From: intruder@cats.ucsc.edu (Isaac N. Truder)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
Subject: Re: Marvel Implosion Imminent? (was: Re: Marvel copies DC... again)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 23:13:16 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


 > > [stuff about the horrible quality of Marvel UK deleted... besides
 > >  all true] 
 > > 
 > >more.  I see nothing to attract me to these titles.  And as such, 
 > >to agree with you that, sooner or later, these WILL be the first t
 > 
 >         I agree with you.. with one exception. Death's Head II
 > seems to be doing fairly well in the ratings, but the others are a
 > lot lower. Look at the Mys-Tech wars: the major players are the
 > X-People, Shield, and the Avengers. The UK heroes are just around
 > for token appearances, it seems.

Yeah, DEATH'S HEAD II seems to be doing okay -- but still, he's lacking
a certain something, I think.  The original DEATH'S HEAD was more or
less in his own universe -- or at least in a UK universe that was more
British-flavored.  Bringing him into the American universe and going on
as if he's always existed doesn't seem to fly, and the character doesn't
shine as well amongst the other American creations.  Fer instance;
what's with this DEATH'S HEAD II/KILLPOWER: BATTLETIDE series?  Who is
Killpower, and why should I care?

Maybe I'm biased because I just haven't been able to buy Marvels lately,
unless maybe I spoke to one of the people who works on the book and they
impressed me.  I'd really LIKE to sit back and enjoy some superheroics
Marvel-style, but I just can't bring myself to do it.  It seems like
Marvels are getting thinner and thinner on plot, with questionable
(though very fashionable) art.  And why have a storyline that will get
new readers into a book, when you can drag it out across twelve issues
and four different comics to try and get me to buy all of them?

 > >My bet for the next to go will be the 2099 titles.  The problem wi
 > 
 >         I don't want to agree with you (Spiderman 2099 is fairly
 > good, even though I don't like Leonardi's art), but you're right:
 > new universes are  always the first to go.

Even though the 2099 titles do have ties to existing Marble Universe
characters, they just aren't the same.  Now, one could stop me here and
say that they thought I wanted something that wasn't more of the same --
but the 2099 titles to me aren't really any BETTER.  SPIDER-MAN 2099
seems okay, but again he's basically a different character with a
different premise than the original Spidey.  (No matter how goofy
Spidey's origin is, if you create a new character with the same name but
otherwise a different character entirely, it weakens the tie.)  I think
the best effort by the Big Two to expand is the spinoffs they're doing
from each of their flagship titles.  The problem is, unless enough of
them are any good, they're not going to hold any readership for very
long -- so in the end it's not that much better an idea.

 >         I think the large part of that was people looking for
 > Marvel-type heroes in the real world... instead, they got "real
 > people" heroes, who weren't as exciting. Shooter eventually got it
 > right (check out some early issues of Valiant comics). 

I think what people were REALLY looking for, were new Marvel-type heroes
with a clean slate, set in a Universe that wasn't bogged down by years
and years of crossovers, pseudo-science to keep track of, etc. etc.  For
a while it was nice to have an interconnected universe, but now it's so
big with so much contradictory stuff to keep track of that it gets
tiresome.  I think the success of Valiant and Image proves this to some
extent.

 >         Kill off heroes? Marvel? Bahahahahaha! They'd cancel the
 > books with a double sized foil embossed cover (costing at least
 > $2.95), and just take away the hero's powers. Comebacks and
 > crossovers -- increase interest in the character, then re-start
 > the series at issue #1, double sized, with a foil embossed cover.

Well, MY idea (and it sounds very Marvel to me) would be to have some
kind of big crossover storyline where all the bad-selling titles are
killed off.  That way, they could get one last boost of sales before
burying them, and they could still bring back the characters at a later
date if there seems to be any demand.  We could bring the characters
back in existing titles (like Iron Fist in NAMOR) to drum up interest.
But in the meantime, it would be just like Scourge from a few years
back!

 >         I agree with you... Marvel's market seems aimed for the
 > younger  crowd (differing opinions welcome) for the most part.
 > They simply can't  afford to buy more and more Marvel comics.
 > Other companies (DC, Valiant) tend to have a bigger share of the
 > older market (ie, people with jobs) who can afford more titles
 > (well, in general). Marvel will just oversaturate itself into a
 > hole.

Are you kidding?  Kids don't have to WORK for their money -- they can
afford to buy all the comics they want! :-)

 >         Even when the fall comes, it won't be a deathblow for
 > Marvel. Books like Punisher, Spiderman, X-People, and Ghost Rider
 > are hot properties... the company could probably survive on them
 > alone.

Oh, definately.  And that's why it will be so great to watch the
implosion happen!!  BWAHAHAHAHA!  But I just hope it doesn't hurt the
industry as a whole if/when Marvel's vast clientele starts to go
away...


Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc