COMIC STORES 2023: 'IT'S NEARLY 2024 AND I'M MORE THAN CONCERNED' 4 4

[jsilverjanet]

On 11/21/2023 at 10:12 AM, Hamlet said:

I think part of the problem is that most collectors have giant rose-colored glasses when evaluating the quality of comics that we read when we were young.

this is so true

the stories before weren't very good either (with of course some exceptions)

Edited November 21, 2023 by jsilverjanet

[VintageComics]

On 11/21/2023 at 11:12 AM, Hamlet said:

I think part of the problem is that most collectors have giant rose-colored glasses when evaluating the quality of comics that we read when we were young.

New comics mostly have bad stories and art because the vast majority of comics have always had bad stories and art.  Nostalgia just covers up the shortcomings of books from our childhood.  

What you're saying is the collectors can't be objective about their hobby because they're emotionally invested?

I couldn't agree more. Everyone is constantly comparing apples to oranges trying to fit their apple into an orange cart. 

 

Are we talking about adult or children's comics?

Comics were made for kids from the Golden Age (when each issue sold by the 100,000's or the millions) to the Silver Age where I believe numbers had dwindled to 100,000's, the Silver Age saw Marvel cater to a maturing audience and the content became darker. 

How do sales numbers compare across the eras? Like best selling GA books vs best selling SA books?

How do best selling SA books that sold in the 100,000's compare to best selling BS books which I believe eventually sold by the 10,000's?

Why did numbers drop across the eras?

 

Another question: How do the best selling comics of all time, which were geared toward children compare to best selling Graphic Novels which are geared toward adults?

Things like Maus, V for Vendetta, Watchmen, DKR?

https://reedsy.com/discovery/blog/best-graphic-novels

All of these criteria are apples to oranges comparisons. 

 

That's why I questioned why people aren't discussing the difference between AMERICAN COMICS and Manga, which are just JAPANESE COMICS, which are outselling their American counterparts?

Incidentally, the Japanese have taken over the other great American art form as well: Automobiles. Toyota has long ago dethroned the Big 3 as the greatest car manufacturer in the world.

So what is different in the culture between Japanese and American products that make Japanese products better and more desirable on so many fronts? 

The Japanese have quite literally overtaken the two most dominant American markets in US history ON THEIR OWN SOIL. 

 

These are all relevant points in the grand discussion and yet, nobody is broaching these topics, choosing instead to only talk about the failing American market while ignoring the rising markets. 

This something akin to being caught in the "Dialectic Wizard's Circle".

You're not breaking free of the spell that is covering everyone's eyes and everyone is staying within the confines of their own comfort zones.

You won't find the answers in your own comfort zones. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by VintageComics

[1Cool]

I think the Japanese dominance in terms of cars was because they were perceived as being more dependable and a better bang for your buck.  Anime can be seen as having the same benefits - low cost and great bang for your buck.  The US big 3 have not really put much of a dent into taking back the dominance of Honda and Toyota after quite a long time table so is Marvel / DC destined to follow the same path where they just can't compete (other than in certain niche markets).  I don't see a way for Marvel or DC to produce comics at the same price as anime and I just don't see a way for them to compete without paying artists nothing and using the poorest paper quality.

Is there any way for Marvel or DC to complete for younger readers with the current prices?  There sure seems to be demand when free comic day comes around but most don't come back.

[ttfitz]

On 11/21/2023 at 5:13 AM, VintageComics said:

You guys are all missing the point. It was outside corporate pressure that pushed him into that video and it ruined his career for the rest of his life.

I didn't miss anything, I just thought I'd post the video for those either too young to know about it, or those (like me) too old to remember it. Frankly, I didn't know it "ruined his career" or that you and @Prince Namor were talking about the same incident.

So maybe I did miss something. 

[ttfitz]

On 11/21/2023 at 9:45 AM, VintageComics said:

And this is how you discuss the message without discussing the messenger. 

See how easy and productive for everyone that is? 

Now do John Carter of Mars. 

Where's that famous Roy "looks like I was wrong" statement we've heard so much about?

[VintageComics]

On 11/21/2023 at 2:31 PM, ttfitz said:

I didn't miss anything, I just thought I'd post the video for those either too young to know about it, or those (like me) too old to remember it. Frankly, I didn't know it "ruined his career" or that you and @Prince Namor were talking about the same incident.

So maybe I did miss something. 

It's pretty well accepted that it ruined his career. There have been many articles written about it. 

The articles I read faulted upper management for the decision (he apparently fired managers after the video was released) but I'm not well versed in the subject.

On 11/21/2023 at 2:37 PM, ttfitz said:

Where's that famous Roy "looks like I was wrong" statement we've heard so much about?

You've already used that card once. Now it's your turn to admit you were wrong in one of our discussions. I've been waiting for over 2 years and you know where to find me. 

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

My other examples (John Carter (2012), Spider-man 3 and Bud Light) were all examples of top down corporate involvement that ruined the end product - or better put, ruined the product's acceptance by the public. There are others but these are clear examples that most will be familiar with. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by VintageComics

[Cat]

On 11/21/2023 at 8:58 AM, Chip Cataldo said:

I understood why, though. It's all water under the bridge now. I'm living a different life and fine with just reading the boards and not interacting. There are lots of wonderful people here and they have a wealth of knowledge about the hobby. Some people here have even become friends of mine and I'm certainly appreciative of that. Everyone take care and have a great holiday season.

You're a genuinely changed man. It shocked the hell out of me, as I knew you back from your scamming days on Rebelscum, but it's the truth, you REALLY have changed. I'd fully support you being allowed to post in good favour again. I believe with all my heart that Chip has honestly changed and is a better man, a different man than the one we all knew, and deserves a chance to show us that. 

[VintageComics]

On 11/21/2023 at 3:06 PM, Cat said:

On 11/20/2023 at 5:58 PM, Chip Cataldo said:

I understood why, though. It's all water under the bridge now. I'm living a different life and fine with just reading the boards and not interacting. There are lots of wonderful people here and they have a wealth of knowledge about the hobby. Some people here have even become friends of mine and I'm certainly appreciative of that. Everyone take care and have a great holiday season.

You're a genuinely changed man. It shocked the hell out of me, as I knew you back from your scamming days on Rebelscum, but it's the truth, you REALLY have changed. I'd fully support you being allowed to post in good favour again. I believe with all my heart that Chip has honestly changed and is a better man, a different man than the one we all knew, and deserves a chance to show us that. 

I believe so as well. Chip and I are friends on social media for about a decade now and I can honestly say that he has come so far that the old Chip is a totally different person. 

I think many of us change over time and it's important to remember that, rather than stick an old version of someone we used to remember. Too many people do that. 

[Cat]

On 11/22/2023 at 6:09 AM, VintageComics said:

I believe so as well. Chip and I are friends on social media for about a decade now and I can honestly say that he has come so far that the old Chip is a totally different person. 

I think many of us change over time and it's important to remember that, rather than stick an old version of someone we used to remember. Too many people do that. 

Well, who or how do we petition for Chip to be allowed to post again? I truly believe with all my heart he is a changed man. I'd stake my reputation on it (if I had one). 

[thehumantorch]

On 11/21/2023 at 9:57 AM, jsilverjanet said:

On 11/21/2023 at 9:12 AM, Hamlet said:

I think part of the problem is that most collectors have giant rose-colored glasses when evaluating the quality of comics that we read when we were young.

this is so true

the stories before weren't very good either (with of course some exceptions)

Absolutely.  When I crack open an early FF I can hardly believe how bad the art and writing is.  It's just so crude.  I love it and it's classic to me but it's awful.  

[VintageComics]

On 11/21/2023 at 3:48 PM, Cat said:

Well, who or how do we petition for Chip to be allowed to post again? I truly believe with all my heart he is a changed man. I'd stake my reputation on it (if I had one). 

That would probably be a good discussion to have in the Probations Discussions thread in the Marketplace. 

https://boards.cgccomics.com/forum/82-marketplace-probations/

 

I'll add that I openly and vocally staked my reputation on Chip when this all went down years ago and lost a lot of respect from people for it.

I won't name names (yet, but may soon as I feel it really shows the character of some of these people  ) but a LOT of boardies openly roasted me for backing Chip. Some put me on ignore, some called me names and some shunned me at cons. It was quite the debacle, but I stood my ground even if it added to my "mystique".

But I knew he was going through and knew he'd come around with the right people around him and I stood my ground. 

Quite frankly, I'd appreciate if some of those same people spoke out. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by VintageComics

[Prince Namor]

Not sure where the idea that John Carter failed had to do with 'feuding millionaires'.

The hugely influential novels had a long history of difficulty bringing it's story to the big screen. In the 30's, as Flash Gordon became a household name (influenced by John Carter!), the animation tests done for 'Warlord of Mars', apparently turned off audiences and it never got off the ground.

Even Ray Harryhausen (Jason and the Argonauts, Clash of Titans) once expressed interests in brining the books to life. but it never materialized.

Disney originally owned the rights for a while in the 80's, and Tom Cruise's name was out there to star in it, but the special effects necessary were decided not yet advanced enough. 

Paramount had the rights for awhile, and Robert Rodriguez (From Dusk Till Dawn, Sin City, Spy Kids) was attached to the project - when that fell apart Jon Favreau was brought on. HE couldn't get it going and from there went and directed the first Iron Man film soon after.

Disney reacquired the rights and got it made finally... and reading through the information out there on it, I can't find anything about fueding millionaires...

For me, one of the few dummies that saw it at the theater the week it came out, my take is this (based on some quick research)

1. 'John Carter' is a terrible name for the movie. No one can tell anything about it from that name. Why not 'Princess of Mars' (the Original First Book title and more in line with Disney and their history of 'Princess' movies?) or 'Warlord of Mars'?

2. Taylor Kitsch, he was an up and coming actor/leading man, etc., - You're making one of the most expensive movies in HISTORY, why are you going to put someone still unproven as the LEAD? Tom Cruise expressed interest, and the director (who'd only done animation previously!!!) never even screen tested him... An unproven LEAD, and an unproven live action DIRECTOR on one of the most expensive movies in HISTORY? Disaster lurks...

3. That director, Andrew Stanton ignored advice given to him on marketing for the movie, which was terrible. How it can be blamed on the studio is beyond me. The original teaser trailer was kind of boring. They spiced it up a little for the Super Bowl Ad, but... by that time, talk was negative about the movies budget and the hopes of it succeeding - before it even came out! But hey, It had a Super Bowl Ad! Bottom Line: Stanton REFUSED to listen to the studio's ideas on marketing. That alienated him with many people...

4. If anyone had thoughts of 'changing' ideas based on modern 'sensibilities', it was the director, Stanton. "Stanton went for a different look for the movie's costuming than that which had been planned by Rodriguez and Frazetta (what???) when they were attached to the project several years earlier. Stanton felt that Frazetta's look was "very sexist and it's very male, fanboy dominated". While conceding the sex appeal at the heart of the characters, he believed they still had to seem realistic. "I want anything, whether it's a fish or a robot or a toy or a human being, I want them to be seen as dimensional as possible and be seen as somebody with thoughts and opinions and surprise in how they may react to something, and contradictions." (Taylor, Drew (March 9, 2022). "The Untold Story of Disney's $307 Million Bomb 'John Carter': It's a Disaster'". TheWrap.)

5. For ME personally, having read the novels when I was younger - you have to have a major, exotic beauty to play Dejah Thoris. Lynn Collins is beautiful, but she isn't what I would have seen as the Princess. I can imagine Robert Rodriguez doing this movie and how he would have cast it.... that was my biggest complaint in seeing the movie. It wasn't bad, as a film - I was entertained. But... it wasn't great. A movie with a budget this big, needs to be GREAT.

 

John Carter's failure is more from a creator's mistake(s), rather than a studio interference. The director IGNORED the studio's ideas to help it.

The original teaser trailer:

 

[VintageComics]

From the words of our resident Guru on why John Carter bombed. 

On 11/19/2023 at 3:55 PM, Bosco685 said:

If you get a chance read John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood.

It was purposely sabotaged by incoming Disney executives to spite the outgoing team. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by VintageComics

[Buzzetta]

On 11/21/2023 at 3:48 PM, Cat said:

Well, who or how do we petition for Chip to be allowed to post again? I truly believe with all my heart he is a changed man. I'd stake my reputation on it (if I had one). 

No one is stopping Chip from posting.   Chip has stopped Chip from posting.  He is just in the HOS for selling and buying. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Buzzetta

[Prince Namor]

On 11/22/2023 at 12:27 AM, VintageComics said:

Are we talking about adult or children's comics?

Comics were made for kids from the Golden Age (when each issue sold by the 100,000's or the millions) to the Silver Age where I believe numbers had dwindled to 100,000's,

Well... some of the best sellers of the Silver Age had, at times, numbers approaching the millions.  Uncle Scrooge & Walt Disney's Comics & Stories both averaged over a million copies a month in 1960 - Superman in the 7-800,000's for most of the 60's - Batman hit almost 900,000 in 1966 thanks to the Live Action TV Show, etc.

A comic doing 100,000 copies a month in the 1960's would get cancelled by most of the bigger publishers.

On 11/22/2023 at 12:27 AM, VintageComics said:

the Silver Age saw Marvel cater to a maturing audience and the content became darker. 

Comparatively, no. In my Lee-Kirby-Ditko thread, those non-Kirby/Ditko stories are most definitely written for children or immature teens. 

Some of the themes Marvel would use certainly seemed darker than DC, but really they weren't. For every Spider-man (Uncle Ben shot and killed), DC had a Batman (Parents shot and killed in front of his own eyes!)

On 11/22/2023 at 12:27 AM, VintageComics said:

How do sales numbers compare across the eras? Like best selling GA books vs best selling SA books?

A combination of the Wertham hearings and the ascension of TV caused most of that.

On 11/22/2023 at 12:27 AM, VintageComics said:

How do best selling SA books that sold in the 100,000's compare to best selling BS books which I believe eventually sold by the 10,000's?

Why did numbers drop across the eras?

You're totals are off, but yes, there was a BIG drop in the 70's, mostly due to constant price increases - the advancement of special effects in movies (the summer blockbuster was born in the 70's - once comic books big market) also played a big part.

On 11/22/2023 at 12:27 AM, VintageComics said:

Another question: How do the best selling comics of all time, which were geared toward children compare to best selling Graphic Novels which are geared toward adults?

Things like Maus, V for Vendetta, Watchmen, DKR?

https://reedsy.com/discovery/blog/best-graphic-novels

Well, that list is opinion, but the best selling GN's of all time (in American comics) all seem to be for a more mature audience.

On 11/22/2023 at 12:27 AM, VintageComics said:

That's why I questioned why people aren't discussing the difference between AMERICAN COMICS and Manga, which are just JAPANESE COMICS, which are outselling their American counterparts?

It's discussed.

This forum is mostly filled with people a) held over from the early days b) interested in the nostalgia aspect or c) speculators only interested in what they can make money from - with very few new comic book READERS. So it doesn't get talked about as much as it could.

On 11/22/2023 at 12:27 AM, VintageComics said:

So what is different in the culture between Japanese and American products that make Japanese products better and more desirable on so many fronts? 

The Japanese have quite literally overtaken the two most dominant American markets in US history ON THEIR OWN SOIL. 

Apples and oranges between cars and comics.

For comic books, in Japan, it is creator driven. There is a truth to the characters that only the original creators can know. So when it becomes popular, it can remain popular for years - selling in the millions - as long as the original creator remains doing it.

In America it's all commerce driven, with an emphasis on taking that property FROM the original creator and watering it down. Multiplying the number of titles, rebooting it, doing shocking things with it to boost sales, etc. 

On 11/22/2023 at 12:27 AM, VintageComics said:

These are all relevant points in the grand discussion and yet, nobody is broaching these topics, choosing instead to only talk about the failing American market while ignoring the rising markets. 

So start discussing it...

[Prince Namor]

On 11/22/2023 at 4:45 AM, VintageComics said:

From the words of our resident Guru on why John Carter bombed. 

 

It was purposely sabotaged by incoming Disney executives to spite the outgoing team. 

 

I'm not sure that's what everyone ELSE got out of the book... reading the reviews the consensus seems to be clearly that it was the failed marketing campaign (in particular Disney's inexperience at proving it within online communities), which could certainly be blamed on the studio heads. Still... it got a SUPER BOWL COMMERCIAL, what more do you want?

And the points I made above - Bad Title, Unproven leads and director, rejecting ideas of Rodriguez and Frazetta, a low key teaser specifically put together by the director who refused to listen to studio advice... none of that advances the movie. 

Did incoming execs try and sabotage the film to spite the outgoing team? I don't know. But I would imagine that would constitute criminal activity and be an actionable offense. 

[Bosco685]

On 11/21/2023 at 5:27 PM, Prince Namor said:

Did incoming execs try and sabotage the film to spite the outgoing team? I don't know. But I would imagine that would constitute criminal activity and be an actionable offense. 

Maybe. But then again studio heads have done this previously.

See current DCU situation where Gunn/Safran shooting themselves (and the studio financials) in the foot by announcing in advance all the pending movies had no go-forward connectivity to future movies. Unless shareholders are going to organize a class action lawsuit, whom would you assume will take the time to determine criminal action against studios?

[Prince Namor]

On 11/22/2023 at 5:32 AM, Bosco685 said:

Maybe. But then again studio heads have done this previously.

See current DCU situation where Gunn/Safran shooting themselves (and the studio financials) in the foot by announcing in advance all the pending movies had no go-forward connectivity to future movies. Unless shareholders are going to organize a class action lawsuit, whom would you assume will take the time to determine criminal action against studios?

There's no shortage of lawyers on the forum - I'll allow them to jump in if they want.

I'm sure the armchair lawyers will have an opinion - I'm more interested in actual law insight, not any sort of connect the dots association.

 

There's also this:

The film's failure led to the resignation of Rich Ross, the head of Walt Disney Studios, even though Ross had arrived there from his earlier success at the Disney Channel with John Carter already in development. Ross theoretically could have stopped production on John Carter as he did with a planned remake of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, or minimized the budget as he did to The Lone Ranger starring Johnny Depp. Instead, Stanton was given the production budget requested for John Carter, backed with an estimated $100 million marketing campaign that is typical for a tentpole movie but without significant merchandising or other ancillary tie-ins. It was reported that Ross later sought to blame Pixar for John Carter, which prompted key Pixar executives to turn against Ross, who already had alienated many within the studio.

[Cat]

On 11/22/2023 at 8:13 AM, Buzzetta said:

No one is stopping Chip from posting.   Chip has stopped Chip from posting.  He is just in the HOS for selling and buying. 

If I believe he's a changed man, which I do, can I petition for him to be removed from the HOS? What he did was horrible, no doubt about it, but I genuinely believe he is not that person anymore. And yes, I was extremely skeptical of him and his motives. 

[Bosco685]

On 11/21/2023 at 5:41 PM, Prince Namor said:

There's no shortage of lawyers on the forum - I'll allow them to jump in if they want.

I'm sure the armchair lawyers will have an opinion - I'm more interested in actual law insight, not any sort of connect the dots association.

 

There's also this:

The film's failure led to the resignation of Rich Ross, the head of Walt Disney Studios, even though Ross had arrived there from his earlier success at the Disney Channel with John Carter already in development. Ross theoretically could have stopped production on John Carter as he did with a planned remake of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, or minimized the budget as he did to The Lone Ranger starring Johnny Depp. Instead, Stanton was given the production budget requested for John Carter, backed with an estimated $100 million marketing campaign that is typical for a tentpole movie but without significant merchandising or other ancillary tie-ins. It was reported that Ross later sought to blame Pixar for John Carter, which prompted key Pixar executives to turn against Ross, who already had alienated many within the studio.

I understand what you are posting. But placing a large part of the blame on the director and not the studio (the people that fund the production) is not reality. They OWN this thing. No way would Disney just let a director cut loose with its investment without having a heavier hand.

There are no sensitivie police to take action against a studio because of bad decisions. WB Studios executives would have been behind bars years ago with that oversight. It comes down to having the ability to clearly point to root cause leading to a studio losing money. It is not that easy that we could just assume "of course the law would step in and arrest someone". Reality is much uglier than that with Hollywood. Including big egos and spiteful actions. Including purposely undermining a production to discredit outgoing executives.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Bosco685