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 06:51:47 pm EDT (Viewed 98 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Disagree, Re: Fave Character + Good Art = Must Buy?
Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:06:07 pm EDT (Viewed 106 times)

> > > People liked Hush, and it was good for what it was.
> >
> > They liked it because it was Batman + Jim Lee.
> >
> When it was Superman and Jim Lee the next year with a different writer, people didn't like the story and it dropped dramatically in sales.

Superman isn't nearly as popular as Batman. The Jim Lee fans eventually got bored.

> > No I won't. The artist is popular and there's a Hulk appearing. It will sell no matter what.
> How did the Hulk sell when Deodato was on art? Not that great.

Was this the Bruce Jones period? The Hulk rarely appeared.

> > You lost me. The comic you mention is Batman + Jim Lee. It had to sell and it does. It's also Frank Miller, who has some sort of weird cult status. But he lost a lot of his rep with the second Dark Knight book. Even so, the book must sell, and it does. It's Batman + Jim Lee.
> The comparison fits because they are both books with A-list artists, with popular characters, with popular writers, and people complain that both books suck. Yet both sell great.

And why do people complain the book sucks? The character? No. The art? No. The writing? Bingo. Yet the book sells any way. This is precisely my point. Were you intending to agree with me?

> > "Look! It's the Red Hulk!"
> > (clobber)
> > "Who was that guy?"
> >
> > That's the entire plot of the first four issues of the comic. This is poor craftsmanship.
> He knows exactly what he is doing, and his stories are usally written very well from a structural standpoint. The fact that you don't like his stories is something different.

The above is too simplistic to be considered good from a craftsmanship perspective. It is fanfic. But nobody cares except message board types like me. A smashing Hulk depicted by a good artist will sell.

> > OK. I'll set that aside. Unfortunately there aren't any other examples to use, because Morrison is always handed top properties and top artists. He can't fail. He could phone it in and sell big numbers.
> How about Grant Morrison and Tony Daniels on Batman? Tony Daniels wasn't exactly an A-list artist.

But Tony Daniels is a good artist. He will eventually be A-List. Meanwhile it's Batman. Good art plus Batman must sell.

> How different is the style between Billy Tan and Jim Calafiore? I would think that they have similar styles, yet one is an unpopular artist.

I don't know either one well enough to comment. But if we're talking Avengers, that's Spider-Man + Wolverine + Avengers. That book can't fail. The character popularity mojo is too extreme. Even the art could be poor and it would still sell.

> The artists on the Avengers books have been pretty valid, so I don't see your point here.

Pretty valid? I don't understand.

> > People obviously saw it as a good jumping off point. Previous arc was over.
> Ok, if that's the case, then story plays a part in people's decision to pick up a book, and it's a pretty big part. Yet you never mentioned it in your criteria before?

Oh come on. There's a difference between "story" in the sense of whether an arc is starting or finishing, and writing.

> But in reality, people picked up the book because of Meltzer, and they dropped it when he left. When Marvel sells the tpbs for these books, the biggest name is Brad Meltzer (or Whedon), they even create a bookstore version of the tpbs (as opposed to just a comicstore version) that has the writers names taking up half the cover.
> When you see the creative team on a comic, which name is first? Which creator has the most influence on a title?

These are questions message board types like you and me find relevant. I believe we're different from the average fan.

Here - let me give you a chance to offer your own hypothesis. Why do books that are torn to shreds on these boards sell well?

> But still, I find your original belief that most people dismiss the writers to be wrong.

I can show you books that are very well written yet sell poorly - pick almost any Vertigo title. I guess you'd say they don't sell because they lack a popular character, and you'd be right.

Are there any books with popular characters, great writing, and putrid art? If there are, and they sell, I guess I'll have to reconsider. Your Buffy example might be applicable if the art is putrid. Is it?

> Besides Loeb (who you obviously dislike), can you name another writer for your example?

Most writers are acceptable. That was one of my original points. Bendis on New Avengers has been laughably bad on numerous occasions. Made no difference and couldn't. Spider-Man + Wolverine + Avengers is too much character popularity mojo. Talented grammar school kids could produce that comic. It would sell well.

Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software