Marvel.com Blogs - Blah Blah Blog by Tom Brevoort

web marvel.com

BLOGS HOME|COMIC BLOGS|VIDEO GAME BLOGS|OTHER BLOGS|MARVEL NEWS

More Reader Mail
2007-09-14 18:06:32

Like it says above: more reader mail:

>Avidly hating every issue...
...is its own kind of entertainment. The guy who buys every issue of New Avengers so he can engage in monthly proclamations of wrath on message boards or while standing in front of me in line at the comic book shop is getting just as much for his $2.99 as I am, albeit in a more perverse way. To some people, there is great pleasure in experiencing the sensation of righteous anger. Who knows, maybe channeling all your rage toward Brian Michael Bendis is a healthy exercise and can save you thousands of dollars in therapy later in life.

Posted by Philip Schaeffer on 2007-09-07 00:51:42>

There's definitely some truth to this, and as I said in the earlier piece, I'm perfectly happy to take your money if you want to keep giving it. Each reader can get something different out of a given comic, so this is a perfectly acceptable point of view. I've even done it myself--back in my reader days, there were one or two titles that my circle of friends and I would routinely pick up simply to mock them.

>But obviously a lot of people haven't come around to that view. I think there are two main things going on in their mind; they love these characters so much that they'll tolerate them in any form, not realizing that they're perpetuating what they don't like. And second, they don't want to feel "left out" of major developments, whether they make good stories or not. The companies know this; it's what their entire business model rests on. But, as I said, I think change will come; if the stories don't improve, the importance of the characters and what happens to them will diminish in people's minds, thus forcing the companies to change direction.

Posted by CylverSaber on 2007-09-08 04:25:12>

I feel the need to quibble with one of your points here--the fact that the companies"know this, and their whole business model rests on it." This makes a pretty eroneous assumption: that the assorted companies are putting out comics that they don't think are any good as part of some crazy pyramid scheme to get people to keep buying them. And that just isn't so. Sure, you'll get dissenting and differing opinions across all of the people who work for a particular company, but if a series is being published, it's being published because somebody somewhere in the organization likes it, and thinks it has merit. As I've pointed out in the past, nobody sets out to deliberately make a bad comic. But this isn't science where the rules remain consistent all the time, so you're going to hit and you're going to miss. The fact that there's a certain audience that remains on a series just through inertia may be a tool that can help get a book through a bad patch, but it's not a fundamental part of the publishing plan. Nobody at any of the major companies puts out crummy books as the goal.

>fans' reactions on the internet.You sure write about it enough.It's not worth it;.You're never going to make everyone happy.And these are comic fans we're talking about.I don't think I'm bringing up anything shocking when I say comic fans can sometimes be a little...harsh and judgemental.Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons is not too far off base for a lot of fans,even if they don't want to admit it.

Posted by marksmart on 2007-09-08 14:52:45>

It honestly doesn't really bum me out much at all. It's just that this is the medium of communication we're employing through this blog, the internet, so the entries tend to be at least somewhat reflective of the online community. If I was writing a text page for print, or a column for CBG or something, the content would be very different, because it would be influenced by the delivery system and the audience it was likely to reach. In other words, there tends to be a lot about online interactions spoken about in this column because interacting online is what we're doing right now.

>DC actually has shaken up the status quo a lot more often and consistently than Marvel

Posted by skagandboneman on 2007-09-11 08:18:47>

I don't know that I agree with this in the way you mean, and I think you're looking at a particular microcosm. I do think, though, that one of the reasons there's so much turmoil and turnaround in the DC line is that, as much as they've tried to paste it all together over the years, the DC Universe wasn't really designed to be a universe from the start, the way the Marvel Universe was (by default, really, since Stan was writing pretty much all of it.) In theri attempts to create a Marvel-style cosmology for themelves, the folks at DC have continually reset and reworked their continuity and status quos again and again, each iteration somehow missing the larger point of why the Marvel universe hangs together so well. For my not-especially-valuable two cents, DC often spends too much of its time trying to be Marvel, rather than focusing on the elements that make the DC cosmology, characters and titles unique and interesting all on their own.

>The comic companies are guilty too ...
By the same token, why do Marvel and DC both continue to publish titles that sell less than 20K every month? What's the cut off point to where the companies admit that most fans aren't buying what they are selling?

Posted by izzatrix on 2007-09-13 15:38:19>

I think this is a somewhat different proposition that you think it is, because you and the world at large doesn't really have access to all the accurate numbers, nor do you know about all of the avenues for cash flow or eyeballs that a given project attracts. Not all titles exist to serve the same purpose, and not all titles are drawing their profitiability solely from the direct market. As long as there's some internal reason to continue a series at that kind of sales level--a secondary use for the material, a commitment to a particular creator or creative team, a need to maintain trademarks, a desire to push into nwe marketplaces or find new audiences, or whatever, then each company will continue to publish what it feels is appropriate.

More later.

Tom B

A shared universe
I think you really have something with the point you make about DC not having the foundation for a shared universe. It really doesn't seem to be built that way. What makes the statement even more true to the point is that the numbers have a tendency to make that point. DC's top sellers are for the most part continuity-free, like all-star superman and their go-to historical ground-breaking books have all been continuity-free for the most part as well, watchmen, dkr, sandman.And critical consensous proves that those are sold on quality.
But you're not going to fool anyone when saying companies don't know they can get easy money by trouncing out an event. I'm not going to debate quality of events. But from a financial standpoint, executives know events are assured money while critically acclaimed work is much more hit and miss. So you focus more on what you know is going to pay the bills.
Further, you work with what you have. Now that exclusives are the big thing, each company has a stable of creators they have to give work. Just as with any workforce not every employee is going to yield the same quality of work. Things are going to get out that don't always hold up to quality expectations. And sometimes good-enough is OK but it shouldn't be flaunted as quality craftsmanship. I guess I kind of understand the marketing machine and you don't want to dog a product, but I just feels it really betrays a professional to vouch for a product they know isn't up to snuff.

Posted by Shonzi on 2007-09-14 19:25:32

Burn Out?
I think the 90s are a good example of what one person described with the horrible stories/gimmicks being too much to keep reader's interest in the characters. However, I think the comic industry has definitely come back from that tepid hole.

I've been impressed, quite a bit, with the professionalism and quality of many comics these days. Especially compared to the 90s. However, I think in this age of ease and obsession with quick, easy money, there are a whole lot of people who are writing who probably shouldn't be. Or at least they won't be saying anything new or interesting.

After all, you only need to figure out how to fit one of six characters into a series of plot holes, build these plots up to regular, increasing suspenseful climaxes, and then copy that another two hundred times and, BAM, you're an artist.

Grumble, grumble, grumble.

Almost makes me want to start yelling at poor, innocent, long-suffering Bendis - just cause he makes money at it.

Posted by PseudoSherlock on 2007-09-14 23:20:05

Money
"Bendis - just cause he makes money at it."

OK, this is completely off topic, except that it's a reader question.

Tom, how many people make money in the comics industry? I'm not asking for exact salaries. It just seems like a lot of times we hear about people who have a day job in addition to comics. Writers especially. There are so many writers who only do a few comics that sometimes I wonder if making your living exclusively writing comics is the exception instead of the rule.

And artists surprise me with this, too. I've read interviews with a few pencillers talking about day jobs, which makes the "page a day" thing seem a lot more impressive. Is it common for pencillers to have regular jobs in addition to the comic drawing?

And everything else? Lettering, coloring, all that other stuff, how do people get by on that?

Posted by CodeGuy on 2007-09-15 01:00:34

"Breaking In"
Tom, as an aspiring Marvel artist I am wondering what exactly do you look for in a new artist? I have been doing work for smaller publishers for a little while now but I can't seem to make that leap from an independent penciler to a "mainstream" one. I am getting a decent amount of work right now but my goal/dream is to work at Marvel and I was wondering if you had some specific guidelines you use to determine who you hire and don't.

Oh in case you were interested my art style is often considered by indy guys to be too mainstream, so no i don't draw stick figures.

~Kris

Posted by KrisCarter on 2007-09-15 01:27:04

If anyone cares to see my art
Just so anyone that reads is wondering about the artwork in question head on over to http://kristecarter.blogspot.com

Posted by KrisCarter on 2007-09-15 01:29:33

Bad comics
"The fact that there's a certain audience that remains on a series just through inertia may be a tool that can help get a book through a bad patch, but it's not a fundamental part of the publishing plan."

I'm not saying that any company would deliberately put out bad comics, but when one is not as worried about reader interest, a more lax attitude inevitably develops; how many times have we seen, in response to criticism, "But the book sells well!"

Moreover, the knowledge that readers are driven by an attachment to the characters and a desire to know "what happens next" leads the companies to focus more on delivering the next big shocking event that will "shake up the status quo forever." Instead of focusing on developing the characters organically and considering what makes a good story first, the consideration becomes what can push the buttons of the fans who are so heavily invested in this character.

Posted by CylverSaber on 2007-09-15 09:48:27

Reader Interest
CylverSaber, I don't think Marvel or DC has decresed worrying about reader interest at all. When they say "But the book sells well!" what they're saying is that the book obviously *does* keep reader interest. Sales are the only real way of measuring reader interest, since 300 guys on a message board aren't nearly as important as 300,000 guys actually handing over their money.

Posted by CodeGuy on 2007-09-15 11:17:55

That's exactly my point...
...but it still begs the question; what's keeping that reader interest up? Is it the preexisting attachment to the character that we've been talking about? Or are the stories so consistently good that even if someone didn't have any particular attachment to the character, they'd keep coming back? Obviously we may have different answers to that question.

Posted by CylverSaber on 2007-09-15 15:46:58

but...
Reader attachment might makes sales fall slower, but I don't see how they'd actually cause sales to go up. Almost any book or character that you can point to which is having good sales has had worse sales in the past. If sales are good, then people are deciding that they want to buy the comic more than they did before. That's means they're more interested than they used to be.

So when a comic creator says "but the book sells well," he's saying that he tried to make a good story and readers told him that it was in the only way that mattered.

The thing is, reader attachment isn't something that creators can really control. Sure, it's something that's there, but it's not a controllable. In any creative industry that I've seen, the creators are worrying about what they can control way more than what they can't. So even if comic creators are aware of reader attachment and how it can make sales fall slower, I think they'll still focus on what they can do to get sales to go up.

Posted by CodeGuy on 2007-09-15 16:35:00

But...
I'm not talking about creators, though. A creator gets hired on the strength of his work (ideally) and tells the best story they can. A company and its editors however think about what will sell, and fan attachment to a character eases that pressure; if you have a substantial number of people who will buy the book even if it's not that good (or as Tom put it, "good enough"), that lessens the incentive to make the book better. If, on the other hand, you had an audience who could quickly leave for some other product, the pressure is on to make the best product possible.

Posted by CylverSaber on 2007-09-16 00:30:37

Potential vs. Actual
Creators or Editors, it's the same thing.

The thing is, what you're describing is how things *could* be. Yes, editors, publishers, and anyone else could just let things slide because they know that readers like certain characters. Or they could sit up at nights thinking about the Spider-Man Clone Wars and worrying about being the next editor to destroy reader appreciation for a 10 year stretch. Or they might not think about it at all.

Lots and lots of things *could* be true, but that doesn't mean that they *are* true. Tom actually works in the comic industry as sees what really happens. When he says it's not how it is, that's significant.

Posted by CodeGuy on 2007-09-16 13:24:30

X-MEN
I LOVE THE THING HE IS GREAT!!!!!!!!

Posted by X-Girl/ on 2007-09-16 20:55:04

Not the same thing
Creators and editors are definitely not the same thing; they're concerns are often radically different.

The Clone Saga is an interesting example; people can agree that it was possibly the largest boondoggle in comic history and yet it DIDN'T destroy reader appreciation. Heck, during the Clone Saga sales were at some of their highest points ever, and even afterwards, Spider-Man never tanked on the charts. So when a misguided storyline like that could be dragged out for three years and still not drive away the core fanbase, it's yet another illustration of how fan obsession allows for mediocrity.

Posted by CylverSaber on 2007-09-16 21:26:35

"A list?"
I inadvertently posted this on your previous blog:

I was wondering if anyone had considered quantifying what it means to be an "A list" creator or character? Perhaps in terms of units moved per month? I realize it would be hard to break down why a book sells, in terms of attributing it to the writer or the art team, but I know you have highly professional marketing people who might know a way to figure it that I don't know about. It might be easier in terms of characters, especially those who have (or have recently had) solo titles.

Posted by ted_dahlman on 2007-09-17 22:06:19

Array

Enter a response to this blog post: