The Comic Book Audience: Does anyone here side with or disagree with what this creator is saying?

[Goggindowner]

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...

Well, if he wants it to be his living, then yes, that's exactly what he needs to do. Hell, if he makes a name for himself at Marvel or DC, then sales on his pet project might increase along with his name recognition.

IMO, there are only two ways to EVER make a comfortable income creating comics. Work for the Big Two, or create something that gets optioned as a movie or TV series. Otherwise, your comic craft is most likely only ever going to be a side job.

[Kees_L]

Then where are the sales of all these minority characters and and diverse books?

Why is there nothing but stunted runs and repeated cancellations?

Where did you get the idea that everybody and their dog would be attempting those to enormous capacities?

When especially the general and traditional publishers or their fanbases at least toward traditionally popular comics would be notoriously persistent at not favoring those most rigidly and most conservatively?

I personally think it isn't just about minorities or how to cater towards such topics, because there will have been a number of diverse and very well inclusive comics around. Like Love and Rockets. Just not all that heavily at traditional Big 2 or superhero stuff.

It seems to me superhero fanboys are clinging to reasoning how *if emancipation would be needed so badly than Batman or Iron Man would've propagated that already 30 years ago*

I don't mean to say it's wrong to want minority books or inclusiveness at all, but saying that any emancipation would neededly lead to instant sales success seems off the mark.

[Kees_L]

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.

You appear to be confusing things. Which posters have been explaining to you:

Like how different comics belong at different markets.

EDIT: When you say "the market needs to change" you are reasoning the wrong way around, like you're putting *the cart before the horse*.
If you consistently try for a quality title and it happens to contain minority inclusivity you try and get that marketed as best you can, but without insisting the world to submit completely to your strategies, because that's not how that goes.

Creator-owned or creator-driven publishers do well at all kinds of comics. But the Big 2 both as traditional superhero popularizers aren't aiming to be such publishers. To be blunt they seem to exist onto pushing their already existing properties and nothing else. Or that would be my perception.

[Goggindowner]

Creator-owned or creator-driven publishers do well at all kinds of comics. But the Big 2 both as traditional superhero popularizers aren't aiming to be such publishers. To be blunt they seem to exist onto pushing their already existing properties and nothing else. Or that would be my perception.

Correct. Marvel and DC exist to maintain intellectual properties for parent companies. Thinking their primary function is anything else is fallacious.

[TroubleWithTrebles]

I was not and did not espouse superhero comics, OR comics from the big 2, dupont. And an artist can have 2 people doing nothing but talking, focusing on the faces, without it being "talking heads" or BORING. Zulli can have no capes or monsters or powers or robots in a sweeping 3 page mini chapter and it is visually INTERESTING. Same with McKean. Same with art in Hellblazer. But the point remains that comics - particularly by new guys/gals with no creds - primarily sell off the visual. And semi pro visuals are not and never have been equal to pro level work, despite all our happy widdle twee pals on tumblr and twatter* (god love'em) and never will be. Proven by the aggregate of pro level art that most fans/readers have PAID for, residing in their collection.

The sample page, at the top of this thread, is semi pro (at best) so it gets semi sales (at best). With any crowdfund pledge counted as a sale.

*not a typo

[TroubleWithTrebles]

Correct. Marvel and DC exist to maintain intellectual properties for parent companies. Thinking their primary function is anything else is fallacious.

Which is why Disney bought Marvel. Market share. And now any TV show by any production company under tbe Disney umbrella can use any Marvel character even for sitcom gag without paying a license fee.

[CSTowle]

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.

Marvel (or rather Disney) could push their product as much as Scholastic/Doubleday (though it'd be hard to compete with such an established juggernaut in children's literature) but for whatever reason they're not. I do wish I had your school's book store, mine just sold children's books (mostly from Scholastic) and pencils/erasers/etc.

Your personal bias against superheroes is showing again in saying that the reason superheroes aren't popular in school markets is because they're for speculators and fanboys. You only have to look at recent box office receipts and the popularity of superhero cartoons to see that children will enjoy superheroes if given the option. Heck, that's how I got into them (and I'd imagine that's the case for the vast majority of people reading superhero comics today). That Marvel/DC/etc. decided to focus on the direct market at the expense of this (to chase those speculators/fanboys) was a mistake on their part, not a case of them chasing the only audience willing to buy their product.

As far as self published comics being compared to Marvel's sales, I figured you'd get my point but let me clarify since you didn't that comparing a juggernaut like Scholastic's sales to Marvel's (when Marvel has shot itself in the foot and has done a poor job distributing its product into as many markets as Scholastic or Doubleday has) and then making a judgment on the quality of the work based on those sales is like looking at for example sales on a Love and Rockets collection and comparing it to the newest Guardians of the Galaxy TPB and making a judgment on their quality based on that. Of course I think using sales figures to judge quality rather than popularity is a mistake in most cases.

[Ghost]

Never heard of this series. But judging by that one picture it doesnt look like something that would interest me, personally.

[TroubleWithTrebles]

Yes. Uninteresting, disinteresting, BORING.

Boring shot composition is what kills half of the indie films and short films btw.

[dupont2005]

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.

I didn't know Crossgen was a Marvel imprint.

How exactly was it tied to Marvel? Not like Icon, more like Malibu? An acquisition?
But either way, if Marvel owned it, then sure. It's a Marvel comic.

Would you consider Spawn a super hero comic or a horror comic?

[dupont2005]

I was not and did not espouse superhero comics, OR comics from the big 2, dupont. And an artist can have 2 people doing nothing but talking, focusing on the faces, without it being "talking heads" or BORING. Zulli can have no capes or monsters or powers or robots in a sweeping 3 page mini chapter and it is visually INTERESTING. Same with McKean. Same with art in Hellblazer. But the point remains that comics - particularly by new guys/gals with no creds - primarily sell off the visual. And semi pro visuals are not and never have been equal to pro level work, despite all our happy widdle twee pals on tumblr and twatter* (god love'em) and never will be. Proven by the aggregate of pro level art that most fans/readers have PAID for, residing in their collection.

The sample page, at the top of this thread, is semi pro (at best) so it gets semi sales (at best). With any crowdfund pledge counted as a sale.

*not a typo

So you can tolerate up to three pages of dialogue breaking up your musclemen throwing fireballs at eachother?

[dupont2005]

Marvel (or rather Disney) could push their product as much as Scholastic/Doubleday (though it'd be hard to compete with such an established juggernaut in children's literature) but for whatever reason they're not. I do wish I had your school's book store, mine just sold children's books (mostly from Scholastic) and pencils/erasers/etc.

Your personal bias against superheroes is showing again in saying that the reason superheroes aren't popular in school markets is because they're for speculators and fanboys. You only have to look at recent box office receipts and the popularity of superhero cartoons to see that children will enjoy superheroes if given the option. Heck, that's how I got into them (and I'd imagine that's the case for the vast majority of people reading superhero comics today). That Marvel/DC/etc. decided to focus on the direct market at the expense of this (to chase those speculators/fanboys) was a mistake on their part, not a case of them chasing the only audience willing to buy their product.

As far as self published comics being compared to Marvel's sales, I figured you'd get my point but let me clarify since you didn't that comparing a juggernaut like Scholastic's sales to Marvel's (when Marvel has shot itself in the foot and has done a poor job distributing its product into as many markets as Scholastic or Doubleday has) and then making a judgment on the quality of the work based on those sales is like looking at for example sales on a Love and Rockets collection and comparing it to the newest Guardians of the Galaxy TPB and making a judgment on their quality based on that. Of course I think using sales figures to judge quality rather than popularity is a mistake in most cases.

"Oh, those comics are sold in BOOKSTORES! Unlike Marvel comics... Oh wait."

[TroubleWithTrebles]

So you can tolerate up to three pages of dialogue breaking up your musclemen throwing fireballs at eachother?

That has nothing to do with what I said at all. Read my posts before getting kneejerk. I don't give a crap about fireballs, and in fact place Violent Cases and The Red Dog ABOVE any super hero issue. > ignore the point all you like but BORING HALF-PRO art from an unknown deserves LESS, in any genre. Biography, History, sci fi, horror, anything. and ANYONE who draws semi standard deserves semi pay or LESS.

[Carabas]

I didn't know Crossgen was a Marvel imprint.

How exactly was it tied to Marvel? Not like Icon, more like Malibu? An acquisition?
But either way, if Marvel owned it, then sure. It's a Marvel comic.

Marvel doesn't own it, Disney does. They aquired it after the original Crossgen went bankrupt.

And they tried to let Marvel do new comics off it, but Marvel pretty much fumbled the ball on that, throwing a bunch of random non-superhero books out there with just the barest minimum of promotion, and gasped in astonishment when nobody bought them.

[Conch22]

Love the series Laramie, hoping things look up.