|
Post by electricmastro on Apr 28, 2020 1:30:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2020 15:50:29 GMT -5
I've never had an interest in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Apr 29, 2020 11:31:54 GMT -5
I've never had an interest in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Me neither. I bought one issue (the Cerebus crossover) and was baffled at all the letters praising it ... honestly I think it clearly attracted a fan base that knew nothing about comics and didn't understand how derivative the title was. I also found it strangely ... not just derivative but ... sort of dull. Frankly the cartoon had better storytelling.
I love Fletcher Hanks though! It's not even fair to call his characters Marty Stus in my opinion because they're almost not characters at all, they're more like special effects. Hanks' work is what happens when you have NO filter between your subconscious and conscious creativity, it's just these blurts of hyperactive insanity.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,601
|
Post by Confessor on Apr 29, 2020 16:08:42 GMT -5
I've never had an interest in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
I read a few comics, but the most exposure I had to them was playing the TMNT role-playing game back in the '80s. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the RPG was my first exposure to them. Back then, they were very much a cult thing here in the UK, but in the early '90s the cartoon aired on TV and the pre-teen population of the UK became victims of a Turtle-mania, which lasted a good year or two. I have little or no interest in the franchise nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Apr 29, 2020 22:38:13 GMT -5
Back in the 80s, I used to pick up and try an lot of comics by new, unknown people. My attitude tends to be, I never know what my next new favorite thing might be. Amusingly, I recall pickup up TMNT #1... and putting it back! The art was THAT AWFUL. A few months later, my comics shop guy began talking about it, and on hearing what the concept was, and what the influence was, I decided to pick it up again (I think by then #1 was in its 4th printing). I had to admit, it was clever, and the writing was fun. But the art was still AWFUL. Nevertheless, I started buying it regular for awhile. If nothing else, I had to admire what the creators were accomplishing, and the success they were having, clearly above their skill levels (heeheehee). I never saw the TV cartoon... or read the comic BASED on it... but some years later, I went to see THE MOVIE. And up-front, something that really impressed me, was how the 2 creators got their names in the credits, FILLING THE ENTIRE SCREEN. That was going Mickey Spillane one better! Also, the film genuinely captured the look and feel and characters AND STORY from the comics, something far too few Hollywood movies based on comic-books ever bother with. However that movie got made, they must have had a damned good deal, to make sure it was that true to the source material. You just DO NOT see this with movies based on Marvel or DC characters!!! And credits for the actual creators often seem like afterthoughts. It was also amusing how the movie created a rather ridiculous controversy, as apparently, a lot of parents were shocked & offended at how dark and VIOLENT the film was. They expected it was based on the TV cartoon-- and had NO IDEA it was, instead, based on an actual (GASP!) comic-book. And very faithfully, too. Myself, I'd stopped buying the books long before the movie came out... but I got a big kick seeing the film.
|
|
|
Post by beyonder1984 on May 2, 2020 7:46:35 GMT -5
Re: Harley and Deadpool I've said it before, I'll say it many times in the future-wallets speak louder than internet posts. Comic fans get the comics their buying habits deserve. If Harley and Deadpool didn't increase sales and outsell most other properties on the market, you wouldn't get as many comics featuring them. But the silent majority has spoken with their dollars and they sell, in comics, in other media and in merchandise, and so they get the exposure their sales level warrants. Util they stop selling, you will keep seeing them. There's not a lot of revenue streams left in the comics industry, and no company is going to lessen a positive revenue stream because a minority of disgruntled fans complain on the internet. More content fans are spending money on them and probably never say a word on the net about it. I'm not a fan of either character either, but my not buying them doesn't speak as loud as the plethora of customers who do shell out a lot of money for them. So it is what it is, and there are other windmills to tilt at. -M Except the silent majority doesn't support Deadpool or Harley. As long as you could admit that more people bought comics books before modern Deadpool and Harley spam. The comic book market- in terms of units sold- never recovered fully from the 1990s speculator crash. More people read comics from the 1940s-1990s than today. Just because revenue has been increasing every year in the 2010s doesn't mean the majority of fans like Deadpool or Harley. It means comics are getting more expensive and the targeted hardcore fans will still buy them. It's all fallout from the Direct Market vs Newsstand philosophy. Most older comic book fans have no interest in him or Harley (fact), because they stopped reading current Marvel or DC. Like newspapers, magazines, wrestling, and porn, industries had to adapt after broadband, social media, and smartphones due to the loss of their mainstream paying customers. So they jacked up the price for the hardcore fanbase and revenues are record breaking (thanks to inflation as well). In other words, Deadpool and Harley preach to the choir, but do not appeal to the millions who left. When you blame "us" for supporting Deadpool and Harley, it's not true. I and millions of others do not fork down cash for them. It's a different demographic.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2020 9:32:49 GMT -5
Re: Harley and Deadpool I've said it before, I'll say it many times in the future-wallets speak louder than internet posts. Comic fans get the comics their buying habits deserve. If Harley and Deadpool didn't increase sales and outsell most other properties on the market, you wouldn't get as many comics featuring them. But the silent majority has spoken with their dollars and they sell, in comics, in other media and in merchandise, and so they get the exposure their sales level warrants. Util they stop selling, you will keep seeing them. There's not a lot of revenue streams left in the comics industry, and no company is going to lessen a positive revenue stream because a minority of disgruntled fans complain on the internet. More content fans are spending money on them and probably never say a word on the net about it. I'm not a fan of either character either, but my not buying them doesn't speak as loud as the plethora of customers who do shell out a lot of money for them. So it is what it is, and there are other windmills to tilt at. -M Except the silent majority doesn't support Deadpool or Harley. As long as you could admit that more people bought comics books before modern Deadpool and Harley spam. The comic book market- in terms of units sold- never recovered fully from the 1990s speculator crash. More people read comics from the 1940s-1990s than today. Just because revenue has been increasing every year in the 2010s doesn't mean the majority of fans like Deadpool or Harley. It means comics are getting more expensive and the targeted hardcore fans will still buy them. It's all fallout from the Direct Market vs Newsstand philosophy. Most older comic book fans have no interest in him or Harley (fact), because they stopped reading current Marvel or DC. Like newspapers, magazines, wrestling, and porn, industries had to adapt after broadband, social media, and smartphones due to the loss of their mainstream paying customers. So they jacked up the price for the hardcore fanbase and revenues are record breaking (thanks to inflation as well). In other words, Deadpool and Harley preach to the choir, but do not appeal to the millions who left. When you blame "us" for supporting Deadpool and Harley, it's not true. I and millions of others do not fork down cash for them. It's a different demographic. It's also a different market and the "us" that bought books en masse before the 90s are well past the target demographic of any entertainment business. You don't build long -term business by selling just to older demographics and you don't succeed in the present trying to recapture audiences from decades past or using techniques that are decades out of touch. You are 100% it is a different market and different people are now the target demographic. That's the nature of businesses and the passage of time. And characters like Harley and Deadpool do sell better to younger demographics who have a much longer time ahead of them of being comics customers than "us" older fans do, because we are much closer to the end of our runs and eventual cancellation than they are. Businesses have to sell to what the current audience is, not what is what 20-30 years ago. Some older fans do not like Harley or Deadpool. But I still see a lot of guys my age (50) lining up to buy copies of New Mutants #98 or Batman Adventures #12 at every show I go to, and a lot of guys and girls my age lining up to get copies of Deadpool and HArley books signed by creators at shows I go to. Yes, unit sales are lower now than they were 20-30 years ago. All of print is down. However, aggregate unit sales for publishers now would be even lower if it weren't for the sales of books featuring Harley and Deadpool and their ilk. And they also move many more units in trade collections in the book trade than most traditional super-hero characters not named Batman do, a market that mostly didn't really exist 20-30 years ago and makes up a pretty large revenue stream for publishers now, and that revenue stream is fueled mostly by characters like Harley and Deadpool who appeal to the younger demographics. The silent majority is not the older generation of fans. That group is aging out/dying off and is not the market force in the industry they were (and still think they are). The silent majority of consumers is a younger generation that does not buy comics in periodical formats form comic shops, and that customer base does support books with Harley and Deadpool and their ilk. Measuring the relative success of s dinosaur format from 30 years ago to how it sells today is not an accurate representation of the success of appeal of comic characters who shine in newer format more relevant to the current customer base. It's like looking at how well new bands sell on 8 tracks and making assumptions about what types of music are viable and successful in the current market. -M
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 2, 2020 10:09:27 GMT -5
There also haven't been "millions" reading comics in well over 30 years...probably closer to forty. Yes, X-Men #1 sent out about 8.1 million copies in 1991 (of whcih maybe 3 million sold) but millions weren't buying them to read (and I'll bet the farm it wasn't actually millions buying the damn thing). Older comics fans simply don't matter to DC and Marvel. If they aren't buying the current books, why should the companies care about them. Beyond which, at this point, DC and Marvel as entities only matter as IP farms. Deadpool and Harley Quinn matter because they are blockbuster intellectual property. That a few crusty old farts that are proud of not buying a new comic in 35 years don't like them matters not one whit when Deadpool movies can outgross any other X-Men related movies and Harley is bringing in huge licensing bucks.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 2, 2020 11:14:43 GMT -5
There also haven't been "millions" reading comics in well over 30 years...probably closer to forty. Yes, X-Men #1 sent out about 8.1 million copies in 1991 (of whcih maybe 3 million sold) but millions weren't buying them to read (and I'll bet the farm it wasn't actually millions buying the damn thing). Older comics fans simply don't matter to DC and Marvel. If they aren't buying the current books, why should the companies care about them. Beyond which, at this point, DC and Marvel as entities only matter as IP farms. Deadpool and Harley Quinn matter because they are blockbuster intellectual property. That a few crusty old farts that are proud of not buying a new comic in 35 years don't like them matters not one whit when Deadpool movies can outgross any other X-Men related movies and Harley is bringing in huge licensing bucks. I think older fans still matter in certain categories; for example, Marvel & DC are not greenlighting omnibus versions of Silver Age Captain America or Golden Age Superman--averaging anywhere from $125.00 to reduced prices of around $85.00--for the Millennial set at all. That's an expensive product aimed squarely at readers probably born before 1980--an existing audience who can also afford tomes of that kind, and I assume that format has not been discontinued. The same for other HCs; recently, I was at a Books-a-Million and saw two different volumes of DC Archives' The Enemy Ace and All-Star Comics on the regular HC/TPB shelf walls (IOW, not a discount / closeout section of old inventory), and I'm fairly certain that's aimed at older readers. The point being that yes, Deadpool and Harley Quinn are popular and heavily marketed at present, but DC and Marvel are aware that material some 50 to 80 years old still has an audience.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on May 2, 2020 11:32:05 GMT -5
I know none of this applies to me. The latest book I bought was from 1948. And, from France.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 2, 2020 12:10:05 GMT -5
There also haven't been "millions" reading comics in well over 30 years...probably closer to forty. Yes, X-Men #1 sent out about 8.1 million copies in 1991 (of whcih maybe 3 million sold) but millions weren't buying them to read (and I'll bet the farm it wasn't actually millions buying the damn thing). Older comics fans simply don't matter to DC and Marvel. If they aren't buying the current books, why should the companies care about them. Beyond which, at this point, DC and Marvel as entities only matter as IP farms. Deadpool and Harley Quinn matter because they are blockbuster intellectual property. That a few crusty old farts that are proud of not buying a new comic in 35 years don't like them matters not one whit when Deadpool movies can outgross any other X-Men related movies and Harley is bringing in huge licensing bucks. I think older fans still matter in certain categories; for example, Marvel & DC are not greenlighting omnibus versions of Silver Age Captain America or Golden Age Superman--averaging anywhere from $125.00 to reduced prices of around $85.00--for the Millennial set at all. That's an expensive product aimed squarely at readers probably born before 1980--an existing audience who can also afford tomes of that kind, and I assume that format has not been discontinued. The same for other HCs; recently, I was at a Books-a-Million and saw two different volumes of DC Archives' The Enemy Ace and All-Star Comics on the regular HC/TPB shelf walls (IOW, not a discount / closeout section of old inventory), and I'm fairly certain that's aimed at older readers. The point being that yes, Deadpool and Harley Quinn are popular and heavily marketed at present, but DC and Marvel are aware that material some 50 to 80 years old still has an audience. They're being sold as collectibles to a niche market. It's the "Franklin Mint" sales model. There's nothing in that Captain America Omnibus that isn't readily available in a cheaper format. So what you've got is a big unwieldy book that is being sold as a collectible because it's pretty and there's a chance that it will appreciate in value on the secondary market. They're only expensive if you over-print them. And there's the rub. I haven't been able to find anything but speculation on what the print run is on these books. I've seen numbers as low as 2,000 units, but I can't confirm these data. The plates for the GA/SA/BA stuff exists from earlier reprints. They pay little to nothing to the creators. So the expense is in producing and shipping the books and if you know how many will sell you don't overprint so they go out of print quickly. It's the same model as small-press publishers like Haffner Press use when they bring out hardcovers of, say short stories by Fredric Brown. They are selling a collectible and they know it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2020 20:23:52 GMT -5
I think older fans still matter in certain categories; for example, Marvel & DC are not greenlighting omnibus versions of Silver Age Captain America or Golden Age Superman--averaging anywhere from $125.00 to reduced prices of around $85.00--for the Millennial set at all. That's an expensive product aimed squarely at readers probably born before 1980--an existing audience who can also afford tomes of that kind, and I assume that format has not been discontinued. The same for other HCs; recently, I was at a Books-a-Million and saw two different volumes of DC Archives' The Enemy Ace and All-Star Comics on the regular HC/TPB shelf walls (IOW, not a discount / closeout section of old inventory), and I'm fairly certain that's aimed at older readers. The point being that yes, Deadpool and Harley Quinn are popular and heavily marketed at present, but DC and Marvel are aware that material some 50 to 80 years old still has an audience. They're being sold as collectibles to a niche market. It's the "Franklin Mint" sales model. There's nothing in that Captain America Omnibus that isn't readily available in a cheaper format. So what you've got is a big unwieldy book that is being sold as a collectible because it's pretty and there's a chance that it will appreciate in value on the secondary market. They're only expensive if you over-print them. And there's the rub. I haven't been able to find anything but speculation on what the print run is on these books. I've seen numbers as low as 2,000 units, but I can't confirm these data. The plates for the GA/SA/BA stuff exists from earlier reprints. They pay little to nothing to the creators. So the expense is in producing and shipping the books and if you know how many will sell you don't overprint so they go out of print quickly. It's the same model as small-press publishers like Haffner Press use when they bring out hardcovers of, say short stories by Fredric Brown. They are selling a collectible and they know it. It's also only one of two ways they can monetize their back catalog-collected editions or digital copies. They don't make a dime off of back issue sales. And the high end collections like omnibus have a much higher profit margin than smaller trades (and reprint royalties on older material are much more favorable to them than more recently contracted work also helping with those margins) because of the higher price point, which allows more wiggle room in mark ups by retailers. As Slam_Bradley notes, those editions are not kept in print-they are essentially print on demand, they solicit them and then set the print run at essentially what comes in from Diamond preorders and initial orders from the book trade, and if those orders are not high enough, they cancel the solicitation and do not print the product. If that print run sells out completely and they are still getting inquiries for a certain volume, they will re-solicit another edition, but they manage costs by not paying to warehouse unsold copies of those books. So yes, they are produced for a different customer base than their line of current periodicals, but it is a much smaller customer base and they curate what and how much they produce for it, and do not produce it for anything resembling a mass audience or a growth market. If there are copies on the shelves of places like Books-a-Million or B&N it is because their buyers either overestimated how many they could sell, or bought stock to shelf for a longer window before returning it, as those sellers buy their books on a returnable basis, so they do not need to clearance them out, they can return them for credit after a set time if they do not sell (which is another reason why publishers do not set print runs above initial orders from the book trade as return kill the margins). So those editions of older books are carefully curated products for a niche market, and not a viable product in the mass market. -M
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on May 2, 2020 21:33:29 GMT -5
So yes, they are produced for a different customer base than their line of current periodicals, but it is a much smaller customer base and they curate what and how much they produce for it, and do not produce it for anything resembling a mass audience or a growth market. If there are copies on the shelves of places like Books-a-Million or B&N it is because their buyers either overestimated how many they could sell, or bought stock to shelf for a longer window before returning it, as those sellers buy their books on a returnable basis, so they do not need to clearance them out, they can return them for credit after a set time if they do not sell (which is another reason why publishers do not set print runs above initial orders from the book trade as return kill the margins). So those editions of older books are carefully curated products for a niche market, and not a viable product in the mass market. -M Oh, I understand what you and Slam_Bradley are saying; my point is that contrary to Slam's statement that: The fact DC and Marvel even bother with expensive reprint books at all means they are aware of the older audience and will try to make a profit from them, even if that fanbase is small/shrinking.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2020 21:59:26 GMT -5
So yes, they are produced for a different customer base than their line of current periodicals, but it is a much smaller customer base and they curate what and how much they produce for it, and do not produce it for anything resembling a mass audience or a growth market. If there are copies on the shelves of places like Books-a-Million or B&N it is because their buyers either overestimated how many they could sell, or bought stock to shelf for a longer window before returning it, as those sellers buy their books on a returnable basis, so they do not need to clearance them out, they can return them for credit after a set time if they do not sell (which is another reason why publishers do not set print runs above initial orders from the book trade as return kill the margins). So those editions of older books are carefully curated products for a niche market, and not a viable product in the mass market. -M Oh, I understand what you and Slam_Bradley are saying; my point is that contrary to Slam's statement that: The fact DC and Marvel even bother with expensive reprint books at all means they are aware of the older audience and will try to make a profit from them, even if that fanbase is small/shrinking. They care about it enough to package already existing material into product for it. It doesn't matter to them in terms of creating new content. They are not even a consideration when it comes to the creation of content. Part of the problem is the dichotomy between being a publisher and being a content creator. They are not the same, and oft times the result is less because they are trying to serve two masters. Content creation decisions are compromised by publishing concerns. And as content creators, neither Marvel nor DC cares about older fans because they do not compromise a large enough audience to make creating new content for them profitable. Packaging older material as a publisher sure, but not for creating new content or making decisions about creating content. In fact, I could see Marvel especially, with their partnership with IDW and with the Disney corporate model for publishing their own content as a model, look at licensing out the publishing of older content in products like omnibus rather than doing the publishing themselves in the not too distant future. That way there they can just pocket the licensing money and someone else takes on the risk and cost of bringing that content to market. -M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2020 19:51:27 GMT -5
Even when paired with a favourite...I wasn't impressed and declined this set, even at 25% cover.
|
|