There are always some sales figures that we're not seeing; most of these results we're seeing here are based on Direct Sales, but we see nothing of the Digital, Newstand or International sales. Who knows what tales those would tell?
Would you believe I was told Marvel characters had no depth? I told the person Kent is basically an alien orphan with powers & Batman is basically a rich kid who refuses to accept his parents' death. They really have no more or less depth then, say Peter Parker.
M
You've probably seen this@Matt but I wanted to share it with you in case you ever wanted another perspective on the DC / Marvel "problem"
Batman-news.com. Interestingly enough, the same people bashing Snyder, Affleck, Gadot, Eisenberg, & everything "Batman v. Superman" are saying the movie will kick Cap 3's ass. Apparently Cap is a weak character no one likes.
M
Wonder if they still think that after the movie is dominating the box office @Matt?
The March numbers came in like a lion and several books are going down like drowned rats. Time once again for the Carousel of Certain Cancellation!
First, who were the winners? DC has only three books in the Top Ten, but they dominate the first three slots: Batman #29 (116,926), Superman Unchained #6 (94,147) and Forever Evil #6 (92,036). Note that only one book cracks the 100,000 barrier and DC has it. Note that the other two DCs in the Top Ten are either cancelled or a mini-series soon to end.
Marvel took five of the remaining slots, and two of those belong to the Superior Spider-Man at 5 and 7; issues #’s 29 and 30 respectively. Marvel also has two number ones in the top ten: Daredevil #1 and Silver Surfer #1, and Uncanny X-Men #19.NOW rounds off the quintet.
As always, a quick reminder that I'm only noting the mainstream DC and Marvel titles here -- no Digital Firsts, Vertigo, Max, Johnny DC or Ultimates since most of these fall under different rules of sales, distribution and cancellation.
And here are DC’s six poorest sellers; no change, except for two books swapping places:
1- Batwing 29 is clinging tightly to the top slot with 9,864 copies, falling beneath the critical 10,000 mark. That’s a drop of 16.3% from last month, and a fall of 18.4% over six months, breaking loose of its fragile hold of a stable level. Not long for this world, I fear. 2- All-Star Western #29 holds on to the second slot with 12,502 units, a small drop of 2.2%, and only a six-month loss of 1.8%. The slide is slowing, but still continuing. 3- Superboy #29 slips 4.1% to 15,776 copies. That’s a six month drop of 22.0%. Kryptonite would be less painful. 4- Triad Of Sin: Phantom Stranger #17 continues to sink, selling only 16,395 copies. That’s a monthly loss of 3.6% and six month loss of 39.2%. 5- Birds Of Prey #29 hops up a notch by losing over a thousand units this month, racing with great fervor into sure extinction. 16,795 units, dropping 7.2%, and falling 13.3% over six months. 6- Triad Of Sin: Pandora #9 falls deeper to 17,032 copies, dropping 3.8% for the month, and 50.7% for six months. DOOMED!!
The Marvel lineup hasn’t changed much either, except for Savage Wolverine and Nova switching positions. (Note that Marvel’s worst sellers still outsell DC’s worst sellers):
1- Superior Foes Of Spider-Man takes the top slot twice this month! (Technically, it takes 1 & 2, but I didn’t want to change the numbering. These twice-monthlies mess with my head when looking over the figures.) #9, with 18,620 units, falls 3.0 for the month, while #10 drops another 1.0% with 18,437 units; either way, it’s a six-month loss of 38.1%. 2- Thunderbolts #23. 22,701 units. Falls 3.9% for the month, and dropping 23.6% over six months. 3- Nova #15 loses over 3,000 units, falling to 22,996 units, losing 2.0% for the month, and 37.9% over six months. 4- Miracleman has fallen and he can’t get up; he must be waiting for the new material to see print. #4 only attained 23,557 copies; that’s a further drop of 9.3% and a six-month loss of 55.0% 5- Savage Wolverine can’t quite claw his way up, but at least he’s not sinking as fast as the rest. #16 falls to 24,008. That’s a 4.7% drop (slower than last month’s drop) and a six-month loss of 37.2%. I hear they’re going to kill him, which should boost sales like a roman candle, boosting the book out of the Carousel of Doom. 6- Mighty Avengers is stil sinking fast, in spite of holding firmly to the #6 slot. Only 24,933 units - a one month drop of 6.0% and a six-month drop of 75.5%! If this title can’t find the brakes very, very quickly, it is very much DOOMED!!
Information here is based on numbers presented in monthly columns by Dave Carter and Jason Enright for The Beat.
As mentioned before, Miraclman "only" selling more than 20,000 copies is actually remarkable sales for a periodical, $5/pop reprint of nearly 30 year old material that is not even connected to Marvel continuity.
There are a lot of new things out there that would kill to move 23,000 units.
I expect a serious "bump" to Miracleman once the hyped new material begins seeing publication, although after the recent Original Sin cover alteration, I'm wondering if Marvel still plans to bring him into continuity at all - and if so, how?
As mentioned before, Miraclman "only" selling more than 20,000 copies is actually remarkable sales for a periodical, $5/pop reprint of nearly 30 year old material that is not even connected to Marvel continuity.
There are a lot of new things out there that would kill to move 23,000 units.
As mentioned before, Miraclman "only" selling more than 20,000 copies is actually remarkable sales for a periodical, $5/pop reprint of nearly 30 year old material that is not even connected to Marvel continuity.
There are a lot of new things out there that would kill to move 23,000 units.
I must admit that I am one of those that have never read Miracleman - *Gasp*! I'm sure it is excellent, but I never got around to it. All the hype when Marvel acquired the rights, pretty much was "meh" for me. However, once the floppy reprints are done, I would be interested in getting my hands on a collected volume.
...and also, I can't post in this thread without giving the obligatory kudos for the awesome Superior Foes Of Spider-Man. I'll be sorry to see it go. My favourite title being published at Marvel right now. Unfortunately these number reinforce that it is only a matter of months before the fun is over.
Batman-news.com. Interestingly enough, the same people bashing Snyder, Affleck, Gadot, Eisenberg, & everything "Batman v. Superman" are saying the movie will kick Cap 3's ass. Apparently Cap is a weak character no one likes.
M
Wonder if they still think that after the movie is dominating the box office @Matt?
The March numbers came in like a lion and several books are going down like drowned rats.
1- Batwing 29 is clinging tightly to the top slot with 9,864 copies, falling beneath the critical 10,000 mark. That’s a drop of 16.3% from last month, and a fall of 18.4% over six months, breaking loose of its fragile hold of a stable level. Not long for this world, I fear.
This really makes me further question the wisdom of DC's decision to reboot this title so quickly. How many carry-overs and new readers do they really expect to pick up with Grayson? I'm certain that I'm not their target demo.
How long will multiple covers sustain incessant reboots and float issue #1's. Sorry to see that collectors/speculators still possess so much influence on the business decisions of the big 2.
Birds of Prey, Superboy, Batwing, those two Trinity of Sin books and...yes...it finally happened - All-Star Western - have been put on the cancellation list.
Frankly, I give ASW major props for lasting as long as it did, delivering great stories that'll remain on my bookshelf for a long, long time.
According to a post on Comics Alliance, DC has averaged a final issue once about every three weeks and is not far from having canceled 52 titles that were under the New 52 banner.
DC did try some non-mainstream books in their initial launch, and for all of our praising them for it, they have all fallen away except for Swamp Thing, which sells poorly.
Could it be that when people buy a DC or Marvel booik, they JUST want the big events and things that feed the continuity, and for non-event/super-hero books, they just go to the indies? If so, shoudl Marvel and DC keep trying to go beyond their comfort zone if fans won't follow them there?
DC did try some non-mainstream books in their initial launch, and for all of our praising them for it, they have all fallen away except for Swamp Thing, which sells poorly.
Could it be that when people buy a DC or Marvel booik, they JUST want the big events and things that feed the continuity, and for non-event/super-hero books, they just go to the indies? If so, shoudl Marvel and DC keep trying to go beyond their comfort zone if fans won't follow them there?
I've said this before on this forum (though it may have been one or two generations back), but from my observations (mostly when I worked in a comic shop for five years), the majority of comic book readers follow a few specific characters and rarely stray outside of the four or five titles that feature those characters. The people who buy Swamp Thing likely buy indie books as well. They may buy Batman too, but they may not. The people who buy Superman are far less likely (percentage-wise) to also buy indie books—or Jonah Hex or OMAC or titles like that, for that matter.
I think that attitude is slowly changing, but it’s still got a long way to go.
DC did try some non-mainstream books in their initial launch, and for all of our praising them for it, they have all fallen away except for Swamp Thing, which sells poorly.
Could it be that when people buy a DC or Marvel booik, they JUST want the big events and things that feed the continuity, and for non-event/super-hero books, they just go to the indies? If so, shoudl Marvel and DC keep trying to go beyond their comfort zone if fans won't follow them there?
I've said this before on this forum (though it may have been one or two generations back), but from my observations (mostly when I worked in a comic shop for five years), the majority of comic book readers follow a few specific characters and rarely stray outside of the four or five titles that feature those characters. The people who buy Swamp Thing likely buy indie books as well. They may buy Batman too, but they may not. The people who buy Superman are far less likely (percentage-wise) to also buy indie books—or Jonah Hex or OMAC or titles like that, for that matter.
I think that attitude is slowly changing, but it’s still got a long way to go.
I concur. When I stopped reading Batman, I stopped getting any DC books. He was anchor to DC.
Same with Marvel & Spider-man. Though, I do collect Moon Knight when there's a series.
The market gets crapped on a lot for following characters, especially by creators because so many good books die. I've even see editors complain about fans only wanting books that "matter". I think there is a fundamental disconnect there. A lot of fans want to follow the meta-narrative of the universe they read, that's what they are a fan of even if they don't articulate it that way. Reading books that are set in but don't contribute to that narrative in a meaningful way are always going to be tough sells. Trying to add new characters to that narrative when many people have made up their minds about who the important players are, are tough sells, and often garner resentment toward those books for veering the narrative in an unwanted direction. Having a book that isn't involved initially but slowly gets involved almost never works because current readers resent the change in the books direction and new readers aren't interested for the second reason I laid out, then they hear poor word of mouth from current readers. It's an ironic cycle.
And if you are wondering what I think makes a new book a success at the big 2, I have no idea and I don't think they know either. Every success for the last 40 years has been an unrepeatable outlier. Just look at Superior Foes, similar in approach to Hawkeye, quality writing and art and yet it struggles. The only thing the big 2 know how to sell are universe spanning events, and they do it by promising that everything you know is going to change, while at the same time guaranteeing it won't. Which the comic buying public has, despite internet grumbling to the contrary, repeatedly reinforced that this is exactly what it wants.
For the record, I don't do it anymore, but I think following the universal meta-narrative is a perfectly reasonable way to enjoy comics. I know for many of us it was being slowly dragged into it from some entry point (Spider-Man for me) that got us interested in characters we've grown to love. It's just that it has tiered comics in a way that we learned to include relevance as a major factor for whether or not we buy a book, meaning we buy books we are bored with or actively dislike and don't try things we might enjoy for fear of missing out on something "important". (All if this is applicable to a single character's or franchises meta narrative too. I don't care about Batman's or the X-men's meta narrative at all, but do like a good batman or X story every now and then, but there are many invested in the whole thing).
I think that the Silver Age was successful at launching so many new characters because relevancy wasn't an issue. Yes these characters co existed but there was no driving narrative to the whole universe so the books were all on even footing.
It's just that it has tiered comics in a way that we learned to include relevance as a major factor for whether or not we buy a book, meaning we buy books we are bored with or actively dislike and don't try things we might enjoy for fear of missing out on something "important".
Yep. When I was working at the shop, I would often hear something like, “Man, X-Men sucks now.” And when I would ask them, “Well, why do you keep buying it? There are plenty of other titles I'm sure you would enjoy instead,” they would simply say, “But X-Men is my book.”
I think that the Silver Age was successful at launching so many new characters because relevancy wasn't an issue. Yes these characters co existed but there was no driving narrative to the whole universe so the books were all on even footing.
I would argue the opposite actually. DC’s Silver Age success stories (Flash and Green Lantern) were relaunches of some of their most popular Golden Age characters, and they were among the few superhero titles that were being published at the time. In other words, they had very little direct competition. Then Atlas became Marvel.
Marvel was successful because they added relevancy to comics. Lee tried to make sure that the readers knew all the Marvel titles were in the same world, and that what happened in one book affected the rest. It took a few years to build that up in complexity, but it was still world-building on a scale comics had never seen before, and DC eventually followed suit. Most of the characters DC launched in the Silver Age post-Marvel became B- and C-listers for the most part—think the Creeper, Hawk and Dove, Angel and the Ape, the Inferior Five, etc.
I think that the Silver Age was successful at launching so many new characters because relevancy wasn't an issue. Yes these characters co existed but there was no driving narrative to the whole universe so the books were all on even footing.
I would argue the opposite actually. DC’s Silver Age success stories (Flash and Green Lantern) were relaunches of some of their most popular Golden Age characters, and they were among the few superhero titles that were being published at the time. In other words, they had very little direct competition. Then Atlas became Marvel.
Marvel was successful because they added relevancy to comics. Lee tried to make sure that the readers knew all the Marvel titles were in the same world, and that what happened in one book affected the rest. It took a few years to build that up in complexity, but it was still world-building on a scale comics had never seen before, and DC eventually followed suit. Most of the characters DC launched in the Silver Age post-Marvel became B- and C-listers for the most part—think the Creeper, Hawk and Dove, Angel and the Ape, the Inferior Five, etc.
I think that relevancy definitely was part of what made Marvel as a publisher successful, and still does. But the more ingrained it became the harder it has been to launch new characters. The majority of Marvel's successful properties developed when the universe was at its least complex. Now we're shocked when a new Ms Marvel is not a complete failure. And technically that's a legacy character. Can anyone even tell me what the last non reboot non legacy new character to receive a new ongoing from the big 2 was? I'd bet that book is canceled by now.
I think that the Silver Age was successful at launching so many new characters because relevancy wasn't an issue. Yes these characters co existed but there was no driving narrative to the whole universe so the books were all on even footing.
I would argue the opposite actually. DC’s Silver Age success stories (Flash and Green Lantern) were relaunches of some of their most popular Golden Age characters, and they were among the few superhero titles that were being published at the time. In other words, they had very little direct competition. Then Atlas became Marvel.
Marvel was successful because they added relevancy to comics. Lee tried to make sure that the readers knew all the Marvel titles were in the same world, and that what happened in one book affected the rest. It took a few years to build that up in complexity, but it was still world-building on a scale comics had never seen before, and DC eventually followed suit. Most of the characters DC launched in the Silver Age post-Marvel became B- and C-listers for the most part—think the Creeper, Hawk and Dove, Angel and the Ape, the Inferior Five, etc.
I think that relevancy definitely was part of what made Marvel as a publisher successful, and still does. But the more ingrained it became the harder it has been to launch new characters. The majority of Marvel's successful properties developed when the universe was at its least complex. Now we're shocked when a new Ms Marvel is not a complete failure. And technically that's a legacy character. Can anyone even tell me what the last non reboot non legacy new character to receive a new ongoing from the big 2 was? I'd bet that book is canceled by now.
I don’t think it’s any harder to launch a new character now than it was in the ’00s or the ’90s or the ’80s from an editorial and marketing perspective. I think a lot of that has to do with Marvel and DC becoming much more corporate and less seat-of-the-pants in the late ’70s after the near collapse of the industry at that time.
If it’s harder to launch a new character now than it was ten or fifteen years ago, it’s mostly because creator-owned comics are a more viable option now, and creators are less willing to give away their ideas.
I think that the Silver Age was successful at launching so many new characters because relevancy wasn't an issue. Yes these characters co existed but there was no driving narrative to the whole universe so the books were all on even footing.
I would argue the opposite actually. DC’s Silver Age success stories (Flash and Green Lantern) were relaunches of some of their most popular Golden Age characters, and they were among the few superhero titles that were being published at the time. In other words, they had very little direct competition. Then Atlas became Marvel.
Marvel was successful because they added relevancy to comics. Lee tried to make sure that the readers knew all the Marvel titles were in the same world, and that what happened in one book affected the rest. It took a few years to build that up in complexity, but it was still world-building on a scale comics had never seen before, and DC eventually followed suit. Most of the characters DC launched in the Silver Age post-Marvel became B- and C-listers for the most part—think the Creeper, Hawk and Dove, Angel and the Ape, the Inferior Five, etc.
I think that relevancy definitely was part of what made Marvel as a publisher successful, and still does. But the more ingrained it became the harder it has been to launch new characters. The majority of Marvel's successful properties developed when the universe was at its least complex. Now we're shocked when a new Ms Marvel is not a complete failure. And technically that's a legacy character. Can anyone even tell me what the last non reboot non legacy new character to receive a new ongoing from the big 2 was? I'd bet that book is canceled by now.
I don’t think it’s any harder to launch a new character now than it was in the ’00s or the ’90s or the ’80s from an editorial and marketing perspective. I think a lot of that has to do with Marvel and DC becoming much more corporate and less seat-of-the-pants in the late ’70s after the near collapse of the industry at that time.
If it’s harder to launch a new character now than it was ten or fifteen years ago, it’s mostly because creator-owned comics are a more viable option now, and creators are less willing to give away their ideas.
I agree that it's not harder now and actually, in my original post was critical of the last 40 years. As for the "creator owned" argument, where are the breakout indie superheroes? 90% of new indie superhero books are pastiches. But that's actually a whole other conversation.
Edit:
Actually I agree that corporatizing of the big 2 has made them less likely to try new things. They fail so often that there is no incentive to create something wholly new.
DC did try some non-mainstream books in their initial launch, and for all of our praising them for it, they have all fallen away except for Swamp Thing, which sells poorly.
Could it be that when people buy a DC or Marvel booik, they JUST want the big events and things that feed the continuity, and for non-event/super-hero books, they just go to the indies? If so, shoudl Marvel and DC keep trying to go beyond their comfort zone if fans won't follow them there?
In the past, I've always been quick to criticize DC and Marvel for not trying anything new (not just new genres, but even devoting titles to lesser known superheroes). After watching both companies try that for the last few years, now I don't know why they would even bother. It always feels like there are a lot of voices out there complaining about the lack of diversity, the lack of risk, but whenever they do something like that, it fails within a year. That article praises Marvel for all their recent titles related to women and various ethnic groups, but does anyone seriously think most of those will still be around in a year or so?
DC made a strong attempt do more than just superheroes (although, their attempts to still tie them into a unified universe muddied the water a little), and audiences clearly rejected them. The war titles especially seemed to be dead in the water, but even the horror ones, which would seem like easier sells, flopped. At a time when vampires were everywhere, DC couldn't even get audiences to buy "I, Vampire"?
Sad to say, even though it's not reflected in this forum, I think most comic readers have very narrow tastes.
For me, the amount of stuff being reprinted and overall costs are the reason why I do not try a lot of new stuff.
I buy mostly trades and the big 2 are doing a great job reprinting most of their catalog. If they both put out an omnibus, epic collection, or just a lot of good old stuff with whatever new stuff I try to follow - it can wipe out that month's comic budget quickly. It does not leave a lot of room to try something different - especially now that Image is making so much good stuff that I want to give a try.
It is only during the (to me) slow months from the big companies that I can really afford to try something new.
It may not be a good time or environment for new characters or titles, but if you like older material this is probably the best time ever to be a collector.
For me, the amount of stuff being reprinted and overall costs are the reason why I do not try a lot of new stuff.
I buy mostly trades and the big 2 are doing a great job reprinting most of their catalog. If they both put out an omnibus, epic collection, or just a lot of good old stuff with whatever new stuff I try to follow - it can wipe out that month's comic budget quickly. It does not leave a lot of room to try something different - especially now that Image is making so much good stuff that I want to give a try.
It is only during the (to me) slow months from the big companies that I can really afford to try something new.
It may not be a good time or environment for new characters or titles, but if you like older material this is probably the best time ever to be a collector.
Budgets play a large role in every reader’s buying decisions. It took them many years, but eventually Marvel and DC realized that they had a lot of readers who would rather spend their extra money buying their older material (thereby getting more stories relevant to the continuity they love) than trying material from another company. Like any other company, they want to control as much of the market as possible, so they reprint as much of the older material as they feel they can. I don't begrudge them for it—it’s the smart thing to do. And I don't begrudge anyone who’d rather by that older material than by the newest Image title. I buy a lot of those reprints myself.
But it’s all part of what we've been discussing. Most comic readers tend to stick with a few favorite characters, whether that be new material or older material. The older Big Two material is just another thing new characters and new titles have to compete against.
While I agree that this is definitely the best time ever to be a collector, I would argue that it’s also the best time for new characters and new titles since the ’60s. Maybe not for the Big Two, but with the new formats of digital comics and web comics, and the greater ease of self-publishing print comics, it’s absolutely the best time in the history of comics for creators to produce work they can own and control. And now they have better means of finding an audience for that material. That audience just might not be the traditional superhero comic reader.
As for the "creator owned" argument, where are the breakout indie superheroes? 90% of new indie superhero books are pastiches. But that's actually a whole other conversation.
Paul Grist’s Jack Staff should have been a breakout superhero. As should have Grist’s Mud Man and Ian Churchill’s Marine Man. Paul Pope’s Battling Boy has been successful, if only by getting into the library and mainstream markets.
You don’t see a lot of indie superheroes because, one, creators have other interests they want to explore, and two, they realize that it would be an uphill battle competing so directly against the Big Two, new superhero vs. established superheroes.
You don’t see a lot of indie superheroes because, one, creators have other interests they want to explore, and two, they realize that it would be an uphill battle competing so directly against the Big Two, new superhero vs. established superheroes.
Brubaker is a prime example. He made a name for himself with super heroes and now is using his name recognition to build an audience with his creator owned stuff - which is fantastic. He is doing what he (I believe) loves. Why would he bother with creating a new super hero? I could see other established creators following this pattern.
As for the "creator owned" argument, where are the breakout indie superheroes? 90% of new indie superhero books are pastiches. But that's actually a whole other conversation.
Paul Grist’s Jack Staff should have been a breakout superhero. As should have Grist’s Mud Man and Ian Churchill’s Marine Man. Paul Pope’s Battling Boy has been successful, if only by getting into the library and mainstream markets.
You don’t see a lot of indie superheroes because, one, creators have other interests they want to explore, and two, they realize that it would be an uphill battle competing so directly against the Big Two, new superhero vs. established superheroes.
I totally understand that, but it makes the argument that they hold back ideas for themselves a little stickier, because the ideas they want to explore aren't superhero stories. So if a creator wants to make superhero books, which many really do, and they know doing their own is a nearly unwinnable endeavor, especially when the other ideas they want to explore have a greater chance for personal success, then why hold back superhero ideas? Is it just ingrained that you don't come up with something original for work-for-hire, that it's about playing with the toys in the toy box, but that adding one of your own is the same as losing something of your own?
As for the "creator owned" argument, where are the breakout indie superheroes? 90% of new indie superhero books are pastiches. But that's actually a whole other conversation.
Paul Grist’s Jack Staff should have been a breakout superhero. As should have Grist’s Mud Man and Ian Churchill’s Marine Man. Paul Pope’s Battling Boy has been successful, if only by getting into the library and mainstream markets.
You don’t see a lot of indie superheroes because, one, creators have other interests they want to explore, and two, they realize that it would be an uphill battle competing so directly against the Big Two, new superhero vs. established superheroes.
I totally understand that, but it makes the argument that they hold back ideas for themselves a little stickier, because the ideas they want to explore aren't superhero stories. So if a creator wants to make superhero books, which many really do, and they know doing their own is a nearly unwinnable endeavor, especially when the other ideas they want to explore have a greater chance for personal success, then why hold back superhero ideas? Is it just ingrained that you don't come up with something original for work-for-hire, that it's about playing with the toys in the toy box, but that adding one of your own is the same as losing something of your own?
I talk with a lot of different established comic book creators on a regular basis, and when I ask them if they’d consider doing something creator-owned (assuming they haven’t already done so), they usually say something like, “Yeah, I’ve got this sci-fi thing I’ve been thinking about,” or “Yeah, I’ve got this weird fantasy thing I’ve been playing around with for a few years.” I don’t think I’ve ever heard any of them say anything about wanting to do their own superhero. That’s not to say there aren’t any out there. But I think most of them have had plenty of opportunities to scratch that itch, and they’d like to do something different for a change.
But the ideas I’m talking about are the broad story ideas. Or the brilliant plot twist that could be applied equally well to a Batman story or to a 1940s hardboiled detective story. Or the idea for an alien race they could work into Guardians of the Galaxy or Silver Surfer or any number of superhero titles as part of a story arc, but which could also serve as the backdrop for the sci-fi story they’ve been thinking about doing. And so on.
As for the "creator owned" argument, where are the breakout indie superheroes? 90% of new indie superhero books are pastiches. But that's actually a whole other conversation.
Paul Grist’s Jack Staff should have been a breakout superhero. As should have Grist’s Mud Man and Ian Churchill’s Marine Man. Paul Pope’s Battling Boy has been successful, if only by getting into the library and mainstream markets.
You don’t see a lot of indie superheroes because, one, creators have other interests they want to explore, and two, they realize that it would be an uphill battle competing so directly against the Big Two, new superhero vs. established superheroes.
I totally understand that, but it makes the argument that they hold back ideas for themselves a little stickier, because the ideas they want to explore aren't superhero stories. So if a creator wants to make superhero books, which many really do, and they know doing their own is a nearly unwinnable endeavor, especially when the other ideas they want to explore have a greater chance for personal success, then why hold back superhero ideas? Is it just ingrained that you don't come up with something original for work-for-hire, that it's about playing with the toys in the toy box, but that adding one of your own is the same as losing something of your own?
I talk with a lot of different established comic book creators on a regular basis, and when I ask them if they’d consider doing something creator-owned (assuming they haven’t already done so), they usually say something like, “Yeah, I’ve got this sci-fi thing I’ve been thinking about,” or “Yeah, I’ve got this weird fantasy thing I’ve been playing around with for a few years.” I don’t think I’ve ever heard any of them say anything about wanting to do their own superhero. That’s not to say there aren’t any out there. But I think most of them have had plenty of opportunities to scratch that itch, and they’d like to do something different for a change.
But the ideas I’m talking about are the broad story ideas. Or the brilliant plot twist that could be applied equally well to a Batman story or to a 1940s hardboiled detective story. Or the idea for an alien race they could work into Guardians of the Galaxy or Silver Surfer or any number of superhero titles as part of a story arc, but which could also serve as the backdrop for the sci-fi story they’ve been thinking about doing. And so on.
So here's a question. So with the lack of interest on the part of the consumer, incentive for the business and reticence of creators, can the big 2 find a way forward to create successful new properties? Or are we going to revisit the same few characters over and over for the rest of eternity? Should they look to create characters for other media then bring them into their universes a la Harley Quinn?
When you think about it, both Marvel and DC have literally hundreds of characters in their stable. Not all of those have name recognition of any note, but that's not to say they can't be repurposed and made valuable to their companies. Frankly, you can’t make a character that will automatically be popular. It takes the right character with the right creators at the right time. When you already have dozens of characters that have a built-in following, do you really need to focus a lot of your energy on new characters? It’s far more worth your time and energy to keep the successful characters you own in the spotlight.
That’s not to say they should give up completely on new characters, just that they don't need to be, and probably shouldn't be the number one priority.
But let’s look at Vertigo, because that’s where most of DC’s new characters/titles are being developed. The main purpose of Vertigo was/is to create properties that could/can be adapted into movies or TV shows. That’s the only reason those titles are allowed to continue at lower sales numbers than the DCU superhero titles. Over the years they’ve sold options for Vertigo properties, and there was the Hellblazer movie, and now they've got the Hellblazer TV show, and a Sandman film (for real this time) and a Fables film in the works. [Edit: I forgot to add iZombie to the list.]
Marvel has their Icon imprint, but that’s more about keeping their writers in-house than selling movie rights (though I'm sure movie rights are part of it—see Kick-Ass). But with the success of their superhero films, they're probably better off staying focused on their core superheroes, and occasionally a new character will catch fire a lá Deadpool.
Comments
First, who were the winners? DC has only three books in the Top Ten, but they dominate the first three slots: Batman #29 (116,926), Superman Unchained #6 (94,147) and Forever Evil #6 (92,036). Note that only one book cracks the 100,000 barrier and DC has it. Note that the other two DCs in the Top Ten are either cancelled or a mini-series soon to end.
Marvel took five of the remaining slots, and two of those belong to the Superior Spider-Man at 5 and 7; issues #’s 29 and 30 respectively. Marvel also has two number ones in the top ten: Daredevil #1 and Silver Surfer #1, and Uncanny X-Men #19.NOW rounds off the quintet.
As always, a quick reminder that I'm only noting the mainstream DC and Marvel titles here -- no Digital Firsts, Vertigo, Max, Johnny DC or Ultimates since most of these fall under different rules of sales, distribution and cancellation.
And here are DC’s six poorest sellers; no change, except for two books swapping places:
1- Batwing 29 is clinging tightly to the top slot with 9,864 copies, falling beneath the critical 10,000 mark. That’s a drop of 16.3% from last month, and a fall of 18.4% over six months, breaking loose of its fragile hold of a stable level. Not long for this world, I fear.
2- All-Star Western #29 holds on to the second slot with 12,502 units, a small drop of 2.2%, and only a six-month loss of 1.8%. The slide is slowing, but still continuing.
3- Superboy #29 slips 4.1% to 15,776 copies. That’s a six month drop of 22.0%. Kryptonite would be less painful.
4- Triad Of Sin: Phantom Stranger #17 continues to sink, selling only 16,395 copies. That’s a monthly loss of 3.6% and six month loss of 39.2%.
5- Birds Of Prey #29 hops up a notch by losing over a thousand units this month, racing with great fervor into sure extinction. 16,795 units, dropping 7.2%, and falling 13.3% over six months.
6- Triad Of Sin: Pandora #9 falls deeper to 17,032 copies, dropping 3.8% for the month, and 50.7% for six months. DOOMED!!
The Marvel lineup hasn’t changed much either, except for Savage Wolverine and Nova switching positions. (Note that Marvel’s worst sellers still outsell DC’s worst sellers):
1- Superior Foes Of Spider-Man takes the top slot twice this month! (Technically, it takes 1 & 2, but I didn’t want to change the numbering. These twice-monthlies mess with my head when looking over the figures.) #9, with 18,620 units, falls 3.0 for the month, while #10 drops another 1.0% with 18,437 units; either way, it’s a six-month loss of 38.1%.
2- Thunderbolts #23. 22,701 units. Falls 3.9% for the month, and dropping 23.6% over six months.
3- Nova #15 loses over 3,000 units, falling to 22,996 units, losing 2.0% for the month, and 37.9% over six months.
4- Miracleman has fallen and he can’t get up; he must be waiting for the new material to see print. #4 only attained 23,557 copies; that’s a further drop of 9.3% and a six-month loss of 55.0%
5- Savage Wolverine can’t quite claw his way up, but at least he’s not sinking as fast as the rest. #16 falls to 24,008. That’s a 4.7% drop (slower than last month’s drop) and a six-month loss of 37.2%. I hear they’re going to kill him, which should boost sales like a roman candle, boosting the book out of the Carousel of Doom.
6- Mighty Avengers is stil sinking fast, in spite of holding firmly to the #6 slot. Only 24,933 units - a one month drop of 6.0% and a six-month drop of 75.5%! If this title can’t find the brakes very, very quickly, it is very much DOOMED!!
Information here is based on numbers presented in monthly columns by Dave Carter and Jason Enright for The Beat.
There are a lot of new things out there that would kill to move 23,000 units.
Still my favorite of Moordru's work.
I'm sure it is excellent, but I never got around to it. All the hype when Marvel acquired the rights, pretty much was "meh" for me. However, once the floppy reprints are done, I would be interested in getting my hands on a collected volume.
...and also, I can't post in this thread without giving the obligatory kudos for the awesome Superior Foes Of Spider-Man. I'll be sorry to see it go. My favourite title being published at Marvel right now. Unfortunately these number reinforce that it is only a matter of months before the fun is over.
How long will multiple covers sustain incessant reboots and float issue #1's. Sorry to see that collectors/speculators still possess so much influence on the business decisions of the big 2. Original Nova fans gotta stick together...
Birds of Prey, Superboy, Batwing, those two Trinity of Sin books and...yes...it finally happened - All-Star Western - have been put on the cancellation list.
Frankly, I give ASW major props for lasting as long as it did, delivering great stories that'll remain on my bookshelf for a long, long time.
I agree with you, @Torchsong... ASW had a pretty good run, one of the very few decent titles of the whole New52. I will miss it.
http://comicsalliance.com/dc-comics-new-52-47-cancelation/
Could it be that when people buy a DC or Marvel booik, they JUST want the big events and things that feed the continuity, and for non-event/super-hero books, they just go to the indies? If so, shoudl Marvel and DC keep trying to go beyond their comfort zone if fans won't follow them there?
I think that attitude is slowly changing, but it’s still got a long way to go.
Same with Marvel & Spider-man. Though, I do collect Moon Knight when there's a series.
M
And if you are wondering what I think makes a new book a success at the big 2, I have no idea and I don't think they know either. Every success for the last 40 years has been an unrepeatable outlier. Just look at Superior Foes, similar in approach to Hawkeye, quality writing and art and yet it struggles. The only thing the big 2 know how to sell are universe spanning events, and they do it by promising that everything you know is going to change, while at the same time guaranteeing it won't. Which the comic buying public has, despite internet grumbling to the contrary, repeatedly reinforced that this is exactly what it wants.
For the record, I don't do it anymore, but I think following the universal meta-narrative is a perfectly reasonable way to enjoy comics. I know for many of us it was being slowly dragged into it from some entry point (Spider-Man for me) that got us interested in characters we've grown to love. It's just that it has tiered comics in a way that we learned to include relevance as a major factor for whether or not we buy a book, meaning we buy books we are bored with or actively dislike and don't try things we might enjoy for fear of missing out on something "important". (All if this is applicable to a single character's or franchises meta narrative too. I don't care about Batman's or the X-men's meta narrative at all, but do like a good batman or X story every now and then, but there are many invested in the whole thing).
I think that the Silver Age was successful at launching so many new characters because relevancy wasn't an issue. Yes these characters co existed but there was no driving narrative to the whole universe so the books were all on even footing.
I would argue the opposite actually. DC’s Silver Age success stories (Flash and Green Lantern) were relaunches of some of their most popular Golden Age characters, and they were among the few superhero titles that were being published at the time. In other words, they had very little direct competition. Then Atlas became Marvel.
Marvel was successful because they added relevancy to comics. Lee tried to make sure that the readers knew all the Marvel titles were in the same world, and that what happened in one book affected the rest. It took a few years to build that up in complexity, but it was still world-building on a scale comics had never seen before, and DC eventually followed suit. Most of the characters DC launched in the Silver Age post-Marvel became B- and C-listers for the most part—think the Creeper, Hawk and Dove, Angel and the Ape, the Inferior Five, etc.
If it’s harder to launch a new character now than it was ten or fifteen years ago, it’s mostly because creator-owned comics are a more viable option now, and creators are less willing to give away their ideas.
Edit:
Actually I agree that corporatizing of the big 2 has made them less likely to try new things. They fail so often that there is no incentive to create something wholly new.
DC made a strong attempt do more than just superheroes (although, their attempts to still tie them into a unified universe muddied the water a little), and audiences clearly rejected them. The war titles especially seemed to be dead in the water, but even the horror ones, which would seem like easier sells, flopped. At a time when vampires were everywhere, DC couldn't even get audiences to buy "I, Vampire"?
Sad to say, even though it's not reflected in this forum, I think most comic readers have very narrow tastes.
I buy mostly trades and the big 2 are doing a great job reprinting most of their catalog. If they both put out an omnibus, epic collection, or just a lot of good old stuff with whatever new stuff I try to follow - it can wipe out that month's comic budget quickly. It does not leave a lot of room to try something different - especially now that Image is making so much good stuff that I want to give a try.
It is only during the (to me) slow months from the big companies that I can really afford to try something new.
It may not be a good time or environment for new characters or titles, but if you like older material this is probably the best time ever to be a collector.
But it’s all part of what we've been discussing. Most comic readers tend to stick with a few favorite characters, whether that be new material or older material. The older Big Two material is just another thing new characters and new titles have to compete against.
While I agree that this is definitely the best time ever to be a collector, I would argue that it’s also the best time for new characters and new titles since the ’60s. Maybe not for the Big Two, but with the new formats of digital comics and web comics, and the greater ease of self-publishing print comics, it’s absolutely the best time in the history of comics for creators to produce work they can own and control. And now they have better means of finding an audience for that material. That audience just might not be the traditional superhero comic reader.
You don’t see a lot of indie superheroes because, one, creators have other interests they want to explore, and two, they realize that it would be an uphill battle competing so directly against the Big Two, new superhero vs. established superheroes.
Brubaker is a prime example. He made a name for himself with super heroes and now is using his name recognition to build an audience with his creator owned stuff - which is fantastic. He is doing what he (I believe) loves. Why would he bother with creating a new super hero? I could see other established creators following this pattern.
But the ideas I’m talking about are the broad story ideas. Or the brilliant plot twist that could be applied equally well to a Batman story or to a 1940s hardboiled detective story. Or the idea for an alien race they could work into Guardians of the Galaxy or Silver Surfer or any number of superhero titles as part of a story arc, but which could also serve as the backdrop for the sci-fi story they’ve been thinking about doing. And so on.
That’s not to say they should give up completely on new characters, just that they don't need to be, and probably shouldn't be the number one priority.
But let’s look at Vertigo, because that’s where most of DC’s new characters/titles are being developed. The main purpose of Vertigo was/is to create properties that could/can be adapted into movies or TV shows. That’s the only reason those titles are allowed to continue at lower sales numbers than the DCU superhero titles. Over the years they’ve sold options for Vertigo properties, and there was the Hellblazer movie, and now they've got the Hellblazer TV show, and a Sandman film (for real this time) and a Fables film in the works. [Edit: I forgot to add iZombie to the list.]
Marvel has their Icon imprint, but that’s more about keeping their writers in-house than selling movie rights (though I'm sure movie rights are part of it—see Kick-Ass). But with the success of their superhero films, they're probably better off staying focused on their core superheroes, and occasionally a new character will catch fire a lá Deadpool.