I agree, it is a fascinating question.

I'd try to answer it from a slightly different angle. Something which isn't popular, no one expects much from. So if they find some quality there, it's a little revelation. "Wow, I didn't expect to find anything here, but hey! It's actually pretty darn good. There's something to this."

Something which is popular, everyone expects everything from. If everyone's been raving about this comic, then I expect it to be good in every way. Thus begins the intense scrutiny. If you've heard for weeks how good something is, and then you check it out and there are flaws, that's a disappointment.

If those flaws were in a little out-of-the-way book, who cares? No one expects greatness, give it some slack. But with greater popularity comes greater expectations, and with greater expectations come greater disappointments.

Posted by MoriartyL on 2009-10-26 20:28:23
There are two theories that I have on this issue: One is that it's "cool" when the comic/entertainer/etc in question has just a few fans, a cult following if you will, and then when it becomes mainstream, it's no longer cool. It exactly what you said about wanting to feel special and in-the-know. When everybody knows about it, you're no longer special. One could just choose to move on, but that specialness can now be perpetuated by becoming the only person to not like them.

My second theory has to do with how the media operates today, and it probably applies more to music and other media than it does with comics, though I'm sure there are parallels to be found in this industry, too. It's that by the time the mainstream has caught up to your tastes, you're simply tired of it. But not only that, but the mainstream will beat it into the ground mercilessly. As an example: In the late '80's I was a DJ at my high school radio station, and was turned on to "Appetite for Destruction" by Guns n' Roses by a close friend and fellow music-phile. This was their first album and a good year or so before most people had heard of them, and we enjoyed playing their songs for our listeners and for ourselves at home. In fact, we played the hell out of that album. Before long, we were ready to hear something new by this band, but the mainstream had only just caught up. There are only so many times you can listen to Sweet Child O' Mine or Paradise City before you want to break something, yet MTV (when they actually played videos) and radio stations of all varieties just kept spinning their songs ad nauseum. In this scenario, it becomes more difficult to tune out and move on since they're now everywhere with no means of escape.

My two cents...
-r-

Posted by RMelendez on 2009-10-26 20:37:17
Who was it that said, "You can never go home." I think you mentioned it some time recently. We love being surprised, but don't actually enjoy getting what we ask for. An unassuming C-list book can surprise you in a way that an A-list book can't because of press coverage, expectations, other media experiences with the property, or any one of a dozen other factors. Correct me if I'm wrong, but A-list books seem to come with more rules and limitations (or at least there is a perception of limitations) of what can actually happen in the book. Whereas when I picked up Fraction's IRON FIST back in the day, I had NO idea what could happen. Dude punched a train! Davos lost a hand! I guess it's not all that different than what could happen in SPIDER-MAN, but there wasn't the perception of the glass ceiling.

I don't know, it's a tough thing for me to think about or articulate, but I understand what you are saying.

Also, I say A-list and C-list in reference to the level of exposure, not as a measurement of quality. I know every creative team at Marvel always brings A-material, even to the more fringe level properties.

I Believoort!

Posted by kyle-latino on 2009-10-27 00:06:40
I think the actual decline in quality corresponding with a rise in popularity happens more often than companies want to publicly admit (after all, who in their right mind would want to admit that their best-selling stuff sucks?). It basically comes down to the idea of appealing to the lowest common denominator. If you can dumb something down, strip it of any confusing content that actually has some depth and meaning, you make it more accessible to the masses. In turn, you're going to alienate the smaller segment of readers that was not only capable of getting those deeper/more subtle elements, but appreciated them. But that's a trade-off most companies are willing to make.

Posted by CylverSaber on 2009-10-27 05:01:13
It's oversaturation. When what you liked was a niche, a rarity that you didn't see all that much, it was offbeat. When it becomes the mainstream, and everyone's talking about it, and everyone's imitating it, it's not that unique thrill any more, and you get sick of it. It's lost its specialness, and you've lost your special connection to something most people previously didn't know about. And then reviewers go overboard in proclaiming its brilliance - even better than you ever thought it was - then it's overrated, and this fosters the cynic in you.

Posted by Fetsur on 2009-10-27 05:22:08
Re: Bashing and Magic
Intelligent people don't "bash" things. If something becomes popular because of LCD marketing, they'll comment on it; if they see defects in something that's being touted as qualitatively better than the competition's products, they'll comment on them; however, they don't bash. That happens when someone doesn't appreciate a highbrow evaluation of something, whether that evaluation reveals subtle defects or subtle virtues. The feeling of inferiority -- "That so-and-so thinks he's smarter than I am; I'll show him!" -- is what prompts bashing of critics or advocates.

Re semantics: The names of Dr. Strange's patron deities might seem strange, but they're no stranger, in context, than the names of, say, the Hindu deities or various mythological beings. "Believing" in magic in the context of Strange and sorcery is a matter of appreciating the metaphysical theme of the story and realizing, for example, that if the Earth is destroyed, along with its inhabitants, and recreated, then there is a qualitative difference in the recreated souls. Existence is more complicated, more difficult to deal with, perhaps, than death followed by afterlife.

SRS

Posted by Steven R. Stahl on 2009-10-27 08:34:54
While the points you've made apply to all forms of media (television, film, music, comics, etc), I'd like to address just the comic book portion.

While I love the interconnectedness of the Marvel Universe, I have felt that ever since Avengers Disassembled the MU has been nothing but one big crossover event after another, with no downtime in between to play with the new status quo.

Now, during a big event, the big name players of the MU have to be involved: Spider-Man, Iron Man, Wolverine, etc. Most of these big name characters have their own books, so it is natural to explore the ramifications of the current event in their solo book. However, this also serves to limit the stories able to be told in that solo book. If every month is devoted to how Spider-Man is reacting to the Current Event, it is hard to spend time developing the supporting cast and other sub-plots.

It is by no coincidence then that my favourite Marvel books of late have been the ones somewhat separated from the Current Event. My regular pull list has been Iron Fist, Hercules, Thor, Captain America, Nova, Daredevil, and Mighty Avengers. With the exception of Mighty Avengers, all of these books have been free to tell the stories they've wanted to without having to directly tie-in to whatever Current Event is happening throughout the MU (Nova does tie in with the cosmic events I suppose). While the Current Event may be mentioned in the title, for the most part the creators have been free in those titles to tell the story they want to tell.

While I don't think that Marvel is wrong to do big crossover events (quite the contrary, there have been some great ones), I don't think they should immediately always follow one after the other; gives us some downtime to explore the new status quo after the event, which in turn gives the premier titles time to explore the ramifications and develop the supporting cast. I think some great story opportunities are being missed without that time inbetween events; for example, I think that the unmasking of Spider-Man was a lost opportunity. Before putting the genie back in the bottle, I think the story potential of a public identity Spider-Man could have been mined more thoroughly. If the status quo is going to be changed so radically, spend the time with the stories that opens up instead of just going for the shock value.

Posted by Arachkid on 2009-10-27 10:02:09
For me it comes down to whether my expectations are exceeded or not met.

When I connect with a small niche title, it is usually because something about it (usually the character) exceeded my expectations.

However, when attempts are made to make the title more popular expectations are generally raised while the content (character) is simplified and dumbed down or significatly altered, which almost alway results in the raised expectations not being met.

Posted by mattmrvl on 2009-10-27 12:39:12
I think that you're right about why something quality and niche starts up that road toward popularity. We all have a need to feel unique and creative and latching onto something that's really good that very other people like feeds that need. But when it becomes popular, in my opinion, there is an inherent shift in the minds of the smaller group that wanted to find something unique. At that point they are unconsciously drawing away from complete agreement with everyone, which I believe is a survival instinct of society as a whole.

In other words, nothing new would be created if everyone liked everything because then they'd only spend time on the one small group of popular pursuits. Society needs a small group of people to break off and forge away from what everyone else is doing to create more and new things or else we'd all be stuck in stagnation.

So then they go and find the next hidden treat to focus on to bring back into the public eye and push society's art and creation forward.

Posted by PseudoSherlock on 2009-10-28 11:13:07
This doesn't have anything to do with the post, but Arachkid said something I have to disagree with: "If every month is devoted to how Spider-Man is reacting to the Current Event, it is hard to spend time developing the supporting cast and other sub-plots."

Your argument would seem stronger if you'd picked Avengers as your example instead of Spider-Man. In the past ten years, the only crossover event to interrupt Amazing Spider-Man was Civil War. Not House of M, not Secret Invasion, not World War Hulk. You could say that Avengers Disassembled interrupted Spectacular Spider-Man, but it never touched the main comic.

To me it seems like Marvel's comics only tie in to crossovers when their writers want them to.

Posted by MoriartyL on 2009-10-28 12:30:21
Story
You can seal your fate by concentrating on writing...like Claremount opened the door for Lee and the lot. As big as you guys have gone the words that come out of the characters mouths or the Writers of the bubbles need to stay oriented on socialology.
Take a billion dollers and buy the best SOCI. you can afford.

Posted by Sentinelxy on 2009-10-28 13:07:15
I think a lot of it has to do with overexposure. Who didn't like Wolverine when he was back in the pages of Uncanny X-Men. He was cool and there's a reason he became so popular. But now that he seemingly appears in every single Marvel title every other month, he's just silly. What went from a character with some appeal has become one that I'd be happy to never, ever see again.

Posted by motteditor on 2009-10-28 16:40:32
Popularity, etc.
Since the subject is comic books, it's possible that the "popular" thing being attacked could be a writer's approach to a series or a particular character; a style of writing, although I doubt there are more than a few people now who would "bash" dialogue-only writing; a particular artistic style (people who only started reading comics within the last 20 years might have never heard of Neal Adams clones); or Marvel Editorial's approach to publishing stories, i.e., emphasizing events over individual series.

One thing that the various parties might have in common is a sense of embarrassment at having invested emotionally in a character or series. If a reader finds himself disliking the stories he's reading or the treatment of a character, but keeps buying the material anyway, he'll compensate for the cognitive dissonance by angrily commenting on the material. People at Marvel might find such readers and their comments unpleasant, but they're an inevitable consequence of publishing never-ending series about particular characters.

In my particular case, I don't consider myself a victim of cognitive dissonance. One particular problem, for example, is a straightforward editorial one: Bendis doesn't write (AVENGERS) stories about characters, or character-driven superhero stories. He writes stories about situations drawn from crime fiction and uses characters that fit the situations, or alters existing characters so that they fit the situations, even if the alterations create discontinuities. That approach to writing is defective, regardless of the degree of popularity any particular storyline or character has.

It would be nice if there were various approaches taken toward plotting stories, instead of, arguably, emphasizing the LCD, most popular approaches. For example, a writer could take an SF approach to a series. Were the universe to be destroyed, instead of having it quickly recreated and focusing on the godlike power of the protagonist, he could have the "normal" heroes involved face a difficult, if not impossible situation: How do we recreate the universe? Working out an approach and considering the various issues involved would fascinate certain types of readers. Are those readers important enough to Marvel to court?

Writing stories that contain SF-type details but also feature action, romance, etc., that appeal to various age groups is a matter of possessing enough creativity, knowledge of various disciplines, and attention to details.

SRS

Posted by Steven R. Stahl on 2009-10-29 11:26:34
I had a similar reaction when the new Star Trek film hit this summer, but it was not unwarranted. For years, I've loved Star Trek and I've never been bothered when people make fun of me for that. Every time a new movie came out, I was always there opening night, and it was fun.

Then Abrams got ahold of it and ruined it. To me, Star Trek isn't Star Trek anymore. It's become too mainstream for its own good. I would've preferred if it was never optioned again, as long as I had the memories (and the DVDs) or the old stuff. So now, when I hear people talking about how much they love Star Trek, I have to stop myself from laughing. Because to me, they don't even know what Star Trek is. All they know is the watered-down, adrenaline-fueled romp, not the true nature of the show. I think Roger Ebert summed it up best when he said, "the Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action."

So for me, my Star Trek is dead. I don't know what they called that monstrosity that made $384,953,778 at the box office, but it isn't my Star Trek.

Posted by Elayis on 2009-10-30 13:04:59
To-om,

this is you we can see as a tv technician in ' Revelations' by Michael Mann, when Al Pacino enter the set-up room and said ' Hi Tom', isn't it ?

Well, as a friend of Al too, I'll have to tell him about the bad-bad things you said about 'Alpha Flight'.

Posted by notapotatoe on 2009-10-30 14:00:23
Theory
I think, also, that part of the problem in comics specifically, and to a lesser extent, other media, is that if you don't like a small creator's style, it's easy to ignore it. There's almost nobody out there who's been reading a small press book, or even, say, Quasar, consistently for thirty years because those books haven't existed for that long. And frankly, readers know that no fundamental changes to the Marvel Universe are going to be made in the pages of Moon Knight, so they feel comfortable skipping it if the don't like it, with no need to criticize it extensively.

But it seems to me that Marvel has a certain, fairly large pool of readers that are going to continue to read headlining books like Spider-man for 5-10 years after they start actively disliking it. That's likely either because of their strong love for the characters, a commitment to Marvel's larger universe, a basic ignorance of how capitalism works, or evidence of some kind of mental illness, depending on how charitable one feels like being. So they will buy Marvel's big sellers and complain bitterly and incessently. For years. This, I want to stress, is completely inevitable. Those tens of thousands of won't-ever-really-leave-nu-uh-no-how Spidey readers have wildly different and often conflicting tastes.

There's also, in fairness, a lot of truth in what CylverSable is saying. I know the top tier writers get a lot more freedom and are asked to help orchestrate things (and they should), but continuity, for all it's benefits, and the need to keep Spider-man/Batman/etc viable and basically unchanging really hampers the kind of experimental creativity you see in books where maintaining the status quo is not nearly as important.

Posted by Muldrate on 2009-10-30 17:11:14
Distillation
Alright, so I'm starting to understand that I have trouble writing non-fiction. Cause I just read what I wrote, and it's what I meant in my head + babbling.

So, let me try to make it short, sweet, and sensical:

I think there is a certain type of personality. This type of personality, like you said, Tom, derives self esteem from finding unknown art and enjoying it. This type, I would suggest, also tends to become excited and share with other people. This audience-build-up, if the unknown art is good enough, creates a mainstream audience that only demands more and more without shame. Then the original personality types rebel and move on to the next unknown, quality piece of art.

I do believe this functions as a societal/racial drive to constantly create new, forward-moving things. Stagnation would result otherwise.

How was that? Not too rambling and manic?

Posted by PseudoSherlock on 2009-10-30 22:51:20
Events and continuity
Marvel Editorial should publish stories that they think will be both good and popular. However, their current approach has problems. By chaining events together, they're limiting the writers -- inhibiting creativity -- to a greater degree than continuity does. In a brainstorming session, can a person offer a wild idea -- suppose the Earth is moved billions of light years away, and the heroes have to deal with three new types of aliens -- or do ideas have to tie into current events?

It would be very nice to know how thoroughly ideas for events are critiqued. For example, the M-Day event ran afoul of current genetics, since the X-gene could easily be sequenced and reproduced. Did anyone consider reaching the same point from the opposite direction, having the unwanted mutants suddenly evolve further and take off into space or other dimensions, leaving the "failed" mutants behind? Then, instead of bad stories centered on the missing X-gene, the Beast and other scientists could have tried to figure out how the departed mutants evolved, and what might happen if they returned.

Re continuity: I daresay that there is never a justifiable reason for violating character continuity. The story itself can't be the justification, since the character's motivations and abilities are based on his history. If there are multiple versions of a character, they can't all be equally valid. And, if a character can't do what the writer wants him to do without violating continuity, there's always the alternative of creating a new character to do it.

Plot continuity is a bit trickier, since previously published stories can have mistakes at critical points, or a good idea might conflict with a minor plot point in an old story, but I'd bet that any desired point could be reached in stages, eliminating the "need" for a retcon that alters the status quo quickly but fails as a story.

SRS

Posted by Steven R. Stahl on 2009-10-30 23:56:05