Printable View
Perhaps a reading comprehension fail for me here Kees, but are you saying hopefully readers will see less of characters they have an interest in? I can't imagine that's what you mean, but if it is why would you want to see others have fewer comics coming out that they're interested in?
[QUOTE=TroubleWithTrebles;465867]"Or like Orange is the New Black, or Bones which both started as books (well, Bones was a series of books). It seems TV and books have a market for female leads."
Yes, for books and TV. Where female editors and producers (mostly) loathe and deride comic stuff as "fanboy crap" and don't even alter that stance when you mention how much $ Gail Simone and Nicole Scott have generated.
The point remains that when comics are costing as much as a value meal, no one is gonna buy talking heads, even if a crime is part of the plot. Boring-ass visuals don't sell and nor should they, and the sample in the OP, visually, is boring as batshit.[/QUOTE]
I don't know that I see it as quite so bleak but yeah that's why I was suggesting going outside the normal market and present a full graphic novel. Most Saga readers I know get it that way (although it sells monthlies) people still pick up trades of Ghost World.
Pictures with words doesn't always equal "comics".
[QUOTE=CSTowle;466163]Perhaps a reading comprehension fail for me here Kees, but are you saying hopefully readers will see less of characters they have an interest in? I can't imagine that's what you mean,[/QUOTE]
Yep, indeed that's not what I mean, so no fail for you! :)
But seriously, I feel the poster at hand seems so evasive with their apparent reasoning, almost like they don't wish to effectively communicate eventhough they keep on formulating questions.
Like first they specifically ask about publishers and not creators, then they turn that around, then it's readerships or *genre books* - what does that even mean by itself? Can a book truely be to *fail*? Is a 'minority' always something injust as meaning something negative per se, or better yet: is it viable to always see oneself as some kind of endangered species?
I mean it seems to me the poster insists on seeing any comic as needing to get prolongued or be to thrive just automatically or necessarily always, like it couldn't possibly be certain things stop or end or change or that for it the world would suddenly have to end or something.
That's what isn't making sense to me, like over the course of this entire thread. And that last remark ought to get seen in light of such.
I couldn't quite understand what he was getting at either. If he's saying that the "Big Two" should focus more on publishing non-superhero fare and attempt to add diversity to its cast of characters then I'd agree with him. I'd say Marvel has been doing a pretty good job of that lately (at least on the diversity front), and I'd say it's a shame their attempt to resurrect the Crossgen line didn't work (most of it, as DuPont said, was superheroey but there were a few titles like Ruse and Way of the Rat that were different).
I'd like to see them do more in their Icon line and perhaps bring back Epic as their "Vertigo" line, but if they haven't done it in the wake of the success of Sandman, Preacher, Swamp Thing, Y, etc. I don't see why they'd feel compelled to now. The monthly issues don't tend to sell as well (outside of a few rare exceptions), but the graphic novel sales are comparable to the mainstream superhero collections.
Between that and the move to digital (not something I'm looking forward to, but probably good for the hobby) I think the playing field will be wide open for independent creators to compete with the "Big 2". Assuming Disney and Time Warner don't get up to dirty tricks to try and make distribution of digital comics harder on independents.
I think digital will be a good way to force quality up on mainstream titles that are coasting on a recognizable title (like one of those 7 Avengers titles). If fans can easily preview art and story from Avengers title D and say Saga or Rat Queens I don't think the disparity between the monthly sales will be so great.
[QUOTE=CSTowle;466202]I couldn't quite understand what he was getting at either. If he's saying that >snip< [/QUOTE]
Well, I feel or hope nothing would need to get seen as in imminent danger.
If the Big 2 want to continue their own legacy at hiring or engaging creators onto producing comics to whatever genre, they could and should. But I would think they shouldn't merely try that as by turning whatever attention onto themselves, like as by merely trying to compete with or absorb what their competitors would be to do, without actually doing creations of their own completely toward their own instigations.
By which I mean they shouldn't only treat their flagships as stuff to protect or milk, or be to buy up such, but as stuff to really get used or made.
The Big 2 should focus on catering to artists and creators onto letting them make and create stuff - preferably new and diverse enough stuff - without claiming it all into copyrights and cut throat legal crap.
That's what I think. Regardless of what endangered dried up redundant or generic poppy gizmo would get squeezed for it.
Anything having seen print is something gotten made into some kind of product, so it needs no fretting over at all.
And the main or primary difference between a monthly comic and just any book is that the monthly got made instantaneous and quick, regardless of what genre it'd be, but most other books like tpb's or completer arcs would more rather get made for proving a lasting or finished product. No need to sweat or frown over that. I'd say.
'Though sometimes I think the Big 2 would seem about distribution and marketing more than anything, as from their day one.
Like as if their core would be and have been something like what *Mondo* is nowadays, a venue in itself. Which wouldn't be bad, but.
Not the right place to regard as primarily The producers of books or of one's favorite kind of entertainment - because marketers don't produce or instigate such, but creatives do.
[QUOTE=TroubleWithTrebles;465867]
The point remains that when comics are costing as much as a value meal, no one is gonna buy talking heads, even if a crime is part of the plot. Boring-ass visuals don't sell and nor should they, and the sample in the OP, visually, is boring as batshit.[/QUOTE]
Check the New York Times bestselling graphic novels.
The only superhero graphic novel on the list is Guardians Of The Galaxy, and it's only been there a few weeks, because of the movie. The rest are "boring ass talking heads" with female talent, Gail Simone not included. Apparently it does sell.
[QUOTE=dupont2005;466434]Check the New York Times bestselling graphic novels.
The only superhero graphic novel on the list is Guardians Of The Galaxy, and it's only been there a few weeks, because of the movie. The rest are "boring ass talking heads" with female talent, Gail Simone not included. Apparently it does sell.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. There is no value in regarding any kind of lead or genre or aspect as somehow not viable. There isn't even much to differentiate as such. Have a lead but make it a good one somehow for what it does and it will be, for whatever that's worth.
Half of those best-sellers are put out by Scholastic Books and Knopf/Doubleday Publishing, which have a toe-hold in libraries, schools, bookstores, and supermarkets/department stores. Not to say they're not necessarily of high quality, but they have a far easier time distributing product than even Marvel comics does (granted, that's because of multiple blunders by Marvel over the past couple of decades). Comparing large publishers book sales to even the "Big 2" in the comic industry is like comparing Marvel's sales to a self-publisher's.
Then there's Saga (which, if we're calling Livewires a superhero comic, seems to fit the bill) and the Walking Dead which has a mega-popular TV show to draw its audience from.
I don't know why it's so controversial to say Livewires, of all things, is a superhero book. The characters are SHIELD LMDS with superpowers who fight AIM and original Human Torch clones. It's a solid Marvel U superhero book, and if it had made it more than six issues it would have surely found room for a Wolverine guest appearance or two.
[QUOTE=dupont2005;466434]Check the New York Times bestselling graphic novels.
The only superhero graphic novel on the list is Guardians Of The Galaxy, and it's only been there a few weeks, because of the movie. The rest are "boring ass talking heads" with female talent, Gail Simone not included. Apparently it does sell.[/QUOTE]
I think that maybe A Voice In The Dark's problem is that it's sort of in between two extremes. It's too static for those seeking spandex asscrack, fantasy, and punch ups, but it's not highbrow, personal, and eclectic enough for those that dig Jeffrey Brown's misery. It's more like trying to do a high quality HBO drama in comics form, which seems to have a limited audience.
I hate to say it, but if he did a heartfelt autobiographical graphic novel about living with his disorder it would easily be a best seller. I can understand many reasons why he might not want to do that, but heartfelt autobiographical graphic novels are what the more highbrow audience seems to be looking for.
[QUOTE=CSTowle;466507]Half of those best-sellers are put out by Scholastic Books and Knopf/Doubleday Publishing, which have a toe-hold in libraries, schools, bookstores, and supermarkets/department stores. Not to say they're not necessarily of high quality, but they have a far easier time distributing product than even Marvel comics does (granted, that's because of multiple blunders by Marvel over the past couple of decades). Comparing large publishers book sales to even the "Big 2" in the comic industry is like comparing Marvel's sales to a self-publisher's.
Then there's Saga (which, if we're calling Livewires a superhero comic, seems to fit the bill) and the Walking Dead which has a mega-popular TV show to draw its audience from.[/QUOTE]
Marvel has the same distribution options as the rest. In fact, my Amazing Spiderman subscription I had as a kid came from a school book store.
Libraries and bookstores stock super hero comics. They just don't sell as well in that market, because it's not a speculator/fanboy driven market.
And self published comics are compared to Marvel comics in sales in the Diamond figures.
[QUOTE=Kees_L;466092]That really doesn't make a lick of sense to me.[/QUOTE]
The entire point of this thread was about ability or inability for minority characters to sell in today's market, unless they fit in this criteria:
[QUOTE]So the conclusion I’m coming to is that people really don’t want female-led books. Unless it’s Harley Quinn, Wonder Woman or Batgirl.
They really don’t want characters of color, racial diversity, or LGBT representation.[/QUOTE]
This includes both minority characters (whether they be superhero or non-superhero) and non-superhero books under the Marvel and DC umbrella. From where I'm standing, the majority of the current comics buying audience have very little interest in minority characters and genre/non-superhero titles. If the market and audience remains as it is, both these books and characters will continue to fail, no matter how many are published nor how many times they're published. Nothing but quick cancellation upon cancellation, no matter what they put out.
It's just not going to happen with the current demographics.
My question to you was how Marvel, DC. et al, can successfully bring in a wider range of demographics into the comics-buying public and expand the comics readership base in general to where these characters and books can survive with relative success.
[QUOTE=Kees_L;466092]Well yeah, hopefully.[/QUOTE]
Wait, you're actually saying you want to see [B]less[/B] minority characters and non-superhero books? You want the readers who do actually have an interest in these characters and books to see even less of them? :confused: With all the complaints about how the current market is stagnant, how minority characters in general can't sell worth sh--, how very little else except A-list and already decades-old characters (or characters with heavy ties to those characters) in general can't sell, and how genres outside of superheros struggle to gain significant traction, that's making a current bad situation worse.
[QUOTE='The S0/\/\@7ic Si/\/\[]Dl370n;465566']Or... they're not trying...[/QUOTE]
Quite possibly, but I doubt that the editors go into work everyday content to not grow their audience.
[QUOTE='The S0/\/\@7ic Si/\/\[]Dl370n;465566']Alright, so monthlies aren't viable.
What would work the best for these books and characters?[/QUOTE]
If we are talking non-established creators working on non-superhero creations, the first thing you should do is go into the process with the mindset of making little to no money off of your creation. Expecting your work to make you a living is going to lead to disappointment.
For what type of story he is telling, I would say the OGN format would have served him better. But again, he isn't going to net an income either way, most likely.
[QUOTE='The S0/\/\@7ic Si/\/\[]Dl370n;466793']The entire point of this thread was about ability or inability for minority characters to sell in today's market, unless they fit in this criteria:
This includes both minority characters (whether they be superhero or non-superhero) and non-superhero books under the Marvel and DC umbrella. From where I'm standing, the majority of the current comics buying audience have very little interest in minority characters and genre/non-superhero titles. If the market and audience remains as it is, both these books and characters will continue to fail, no matter how many are published nor how many times they're published. Nothing but quick cancellation upon cancellation, no matter what they put out.
It's just not going to happen with the current demographics.
My question to you was how Marvel, DC. et al, can successfully bring in a wider range of demographics into the comics-buying public and expand the comics readership base in general to where these characters and books can survive with relative success.[/QUOTE]
No, the conclusion the creator draws is a faulty one, and the regarding *minority characters* both as markets or publishers so rigidly and onesidedly would appear to be the main cause.
[QUOTE='The S0/\/\@7ic Si/\/\[]Dl370n;466793']Wait, you're actually saying you want to see [B]less[/B] minority characters and non-superhero books?[/QUOTE]
No, see my post #93.
Plus I'll add this, for good measure. What you said was:
[QUOTE='The S0/\/\@7ic Si/\/\[]Dl370n;465566']If the monthly readership remains the way it is now, those books and characters will continue to fail, hence the readers who [B][I]do[/I][/B] have an interest in specific properties will see less of them.[/QUOTE]
To which I replied yes, because demand both as reception to a title shouldn't and wouldn't have to be outdoing what interest there'd exist.
I cannot fathom your apparent idea that any having a minority lead or general quality or thematic similarities to other existing examples within popular entertainment would instantaneously have to make something a success.
Wasn't Liverwires more sci-fi/humor? They weren't above intimidating and civilians and their families, including threatening to kill a scientist's daughter. They're basically robots ("Watch the R-word") whose mission was to take down other special ops projects, good or bad. Not save people or stop villains. Oh, and that experiment they were fighting in the first issue were pyrotechnic nanobots, not clones of the Human Torch. On top of that, their orgin has them outright [spoil]slaughtering their creators.[/spoil] To me, it's about as "superhero" as Ghost in the Shell is.
[QUOTE=dupont2005;465669]How many of them were Marvel titles?[/QUOTE]
All of them, under Marvel's various (failed) imprints.
What exactly makes Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (unless James Bond falls under the superhero genre) and Route 666, both CrossGen titles, qualify as superhero titles?
Or books like Spellbinders, Machine Teen (basically Not Quite Human and D.A.R.Y.L) and Saint Sinner (basically a horror-themed Highway to Heaven), for that matter?
Stuff like Franklin Richards: Son of a Genius (pretty much a mix of Calvin & Hobbes and Dennis The Menace) also failed to gain traction.
Plus the non-superhero stuff in Marvel's Icon imprint (except maybe... Casanova?), such as Kabuki and Scarlet, also failed to gain steam.
[QUOTE=Goggindowner;466850]Quite possibly, but I doubt that the editors go into work everyday content to not grow their audience.[/QUOTE]
Yet, they keep doing the same thing... over and over. Surely they know by now just publishing the book and leaving it at that is not going to do anything?
[QUOTE=Goggindowner;466850]If we are talking non-established creators working on non-superhero creations, the first thing you should do is go into the process with the mindset of making little to no money off of your creation. Expecting your work to make you a living is going to lead to disappointment.[/QUOTE]
That mindset might work for minority characters and non-superhero book published by indie creators (even though in most cases, their work might still end up never getting traction, plus even then, it looks like superheros will still be way more successful). Not so much for minority characters and non-superhero books published under mainstream publishers.
[QUOTE=Goggindowner;466850]For what type of story he is telling, I would say the OGN format would have served him better. But again, he isn't going to net an income either way, most likely.[/QUOTE]
Scarily, it's looking like this guy might simply be more better off either doing T&A superheroines or submitting his resume to Marvel and DC. Hope he likes Batman...
[QUOTE=Kees_L;466901][B]No, the conclusion the creator draws is a faulty one,[/B] and the regarding *minority characters* both as markets or publishers so rigidly and onesidedly would appear to be the main cause.
No, see my post #93.[/QUOTE]
Then where are the sales of all these minority characters and and diverse books?
Why is there nothing but stunted runs and repeated cancellations?
[QUOTE=Kees_L;466901]To which I replied yes, because demand both as reception to a title shouldn't and wouldn't have to be outdoing what interest there'd exist.
I cannot fathom your apparent idea that any having a minority lead or general quality or thematic similarities to other existing examples within popular entertainment would instantaneously have to make something a success.[/QUOTE]
That's why I'm saying the market needs to change.
As it is now, it can't sustain anything other than superheroes, gimmicks, and decades-old A-list characters.
These characters and genres work in other forms of media because their consumers have a much wider range of demographics than those who buy comics do.
[QUOTE='The S0/\/\@7ic Si/\/\[]Dl370n;466954']Yet, they keep doing the same thing... over and over. Surely they know by now just publishing the book and leaving it at that is not going to do anything?[/QUOTE]
Which is why I originally said they want it, but have no idea how to do it.
[QUOTE='The S0/\/\@7ic Si/\/\[]Dl370n;466954']That mindset might work for minority characters and non-superhero book published by indie creators (even though in most cases, their work might still end up never getting traction, plus even then, it looks like superheros will still be way more successful). Not so much for minority characters and non-superhero books published under mainstream publishers.[/QUOTE]
You are talking about two different audiences, and in that getting what I'm saying muddled up.
The audience that tends to be more supportive of books like what this creator is doing are not the weekly comic shop crowd, usually. This crowd is probably more likely to just be comic fans, not fans of a single genre.
The weekly comic shop crowd is, historically, satisfied to continue reading what they have always read and not venture outside that box by too wide a margin. They are superhero comic fans, not comic fans, necessarily.
This guy is going after the superhero fans, not the comic book fans per se, and is in turn surprised when he can't seem to find any traction. His book doesn't appeal to the audience he is presenting it to. There is most likely nothing he can do with his book that is going to change the reception he is seeing. He needs to find out what his audience is and how to best go after them. Instead, he put a book out and mistakenly thought that quality equals monthly sales, or that anyone cares how novel an approach to creating his book he takes. What he can do is pretty fantastic, but 99.999% of his audience will never know about it or even care.