The All Purpose Comics Industry News Thread

[Matt D]

That's why Ms. Marvel is brilliant. She's hugely progressive but also a huge comics nerd, so she's relatable to the older crowd.

[Eivion]

Haven't really read many of the new characters, but generally it always felt like Marvel pushed them the wrong way, usually by throwing away the original characters in somewhat moronic and lazy manners while trying to say how great they were for diversity with the new ones. Even those who want new diverse characters aren't necessarily looking for the old ones to be replaced per say.

[odessasteps]

8 minutes ago, Matt D said:

That's why Ms. Marvel is brilliant. She's hugely progressive but also a huge comics nerd, so she's relatable to the older crowd.

It also helps she is a legacy character who "replaced" someo ewithout a huge traditional fanbase. Did anyone really care about Carol in the last century? And really just took the name, since Carol hasnt gone anywhere, just been written poorly lately.

[Matt D]

39 minutes ago, Eivion said:

Haven't really read many of the new characters, but generally it always felt like Marvel pushed them the wrong way, usually by throwing away the original characters in somewhat moronic and lazy manners while trying to say how great they were for diversity with the new ones. Even those who want new diverse characters aren't necessarily looking for the old ones to be replaced per say.

It's a catch-22. They've tried otherwise and they can't get off the ground unless it's a legacy character, usually one that takes over the book for a while and then gets spun off. At the same time, it causes resentment if it is a legacy character. They literally can't win.

[Eivion]

I get that to an extent, but there is still something to said about how they actually do legacy characters. Banner & Stark were both killed in pretty shitty manners. Steve was just de-powered until they decided to do a long term story they re-empower him while changing into nearly the complete opposite as who he was.for a good year now. Thor lost his spot in a generally hated event from a whisper they still haven't revealed the contents of from several years ago now. That is nearly going out of the way to piss people off while trying to prop up the new kids. That isn't even going into which characters should even be having legacies to carry on the name.

[odessasteps]

To digress, they actually revealed what nick fury said to thor a week or two ago.

When i was a teen, i dont  remember capital O Outrage over Rhodey replacing Tony in the 80s. Maybe thats just because there were so fewer outlets: cbg and the like. You didnt even have widely available message boards except maybe Compuserve.  Maybe because he was already a supporting cast member, not someone just created to be the New Iron Man. 

[Matt D]

1 hour ago, odessasteps said:

To digress, they actually revealed what nick fury said to thor a week or two ago.

When i was a teen, i dont  remember capital O Outrage over Rhodey replacing Tony in the 80s. Maybe thats just because there were so fewer outlets: cbg and the like. You didnt even have widely available message boards except maybe Compuserve.  Maybe because he was already a supporting cast member, not someone just created to be the New Iron Man. 

It was also a lot rarer though. It was novel, even. Now it's anything but. They've done so many stories with these characters that it's all about year long story engines now. Peter Parker is Rich! Daredevil's gone public with his identity! Wolverine is... old! It's not bad. 40+ years in they have to figure out something. But it's certainly not novel anymore. Nothing is. 

[supremebve]

So, did you guys realize that these comic book companies don't count digital sales when they are talking about how well a comic book sells?  So, I buy $20-$40 of comics from comixology week in and week out, and they don't count that when they are deciding what books are doing well.  What kind of backwards ass shit is that?  I know they don't count trade paperbacks, but that is also stupid.  How about you count every time you sell a comic, and count all of those numbers to decide how well a book is selling.  I don't know how relevant it is right now, but in April of 2015 seven of the ten best selling comics on Comixology were female superheroes.  At the time Ms. Marvel was the #59 as far as sales of hard copies, but #1 digitally.  I swear the entire world is full of stupid people who can't help buy make millions, and I'm here thinking they are stupid while not making a dime.  

[odessasteps]

When you say "they dont count them," do you mean in the sales charts? Because presumably they know the numbers internally. Most folks i know when discussing numbers, make sure to point out the charts dont reflect digital and the rest. 

Of course, the need for companies to placate and/or prop up the direct market is a problem in and of itself. Otherwise, digital books would not be the same price as print and they could move more digital units. 

[Ace]

On 4/1/2017 at 7:15 PM, Eivion said:

 Thor lost his spot in a generally hated event from a whisper they still haven't revealed the contents of from several years ago now. 

In the interest of nitpickery, they finally revealed the anti-climactic whisper this past month.

Frankly, what I think is hurting Marvel are the crossover events. They've gone from 1-2 a year to constant.

 

[odessasteps]

6 minutes ago, Ace said:

In the interest of nitpickery, they finally revealed the anti-climactic whisper this past month.

Frankly, what I think is hurting Marvel are the crossover events. They've gone from 1-2 a year to constant.

 

I posted it a few days ago in the marvel thread. 

[supremebve]

24 minutes ago, odessasteps said:

When you say "they dont count them," do you mean in the sales charts? Because presumably they know the numbers internally. Most folks i know when discussing numbers, make sure to point out the charts dont reflect digital and the rest. 

Of course, the need for companies to placate and/or prop up the direct market is a problem in and of itself. Otherwise, digital books would not be the same price as print and they could move more digital units. 

When I say don't count them I mean they don't put it on sales charts.  They don't disclose how many units they sell digitally at all, the stats I referenced are from Comixology.  The issue is that they can say that these sales are low, but in reality they could be as high as other books when you count digital and trade paperbacks.  I exclusively read comics digitally, and a good number of the comics I read are trades.  I'm sure I'm not alone.  

[Eivion]

35 minutes ago, Ace said:

In the interest of nitpickery, they finally revealed the anti-climactic whisper this past month.

Frankly, what I think is hurting Marvel are the crossover events. They've gone from 1-2 a year to constant.

 

Someone mentioned they finally made the revelation earlier, and yeah it kind of sucked.

To b honest none of these things are entirely alone or even mostly responsible in damaging Marvel. Its these problems combined altogether.

23 minutes ago, supremebve said:

When I say don't count them I mean they don't put it on sales charts.  They don't disclose how many units they sell digitally at all, the stats I referenced are from Comixology.  The issue is that they can say that these sales are low, but in reality they could be as high as other books when you count digital and trade paperbacks.  I exclusively read comics digitally, and a good number of the comics I read are trades.  I'm sure I'm not alone.  

This has been known for a while. The general assumption was that digital sales at one point were generally low enough across the board that companies didn't want to post them publicly. Marvel has praised Ms. Marvel's digital success, specifically mentioning that it sold more than the print in the past. This stuff is seemingly still taken in consideration when deciding whether or not a book dies so the sales most definitely count as far the companies are concerned. The numbers just aren't out there for the public which even now is kind the case with print sales charts being mostly guesstimates. Only the companies and writers know the real numbers.

[supremebve]

1 minute ago, Eivion said:

This has been known for a while. The general assumption was that digital sales at one point were generally low enough across the board that companies didn't want to post them publicly. Marvel has praised Ms. Marvel's digital success, specifically mentioning that it sold more than the print in the past. This stuff is seemingly still taken in consideration when deciding whether or not a book dies so the sales most definitely count as far the companies are concerned. The numbers just aren't out there for the public which even now is kind the case with print sales charts being mostly guesstimates. Only the companies and writers know the real numbers.

I don't even have an issue with them not disclosing their sales numbers, but I have a pretty big problem with them selectively giving out sales numbers.  Publicly saying that sales are down because people don't want diversity is bullshit.  Saying that while not disclosing the numbers of digital sales, who is the audience who seems to be most invested in diverse characters, puts up multiple red flags.  In my experience people will say and do anything to limit the opportunities of women and minorities, and this feels like one of those times.  It is like the studio casting Scarlett Johansson in Ghost in the Shell because no one will pay to see a movie with an Asian lead without taking into consideration that no one is going to go see a movie with Scarlett Johansson playing an Asian character.  Instead of saying they should have cast an Asian actress, they can just deflect and say no one wants to see a movie about Asian culture.  It is the constant moving of the goal posts that kills me.

[Eivion]

The problem with the theory that this is one of those situations is that companies have never really displayed digital sales even before this recent claim by Marvel which they already tried to somewhat back out of.

[supremebve]

2 hours ago, Eivion said:

The problem with the theory that this is one of those situations is that companies have never really displayed digital sales even before this recent claim by Marvel which they already tried to somewhat back out of.

The issue isn't that they have never disclosed digital sales.  The issue is that they made a claim that may or may not be true, but instead of giving us all the relevant information they held back on information that could disprove their claim.  The claim is the problem.  Saying that people don't want diversity is something people say a lot, with zero facts to back it up.  They have the facts to back it up, but only disclose half the facts.  There is a chance that all of the "diversity" projects they've done have not sold well.  There is also a very good chance based on prior evidence that these projects do very well in the digital space, and they conveniently do not disclose that information.  People who say things like, "people are tired of diversity" tend to be very selective with facts.  

 

[Eivion]

2 hours ago, supremebve said:

The issue isn't that they have never disclosed digital sales.  The issue is that they made a claim that may or may not be true, but instead of giving us all the relevant information they held back on information that could disprove their claim.  The claim is the problem.  Saying that people don't want diversity is something people say a lot, with zero facts to back it up.  They have the facts to back it up, but only disclose half the facts.  There is a chance that all of the "diversity" projects they've done have not sold well.  There is also a very good chance based on prior evidence that these projects do very well in the digital space, and they conveniently do not disclose that information.  People who say things like, "people are tired of diversity" tend to be very selective with facts.  

 

The problem is right now there is basically nothing to back up your claim. We never have the complete data for these things in the first place and have always had to go off of what little data is there and company claims. You're trying to claim these books do better than the company claims while not even having a backup of Comixology's top ten bestsellers (monthly or weekly?) from the last six months. Whats more we also don't know the necessary sales threshold for digital to back up print sales. Beyond that you're claiming intentional withholding of this data so diverse books can't be defended when all evidence points to them having never been comfortable releasing sales data even when a book, diverse or otherwise, is successful.

[supremebve]

27 minutes ago, Eivion said:

The problem is right now there is basically nothing to back up your claim. We never have the complete data for these things in the first place and have always had to go off of what little data is there and company claims. You're trying to claim these books do better than the company claims while not even having a backup of Comixology's top ten bestsellers (monthly or weekly?) from the last six months. Whats more we also don't know the necessary sales threshold for digital to back up print sales. Beyond that you're claiming intentional withholding of this data so diverse books can't be defended when all evidence points to them having never been comfortable releasing sales data even when a book, diverse or otherwise, is successful.

 

I'm not accusing them of anything, I'm saying I'm skeptical of them because they could actually provide information to back their claims but they didn't.  If you say something as inflammatory as "people are tired of diversity," you have to expect people to question that statement.  Not only did they not provide that information, it seems to be wrong anyway.  IGN just posted an article claiming that books like "The Mighty Thor," the Miles Morales "Spider-Man," and "Ms. Marvel" are selling very well.  They even stated that Ms. Marvel does particularly well digitally and in trades.  The new "Invincible Iron Man," featuring Riri Williams is selling better than the Tony Stark version when compared to last year.  The issue isn't that they are withholding information, the issue is that someone said something completely ridiculous with no factual basis to back it up.  My point stems from the fact that I read what he said and tried to look into it for myself and learned that digital sales aren't included when they post sales numbers.  I wanted to see for myself if there was an actual backlash against diversity like this asshole said, and it is impossible to tell based on the facts that they provide.  It does not surprise me that as soon as someone with the ability to source information looked into this, they found that it was false.  In my experience, when someone says something like "people don't like diversity," or "no one wants to watch a movie with a black star," or "a woman can't do this or that," it is all bullshit.  Given the opportunity to do even the most basic of fact checking it is almost always easily disproven.  I don't know why they don't disclose that information, and I honestly don't care why they don't disclose it.  My entire point is that you should probably not say something that ridiculous unless you have something concrete to back it up.  If it was true, which it is not, that dude would have access to information to build a concrete argument.  He was not interested in building a logical argument.  Just like most people who say things like that, he was wrong and easily disproven as soon as someone was able to check the facts.

[odessasteps]

It was not their best week, coupled with the whole "rotating artist" thing. And certainly dumb to say an artist on a book does not bring in readers.

[Eivion]

1 hour ago, supremebve said:

I'm not accusing them of anything, I'm saying I'm skeptical of them because they could actually provide information to back their claims but they didn't.  If you say something as inflammatory as "people are tired of diversity," you have to expect people to question that statement.  Not only did they not provide that information, it seems to be wrong anyway.  IGN just posted an article claiming that books like "The Mighty Thor," the Miles Morales "Spider-Man," and "Ms. Marvel" are selling very well.  They even stated that Ms. Marvel does particularly well digitally and in trades.  The new "Invincible Iron Man," featuring Riri Williams is selling better than the Tony Stark version when compared to last year.  The issue isn't that they are withholding information, the issue is that someone said something completely ridiculous with no factual basis to back it up.  My point stems from the fact that I read what he said and tried to look into it for myself and learned that digital sales aren't included when they post sales numbers.  I wanted to see for myself if there was an actual backlash against diversity like this asshole said, and it is impossible to tell based on the facts that they provide.  It does not surprise me that as soon as someone with the ability to source information looked into this, they found that it was false.  In my experience, when someone says something like "people don't like diversity," or "no one wants to watch a movie with a black star," or "a woman can't do this or that," it is all bullshit.  Given the opportunity to do even the most basic of fact checking it is almost always easily disproven.  I don't know why they don't disclose that information, and I honestly don't care why they don't disclose it.  My entire point is that you should probably not say something that ridiculous unless you have something concrete to back it up.  If it was true, which it is not, that dude would have access to information to build a concrete argument.  He was not interested in building a logical argument.  Just like most people who say things like that, he was wrong and easily disproven as soon as someone was able to check the facts.

Actually the IGN article did say the diversity push failed to result in higher sales. Its just also pointed out several successes which point out the ridiculousness that the push's failure is on people simply not wanting diverse characters.

[odessasteps]

I think, like most things, there are some good books and some average books. (Your mileage may vary as to which is which) 

I do wonder how ms marvel will fare once wilson eventually leaves the book. 

[odessasteps]

In other news, waid is the latest creator to leave twitter. 

[Eivion]

23 minutes ago, odessasteps said:

I think, like most things, there are some good books and some average books. (Your mileage may vary as to which is which) 

I do wonder how ms marvel will fare once wilson eventually leaves the book. 

Well really the biggest problem right now is that Marvel keeps pointing the finger at anything and anyone but themselves for why some of their books fail. The blame on diversity is just the latest and most inflammatory bs claim on their part.

[supremebve]

6 hours ago, Eivion said:

Actually the IGN article did say the diversity push failed to result in higher sales. Its just also pointed out several successes which point out the ridiculousness that the push's failure is on people simply not wanting diverse characters.

There is a huge difference between "the diversity push failed to result in higher sales," and "What we heard was that people didn't want any more diversity. They didn't want female characters out there."  

[Matt D]

I don't think diversity isn't as much as an issue as the lack of balance. It's good to switch things up and develop new inclusive versions of characters. It's probably not a great idea to have Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, Cap (to a degree), Wolverine (to a degree) all off the table at the same time.

I will say it hurts that we lost Spider-Woman, Hellcat, and Black Widow all in the same week. Those might have been Marvel's best three books. I'm not sure what's tops now? Star-Lord maybe?