The Point

I think most people understood what I meant with my "prediction" for how the Marvel Universe was going to change, but clearly not everyone did, as this comment shows:

Is your point that the Marvel Zombies would blindly buy books with the same titles as their favorites regardless of the actual content?

Yeah... no.

My point is that "shocking revelations" that "change the Marvel Universe" tend to neither be shocking nor change very much in the long run, so the only way Marvel could truly surprise me is to drop superhero stories altogether and strongly push comics set in other genres.

But they won't, of course. Despite being the largest American comics company, Marvel is also the most conservative. No matter how many times they threaten to "really shake things up," the stories will never really change because Marvel will never stray too far from their bread and butter: superheroes. I can tick off on one hand the number of comics they publish that DON'T, in some way, feature superheroes (and all of those are adaptations of established properties).

Even last year, when they ran tribute books to other genres Marvel used to publish (Romance, Western and "Monster"), the books all ALSO had to feature some established superhero. It couldn't just be Devil Dinosaur, it had to be a Devil Dinosaur vs. The Hulk.*

And this is a problem because Marvel dominates the American comics field and what they SAY is comics, is comics. And as long as Marvel refuses to change, then the medium and the audience for that medium stagnates. Even if superheroes are your biggest selller, publishing superheroes exclusively tells everyone not interested in men in tights that comics as a whole are not for them, and that's suicidal.

For example, "Spider-Man 3" is going to be Sony's biggest movie this year, but that doesn't mean Sony is going to do just Spider-Man movies, or even just superhero movies. That would be insane! Most people would stop seeing Sony films, and if Sony made up half the movie industry by itself, most people would stop seeing movies altogether!

Even DC Comics, which admittedly publishes mostly superhero stuff, has in the last year alone published two western on-goings, a war comic or two, a bunch of fantasy/horror through their Vertigo imprint, a Looney Tunes comic, distributed the CMX line of manga, and launched MINX, which feature teenage girl protagonists.

So there's at least one major publisher pushing different genres, giving top writers and artists the chance to tell stories about anything else to an audience that likes the medium but might not be that into superhero stories. Where's Marvel's Pride of Bagdad? Their Plain Janes? Heck, it's been over twenty years, where's their Sandman?

As for actually turning Amazing Spider-Man into Picture Perfect, I guess I had a second point. I believe Marvel Zombies AREN'T actually that interested in superheroes. They're interested in specific characters and relationships. Which is why Marvel books sell fifty thousand copies and other companies' superhero books maybe sell ten, regardless of perceived quality. And by stripping away the flashy costumes and superpowers, Marvel might be able to prove to their audience that, not only could they enjoy a romantic comedy book, they're already reading one!

It's just been hiding behind a mask.


*The book itself was extremely good, I should say. I was just using it as an example.

What's Wrong With "Fun"?

Everything that's wrong with the current market for superhero comics, in one sentence:

“Fun” automatically kills off a lot of your sales.

says Mark Waid in this interview at Comic Book Resources (hat tip, Graeme McMillan at Blog@Newsarama).

Geez, that's depressing. I really love FUN superhero stories (including Waid and George Perez's The Brave and the Bold) and to hear that fun books aren't viable because the general comics buying audience isn't interested, is in fact repulsed by fun, is just baffling and disheartening.

I can't imagine NOT wanting to read a book my friends tell me is enjoyable, saying "Oh, I don't want to read Marvel Adventures: Avengers. I might be entertained!"

It seems "fun" and "interesting" are not the same thing to most comics fans. Judging from sales charts, the comics buying audience wants books about familiar superheroes, preferably acting in large groups, in stories that will have "repercussions" on later books. And since a "fun" book sounds like the opposite of a "serious" book that has "serious consequences", I guess most buyers don't feel "fun" books are worth spending money on.

But what's the point, then? Why buy crossover books that feature your favorite characters if you're not actually enjoying the books you're reading? If it's just to catch up with the characters, well, that's what the internet is for! And the internet is free!

And, once you've freed your wallet from the shackles of continuity porn, you can spend your hard-earned money on truly rewarding reading experiences, like Manhunter, The All-New Atom, Blue Beetle and, for the love of God, The Brave and the Bold. And if you're worried that "fun" isn't for you, well, a wise little bull said it best:

One thing I noticed is that the comics I like best are fun. That doesn't mean that they're funny (tho' they can be) or all have happy endings or are all written 'specially for kids (or even little stuffed bulls), but just that they are fun to read and when you turn the last page you can't wait to get next month's issue! John once described this as a comic that has a "sense of awe and wonder" and I guess that is as good a way as any to describe it. But I would describe it this way: COMICS OUGHTA BE FUN!

Salt Lick

Comments like this make me angry:

I bought WWIII because I thought it would give me some answers on what happened in OYL.

I bought all of Infinite Crisis, Identity Crisis, all of 52 so far, and will probably buy all WWIII garbage too.

Then my collection of how DC went into the toilet will be complete.

So let me get this straight, he bought World War III because he wanted to get answers to continuity questions, then complains that it's nothing but answers to continuity questions? And somehow that's DC's fault? It makes my head hurt!

First off, it's hard to say DC is "going down the toilet" the same week they release The Spirit, Manhunter, and The Brave and Bold, and a week after they put out All-Star Superman. They clearly can and do produce quality books. And one can't fault a company for releasing books like this when "fans" buy them no matter what; fans more interested in accumulating facts about fictional people's lives than in reading, y'know, good stories about characters.

If this disgruntled fan truly didn't approve of this material, why did he buy it? It seemed clear that WWIII was always going to be what Jog calls Gonzo Continuity Porn, moments of explanation without context, subtext, or meaning of any kind. That's why I didn't buy it, (and from what I've read, I'm glad I didn't. Thanks, BB!)

Continuity, to me, is the by-product of having ongoing characters in a shared universe setting turned into its own form of communication. Sure, continuity's great, if it enhances a story, but it's not a story in and of itself. It's like salt, a flavoring, and WWIII is a salt lick.

Fans like this guy are addicted to salt, asking for more and more until the original flavor of the story is buried under the same seasoning. Then they complain that everything tastes like salt and their blood pressure is too high. Yes, DC's going to keep giving you salt as long as you keep buying it, but they offer healthy alternatives. In fact, they really, really want you to try their healthy alternatives. So it's just not DC's fault when you have your heart attack!

Week after Week after Week...

From a superhero comics industry point of view, the story of 2006 is 52.

It's a huge hit, and it flies in the face of most of the trends of superheroes, In age where only name hero books sell, massive production delays, and "waiting for the trade," DC managed to put out a comic book, without missing a single ship date, starring third and fourth string characters, that managed to get over 100,000 fans to go into the shop EVERY WEEK to pick up the new issues as they come out. It's even managed to get some big outside attention for introducing new characters, bringing, hopefully, maybe a few new people into the comics shops.

But is it an aberration, a blip in the face of an adverse tide, or could it be a sign of things to come? That is, could the success of 52 be duplicated? I'm split:

No, it cannot:

1. 52 is a novelty act. A lot of the early attention to it was they fact that it was new. "FOUR all-star writers!" "Rotating artists!" "Real-time storytelling!" "A new issue, EVERY WEEK!" "Never before attempted! Can we do it? or will we CRASH AND BURN?" Well, now we know it CAN be done, and done reasonably well, so the morbid curiosity has worn off.

2. 52 is a limited series. Over 100,000 readers are willing to commit an extra $2.50 a month to watch the experiment in action, but I doubt they are willing to commit it indefinitely. But once enough people had invested in 16 or so issues (the standard 3 month trial period), people could justify sticking it out until the end. An ongoing would suffer a lot more reader attrition.

3. 52 has "importance." Coming directly out of Infinite Crisis and the One Year Later launch, 52 "lays the groundwork" for the "new" DC Universe. Any and every DC Comics fan feels a need to read 52 just to know what the future of their favorite sandbox is going to look like.

Yes, it can:

1. First off, 52 proved a weekly series CAN be done at all. Now that we know that it can be done, publishers can try refining the process down, actually improving it and taking full advantage of the new pacing possibilities allowed.

2. 52 starred non-name characters, and has MADE them important. Which shows the viability of characters that may not be able to support a title on their own, but can be combined to create new and interesting stories (and WITHOUT making them fight crime together on an arbitrarily defined super-team).

3. 52 is not really that much of a crossover. Thanks to the One Year Later launch, it takes place in its own little temporal world. Most of the DC U books have been able to put out nine issues since last March that didn't require ANY knowledge of 52 to understand. And 52 doesn't make you read any other books to understand the story. Any future weekly series could be exactly as isolated from the other books, or it could be even further tied into the larger universe!

I mean, let's face it; 52 is too big a success for DC (and Marvel) NOT to try to replicate its success. So the only real question is how could they improve on it (Ignoring generic suggestions like "better art" and "better writing")? What's the strength of a weekly series, and what production or editing decisions can be made to best take advantage of those strengths? What's the weakness, and how can it be shored up?

...Well?

Fixing Civil War

I was enjoying Marvel's Civil War. The basic premises, a conflict between security and individual rights played out as a literal battle between established superheroes, and how honorable people can end up violently disagreeing over important issues, are very strong and the art is very pretty. However, there have been MAJOR problems that have turned me off the whole thing.

And it didn't need to be that way. Here's how I would solve the problems of Civil War. (Nope, no hubris here).

1. The production delays. Yes, these are a problem. And whether by delaying the whole series until the late summer, to give Steve McNiven more time to draw, or calling in a fill-in artist, or simply not delaying other major titles so as not to spoil the shocking, shocking (ultimately, not that shocking) reveals, the delays should have been anticipated and dealt with. Personally, I would have disentangled it from the Marvel universe proper until it was resolved or almost resolved.

2. More to problems in the story itself, I'd make the Superhero Registration Act damned specific. Right now it's a vague mess. And if the debate is security vs. privacy, which it should be, the law should be a strongly enforced anti-vigilantism law, because, honestly, if you're using your mutant powers to bake cupcakes, who cares, but if you're just a regular joe using M-60s to mow down Mafia goombas, I think the police would like a word with you. Then the debate becomes whether superhumans have the right to take the law into their own hands without accountability to the public, and then, if you agree that they need to be watched, well, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

3. As a corollary, the opening incident needs to be the direct result of the superhero committing a crime in the name of justice, and innocent people dying because of it. As it stands now, the New Warriors, funded by a television company and being documented by their own news crew, failed to stop a bad guy from killing lots of people. It is hard to see how the New Warriors could have been MORE public and MORE accountable, considering most of them died trying to save lives and there is still a major corporation that can be sued for damages, and being restrained by the law would NOT have prevented the explosion.

If I were writing Civil War, the Stamford Incident would have been caused by any of Marvel's monstrous or murderous anti-heroes beating Nitro to death, releasing his explosive energy in a civilian setting. In my dream scenario, it's Ghost Rider, who uses his penance stare to make Nitro go boom, so that only he remains in the burnt out field, charred bodies all around him. (Now he has to lam it on his bike every time the super authorities catch up with him, but can he out run his own guilt? But that's my pitch for a GR ongoing, and I digress...) So instead of heroes dying before they can prevent a mad man from killing, we have an immortal demon chasing vengeance regardless of the human cost... and THAT could get some people talking about new laws and new enforcement.

4. Captain America is the conscience of the Marvel Universe. Once he picked a side, it was all over. So I'd switch Captain America's and Spider-Man's positions, making Spider-Man the anti-reg leader and Cap the conflicted supporter/patsy of Iron Man. Yeah, it's America torn by Civil War, but even with the cliché, it works. It also makes more sense that Tony Stark would court his old friend and long-time ally, the universally beloved World War II hero Steve Rogers, to be the face of his campaign, rather than the publicly reviled Spider-Man, who Tony Stark may have worked with before but barely knows. And I could imagine Cap. America, Iron Man, and Reed Richards (the daddies of MU) making a good case that the kids can't just run around breaking things unsupervised.

It also puts Spider-Man in a more interesting position. More than anyone else (except maybe Matt "Daredevil" Murdock) Spider-Man knows the dangers of having his identity exposed. At the same time, Peter is hardly used to working on a team. What will he do when he has the power and responsibility of leading others into battle? Is openly flaunting a law putting his family in less danger or more? It also opens up class questions (Rich (Iron) Man/Poor (Spider) Man) and age gap issues.

5. I wouldn't put all the assholes on one side. The pro-registration side could have a very strong case, if they were not also so into throwing their friends into concentration camps, hiring mass murderers to hunt down people who have broken no laws but disagree with them, and play Odin by trying to clone gods. Not that superheroes can't make mistakes or be wrong, but shouldn't both sides be guilty of doing terrible things? Wouldn't it make more sense for the side without public and government support to be doing the more desperate, ethically questionable things? (so far, the worst thing they've done is let the Punisher save Spider-Man's life).

6. And less "shocks". The conflict is strong enough to carry seven issues without reveals like Thor, Clone of Thunder, the all new Suicide Squad Thunderbolts, and Dark Speedball. All that does is distract from the main idea, the underlying moral conflict. I know it's the major crossover, tying into tons of books and launching more than a few series, but the story would be better served by paring down the "moments" and leaving more space for character work and emotional beats.

So, to re-cap,

1. Cut it off from the rest of superhero books, for now.

2. Clarify that the debate is over vigilantism, and who watches whom.

3. Have the catalyst explosion be caused by over-zealous, not incompetent, super "heroes."

4. Put the moral center of the universe in the center of the conflict.

5. Morally compromise both sides, especially the less powerful side.

6. Get rid of the stupid stuff.

Oh, wait, that's Kingdom Come.

Is Twelve Issues a Year Too Much to Ask?

That probably reads more sarcastic than I intend. It should be read "Is twelve issues a year too much to ask?"

Should we expect the average professional penciler to be able to produce (12 x 22) 264 finished pages every year? Which is roughly a page every work day, with weekends and holidays factored in.

I know some guys can do it, like Scott McDaniel, Phil Hester, and Jim "The Talent" Balent, who, say what you will about what he chose to draw, managed to draw 79 straight issues of Catwoman without a fill in artist, and that's a pretty impressive run. (why yes, I do own all 79 issues. Why do you ask?)

And I know you're going to say Jack Kirby did that on 5 titles on a time, but c'mon, he's Jack Fucking Kirby. Larry Bird could sink a three-pointer from half court, but that doesn't mean the Celtics expect any of their current players to be able to do that.

Most artists today, I think, just cannot do that. And frankly, I don't think we should even expect it.

I mean, it's easy for us on the clattering keyboard side to say, "yes, that's what they're paid for," but I know from (vicarious) experience that pencilling is hard-ass work. On top of the creative time spent with the blank page, figuring out panel lay-out and blocking each scene, making sure the flow is right and the narrative clear, there's the actual craft of drawing, filling in each line and curve, rendering each face to be distinct, making the background feel both real and at the same time out of focus. And the more detailed, the harder it is to make and the longer it takes to produce.

And while a mini-series can be given the lead time needed to account for an artist's speed, ANY head start will eventually catch up to a penciller on an open ended book. So we have three options for an on-going book (if you can think of any others options, please let me know). You can stick to the 12 months, rain or shine, schedule, and just be prepared to drop a fill-in issue or two in, either stand alone or not, or you can work the schedule around the artist, or you only hire artists who value the deadline over the art.

And I don't know what's the right thing to do. Do you?

It Had to Be Said #4b

God dammit, Dr. Obvious, stop making good points.

He said, and I quote:

if the lion's share of the revenue is going to be coming from licensing, going for fewer, high quality issues could well support that better than more, lower quality issues.

I agree with that one hundred percent.

I really think that the future of comics publishing is a move away from periodical, serialized magazines and towards more original graphic novels. Not that the floppies will ever go away entirely, but there probably will be a lot less of them, particularly from the bigger companies.

And since original graphic novels will be a lot more self contained, telling complete stories in one volume with less reference to other works, missing the on-sale date because of production delays won't matter as much. Publishers will have more incentive to try to produce the best content possible rather than hit their own artificial deadlines.

Deadlines will still matter, from a marketing point of view, just like they do in print publishing. A book that will sell a ton before Christmas can't be delayed to January 1st, for example. But unlike today, the delay of one book will only hurt the sales of that book, so a publisher could afford to let one or two books release late for the sake of quality.

Today, however, superhero comics from the Big Two don't work like that. Instead, the work a lot more like network television shows: Ongoing, episodic fiction. Like TV shows, comics are meant to be enjoyed now. Entertain you this month (or this week) and there will be a new one to take its place next week. In this analogy, the publishers are the show producers, the retailers like the networks (I'm simplifying for the sake of analogy, don't slow me down with the facts).

Now, if Lost was delayed suddenly, because J.J. Abrams got writer's block, or a hurricane hit Hawaii and destroyed the set, or Evangeline Lilly got sick, ABC would be in trouble. To be deprived of the revenue from the advertising on their BIGGEST show AND to lose the platform to promote and launch other shows would really hurt the network, and they would have every right to demand Bad Robot a) get a new writer, b)build a new set as quickly as possible and c)write around Kate for a few episodes. And that's just equivalent to Superman/Batman being late.

Civil War is much worse. Civil War is a Law and Order sweeps three-parter spanning the main show and the two spin-offs in which Jack McCoy is shot, Det. Munch moves back to Baltimore, and Det. Goran is promoted to Captain. If that three parter was delayed by two months, NBC would be in a world of shit. That's THREE major shows indefinitely postponed, at something like the last minute. So that's three hours they have to fill on three different nights. There is no way, NO WAY, NBC would allow Dick Wolf to get away with a problem like that.

Television shows are, however, already set up to hit their deadlines. They have multiple writers, huge teams of ten or sometimes twenty, who work together to pump out scripts, and multiple directors who take turns guiding episodes from script to stage to screen. There's large enough cast of characters that some weeks you can focus on B because character A (or actor A) needs to be off screen for a bit. And multiple ongoing plots and sub-plots so that you can resolve some one week and leave others open to keep viewers interested. There maybe one executive producer/head writer to keep everything together and a consistent tone, but basically they get a lot of people working together so that they can guarantee their retailer, the network, that there will be 22 products a year, rain or shine.*

And as long a comics are going to be produced and sold in episodic installments like they are, that is, as long as they are going to mimic the television plan rather than the book publishing plan, then they are going to need to be able to make a similar guarantee. Maybe in the future they can have a little more freedom, but for now, deadlines mean everything.

hmmm... team of writers, rotating directors, large cast with interweaving plotlines. Why does that sound familiar...?



*This is, by the way, how almost EVERY show on television operates from The Sopranos on down, so don't tell me this hurts the quality of a television show.

It Had to Be Said #4a

The goal of a comic book company is still to sell comic books (even if the majority of their revenue comes from licenses and toy sales).

In response to my last post on the comic book business, Dr. Obvious makes the, um, obvious point:

Sadly though, Marvel doesn't make its money off selling books. It makes its money from license deals. See my post here to see exactly why book sales really don't matter to them. Sadly, this isn't true for retailers, like you said.

True, Marvel makes most of its money from licensing and toys, that's been true since the early '80s at least.

But publishing is still a large chunk of their revenue, so it still matters.

Just looking at the report Dr. Obvious linked to, Marvel made $25.1 million off publishing alone last quarter. Toys and licensing combined equal $65.3 million, so publishing is still over 27% of their total revenue.

That's a lot to endanger with a blown deadline like this, especially at a time when licensing revenue is down.

I am not trying to be chicken little. I really don't think anyone is going to lose their store over this, though it may be tight for some.

But if this isn't a one time thing, or if Marvel AND DC had both allowed their entire lines to slip due to one book coming out late, then a lot of stores would be in trouble, and Marvel today cannot survive without them.

The retail sales alone make Marvel a lot of money. Additionally, the single issue sales support the trades sold in (regular) book stores. No periodical sales, no trade sales. And there goes 25% of their revenue right there. That's deadly.

Even if they could somehow survive a 25% drop in revenue, they can't just fold up the publishing wing and become a storehouse for intellectual property. The comics still provide the ideas for future licensing opportunities and toy designs. No direct market, no new comics. No new comics, no new toys, no new movies, and no new TV shows.

The comics on the retailers' shelves, at least for now, are still the foundation of Marvel Comics as a business. They may not be the majority of the building, but take away those sales and the whole business falls.

It Had to Be Said #4

The goal of a comic book company is to sell comic books.

The goal isn't to make art, or even tell a good story. It certainly isn't to keep your imaginary friends alive.

A comic book publisher wants to, nay, needs to, sell books.

If that means putting subjectively bad but objectively popular artists on covers because more people will buy it, fine.

If that means occasionally pandering to immature fanboy sensibilities, fine.

If that means cosmetically changing a character to better match their more popular movie or TV incarnation, fine.

Even if that means canceling a much loved, well reviewed book because it isn't selling and is therefore losing money, fine.

Does that mean they shouldn't even try to put out a good comic? Of course not, because the long term goals of selling books and making money depend on making art, telling a good story, and, yes, keeping your imaginary friends alive. But in the short term, compromises sometimes have to be made.

If only there was a good example, some bit of news that hit today that could best illustrate my point...

Ah yes, Civil War is going to ship one month and two months late, and take four or five popular titles with it, so as not to spoil events in the main book.

Compare that to Infinite Crisis, which went to multiple artists and, by issue 7, un-inked art, in order to have the books ship on time. (Or close to on-time, I'm not sure. I think it slipped but I'm not sure by how much). What was important was that, like Civil War, Infinite Crisis tied into a lot of books, and if it had missed its ship dates, it would have thrown off the One Year Later launch and 52, which were both successes.

The publishers at Marvel chose quality art over business concerns. Those at DC chose to place the sales of the rest of their line over the quality of their flagship book. Which was the right choice?

As a fan, of course, I hope for nothing but the finest quality in the comics I buy. And as any fan of Astonishing X-Men knows, sometimes you just gotta wait. I'm pretty sure I'll be waiting for Seven Soldiers #1 for the next five years. And it will be worth it. And though I enjoyed the series overall, I was honestly disappointed with Infinite Crisis #7.

However, Brian Hibbs and every retailer who is pissed off right now are absolutely right! Some books you wait for. Your MASSIVE company-wide crossover is not one of them. It must ship, rain or shine, because too many other books depend on it. Even if you're sure you'll get the sales later, comic book stores operating on thin profit margins may not be able to wait for later. Deny them sales too often, and they go out of business, then you don't have a place to sell your late-ass but perfect books, and then you go out of business. And then all my imaginary friends die with you.

Business HAS TO come first. HAS TO. Nobody likes to put out a bad book but it's sometimes put out a bad book now or lose your opportunity to put out a good book later. That means hitting your deadlines, even if you think the book isn't perfect. That means selling to the audience that already exists. That means putting out stories like everybody else is doing because that's what sells. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT SELLS and in the short term that's how you stay alive.

BUT... that only keeps you alive for today. If you still want to be around tomorrow, you ALSO have to try new and different stories, experimenting with genre, structure, style, tone. You also have to try to expand or create new audiences. You also have to give some artists a little more creative freedom because they just aren't going to make deadline. You have to try to create good art.

Because that's how you make the real money!

[Edit: Declarative Rabbit says in one sentence what I tried to get across in the whole long post.]

It Had to Be Said #3

Crisis on Infinte Earths did not fail in its goal of creating a simpler universe that new readers could understand.

Crisis on Infinite Earths succeeded in its goal of creating a more complicated universe that took better advantage of all the toys that DC had to play with.

Consider, if the purpose of the book was to simplify the universe, they should have just wiped out everything and started over from the beginning. Said THIS is the first appearance of Batman, everything that came before doesn't matter. (With Superman, they kind of did do that, but with the Man of Steel miniseries, not COIE, and it didn't take).

Instead, Marv Wolfman basically said, "You know the past 50 years of comics, spread out over three companies and innumerable separate titles? Yeah, almost all of those stories happened, but all in the same place and over a period of about 10 years." Does that sound like he was even trying to make things simpler?

No, what he was trying to do was create a world where THIS was possible:


Now, you can either start each issue explaining why Dr. Fate and Captain Marvel are on Earth 1 and just which Batman that is, exactly, or you can just accept that they are all from the same Earth and just go from there. Which would you prefer?

Then there's the fact that ongoing books sell better when they are tied to other, more successful ongoing books. It's one thing to read about Uncle Sam and the Freedom Fighters. But interest is peaked and sales are higher if you know that, at any moment, Wonder Woman might stop by. That's the main reason the Charlton characters were brought into the DC Universe, rather than be relaunched with Watchmen. (On the other hand, somewhere in Hypertime there's a 20 year old ongoing series set in the Watchmen universe, still written by Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons).

Besides, there's a lot of arrogance that goes into the thought that the DC U needed to be simplified, or still needs to be simplified, for new readers. Remember, we were all new readers, once, and unless you've been collecting since Action Comics #1, there was some piece of backstory you didn't know when you first sat down. Somehow it didn't stop you from having fun, why should it stop someone else? Anyone could understand parallel earths, anyone could understand unified earth, I'm pretty sure everyone will be able to grasp Earth-New.

No, if there's a problem with getting new readers to enjoy current comics, it lies not with the rich, confusing history created by Crisis on Infinte Earths, but with current comic not using that history properly. Comics too worried about correcting, contradicting, clarifying, or simply copying the comics of the past, and not worried enough about creating new stories, new histories, for the comics of the future.

There, it had to be said.

Ads

I bought four comics today (reviews to come).

While I enjoyed all four, what caught my eye the most was what I found on the back of the DC books this week:

A Ponitac Solstice ad.

A car ad. For a $20,000 car. On the back of a Batman comic book.

Someone, somewhere, thought that someone reading Batman, or Manhunter, or, (I'm guessing) Robin might be in the market for a mid-range priced car.

About time. About time someone put money down on the proposition that adults read superhero comic books. Successful adults at that.

As I was leaving the local comics store, I passed three men in business suits. There were lots of people in the store, coming from a range of socio-economic backgrounds. I'm not sure everyone in the store could afford to buy a car, but they were all old enough to drive one.

Compare that to She-Hulk. The plot is about a rape trial, which is a perfectly good plot for the book. But the ads are for candy, video games, action figures, and more candy. The ad going for the oldest demographic is The Benchwarmers, the latest Rob Schneider movie, which is capping out at 15, most. If you're young enough to want a Ring-Pop, you're not old enough to read this book.

So for all out moaning that comics aren't just for kids anymore, and haven't been for decades, nothing will really change until more people are willing to put their money where there mouth is and pony up the dough. So the Pontiac ad is a good start.

One day I honestly hope to see a comic book with ads for shaving equipment, retirement options, and Viagra pills. Maybe then I'll believe comics aren't just for kids.

Who Owns "Superhero"?

Over at Boing Boing, Cory Doctorow is in a foul mood over the fact that Marvel and DC forced GeekPunk, a small, independent comics publisher, to take the word "superhero" out of the title of their flag ship title, because they copyrighted the word "superhero."

Now, I agree with Cory, and Scipio Garling at the Absorbascon, that it's a really pissy move and spurious claim, bullying by the larger companies. "Superhero Happy Hour" is unlikely to be confused with any product put out by Marvel or DC, and since neither company actually produces a product called "Superhero," I don't really see what leg they have to stand on.

However, Cory and Scipio seem terrified of Marvel and DC becoming the word Gestapo, hording the good words and ideas for themselves in a megolomaniacal attempt to control the comic book market. That somehow they are making GeekPunk stop producing their title all together and get out of the superhero comics game.

Which is just not happening. All they can attempt to claim control of is the title. The contents of the book remain entirely out of their hands. It's how DC gets away with having one of their biggest and most popular characters be named "Captain Marvel." Because Marvel can't control the word "marvel," any more than they can control the word "superhero," "hero," "flight," or "punch." They just can't.

So, boo on DC and Marvel for being mean. But also, calm down guys. In the long run, this won't change the content or the quality of the retitled "Hero Happy Hour," changing the title won't hurt sales, and all the press generated from these stories will actually help bring attention to the book. If I was a small publisher, and I knew the big companies could be appeased by changing the title in issue 4, I'd be naming my books "Spider-Hombre" and "Super-Dude," just to get sued.

Seriously, sue me.