Gerry Conway: "Cancel all superhero comics!"

[Snoop Dogg]

Wasn't 'Dark Phoenix Saga' standalone, in the sense it was entirely UXM? But that's actually bit of a point, I don't think it could be done today, at that form.

Any way, many of these early crossovers were wildly successful, it's true. When Fonzie jumped over 14 garbage barrels with a motorcycle, that was a big success too. Then he jumped over the shark pool and it was 'meh'.

All of those stories are not standalone because they're all several monthly issues long (more than 6) and highly regarded. I mean if we're going to talk about manga and whatnot readers will spend months keeping up with an intricate and drawn out fight scene. And a lot of the most famous comic book runs tend to be fairly longer works that define themselves as "runs." And mainstream audiences have continually shown they approve the shift to more serialized content. But Big 2 stuff generally is pretty bad at rewarding long term investment in characters and continuity which is why we always recommend specific runs of things.

[The Overlord]

Gerry Conway has become that Old Guy Shouts at Sky meme from The Simpsons.

It's not that he's completely inaccurate, or invalid, but his ideas and suggestions is extreme, and unworkable. Were it to be implemented would not in any sense bring about the turnaround he wants.

As for the historical sketch he traced:
-- I don't think it's true at all that Stan Lee wanted just kids to read his book. He was trying throughout his editorial to target a more mature readership and was thrilled that Marvel Comics were popular with college kids, and hence his many lectures on campuses. So this idea that boomers ruined it, that's giving himself and others a little too much credit. It was inherent to Marvel's brand in the '60s that comics grow up. Stan Lee kept trying to get sophisticated types involved with Marvel, so I don't think it's fair to say that he was the same as Julius Schwartz (and considering that Schwartz was a creep at DC, not sure we need to be refer to him).

-- Marvel Comics' sales were pretty strong and big in the '80s, between the direct market and the bust (skimmed over by Conway, not coincidentally, because this was when he Wein and Wolfman left Marvel for a decade plus, so yeah not easy to acknowledge how cool the party got when you left). This was the decade of SECRET WARS'84, the one comic event that did more to rope in new readers than anything since Kirby left. This was the era of Claremont and X-Men, MacFarlane and Jim Lee. It was Marvel's corporate relationship with artists and driving them to Image, which created problems.

-- This idea that continuity is somehow a barrier to new readers is dubious. The fact is that any long running series or stuff gets continuity. Neil Gaiman's The Sandman has continuity, as does SAGA, as does WicDiv. Game of Thrones the TV Show, was the biggest thing on TV and it was a very continuity heavy series. If Continuity was such a big turnoff how come Claremont's X-Men did so well in the '80s, or Hickman now. Or for that matter Lee-Kirby in the '60s. Continuity in the intensified way was introduced by Lee-Kirby when before it wasn't in any case the norm.

-- The fact is that when comics were at its biggest market share across the board in the '50s, superhero was not the dominant genre. In a free marketplace without censorship and other forces fencing stuff, superheroes fell out in favor of EC Comics, Donald Duck Comics, Pogo, and so on. So Conway's essay suffers from a sense of entitlement about the superhero genre=Comics. The truth is that the superhero genre isn't inherently going to always be a big mainstream thing.

-- The larger point that Conway skirts is the fact, that ultimately comics writers and creators need to unionize to negotiate better deals for them now that their stuff is valuable IP stuff. The attempt at reformism at trying to keep the ship float isn't going to improve stuff for them.

That said...I do in fact think bringing comics to Walmart, Target, Costco is a very good idea. Changing the distribution model for comics is important, but cancelling all superhero titles and existing events is overkill.

But something like Game of Thrones or Saga or most Manga do not have continuity that has existed since the 60s, all of those are things go for a couple of years and have a defined ending. The continuity in Marvel and DC comics makes way less sense than those other works. There is no good starting point for those comics for kids today.

How would Marvel and DC continuity be a selling point to kids nowadays?

I wouldn't agree with everything he says, but I feel he's more right than he is wrong.

Comics have suffered for a long time because of people wanting their stories about super powered people in colorful tights to be more mature.

Well the thing is kids today are different from kids in the 60s, I do not think just returning to the Silver Age is the solution, that is just appealing to older fans again.

I think copying the business model of YA novels and Manga is a good idea, appeal to pre-teens by seeing what appeals to them now and really Manga and YA books appeal to kids and adults nowadays.

[Reviresco]

You don't get paid until it's DONE.

Read the sentence before that one.

There are practically no creators who can float their living expenses for 4 to 8 months without getting paid. And the publisher can't afford to pay in advance for work that may not be finished in a timely manner or at all.

Killing floppies and going straight to OGN has major issues.

Then you STOP writing for trades and do stand alone stories like we ALL grew up on in the 70s-80s-90s.

You don't do a 10 volume epic clunkfest story like Coates does in Black Panther.

Take any trade you have and look through it-how much stuff could be taken out? Especially stuff by BENDIS?

You can also PAY an artist and writer for stories and publish them later.

Tony Isabella was paid to do 4 Rocket Racer stories (4-5 pages long) in 1990. Between 1990-1996-we saw those stories printed in Marvel Tales or Spider-Man annual.

It's very rare that the publisher pays for something just to put it in a drawer, because, you know, they aren't made of money. Back in the day, Marvel would have a few stories in the vault, that they would use if someone missed a deadline, but that's because the printing deadlines were different back then.[/QUOTE]

How is doing away with floppies to put out collections of done in one stories supposed to be a solution? At least with OGN there's a theme, a reason to collect them.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

But something like Game of Thrones or Saga or most Manga do not have continuity that has existed since the 60s, all of those are things go for a couple of years and have a defined ending.

Game of Thrones was on the air for as long a time between FANTASTIC FOUR #1 and when Gerry Conway came to work for Marvel. Marvel practised continuity in that decade and it became big and dominant, so how exactly was continuity and serialized storytelling the problem exactly?

The continuity in Marvel and DC comics makes way less sense than those other works. There is no good starting point for those comics for kids today.

It's an open question if a "starting point" in comics is even necessary or useful, or if it has ever worked to start with. Historically comics fans came into stories in medias res and became fans and continued reading, and then following those Ed. Notes little boxes to seek out back issues.

The first time I read a Spider-Man comic that was Stan Lee's Newspaper strip. Read that when I was 8. In that Peter was old, married to Mary Jane, and she knew his secret identity. By the reigning logic, I shouldn't have become a fan of Spider-Man introduced this way and yet I did. 8 year old me like a married superhero and found Spider-Man relatable nonetheless. Did it matter I didn't know for ages that Spider-Man was bitten in high school? No fact is most readers didn't in the days before internet and wikipedia since the majority of stories in Spider-Man continuity are set long after he graduated high school in Issue #28. Until the Raimi trilogy and the rise of the internet and social media, that newspaper strip became the primary introduction for Spider-Man around the world. Far more eyeballs on a daily basis saw that then any monthly 616 comics.

A lot of people will point to the success of Ultimate Marvel and Ultimate Spider-Man as an example of a "starting-point" working. But here's the thing, Ultimate Marvel was the exception...in the mid-90s, Heroes Reborn was an attempt to make Marvel accessible to new readers and streamline continuity it failed. Spider-Man Chapter One by John Byrne which came a year before was something similar...it too failed. Ultimate Spider-Man was a success for many reasons -- the decline in quality in the main ASM books under Howard Mackie, the zeitgeist of the new millennium and the hook of a comic called "Ultimate Spider-man" set in 2000, Bendis' writing style which (whatever your views) was absolutely the voice of the public in that time. None of the later books in Spider-Man intended to be a starting point, whether it's Spidey or Marvlel Action Spider-Man or whatever, were as successful as USM nor do they outsell the main 616 Books.

Again, Conway's point and his suggestions operate on assumptions that don't hold up to empirical evidence.

How would Marvel and DC continuity be a selling point to kids nowadays?

Would they want a version of Superman that's dumbed down for them, or do they want the only Superman left in comics with real legitimacy? The Post-Crisis Clark who opposed Lexcorp's CEO, proposed to Lois, fought Doomsday died and came back, married Lois, led the JLA against the White Martians, fought Manchester Black, defeated Darkseid with a song, came back as dad to Jonathan Kent. The Superman dumbed down for them -- whether it's JMS' Earth One Superman, or the New 52 Superman didn't find any popular audience, as opposed to the Lois and Clark series with Jon that people truly loved.

Continuity gives value to the characters. Remember...the audience today knows these characters and are already introduced to them via merchandise when they are babies, cartoons and movies when they are a little older, and games and so on. Comics are in no position to serve as introductions, the only thing of value they have is in fact the continuity which defines the value of their characters. Rather than seeing Continuity as an enemy or a mountain of stuff to process think of continuity as value. 616 Spider-Man is the most consistent character in Marvel and the reason for that is that he's had a defining story every decade...and each defining moment happened to the same character. In the case of the X-Men...Marvel's most valuable team, it matters (as Ed Piskor's wonderful Grand Design demonstrated) that the team went from O5 to Giant Size X-Men, to Claremont's long run, to Jim Lee's X-Men, to Morrison's X-Men, and now Hickman's X-Men. It's the same team defined and given value by all this continuity.

[Reviresco]

Hmm...There's such a thing called an "Advance".
https://www.writersdigest.com/financ...on-for-writers

Been basic in book publishing for decades. Alan Moore's advance for "A Small Killing" and its sales earned him more money than Watchmen and V For Vendetta, per his biographer Lance Parkin.

There's a couple of problems with that. The first being the first sentence of the definition in that link. Marvel Comics, unlike books, are work for hire. There are no royalties, or significant royalties from which their income derives. That's why Alan Moore's advance meant more money than his work for hire.

Secondly, I believe that book publishers don't put out the number of books that Marvel and DC do.

I also have to wonder, are comic book readers really going to be happy reading two trades of their favorites a year? Instead of reading them every month? I think that will contribute more to breaking the comic book habit.

[Reviresco]

Wow...definitely not seeing where you are getting that, from what he said. Gerry is pretty much on the money. He making a sharp reference to the insularity and regressive minded culture taken root in the industry, specifically the big two. Marvel isn't catching it as bad right now, but they are going down the same path. If you were to compile the major gripes of the medium, I think they hit close to the core of what he's saying.

I didn't say that came from what Conway said. I said "What's happening today is because of Covid, the shutdown, and DC's attempt to do away with the comic book stores," in response to another poster talking about the market today.

Actually, it sounds like Conway's solution is regression -- let's dumb down the comics to middle grade level just like it was in the Golden Age. The insularity is more of a distribution and price problem, than any sort of culture endemic to the big two alone. I don't see any independent comics being sold regularly outside of comic book stores either.

I honestly don't see the history and continuity of comics as being a barrier to new readers. Quite the contrary, I think it's part of the attraction of comics, especially Marvel comics. I also don't think folks are giving middle graders credit. They LOVE dense world building -- just look at Harry Potter popularity. Just look at Manga's popularity.

[GenericUsername]

I didn't say that came from what Conway said. I said "What's happening today is because of Covid, the shutdown, and DC's attempt to do away with the comic book stores," in response to another poster talking about the market today.

Actually, it sounds like Conway's solution is regression -- let's dumb down the comics to middle grade level just like it was in the Golden Age. The insularity is more of a distribution and price problem, than any sort of culture endemic to the big two alone. I don't see any independent comics being sold regularly outside of comic book stores either.

I honestly don't see the history and continuity of comics as being a barrier to new readers. Quite the contrary, I think it's part of the attraction of comics, especially Marvel comics. I also don't think folks are giving middle graders credit. They LOVE dense world building -- just look at Harry Potter popularity. Just look at Manga's popularity.

Mangas are collected though like trades. And release per month. Harry Potter is obviously novels.

[The Overlord]

Game of Thrones was on the air for as long a time between FANTASTIC FOUR #1 and when Gerry Conway came to work for Marvel. Marvel practised continuity in that decade and it became big and dominant, so how exactly was continuity and serialized storytelling the problem exactly?

Because a story that goes with no ending for over 50 years and has no ending, change is so limited that Marvel and DC have retcon things all the time, to the point that you cannot make a straight line from the beginning till now.

If Marvel or DC only lasted 8 years, that would be one thing, but we are talking about over 50 years at this point, where would even a good starting point? Are you telling kids they have to start with the issues from the 60s? That is old fanboy thinking rather than making something to appeal to kids today.

It's an open question if a "starting point" in comics is even necessary or useful, or if it has ever worked to start with. Historically comics fans came into stories in medias res and became fans and continued reading, and then following those Ed. Notes little boxes to seek out back issues.

Would kids choose some random issue of Spider-Man that could be in the middle of some random storyline that is finished up in some other title, vs. a Manga or a YA novel with a clear beginning, middle, and end? Hunger Games is far more straightforward then anything DC or Marvel makes and even long-running manga ends eventually.

The first time I read a Spider-Man comic that was Stan Lee's Newspaper strip. Read that when I was 8. In that Peter was old, married to Mary Jane, and she knew his secret identity. By the reigning logic, I shouldn't have become a fan of Spider-Man introduced this way and yet I did. 8 year old me like a married superhero and found Spider-Man relatable nonetheless. Did it matter I didn't know for ages that Spider-Man was bitten in high school? No fact is most readers didn't in the days before internet and wikipedia since the majority of stories in Spider-Man continuity are set long after he graduated high school in Issue #28. Until the Raimi trilogy and the rise of the internet and social media, that newspaper strip became the primary introduction for Spider-Man around the world. Far more eyeballs on a daily basis saw that then any monthly 616 comics.

And how long ago was that? How many kids read newspapers nowadays?

This sounds like old fanboy stuff, that the industry should cater to you and kids should just adapt to an industry they would find outmoded. I think the kids would get more enjoyment out of the Spider-Man movies and video game over this outdated comic book model.

A lot of people will point to the success of Ultimate Marvel and Ultimate Spider-Man as an example of a "starting-point" working. But here's the thing, Ultimate Marvel was the exception...in the mid-90s, Heroes Reborn was an attempt to make Marvel accessible to new readers and streamline continuity it failed. Spider-Man Chapter One by John Byrne which came a year before was something similar...it too failed. Ultimate Spider-Man was a success for many reasons -- the decline in quality in the main ASM books under Howard Mackie, the zeitgeist of the new millennium and the hook of a comic called "Ultimate Spider-man" set in 2000, Bendis' writing style which (whatever your views) was absolutely the voice of the public in that time. None of the later books in Spider-Man intended to be a starting point, whether it's Spidey or Marvlel Action Spider-Man or whatever, were as successful as USM nor do they outsell the main 616 Books.

Again, Conway's point and his suggestions operate on assumptions that don't hold up to empirical evidence.

If he is wrong, answer me this, how many kids pick monthly comic books nowadays?

Would they want a version of Superman that's dumbed down for them, or do they want the only Superman left in comics with real legitimacy? The Post-Crisis Clark who opposed Lexcorp's CEO, proposed to Lois, fought Doomsday died and came back, married Lois, led the JLA against the White Martians, fought Manchester Black, defeated Darkseid with a song, came back as dad to Jonathan Kent. The Superman dumbed down for them -- whether it's JMS' Earth One Superman, or the New 52 Superman didn't find any popular audience, as opposed to the Lois and Clark series with Jon that people truly loved. .

Was the 1978 Superman movie dumbing things down? What about Superman the animated series?

Is the Pre Crisis Superman not valid? What about self-contained one-shot stories like Red Son?

Again this an argument on how to get kids to read comics or this is another argument on why comics should cater to you? Is this fan entitlement and gatekeeping? You are also picking the highlights, what about all the bad and mediocre stories? Lame crossovers like Our World at War, stupid gimmicks like Blue Superman or that story where Superman just walks around America?

I am kinda sick of nerd nostalgia, where older nerds insist everything cater to them and oppose anything that could make things appealing to younger kids.

The thing is DC is experimenting with YA novel style graphic novels starring Raven and Beast Boy that are self-contained? Superman vs. the Klan was a great story aimed at a younger audience, that told its story in 3 issues? Is that dumbed down?

Continuity gives value to the characters. Remember...the audience today knows these characters and are already introduced to them via merchandise when they are babies, cartoons and movies when they are a little older, and games and so on. Comics are in no position to serve as introductions, the only thing of value they have is in fact the continuity which defines the value of their characters. Rather than seeing Continuity as an enemy or a mountain of stuff to process think of continuity as value. 616 Spider-Man is the most consistent character in Marvel and the reason for that is that he's had a defining story every decade...and each defining moment happened to the same character. In the case of the X-Men...Marvel's most valuable team, it matters (as Ed Piskor's wonderful Grand Design demonstrated) that the team went from O5 to Giant Size X-Men, to Claremont's long run, to Jim Lee's X-Men, to Morrison's X-Men, and now Hickman's X-Men. It's the same team defined and given value by all this continuity.

Is Spider-Man consistent? A character who had his marriage annulled by a demon and all the stories where MJ and Peter were married are now retconned to them just living together (heck wouldn't they be common law married then?) Frankly, stupid retcons like this meant to set characters back to some Silver age starting point and appeal to nerd nostalgia is why I think the characters not well served by the comic book medium vs. other media.

I would argue that the concept makes the character, not the continuity, kids experience these characters through other media and can enjoy it without all the stuff you mentioned, this really comes off as a parent who insists their kids like the same stuff they liked as kids, rather than letting kids pick their own path.

I didn't say that came from what Conway said. I said "What's happening today is because of Covid, the shutdown, and DC's attempt to do away with the comic book stores," in response to another poster talking about the market today.

Actually, it sounds like Conway's solution is regression -- let's dumb down the comics to middle grade level just like it was in the Golden Age. The insularity is more of a distribution and price problem, than any sort of culture endemic to the big two alone. I don't see any independent comics being sold regularly outside of comic book stores either.

I honestly don't see the history and continuity of comics as being a barrier to new readers. Quite the contrary, I think it's part of the attraction of comics, especially Marvel comics. I also don't think folks are giving middle graders credit. They LOVE dense world building -- just look at Harry Potter popularity. Just look at Manga's popularity.

Is this not fan entitlement and gatekeeping then, demanding the industry cater almost solely to older fans?

Also, the continuity in Harry Potter or almost any manga title is way easier to follow then comic books, there is nothing the Clone Saga or One More Day in manga or YA novels.

Frankly, the constantly stuck on the second act storytelling offered by comics may just bore kids today, I am an older fan and I am getting sick of it.

[Username taken]

What's happening today is because of Covid, the shutdown, and DC's attempt to do away with the comic book stores.

I wasn’t referring to the current situation exclusively.

[Ikari]

But something like Game of Thrones or Saga or most Manga do not have continuity that has existed since the 60s, all of those are things go for a couple of years and have a defined ending. The continuity in Marvel and DC comics makes way less sense than those other works. There is no good starting point for those comics for kids today.

Really popular mangas often go on forever. Mangas are wrapped up when they stop selling...
Reason why Marvel and DC continuity is so convoluted compared to mangas or long novel series such as Song of Ice and Fire or Harry Potter, is the frequent change of creative control.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Would kids choose some random issue of Spider-Man that could be in the middle of some random storyline that is finished up in some other title,

Kids did do that in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s and so on.

Remember for the longest time, collecting back issues and so on was very hard and difficult. Kids in the old days before the rise of the internet in the 90s and 2000s, had to look up back issues, hunt them down individually and so on. So in a lot of ways its easier now than it ever was to actually binge-read old back issues on Marvel Unlimited or Comixology and so on than it ever was.

But the point is the period from 60s-early 90s had a higher readership by far than today, so it follows that the continuity and serialized storytelling wasn't a barrier to entry, and the nature of the market meant that the vast majority of kids dove in and read from what was on the strands rather than taking it from the top.

And how long ago was that? How many kids read newspapers nowadays?

The fact is that the newspaper began in 1977 and ran and printed continuously until a little after Stan Lee's death. That's more than 40 years. So the newspaper strip does work as a model and reference when discussing the question of "starting point" and what draws in new readers. The reason why the newspaper drew in new readers is obvious: cheap (cost of the newspaper), simple, and accessible.

If he is wrong, answer me this, how many kids pick monthly comic books nowadays?

What were the comics like in the 80s to early 90s when kids still picked up monthly comic books? Hmm. They still had continuity, they still had events. SECRET WARS '1984 more than any other comic after Kirby left, roped in new readers to the Marvel Universe like nothing else. It was the major gateway and introduction to Marvel.

What about Superman the animated series?

STAS was a heavily serialized and highly continuity-driven series as indeed was the DCAU as a whole. As an example, it weakens your point and strengthens mine.

Is the Pre Crisis Superman not valid?

My point is that today, as an ongoing, the only Superman that has real legitimacy is Post-Crisis Superman. That was the character people irl wore armbands for in the 90s when he fought Doomsday. Silver Age Superman had legitimacy until Crisis but Post-Crisis Superman has that now in the same way, Post-Crisis Batman, the guy from YEAR ONE, has legitimacy.

Continuity gives value to these characters. If you start with no continuity, you have to create value right away. The New 52 Superman never had a single great defining story and moment, so when they disposed that character like trash, nobody cared. Whereas people embraced right away Jurgen's Lois and Clark series with an older Post-Crisis Superman.

Again this an argument on how to get kids to read comics...

Superheroes doesn't equal Comics, my dude. Kids read comics and other funny books and they will read that with or without superhero books. The natural default state of comics is not superhero dominance.

Is Spider-Man consistent?

In terms of sales and general quality, yeah. Fantastic Four was #1 in the '60s and never again after that, aside from some high points and moments here and there. Spider-Man has always been at the top or near the top of Marvel non-stop by comparison. And he's had stories that defined him in multiple decades. In the '60s you had Master Planner and Spider-Man No more, in the '70s, Night Gwen Stacy Died, in the '80s you had Hobgoblin, Secret Wars, Venom, the Marriage, Kraven's Last Hunt. In the 90s you had Maximum Carnage and Clone Saga. In the 2000s you had Civil War, Back in Black. In the 2010s, you had Spider-Verse. The same character from AF#15 has been through all of that...and that's what gives him value. Spider-Man has had more great and good runs than other characters in Marvel, he's also had more changes and character growth at least till 2007, than other Marvel characters.

I would argue that the concept makes the character, not the continuity,

This statement weakens your argument and strengthens mine. If the concept sells the character then as long as a story embodies that concept, continuity doesn't serve as any obstacle. The introduction for characters is merchandise. Toys and merchandise which target babies, toddlers and so on, are meant for a pre-literate and non-literate audience. Toys, plushies, stickers and so on. For them, the character is pure concept, i.e. costume and powers not story. Children know who Spider-Man is long before they find out he's Peter Parker, long before they find out what age he's supposed to be, about "power and responsibility" and so on. To that same audience if you give them a comic where Spider-Man has the costume, look, and abilities that his action figures shows he has, they will buy in regardless of anything else in the comic (i.e. Spider-Man is older, married, he's Miles Morales, or Doctor Octopus).

Continuity gives value to that concept in that medium. Comics can't be toys. They can't be movies or videogames. They have to be what they are.

Frankly, the constantly stuck on the second act storytelling offered by comics may just bore kids today, I am an older fan and I am getting sick of it.

I think this is what people call projection...just because you are bored doesn't mean others are bored. "Constantly stuck on the second act storytelling" is a problem common to all serialized stories like cartoons or TV shows and so on.

[The Overlord]

Kids did do that in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s and so on.

Oh and how many kids pick up individual comics today?

Remember for the longest time, collecting back issues and so on was very hard and difficult. Kids in the old days before the rise of the internet in the 90s and 2000s, had to look up back issues, hunt them down individually and so on. So in a lot of ways its easier now than it ever was to actually binge-read old back issues on Marvel Unlimited or Comixology and so on than it ever was.

But the point is the period from 60s-early 90s had a higher readership by far than today, so it follows that the continuity and serialized storytelling wasn't a barrier to entry, and the nature of the market meant that the vast majority of kids dove in and read from what was on the strands rather than taking it from the top.





The fact is that the newspaper began in 1977 and ran and printed continuously until a little after Stan Lee's death. That's more than 40 years. So the newspaper strip does work as a model and reference when discussing the question of "starting point" and what draws in new readers. The reason why the newspaper drew in new readers is obvious: cheap (cost of the newspaper), simple, and accessible.



What were the comics like in the 80s to early 90s when kids still picked up monthly comic books? Hmm. They still had continuity, they still had events. SECRET WARS '1984 more than any other comic after Kirby left, roped in new readers to the Marvel Universe like nothing else. It was the major gateway and introduction to Marvel.

Okay, I am going to summarize all these points with a question, what evidence do you have many of that is doing anything to get kids interested in comic books today?

Do you really think just repeating the same old tactics from the 70s, 80s and 90s would work today? What is your evidence to back that up? What is the market share of new readers in today's industry?

Are you actually open to new changes that could make comic books appealing to kids today or are arguing nothing needs to change due to gatekeeping and fan entitlement, that you think nothing needs to change because you think nothing should change and the industry should cater to you over newer fans?

You have argued what appeals to you and kids in the past, you have not argued why this would still apply to kids today. The one thing you are not getting is there are far more entertainment options for kids today then they were in the past and other forms of entertainment are far more accessible, you argue that Manga or YA graphic novels have continuity, but because they have one creative team, their continuity is far less convoluted then American superhero comics are and really American superhero comics are losing market share compared to Manga and YA graphic novels:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robsalk.../#60c176dc4d68

If everything is fine, why are they losing the market?

Goku or Katniss Everdeen will not have their marriages undone by a deal with a demon, their stories make more internal consistent sense than Marvel or DC comics nowadays.

STAS was a heavily serialized and highly continuity-driven series as indeed was the DCAU as a whole. As an example, it weakens your point and strengthens mine.

Except did STAS have a million retcons?

Heck did any Spider-Man cartoon or movie ever try to do something like One More Day?

My point is that today, as an ongoing, the only Superman that has real legitimacy is Post-Crisis Superman. That was the character people irl wore armbands for in the 90s when he fought Doomsday. Silver Age Superman had legitimacy until Crisis but Post-Crisis Superman has that now in the same way, Post-Crisis Batman, the guy from YEAR ONE, has legitimacy.

Continuity gives value to these characters. If you start with no continuity, you have to create value right away. The New 52 Superman never had a single great defining story and moment, so when they disposed that character like trash, nobody cared. Whereas people embraced right away Jurgen's Lois and Clark series with an older Post-Crisis Superman.

The problem isn't just continuity, its that the comic book continuity makes far less sense than manga, YA novels, video games, movies, etc.

When something like One More Day is in continuity, it messes up everything else. With the constant retcons, hardly anything seems to have weight or consequences, a marriage can be undone with a deal with a demon, death has become a joke, etc.

Superheroes doesn't equal Comics, my dude. Kids read comics and other funny books and they will read that with or without superhero books. The natural default state of comics is not superhero dominance.

I know that hence the article that says Manga and YA graphic novels are outselling superhero comics.

What do you think of DC trying to make out of continuity YA style graphic novels for kids today?

In terms of sales and general quality, yeah. Fantastic Four was #1 in the '60s and never again after that, aside from some high points and moments here and there. Spider-Man has always been at the top or near the top of Marvel non-stop by comparison. And he's had stories that defined him in multiple decades. In the '60s you had Master Planner and Spider-Man No more, in the '70s, Night Gwen Stacy Died, in the '80s you had Hobgoblin, Secret Wars, Venom, the Marriage, Kraven's Last Hunt. In the 90s you had Maximum Carnage and Clone Saga. In the 2000s you had Civil War, Back in Black. In the 2010s, you had Spider-Verse. The same character from AF#15 has been through all of that...and that's what gives him value. Spider-Man has had more great and good runs than other characters in Marvel, he's also had more changes and character growth at least till 2007, than other Marvel characters.

Really, how does a convoluted mess of a story like the 90s Clone Saga add value, how does One More Day add value? I hate those stories and I think they subtract value. Those are the best examples of everything wrong with comic book writing.

This statement weakens your argument and strengthens mine. If the concept sells the character then as long as a story embodies that concept, continuity doesn't serve as any obstacle. The introduction for characters is merchandise. Toys and merchandise which target babies, toddlers and so on, are meant for a pre-literate and non-literate audience. Toys, plushies, stickers and so on. For them, the character is pure concept, i.e. costume and powers not story. Children know who Spider-Man is long before they find out he's Peter Parker, long before they find out what age he's supposed to be, about "power and responsibility" and so on. To that same audience if you give them a comic where Spider-Man has the costume, look, and abilities that his action figures shows he has, they will buy in regardless of anything else in the comic (i.e. Spider-Man is older, married, he's Miles Morales, or Doctor Octopus).

Continuity gives value to that concept in that medium. Comics can't be toys. They can't be movies or videogames. They have to be what they are.

Except have you ever thought maybe kids will never pick up comics and only enjoy these characters in other media, that is far accessible then comics?

I think this is what people call projection...just because you are bored doesn't mean others are bored. "Constantly stuck on the second act storytelling" is a problem common to all serialized stories like cartoons or TV shows and so on.

I would argue serialized cartoons and TV shows get to ending eventually and really I think the illusion of change in Marvel and DC has been undone by so many retcons.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Oh and how many kids pick up individual comics today?

The issue isn't whether superhero comics today are for kids or not, or that superhero comics. Conway's argument is that continuity issues and serialized storytelling are the cause to blame for driving away readers. There's no evidence for that.

Just because Conway argued for a genuine problem is no reason to validate everything he says.

Okay, I am going to summarize all these points with a question, what evidence do you have many of that is doing anything to get kids interested in comic books today?

The evidence is that serialized continuity and maturity is not the cause for driving readers away or failing to bring in new readers. I am demolishing Conway's argument because he made the claim in his screed. I have also offered evidence in support of my view that doing "starting points" isn't going to bring in new readers.

Are you actually open to new changes that could make comic books appealing to kids today or are arguing nothing needs to change due to gatekeeping and fan entitlement, that you think nothing needs to change because you think nothing should change and the industry should cater to you over newer fans?

I don't know what your sentiment is. Are you trying to gauge if I am some gatekeeper who resists change or so on? If anything Conway's argument is in favor of gatekeeping despite sounding on the surface like the opposite. My argument is in favor of stuff like unionization, comic creators getting more benefits. Why do you ignore that? Why is a content issue so much easier to argue and talk about then actually changing the structure of how these companies are run?

If everything is fine, why are they losing the market?

Because the natural default state of comics do not favor the superhero genre's dominance. The dominance and stranglehold the superhero genre maintained on comics was artificial and engineered by outside political pressure. In the 50s, EC Comics and others were trailblazers and innovators, and the CCA was instituted to cut EC down to size. The superhero genre was best poised to adjust to those changes and that led it to gain monopoly on comics. But once censorship ended, when graphic novels and other stuff came in, things changed.

Except did STAS have a million retcons?

Heck did any Spider-Man cartoon or movie ever try to do something like One More Day?

The Fox Cartoon made the MJ Spider-Man married into a clone and the real one stranded in some alternate dimension...so? The Fox Spider-Man Cartoon was if anything even more serialized than STAS.

When something like One More Day...

You are aware that OMD is guided by the same mentality that Conway is arguing for, right? This entire argument that comics are burdened with continuity and shouldn't change that Conway is arguing for is sub-rosa for the mentality that says characters shouldn't age, change or grow up. Continuity and serialization supports the latter. Conway himself has supported removing Spider-Man's marriage in the past.

Complaining about OMD and defending Conway is a contradiction in terms. Because ultimately OMD is very much an attempt at a reset and change and one which ultimately didn't work because the stories that came after were as continuity heavy as before.

What do you think of DC trying to make out of continuity YA style graphic novels for kids today?

It's a good idea and tactic. Marvel did something similar years back with Sean McKeever's SPIDER-MAN LOVES MARY JANE and that was successful, popular, well-liked, and influential (on Spider-Man Homecoming among others). It didn't require shutting down all existing Spider-Man books.

Except have you ever thought maybe kids will never pick up comics and only enjoy these characters in other media, that is far accessible then comics?

Yes, and that doesn't disturb me one jot. The conditions that led to the superhero genre's domination could never have lasted for ever. And even the current movies fixation with superheroes will end in time.

I would argue serialized cartoons and TV shows get to ending eventually...

The Simpsons haven't and they are still pretty popular and widely seen, even the later seasons which people complain about.

[Drakeon]

Moden day kids dont care about comics. They have video games and cell phones, and web toons and streaming services. Why would they spend $4 to read a comic. Its not really worth their time and money.

[Digifiend]

The Simpsons haven't and they are still pretty popular and widely seen, even the later seasons which people complain about.

He said "serialised". The Simpsons isn't, it's status quo changes are very rare (i.e. Ned getting widowed when his first wife's VA left, and again when his second wife's VA died).