Will we ever experience another Marvel Comics success? 2 2

[ADAMANTIUM]

2 minutes ago, kav said:

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

Yes, they were mostly driven by an ambition too or inner turmoil/adventure. Kids and adults share video game ambition, I've always wondered why "gaming" comics never took off or had readership. I guess I understand it though  people wouldn't really want to know what goes on in the daily life of Sonic the Hedgehog, Street Fighter, or Mario and Link. I just wish there was a way to tap into gaming criteria for readership..... but I guess it doesn't work that way, I'd think anyone who could harness the "gaming atom (  or variable)" would stand to reap success! 

I could stand to be corrected, I remember when I first held a Street Fighter Comic in the early 90's, I "cared"  I had spent all this time beating video games to "see the ending"  it was the only bit of video of the characters or a short narrative that I had "earned" by getting that far in the game!

Was it worth it? was playing the entire game only to have the game take over and tell me the ending that I had worked so hard to find out satisfactory? In reality it was the only "comic book" type part of the whole experience, and to hold the comic was like I skipped the struggle of button pushing to see RPG or fighting action....

[Aweandlorder]

11 minutes ago, valiantman said:

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.

could it just be that there isn't any other marketing genius as Stan Lee in the comic book biz?

Is he the Steve Jobs of comic-books?

I mean, no one can deny the power of comic books (Marvel or not) and their influence in movies TV shows, games, and pop culture in general. In that regard, comic books are truly experiencing a renaissance!

The fact that Secret Service is an unknown comic by many doesn't mean that it didn't make for a hell of a movie by most. Same could be said about tens (hundreds) of other similarly unknown modern comic book properties. 

Not all are as powerful as your Harry Potter example, but collectively maybe they are. 

It just so happens to be that Stan had a good chunk of that collective arsenal in one portfolio. Coincidence?  

 

[Ken Aldred]

Comics, at the time Marvel arrived, were a bit set in their ways and formulaic.

Despite being another formula in itself, Lee introduced stories which felt different, with more angst, bickering and family dynamics. 

Difficult to see how you could devise something new with the same level of general, wide-ranging appeal.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Ken Aldred

[shadroch]

6 hours ago, Aweandlorder said:

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

Image beat Marvel in sales in the first year they existed. Marvel was on its way to being the third ranked company until Pearlman blew up the market. 

[Aweandlorder]

2 hours ago, shadroch said:

Image beat Marvel in sales in the first year they existed. Marvel was on its way to being the third ranked company until Pearlman blew up the market. 

So? That made them leading in comic books sales for one year maybe. But that still didn't make them churn out more popular properties. Not in that one year, nor in the past 25 years

[Gatsby77]

10 hours ago, Aweandlorder said:

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

Nah - I agree with Paul747 here.

Kirkman's a one-hit-wonder.

Nothing wrong with that, as Eastman and Laird were also a one-hit-wonder, but one TMNT or The Walking Dead does not a "Marvel Comics" make.

And I actually agree that Millar is poised to have the biggest single influence on pop culture as a whole.

What he's done is remarkable -- and something that Frank Miller, Neil Gaiman and other far better regarded comic book writers have attempted but failed -- built a universe of major films out of his stories.

Level one: gotten movies made of his original properties (Wanted, Kick-, Kingsman).  Difficult, but doable -- fairly unremarkable relative to the above list.

But then there's Level two: Out of 40-60 years of Marvel comics stories, he's quietly had several arcs that he wrote selected for major movie adaptations (Civil War, Logan, arguably the last FF movie).

And that's not even included animated series and films like Ultimate Spider-Man or Ultimate Avengers.

Frank Miller wishes he could have matched that level of Hollywood success.

[Aweandlorder]

12 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Nah - I agree with Paul747 here.

Kirkman's a one-hit-wonder.

Nothing wrong with that, as Eastman and Laird were also a one-hit-wonder, but one TMNT or The Walking Dead does not a "Marvel Comics" make.

And I actually agree that Millar is poised to have the biggest single influence on pop culture as a whole.

What he's done is remarkable -- and something that Frank Miller, Neil Gaiman and other far better regarded comic book writers have attempted but failed -- built a universe of major films out of his stories.

Level one: gotten movies made of his original properties (Wanted, Kick-, Kingsman).  Difficult, but doable -- fairly unremarkable relative to the above list.

But then there's Level two: Out of 40-60 years of Marvel comics stories, he's quietly had several arcs that he wrote selected for major movie adaptations (Civil War, Logan, arguably the last FF movie).

And that's not even included animated series and films like Ultimate Spider-Man or Ultimate Avengers.

Frank Miller wishes he could have matched that level of Hollywood success.

Millar could only dream of becoming as an influential writer/creator as Miller, Gaiman or Moore were/are in comic books. 

The fact that he had a few movies adapted doesn't make him the giant that you put him to be. 

Having a few stories adapt to film doesn't make him "create a universe". Just makes him a good writer (opinionated) with possibly good ties to the film industry. While nothing to sneeze at, he certainly isn't as influential as these writers you quickly dismissed. 

[1Cool]

I believe we will see a Marvel esc revitalization of the hobby in the nearish future.  DC was churning out pretty lame stuff (as a whole) in the 1960s which left the door open for a company to come in and offer up fresh stories and fresh characters.  From what I see on the new book racks now is definitely a time when the same thing could occur.

[Aweandlorder]

2 minutes ago, 1Cool said:

I believe we will see a Marvel esc revitalization of the hobby in the nearish future.  DC was churning out pretty lame stuff (as a whole) in the 1960s which left the door open for a company to come in and offer up fresh stories and fresh characters.  From what I see on the new book racks now is definitely a time when the same thing could occur.

Very interesting observation. 

I think that for that to happen, the "next marvel" needs to be as aggressive a company as Marvel is. As Shadroc mentioned earlier, it could've happened with Image or Valiant, but Marvel is just such a dominant force in the field, they know every trick in the book and will fight aggressively to beat any competition. 

Like you, I believe it can be done. I'm a great believer in marketing power. I think that for a product to sell you need 30% desirability and 70% marketing power. Not the other way around. Picture perfect you can have both. But pushing a product down consumer throats always yields better results than a FANTASTIC product hiding quietly at the bottom shelf. 

As someone who was involved in music production/writing I see this every day on that field. 90% of the songs you hear on the radio are garbage and would never make you shake your head unless there was a big fat oiled machine pushing these properties to the masses. And that is just a microcosm of Hollywood

[1Cool]

Nature hates a vacuum but is there a true vacuum of entertainment waiting to be filled with new comic books?  In the 60s - heck yea.  2020s - not sure and would doubt it.  Maybe there is a niche that could be filled with tons of new kids comics that will change the comic industry.   Maybe comics will go ultra political to cash in on the divide we have in the country. 

[Aweandlorder]

Having another successful comic book company doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be marketed in the same ways it was until now. Maybe it would be in digital form? Maybe a kickstarter?

 

[Gatsby77]

2 hours ago, Aweandlorder said:

Millar could only dream of becoming as an influential writer/creator as Miller, Gaiman or Moore were/are in comic books. 

The fact that he had a few movies adapted doesn't make him the giant that you put him to be. 

Having a few stories adapt to film doesn't make him "create a universe". Just makes him a good writer (opinionated) with possibly good ties to the film industry. While nothing to sneeze at, he certainly isn't as influential as these writers you quickly dismissed. 

I don't disagree with you with regard to comic books.

As a comic book scribe, Millar never struck me as anything more than decent, with some good ideas and reliably good execution -- hell, I even prefer Bendis.

But in terms of real pop culture influence, he has now surpassed Alan Moore, Gaiman, and Miller. On the strength of his movies.

And he's done it with multiple comic book film franchises.

The sad fact is comic books themselves are dying a slow death, even as comic book-based movies are nearing their apex. And in that realm, Millar (esp. now with his Netflix deal) reigns supreme.

The only other creator who surpasses him is David Goyer - but I don't count him because he started as a screenwriter rather than a comic book scribe. Still - he is the primary force to be reckoned with in terms of layperson public understanding of superheroes (Blade Trilogy, Dark Knight Trilogy, Man of Steel, Ghost Rider 2, forthcoming Green Lantern Corps., etc.).

[ComicConnoisseur]

Two universes that could take off because of Hollywood.

Jim Shooter's Valiant. I could see Shooter and Valiant becoming real big quick if their movies take off.

My sleeper pick universe the Archie heroes.

Now that Riverdale has become a smash hit that could open the doors for the Mighty Crusaders.

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

2 hours ago, 1Cool said:

Nature hates a vacuum but is there a true vacuum of entertainment waiting to be filled with new comic books?  In the 60s - heck yea.  2020s - not sure and would doubt it.  Maybe there is a niche that could be filled with tons of new kids comics that will change the comic industry.   Maybe comics will go ultra political to cash in on the divide we have in the country. 

Apps could be the answer. I was checking my Kindle and couldn't believe how many Spider-Man and superhero apps are on there. It really is a whole new world and things are changing quick.

Sad to say,but newstands is a model for dinosaurs. The future is the digital media.

[Aweandlorder]

51 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

But in terms of real pop culture influence, he has now surpassed Alan Moore, Gaiman, and Miller. On the strength of his movies.

What are you basing your facts on with this statement?!?

Watchmen is BY FAR a bigger property than ANY of Millar's books. On screen and published paper sales combined. 

Dark Knight returns is probably the most important graphic novel published in modern history. No other book has influenced, inspired and shaped pop culture as that masterpiece. 30 years after it first published, that book STILL to this day defines who Batman is on paper and on screen.

Millar is just the flavor of the day. Shows some promise, but certainly not influential YET on pop culture. Having 2-3 good movies (heck, even GREAT movies) based on books with comparatively weak sales performance and with ZERO merchandising and marketing power other than screenplay doesn't make you influential on anybody. 

Lets see if he will live up to be even REMOTELY close to these giant writers/creators you just threw under the bus in 20-30 years shall we?

Edited August 11, 2017 by Aweandlorder

[Brock]

4 hours ago, 1Cool said:

I believe we will see a Marvel esc revitalization of the hobby in the nearish future.  DC was churning out pretty lame stuff (as a whole) in the 1960s which left the door open for a company to come in and offer up fresh stories and fresh characters.  From what I see on the new book racks now is definitely a time when the same thing could occur.

From one perspective, this is already happening - though it may be hard to see for us, the "insiders" of the hobby. My kids love comics, but have almost zero interest in floppies or superheroes or shared universes. But they're the key demographic that have made names like Raina Telgemeier superstars... Any comic Telgemeier puts out sells a million copies almost instantly, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a comic shop that carries them.

I love comics, like almost everyone on these boards. But if we're realistic, we have to admit that we are part and parcel of the industry system dedicated to "churning out pretty lame stuff (as a whole)" rather than the audience for "fresh stories and fresh characters". I say this with no malice... but as they guys who obsess over whether a spine tick will make than book a 9.4 or a 9.2, we have to recognize that we are not the ones that will lead the revolution...

[Silver Ager]

I don't know. Prices would have to come down dramatically. I wouldn't pay $4 for something I can read in 5 minutes. Kind of like how I don't want to pay $35 just to walk into a comic show just to see there's nothing of interest there. They'd never get me interested again. I'm the Reprint Man, and there I'm stayin'.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Silver Ager

[Aweandlorder]

54 minutes ago, Brock said:

From one perspective, this is already happening - though it may be hard to see for us, the "insiders" of the hobby. My kids love comics, but have almost zero interest in floppies or superheroes or shared universes. But they're the key demographic that have made names like Raina Telgemeier superstars... Any comic Telgemeier puts out sells a million copies almost instantly, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a comic shop that carries them.

I love comics, like almost everyone on these boards. But if we're realistic, we have to admit that we are part and parcel of the industry system dedicated to "churning out pretty lame stuff (as a whole)" rather than the audience for "fresh stories and fresh characters". I say this with no malice... but as they guys who obsess over whether a spine tick will make than book a 9.4 or a 9.2, we have to recognize that we are not the ones that will lead the revolution...

Brilliant perspective @Brock This absolutely makes alot of sense to me. I see this time and time again with successful comic projects on kickstarter that never ever get any mention in the collector society blogosphere. 

I TOTALLY agree that the next Marvel is probably already happening and its right under our noses. But we're so consumed with past collectibles worth that we are totally oblivious to it.

I think that an exclusive comic book based kickstarter managed by an Elon Musk clone could have a tremendous influence on the market. And it would probably also be better for readers AND collectors, being that most Kickstarter projects cater directly to the consumer, resulting in on demand printed orders and a much much muuuuuch tighter second market leftover margin

 

[Aweandlorder]

16 hours ago, Aweandlorder said:

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

Spoke too soon

https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/11/walking-dead-creator-robert-kirkman-signs-deal-to-develop-tv-for-amazon/

[Brock]

4 minutes ago, Aweandlorder said:

I see this time and time again with successful comic projects on kickstarter that never ever get any mention in the collector society blogosphere. 

...most Kickstarter projects cater directly to the consumer, resulting in on demand printed orders and a much much muuuuuch tighter second market leftover margin

 

This is one of my latest obsessions... The next TMNT #1 or Bone #1 could be published on Kickstarter tomorrow, or could have been published a year ago. When a title catches on, or a movie spin-off makes a billion dollars, that small print run of a first appearance could make huge price jumps, the sort of thing that might dwarf what a TMNT #1 goes for.

And - for better or worse - very, very few collectors (of our sort) will ever have heard of it, let alone have a stash of copies to flip. If I were a true speculator, Kickstarter would seem to offer the largest potential returns.

In terms of the original questions about the "next Marvel", the Kickstarter model (externally-funded rounds of financing that can grow with each iteration) is also infinitely better positioned to make a new company or innovator more rapidly scaleable than a model based on Diamond distribution (expensive and slow) to LCSs (self-limiting marketplace with limited consumer numbers and high risk aversion).