Will we ever experience another Marvel Comics success? 2 2

[shadroch]

 I read somewhere that Marvel published more Kirby books per month after he left ( with no compensation to him) than they ever did while he was with them.

You'd think after going bankrupt and destroying the market once, they might have learned their lesson, but that's not to be.

[Mercury Man]

16 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

That's a key right there. I was looking at sales figure over in Comics Beat,and I was shocked to see all the top comic books like Spider-Man,X-men,Avengers,IronMan,Batman,Superman and others are all way down in sales from 2007. This is after the superhero movie boom. You would think after billion dollar blockbuster movies and hype that comic sales would be up for the top comic books,but the opposite has happened in that most of the top sellers are down from 20% to 50% from a decade ago.

How does that happen? That's so 

Here is one of many links over there about sales continuing to fall.

Diamond: no sign of a sales rebound in July numbers.

http://www.comicsbeat.com/diamond-no-sign-of-a-sales-rebound-in-july-numbers/

 

 

 

I think Marvel Generations will be a flop.  A big flop!  A flop of a flop!   I gently picked up and Hulk Generations, flipped through it, and gently put it back down.  Flop.   

[romanheart]

Marvel is now in possession by a very corporate entity.

The idea that the artists had the freedom to do the things they once did and are able to get approval from a board of executives will prove difficult.

Also, are people that in to super-hero books like they once were? We all like the classic characters. Are there any new major heroes within the last 10 years that can rival the ones we grew up with?

It seems to me the more realistic characters with reasonable modified abilities (Batman, DD, Cpt. A,...) or super/multi-powered characters (X-Men, GOTG,...) are where the movie success seems to be.

Edited August 14, 2017 by romanheart

[ComicConnoisseur]

18 minutes ago, romanheart said:

Marvel is now in possession of a very corporate entity.

The idea that the artists had the freedom to do the things they once did and are able to get approval from a board of people executives will prove difficult.

Also, are people that in to super-hero books like they once were? We all like the classic characters. Are there any new major heros within the last 10 years that can rival the ones we grew up with?

It seems to me the more realistic characters with reasonable modified abilities (Batman, DD, Cpt. A,...) or super/multi-powered characters (X-Men, GOTG,...) are where the movie success seems to be.

The last two break out characters were Deadpool and Spawn from the early 90s. 

All the recent hit characters seem to come from a original characters like Harley Quinn from Joker, X-23 from Wolverine,Spider-Gwen from Spider-Man.

In other words there really hasn't been a new super hero that has taken the world by storm since Spawn/Deadpool over 25 years ago.

I think the reasoning being all the new top creators go to video games and animation which pay way more than the comics industry.

 

Edited August 14, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[Aweandlorder]

3 hours ago, romanheart said:

Marvel is now in possession by a very corporate entity.

The idea that the artists had the freedom to do the things they once did and are able to get approval from a board of executives will prove difficult.

Also, are people that in to super-hero books like they once were? We all like the classic characters. Are there any new major heroes within the last 10 years that can rival the ones we grew up with?

It seems to me the more realistic characters with reasonable modified abilities (Batman, DD, Cpt. A,...) or super/multi-powered characters (X-Men, GOTG,...) are where the movie success seems to be.

Actually GOTG is proof that u don't need an extremely popular super hero to make a hot movie work. In fact. You don't even have to follow its origins in regards to the properties original lineup. How many here were shocked and skeptical when Marvel first announced that movie. And how many were even more shocked when it proved to be a hit. 

So to answer your question. No. There is no shortage in superheroes. And if a good creative production team decides to pick a new property or adapt an older one the results may very well be the same

[paul747]

On 8/11/2017 at 8:19 AM, Aweandlorder said:

Millar could only dream of becoming as an influential writer/creator as Miller, Gaiman or Moore were/are in comic books. 

The fact that he had a few movies adapted doesn't make him the giant that you put him to be. 

Having a few stories adapt to film doesn't make him "create a universe". Just makes him a good writer (opinionated) with possibly good ties to the film industry. While nothing to sneeze at, he certainly isn't as influential as these writers you quickly dismissed. 

That is definitely an opinion. Millar is a self promoted arrogant person but his talent and influence are far reaching!  I think a lot of people would not agree with you.

To answer your initial question he has the best chance .

Edited August 16, 2017 by paul747

[VintageComics]

On 8/10/2017 at 5:58 PM, Aweandlorder said:

When you think about it, Marvel Comics (circa 1961) catapulted while the industry was very healthy, with many comic book genres selling very well, not just superheroes.
It would seem to me that it was more difficult back then to market and brand a new line of superheroes among such a fierce competition. 
Since then, many companies tried to take a shot at the title (Image, valiant et al) and failed to achieve similar results.
Do you think it is likely that we will witness another Marvel success story with similar big titles and properties?
What would it take to achieve such an impressive repertoire by a single publisher in today's market?

No.

You also won't see a Led Zeppelin or Beatles again, you won't see Bach or Beethoven again, etc.

[ComicConnoisseur]

6 hours ago, VintageComics said:

No.

You also won't see a Led Zeppelin or Beatles again, you won't see Bach or Beethoven again, etc.

+1,000,000

Let's add we will never see a Star Wars and Star Trek again to this exclusive club as well.

[VintageComics]

11 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

6 hours ago, VintageComics said:

No.

You also won't see a Led Zeppelin or Beatles again, you won't see Bach or Beethoven again, etc.

+1,000,000

Let's add we will never see a Star Wars and Star Trek again to this exclusive club as well.

And it's not because the source material was that good. It was 'that good' because it was a product of an time or an era that will never exist again.

You'll never have a '59 Cadillac or a 1986 Porsche 911 Turbo either.

Those times are gone.

With globalization, the corporate boardroom and automation of everything simply for capitalist gain I doubt we'll ever experience a surge in art forms like we have in the last few hundred years.

[shadroch]

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 3:36 AM, ComicConnoisseur said:

+1,000,000

Let's add we will never see a Star Wars and Star Trek again to this exclusive club as well.

It bugs me when people lump Star Wars and Star Trek together. One was an overnight success that is wildly popular with the public. The other is a failed tv show, that evolved into a mediocre movie franchise. One has produced multiple hit comics, Star Trek comics have never been a hit. 

 

[Lazyboy]

3 minutes ago, shadroch said:

It bugs me when people lump Star Wars and Star Trek together. One was an overnight success that is wildly popular with the public. The other is a failed tv show, that evolved into a mediocre movie franchise. One has produced multiple hit comics, Star Trek comics have never been a hit.

You're kidding, right?

[shadroch]

	Totals	$875,000,000		$1,400,952,879	$2,266,473,168
	Averages	$67,307,692	$30,645,305	$107,765,606	$174,344,090     Thirteen movies, $875 million to make, with domestic returns of 1.4 billion. Rule of thumb for a success is double costs in domestic revenue.  Out of thirteen movies, a few have been box office success, a few have been flops but most  are nothing special. Any Academy Awards in the bunch?  Any Nominations? Star Wars  started earlier, but did 1.8 billion in only six movies.

Edited August 18, 2017 by shadroch

[ComicConnoisseur]

6 hours ago, shadroch said:

It bugs me when people lump Star Wars and Star Trek together. One was an overnight success that is wildly popular with the public. The other is a failed tv show, that evolved into a mediocre movie franchise. One has produced multiple hit comics, Star Trek comics have never been a hit. 

 

It doesn't matter how they both started as they both ended up winners at the finish line, similar to Spider-Man was a hit from the beginning while it took time for the X-Men to find its audience.

One could also argue without Star Trek being successful at the cons,maybe Star Wars doesn't get made.

Also time is a context,as in the late 1980s and 1990s Star Wars had faded and Star Trek was the king.

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[Gatsby77]

29 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

It doesn't matter how they both started as they both ended up winners at the finish line, similar to Spider-Man was a hit from the beginning while it took time or the X-Men to find its audience.

One could also argue without Star Trek being successful at the cons,maybe Star Wars doesn't get made.

Also time is a context,as in the late 1980s and 1990s Star Wars had faded and Star Trek was the king.

 

Yeah - but Shadroch's point is still spot-on.

Star Trek was a failed TV show that morphed into a mediocre film series.

Sure, it got a _lot_ better once The Next Generation came out in 1987, but the movies never took took off with consistency.

Even today the overall Star Trek franchise pales relative to Star Wars.

The most successful of the latest trilogy (Into Darkness) made $50 million+ less _worldwide_ than Rogue One did domestically. And the domestic grosses of all three Star Trek films put together was far less than The Force Awakens domestic take. That's not "both ending up winners at the finish line."

The two aren't comparable except that they're both space-based sci fi.

 

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

18 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Yeah - but Shadroch's point is still spot-on.

Star Trek was a failed TV show that morphed into a mediocre film series.

Sure, it got a _lot_ better once The Next Generation came out in 1987, but the movies never took took off with consistency.

Even today the overall Star Trek franchise pales relative to Star Wars.

The most successful of the latest trilogy (Into Darkness) made $50 million+ less _worldwide_ than Rogue One did domestically. And the domestic grosses of all three Star Trek films put together was far less than The Force Awakens domestic take. That's not "both ending up winners at the finish line."

The two aren't comparable except that they're both space-based sci fi.

 

 

Star Trek is one of the top 10 pop culture franchises of all-time. Yep,Star Wars is bigger now,but at one time Star Trek's fandom was bigger than both Marvel and Star Wars fandom.

btw I am a Star Wars guy,but to say Star Trek does not have a comparable fandom is weak Star Wars worship. lol.

As a Star Wars guy I remember during the late 80s and early 90s how dead Star Wars was. It was so dead that Marvel canceled the Star Wars comic and Kenner canceled the toy line. I was picking up Star War action figures for under a dollar at yard sales and flea markets. People were practically giving them away to me! That was how dead Star Wars was.

Also let us not forget how popular Star Wars was after the second Lucas Trilogy in 2005. 

We got to look at the overall history and legacies of both the Star Trek and the Star Wars franchises,and just not what is hot right now with fickle mainstream.

My opinion is both Star Trek and Star Wars are comparable winning franchises that we will never see again just like we will never see a Marvel Comics or Beatles again.

IMHO.

 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[Gatsby77]

So you're cherry-picking the 5 years out of 40 that Star Trek popularity trumped that of Star Wars?

Yeah - I was there in 1984-87 as well. Picked up my first few Power of the Force figures for $.99 each out of a bin at Kiddie City because Kenner had pulled the license. And The Next Generation was a game-changer that resurrected Trek for a few years, leading to a few more TV series.

Doesn't change that Star Wars has toasted Star Trek from the moment of its inception (compare Star Wars to Star Trek: The Motion Picture alone) through to today.

Hey look - here's the inflation-adjusted domestic grosses of every Star Trek film. Only one has broken $300 million and that's the 2009 Star Trek film. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm&adjust_yr=2017&p=.htm

Even the worst Star Wars film (Attack of the Clones by box office) made over $450 million (adjusted for inflation).

 

[VintageComics]

Are you guys really comparing Star Trek to Star Wars?

Both have cult followings but it's an unfair comparison.

It's like comparing the commercial success of Chuck Berry to Jimmy Page, even though both were great.

Different eras, apples and oranges.

 

[Lucky Baru]

On 8/10/2017 at 4:58 PM, Aweandlorder said:

When you think about it, Marvel Comics (circa 1961) catapulted while the industry was very healthy, with many comic book genres selling very well, not just superheroes.
It would seem to me that it was more difficult back then to market and brand a new line of superheroes among such a fierce competition. 
Since then, many companies tried to take a shot at the title (Image, valiant et al) and failed to achieve similar results.
Do you think it is likely that we will witness another Marvel success story with similar big titles and properties?
What would it take to achieve such an impressive repertoire by a single publisher in today's market?

Not titles, but if you look at one title that has its own universe , spawned the number #1 TV show, huge fan experiences/cons event(s), then you might want to chat about The Walking Dead in this thread.   People seem to forget home much the title changed comics and that it has been around for almost 15 years.

[NoMan]

sorry if this has been said before in this thread, but i think the $1.00 marvel books reprinting classic stories is a good idea. (True Believers is the title, which is kinda a stupid title)

Other more insightful, educated thoughts anyone?

[ComicConnoisseur]

43 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

Are you guys really comparing Star Trek to Star Wars?

Both have cult followings but it's an unfair comparison.

It's like comparing the commercial success of Chuck Berry to Jimmy Page, even though both were great.

Different eras, apples and oranges.

 

I always wonder why we can't like both Star Wars and Star Trek? I don't get the animosity from the other sides?

I also like both X-Box One and PS4.

Marvel and DC.

Nike and Adidas.

Beatles and Rolling Stones.

Competition is good folks,as it keeps the other side on its toes. 

Edited August 18, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur