Comics are Awesome II

[andersonh1]

http://comicsbeat.com/dc-comics-month-t ... uary-2013/

I love this column. Probably because the author doesn't seem to like the New 52 any more than I do, and so I enjoy his snarky comments. Look at the sales drop on all of DC's books... it seems as though the only reason they're making more money than some past years is because they publish more titles than they have in a long time. It seems to me that the audience is there for so many of DC's characters, if they could find a writer/artist who could keep them coming back month after month. Scott Snyder has managed it with Batman, and Justice League sells fairly well, but the vast majority of DC's books seem to lose readers by the thousands every month.

[Dominic]

Ugh.

I remember when DC fans were the more accepting of change. Nobody who read a DC book starting in the late 80s has any reason to complain. (If you liked a post-CoIE book, and you are bitter about "Flashpoint", you are a hypocrite.) If the internet was a thing in the mid-80s, "Crisis on Infinite Earths" would not have happened.

That said, those numbers are bowel-loosening.
(Are there similar numbers for Marvel? Is this an over-all downturn inthe market? And, how much of this is off-set by sales on compilations and such?)

I tend to think that some of the drop on "Team 7" is due to readers dropping a book they know will not be sticking around. But, there is no way to be certain. I get the feeling that back-issues of "Talon" will fetch money in a few years. (Gut-feeling, and it assumes that Snyder sticks around for a while.) "World's Finest" is one of the most pointless books out there at the moment, featuring two b-listers in generic comic adventures. (I am a fan of the Huntress, and I cannot trouble myself to read this book consistently.) Powergirl will be going back to her original costume soon, which may boost sales (for all the creepy and wrong reasons).

The more DC goes back to what it was before, and produces comics that are too familiar, the less interested I will be. "Earth 2" looks to be dropping fast as well. I want that book to continue. But, I will not replace it if/when it falters.

One question I have: Is the Spider-Man in this story drawn wearing the 'Superior' costume, or the classic Spidey duds?

It looks like the original colours, though heavily inked.



Dom
-not sure why comics fans are so averse to change.

[BWprowl]

It looks like the original colours, though heavily inked.

Does it have the eye-lenses, or claws, or no stripes on the arms though? I'll have to flip through this when I hit the shop this evening, I'm curious.

Dom
-not sure why comics fans are so averse to change.

I know, right? You'd think people that have been happy reading about the same characters since the 1930's would be more accepting of new and different things!

[andersonh1]

Ugh.

I remember when DC fans were the more accepting of change. Nobody who read a DC book starting in the late 80s has any reason to complain. (If you liked a post-CoIE book, and you are bitter about "Flashpoint", you are a hypocrite.)

Not so, Dom. With this statement you assume change is always a good thing or an acceptable thing. Just because someone found past changes to DC's universe to be to their liking doesn't mean they must or will like future changes. There's no hypocrisy here.

[BWprowl]

For the record, I quit reading DC some time before Flashpoint, because Brightest Day was driving me friggin' crazy. Not that I was terribly interested in what I heard about Flashpoint anyway, so I probably wouldn't have gotten back in.

Kinda wish I'd at least finished Morrison's Batman run up to the beginning of 'Batman Inc.', but Geoff Johns was pissing me off and I was spending way too much money on comics, so I quit DC cold turkey.

I have no problem with DC hard-rebooting their universe, but I honestly think the way they went about it was incredibly stupid, and I genuinely think I could have done it better. I came up with a plan and everything!

[Sparky Prime]

Look at the sales drop on all of DC's books...

It should be noted while the author of that article does mention that the sales are down from March 2012's numbers, he does say it's still very good numbers when compared to the pre-New52 standards from 2011. And DC still isn't publishing quite as many comics as they had before the New 52 launch at that.

[andersonh1]

Look at the sales drop on all of DC's books...

It should be noted while the author of that article does mention that the sales are down from March 2012's numbers, he does say it's still very good numbers when compared to the pre-New52 standards from 2011. And DC still isn't publishing quite as many comics as they had before the New 52 launch at that.

There were 73 new DC Universe comic books in January 2013 — more than in any other month since March 2003 except August 2011, when the pre-”New 52″ deck-clearing rush pushed the number to 80.

Not that there's anything wrong with publishing that many, it's just worth noting when it comes to calculating profit every month. That column is published monthly, and it's an entertaining read for a column about numbers of books sold, despite the griping of some commenters!

[Sparky Prime]

There were 73 new DC Universe comic books in January 2013 — more than in any other month since March 2003 except August 2011, when the pre-”New 52″ deck-clearing rush pushed the number to 80.

Not that there's anything wrong with publishing that many, it's just worth noting when it comes to calculating profit every month. That column is published monthly, and it's an entertaining read for a column about numbers of books sold, despite the griping of some commenters!

There were 73 new DC Universe comic books in January 2013 — more than in any other month since March 2003 except August 2011, when the pre-”New 52″ deck-clearing rush pushed the number to 80.

As I said, it's still less titles than before the New 52 launch. Not to mention, that 73 includes several titles that have been canceled and only have a few issues left to wrap of their storylines. And you did say why you enjoy that article is because the guy is also bias against the New 52, and that comes out in the article. Of course you're going to have commentors griping. Not everyone shares that opinion.

[andersonh1]

As I said, it's still less titles than before the New 52 launch. Not to mention, that 73 includes several titles that have been canceled and only have a few issues left to wrap of their storylines. And you did say why you enjoy that article is because the guy is also bias against the New 52, and that comes out in the article. Of course you're going to have commentors griping. Not everyone shares that opinion.

Very true.

[Sparky Prime]

Does it have the eye-lenses, or claws, or no stripes on the arms though? I'll have to flip through this when I hit the shop this evening, I'm curious.

It's the classic Spider-Man costume, not the Superior Spider-Man costume. I recall seeing an article on Newsarama a while ago about Marvel Now! continuity being messy. That article mentions Slott had said on his Twitter page that part of "Age of Ultron" takes place before events of "Superior Spider-Man". So this actually is Peter Parker in this issue, not Doc Ock. Yet Superior Spider-Man will be involved with "Age of Ultron" later on... So no idea how that is supposed to work with the continuity, but there you have it.