Marvel Universe >> View Post
Post By
Blue Beetle

In Reply To

Subj: Re: Disagree, Re: Fave Character + Good Art = Must Buy?
Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 07:33:04 am EDT (Viewed 91 times)
Reply Subj: Disagree, Re: Fave Character + Good Art = Must Buy?
Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:11:49 am EDT (Viewed 86 times)

> I don't really think that's the case at all. I think for most readers, it's 1)character, 2) writer, 3) artist.

Can't possibly be the case. Books with poor writing sell great.

> That's not really the case. Loeb has written some great stories (according to the majority of fans), and has only recently been delivering some bad stories. Long Halloween, Dark Victory, Man for All Seasons, Superman/Batman, color minis, and many more were all well received by the fans. Compare that to the Ultimates and Red Hulk, the only stories so far that have been bad.

And "Hush." Three lemons. I also found the writing to be poor on Superman/Batman. The artist saved that book. But here's the thing: the Red Hulk stuff is selling well. Why? Can't be the writing. What else is left?

> But I would certainly agree that the characters he writes and the artists he works with has helped sell the comics. I just don't think it's accurate to dismiss him entirely.

If the writing is poor and the book sells, then it must be the character and the art that matter.

> There might be a few cases where your idea is true, I think its a very small number.
> There are certain writers who the fans like that always sell great, regardless of the artists attached, examples would include Bendis, Johns, Brubaker, Morrison, and many others. On the other hand, you have popular artists that don't sell very well when attached to bad writers, like Perez on Brave and the Bold.

Bendis, Johns, Brubaker, and Morrison are usually put on top characters with top artists. But look at Morrison's Seven Soldiers of Victory - not exactly a sales bonanza.

> New and Mighty Avengers is going to (I think) have Billy Tan and Khoi Pham as the new regular artist. Those series will continue to sell because of the characters, and because of the writer.

Those artists are popular. Not to the level of Jim Lee, but they're popular.

> Another example would be the current JLA series. The series has had the same artist on (Benes) with the same characters, but when Meltzer left, the book dropped in sales. The only change was the writer.

The book was already dropping at the point Meltzer left. It had restarted at number one. That restart artificially spiked sales. What we're seeing now is the natural sales level for those characters and that artist.

> Or you could look at creator owned comics. Those are always promoted by the name of the writer instead of the artist. BKV's Y the Last Man and Ex Machina, Ennis's Preacher, Gaimen's Sandman, etc.

None of these sell greatly. They get critical acclaim but not high sales. (I'm limiting my comments to the monthly pamphlets. I believe some of these may sell well as TPB's.)

> The current Buffy series is a perfect example of my ranking system. Buffy is the primary selling point, but having writers like Whedon and BKV is the second selling point. Georges Jeanty was a mediocre artist (in terms of sells).

That comic doesn't sell greatly as a monthly pamphlet. It may sell tremendously as a TPB. I don't know.