New Unstoppable Wasp Series.

[Skedatz]

You know, I think I have a different way to approach this.

How do you believe a comic is greenlit? I refer to the process from conception to print.

[KurtW95]

The goal is not profit. The goal is putting out the message. And because their goal is putting out the message, they get PR. They get articles. But they don’t get comic sales. Profit isn’t even isn’t even in their minds.

[Skedatz]

The goal is not profit. The goal is putting out the message. And because their goal is putting out the message, they get PR. They get articles. But they don’t get comic sales. Profit isn’t even isn’t even in their minds.

So their business model is to "Not make money." Because if their goal isn't profit, making money isn't their business model.

But I'm seriously curious. How do you think a comic comes to fruition?

[KurtW95]

So their business model is to "Not make money." Because if their goal isn't profit, making money isn't their business model.

But I'm seriously curious. How do you think a comic comes to fruition?

Dude. Dissassociate it. These comics come to fruition through talk about the message, reading praise from news outlets, and lie about profit. But the last one is not the goal. Disassociate it from the goal.

[Drops Of Venus]

All the available financial data points to the conclusion that Wasp was a commercial failure. This view is further supported by the fact that Wasp was cancelled after only a handful of issues, the cancellation matches the data. Conversely, brining Wasp back doesn't make any sense financially, because it goes against the data. As such, the burden of proof is on you to provide new data that refutes the commercial failure of Wasp as a book. Thus far you have been unable to provide any new information.

We're just going in circles here. You two need to get your heads out of fucking Comichron for a second. The available data is a half-assed evidence because it is an incomplete estimate, therefore, the available data does not prove anything alone. The fact that the book was cancelled, yes, THAT would be more solid evidence. But that evidence doesn't hold power anymore when the book was brought back using data THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO US as justification. Meaning, you won't be able to see if that checks out on your limited data. To prove that you're right, you'd have to prove that Marvel's not published data is wrong, and no one here can do that, can we? So yeah, no one here has any actual evidence.

MARVEL! IS! A! FRIGGING! BUSINESS! THEY PUBLISH COMICS! TO MAKE A PROFIT! IF THEY PUBLISH A COMIC! IT IS BECAUSE THAT COMIC! MAKES THEM MONEY!

This is not complicated. But deluded conspiracy theorists want to believe that Marvel, unique out of all businesses, does not care about making a profit. That Disney, unique of all businesses, is totally OK with one of their subsidiaries losing them money. Because the idea that people who make comics aren't lying sacks of **** is apparently impossible for you people to understand. A comic making money outside the direct market is, for some reason, such a massive threat to the way you see the industry, that you choose instead to believe that Jeremy Whitley, who has never shown himself to be anything less than a gentleman, is intentionally lying to people. Rather than accept that there are other avenues for people to read comics, and that those other avenues are capable of making some comics financially viable, you people choose instead to attack the integrity of people who make comics.

I'm going to be blunt: This is a vile tactic. It is disgusting. You are attacking the creators as people. You are attacking Whitley and Smith and all the other professionals who talk about how trade sales can save a book, as people. That is a reprehensible tactic to take. And you're doing it because a book you don't like is getting published. Get the hell over it. Unstoppable Wasp is being published, there's nothing you can do to stop it, so get the hell over it. Read something you do enjoy, instead of sitting there bitching about this and accusing Marvel of being made up of liars and incompetents.

The hubris of assuming you know more about Marvel's sales than the people who actually work there, and accusing the people at Marvel of being liars because they're not supporting your own preconceived notions of how the industry works. Because they're not saying that the direct market is the only thing that matters and all other avenues for reading comics are invalid. Because they're saying that the Wednesday Warriors aren't the only ones whose buying habits matter. Is that what it is? Are you so insecure about other people enjoying your hobby that you have to reject their very existence? Because that's pathetic.

This whole bitch-fest about Unstoppable Wasp being brought back is pathetic. Just get over it, and get over yourselves.

I mean, I'm not surprised. If not even the VP of sales talking about diverse books being successful and mentioning books that are not big in the direct market as examples is enough to convince them, I don't expect any respect for the writers or editors. It's like I said: even if Marvel started publishing their full numbers to the public, they would find a way to not believe it. They would say whoever's publishing it is inflating the sales on purpose or something like that. 'Cause this is not about numbers or data, it's about feeding the egos of the sad, condescending, entitled Comicsgate community.

[Kintor]

We're just going in circles here. You two need to get your heads out of fucking Comichron for a second. The available data is a half-assed evidence because it is an incomplete estimate, therefore, the available data does not prove anything alone. The fact that the book was cancelled, yes, THAT would be more solid evidence. But that evidence doesn't hold power anymore when the book was brought back using data THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO US as justification. Meaning, you won't be able to see if that checks out on your limited data. To prove that you're right, you'd have to prove that Marvel's not published data is wrong, and no one here can do that, can we? So yeah, no one here has any actual evidence.

Let's not lower the tone of this conversation with false equivalences. The circle will be broken when you realise that Marvel hasn't left you with a leg to stand on, they are deliberately hiding the financial data because the truth is that Wasp is unprofitable. The only reason to resurrect this failed comic is for the sake of ideological preening. It's a perversion of community outreach, when Marvel's own products neglect profitability to gain 24-hours’ worth of good PR on social media. That might work for Indie publishers like Image or even Oni Press which have lower overhead but a major corporation like Marvel should know better.

[ed2962]

You know, I think I have a different way to approach this.

How do you believe a comic is greenlit? I refer to the process from conception to print.

I think this one went something like this...

"Hey, the Ant Man movie sequel is coming out...we should have some product ready."

"Ok! It'll be easy to release some reprints. Should we relaunch Scott's title?"

"Eh...maybe, maybe not...we should definitely do something called 'Ant Man and the Wasp'...we can do it digitally, we can do it in print."

"If it's set in the 616 should Wasp be Jan or Hope?"

"Doesn't matter. Maybe we can bring back Hope's book? It didn't burn up the charts in the LCS, but it did ok in the ancillary markets!"

"Why not? Done deal!"


I'm semi-joking, but...

[Skedatz]

Dude. Dissassociate it. These comics come to fruition through talk about the message, reading praise from news outlets, and lie about profit. But the last one is not the goal. Disassociate it from the goal.

I can't, because that would be disassociating it from the reality of the Comic market. Companies like praise, but accountants like positive numbers in the ledgers. And accountants and audit teams are part of the company as well.

I think this one went something like this...

"Hey, the Ant Man movie sequel is coming out...we should have some product ready."

"Ok! It'll be easy to release some reprints. Should we relaunch Scott's title?"

"Eh...maybe, maybe not...we should definitely do something called 'Ant Man and the Wasp'...we can do it digitally, we can do it in print."

"If it's set in the 616 should Wasp be Jan or Hope?"

"Doesn't matter. Maybe we can bring back Hope's book? It didn't burn up the charts in the LCS, but it did ok in the ancillary markets!"

"Why not? Done deal!"


I'm semi-joking, but...

lol That's definitely part of some of their comics. Civil War II didn't come out of nowhere, after all.

I meant more in how a story is pitched, formed, hired, budgeted, and projected.

[Digifiend]

"If it's set in the 616 should Wasp be Jan or Hope?"

They took a third option there of course, teaming him up with both Earth-616 Wasps.

[Danileriver23]

hahahaha.

You guys are just going in circles. I don't think you realize that this guy is trolling you. You should probably just ignore him.

That being said, damn. I just looked at the preview art and gurhiru is killing it AGAIN. Marvel's art overall over the past 3-4 years has been in a BAD spot. In fact, I'd blame poor art for a lot of the reason that these newer books are dwindling in sales. If marvel already doesn't have some sort of exclusivity deal with them, they need one. Idont know if they work on any of their Disney properties or not but they'd be PERFECT for it.

[Mary Jay]

That being said, damn. I just looked at the preview art and gurhiru is killing it AGAIN. Marvel's art overall over the past 3-4 years has been in a BAD spot. In fact, I'd blame poor art for a lot of the reason that these newer books are dwindling in sales. If marvel already doesn't have some sort of exclusivity deal with them, they need one. Idont know if they work on any of their Disney properties or not but they'd be PERFECT for it.

I guess I'll ruffle some feathers with this, but I still don't like this art. I think it does go with the target audience of the book, looking manga-like... and it's an improvement over the previous artist. I'm sorry to say I have never heard of the artist before today. But I agree with you that art can be the reason why a book sells less. There have been comic books in the past that have seen an increase in their sales when the artist was switched, even only for a couple of issues.

Personally, I prefer my comic books art to look a bit more traditional.

[Skedatz]

hahahaha.

You guys are just going in circles. I don't think you realize that this guy is trolling you. You should probably just ignore him.

That being said, damn. I just looked at the preview art and gurhiru is killing it AGAIN. Marvel's art overall over the past 3-4 years has been in a BAD spot. In fact, I'd blame poor art for a lot of the reason that these newer books are dwindling in sales. If marvel already doesn't have some sort of exclusivity deal with them, they need one. Idont know if they work on any of their Disney properties or not but they'd be PERFECT for it.

God I hope I'm just being trolled and looking the loon for it.

[Raye]

They have had very consistent opinions on this sort of thing for months and months, if they are a troll, they are a supremely dedicated one.

Let's not lower the tone of this conversation with false equivalences. The circle will be broken when you realise that Marvel hasn't left you with a leg to stand on, they are deliberately hiding the financial data because the truth is that Wasp is unprofitable. The only reason to resurrect this failed comic is for the sake of ideological preening. It's a perversion of community outreach, when Marvel's own products neglect profitability to gain 24-hours’ worth of good PR on social media. That might work for Indie publishers like Image or even Oni Press which have lower overhead but a major corporation like Marvel should know better.

Wait, so is EVERY publisher "deliberately hiding" their numbers to hide the unprofitable nature of their books? Because there is not a single publisher that releases that data, not one. Why on earth would Marvel release that data when no other publisher does? You are just pulling that out of your ass, with nothing to back it up, as usual. Just twisting things around to fit your 'diversity is killing comics' narrative.

[CaptCleghorn]

If basic economics hold here, then profit is revenue minus expenses. Some, probably most, of the sales are known. An unknown portion of the sales remain unknown. The expenses are also unknown. While a per copy cost for printing an distribution could be ascertained somehow, the creators' reimbursement is confidential and unknown.

With so many unknowns, how the hell is anyone outside of Marvel's accounting department sure if the book is profitable or not?

[KurtW95]

God I hope I'm just being trolled and looking the loon for it.

Nobody’s trolling.