But my love of certain characters has led me to writers many times. Reading JLA and Fantastic Four led me to Mark Waid, and now Daredevil (plus the other million great things he's done in the last 20 years), Fraction on Iron Man led me to Hawkeye, and so on...
Did you read any of the previous Daredevil series? It was great. I can't reccomend it highly enough. It started with an amazing Kevin Smith story, then had a long (and equaly great) Bendis, then Brubaker run. Just pretend the Diggle run never happened.
With the exception of the Kevin Smith story -- which was great -- I tended to ignore Daredevil after Frank Miller left the book. I never cared for the dark, noirish DD, which always felt anathemic to the original swashbuckling, wise-cracking man-without-fear persona. Miller's turn to the darker side worked well, but he was the only one who really pulled it off. I tried reading the series a few times since -- Chichester and Weeks, Nocenti and Romita Jr, Brubaker and whoever -- all left me feeling pretty empty. Not to say they weren't doing any good stories, but none of it ever felt like Daredevil to me. (O'Neil and Mazzuchelli had a pretty good turn, though.)
Which is why I love the current Mark Waid run. Waid has managed to utilize the best of both the swashbuckler devil-may-care character and the noirish DD to produce some really great, great stories.
I think that the deeper you get into Bendis on Daredevil, the more your realize the brilliance that he has done with the character. It is a darker take, but it is one well worth your time and attention. For evidence of what Bendis can do with a dark tone check out my favorite comic book series Alias.
I think that the deeper you get into Bendis on Daredevil, the more your realize the brilliance that he has done with the character. It is a darker take, but it is one well worth your time and attention. For evidence of what Bendis can do with a dark tone check out my favorite comic book series Alias.
No, like I said, I tried it. I even have one of the trades. It was okay, but it wasn't my Daredevil. I really don't like DD in that kind of dark setting as a general rule.
No, like I said, I tried it. I even have one of the trades. It was okay, but it wasn't my Daredevil. I really don't like DD in that kind of dark setting as a general rule.
That is a perfectly ok answer. I'm with you on not reading versions of characters you don't like. I happen to like both versions.
I dropped Hulk when Loeb was the only Hulk book because I didn't like it at the time. I'll even admit that I dropped Daniel Way's Ghost Rider after the first arc.
I've since gone back and picked both up for cheap. Loeb's Hulk was much better and way more fun than I remembered. Way's GR got better and set up an interesting take on GR, but it wasn't anything to write home about.
But my love of certain characters has led me to writers many times. Reading JLA and Fantastic Four led me to Mark Waid, and now Daredevil (plus the other million great things he's done in the last 20 years), Fraction on Iron Man led me to Hawkeye, and so on...
Did you read any of the previous Daredevil series? It was great. I can't reccomend it highly enough. It started with an amazing Kevin Smith story, then had a long (and equaly great) Bendis, then Brubaker run. Just pretend the Diggle run never happened.
With the exception of the Kevin Smith story -- which was great -- I tended to ignore Daredevil after Frank Miller left the book. I never cared for the dark, noirish DD, which always felt anathemic to the original swashbuckling, wise-cracking man-without-fear persona. Miller's turn to the darker side worked well, but he was the only one who really pulled it off. I tried reading the series a few times since -- Chichester and Weeks, Nocenti and Romita Jr, Brubaker and whoever -- all left me feeling pretty empty. Not to say they weren't doing any good stories, but none of it ever felt like Daredevil to me. (O'Neil and Mazzuchelli had a pretty good turn, though.)
Which is why I love the current Mark Waid run. Waid has managed to utilize the best of both the swashbuckler devil-may-care character and the noirish DD to produce some really great, great stories.
I think that the deeper you get into Bendis on Daredevil, the more your realize the brilliance that he has done with the character. It is a darker take, but it is one well worth your time and attention. For evidence of what Bendis can do with a dark tone check out my favorite comic book series Alias.
If you really want to see what Bendis can do with a dark tone, check out his Torso graphic novel. I liked Alias quite a bit, but I think Torso may still be the best book he’s ever written.
For me his DD run started out great, but it really started dragging about halfway through. His obsession with Mamet killed the pacing of that book, and while I enjoyed his characterization and dialogue, too often I’d get to the end of an issue and feel that the plot hadn’t advanced one inch. I was on the fence about whether to drop it or not for months. I am heartily enjoying Mark’s current run on the book though.
I've been thinking about this a little more and I think following the creator instead of the characters can backfire. Chuck Dixon has done a lot of work for both Marvel and DC; Marc Spector: Moon Knight, Green Arrow, Robin, etc. I don't seek out his work, but have read it when he came onto books featuring characters I was interested in.
As I was pursuing my pulp comics collection, I came across the first Green Hornet series by NOW Comics. I was reading it and recall feeling it seemed very formulaic with Batman and Moon Knight. I checked to see who the writer was and sure enough, it was Chuck Dixon. It feels like he has a certain style and just swaps out the main character's name for his story. I'm not saying I don't like it, but I like each of the characters I read to have some type of individuality, even if they are very similar.
I've been thinking about this a little more and I think following the creator instead of the characters can backfire. Chuck Dixon has done a lot of work for both Marvel and DC; Marc Spector: Moon Knight, Green Arrow, Robin, etc. I don't seek out his work, but have read it when he came onto books featuring characters I was interested in.
As I was pursuing my pulp comics collection, I came across the first Green Hornet series by NOW Comics. I was reading it and recall feeling it seemed very formulaic with Batman and Moon Knight. I checked to see who the writer was and sure enough, it was Chuck Dixon. It feels like he has a certain style and just swaps out the main character's name for his story. I'm not saying I don't like it, but I like each of the characters I read to have some type of individuality, even if they are very similar.
M
There are very few creators that I buy everything they do. I love Jeff Lemire’s creator-owned work, and I will try anything he does, but I don't buy any of his mainstream DC work. Same with Matt Kindt. As much as I love Neil Gaiman’s writing, 1602 didn’t do anything for me, and I dropped it three issues in. I think Paul Pope and Darwyn Cooke may be the only guys that I buy any and every book they produce.
But there are many creators that I will try whatever book they’re on. I may not stick with it, but I respect their talents enough to give whatever they do a shot. I don’t think anyone is saying you should blindly follow creators, just as no one is saying you should blindly follow characters. But I do think if you follow your favorite creators over your favorite characters, you are likely to get greater satisfaction and less frustration from your reading in the end.
But there are many creators that I will try whatever book they’re on. I may not stick with it, but I respect their talents enough to give whatever they do a shot. I don’t think anyone is saying you should blindly follow creators, just as no one is saying you should blindly follow characters. But I do think if you follow your favorite creators over your favorite characters, you are likely to get greater satisfaction and less frustration from your reading in the end.
I'm this way with Keith Giffen. I do not enjoy everything he's ever done, but his name on a book will at least make me want to give it a day in court.
And the same is pretty much true for me and characters. When I hear that...yet again...they're revamping Captain Marvel/Shazam, I may bitch and moan, but I'll be buying that first issue to see what I think.
Sometimes, the characters AND the stories suck. But I still can enjoy them.
I have been reading the House of Mystery and House of Secrets Showcase volumes from DC. The stories are mediocre at best, and the characters are paper thin, but the art is some of the best ever done. Nino, Toth, Nebres, Alcala, Adams, and lots of others, drawing their hearts out... telling a story (usually an awful one) like their lives depended on it...
I agree with the comments regarding emphasis shifting from character to creator as one gets older. Obviously, it's not the case with everybody, and not making that transition isn't a bad thing. But I remember as kid getting into comics because I loved the Fantastic Four, especially the Thing. I never imagined not reading that comic.
Then, John Byrne left. I didn't notice it at first, but within a few months, I was off the title. It just wasn't the same, and that was when I realized that all along, I'd been buying it because I liked Byrne's work. It just so happened that the month I decided to start buying FF was shortly after he'd started on the book, so I'd just assumed it was always going to be that good.
After that, my comic tastes branched out a lot more.
Generally, I will follow the characters over the writers, because it's the characters I want to read about. I want stories about Superman, Daredevil, Justice League, Avengers, Spider-Man, etc. I'll stick with them even through the mediocre work because I still enjoy the characters. (Some writers do better characterizations than stories.) But when the stories veer off into garbage or do unacceptable things, I will and do drop them. I've dropped a lot of DC books since the New52 began because I just don't want to see the characters handled the way they've been handling them; for the first time in decades, I no longer care about, and am no longer interested in, the major characters like Superman and Batman.
If you're a creator, its actually selfish to say readers should follow creators over characters. It'd put the importance on the creators over the characters. I'd deduce new readers aren't jumping onto a Batman book because Scott Snyder is writing it, but because they like Batman.
If you're a creator, its actually selfish to say readers should follow creators over characters. It'd put the importance on the creators over the characters. I'd deduce new readers aren't jumping onto a Batman book because Scott Snyder is writing it, but because they like Batman.
M
I like Batman, but I jumped off of Batman because of Snyder's stories. I follow the characters, but a writer's (or an artist's) handling can wield a heavy influence.
If you're a creator, its actually selfish to say readers should follow creators over characters. It'd put the importance on the creators over the characters. I'd deduce new readers aren't jumping onto a Batman book because Scott Snyder is writing it, but because they like Batman.
M
But then why aren't all the Batman books selling or maintaining equal numbers? If Snyder/Capullo are not the thing that makes Batman sell better than Detective, Batman & Robin, etc., then what is?
If you're a creator, its actually selfish to say readers should follow creators over characters. It'd put the importance on the creators over the characters. I'd deduce new readers aren't jumping onto a Batman book because Scott Snyder is writing it, but because they like Batman.
M
But then why aren't all the Batman books selling or maintaining equal numbers? If Snyder/Capullo are not the thing that makes Batman sell better than Detective, Batman & Robin, etc., then what is?
The title.
Same way Amazing Spider-Man always sold better than Web Of, Peter Parker, the Spectacular, etc.
There is a perception that it's the REAL Batman book.
If you're a creator, its actually selfish to say readers should follow creators over characters. It'd put the importance on the creators over the characters. I'd deduce new readers aren't jumping onto a Batman book because Scott Snyder is writing it, but because they like Batman.
M
But then why aren't all the Batman books selling or maintaining equal numbers? If Snyder/Capullo are not the thing that makes Batman sell better than Detective, Batman & Robin, etc., then what is?
The title.
Same way Amazing Spider-Man always sold better than Web Of, Peter Parker, the Spectacular, etc.
There is a perception that it's the REAL Batman book.
AFIK, Batman has always outsold Detective.
Could be. I don't follow the numbers game closely enough, but you are probably right.
Still, though, if the context is new readers, the ones that Matt is talking about, and he is saying they would jump onto Batman not because of Snyder and Capullo's work, but because they like Batman the character, then maybe I could see why such a new reader might not jump at something called Detective Comics as much. But to that new reader, would there be THAT much of a difference between Batman and Batman & Robin or Batman: The Dark Knight? That new reader would be unaware of the history of the perceived "main" book. They just like Batman. Batman would be on the cover of all those books. Is it not possible that what might make them not just pick Batman but more importantly stay on it and sustain those numbers is the work Snyder and Capullo (including his great covers) do on that book?
I also think sustaining readership is the key. And there editorial might be determining fate some-- if Batman has long been seen as the flagship book, they are going to put the best or at least most attractive team on it. That is the book that Loeb and Lee were put on. That is the book that did Year One.
But even then, it is still about talent. Even if they are helping Batman outsell Detective, it is still the talent that is making that difference.
Put another way-- when a new reader picks one book to try, they may just pick what they pick because they like Batman. If the decide to buy the NEXT issue of the same title, even over other available Batman-starring choices, it is because of what those specific creators did WITH Batman.
So even if Batman has been the historically highest selling Bat title, I think the talent that has been on it, and continue to be put on it, is a part of that. I don't buy that a new reader would know that book enough by historical reputation (or that the simple name is so different from the other titles) to account for the vast difference in sales between that book and the other Bat-books.
Still, though, if the context is new readers, the ones that Matt is talking about, and he is saying they would jump onto Batman not because of Snyder and Capullo's work, but because they like Batman the character, then maybe I could see why such a new reader might not jump at something called Detective Comics as much. But to that new reader, would there be THAT much of a difference between Batman and Batman & Robin or Batman: The Dark Knight? That new reader would be unaware of the history of the perceived "main" book. They just like Batman. Batman would be on the cover of all those books. Is it not possible that what might make them not just pick Batman but more importantly stay on it and sustain those numbers is the work Snyder and Capullo (including his great covers) do on that book?
I really think this is a significant factor.
You go to the store wanting a Batman comic.
You get the comic that just says "Batman".
This is why Marvel took Amazing Spider-Man nigh-weekly a few years back. It has always outsold the other Spider-books consistently, regardless of creative team.
Besides, your new reader doesn't know Scott Snyder from Dee Snyder.
Still, though, if the context is new readers, the ones that Matt is talking about, and he is saying they would jump onto Batman not because of Snyder and Capullo's work, but because they like Batman the character, then maybe I could see why such a new reader might not jump at something called Detective Comics as much. But to that new reader, would there be THAT much of a difference between Batman and Batman & Robin or Batman: The Dark Knight? That new reader would be unaware of the history of the perceived "main" book. They just like Batman. Batman would be on the cover of all those books. Is it not possible that what might make them not just pick Batman but more importantly stay on it and sustain those numbers is the work Snyder and Capullo (including his great covers) do on that book?
I really think this is a significant factor.
You go to the store wanting a Batman comic.
You get the comic that just says "Batman".
This is why Marvel took Amazing Spider-Man nigh-weekly a few years back. It has always outsold the other Spider-books consistently, regardless of creative team.
Besides, your new reader doesn't know Scott Snyder from Dee Snyder.
Sure, but if Snyder and Capullo weren't doing arguably the best work in the line, they wouldn't still be maintaining Batman as the highest numbers. There are simply not enough new readers coming in and choosing off the name of the book to keep the numbers as strong (and as different from the other titles) as we see.
My argument, circling back to what Matt was saying before, is that a lot of people like Batman, but the work that is being done by the creators on Batman is a deciding factor in why that sells, and maintains sales, so much better than the others.
So I take his point, and yours, that a new reader doesn't know the creator names and is trying it because of the character. But my point is that what sells the next issue to the same person is what those creators did with the character. And there is a reason why some creators sell more next issues than others.
And there are times when talent (or, more specifically, creative team) can beat history-- on a hunch I looked back at a few months in 2003 and 2004, when Ultimate Spider-Man and Marvel Knights Spider-Man, by Millar and the Dodsons, defied the historical seller and beat Amazing Spider-Man. And I would bet there are other examples, as I would guess there was a period when New X-Men was beating Uncanny.
Sure, but if Snyder and Capullo weren't doing arguably the best work in the line, they wouldn't still be maintaining Batman as the highest numbers. There are simply not enough new readers coming in and choosing off the name of the book to keep the numbers as strong (and as different from the other titles) as we see.
My argument, circling back to what Matt was saying before, is that a lot of people like Batman, but the work that is being done by the creators on Batman is a deciding factor in why that sells, and maintains sales, so much better than the others.
So I take his point, and yours, that a new reader doesn't know the creator names and is trying it because of the character. But my point is that what sells the next issue to the same person is what those creators did with the character. And there is a reason why some creators sell more next issues than others.
And there are times when talent (or, more specifically, creative team) can beat history-- on a hunch I looked back at a few months in 2003 and 2004, when Ultimate Spider-Man and Marvel Knights Spider-Man, but Millar and the Dodsons, beat Amazing Spider-Man.
The Ultimate and Marvel Knights lines were kind of ... exceptional ... exceptions. :D They weren't "the rest of" the Spider-books, they were special, high-profile new lines. USM's sales dwindled as the Ultimate novelty wore off, and MKS was a short-lived stunt.
Regarding your first paragraph, non-new readers, or "collectors", get the series that they've always gotten*. And if they're getting ANY Batman books, the one they're certain to be getting is Batman. Some may get Batman and Detective, some may get Batman and Batman & Robin, some may get all the Batbooks, but they're each gonna get Batman, because it's THE Batman book. This was true long before Snyder was on the book.
God knows I hate to agree with Rob Liefeld, but Batman sells Batman far, far more than Snyder sells Batman.
*Until they reach the stage that prompted this thread.
Batman has kind of a weird "chicken or egg" conundrum for me. Yes, it's typically the bigger seller, but because it's so important, it also usually gets a prominent creative team. When Grant Morrison wanted to write the character, they put him on Batman, not Detective. Unless Wikipedia's lying to me, it looks like Neal Adams "graduated" from Detective to Batman after proving himself with the character. Scott Snyder had a similar situation. So, did it become the go to Batman title because it had the top talent? Or does it get the top talent because it's the main title? Either way, people buying the title can usually safely assume that it will be in good hands.
Sure, but if Snyder and Capullo weren't doing arguably the best work in the line, they wouldn't still be maintaining Batman as the highest numbers. There are simply not enough new readers coming in and choosing off the name of the book to keep the numbers as strong (and as different from the other titles) as we see.
My argument, circling back to what Matt was saying before, is that a lot of people like Batman, but the work that is being done by the creators on Batman is a deciding factor in why that sells, and maintains sales, so much better than the others.
So I take his point, and yours, that a new reader doesn't know the creator names and is trying it because of the character. But my point is that what sells the next issue to the same person is what those creators did with the character. And there is a reason why some creators sell more next issues than others.
And there are times when talent (or, more specifically, creative team) can beat history-- on a hunch I looked back at a few months in 2003 and 2004, when Ultimate Spider-Man and Marvel Knights Spider-Man, but Millar and the Dodsons, beat Amazing Spider-Man.
The Ultimate and Marvel Knights lines were kind of ... exceptional ... exceptions. :D They weren't "the rest of" the Spider-books, they were special, high-profile new lines. USM's sales dwindled as the Ultimate novelty wore off, and MKS was a short-lived stunt.
Regarding your first paragraph, non-new readers, or "collectors", get the series that they've always gotten*. And if they're getting ANY Batman books, the one they're certain to be getting is Batman. Some may get Batman and Detective, some may get Batman and Batman & Robin, some may get all the Batbooks, but they're each gonna get Batman, because it's THE Batman book. This was true long before Snyder was on the book.
God knows I hate to agree with Rob Liefeld, but Batman sells Batman far, far more than Snyder sells Batman. *Until they reach the stage that prompted this thread.
Also, looking back at 2009, Morrison/Quitely on Batman & Robin outsold Batman.
Could be another exception, sure. But it is also a reminder that talent, and buzz from certain talent, or even talent that do great covers, can also have an affect.
I take your larger point-- and I would never argue that the talent is the bigger draw than the character on these sorts of titles.
Though it is still hard to parse the 'I'm getting this one because I have to' from 'I'm getting this one because it is the best' when it is also a title that consistently gets top talent hired onto it. You know what I mean?
It is easy to point to consistent high sales and say that is a history. But that is also a history made out of talent. Consistent poor talent even on a historically "important" or collectible book can catch up with it. Just as creative that people are excited about can make a book that historically had not been considered as "important" or collectible suddenly the one that people feel they want to buy every month.
Put another way- there was a point when people started buying more Avengers books than X-Men books. And I don't think that is because the characters had changed that much. Rather, the buzz that comes with certain creative moves, and even creative teams, affected the bottom line in an even greater number than the inertia of historical buying.
Again- bottom line is that Batman is still bigger than the people that work on him. Of course. But there is a difference the people working on him make in getting readers to pick (and more importantly stay with) THIS Batman instead of that. Or even to read a Batman comic whatsoever, rather than just getting their Batman fix only from a cartoon or a video game. Talent still has that effect.
And, of course, it is not an either/or. In the case of the continuing success of Batman it is Batman AND Snyder/Capullo that sells and continues to sell Batman.
Sure, but if Snyder and Capullo weren't doing arguably the best work in the line, they wouldn't still be maintaining Batman as the highest numbers. There are simply not enough new readers coming in and choosing off the name of the book to keep the numbers as strong (and as different from the other titles) as we see.
My argument, circling back to what Matt was saying before, is that a lot of people like Batman, but the work that is being done by the creators on Batman is a deciding factor in why that sells, and maintains sales, so much better than the others.
So I take his point, and yours, that a new reader doesn't know the creator names and is trying it because of the character. But my point is that what sells the next issue to the same person is what those creators did with the character. And there is a reason why some creators sell more next issues than others.
And there are times when talent (or, more specifically, creative team) can beat history-- on a hunch I looked back at a few months in 2003 and 2004, when Ultimate Spider-Man and Marvel Knights Spider-Man, but Millar and the Dodsons, beat Amazing Spider-Man.
The Ultimate and Marvel Knights lines were kind of ... exceptional ... exceptions. :D They weren't "the rest of" the Spider-books, they were special, high-profile new lines. USM's sales dwindled as the Ultimate novelty wore off, and MKS was a short-lived stunt.
Regarding your first paragraph, non-new readers, or "collectors", get the series that they've always gotten*. And if they're getting ANY Batman books, the one they're certain to be getting is Batman. Some may get Batman and Detective, some may get Batman and Batman & Robin, some may get all the Batbooks, but they're each gonna get Batman, because it's THE Batman book. This was true long before Snyder was on the book.
God knows I hate to agree with Rob Liefeld, but Batman sells Batman far, far more than Snyder sells Batman. *Until they reach the stage that prompted this thread.
Oh-- also, looking back at 2009, Morrison/Quitely on Batman & Robin outsold Batman.
Could be another exception, sure. But it is also a reminder that talent, and buzz from certain talent, or even talent that do great covers, can also have an affect.
I take your larger point-- and I would never argue that the talent is the bigger draw than the character on these sorts of titles.
Though it is still hard to parse the 'I'm getting this one because I have to' from 'I'm getting this one because it is the best' when it is also a title that consistently gets top talent hired onto it. You know what I mean?
It is easy to point to consistent high sales and say that is a history. But that is also a history made out of talent. Consistent poor talent even on a historically "important" or collectible book can catch up with it. Just as creative that people are excited about can make a book that historically had not been considered as "important" or collectible suddenly the one that people feel they want to buy every month.
Put another way- there was a point when people started buying more Avengers books than X-Men books. And I don't think that is because the characters had changed that much. Rather, the buzz that comes with certain creative moves, and even creative teams, affected the bottom line in an even greater number than the inertia of historical buying.
Again- bottom line is that Batman is still bigger than the people that work on him. Of course. But there is a difference the people working on him make in getting readers to pick (and more importantly stay with) THIS Batman instead of that. Or even to read a Batman comic whatsoever, rather than just getting their Batman fix only from a cartoon or a video game. Talent still has that effect.
And, of course, it is not an either/or. In the case of the continuing success of Batman it is Batman AND Snyder/Capullo that sells and continues to sell Batman.
I don't think anyone is arguing that strong talent has no effect on a book. But good talent rarely sells a book on it's own regardless of buzz. Look a Immortal Iron Fist or I, Vampire. Batman sells Batman to the never-say-die Batfans. When their curious but less invested friends come along and say "Hey Batman is cool, what Batman stories should I read" the Batfans say "Snyder and Capullo is amazing, read this" and its sales grow. But even in the case of the casual fan its "I want to read a good Batman story" not "I want to read a good story", so in the end its still Batman selling Batman, just with an assist.
There are always execeptions but more often they prove the rule. Batman and Robin was a marquee creative team, half of whom was already in the middle of a seminal Batman run, with a new #1, which speculators love. Its inability to stay the top seller does more to prove the position of Batman as the flagship title.
Brands grow stale, get revitalized and grow stale again, that's the cycle of comics. But there have been almost no new characters in the Big 2 in 40 years to really take off, and what franchises are popular has remained relatively consistent over a long period of time because it's the characters that are pushing the books.
Sure, but if Snyder and Capullo weren't doing arguably the best work in the line, they wouldn't still be maintaining Batman as the highest numbers. There are simply not enough new readers coming in and choosing off the name of the book to keep the numbers as strong (and as different from the other titles) as we see.
My argument, circling back to what Matt was saying before, is that a lot of people like Batman, but the work that is being done by the creators on Batman is a deciding factor in why that sells, and maintains sales, so much better than the others.
So I take his point, and yours, that a new reader doesn't know the creator names and is trying it because of the character. But my point is that what sells the next issue to the same person is what those creators did with the character. And there is a reason why some creators sell more next issues than others.
And there are times when talent (or, more specifically, creative team) can beat history-- on a hunch I looked back at a few months in 2003 and 2004, when Ultimate Spider-Man and Marvel Knights Spider-Man, but Millar and the Dodsons, beat Amazing Spider-Man.
The Ultimate and Marvel Knights lines were kind of ... exceptional ... exceptions. :D They weren't "the rest of" the Spider-books, they were special, high-profile new lines. USM's sales dwindled as the Ultimate novelty wore off, and MKS was a short-lived stunt.
Regarding your first paragraph, non-new readers, or "collectors", get the series that they've always gotten*. And if they're getting ANY Batman books, the one they're certain to be getting is Batman. Some may get Batman and Detective, some may get Batman and Batman & Robin, some may get all the Batbooks, but they're each gonna get Batman, because it's THE Batman book. This was true long before Snyder was on the book.
God knows I hate to agree with Rob Liefeld, but Batman sells Batman far, far more than Snyder sells Batman. *Until they reach the stage that prompted this thread.
Oh-- also, looking back at 2009, Morrison/Quitely on Batman & Robin outsold Batman.
Could be another exception, sure. But it is also a reminder that talent, and buzz from certain talent, or even talent that do great covers, can also have an affect.
I take your larger point-- and I would never argue that the talent is the bigger draw than the character on these sorts of titles.
Though it is still hard to parse the 'I'm getting this one because I have to' from 'I'm getting this one because it is the best' when it is also a title that consistently gets top talent hired onto it. You know what I mean?
It is easy to point to consistent high sales and say that is a history. But that is also a history made out of talent. Consistent poor talent even on a historically "important" or collectible book can catch up with it. Just as creative that people are excited about can make a book that historically had not been considered as "important" or collectible suddenly the one that people feel they want to buy every month.
Put another way- there was a point when people started buying more Avengers books than X-Men books. And I don't think that is because the characters had changed that much. Rather, the buzz that comes with certain creative moves, and even creative teams, affected the bottom line in an even greater number than the inertia of historical buying.
Again- bottom line is that Batman is still bigger than the people that work on him. Of course. But there is a difference the people working on him make in getting readers to pick (and more importantly stay with) THIS Batman instead of that. Or even to read a Batman comic whatsoever, rather than just getting their Batman fix only from a cartoon or a video game. Talent still has that effect.
And, of course, it is not an either/or. In the case of the continuing success of Batman it is Batman AND Snyder/Capullo that sells and continues to sell Batman.
I don't think anyone is arguing that strong talent has no effect on a book. But good talent rarely sells a book on it's own regardless of buzz. Look a Immortal Iron Fist or I, Vampire. Batman sells Batman to the never-say-die Batfans. When their curious but less invested friends come along and say "Hey Batman is cool, what Batman stories should I read" the Batfans say "Snyder and Capullo is amazing, read this" and its sales grow. But even in the case of the casual fan its "I want to read a good Batman story" not "I want to read a good story", so in the end its still Batman selling Batman, just with an assist.
There are always execeptions but more often they prove the rule. Batman and Robin was a marquee creative team, half of whom was already in the middle of a seminal Batman run, with a new #1, which speculators love. Its inability to stay the top seller does more to prove the position of Batman as the flagship title.
Brands grow stale, get revitalized and grow stale again, that's the cycle of comics. But there have been almost no new characters in the Big 2 in 40 years to really take off, and what franchises are popular has remained relatively consistent over a long period of time because it's the characters that are pushing the books.
But the there's Hawkeye. And Saga. And The Walking Dead. And Fables becoming a franchise.
And a Guardians of the Galaxy book beating a lot (all?) the Marvel franchise books in a given month.
Exceptions? Maybe. But one could build a larger list of exceptions than we could 20 years ago.
The Information Age is letting more cream rise to the top. And some brands (like WD) can build fast.
But the there's Hawkeye. And Saga. And The Walking Dead. And Fables becoming a franchise.
And a Guardians of the Galaxy book beating a lot (all?) the Marvel franchise books in a given month.
Exceptions? Maybe. But one could build a larger list of exceptions than we could 20 years ago.
The Information Age is letting more cream rise to the top. And some brands (like WD) can build fast.
Hawkeye barely cracks the top 50 in sales, Fables doesn't break 150. And there's always been room for a certain percentage of non big 2 in the market but the amount of room hasn't changed. As for Guardians, yes that's an exception, but its one with marquee talent and a movie coming out. Look at the previous, amazing Guardians series. In fact, we see MORE variety at the top 20 years ago:
This is the top 20 from July 1995 (the earliest I could find): 1 Spawn 34 $1.95 Image 218.25 2 Gen 13 4 $2.50 Image 197.01 3 Spawn: Blood Feud 2 $2.25 Image 187.48 4 Cyblade Shi Special The Battle 2 $2.95 Image 180.86 5 Dawn 1 $2.95 Sirius 120.52 6 Sovereign Seven 3 $1.95 DC 119.91 7 Shi-Senryaku 1 $2.95 Crusade 118.40 8 WildC.A.T.s 22 $2.50 Image 102.84 9 Superman vs. Aliens 3 $4.95 Dark Horse 100.85 10 Superman vs. Aliens 104 $1.95 DC 100.11 11 Batman 522 $1.95 DC 100.00 12 Action Comics 713 $1.95 DC 97.67 13 Superman: Man of Steel 48 $1.95 DC 96.95 14 Adventures of Superman 527 $1.95 DC 96.94 15 Wetworks 9 $2.50 Image 94.58 16 X-Files 7 $2.95 Topps 91.11 17 Nightwing 1 $2.25 DC 90.96 18 Star Wars X-Wing Rogue Squadron 1 $2.95 Dark Horse 90.28 19 Detective Comics 689 $1.95 DC 89.74 20 Wonder Woman
This is last month: 1 Superman Unchained 2 $3.99 DC 165,754 2 Batman 22 $3.99 DC 132,047 3 Guardians of Galaxy 5 $3.99 Marvel 110,372 4 Justice League 22 $3.99 DC 110,194 5 Batman Annual 2 $4.99 DC 101,726 6 Batman Superman 2 $3.99 DC 92,558 7 Justice League of America 6 $3.99 DC 86,192 8 Superior Spider-Man 13 $3.99 Marvel 81,678 9 Superior Spider-Man 14 $3.99 Marvel 80,839 10 Superior Spider-Man Team Up 1 $3.99 Marvel 76,959 11 All New X-Men 14 $3.99 Marvel 74,848 12 Walking Dead 112 $2.99 Image 72,975 13 Avengers 16 $3.99 Marvel 72,842 14 Hunger 1 $3.99 Marvel 70,835 15 Uncanny X-Men 8 $3.99 Marvel 70,274 16 Uncanny Avengers 10 $3.99 Marvel 68,768 17 Avengers 15 $3.99 Marvel 68,472 18 Avengers AI 1 $2.99 Marvel 68,130 19 Uncanny X-Men 9 $3.99 Marvel 67,338 20 X-Men 3 $3.99 Marvel 65,270 21 Detective Comics
One non-big 2 title. The next one, All New Fathom is $1.00 and at 28, and then East of West is next at 42. Saga was on hiatus, but even that title is a mid to low 30's.
I hear you, but probably best to not compare with the speculator 90s and the #1 issues of that time. That is a bit of an apples and oranges. As I am talking about (hopefully) titles where people are actually buying them to read them.
I would be curious how the current variety would compare to 10 years ago.
And the idea that a Hawkeye title not only exists, but actually cracks into the top 50.
And I would be curious how Hawkeye ranks on Comixology. Probably charts even higher.
I hear you, but probably best to not compare with the speculator 90s and the #1 issues of that time. That is a bit of an apples and oranges. As I am talking about (hopefully) titles where people are actually buying them to read them.
I would be curious how the current variety would compare to 10 years ago.
And the idea that a Hawkeye title not only exists, but actually cracks into the top 50.
And I would be curious how Hawkeye ranks on Comixology. Probably charts even higher.
The publishers play to the speculator market as much now as ever. I think the return of the polybags and 3d covers is proof of that. The numbers of books that issue 5 or lower is pretty consistent, as is the amount of #1's alone. There is variety out there, and people do buy good books, but over and over the market shows that for the most part we are only interested in Batman, Superman, Spider-man, Wolverine, The X-Men, The Avengers and the Justice League. And then, only the books that "count".
If you're a creator, its actually selfish to say readers should follow creators over characters. It'd put the importance on the creators over the characters. I'd deduce new readers aren't jumping onto a Batman book because Scott Snyder is writing it, but because they like Batman.
M
But then why aren't all the Batman books selling or maintaining equal numbers? If Snyder/Capullo are not the thing that makes Batman sell better than Detective, Batman & Robin, etc., then what is?
I was throwing that out as an example. And I always define "new readers" as readers who haven't read comics before. New readers (by this definition) probably don't know who Snyder/Capullo are.
Still, though, if the context is new readers, the ones that Matt is talking about, and he is saying they would jump onto Batman not because of Snyder and Capullo's work, but because they like Batman the character, then maybe I could see why such a new reader might not jump at something called Detective Comics as much. But to that new reader, would there be THAT much of a difference between Batman and Batman & Robin or Batman: The Dark Knight? That new reader would be unaware of the history of the perceived "main" book. They just like Batman. Batman would be on the cover of all those books. Is it not possible that what might make them not just pick Batman but more importantly stay on it and sustain those numbers is the work Snyder and Capullo (including his great covers) do on that book?
I really think this is a significant factor.
You go to the store wanting a Batman comic.
You get the comic that just says "Batman".
This is why Marvel took Amazing Spider-Man nigh-weekly a few years back. It has always outsold the other Spider-books consistently, regardless of creative team.
Besides, your new reader doesn't know Scott Snyder from Dee Snyder.
Sure, but if Snyder and Capullo weren't doing arguably the best work in the line, they wouldn't still be maintaining Batman as the highest numbers. There are simply not enough new readers coming in and choosing off the name of the book to keep the numbers as strong (and as different from the other titles) as we see.
My argument, circling back to what Matt was saying before, is that a lot of people like Batman, but the work that is being done by the creators on Batman is a deciding factor in why that sells, and maintains sales, so much better than the others.
So I take his point, and yours, that a new reader doesn't know the creator names and is trying it because of the character. But my point is that what sells the next issue to the same person is what those creators did with the character. And there is a reason why some creators sell more next issues than others.
And there are times when talent (or, more specifically, creative team) can beat history-- on a hunch I looked back at a few months in 2003 and 2004, when Ultimate Spider-Man and Marvel Knights Spider-Man, by Millar and the Dodsons, defied the historical seller and beat Amazing Spider-Man. And I would bet there are other examples, as I would guess there was a period when New X-Men was beating Uncanny.
Could you also say that the new reader doesn't know any different? Maybe the creators DID bring them back, but maybe if they picked up Batman from the back issue bin reading a Doug Moench issue, THAT would seem more of what they were expecting of the character.
From my own experience, I've never picked up a title because of the creative team. I enjoyed Winick's run on Batman, but I never picked up his work on Green Arrow because I don't care about the character.
Sure, but if Snyder and Capullo weren't doing arguably the best work in the line, they wouldn't still be maintaining Batman as the highest numbers. There are simply not enough new readers coming in and choosing off the name of the book to keep the numbers as strong (and as different from the other titles) as we see.
My argument, circling back to what Matt was saying before, is that a lot of people like Batman, but the work that is being done by the creators on Batman is a deciding factor in why that sells, and maintains sales, so much better than the others.
So I take his point, and yours, that a new reader doesn't know the creator names and is trying it because of the character. But my point is that what sells the next issue to the same person is what those creators did with the character. And there is a reason why some creators sell more next issues than others.
And there are times when talent (or, more specifically, creative team) can beat history-- on a hunch I looked back at a few months in 2003 and 2004, when Ultimate Spider-Man and Marvel Knights Spider-Man, but Millar and the Dodsons, beat Amazing Spider-Man.
The Ultimate and Marvel Knights lines were kind of ... exceptional ... exceptions. :D They weren't "the rest of" the Spider-books, they were special, high-profile new lines. USM's sales dwindled as the Ultimate novelty wore off, and MKS was a short-lived stunt.
Regarding your first paragraph, non-new readers, or "collectors", get the series that they've always gotten*. And if they're getting ANY Batman books, the one they're certain to be getting is Batman. Some may get Batman and Detective, some may get Batman and Batman & Robin, some may get all the Batbooks, but they're each gonna get Batman, because it's THE Batman book. This was true long before Snyder was on the book.
God knows I hate to agree with Rob Liefeld, but Batman sells Batman far, far more than Snyder sells Batman.
*Until they reach the stage that prompted this thread.
Comments
I dropped Hulk when Loeb was the only Hulk book because I didn't like it at the time. I'll even admit that I dropped Daniel Way's Ghost Rider after the first arc.
I've since gone back and picked both up for cheap. Loeb's Hulk was much better and way more fun than I remembered. Way's GR got better and set up an interesting take on GR, but it wasn't anything to write home about.
For me his DD run started out great, but it really started dragging about halfway through. His obsession with Mamet killed the pacing of that book, and while I enjoyed his characterization and dialogue, too often I’d get to the end of an issue and feel that the plot hadn’t advanced one inch. I was on the fence about whether to drop it or not for months. I am heartily enjoying Mark’s current run on the book though.
As I was pursuing my pulp comics collection, I came across the first Green Hornet series by NOW Comics. I was reading it and recall feeling it seemed very formulaic with Batman and Moon Knight. I checked to see who the writer was and sure enough, it was Chuck Dixon. It feels like he has a certain style and just swaps out the main character's name for his story. I'm not saying I don't like it, but I like each of the characters I read to have some type of individuality, even if they are very similar.
M
But there are many creators that I will try whatever book they’re on. I may not stick with it, but I respect their talents enough to give whatever they do a shot. I don’t think anyone is saying you should blindly follow creators, just as no one is saying you should blindly follow characters. But I do think if you follow your favorite creators over your favorite characters, you are likely to get greater satisfaction and less frustration from your reading in the end.
And the same is pretty much true for me and characters. When I hear that...yet again...they're revamping Captain Marvel/Shazam, I may bitch and moan, but I'll be buying that first issue to see what I think.
I have been reading the House of Mystery and House of Secrets Showcase volumes from DC. The stories are mediocre at best, and the characters are paper thin, but the art is some of the best ever done. Nino, Toth, Nebres, Alcala, Adams, and lots of others, drawing their hearts out... telling a story (usually an awful one) like their lives depended on it...
Bad, but very enjoyable.
Then, John Byrne left. I didn't notice it at first, but within a few months, I was off the title. It just wasn't the same, and that was when I realized that all along, I'd been buying it because I liked Byrne's work. It just so happened that the month I decided to start buying FF was shortly after he'd started on the book, so I'd just assumed it was always going to be that good.
After that, my comic tastes branched out a lot more.
M
Same way Amazing Spider-Man always sold better than Web Of, Peter Parker, the Spectacular, etc.
There is a perception that it's the REAL Batman book.
AFIK, Batman has always outsold Detective.
Still, though, if the context is new readers, the ones that Matt is talking about, and he is saying they would jump onto Batman not because of Snyder and Capullo's work, but because they like Batman the character, then maybe I could see why such a new reader might not jump at something called Detective Comics as much. But to that new reader, would there be THAT much of a difference between Batman and Batman & Robin or Batman: The Dark Knight? That new reader would be unaware of the history of the perceived "main" book. They just like Batman. Batman would be on the cover of all those books. Is it not possible that what might make them not just pick Batman but more importantly stay on it and sustain those numbers is the work Snyder and Capullo (including his great covers) do on that book?
I also think sustaining readership is the key. And there editorial might be determining fate some-- if Batman has long been seen as the flagship book, they are going to put the best or at least most attractive team on it. That is the book that Loeb and Lee were put on. That is the book that did Year One.
But even then, it is still about talent. Even if they are helping Batman outsell Detective, it is still the talent that is making that difference.
Put another way-- when a new reader picks one book to try, they may just pick what they pick because they like Batman. If the decide to buy the NEXT issue of the same title, even over other available Batman-starring choices, it is because of what those specific creators did WITH Batman.
So even if Batman has been the historically highest selling Bat title, I think the talent that has been on it, and continue to be put on it, is a part of that. I don't buy that a new reader would know that book enough by historical reputation (or that the simple name is so different from the other titles) to account for the vast difference in sales between that book and the other Bat-books.
You go to the store wanting a Batman comic.
You get the comic that just says "Batman".
This is why Marvel took Amazing Spider-Man nigh-weekly a few years back. It has always outsold the other Spider-books consistently, regardless of creative team.
Besides, your new reader doesn't know Scott Snyder from Dee Snyder.
My argument, circling back to what Matt was saying before, is that a lot of people like Batman, but the work that is being done by the creators on Batman is a deciding factor in why that sells, and maintains sales, so much better than the others.
So I take his point, and yours, that a new reader doesn't know the creator names and is trying it because of the character. But my point is that what sells the next issue to the same person is what those creators did with the character. And there is a reason why some creators sell more next issues than others.
And there are times when talent (or, more specifically, creative team) can beat history-- on a hunch I looked back at a few months in 2003 and 2004, when Ultimate Spider-Man and Marvel Knights Spider-Man, by Millar and the Dodsons, defied the historical seller and beat Amazing Spider-Man. And I would bet there are other examples, as I would guess there was a period when New X-Men was beating Uncanny.
The Ultimate and Marvel Knights lines were kind of ... exceptional ... exceptions. :D They weren't "the rest of" the Spider-books, they were special, high-profile new lines. USM's sales dwindled as the Ultimate novelty wore off, and MKS was a short-lived stunt.
Regarding your first paragraph, non-new readers, or "collectors", get the series that they've always gotten*. And if they're getting ANY Batman books, the one they're certain to be getting is Batman. Some may get Batman and Detective, some may get Batman and Batman & Robin, some may get all the Batbooks, but they're each gonna get Batman, because it's THE Batman book. This was true long before Snyder was on the book.
God knows I hate to agree with Rob Liefeld, but Batman sells Batman far, far more than Snyder sells Batman.
*Until they reach the stage that prompted this thread.
Could be another exception, sure. But it is also a reminder that talent, and buzz from certain talent, or even talent that do great covers, can also have an affect.
I take your larger point-- and I would never argue that the talent is the bigger draw than the character on these sorts of titles.
Though it is still hard to parse the 'I'm getting this one because I have to' from 'I'm getting this one because it is the best' when it is also a title that consistently gets top talent hired onto it. You know what I mean?
It is easy to point to consistent high sales and say that is a history. But that is also a history made out of talent. Consistent poor talent even on a historically "important" or collectible book can catch up with it. Just as creative that people are excited about can make a book that historically had not been considered as "important" or collectible suddenly the one that people feel they want to buy every month.
Put another way- there was a point when people started buying more Avengers books than X-Men books. And I don't think that is because the characters had changed that much. Rather, the buzz that comes with certain creative moves, and even creative teams, affected the bottom line in an even greater number than the inertia of historical buying.
Again- bottom line is that Batman is still bigger than the people that work on him. Of course. But there is a difference the people working on him make in getting readers to pick (and more importantly stay with) THIS Batman instead of that. Or even to read a Batman comic whatsoever, rather than just getting their Batman fix only from a cartoon or a video game. Talent still has that effect.
And, of course, it is not an either/or. In the case of the continuing success of Batman it is Batman AND Snyder/Capullo that sells and continues to sell Batman.
There are always execeptions but more often they prove the rule. Batman and Robin was a marquee creative team, half of whom was already in the middle of a seminal Batman run, with a new #1, which speculators love. Its inability to stay the top seller does more to prove the position of Batman as the flagship title.
Brands grow stale, get revitalized and grow stale again, that's the cycle of comics. But there have been almost no new characters in the Big 2 in 40 years to really take off, and what franchises are popular has remained relatively consistent over a long period of time because it's the characters that are pushing the books.
And Saga.
And The Walking Dead.
And Fables becoming a franchise.
And a Guardians of the Galaxy book beating a lot (all?) the Marvel franchise books in a given month.
Exceptions? Maybe. But one could build a larger list of exceptions than we could 20 years ago.
The Information Age is letting more
cream rise to the top. And some brands (like WD) can build fast.
This is the top 20 from July 1995 (the earliest I could find):
1 Spawn 34 $1.95 Image 218.25
2 Gen 13 4 $2.50 Image 197.01
3 Spawn: Blood Feud 2 $2.25 Image 187.48
4 Cyblade Shi Special The Battle 2 $2.95 Image 180.86
5 Dawn 1 $2.95 Sirius 120.52
6 Sovereign Seven 3 $1.95 DC 119.91
7 Shi-Senryaku 1 $2.95 Crusade 118.40
8 WildC.A.T.s 22 $2.50 Image 102.84
9 Superman vs. Aliens 3 $4.95 Dark Horse 100.85
10 Superman vs. Aliens 104 $1.95 DC 100.11
11 Batman 522 $1.95 DC 100.00
12 Action Comics 713 $1.95 DC 97.67
13 Superman: Man of Steel 48 $1.95 DC 96.95
14 Adventures of Superman 527 $1.95 DC 96.94
15 Wetworks 9 $2.50 Image 94.58
16 X-Files 7 $2.95 Topps 91.11
17 Nightwing 1 $2.25 DC 90.96
18 Star Wars X-Wing Rogue Squadron 1 $2.95 Dark Horse 90.28
19 Detective Comics 689 $1.95 DC 89.74
20 Wonder Woman
This is last month:
1 Superman Unchained 2 $3.99 DC 165,754
2 Batman 22 $3.99 DC 132,047
3 Guardians of Galaxy 5 $3.99 Marvel 110,372
4 Justice League 22 $3.99 DC 110,194
5 Batman Annual 2 $4.99 DC 101,726
6 Batman Superman 2 $3.99 DC 92,558
7 Justice League of America 6 $3.99 DC 86,192
8 Superior Spider-Man 13 $3.99 Marvel 81,678
9 Superior Spider-Man 14 $3.99 Marvel 80,839
10 Superior Spider-Man Team Up 1 $3.99 Marvel 76,959
11 All New X-Men 14 $3.99 Marvel 74,848
12 Walking Dead 112 $2.99 Image 72,975
13 Avengers 16 $3.99 Marvel 72,842
14 Hunger 1 $3.99 Marvel 70,835
15 Uncanny X-Men 8 $3.99 Marvel 70,274
16 Uncanny Avengers 10 $3.99 Marvel 68,768
17 Avengers 15 $3.99 Marvel 68,472
18 Avengers AI 1 $2.99 Marvel 68,130
19 Uncanny X-Men 9 $3.99 Marvel 67,338
20 X-Men 3 $3.99 Marvel 65,270
21 Detective Comics
One non-big 2 title. The next one, All New Fathom is $1.00 and at 28, and then East of West is next at 42. Saga was on hiatus, but even that title is a mid to low 30's.
I would be curious how the current variety would compare to 10 years ago.
And the idea that a Hawkeye title not only exists, but actually cracks into the top 50.
And I would be curious how Hawkeye ranks on Comixology. Probably charts even higher.
M
From my own experience, I've never picked up a title because of the creative team. I enjoyed Winick's run on Batman, but I never picked up his work on Green Arrow because I don't care about the character.
M
M