From: 0juan_e@spcvxb.spc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics
Subject: Re: Marvel Bashing, if you please!
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:11:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: St. Peter's College, US

In article <1992Aug31.142502.58531@cc.usu.edu>, sl859@cc.usu.edu writes:
> Ned says...
>> Marvel deserves a lot of the fault for causing what could be the 
>> downsliding of an industry.  They also deserve to be blamed for the inflamation
>> of egos of such talents like Liefeild (granted the man writes as great as a 
>> three year old and draws really tiny feet -but he can draw), McFarland, and
>> (God help us) Jim Shooter.
>> But right now, Marvel can afford to make these mistakes -if you really look at
>> the competition, they're kind of screwed up as to what to publish or 
>> they're next story line.
> 
> 	I say this is perposterous.  Marvel cannot be blamed for the direction
> the comic book industry is taking.  If anything its the people who support the
> crap that is being produced by ALL companies.  I don't think you give Marvel
> enough credit.  After all they're doing what the majority of comic buyers
> want, and I cannot say for certain although using my patented trademarked 
> logic-common-sensometer I can most assuredly say the people who read this news
> group are NOT the majority of Comic readers in the bis.  Marvel is there to
> make mooooolah.  We buy it, we live with the consequences of a given few
> nitwits in the comic biz becoming egotistical maniacs.  I certainly wouldn't
> blame Marvel or any other comic company for inflating egos either.  They dont
> dictate to the people who the consumers will and won't like!  They give you 
> what sells.  When comic readers begin to feel like many on this network 
> Marvel,
> along with all the rest who follow the leader, will change to meet their 
> demands, but for now we must suffer.
> 
> 							wReam...
> 
> P.S.  Contrary to DVANDOM's instantaneous belief, the patented trademarked
> logic-common-sensometer says this is not a FLAME...
> 

No Bar-B-Que at this end either -Ned.

And I understand what you're saying that MARVEL is a business -"meeting demand
with supply", that some of the blame goes to the consumer -and that's really
what it is just "some".  I recognize that alot of the problems is from the 
industry aiming at the "consumer" -the collector (the Idiot); and this is 
where the blame really is.

A collector doesn't breed in a minute -but overnight, they have to hear 
something good -value wise about a product before they go to ridiculous lengths
to get it; and the comics industry has aimed at it for a long time, always 
finding new ways to stretch it to the last buck.  This is the point of my 
arguement, even though the consumer has some blame it is the producer of the 
product that bears it all -because of the way the producer makes the product
"attractive".  The producer has full control over a product as to how to make 
it and sell it -to make a buck from crap or quality for the product's sake.
Marvel started the way for big promos and artistic hype; I remember when 
"Contests of Champions" came out -large promos in every newspaper article,
it was not very good storywise but it gave Marvel a "push" for bigger things
to do and ideas on using outside media to their advantage.

As to how the "Collector Fever" came about, Marvel, in "pushing" (Punisher
lingo) Spiderman, put out through the distributers and resellers the "price"
for a Mint condition Amazing Spiderman #1 (anyone actually believing they
can get one has also flown on a UFO and dated Elvis); now, you have people 
out there thinking there is a gold mine out there with everything they buy.
As to how I know, I got this info from a lot of the resellers that do business
in the New York/New Jersey area; if you have a different view please post it
under "Collection Cause" -it would be interesting to see different views.

As of now, Marvel has a large slice of the industry, what they do to 
successfully sell a product others will follow; remember that foil-emblazoned
cover of Silver Surfer #50  and The Mighty Thor (intro The New Thor), how 
many other publishers did the same schtick afterwards (DC, Darkhorse, Image
(Malibu), etc.).

As of Marvel not to blame for the enlargement of egos such as Liefield and
McFarland - that is utterly ridiculous -look at X-Force and Spider-Man,
though X-Force seems to be coming around (Liefield doesn't touch the book),
we, the readers, see on the stands two mags that have no reason to exist
-another "Spidey" mag (as though we really needed another) and a "mutie"
book that almost resembles every other super=hero team on Image's line.
You figure that you get big bucks from their art -give them free rein over
their own book -maybe we might get a "Jack Kirby" out of the deal or just
a lot of moolah from some "collecting" dork - How the Hell can we lose?;
past Marvel thinking now IMAGE's marketing strategy (but they sure throw a
lot of darts at the board -and still miss).
 
I said "Marvel deserves a lot of the fault", and it's true.  Marvel, which
is leading the industry in sales and productivity, is a role-model to the 
other publishers.  Stan "The Man" Lee, himself, said that Timely (pre-Marvel)
once based its work on how the industry "moved" -if it was westerns selling,
then it was westerns that Timely made; Now the directions on Mutants -look at
the Next-Man, a John Byrne creation (I guess that Marvel wouldn't let him even
look at The X-Men; Thank God), and most of Image's comic line -mutants or
mutant teams (the Liefield way).

Maybe consumer demands mold the path of an Industry, it doesn't mean that
the Industry can't lend a helping and nurturing hand.

                               Thanks,
                               Ned
                               St. Peter's College