Andrew W. Farago (in part): 'I think "atrocities" is too strong a word for "crummy comic books."'

From the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary:

INVISO TEXT (Click or highlight to reveal): "Atrocity:  1 : the

INVISO TEXT (Click or highlight to reveal): quality

INVISO TEXT (Click or highlight to reveal): or state of being atrocious"

INVISO TEXT (Click or highlight to reveal): "Atrocious: 1 : extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel :

INVISO TEXT (Click or highlight to reveal): barbaric

INVISO TEXT (Click or highlight to reveal): 2 :

INVISO TEXT (Click or highlight to reveal): appalling

INVISO TEXT (Click or highlight to reveal): ,

INVISO TEXT (Click or highlight to reveal): horrifying

INVISO TEXT (Click or highlight to reveal): <the atrocious weapons of modern war> 3 a : utterly revolting :

INVISO TEXT (Click or highlight to reveal): abominable

INVISO TEXT (Click or highlight to reveal): <atrocious working conditions> b : of very poor

INVISO TEXT (Click or highlight to reveal): quality

INVISO TEXT (Click or highlight to reveal): <atrocious handwriting>"

INVISO TEXT (Click or highlight to reveal): No, Andrew, based on some of the other posts

I've read in this thread, I'd say the strength level is just about right.  And I think Will Eisner would probably encourage people who write these abominations to find other ways of earning a living*.  After all, he worked damn hard all his life to use comics for positive purposes, and to give them a reputation for quality; this kind of wretched excess - seeing what this art form, of which he was a pioneer, has been reduced to - would have sickened him. 

Are comics so desperate for sales that they must feed the bottom-feeders?  Are today's "creators" that willing to reduce themselves to pandering to the basest elements of a shrinking fandom?

*Shoveling sh*t would be a good suggestion; they've clearly demonstrated an aptitude for it...

••

Problem is, far too many of those "creators" think they are pandering and selling out by doing superheroes in the first place. "Trapped by the money" is a recurrent phrase. Poor babies.

So, of course, since they see themselves as already essentially prostitutes, producing the kind of garbage we see these days is easy.

"The problem with the companies (specifically the Big 2) aiming their superhero comics at the 16 to 24 age group is that most people in that age group don't have any interest in reading, much less spending their money, on superheroes comics. Remember, the over whelming majority of current adult superhero comic book readers all started reading superhero comics between the ages of 5 and 14. You have to get the fans young, if you want to keep some of them reading and buying those same superhero comics as older teens and adults"

But, the product is now too expensive for the 5 to 14 year old market.  Create a product in their price range and then can start bringing them back. But since the market had to go more expensive, you have to go for the older teenagers.

As a whole you have a product that is going to be more attractive to them and more affordable to them than those that are younger.  Younger kids get their superhero fix through other media such as movies and cartoons.

But, the product is now too expensive for the 5 to 14 year old market. Create a product in their price range and then can start bringing them back. But since the market had to go more expensive, you have to go for the older teenagers.

As a whole you have a product that is going to be more attractive to them and more affordable to them than those that are younger. Younger kids get their superhero fix through other media such as movies and cartoons.

____________________________________

Well it could also be argued that the product is also to expensive for the 16 to 24 market as well.

Again, current superhero comics rarely attract or bring in new readers who are in the 16 to 24 age range. And most people, not just young kids, get their superhero fix through other media like movies and cartoons.

***************

How successful are those comics? Do they crack the top 100? Top 200? I honestly don't know and I'm curious. I would also suspect the average reader of those comics is the same as all the others, guys in their 30s/40s. I have no data to back this up, just my guess.

OK, I just checked for myself. The highest selling Marvel Adventures comic for December 2009 was Marvel Adventures Spider-Man #58 which ranked 282nd on the sales chart. I would hardly even call that relative success.

____________________________________________

The MA books sell a lot better in venues outside of the direct market. At one time it was reported that Marvel Adventures Spider-Man was Marvel's best selling subscription title (selling,I believe, 30,000 copies a month). The MA books were also among the top 10 selling newstand titles.

People tend to forget that before Quesada became EIC, all Marvel superhero titles were suitable for kids/all ages and dominated the direct market/Diamond sales charts.

"Well it could also be argued that the product is also to expensive for the 16 to 24 market as well.

Again, current superhero comics rarely attract or bring in new readers who are in the 16 to 24 age range. And most people, not just young kids, get their superhero fix through other media like movies and cartoons. "

To your first point, you are probably right. A cheaper product would lure a greater audience. It is basic economics.

But, the 16 to 24 still has more disposable income than most other demographics.

That is also the largest group I see standing around longest in our stores here, including one I worked at a handful of years ago. Per person, they may not purchase as much as the older customers, but there are still more of them.