Quote from: Marvel VP of Sales David GabrielWhat we heard was that people didn't want any more diversity. They didn't want female characters out there.
https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/03/31/marvels-david-gabriel-sales-slump-people-didnt-want-diversity-didnt-want-female-characters
Well this is awkward.
(https://media.tenor.co/images/0ad23db22f70e99b9fc4aa7d3f718e8d/raw)
I could have told them that. But I'm not the only one saying it.
Marvel and other dumb corporations simply don't understand their audience if they keep pushing this crap down our throats.
I think people would've been okay with diversity if Marvel used their existing characters (i.e. Sif and Valkyrie) instead of female Thor and a teenage African American girl as the new Iron Man. Better yet, create new characters instead of hijacking iconic ones, but the way Marvel went about things rubbed people the wrong way. The political agenda was too obvious.
This article from last year by Charlie Nash is spot on.
Quote"Thor? Are you kidding me? I'm supposed to call you Thor?" Marvel villain The Absorbing Man yells at the new "female Thor" during a vicious street brawl in an issue published last year. "Damn feminists ruining everything!"
The dialogue mirrored most sane reader's thoughts during the issue, but we're not all monsters. We are just loyal, long-time readers who are sick of our favorite characters being butchered by nose-ringed lesbians for the sake of diversity, and at the apparent expense not just of dialogue, story and creativity but also, it now appears, the commercial success of Marvel's comic books line.
A villain based on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is to appear in "Spider-Gwen Annual #1" this week. The villain, who goes by the name of MODAAK will be seen rounding up "foreign filth", complete with Mexico jibes, "small hands" jokes, and even Trump's signature catchphrase "Make America Great Again."
In one scene, a female Captain America can be seen hitting MODAAK with her [sic] shield before the villain can complete his "Make America Great Again" catchphrase.
Your mileage may vary on Trump disses. Plenty of readers will have smirked along at jokes made at The Donald's expense. But increasing customer frustration at obscure third-wave feminism preoccupations shoehorning their way into Marvel's comic books is starting to have an effect on sales. It turns out you can't bully people into caring about "microaggressions."
"[A lot of misogynistic filth]", "[Red Pill MRA Meninist Casual Racism]", and even "[Unsolicited Opinions on Israel???]" were all speech captions in Angela: Queen of Hel, a Marvel comic that was cancelled after failing to set the world alight earlier this year. The comic started with nearly 40,000 sales on its first issue, but dropped to just below 25,000 on its second.
By the third issue, Angela: Queen of Hel was at just above 20,000 sales, and by the last issue, issue seven, just over 14,000 people bought a copy. That's right: the comic lost over half of its audience within seven issues.
Is that because the comic industry hates women? Or could it perhaps be because readers don't appreciate being bludgeoned to death with student politics — and because social justice warriors tend not to put their money where their mouth is.
Marvel isn't getting the message. Its latest comic book character is — wait for it — a fifteen year-old black female Iron Man. That's right. Tony Stark, the badass, billionaire playboy businessman who has represented the quintessential white American male since the 1960s is to be replaced by a fifteen year-old black girl with an Afro and hooped earrings.
Other comic book publishers are hardly saints, of course. In an issue of DC's Wonder Woman last year, the popular female superhero complained about a villain "mansplaining" to her before an ally punched him in the face for the crime. "The lasso compels truth, but it can't stop mansplaining," declared Wonder Woman as the "bad guy" had his teeth knocked out of his mouth.
The new social political styles seem a weird choice for publishers who have a predominately apolitical — and disproportionately male — audience, particularly since Marvel CEO Ike Perlmutter also donated $1 million to Trump's U.S. Military Veterans Fundraiser in January.
"We're seeing the worst falloff of Marvel and DC sales in the store's 38-year history," complained one comic book store owner in an industry forum. "Both companies are losing established readers who no longer feel that the company's output reflects the sort of comics they enjoy.
"For the first time in store history, yesterday's Marvel FOCs saw us ordering single digits on more than half of the line items in the Marvel section."
Marvel's readership is souring particularly fast. With the exception of some big-name comics whose characters have, thus far, escaped the SJW purge of anything remotely resembling a straight white male, Marvel readers are simply going elsewhere.
Marvel have radically altered their classic characters by giving in to calls for more diversity, leading to a black Spiderman and female Thor. This has effectively turned the company into a multi-billion dollar feminist zine publisher.
Here's a newsflash for Marvel: race-baiters and gender warriors who complain endlessly about the "lack of diversity" in comic books don't buy comic books. They're interested in identity politics, not fun.
When your customers — lifelong comic fans — pick up the latest issue to find a smorgasbord of irrelevant, hectoring social and pop culture commentary, they probably won't buy the next issue. Not because they're sexists and racists, but because the stuff you are publishing sucks.
People read comic books to escape the real world, and readers have had enough of being called privileged cis white men, or misogynist MRAs, in the real world, let alone the one place they get to escape it. If you want to put these things in your comic books, go ahead, but readers are just going to stop buying them.
Marvel is stuck between appeasing gobby SJWs, making SJWs mad by appeasing them and then attempting to fix an even messier situation than just giving the blue-haired elephants a much need middle-finger. They're not too worried now, given the success of superhero movies at the box office.
But while the company is making bank from Hollywood, hoping that audiences remain enthusiastic about increasingly desperate franchise crossovers, there's trouble on the horizon, not just for the studio's core intellectual property, but the creative integrity of its work, too. Serves them right.
What I find interesting is that DC and Marvel made different mistakes but handled them in totally different ways.
DC launched the New 52 without much of a vision for the future. They made unnecessary changes to continuity just for the shock value of doing so but when the novelty wore off, there was nothing left. So they tried making it work before throwing in the towel with Rebirth.
Marvel replaced anything resembling a white man in their stable of characters. After the novelty wore off, there was nothing left. So Marvel doubled down on their mistake and (at least officially) haven't changed course yet. Yeah, that article I linked to strongly indicates that they'll start correcting their mistakes. But it's not official yet.
I'm a DC guy so I rather like the idea of DC being #1 in the market. I guess I just wish it wasn't such a lopsided thing with great DC comics routinely kicking the snot out of crummy, third rate Marvel comics. If DC is going to be #1, I'd rather they earn it.
Gift horses and mouths, I suppose.
I love New 52 Batman.
New 52 Superman? Not so much.
I love Rebirth Superman.
Rebirth Batman? Not so much.
Between the two relaunches, DC has given us the best runs for these characters in YEARS.
I'll take that. Marvel on the other hand went all in with the SJW crap and burnt a lot of bridges.
No matter what Marvel do next, we all know where they stand. They were loud and outed themselves.
The only Marvel comic I've been steadily collecting in recent years has been Daredevil. Though I also try to keep up with some of the Star Wars comics (particularly the Vader and Luke Skywalker series), and I'm planning to collect the new Defenders title when it launches later this year. But overall, I've not been a fan of what Marvel or DC have been doing with their superheroes in recent years. But at least DC seems to be correcting course with their Rebirth line, while Marvel's quest to purge their universe of white male heroes has only brought disaster on their heads.
In January 2016 Marvel had a 44.38% retail market share in North American comic sales. DC had only 22.16%. Marvel's market share was literally more than double that of DC.
http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/237?articleID=174561
By January 2017 Marvel's retail market share had dropped to 37.09%, while DC's had risen to 28.93%. The difference between them was then less than 10%, and I believe the differential has continued to decline ever since.
http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/237?articleID=190648
Now check out the top 100 comic sales from February 2016:
http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/237?articleID=175761
Marvel clearly dominates, with 7 of their titles appearing in the top 10. Compare that against the top 100 comic sales from February 2017:
http://www.diamondcomics.com/Home/1/1/3/597?articleID=191239
DC dominates, with the only Marvel comics in the top 10 being Star Wars and Walking Dead titles. The highest ranking Marvel Universe character is Spider-Man, who comes in at number 13.
Numbers don't lie, and it should be blindingly obvious that Marvel's diversity push has had a disastrous impact on their sales. I see this as yet another example of an industry capitulating to the demands of SJWs, needlessly politicising their output, then suffering in the marketplace when the wider public rejects their PC product. Other recent examples include the commercial failure of the highly politicised Ghostbusters reboot (which left Sony Pictures an estimated $75 million out of pocket), and the drop in NFL ratings and ESPN's correlative haemorrhaging of subscribers. Then there's that whole business about the Academy Awards viewing figures sinking to a nine-year low.
It's all very well producers and publishers saying they'll sell at a loss to make a political statement, but commercial art by definition is dependent on revenue in order to sustain itself. And if people stop buying their product, they won't be able to continue making statements. Film studios, TV networks, publishers et al need to get the message that the public is sick of having their entertainment politicised. Alienating 50% of your potential audience/readership by shoehorning politics into your product is not smart business. Hopefully Marvel at least is starting to catch on.
What's interesting to me is how the inverse seems to be true with Marvel Studios output, which, forgettable as some of it can be, has at least erred on the side of being safe and fairly disposable. Their comics... less so.
Meanwhile, DC has been playing it safe lately while WB has been taking a fair amount of risks with the DCEU.
Overall, it's fair to say the recent past has been kinder to DC than it has been to Marvel all in all.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 1 Apr 2017, 13:35
Alienating 50% of your potential audience/readership by shoehorning politics into your product is not smart business. Hopefully Marvel at least is starting to catch on.
THIS.
I've heard some rumblings that Marvel is
finally going to shift from all the SJW preaching, and get back to the basics. Unfortunately, I honestly can't get my expectations up very high at all due to Marvel still employing the same very staff that got to this low point, correct? How optimistic can one be with that sort of arrangement, and what's really stopping them from going right back to the lib agenda once long time, but clearly disgruntled readers decide to come back?
Both DC and Marvel have displayed a certain stubbornness in changing their business model due to noticeable dissatisfaction and thus, a drop in sales. DC, to their credit, and even though it took 5 years for them to realize the entire New52 initiative was a bust, decided going the
Rebirth route was the best way to go, and it's worked out incredibly well for them. Marvel on the other hand, has been pushing an agenda, and incorporated relaunch after relaunch to the point where the '90's would be envious of all the #1's that's been spewed out. The sheer output by Marvel has typically been much more than DC's, but if you were to ask a long time reader of
quality over
quantity, I think DC wins it hands down.
Especially since that Geoff Johns'
DC Rebirth one shot back in May of last year.
Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 4 Apr 2017, 04:12Both DC and Marvel have displayed a certain stubbornness in changing their business model due to noticeable dissatisfaction and thus, a drop in sales. DC, to their credit, and even though it took 5 years for them to realize the entire New52 initiative was a bust, decided going the Rebirth route was the best way to go, and it's worked out incredibly well for them. Marvel on the other hand, has been pushing an agenda, and incorporated relaunch after relaunch to the point where the '90's would be envious of all the #1's that's been spewed out. The sheer output by Marvel has typically been much more than DC's, but if you were to ask a long time reader of quality over quantity, I think DC wins it hands down.
This reminds me of something I've noticed.
I listen to some talk radio occasionally. You can find some really decent journalism in the news radio format. I don't mean political talk shows with popular hosts. I mean just plain meat and potatoes news. The on-air talent may have guests who discuss the subject (whatever it might be) and that fills out the news coverage a little bit. But the host doesn't necessarily call the shots on the program. He reports but he answers to an editor or program director or station manager or whatever. The talent doesn't manage the production in talk/news radio.
In the wider publishing industry, yeah, you have the occasional author serving as the head of a publishing company or something. But by and large, book publishing is managed by professionals, managers and the like. They gather talent and then publish what they think is the best material they can find, and usually in variety of genres. There's a pretty clear divide between the writers and the publishers. The talent doesn't manage the production in publishing.
In the music world, you occasionally find a musician who starts his own record label. But extreme examples like Madonna aside, mostly those are vanity labels. Most musicians make poor record label executives. In the music world, there's a clear divide between record label mogul and artist. Yes, Madonna ran one hell of a tight ship in her day but she's the exception which proves the rule. The talent doesn't manage the production in music.
Comics are different.
Geoff Johns started off as a comic writer. Jim Lee started as a comic artist. Brian Michael Bendis was also a writer. The
management of both Marvel and DC is stacked with
talent. Lee has proven time and again that he's a solid business manager. He survived the 90's, y'all. His teammates at Image either lost their shirt or else survived only because they diversified their portfolios. But Lee survived.
Still, Jim Lee, like Madonna, isn't normative. He has a nose for the business but that doesn't mean everybody does.
But that doesn't seem to matter. In the comics world, the talent manages the production. And this isn't just about Marvel's political edge lately. That's a symptom. But the deeper issue, I think, is that Marvel is run by its own talent. And talent doesn't necessarily make wise business decisions.
Suppose back in 2013, Marvel poached an actual book mogul to manage their titles. Might this person have made better decisions regarding
the publishing of comics? Given the circumstances, the better question might be
how could an actual veteran publishing tycoon possibly have done worse? Because I don't think Marvel would be any worse off now than they are. And they might be better off.
This predicament would be understandable back in the 60's. I bear no ill will to Marvel or DC (or NPP as it was then) because they were both operating more or less independently back then. But now Disney owns Marvel and Time-Warner owns DC. Both parent companies own (or have relationships with)
actual publishing houses.
How hard would it have really been to find someone from the publishing world to manage DC's affairs in a sort of "editor in chief" type of capacity? Might DC have benefited from someone in a leadership role who can take a step back and see the big picture?
In case I'm not being clear, what I'm saying is that
I don't think DC or Marvel will ever be great again as long as the talent manages the production.
Both companies choosing to focus their production and cater to the direct market has been a MAJOR problem in of itself for decades.
American comics have always been a business first, and it has always been about the bottom line before all else. However, the way of reaching that desirable bottom line has changed. And that's when OVEREXPOSURE with quantity becomes a real danger.
If we're talking about the ills that have plagued the industry itself for decades, and not just lackluster creative decisions/political agendas, I see it in a different light. Both Companies have thoroughly (and in some cases deliberately!) demolished the support structure which once allowed comics of all kinds to flourish. And thus, it's all about the Direct Sales Market. If we're talking comics themselves, the DSM is their bread and butter, and all due to their very own doing. If this is the line of thinking within the industry, and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be, then this practically protects the dramatically narrowed production the industry actually chose to go with, from any attempt to return things, even in part, to how they were. Even assuming that were even remotely possible.
UK's Newsnight programme just did a feature on this.
It appears that although the reported sales of these more 'diverse' Marvel comics have been poor, one of the major reasons why this may be the case is that only pre-order sales are tallied. Not 'off-the-shelf' sales, made by more casual (i.e. non 'fanboy/fangirl') readers, who simply pick up the latest copy from their nearest comic-store or local newsagent. Thus, as it stands, only longstanding (and presumably for a large part 'straight white male') comic-book readers who pre-order comics, are being recorded in comic-book sales.
But I also hope that we get more genuinely original 'diverse' (i.e. BME, LGBT, Muslim/Jewish, disabled, and female) superheroes rather than ones that are simply variations on existing white male ones, like Thor and Iron Man. I think many people are interested in stories featuring a more diverse array of characters, but as with last year's Ghostbusters, which simply changed the characters' genders and added little else fresh or exciting to the mix, audiences/readers don't want to be patronised. Originality and quality are essential, and diversity, though important, is not a substitute for these even if it can certainly facilitate them.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 1 Apr 2017, 10:06No matter what Marvel do next, we all know where they stand. They were loud and outed themselves.
I'm circling back to this.
I don't remember too many Marvel creators going on rampages against people with different opinions from them. Maybe (hell, probably!) it's happened and I just forgot about it because so many others have done the same.
But I do find your sentiment to be true of others. Time was I had a lot of respect for Michael Shannon. I admired his work in Boardwalk Empire and I thought he was an extraordinarily effective Zod. His other work that I've seen is likewise top notch.
But then the 2016 election happened. And look, I can appreciate that emotions were running high. I know that many on the left are throwing tantrums even now. But the overall tenor of things really has changed since the election. The chaos of it all seems to have subsided now. But it was still pretty fresh when Shannon gave that infamous interview.
Still, even giving him the benefit of every possible doubt, his comments were over the line. As I've said before, criticizing politicians (or candidates) is one thing. They are public figures and in many ways they've walked into the crossfire by announcing their candidacies. They are fair game... President Trump included.
Going nuclear on the voters though... that's out of order. Shannon had no right to do that. And the thing is, he said what he meant and he meant what he said. Yes, tensions were high. But that doesn't excuse what he said.
He can apologize and I suppose I'm obligated to forgive him. But the reality is he said what he truly believes. An apology at this point is basically Shannon asking for mercy so his next movie doesn't get destroyed at the box office.
Whedon, Shannon, so many people really have crossed that line. And it's not really a fine line either. Attacking the President's policies and attacking his voters personally are miles and miles apart with a huge wall and giant flashing lights between them. Any idiot could've made the distinction.
But so many have chosen not to and there's no going back for any of them now.
When I saw Michael Shannon's 'time for the urn' comments in print, I was outraged. Even as a Trump-hater and staunch liberal I find that attacking voters, especially in such nasty, mean-spirited terms, is completely beyond the pale, as you rightly pointed out colors. And whilst I may not agree with the conclusions those Trump voters came to, I actually have a lot of sympathy with many of them. It's clear to me, even as an Obama supporter, that the current political climate, whether we call it neoliberalism, globalisation, or something else, is not working for many people (even, dare I say, myself), that those people feel left behind, and, thus, something needs to give (I'm just extremely doubtful that Trump, and Brexit, here in the UK, is the right response...but that's besides the point in this instance).
So, on the face of things Shannon's comments with particular respect to older Trump supporters strike me as pretty unforgivable. That said, where I am potentially inclined to give Shannon some leeway is that, having seen a lengthy YouTube Shannon interview and from various things I've read, it is also clear that he does have a very wicked and dark sense of humour, and what may come across as hateful in print may actually have simply been, in reality, a throwaway joke, albeit one that I still find to be in poor taste and not to my liking.
http://www.cbr.com/marvel-terminates-x-men-gold-artist-ardian-syaf-contract-following-controversy/
Hope the thrill was worth it, dude.
Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 23:35http://www.cbr.com/marvel-terminates-x-men-gold-artist-ardian-syaf-contract-following-controversy/
Hope the thrill was worth it, dude.
Originally I wrote that I thought the only thing Syaf's drawn that I've read was Superman- Earth One vol. 3... and even there, I lamented the fact that Shane Davis didn't do the art. But checking out the guy's bibliography, I've seen a ton of the guy's art. Huh, weird.
The real pisser though is when people pick apart all your art and start imposing meaning or intent where you didn't necessarily mean anything. That thing with Kitty Pryde's head being placed so closely to the word "jewelry" could go either way. Maybe he meant something vague about Kitty there... or maybe not. But I don't think anybody will believe him now if he denies it.
But hey, you play with matches and you get burned. Sucks to be you, Syaf. Maybe Chuck Austen needs a penciller for something.
Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 11 Apr 2017, 23:35
http://www.cbr.com/marvel-terminates-x-men-gold-artist-ardian-syaf-contract-following-controversy/
Hope the thrill was worth it, dude.
When you think of all the talented artists looking for a chance to break into the comic industry, and then you have this guy – granted the opportunity to draw some of the most iconic comic book characters of all time and work for both Marvel and DC – and he needlessly throws it all away... What a waste.
Ever since this thread has started, there has been an increase of YouTube channels criticising comics companies for using their products as propaganda pieces for SJW/progressive agendas, as well as calling out people in the industry for acting unprofessionally on social media. The online movement has been dubbed 'Comicsgate'. Some of the channels I've seen include Diversity and Comics and ComicArtistPro Secrets (run by Ethan Van Sciver).
Here is a video by somebody describing what is the purpose of the Comicsgate movement, dated last November.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gHPUULw6yY
While that video seems genuine, I have to say the more I look at Diversity and Comics and Ethan Van Sciver's videos, the more I'm convinced they're provoking their detractors on purpose because they know they'll overreact. They may have a point, but their methods do come across as trolling.
There's also this controversy where Mark Waid had influenced a publisher's decision to not support D&C's independent comic. Which is pretty sh*tty of Waid to do, but I'm not too surprised judging by what I've seen of his online behaviour in the past.
Source: https://medium.com/@charlesrobertrodriguez/pr-disasters-comic-book-pros-are-not-professional-3a47b7eb78bc
The bit with Waid really grinds my gears. He's written a bunch of comics that I really love. But (A) he's a nipple of a human being on a personal level and (2) this "industry" deserves to implode. Or it retroactively deserves the implosion it underwent back in 1993. Take your pick on that, I guess.
Back in the 70's, nobody had to tell Cary Bates and Curt Swan to leave politics out of their Superman stories. Back then, it was considered rude to bring up politics in nearly any situation. Today, the comics biz is run by a bunch of self-righteous, virtue-signalling gropers, drug addicts and degenerates. And apparently nobody told those losers that it's probably best to keep their pedestrian opinions to themselves.
If there's one thing comics historically suck at doing, it's sensitive social commentary. If you don't believe me, Google I Am Curious (Black).
Chuck Dixon, Graham Nolan and others have suggested that they've been blacklisted by the big companies because of their right-of-center political views. They're basically Romneyesque in their ideology. Especially in 2018, that shouldn't be too upsetting for anybody.
In Dixon's case, he was fired from a comic which was selling pretty well (in today's joke of a market) and overall there shouldn't have been any reason to complain.
NB4 two sides to every story, I get that but my point is that when numerous creators are shown the door for no obvious reason and the one thing they seem to have in common is their vaguely conservative views, it's time to get suspicious.
As it stands, I'm hoping Marvel gets sued into (another) bankruptcy because of Waid's actions. I realize the guy is fragile because of his utter failure to maintain a healthy relationship with a member of the opposite sex but his actions are pretty inexcusable.
Concerning stuff like Comicsgate, and the overall deteriorating health of the industry, it really wouldn't surprise me if we see a collapse of the business sometime in the not-too-distant future to be perfectly honest. Course maybe I'm completely off the mark considering I've purposely kept myself (mostly) out of the loop concerning comic books for a good while now. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the industry cannot be considered anywhere remotely being described as "in good shape", and the Disney Star Wars-like contempt for the fan base that we see from creators on twitter and facebook is only succeeding in speeding up the cancer, along with alienating long time reader's continued interest in today's so-called "product".
This is an industry that has found itself focused more on preaching, political agendas, and online shenanigans than about stories and characters. These days, reader's are simply not even given the courtesy of being able to disappear into those magical realms for a few minutes every month (or so). Evidently, that's too much to ask for. And when old school creator's call today's comics fanzines rather than actual professional work, I couldn't agree more.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 30 Aug 2018, 00:43
Back in the 70's, nobody had to tell Cary Bates and Curt Swan to leave politics out of their Superman stories. Back then, it was considered rude to bring up politics in nearly any situation. Today, the comics biz is run by a bunch of self-righteous, virtue-signalling gropers, drug addicts and degenerates. And apparently nobody told those losers that it's probably best to keep their pedestrian opinions to themselves.
This latest controversy takes degeneracy to a whole new level. Now, I don't like Van Sciver very much but this is just disgusting.
Source: http://boundingintocomics.com/2018/08/29/robbi-rodriguez-tweets-bizarre-unsolicited-graphic-images-to-ethan-van-sciver/
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 30 Aug 2018, 00:43
As it stands, I'm hoping Marvel gets sued into (another) bankruptcy because of Waid's actions. I realize the guy is fragile because of his utter failure to maintain a healthy relationship with a member of the opposite sex but his actions are pretty inexcusable.
Waid appears to have this unjustified authority complex. Last year, he threatened violence against a DC Comics editor because he was accused of sexually harassing female employees. I think this video perfectly explains why Waid should keep himself in check (WARNING: contains foul language).
https://youtu.be/HrKzWVwMwhs
Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 30 Aug 2018, 02:50
This is an industry that has found itself focused more on preaching, political agendas, and online shenanigans than about stories and characters. These days, reader's are simply not even given the courtesy of being able to disappear into those magical realms for a few minutes every month (or so). Evidently, that's too much to ask for. And when old school creator's call today's comics fanzines rather than actual professional work, I couldn't agree more.
Management is to blame for condoning such behaviour. But what I can't understand about Marvel's response to the fans"not wanting diversity" is
it doesn't follow up with history. If that were true, X-Men comics alone would've died a long time ago. Those comics had tons of allegories to civil rights, and people of diverse ethnic and sexual backgrounds, so why are these people in the industry dismissing their own audience?
Mark Waid is getting sued.
https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/09/29/richard-meyer-sues-mark-waid-tortious-interference-contract-defamation/
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon, 1 Oct 2018, 04:28
Mark Waid is getting sued.
https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/09/29/richard-meyer-sues-mark-waid-tortious-interference-contract-defamation/
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, the a-hole.
Considering some of Waid's public comments on this, it shouldn't be hard to prove the case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtPEMVGUQAg
If you want to know how deep Waid is into this, you should watch this video. The host is an attorney with a talent for decoding legalese for laymen. He breaks down how screwed Waid probably is with his actions.
If you read those Bleeding Cool comments, you'll get commentary from Cheetoh-munching nobodies. An actual attorney breaking down how Waid screwed it all up for himself has more weight to it.
^Waid's lawyer, coincidentally called Mark Zaid, apparently got involved in a slinging match with that Rikieta Law YouTube channel weeks ago. But that's less interesting compared to Waid starting a GoFundMe account to grab donations from idiots to cover his legal costs. And of course, he still has the nerve to slander somebody and maintain this self-righteousness. The narcissism of this man is irritating. And if his conduct isn't bad enough, he has alleged to have screwed over a business partnership years ago. Here's the video that covers this in depth.
https://youtu.be/JXXHC50VdMY
I understand that when people go into business together, things can happen. Not every venture necessarily works out for the best. Not even among friends. One might say especially not even among friends.
But still, every time I hear about Waid doing some kind of business deal with somebody, inevitably some serious s**t goes down and the next thing you know, the whole enterprise is kaput. There are some pretty sordid rumors about what really happened with CrossGen Comics, for example. There are also a ton of rumors about his tenure at Boom! Studios and how his run as EIC came to a rather abrupt end. Coincidentally, that occurred more or less in tandem with the similarly abrupt ending all of his titles that Boom! published.
I started my fandom of comics with a pretty high opinion of Mark Waid. You can't knock the work in 99% of cases. But his personal conduct has soured so much of it for me.
Waid's NPC fans lap it all up and they honestly don't have any clue just how much trouble Waid is in with this Diversity & Comics lawsuit stuff. I don't think this will end well for him.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 31 Oct 2018, 23:41
Waid's NPC fans lap it all up and they honestly don't have any clue just how much trouble Waid is in with this Diversity & Comics lawsuit stuff. I don't think this will end well for him.
Careful man. According to the some sections of the media, using the term NPC means you're part of the alt-right. ;) ::)
I couldn't help but get reminded of this disgruntled video of the recent issue of X-Men Red. The guy literally tore the comic up to shreds. :-[
https://youtu.be/7EtM4zu05T4
Did anyone catch that Mark Waid interview on that stupid Nerdist YouTube channel? Once again, he lied about what the lawsuit was about, and still virtue signalled about harassment of social groups that he claims were predicated on Comicsgate. The man is a liar and a hypocrite. He and Gerry Conway are two people in comics I hold with massive contempt.
If it's any consolation, the video got more dislikes by a massive margin, and the channel decided to disable all comments because the feedback was overwhelmingly negative.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 11 Nov 2018, 05:39
Did anyone catch that Mark Waid interview on that stupid Nerdist YouTube channel? Once again, he lied about what the lawsuit was about, and still virtue signalled about harassment of social groups that he claims were predicated on Comicsgate. The man is a liar and a hypocrite. He and Gerry Conway are two people in comics I hold with massive contempt.
If it's any consolation, the video got more dislikes by a massive margin, and the channel decided to disable all comments because the feedback was overwhelmingly negative.
I noticed that as well. It looked like pretty organic opposition to Waid too. I didn't really think these Comicsgate ideas would really take hold but it seems like they are.
As with Gamergate, it's pretty obvious that the loudest voices in support of this nonsense are outsiders who don't even participate much or at all in the hobby while the opposition is made up of the core audience. This won't end well for video games or comics unless they get their act together.
This thread is as good a dumping ground for my little rant here as anyplace else.
I love comics. If you're a geek, by definition there's something out there that GRABS your attention more than anything else. Video games, Star Wars films, whatever. It's all different but it's still the same thing. And for me, it's comics.
I love the stories that can only be told in comics. The biggest of the big, the smallest of the small, parody, action, comedy, romance, westerns, superheroes, non-fiction, whatever. For me, comics are the be-all, end-all. I can understand if some people don't adore comics as much as I do. I get it, we all have different tastes.
And yet, the comic book industry is warmly embracing extinction because (without getting too specific) (because doing so would upset somebody) they refuse to change up their content. There are many models of how to be successful in the comics industry from the past. There are also models FROM TODAY on how to be successful.
And the industry at large, and Marvel and DC particularly, outright refuse to change up their model and their content. Pride? Hatred? INSANITY? I can't say. But at this point, it's not really open to debate. They know very well what they can do to save themselves and their industry but they stridently refuse to do it.
If Marvel goes under, they're taking DC with them. If DC goes under, so does Marvel. If either goes under, then so will Boom, Antarctic Press, Image, IDW, etc etc etc. For all I know, we may even be at a level where even one of the indie publishers going kerplunk could be the straw that broke the camel's back. Nobody is qualified to say that Dark Horse going out of business won't ultimately drag everybody else down as well.
There's so much more I could say but this entire post is already bordering on tl;dr. So I'll wrap up by saying that it saddens me, IT PAINS ME, that this medium that I so love and cherish may not be around ten years from. It may not be here in five years.
It may not be here in six months.
And all because the people who are uniquely qualified to save the industry absolutely refuse to do it.
It would be a very sad day if the medium were to disappear. This industry needs a purge. There are too many people in charge of the industry who are simply too opinionated, too arrogant and not as talented as they think they are. It's not fair for comics to be severely undermined all because of jackasses who spend too much time arguing on social media trying their hardest to "save" the world in their own self-aggrandising mind, instead of doing their jobs.
Speaking of Marvel, it was reported last October that despite Kevin Feige has become the company's Chief Creative Officer (which theoretically would include Marvel Comics), he still has to deal with the current stakeholders in the comics division.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/will-kevin-feige-rethink-marvels-comic-books-1247841
This section here caught my eye.
Quote
So, is this a case of much ado about nothing while the status keeps being quo, then? It depends how such things as measured. More likely than the sudden cancellation of Marvel's entire comic book line before a reboot called The Feigeverse is a slow and, in likelihood, subtle shift towards Feige's vision, in multiple ways, matching the movement of Marvel Studios post-Perlmutter emancipation. After Feige's break from [Marvel Entertainment CEO Ike] Perlmutter, it took a few years for projects like Captain Marvel and Black Panther to come to fruition. However, since movies take much longer to develop than comics, theoretically if Feige ordered a change in the comic book status quo today, we could see that reflected on stands in a matter of three months.
Given Marvel publishing's success — in cultural, if not always financial, terms, at least — with characters such as Miles Morales, Kamala Khan and Lunella Lafayette in recent years, it doesn't seem like too much of a leap to imagine more focus on creating new characters with a more diverse background than, simply, "white guy who's probably blonde." Not only will it keep Marvel culturally relevant, it also will create more material for Marvel Studios to pull from in future projects.
In my opinion, if Marvel Comics were to reboot their characters to resemble their MCU counterparts, that's going to be far worse than Geoff Johns and Gary Frank aping Christopher Reeve every time they do a Superman comic.
Colors, I think you know this more than anyone else here, just because somebody has seen S78 and SII a thousand times, it doesn't make them a Superman expert. Let alone a comic book expert. The same thing goes for Marvel. If you ask me, I think Superman is being held back from going forward as a franchise because everyone can't get over their nostalgia for the Reeve era, and the last thing that Marvel Comics needs is pandering to comics for people who can't get over the MCU. We've seen enough of Iron Man-related media aping Robert Downey Jr such as in the Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes! cartoon and the last couple of Marvel vs Capcom games, can you imagine if they double down by aping ALL of the Avengers and Spider-Man characters to the movie versions? Mark Ruffalo and Chris Hemsworth's current interpretations of Hulk and Thor in comic book form? f*** THAT!
If this happens, the MCU's influence won't be a very good one for the Marvel Comics brand. Because as you know, comic book movie goes doesn't necessarily translate comic book readers. If anything, it could piss off the existing readership even more.
As for the little puff piece about the diversity of characters, well, they can spin that all they want. So far, it appears only Miles Morales is the only successful and popular character they've got. If they do create new character, hopefully they create BRAND NEW ones instead of hijacking an existing character name for a blatantly cheap political point.
But the opinion piece's assumption in building new characters as a launching pad for movie adaptations only brings to mind what Alan Moore once said: "Comics have become storyboards for films". That's assuming if Marvel will still invest in comics for much longer. By the sound of it, Marvel is first and foremost a film company. Just how long can they milk the formula for much long is anyone's guess at this stage.
Rejiggering the Marvel Comics universe to essentially be a photocopy of the MCU can't possibly be much worse than what Marvel Comics has been up to lately.
The comics industry has many problems. Content is merely one of them.
You know, there would have been a time where I would be pretty vocal against any Marvel Comics reboot to even further restructure the comic universe to resemble the MCU formula, but these days? I simply do not care.
There has been so many missteps and shenanigans over the decades with the comic industry that there is simply no going back. The horse has already left the barn, so to speak.
Wasn't there some report not all that long ago about how single issue reprints of older material is actually outselling some, or a lot of the current material by a noticeable margin? That's pretty damning. But not all that surprising either.
It's actually pretty much where I am at. Trades and hardback omnibus collections is what I've concentrated on for about 2 years now, and the overwhelming majority of that is material from the Golden/Silver/Bronze age of content.
Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 23:38
You know, there would have been a time where I would be pretty vocal against any Marvel Comics reboot to even further restructure the comic universe to resemble the MCU formula, but these days? I simply do not care.
There has been so many missteps and shenanigans over the decades with the comic industry that there is simply no going back. The horse has already left the barn, so to speak.
Wasn't there some report not all that long ago about how single issue reprints of older material is actually outselling some, or a lot of the current material by a noticeable margin? That's pretty damning. But not all that surprising either.
It's actually pretty much where I am at. Trades and hardback omnibus collections is what I've concentrated on for about 2 years now, and the overwhelming majority of that is material from the Golden/Silver/Bronze age of content.
Yeah, Dan Didio gave that quote to somebody at San Diego or something. And it seems to be true.
It's weird how DC and Marvel have such different problems. DC's continuity is swiss cheese. Literally nothing makes sense and every attempt to fix the problems only exacerbate them.
Marvel Comics these days mostly feature superpowered characters who would hunt down and physically harm/imprison/murder certain parts of the American voting public if these characters existed irl.
Between the two companies, the industry has atrophied to such a level that it's not mathematically impossible for any comic book to consistently sell 100,000 copies anymore. 100k used to be the cancellation line. Now it's a miracle if any comic book can sell that many copies even once, much less repeatedly, much less consecutively.
Not long after Disney bought Marvel, I suggested that those Mouse dollars might be enough to save the comics industry. But if anything, Disney seems determined to pour gasoline on the fire.
There are comics that sell ridiculously well but either they're manga or else they're American comics created by people blacklisted from the mainstream industry.
Such a pathetic waste.
Quote'Meet Snowflake, Marvel's First Non-Binary Superhero'
https://screenrant.com/marvel-snowflake-non-binary-comic/
(https://static2.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/newwarriors2020newkids-snowflake-and-safespace.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=740&h=538&dpr=1.5)
Snowflake... Safespace...
(https://media.tenor.com/images/d7d9a249f9cada88f3aeb19a1262d5bb/tenor.gif)
I prefer to think of Snowflake and Safespace as the death rattle of an industry that may only have two months of life still remaining.
It is interesting tho that basically nobody is excited about those characters. Nobody, zero.
What do you even say to something so laughable? Hijacking the entertainment vehicle for blatant political statements rather than honest storytelling is exactly why audiences have tuned out.
Snowflake and Safespace, huh? Are they like the emotionally stunted version of the Wonder Twins?
Who are the villains? Toxic Manosphere? Boomer? The Mansplainer?
Since we're all painfully aware Marvel comics, clearly, doesn't give a s***, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see a title like "The Adventures of Cuckold and Soyboy" appear in the near future.
Good God, this is like a South Park parody.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 21 Mar 2020, 00:46
I prefer to think of Snowflake and Safespace as the death rattle of an industry that may only have two months of life still remaining.
Looks like I was off by about two months.
https://www.comicsbeat.com/steve-geppi-announces-diamond-is-ceasing-the-distribution-of-new-weekly-product
Diamond is the only distributor of comics. If they, uh, stop distributing comics then that's ball game for the industry, y'all. This is it. Extinction Level Event.
First, Diamond folds. Then the retailers fold. After that, choose your own adventure in terms which order the publishers go out of business. One model is just as valid as another.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 23 Mar 2020, 23:28
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 21 Mar 2020, 00:46
I prefer to think of Snowflake and Safespace as the death rattle of an industry that may only have two months of life still remaining.
Looks like I was off by about two months.
https://www.comicsbeat.com/steve-geppi-announces-diamond-is-ceasing-the-distribution-of-new-weekly-product
Diamond is the only distributor of comics. If they, uh, stop distributing comics then that's ball game for the industry, y'all. This is it. Extinction Level Event.
First, Diamond folds. Then the retailers fold. After that, choose your own adventure in terms which order the publishers go out of business. One model is just as valid as another.
Twenty four hours later and I'm still royally p!ssed off about this. The comic book publishers, particularly Marvel, have been forcing all this woke bs down our throats for years in spite of a proven and undeniable history of record low sales. The industry has been hollowed out almost entirely to the point where Diamond, an effective monopoly, can't survive one bad week of worse-than-usual sales.
The NBA? I'm sure they're hurting right now but they'll survive this time of zero money. But Diamond couldn't withstand one week of very little money. That's how bad things were in what was left of the comic book biz.
So. Freaking. Angry!
The New Warriors announcement trailer on YouTube currently has 3.4k likes and 151k dislikes. Even the 2016 Ghostbusters trailer had a better like:dislike ratio than that. The video plays like a spoof and the comments underneath are hilarious. It's worth visiting the page just to read them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PCWUCv1rnU&feature=emb_logo
I'm seriously starting to wonder if this whole thing isn't some kind of elaborate April Fool's Day prank that leaked early. It's just too absurd to be real.
I just looked up Daniel Kibblesmith and saw this on his Wikipedia page.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRD0VNCF/1.png)
To whoever did this – well played.
At the rate things are going, I have no reason to assume that The New (Social Justice) Warriors by Neckbeard Kibblesmith will ever actually be published. But even if it does get published, cover prices being what they are, it's not even worth buying it for the lulz. Especially not in this economy.
The real lesson from all of this is that perhaps the comics industry deserves to go out of business.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 25 Mar 2020, 10:15
I just looked up Daniel Kibblesmith and saw this on his Wikipedia page.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRD0VNCF/1.png)
To whoever did this – well played.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/84IDOCTnpmLLy/source.gif)
Jim Lee is probably the most popular comic book artist in America. That's a position he's held for, what, 25 years? More? And he's spent the time in lockdown drawing detailed comic book art for auction to benefit comic book stores.
We just passed Day 20. That means he's drawn twenty fully-illustrated pages for auction.
I don't know who. But SOMEBODY needs to get fired for that. It's simply inexcusable.
Twenty days, twenty pages. The average comic book consists of about twenty pages, give or take. Lee could've drawn an entire comic book during this time, perhaps a juicy little one-shot, and DC could've charged retailers like $1 per copy and allowed them to sell it to customers for whatever cover price they see fit. That would've benefited retailers far more than the one-time handout they're getting right now.
It would've kept readers and collectors engaged. It would've been a statement to the rest of the industry that we're all still in the game.
Back in the early Image days, it was clear that Jim Lee was the most natural and the most savvy businessman in that whole crew. Silvestri wasn't bad but Lee was obviously the best of them. He knew what to say, he knew when to make a promise, he knew when to shut his mouth, etc. McFarlane has grown in office considerably. He's not quite the firebrand that he used to be. I guess a $330 million net worth does that for you. But back when Image was first starting up, McFarlane was a bomb-thrower par excellence.
Jim Lee never was. He needed time to get his feet wet as a publisher but he possessed a nigh intuitive understanding of how to run a company. So I desperately want to believe that it wasn't his idea to do stupid @$$ retailer charity. Rumor has it that his position at DC is and has always been basically ceremonial in nature. He is to DC what Stan Lee was to Marvel in the 90's; a powerless figurehead.
I never believed that until now. And now, I kind of hope it's true. Because the alternative is that wasting his time with stupid fundraising rather than COMIC BOOK PUBLISHING was his idea and that just pains me.
I've said before that the comic book industry wants to die. And I was only half-joking when I said it. But the truth could be more prosaic. It may turn out that the people in charge of running the industry are too incompetent to save it.
And somehow, that seems like the worse possibility.
Spot on. I like his art but don't know Jim Lee from a bar of soap to a length of rope. His heart is probably in the right place, but this is a dumb move. The focus should be on creating sustained success. Fundraisers and all that jazz are PR stunts that amount to nothing much in the long run. The Great Man put it well here:
(https://i.ibb.co/C75BgMw/025-E68-BE-6-FE5-41-F1-BC00-C2-D098-F9-FF20.jpg)
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 28 Apr 2020, 09:58
Spot on. I like his art but don't know Jim Lee from a bar of soap to a length of rope. His heart is probably in the right place, but this is a dumb move. The focus should be on creating sustained success. Fundraisers and all that jazz are PR stunts that amount to nothing much in the long run. The Great Man put it well here:
(https://i.ibb.co/C75BgMw/025-E68-BE-6-FE5-41-F1-BC00-C2-D098-F9-FF20.jpg)
The older I get, the more I believe that charity should alleviate one's present circumstances because they're unbearable. Like, somebody's house burns down so charity would help them find a new home.
But the idea of charity as ongoing welfare (A) breeds dependency and (B) is ineffectual, as Lennon suggests. One bad day is one thing. But bad life conditions are a problem that no level of charity can ever undo. Good on Lennon for calling that out. I never knew he said that but I applaud him for doing so.
I also never knew he tithed. That admission,
ahem, lends considerable credence to certain rumors about his attitudes and beliefs near the end of his life. Very interesting.
EDIT- One other thing. I'm also a critic of America's foreign aid. However, I recognize the purpose it's meant to survive. When America exports billions of dollars to other countries, it allows the American government to boss them around. They're on our dole and that means they have to play by our rules. It's good brinksmanship. If the purpose of the foreign aid was to actually alleviate poverty, it's obviously a failure. But if the purpose was to create an artificial dependency on American aid, it's an undeniable success.
I remain a critic of foreign aid because other countries should be free to make whatever policy decisions they believe to be in their best interests. I'm just saying that I understand foreign aid now better than I did back in the old days.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 28 Apr 2020, 13:18
I also never knew he tithed. That admission, ahem, lends considerable credence to certain rumors about his attitudes and beliefs near the end of his life. Very interesting.
Lennon was a complex individual and he would be disgusted with being pigeonholed as the 'Imagine singer'. I'm sure he'd tell these Z list celeb singalongers to F off. His back catalogue with the Beatles alone is monumental, and is even sidelined by focusing on that one song. And then there's his solo career.
I'd like to see someone with the balls to record God these days, which is incredibly cathartic to hear. False idols and myths torn down because it's all down to us to get things done. Which leads me to say this: there are no real ARTISTS today with anything important to say. And on the rare occasion they do, it's not communicated satisfactorily.
Give this whole video a listen, it's not very long, where he lays out how his thought processes evolved from being a 'teeny bopper' to a 40 years old. His cynical honesty has always been an inspiration to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=387&v=8vGYNPDSjSc&feature=emb_title
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 28 Apr 2020, 13:18
The older I get, the more I believe that charity should alleviate one's present circumstances because they're unbearable. Like, somebody's house burns down so charity would help them find a new home.
But the idea of charity as ongoing welfare (A) breeds dependency and (B) is ineffectual, as Lennon suggests. One bad day is one thing. But bad life conditions are a problem that no level of charity can ever undo. Good on Lennon for calling that out. I never knew he said that but I applaud him for doing so.
Everyone wants a buck and a dime. Money for fires. Money for floods. Money for the Chinese Virus. Money for the aliens that arrive next year, and vagrants with a hat out on the sidewalk. Sorry, but I've got to have something left for myself, and I'll spend my money how I please. Giving money for a daily hot dog and Coke doesn't change a circumstance, it just keeps the problem there for another day.
Quote from: thecolorsblend
Diamond is the only distributor of comics. If they, uh, stop distributing comics then that's ball game for the industry, y'all. This is it. Extinction Level Event.
First, Diamond folds. Then the retailers fold. After that, choose your own adventure in terms which order the publishers go out of business. One model is just as valid as another.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/heat-vision/dc-cuts-ties-diamond-comic-distribution-1297309
What do you make of this? Is this a catastrophic decision?
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 6 Jun 2020, 06:53
Quote from: thecolorsblend
Diamond is the only distributor of comics. If they, uh, stop distributing comics then that's ball game for the industry, y'all. This is it. Extinction Level Event.
First, Diamond folds. Then the retailers fold. After that, choose your own adventure in terms which order the publishers go out of business. One model is just as valid as another.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/heat-vision/dc-cuts-ties-diamond-comic-distribution-1297309
What do you make of this? Is this a catastrophic decision?
I applaud DC for having stronger survival instincts than I first surmised. I still don't think there's any saving the industry at this point. But DC's management have shown that they have some fight in them. Anything that destroys a monopoly is A-okay as far as I'm concerned.