Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 16 Next >>
Topic: Fans vs. Pros (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Jack Michaels
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 June 2013
Posts: 422
Posted: 07 February 2014 at 4:52pm | IP Logged | 1  


 QUOTE:
Meanwhile, my kids can still buy Archie in the exact same form and the same places as when I was a kid.

I can't remember the last time I saw an Archie comic outside of a book store. I can't imagine they're selling terribly well these days. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jack Michaels
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 June 2013
Posts: 422
Posted: 07 February 2014 at 4:58pm | IP Logged | 2  

A bit of Googling and I don't think we should be holding up Archie as something to aspire to. 


On that subject. What happened to all those other comic companies I remember when I was a kid. DC, Marvel, and Archie are the only comic companies around that I remember from childhood. 

If Archie is being held up as comics done by professionals and they sell that dismally, then what happened to all those other companies? There seems to be something much more going on than just fans turning out fannish product. If the comic industry was a healthy one, then DC & Marvel should be the jokes of the industry, not playing Last Man Standing. 



Edited by Jack Michaels on 07 February 2014 at 5:25pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6431
Posted: 07 February 2014 at 5:25pm | IP Logged | 3  

Jack: A bit of Googling and I don't think we should be holding up Archie as something to aspire to.

**

Looks bad for Archie now, but until 2012 they had better or the same numbers as Marvel and DC. With the right promotion, at least Archie has a chance to reclaim its audience-- because it's still in the supermarkets where kids shop.

Superheroes, not so much.

And Archie's success until 2 years ago puts to rest the idea that these characters have to change to keep an audience. Many current comic readers may have quit if change didn't occur, but if the market hadn't intentionally shrunk itself exclusively into comic stores, then it wouldn't have mattered because new readers could have come along.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jack Michaels
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 June 2013
Posts: 422
Posted: 07 February 2014 at 5:51pm | IP Logged | 4  

Seeing as you guys are all about dismissing DC and Marvel for producing comics with such low-sales, I'm not inclined to think Archie is being successful by pulling in the same numbers. 

As for this putting rest to the idea that characters need to change to keep an audience... well, how exactly is that. Here's a company which does everything it can to not change their characters and they're pulling in dismal numbers. If anything that sounds like they should have done something long before now to arrest the decline. 

Any long time franchise tends to change a bit with the times (seeing as Veronica got replaced by a gay character, clearly Archie was attempting to do just that). The degree of change necessary is where the debate comes in and it's largely "what works, works". 

If Wolverine gets transformed from a hideous troll into a tall handsome leading man and brings the audience, sounds like the kind of change a company will get behind and celebrate. Congratulations, Wolverine is now a mainstream A-list hero, 

Good luck, trying to convince anyone that change was a bad thing. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Dave Phelps
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4184
Posted: 07 February 2014 at 6:36pm | IP Logged | 5  

 Mark Haslett wrote:
Where does this notion of cancelled comics come from? Everything being published today sells at numbers that would have gotten them cancelled back when all the characters were still on model.


What's "on model" for a Marvel character? If the One True Spider-Man is in high school, he's been "off model" since 1965. If the One True Thor should be spending his free time in a Doctor's office pining over Jane Foster, he's been "off model" since 1967. And let's not even talk about those Johnny-come-latelies who have been calling themselves the Avengers since 1965...    

If the argument is that any changes made to characters after the initial stabilization period (i.e., Peter Parker's job at the Daily Bugle and Daredevil's red suit wouldn't qualify) are bad, then you have to decide how long those status quos would have appealed to the marketplace. It's possible that the appeal would have been indefinite and we'd still be reading and enjoying new stories of high school Peter Parker who takes pictures for the Bugle and works to stay on Betty's good side while fending off Liz Allen's advances. It's also possible that fans would have lost interest within a few years, incoming audiences wouldn't have been interested at all and the books would have been cancelled. Who knows?


 QUOTE:
Change has been a major part of this dwindling market.


It's not "change" that's driven readers away. Marvel had gradual evolution in its DNA for decades and sales were just fine throughout. Roger Stern has Spider-Man quit school and we love his run. Walt Simonson wiped out Donald Blake and we love his run. Change isn't inherently bad. Even if you say "illusion of change" is acceptable while real change isn't, where's the line? If Spider-Man being a young student is key, then graduating high school is "illusion of change." If you think the ideal form of Spider-Man is him being a High School Student, then the character went wrong 3 years in and never went back.    

What's been killing Marvel in recent years (getting to be 20 now; geez) is that they got away from gradual evolution and started doing shock for shock's safe while pandering to speculators and bleeding their fans as much as possible ("Like Wolverine in the X-Men? Then you'll love him in his solo book, his other solo book, in the Avengers, in another Avengers book, and random one shots!").
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6431
Posted: 07 February 2014 at 6:36pm | IP Logged | 6  

Jack: Seeing as you guys are all about dismissing DC and Marvel for producing comics with such low-sales, I'm not inclined to think Archie is being successful by pulling in the same numbers.

As for this putting rest to the idea that characters need to change to keep an audience... well, how exactly is that. Here's a company which does everything it can to not change their characters and they're pulling in dismal numbers. If anything that sounds like they should have done something long before now to arrest the decline.

***
Good job keeping your eye on the ball. I'm all about that? Show me once where I have ever been about that?

Sales suck all around. My point was that Archie held its own in traditional markets using its same old formula, constantly pulling in new young readers.

Marvel/DC comics threw away that access to new young readers and pulled the same numbers by pumping event after event onto their dwindling market of aging readers.

Your interpretation is that "if anything" Archie did it wrong?

You call introducing Kevin Keller "change" -- but that's just introducing new characters --NOT what we're talking about. They didn't have Veronica reveal that she was always a gay young man-- which is the kind of stunt that we've seen at Marvel and DC to spike their sales.

There's no question of "convincing anyone change was a bad thing" -- the whole thing was decided long ago. Looking back, it is not hard to see how we got here-- but you have to be willing to look.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6431
Posted: 07 February 2014 at 6:38pm | IP Logged | 7  

Dave: Marvel had gradual evolution in its DNA for decades and sales were just fine throughout. Roger Stern has Spider-Man quit school and we love his run. Walt Simonson wiped out Donald Blake and we love his run. Change isn't inherently bad.

**

Illusion of change.

++

Dave: What's been killing Marvel in recent years (getting to be 20 now; geez) is that they got away from gradual evolution and started doing shock for shock's safe while pandering to speculators and bleeding their fans as much as possible ("Like Wolverine in the X-Men? Then you'll love him in his solo book, his other solo book, in the Avengers, in another Avengers book, and random one shots!").

***

But what you call "gradual evolution" is that illusion of change-- easily undone.

It's the mentality that "real change must happen" and "who cares if he was a loner, now he's in the Avengers" that has given us the last mumbledy-mumble years worth of weird stories.Many things drove down sales, but the move away from these characters' recognizable roots cemented the feeling that comics are purely for the indoctrinated.

Edited by Mark Haslett on 07 February 2014 at 6:43pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jack Michaels
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 June 2013
Posts: 422
Posted: 07 February 2014 at 8:27pm | IP Logged | 8  


 QUOTE:
 Looking back, it is not hard to see how we got here-- but you have to be willing to look.

Then why have DC/Marvel and Archie both ended up in the same place while taking two very different paths?

Where did all those other comic publishers go that were kicking around in the 60s and 70s? 

There's something else going on here than just fans-turned-pro took over the comic industry if everyone ended up dying in the same ditch. 

If NCIS and CSI got taken over by fans-turned-pro and pissed away their audience tomorrow, they'd be replaced by shows who didn't alienate their audience. If the network ratings fell by any substantial number, then we'd be blaming digital and cable offerings, not the two biggest franchises going in the toilet. 

Fans taking over the reigns might be part of the problem, but there's more to the story than someone not doing Batman right. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35949
Posted: 07 February 2014 at 8:46pm | IP Logged | 9  

 Dave Phelps wrote:
If the argument is that any changes made to characters after the initial stabilization period (i.e., Peter Parker's job at the Daily Bugle and Daredevil's red suit wouldn't qualify) are bad, then you have to decide how long those status quos would have appealed to the marketplace. It's possible that the appeal would have been indefinite and we'd still be reading and enjoying new stories of high school Peter Parker who takes pictures for the Bugle and works to stay on Betty's good side while fending off Liz Allen's advances. It's also possible that fans would have lost interest within a few years, incoming audiences wouldn't have been interested at all and the books would have been cancelled. Who knows?

I get the notion that an existing audience would lose interest in an all-ages character.  That's the way it was for decades.  Hell, that was the entire foundation upon which modern superhero comics were founded. Kids picked them up, stayed with them for a time, and then left when they discovered other interests. This was all possible, of course, because a new crop of kids was always coming in. It's really been only with the last 30 or so years that the kids stuck with comics well into adulthood. That plus the DSM, in my opinion, began the steady decline of the modern all-ages superhero as published by Marvel and DC.

The second part of your possible narrative strikes me as all kinds of wrong...


 QUOTE:
 It's also possible that...incoming audiences wouldn't have been interested at all

First of all, what "incoming audience"?  New adults?  Anecdotal to be sure, but I don't know anyone as an adult who has picked up the hobby without having some past connection.  Second, what's different about kids today that they wouldn't be interested in the kinds of comics I read at their age?  One of the most popular brands going right now is My Little Pony.  Hasn't changed all that much since it's inception.  I have friends who get their own kids into comics by reading the Essentials collections to them.  If your point is that maybe, possibly, some kids might not like a comic featuring a high school Peter Parker working at the Bugle and fending off Liz Allen, well that's nothing new.  Not every kid in my school read comics (far from it) and they were still selling at incredibly high numbers in the 70s. Some liked 'em. Some didn't.  Same as it always was.  But I absolutely don't agree with the notion that even if the books were available to kids through a large number of venues, the status quo of Spider-Man would be utterly uninteresting to them now because they've experienced some kind of metamorphosis wherein they enjoy nothing any kid liked just 30 years ago. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Dave Phelps
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4184
Posted: 07 February 2014 at 8:50pm | IP Logged | 10  

 Mark Haslett wrote:
Illusion of change.


Betcha there are people here who would disagree with that. (I'm not one of them, mind you.)

If you feel the core of Thor is the Superman riff that kicked the series off, getting rid of "Clark Kent" is pretty seismic.


 QUOTE:
But what you call "gradual evolution" is that illusion of change-- easily undone.


I'm curious what recent events you would consider to be non-illusion of change. It's not like they can't give Captain America his proper suit back or have Wolverine leave the Avengers. (Actually, they just did. He's still in Uncanny Avengers, but the whole point of that team is that it's half X-characters and half Avengers characters.)

Illusion of change vs. real change is judged at the book level, not the character level (although those obviously coincide when it's a solo book). The Fantastic Four is still about a family, which isn't undermind by the Richards ending up with a second child (even if how they got her demonstrated an overly literal interpretation of the phrase "we lost the baby"). The X-Men still fight to save a world that hates and fears them, regardless of how poorly Cyclops has been handled. Captain America is still a man out of time, even if his lost sidekick is now a brainwashed Soviet assassin. Thor remains a god among men. Iron Man is still billionaire industrialist Tony Stark who makes gadgets and flies around in an armored suit.    

Spider-Man's been ruined for ME, but in a way that theoretically restores him to his "proper" version for future readers. Any flaws in the stories at this point can presumably be fixed by installing a different creative team. (The Dr. Octopus thing is an extended storyline that's wrapping up in a few months.)

All the problems I personally have with the line aren't intrinsic and pretty easy for Marvel to fix. The problem is that they don't.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jack Michaels
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 June 2013
Posts: 422
Posted: 07 February 2014 at 8:57pm | IP Logged | 11  

While I read comics as a kid, the biggest reason why I started reading in the 90s was Tim Burton's Batman. I wasn't a big comic reader when I was a youngin and never followed a book until I was 20. 

Given the huge success of super-hero movies these days, I can easily see young adults starting a comic habit without having read them as a kid. Comics are a pretty important part of the geek scene, lots of opportunities for cross-pollination. 

It' would be great to get comics in the hands of kids, but let's face the brutal facts. Magazines are starting to become harder and harder to find outside of bookstores (which are harder and harder to find), I really don't see that kind of comics circulation coming back. The publishing market (at least as physical is concerned) is dying a slow death. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
Posted: 07 February 2014 at 8:59pm | IP Logged | 12  

At some point there was a major shift in the dynamic. Instead of the audience changing while the characters stayed the same, the characters began changing while the audience stayed (albeit growing older, and shrinking).

There are many different causes that can be held to account for the decline of the comicbook industry over the past forty or fifty years, but I have long been convinced that changed dynamic is high on the list of culprits.

Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 16 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login