Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Speaking of Hawkeye....

2

Comments

  • BionicDaveBionicDave Posts: 377
    edited October 2013
    I think the idea of an entire issue from a dog's point of view is awesome, indeed - but the way Fraction/Aja did it came across as barely half-baked to me. Felt like a first draft, not a polished story.
  • WetRatsWetRats Posts: 6,314

    I think the idea of an entire issue from a dog's point of view is awesome, indeed - but the way Fraction/Aja did it came across as barely half-baked to me. Felt like a first draft, not a polished story.

    Again with the expressions of befuddlement.

    :-O
  • Lol, it's not like I'm the only one in the world who felt this way. IIRC, not all of the CGS podcasters even cared to read it when it came out. I also listen to the iFanboy podcast, and all three of those guys deemed it "meh" just like I do. Of my real world friends who read/talk comics with me, about five or six of them had read it and only one loved it. If you loved it? Great for you, honestly. But beauty's in the eye of the beholder, and we're all entitled to our opinions.
  • kfreemankfreeman Posts: 314
    I love Hawkeye. Been a Marvel skeptic for years, but between Hawkeye, Daredevil, FF, and Thor God of Thunder, I'm really enjoying a lot of their titles right now.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    edited April 2014
    rant alert...

    Just I get an email from DCBS telling me that Marvel has retroactively increased the price of Hawk-guy #'s 19, 20 & 21 by a dollar. No word on whether they are going to include a digital code for free. They didn't include a code with Superior Foes of Spider-Man when they jacked up its price.

    I'm guessing this means Fraction is jumping off the book soon. I'm sure the accountants have done the math and realize some folks will drop the book, but they want to milk as much as they can before the book relaunches as "All-New Marvel NOW Hawkeye 2.0"... perhaps they can double, or even quadruple ship it (I'm looking at you Batman Eternal...)

    And so it begins... I think I'm about to alter my DCBS order for June - just on principle.

  • ElsiebubElsiebub Posts: 338
    ^I read an article a few days ago suggesting that the $3.99 issues of Hawkeye WILL come with digital codes. But the article was like two steps removed from an official source.

    Also, Fraction's been on record saying that the current series would probably end around issue #22. That could change, but ending it then would make for two matching 11-issue OHCs (including the Annual that's supposed to be out this summer).

    They'll probably relaunch it because of Hawkeye's success over the last couple years. But I'm not sure if Fraction will be aboard for that or not.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    This likely marks the end of the $2.99 book.
  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,884

    This likely marks the end of the $2.99 book.

    For Hawkeye, yes. But I think they will keep launching some $2.99 books for properties that are a harder sell. They have done so as recently as last month, and even Hawkeye launched at $2.99 at a time when $3.99 felt like the default.

    Of course, as the upcoming $3.99 Hawkeye will show, the reward that a book will get for finding an audience is that the audience will be soaked for an extra buck later in the relaunch.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    David_D said:


    Of course, as the upcoming $3.99 Hawkeye will show, the reward that a book will get for finding an audience is that the audience will be soaked for an extra buck later in the relaunch.

    Bingo. And while I can understand increasing the price of a popular book. I'm beginning to wonder when the bi-annual relaunches are going to demonstrate the same diminishing returns that the foil covers in the 90's did. I see Hawkeye getting a relaunch after Fraction leaves.

  • MarathonMarathon Posts: 308
    I've always thought of hawkeye as comparable to immortal iron fist. It will only hang around while the original creators are on it. Once they leave, it may struggle on for a few months but will probably be cancelled.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    This is the new model. That's why the only books that are going to reach a number over #100 will be Image books (for the foreseeable future anyways), not that I have too much of a problem with it, other than thinking it's a bit frustrating.
  • mwhitt80mwhitt80 Posts: 4,637
    You know I really am starting to like the idea of Marvel producing "seasons" of characters, but the only way it works is if we get real starting and end points. If a character's story arc is done why not start a new series with a new direction?

    I think it's better than me having to guess if issue 163 of XMen is really a good "jumping on point" for the title and not just part of 2 of the previous trade.
  • SolitaireRoseSolitaireRose Posts: 1,445
    I know it's amazingly unpopular to say, but look at the sales charts: There aren't a lot of $2.99 books in the top 25. People vote with their wallets and they are voting for $3.99 comics.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    edited April 2014
    mwhitt80 said:

    You know I really am starting to like the idea of Marvel producing "seasons" of characters, but the only way it works is if we get real starting and end points. If a character's story arc is done why not start a new series with a new direction?

    Or why not just say it's a new story arc? The most obvious difficulty would be when you're looking for back issues. It isn't always easy to ascertain the volume number you need if you're missing issue #4, or whatever. And how many relaunches do you go through before you realize that having twenty-something "#1" issues for one title could be confusing in the back issue market? Shouldn't they start displaying the volume number on the cover as well?

    I know it's amazingly unpopular to say, but look at the sales charts: There aren't a lot of $2.99 books in the top 25. People vote with their wallets and they are voting for $3.99 comics.

    What do you think that means? I don't think it means the price is what makes a book popular or not.

  • I'm for the "seasons" approach, but I'm not a back-issue hunter so it's never really a problem. And I agree that the books that are 3.99 are the ones that would have been top sellers under just about any circumstance. They know that's what the market will pay so they charge it. Its how they've decided to counter the fact that if you aren't in the top 20-30 books you aren't selling very many copies.
  • mwhitt80mwhitt80 Posts: 4,637
    edited April 2014



    What do you think that means? I don't think it means the price is what makes a book popular or not.

    Marvel tried to spew the higher price of books means precieved quality/importance to fans (listen to some of the older Bendis tapes at the start of the $3.99 jump). Marvel has since dropped that excuse. I didn't buy Civl War or the Avengers or Secret Invasion because I thought the price dictated quality; I bought them because they were TheStories to read (inspite of the price).

    The truth is that Marvel gives popular books higher prices because they are popular and can get more dollars from us. I have a pretty strong feeling that it also costs Marvel a lot more to put out an Avengers/XMen book than a lower tier title (the bigger the book the bigger name artist/writer and the higher the page rate). I don't blame them for $3.99 price; I just don't have to like it.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    edited April 2014

    I'm for the "seasons" approach, but I'm not a back-issue hunter so it's never really a problem.

    Maybe if they would put the volume number I wouldn't say it was a problem either. Yet, how can anyone that is buying or selling tell from the cover which of these two Daredevil #1's came first? Maybe they're the same, but one is a variant cover?

    image
    image

    And I find the three digit numbering to be a bit odd in this respect. See Hawkeye 16 for an example.

    image

    Why put a zero there if you don't plan to go to 100 or more? Maybe it was simply a design decision.

    For instance, the amount of time between X-Men volume 1 and X-Men Volume 2 was something like 28 years. The time between Volume 2 #1 and Volume 3 #1 was about 18 years. The time between Volume 3 #1 and Volume 4 #1 was about 3 years. You can see which way they're trending.

    It's a bit amusing that whenever I speak of my delight in the old Limited Series, many comic geeks confess utter disdain for them, but when it comes to relaunching a regular series every 20-something issues or so, they're just fine with that. I suppose I'm trying to see what the essential differences are.

  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,178
    It can even be a problem with the trades as well - Daredevil being the primary example. Daredevil is going to have two different Mark Waid volume one trades. (So that will mean two different hardcovers, two different tpb's, and probably two prestige type editions collecting the first two story arcs)
  • mwhitt80mwhitt80 Posts: 4,637
    Or why not just say it's a new story arc? The most obvious difficulty would be when you're looking for back issues. It isn't always easy to ascertain the volume number you need if you're missing issue #4, or whatever. And how many relaunches do you go through before you realize that having twenty-something "#1" issues for one title could be confusing in the back issue market? Shouldn't they start displaying the volume number on the cover as well?
    Bc that doesn't work anymore. As readers most of us have filtered out "new story arc" noise because every 6 issues is a new story arc that is a "good jumping on point". The bigger reason is that Marvel is trying reach broader auidence with the digital market (also through retail outlets).

    It is a lot easier to get on board Daredevil "Season 6" at number 3 and download the previous 2 issues than issue 56 (at the new story arc) and feel you've missed almost 6 years of stories.
    It works the same with back issues. If you are going to a retailer you can always ask the clerk (most nonreaders would do that anyway). If you are buying single issues from online retailer then you are already a comic reader and know how to shop online.

    The best way to unconfuse "seasons" is to do a slight title change. "Season 2" of Incredible Hulk became Indestructible Hulk, "season 3" becomes Hulk, "season 4" can go back to Incredible Hulk (it will have been 3/4 years since the name was last used). It's not difficult; plus you don't have Incredible Hulk: Season 2: Volume 1 on the book (which is not only a stupid sounding title, bt defeats the purpose of really having a definite starting/ending point).
  • It seems like a LOT of Marvel's titles are trying to follow the format of Hawkeye...not that I'm complaining about that because I love Hawkeye. But you get titles that Superior Foes of Spider-Man (also brilliant), Secret Avengers, and even hints of it in titles like Punisher. It seems like this is the art style and storytelling that Marvel has realized is successful, so they want to mimic it...which is nothing new to comics.

    Personally I like it overall because the stories are fun and whimseical when they can be and they still have strong storytelling with soem serious moments. For me this is at least a trend that I'm happy to see catching on.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    As you can see Daredevil opted not to change anything and is an excellent example of why I'm frustrated with the decision not to display and marked difference via a volume listed or a title alteration. Makes it feel like the only reason to donut wasn't to serve the readers, but to increase sales on nan other #1 issue. It is sure to get a temporary bump in sales due to relaunch from variant covers to speculators. I predict sales numbers will settle around to the same levels as the last volume by issue #3. I have a hard time condoning this kind of grab. All Daredevil did was move to a new city. Hardly a reason to do a complete relaunch.
  • mwhitt80mwhitt80 Posts: 4,637
    The direct market probably will settle back to Daredevil numbers, but the direct market is not who they are selling this change to. It's for the broader market, the digital market (which has even more potential since comixology has become part of the amazon family).

    The nontitle change is not the norm for Marvel. Most new seasons have changed titles; either by adding, New or All New etc. They should have renamed this series (or the last one) The Fearless Daredevil, but either way Marvel has been doing the slight change on most of it's new "seasons".
  • As you can see Daredevil opted not to change anything and is an excellent example of why I'm frustrated with the decision not to display and marked difference via a volume listed or a title alteration. Makes it feel like the only reason to donut wasn't to serve the readers, but to increase sales on nan other #1 issue. It is sure to get a temporary bump in sales due to relaunch from variant covers to speculators. I predict sales numbers will settle around to the same levels as the last volume by issue #3. I have a hard time condoning this kind of grab. All Daredevil did was move to a new city. Hardly a reason to do a complete relaunch.

    I agree. Heroes change locations all of the time, but the issues used to just continue. Even when creative teams changed in the past, it didn't cause a new #1 to be created. I could almost see it if they were going in a completely new direction with the character, but again, even that in the past did not always mean a new #1. It's totally a money grab and an excuse to change the price. The next thing we'll see from Marvel is "The Summer of #1's" where every month from May until August all of the titles will be #1. So you'll have Daredevil #1 May, Daredevil #1 June....LOL
  • ElsiebubElsiebub Posts: 338
    edited April 2014
    I think we're already seeing how constant relaunches are a case of diminishing returns. The new quick relaunches of Fantastic Four and Wolverine have shown this. Sure there will be exceptions here and there (like the Brian Wood X-Men #1 debuting extremely high, before falling back to earth), but when you take everything into account it seems that the audience is losing patience for this. Even when the relaunch succeeds at first, the numbers fall back down quicker and quicker. It's almost like the audience is being trained not to care about anything that isn't a new #1 issue, and that dissuades longterm interest in regular series comics on a normal ongoing basis.

    Tied to that is Marvel's own incentization programs, which make it extremely difficult to get a good grasp of what's going on. Don't forget that Matt Fraction's Defenders #1 was a top ten book that "sold" close to 100,000 copies... because Marvel incentivized the hell out of it and threw in complimentary bonus copies to many retailers, just to try and get the series off the ground, and yet it was canceled after 12 issues.

    Look at something like Daredevil. The recent #1 apparently sold 75,000 copies. The previous #1 sold 65,000. And we know A) That Marvel incentizes a lot more in 2014 than they did in 2011, B) That Marvel did more variant covers for the recent DD #1, C) That the recent DD #1 was part of a big line-wide "All-New Now!" initiative, D) That Mark Waid's Daredevil has built up a great reputation over the past few years, so EVERYONE that had heard about how good it was but hadn't read it was being given a perfect jumping-on point. ALL THAT, and yet the relaunch can only clock in 10,000 more copies than the previous number one. A modest success at best. And look at how Daredevil was selling before the relaunch: It was down to 30,000 copies. Guess what? Daredevil was always selling over 40,000 copies during the dark Andy Diggle days in 2010, BEFORE Waid came on board! So people holding up the new DD #1 as some sort of successful relaunch really need to put some of this in perspective. Watch as the series crashes back down to below 40,000 in a couple months. And *I like* that series; I'm not picking on it, just stating the truth. All I'm saying is that even the relaunch "successes" aren't really that successful.

    Almost every media outlet out there was falling over itself to promote the new Ms. Marvel. With a ton of variant covers and incentivization, the first issue sold 44,000 copies. In 2006, well before the comics rebound of 2011, there was a Ms. Marvel #1 that sold 73,000 copies. I mean, the success stories here (and I'm not doubting that the new Ms. Marvel is a good, positive comic) are almost laughable when taken into perspective.

    Less than a year ago Brian Wood's X-Men sold nearly 200,000 copies, a jaw-dropping number that was more than the previous "X-Men #1" from 2010 or whatever. But the series is now down to under 44,000.

    I think the "season" approach (which is basically what we have now) might work better if Marvel would just state up front that the new writers are "onboard for a 'season' of 12 to 16 issues". That might build some trust that writers aren't going to bail several issues in (ex. Jason Aaron will be leaving Amazing X-Men this summer). And on the other hand I think it might do good if Marvel would say something like "We plan on having Dan Slott on Amazing Spider-Man indefinitely; we're not going to relaunch it again next year, so fans should hop on board for the start of a long ride here. And fans who maybe won't feel like reading any new Spider-Man until this time next year, hey, we've got plenty more stories coming, so if you jump on then it isn't like the rug's going to be pulled out from under you with a relaunch next summer."

    Maybe some sort of demarcation between longterm series and series that are like "seasons" might make sense and build trust in both types of storytelling. On the other hand, I think that the "season" idea might cause even more people to just check out upfront and wait for collected editions. I don't know.

    Decades ago people used to be fine with picking up #292 of whatever longterm series was out there. No one cared about "jumping-on points" because you had a sense that you would have enough information (without the internet, even!) to just eventually get up to speed with what was going on anyway. If you wanted to read Spider-Man, you read whatever Spider-Man issue was out. If you wanted to follow a favorite artist when that artist went to draw Batman, you just bought that issue of Batman, and it was a sense of discovery to try and figure out what was going on. We don't have that anymore, and to some extent I can't really blame people for being so skittish about trying new non-"jumping on points". Because the storytelling isn't the same, and if you randomly buy an issue of a series, you will be quite lost. The storytelling now doesn't really lend itself to making each installment enjoyable in and of itself.

    So, I don't know what to tell people or what should happen. It seems like a vicious cycle or a serpent eating its tail. People want more jumping-on points but this has the overall effect of causing more people to jump off instead.
  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,178
    edited April 2014
    Marvel could do something new and different and change things up by just moving all the storylines 5 years ahead...oh wait. :-t
  • Mr_CosmicMr_Cosmic Posts: 3,200
    Marvel relaunches a title with a new #1. It sells 100,000 but three months later it's down to 35,000. In those three months Marvel relaunches five other books with new #1s and double ships a dozen other books. They shouldn't wonder why the relaunched book couldn't sustain strong sales.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    And in all likelihood, Daredevil will probably relaunch again when Netflix starts airing their Daredevil series. Similar to the relaunch of Amazing Spider-Man this month, these kinds of relaunches seem to be for the non-comic book fans. So after the movie/TV-series comes out, Marvel and Disney must be convinced that crowds of movie-goers will run to the nearest LCS and pick up a brand-new #1 issue because there's no way they would have picked up one that should have read #701, or in Daredevil's case, issue #667. I suppose they've figured that 50 years of character of development is too much for any one person to read and would be a deterrent for those ignorant non-fans who would prefer to just shell out the $3.99 (probably more) for the first issue.

    Although these characters are already some of the most identifiable characters in the history of comics with a myriad of multimedia platforms to be seen on: Golden Books, cartoons, early readers, Lego sets, and just about anything else with these characters on them. Who exactly is Marvel worried that they are not reaching already? My nephew is a preschooler and he knows who Daredevil is. Do you think he cares that Daredevil lived and operated in New York or that he's moving to LA? No. Do you think he cares about what number the issue is?

    So now the Amazing Spider-Man part 2 is in theaters and Peter Parker has come back into his body so that non-comic book readers can walk into their LCS and pick up The Amazing Spider-Man #1. What volume are we on now? I also just found out that the original Guardians of the Galaxy is coming back. Does this mean we can expect a GotG relaunch in August - just in time for the movie's release? And how long before we can expect an Ant-Man series to launch (a smart move imo)? Soon or much closer to July 2015? Are there any doubts on whether Scott Lang and Hank Pym will both be in that new first issue?

    I know, I know, I'm ranting now...
  • mwhitt80mwhitt80 Posts: 4,637
    edited April 2014
    We all know (including Marvel) that America grew up with these characters. Every little kid from ages 35 and down has had some version of Spiderman and the Xmen on tv (or movies) for most of thier lives. Marvel knows the general public has knowledge of these characters.

    However it is easier for someone to gain entrance into the source material with an earlier issue than DD #667. You may not like the thought, and we may mock it, but it does not change the truth. This isn't 1980 anymore. As I've said these are changes made for the expanded auidence and not us. As long as the quality is good why does it matter that we are getting a new number one of Daredevil every 16 to 24 months?


    I'm not saying Marvel is trying to leave the direct market or that the direct market is dying. It grew last year and will be around for a while. Printed comics are in better shape now than they have been in a longtime. However if you can sell comics easily to an infintely greater auidence digitally why not make those changes?

    side note: I would have relaunched the 1998 Daredevil after Shadowland too. The last thing I would want is someone looking to read DD to go back to that story arc. Talk about garbage.
  • bralinatorbralinator Posts: 5,967
    I suppose there is merit to both sides of this debate, yet I can't help but feel like if Marvel doesn't ease back on the throttle of relaunching every couple of years they're going to find that these so-called "jumping on" points start equating more to "jumping off" points.
  • CaptShazamCaptShazam Posts: 1,178
    Right now, i really do not think this matters much.

    Down the road is when the constant relaunches will affect things. I am not sure if publishers think about this or even care, but in 25 years when they are releasing the essential, epic, or omnibus edition of what is now current - it will be a mess to put stuff all together. And yes, everything will be online but it will probably be no fun sorting through multiple volume 1's to figure out what is what.

    But with publishers being so corporate now, i really doubt they think too far beyond the current or next quarter of publishing.
Sign In or Register to comment.