with similar big titles and properties?
What would it take to achieve such an impressive repertoire by a single publisher in today's market?

[01TheDude]

is there a Jack Kirby clone available? or the whole bullpen really-- it was a great team effort. I don't know that it will happen again, at least not the same way. It will most likely have to be some other form of media (perhaps interactive books or something that grabs the young reader). That is also part of the problem-- books now seem geared fully toward the adult market and not kids. Not even sure kids would get it any more as they have soooo many more options for entertainment than existed back then.

[ComicConnoisseur]

Stan Lee,Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were the John Lennon,Paul McCarthy and George Harrison of comics.

We will never see a Marvel Comics again just like we will never see a Beatles again.

Interesting that both started in the 1960s and both were pre-internet?

[ComicConnoisseur]

1 hour ago, Aweandlorder said:

It would seem to me that it was more difficult back then to market and brand a new line of superheroes among such a fierce competition. 

It might be harder now. Much more competition,more niches to read comics and the newness of what they did is gone. Same with the Beatles if they started now they would have a harder time to be seen compared to having the whole nation watch them on Ed Sullivan one night and their newness is gone as well. 

1 hour ago, Aweandlorder said:

What would it take to achieve such an impressive repertoire by a single publisher in today's market?

They need to be seen by young people and I would look to create a new universe with apps. 

I would look for up and coming new creators with a new voice who can talk to the modern generation of comic readers and not 40 something year old geezers like me.

lol.

Edited August 10, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[shadroch]

I would not say the industry was healthy in 1960. Far from it. Marvel couldn't even find a distributor and had to piggy back off of DC's distribution center.

It took years for Marvel to surpass DC in sales.  I'd argue that Image, and even Valiant was just as much a game changer when they arrived than Marvel was in 1960/61.

Who knows what might have happened if Marvel( and when I say Marvel I mean Ron Pearlman) hadn't changed the rules mid game.  The industry had a half dozen distributors  and thousands of shops.  When Marvels experiment with self distribution ended in bankruptcy, the market got stuck with one distributor and two thirds of the shops gone, taking many smaller companies with it. 

Joe Lisner showed that one can self publish and make a ton of money.  Dave Sim and the Pini's preceded him, but they never reached the heights he did with the early Dawns. With some many people self publishing, the chances of an entire universe springing up are scarce.  Kurt Busieks Astro City is an exception but its on a minute scale.

[Aweandlorder]

25 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

Stan Lee,Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were the John Lennon,Paul McCarthy and George Harrison of comics.

We will never see a Marvel Comics again just like we will never see a Beatles again.

Interesting that both started in the 1960s and both were pre-internet?

I think music is actually not a good comparison. there are big selling artists still to this day. Just a different audience and different capital stream avenues. Heck, some of the kids nowadays don't even know who the Beatles are. But they know who spidey, wolverine and deadpool are. So many new genres have appeared since the 60s: Hip-Hop and EDM seem to have influenced the market tremendously. While with comic books, we still have the same retail traditions (for the most part), same genres, same format more or less. 

[Aweandlorder]

27 minutes ago, shadroch said:

I would not say the industry was healthy in 1960. Far from it. Marvel couldn't even find a distributor and had to piggy back off of DC's distribution center.

It took years for Marvel to surpass DC in sales.  I'd argue that Image, and even Valiant was just as much a game changer when they arrived than Marvel was in 1960/61.

Even more so than, if Marvel was truly struggling more than Image/valiant did when they launched, than their success rate is much more remarkable! 

In fact, I'm sure that that's what Shooter, McFarlane, Liefeld etc had in mind when they formed their new line of titles. They must've thought nows a better time to do this than the 60s and we have the know how and business skills to set such a plan. Yet they haven't succeeded 

[ComicConnoisseur]

46 minutes ago, shadroch said:

With some many people self publishing, the chances of an entire universe springing up are scarce.  Kurt Busieks Astro City is an exception but its on a minute scale.

An honestly do we really need another one? Marvel,DC,Valiant,Image and the others are plenty and they do a good job at it. I don't think a new universe could be an improvement on them.

If there would be a new universe I would probably look for something different than superheroes. It seems like there are too many super heroes.

Some of my favorite comics were Sgt.Rock,Jonah Hex,Conan the Barbarian,Master of Kung Fu,Warlord and Rom.

So maybe start a new universe where the super heroes are not the stars.

 

Edited August 11, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[shadroch]

 Before comic shops,  other genres flourished. If you look at a  DC comic from 1974, you'll see superhero comics were a minority of their offerings. They had successful War and Horror lines, and perhaps a not so successful Sci-Fi, Strange line.  Detective Comics went bimonthly for a while and the JLA was published 8 times a year.  For whatever reason, the Direct Market never catered to anything other than Super Heroes ,with very few exceptions. 

[ComicConnoisseur]

37 minutes ago, Aweandlorder said:

Heck, some of the kids nowadays don't even know who the Beatles are.

Very true,as Marvel/DC superheroes don't age and re-invent themselves,hence why AF#15,Tec #27 and comic keys are a better bet going forward than buying Mickey Mantle rookie cards, and Beatles/Elvis/famous actors memorabilia.

[shadroch]

27 minutes ago, Aweandlorder said:

Even more so than, if Marvel was truly struggling more than Image/valiant did when they launched, than their success rate is much more remarkable! 

In fact, I'm sure that that's what Shooter, McFarlane, Liefeld etc had in mind when they formed their new line of titles. They must've thought nows a better time to do this than the 60s and we have the know how and business skills to set such a plan. Yet they haven't succeeded 

They created a very successful model based on the then current market. Then Pearlman came along and destroyed the industry.  Pearlman self distributed and flooded the market. Marvel put out hundreds of new issues a month and basically said either you order all our titles or you order none of them.  Between the increased cost of shipping and having to buy so many extra Marvel titles, many shops had to cut down on their other stuff. Then as Distributor after Distributor went belly up after losing the ability to distribute Marvels, they went out of business owing companies like Valiant and Image hundreds of thousands.  Image was creator owned and managed to survive. Valiant was run by investors who didn't know anything except  that they weren't getting the returns they were promised and they bailed. 

[paul747]

Love him or hate him Millar has the best shot at this kinda success.  This Netflix deal and his billion dollar previous box office draws are something to consider. He has a very diverse slate of characters and the drive to copy the early masters success.   I said "a Shot at it" its a long-shot!

[kav]

In any art form slickness eventually replaces craft.  Thats what happened with comics, movies, fine arts, literature.

[Aweandlorder]

35 minutes ago, shadroch said:

They created a very successful model based on the then current market. Then Pearlman came along and destroyed the industry.  Pearlman self distributed and flooded the market. Marvel put out hundreds of new issues a month and basically said either you order all our titles or you order none of them.  Between the increased cost of shipping and having to buy so many extra Marvel titles, many shops had to cut down on their other stuff. Then as Distributor after Distributor went belly up after losing the ability to distribute Marvels, they went out of business owing companies like Valiant and Image hundreds of thousands.  Image was creator owned and managed to survive. Valiant was run by investors who didn't know anything except  that they weren't getting the returns they were promised and they bailed. 

Marvel was very popular within years of their brand new universe in the 60s. Certainly within a decade. No other surviving company other than DC has matched that level of success. Some will argue that Marvel beat DC at their own game

[Aweandlorder]

37 minutes ago, paul747 said:

Love him or hate him Millar has the best shot at this kinda success.  This Netflix deal and his billion dollar previous box office draws are something to consider. He has a very diverse slate of characters and the drive to copy the early masters success.   I said "a Shot at it" its a long-shot!

As far as numbers are concerned I would think that Kirkaman has a better shot at the title because of Walking Dead. The difference is that he doesn't seem to match that level of success he has with WD with other of his titles

[Aweandlorder]

I also think that such companies as Eclipse, First, Now/innovation, Malibu, and Mirage had great opportunities. Either in terms of quality or popularity (in the case of Mirage) 

None came even close to Marvel's level

[Aweandlorder]

I think that Frank Miller could've pulled a Marvel miracle back then had he decided to start a publishing company. He is probably the only other influential person in the medium with as a diverse successful roster as Stan Lee

[ADAMANTIUM]

But then comes the question if something new does appear will people just "collect it" or actually read it.... I'm encouraged by threads in the Modern Age forum of people recommending books and saying what's good Etc that they've read and recommend

 

[kav]

23 minutes ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

But then comes the question if something new does appear will people just "collect it" or actually read it.... I'm encouraged by threads in the Modern Age forum of people recommending books and saying what's good Etc that they've read and recommend

 

All the best popular culture collectibles were originally designed for kids-comics, cards, toys etc

[valiantman]

I think we're really talking about massive entertainment franchises.  

Marvel Comics in the early 1960s was the start of a massive entertainment franchise consisting of comic books (almost exclusively) for decades, but also toys and movies in more recent decades.  The next obvious one since Marvel Comics was Star Wars, which was a massive entertainment franchise consisting of movies, toys, comic books and fiction novels.  TMNT became a massive entertainment franchise after starting very small in comics... it was the toys and movies that pushed it to new heights.

Harry Potter is another example of a massive entertainment franchise more recent than Marvel, Star Wars, and TMNT... and it has almost no presence in illustrated works.

The days of massive entertainment franchises primarily driven by comic books are probably over, however, I'm sure we'll see more massive entertainment franchises rise from humble beginnings in comics, graphic novels, or other sequential art.