The State of Comics as per the Wall Street Journal

TheMarvelMan

I just bumped into this article and thought it would interest some Forumites:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303610504577418120266945742.html

fredzilla

It may be important to note that the author seems to be reacting to, "'Leaping Tall Buildings,'" a collection of brief and beautifully illustrated profiles of comic-book artists, intends to celebrate the form—and does—but along the way reveals the forces that have caused its most iconic titles to rot."

Some quick bites:

"If no cultural barrier prevents a public that clearly loves its superheroes from picking up a new "Avengers" comic, why don't more people do so? The main reasons are obvious: It is for sale not in a real bookstore but in a specialty shop, and it is clumsily drawn, poorly written and incomprehensible to anyone not steeped in years of arcane mythology."

Sounds like @MiracleMet (http://thecomicforums.com/discussion/749/episode-1244-avengers-vs-x-men-month-3#latest)

"In a much hyped series from Marvel Comics this summer, for example, the Avengers fight the X-Men for inscrutable reasons having to do with a mysterious planet-devouring cosmic force, a plot that makes no sense to anyone not familiar with ancient Marvel epics like "The Dark Phoenix Saga." The story is told in two titles, one called "Avengers vs. X-Men," with a big "AvX" logo on the front, and the other called "AvX," with a big "Avengers vs. X-Men" logo on the front, presumably so you can keep them straight."

I almost caved today and bought AvX on Comixology. Marvel has become just like that ex that wants to come over every now and then and fool around but won't commit to anything more. I'm tired of being played, and it's funny that this writer sees the ridiculousness of this series.

"Marvel and DC probably wouldn't have wanted anything new anyway. Judging by "Before Watchmen" and "Avengers vs. X-Men," their notions of new ideas involve sequels to comics that came out when New York Mets announcer Keith Hernandez was a perennial MVP candidate."

ZING!

and finally...

"The superhero comic has for decades been the fixed point around which this vital American art has revolved. It may be exhausted, but it deserves better than to be reduced to a parody of a parody of itself."

Wow. He really only attacked two major books (Before Watchmen and AvX), so does that mean the big two are at fault for killing the medium? Are superhero comics dying? At the beginning of his article he references the boom in the 90's but never discusses the speculative market during that time--"collectors" buying 20 copies, hoping it would pay off their kid's college. Thoughts?

Thanks @TheMarvelMan!

WetRats

I think they're more right than wrong.

There is some fine stuff out there, even among the Big 2, but you have to dig through a lot of repetitive mediocre product to find it.

kfreeman

While I'd like to know how many comics the author has actually read over the last couple of decades, and I question some of the examples he used, I am inclined to agree with him to some degree. The bread and butter of comics, superheroes, has been pretty stagnant to me over the years.

Zhurrie

I'm in complete agreement (in fact it echoes what I've said myself). I don't think it matters how many comics the author or anyone has read, in fact if he has read less than most of us then his view is *more* valid to me personally. If the barrier to entry is that high and the state such a mess that even the uninitiated see right through all the crap and dreck then that speaks volumes.

Trev

I do think they're dying. There is just not a lot of quality relative to quantity. And a lot of the high quality work coming out these days is in other genres and from other publishers or imprints of Marvel and DC.

They need to streamline down to like 20 books a month and not publish 60 or 70. Why? The market is too small, but full of people who will by 4-6 issues of any title family a month because they can't not do that.

kfreeman

I agree, @Trev, and have been advocating streamlining for years. I'd much rather see one quality Spider-Man title than six mediocre ones per month.

fredzilla

I agree, @Trev, and have been advocating streamlining for years. I'd much rather see one quality Spider-Man title than six mediocre ones per month.

As difficult as it is, you don't have to buy six titles. No one has to (again, I know it's hard as most of the people in this hobby are compulsive in this). Yet, look at the books DC dropped from the New 52! Why were they dropped? DC may give any litany of reasons, but I think we can all agree that it was because of sales. If we can train other collectors to not buy everything with their favorite character on it, maybe that will fix it. However, I'm not going to hold my breath.

I have a dream, that one day a new comic reader may walk into a LCS, ask for, "uh, something with Spider-Man in it," and be presented with only Amazing Spider-Man and Ultimate Spider-Man to choose from. I have a dream...

random73

I still think the fundamental issue is availability. Having a niche hobby only available at specialty shops governed by a single distributor is nutso. The IPad (or tablet of your choice) may save a form of the industry if digital comics take off as a medium unto themselves. If comics are to survive they MUST get into people's hands.

BlackUmbrella

I've been hearing this same crybaby routine for 30 years. The books have never been better. The difference is that kids don't buy them because they aren't for sale in every drug and grocery store, and they aren't appropriate. I wouldn't buy them for my kid.

ScottBradley

Ouch. Comparing JMS writing 'Before Watchmen' titles to a "Z movie" director filming a prequel to 'Taxi Driver'. This journalist is not pulling any punches here.

SolitaireRose

Reading this article, the first thing that pops to mind is: Wow, did Marvel and DC steal his girlfriend when he was 12?

Yes, the average Marvel comic sells around 40,000 copies. The average mystery novel sells around 12,000 copies. The average bestselling novels sells around 100,000 copies. People don't read any more, and for this author to talk about comic sales without putting in that larger context is slated journalism (which I expect from the WSJ...can you tell Fox doesn't publish comics?), and has little to do with the book being reviewed.

Proof the writer doesn't know his subject? When talking about Kirkman, he says: During a brief stint at Marvel—he now avoids the big houses—he rewrote old "X-Men" comics and zombified the Marvel heroes rather than doing something new.

So...Freedom Ring didn't exist? The revamped Destroyer, Ant-Man, Crusader and Sleepwalker (and yes, I DO count a revamp as a new character)? Golden Child? Titannus? Chronok? As for "rewriting old X-Men comics" that's one way of look at his run on Ultimate X-Men. Another way is taking characters being exposed in the mass media and doing stories that will appeal to people who don't know the back history. YMMV.

This is a LOT wrong with comics right now, but the writer just wanted to bash Marvel and DC, brings nothing more to the table and does a damn poor job of reviewing the actual book itself because his soapbox obscures the content of the book being reviewed.

SolitaireRose

I agree, @Trev, and have been advocating streamlining for years. I'd much rather see one quality Spider-Man title than six mediocre ones per month.

And that's what you have now.

steve_bryant

Ouch. Comparing JMS writing 'Before Watchmen' titles to a "Z movie" director filming a prequel to 'Taxi Driver'. This journalist is not pulling any punches here.

Yeah and referring to JMS as a "former He-Man scripter" certainly betrays an agenda. Marchman could just as easily called him the "screenwriter for Clint Eastwood's Oscar-nominated film Changeling." But that wouldn't have made JMS sound like an immature hack, so Marchman went with the cartoon reference to better serve the narrative he wanted to develop.


There's plenty wrong with Marvel and DC comics today, but Marchman's article smacks of agenda, rather than reporting the facts and letting readers draw their own conclusions.

random73

Ouch. Comparing JMS writing 'Before Watchmen' titles to a "Z movie" director filming a prequel to 'Taxi Driver'. This journalist is not pulling any punches here.

Yeah and referring to JMS as a "former He-Man scripter" certainly betrays an agenda. Marchman could just as easily called him the "screenwriter for Clint Eastwood's Oscar-nominated film Changeling." But that wouldn't have made JMS sound like an immature hack, so Marchman went with the cartoon reference to better serve the narrative he wanted to develop.


There's plenty wrong with Marvel and DC comics today, but Marchman's article smacks of agenda, rather than reporting the facts and letting readers draw their own conclusions.

Amen. Definately smacks of what the old timers might have called "yellow journalism".