TF Views

Dominic wrote:

mean, honestly, if I thought for one second that the new Superman or Spiderman or whoever book was going to have the staying power and that the stories told were still going to be relevant and part of the narrative for more than just a few years later?

Do you really expect stuff to stick for more than a few years anyway? There is plenty of stuff from the last few years that may as well not be counted. That does not mean those comics are inherently bad. But, they are not relevant.

Yeah I do and that shouldn't be an unreasonable expectation. There was a time when crazy back writes, over writes, rewrites, downwrites, outwrites. soft reboots, hard reboots, partial reboots and total reboots never happened. Comics were a single cohesive narrative that could reference stories going back years or even decades. DC has gotten so bad with this shit that I don't think THEY could even make heads or tails of what's in and what's not at this point. And frankly, for me, as someone who's not really in the hobby, if I was looking for a jumping on point, it would be really REALLY difficult to find one. The other problem with segmenting everything like this is this: (see below)

Dominic wrote:

And I already like some of their characters. Superman is my favorite Super hero. And yet, I have literally 0 Superman comics.

You have "zero Superman comics"?

How can you be a Superman fan and not have any comics? If nothing else, what is the point? Have you read "All Star Superman" or "Red Son" (two of the best "Superman" comics ever)? The "triangle number" stuff that Anderson mentions was an ambitious run. "Final Crisis" was heavily focused on Superman as an idea.

That is correct, I have ZERO Superman comics. I have not read "Red Son" or "All Star Superman". I was actually planning to read them at some point but at the time, the budget just wasn't there. It is there now, but why the hell would I want to go back and read stories that DC is now telling me never happened? What's the point? I want to read stories that are relevant and going to STAY relevant. But I really can't because the big two Marvel and DC reboot and etcha sketch crap so often that it literally just insta-kills the very minimal interest I had to begin with. So again, with comics in general being a passive interest to me at best, why am I going to spend money on something that doesn't matter and didn't happen when I can literally think of like 100 other things that I would rather spend my money on?

And that's really my point. As an outside observer of the hobby and not being someone who is regularly a part of the hobby, but occasionally has an interest in it, it's hard to maintain that passing interest when I'm constantly being told that whatever I read isn't going to matter or be referenced or have even happened in a very short period of time. Of course, if Marvel and DC would generally keep their titles separate from each other and not cross over all the time, that would help. Case in point: I actually had a Superman comic at one point. Back when "Darkest Night" was going on. I couldn't tell you what issue it was or if it was a one shot or if it was just an issue from a series and... yeah, honestly, again, that's part of the problem. I should be able to tell you all of that. I'm a Trekkie, nitpicking and remembering this kind of minutiae is exactly what my people do. But, yeah, if I want to read comic books, I'd like to be able to just pick a title featuring a character that I'm interested in and be able to star reading it with some sense that what I was reading was going to matter and have some longevity to it and that I could also just read about that one said character without having to read about a bunch of other nobodies that I don't care about.

To answer the question of "if you're not reading the comics, what's the point?" well that's the problem with Superman, Batman and Spiderman: 75% of their fan base doesn't read comic books. Seriously, how many people do you see with their logos on a tshirt or car logo or what ever? Next time you see one, ask if they read comics. I'll bet the answer is no. That's mostly because those characters have transcended into other mediums. Movies, TV, video games, etc... so there's plenty of other avenues and outlets to enjoy those characters without having to actually set foot in a comic shop. For me, my introduction to Superman were the Christopher Reeve movies and I still maintain those are the best Super hero movies and they will never top them. Don't get me wrong, I like the MCU, but none of it holds a candle to 78 Superman I and II. Also, I didn't make up that statistic (about the % of fans). It was told to me by a guy who worked in a comic shop for years and had an encyclopedic knowledge of comic books, so yeah, I trust that he's probably right on that one. And it would be hard for me to argue that since I fit into that category anyway. Anyway, yeah, my enjoyment of Superman as a character over the years has not been from comics but from his appearances in other media.

Dominic wrote:You cannot complain that there are no good comics if you are not reading them.

Uh yeah, I can, because the definition of "good" is subjective and differs from person to person. You all know me well enough here to know that I usually don't care much about what goes on behind the scenes of my fiction. I tend to follow properties that I'm interested in rather than writers or editors or directors or what have you. But, even I can't hide my head in the sand to what's going on in the industry because it has reached a point that it has actively pushed me out of the hobby. For me, a "good" comic, at least one that I'm going to commit to spending money on and reading every month, has to have stories that are entertaining, fun, consistent and be a cohesive narrative that is going to have some longevity. And look, it's not like I haven't tried before. I bought in for that Nightcrawler series only to have that cancelled after 12 issues. Thor went back to legacy numbering after 20 issues (which conveniently was around the time when the budget wasn't there any more), and then there was Ultimates which started to suffer from too many delays caused me to lose interest in that one.... Anyway, yeah, I've tried and it hasn't gone well and with the trends I see talked about on here, now is a terrible time to try to jump back into it. So yeah, I actually tried. Marvel and even DC had my money for a while but they just kept pulling the same stupid crap so often that I decided to get out of the hobby, got rid of all comics that aren't either TF or MOTU and I've honestly never regretted it.

I also want to address the question of "do you really expect any story to be relevant a year later?" Honestly, the fact that you've asked that question seriously, with a (presumably) straight face, is a symptom of a HUGE problem with the fandom. In other words, comics as an industry and a medium would probably be better if the fandom that actually does keep coming back would stop supporting their habits. Marvel and DC are just going to keep pulling the same gimmicky bullshit year after year because... fans tolerate it and keep coming back. And worse, is that apparently the fans have become so numb to the bullshit that it's incredulous to think that anyone with a casual interest but not actively in the hobby would think to expect or even want something different. That's a problem! Yeah, you're damned right I expect different and you know what? I get it! Every month from IDW's TF books. They've had the license for over ten years now and when things happen, they stick! Dead characters don't come back! Seriously, I can name ten off the top of my head that are dead and haven't returned. That sure as hell doesn't happen with Marvel or DC! Oh and they often reference stories from before, sometimes from years ago! OMG!! What a concept! Yeah, IDW gets my money every month because quite frankly they're knocking it out of the park for what the big two SHOULD be doing! Ok, yeah, MOTU is technically a DC title, but it's not really considered to be part of the actual DCU. Like we're not going to see a movie of Batman vs. Superman vs. He-Man anytime soon (although that would be awesome and I would go broke watching the hell out of that).

Anyway, that was way longer of a post than I intended, but hey, this is what us, the casual fans feel like and I thought I would offer this perspective. And this a massive problem when you consider that with the success of comic book movies, Marvel and DC now have even more legions of potential readers out there. People that are now fans of their characters but haven't set foot in a comic shop ever. It should be REALLY easy to get them to start buying, but are they? No. and most of the crap I've talked about here is why.

This Bleedingcool article about retailers complaints over the decline in sales for both Marvel and DC came up on my phone's news feed today. Pretty much highlights several things that has been said in this thread.

It's funny that they mentioned Thor because that was one of the titles that I was actually pretty excited about getting when it started. Marvel had restarted a new series after the end of the old one with Avengers Disassembled: Thor (which I had picked up and read). Thor was a character I liked that was starting a new run and it looked promising. So I picked it up. Brand new start for the character, seemed like a good jumping on point. Then, just 20 issues later, they killed him off (or put him in a coma or something) and reverted back to the legacy numbering. At around that same time, my budget no longer supported so many titles and some of them had to get dropped and so went the way of Thor. Bummer.

Then there's the Avengers. I had also started reading other Marvel titles with the Death of Captain America and Civil War. In the after math of that, there were two ongoing Avengers titles. One with the main cast and the other with like a team of Avengers cadets or whatever. Anyway, I just wanted to follow the main cast but a mere two months into it, I mistakenly picked up the wrong Avengers book and got home only read that the story in the comic I picked up didn't follow from the one I already had. So I wound up picking up both titles and yay for Marvel because now they got me on two books. I did wind up enjoying both books, but still, when I can't keep track of the books I'm reading because the titles and the art are so similar, that's a problem and it puts casuals like myself off. And for the record, this also was largely due to the fact that comic book covers often don't represent what actually happens in the book. Like when Marvel puts Wolverine on a cover because they wanna sell more copies even though he just shows up in the background at a party or something. But it's this kind of stunt pulled with their event books that put me off reading them. Which is too bad for Marvel because they were really doing a good job of keeping me interested in their books. And the MCU was at least a good 5-7 years off of being established so it wasn't even movies that were drawing me in, it was just good reading. I started with Ultimates because I could jump on fairly early, only having to pick up two trades and then, just keep going with it. Honestly, I think that was the title that held my interest the best and the longest. I was all in on that for about 4 years and even read some of the other Ultimate titles I'd missed, like the Gah-Lak-Tus saga. So yeah, Marvel had actually done pretty good at giving me as a casual fan some pretty good jumping on point in the early 00's. And, I had seriously considered adding All Star Superman to that, but just never did. I mean, a new Superman comic, starting over from number 1? Actually sounded pretty good to me. Too bad that it, like all the other titles didn't last and now didn't even happen.

I think I really started to lose interest around the time of Blackest night and Brightest day. Those and most things from DC weren't really doing anything for me, Batman had never really grabbed me to begin with and that was when Marvel was doing their World War Hulk and the Skrull Invasion, House of M, and really, just a series of lackluster stories. Delays on Ultimates caused me to lose interest in that one, to the point where it just got away from me and I didn't care any more and then when I started to see the same patterns all over and over again, I had just had enough. I think this was three or four years ago. I gave two short boxes of comics to a friend of mine that was looking to get into the hobby and I've never looked back.

Except that Beta Ray Bill mini series. Kinda wish I'd kept that, it was awesome.

Sparky Prime wrote:This Bleedingcool article about retailers complaints over the decline in sales for both Marvel and DC came up on my phone's news feed today. Pretty much highlights several things that has been said in this thread.

That's a good read. Maybe if the retailers complain, DC and Marvel might listen.

The DC books generating the most excitement right now are Superman: Lois & Clark, Swamp Thing, and Justice League of America–three books that most closely evoke the tone and attitude of classic pre-Flashpoint DC (and two of those are written by veteran creators who worked on those books in the pre-Flashpoint days). These books look great and are excellent, entertaining reads.

I'm glad to see that Lois and Clark is doing well, at least in that guy's shop.

Yeah I do and that shouldn't be an unreasonable expectation. There was a time when crazy back writes, over writes, rewrites, downwrites, outwrites. soft reboots, hard reboots, partial reboots and total reboots never happened. Comics were a single cohesive narrative that could reference stories going back years or even decades.

Comics were never cohesive. The crazy back-writes of the 70s and 80s were largely a function of the big two trying to create the illusion of cohesiveness over decades. Marvel never intended or wanted 1950s Captain America (the series or character) to be referenced, ever. But, the fans could not let it go. They wrote in and whined enough through the 60s and 70s that eventually Marvel pulled some bullshit out of their collective editorial ass to make comics from 15+ years before "fit". In real terms, the 1950s "Captain America" was a product of its time (which is describing those comics is the nicest possible way) and were completely out of step with the market by 1960. Marvel never intended for them to "count".

Similarly, and using an example I have used before, the Marvel of the 80s does not make much sense relative to the Marvel of 2016. "Armor Wars" was a decade ahead of its time, which leaves it 20 years out of date. At the most superficial level, the Cold War references are painfully dated. And, that ignores question of tone and general style.

In other words, yes, it is unreasonable to expect everything to always count, especially without back-writes and other pandering bullshit.

And frankly, for me, as someone who's not really in the hobby, if I was looking for a jumping on point, it would be really REALLY difficult to find one.

Generally, when a series renumbers, you can safely jump on.

I have not read "Red Son" or "All Star Superman". I was actually planning to read them at some point but at the time, the budget just wasn't there. It is there now, but why the hell would I want to go back and read stories that DC is now telling me never happened? What's the point? I want to read stories that are relevant and going to STAY relevant.

Uh, they are good. "Red Son" and "All Star" are self-contained, internally relevant. When "All Star" started a decade or so back, it was specifically not intended to correspond with anything, including mutiversal bullshit. "Red Son" was branded as an "Elseworld". It applies Superman as an idea to the moral hazard (an economic principle). it is fucking brilliant and more relevant than something that "counts" relative to the main series.

Honestly, the fact that you've asked that question seriously, with a (presumably) straight face, is a symptom of a HUGE problem with the fandom. In other words, comics as an industry and a medium would probably be better if the fandom that actually does keep coming back would stop supporting their habits.

Because the comics work at the level of a run. Hickman's run on "Avengers" and "New Avengers" is over. It is done. In fact, it over-wrote itself. Time for everybody to move the fuck on with there lives. It took 3 years or so, and now it is done. I do not expect to see many references to it.

Similarly, Kieron Gillen's run on "Iron Man" ended about two years ago. As much as I love that run (largely for being a more modern handling of concepts from "Armor Wars"), I do not want to see it come back. It is over. It is done. It is sitting nicely in my cabinet (and on shelves in comic shops), available for reading. The fact that some of the baggage from it is showing up in Bendis' "Iron Man run is arguably a problem.

This Bleedingcool article about retailers complaints over the decline in sales for both Marvel and DC came up on my phone's news feed today. Pretty much highlights several things that has been said in this thread.

On a not terribly related note (before talking about the article), Marvel most recent solicits (which dropped this week) include references to the old multiverse numbers. Looks like Breevorts bold declaration about getting rid of the numbers has been refuted by necessity. (I can see why Breevort wanted to be rid of the OCD numbering. But, to be fair, writers and editors are going to need some kind of listing system for series like "Spider-Verse".)

That's a good read. Maybe if the retailers complain, DC and Marvel might listen.

It is not a question of Marvel and DC saying "screw you retailers, we are going to run this industry in to the ground, bahahahahahaha". The problem, especially with DC, is more a question of ineptitude than malice. I tend to think that if either company knew how to boost sales (for themselves or the industry) they would do it.


Directly from the article:

It seems to me that Marvel is doing “carpet bombing” of all available dollars we and our customers spend, while DC doesn’t seem to have much of a clue on publishing popular comics.

No question. "Secret Wars" pushed my pull-file up to over 20 Marvel series (along with DC and IDW stuff that I fell behind on). Now, my total file is 18 or 19 series. There are series that I am curious about that I am skipping because, to be frank, there are too many comics. I would imagine that Marvel is cannabalizing sales (having a half dozen weaker selling series rather than one or two strong selling series).

On the other hand, Marvel is crowding IDW and DC out of my file at the moment, which is likely part of their plan.

My Marvel readers are complaining about art this isn’t what they expect from a Marvel book. Cartoony art, manga-influenced art, quirky art… the concept of a house style is gone.

Marvel fans tend to be backwards and insular, which Marvel has been pushing back against in recent years (because playing to aging man-children is a bad long term sgtrategy).

Dominic wrote:Because the comics work at the level of a run. Hickman's run on "Avengers" and "New Avengers" is over. It is done. In fact, it over-wrote itself. Time for everybody to move the fuck on with there lives. It took 3 years or so, and now it is done. I do not expect to see many references to it.

Similarly, Kieron Gillen's run on "Iron Man" ended about two years ago. As much as I love that run (largely for being a more modern handling of concepts from "Armor Wars"), I do not want to see it come back. It is over. It is done. It is sitting nicely in my cabinet (and on shelves in comic shops), available for reading. The fact that some of the baggage from it is showing up in Bendis' "Iron Man run is arguably a problem.

I don't think that's true at all. Not every writer is going to reference another writers work in their run, but just because one writer finishes their run, that doesn't mean it's over and done with in the story. Just as your example with Gillen and Bendis goes to show. It's pretty common for writers to go back to something another writer did.

Marvel fans tend to be backwards and insular, which Marvel has been pushing back against in recent years (because playing to aging man-children is a bad long term sgtrategy).

How is that "backwards and insular"? I mean, don't think Marvel needs to have a house style, but there are some styles of artwork I don't think works so great for these types of comics. It's jarring when a book goes from a realistic art style to an overly cartoony style.

Marvel has always pushed the idea of a cohesive universe harder than DC. This actually picked up in the 80s, following "Crisis on Infinite Earths". (In contrast, I recall at least one introduction to a "Secret Origins compilation from DC that conceded they were willing to be loose with details and origins.)

Marvel rewarded the OCD of the fandom for long enough that the fans came to expect it. In the last decade, Quesada actively started ignoring things like cohesion and such for the sake of a good run (often written to be compiled later). People would froth and complain that Quesada's Marvel was getting things wrong, when it was a question of Quesada not caring. (Look up articles about "One More Day" for examples of this. JMS was going out of his way to try and make it work. Quesada just hand-waved it as unimportant.)

Traditionally, Marvel fans care more about making stuff fit and DC fans cared more about things being good.

I don't think that's true at all. Not every writer is going to reference another writers work in their run, but just because one writer finishes their run, that doesn't mean it's over and done with in the story. Just as your example with Gillen and Bendis goes to show. It's pretty common for writers to go back to something another writer did.

The specific example I used, (Gillen's "Iron Man" following to Bendis' run), involves a baggage heavy plot point (Tony being adopted?!?!?!) being carried form Gillen's run to Bendis' run. Bendis' run is not only a re-numbering, but it is immediately following something that is functionally a reboot. Even if you dispute the idea of "Secret Wars" leading to a reboot, "All New All Different" Marvel is being aggressively marketed as a point for new readers to buy in. Bendis carrying over the adoption reveal is a huge amount of baggage. (And, it requires readers who care about consistency to ignore all sorts of things about the older comics.)

I am liking the Bendis "Iron Man" book. But, I am not pretending that I can see the creative or editorial logic of carrying over a baggage heavy plot point from a run that ended 2 years ago (even if I really like that run).

Of course, there is some speculation (and I stress that it is speculation) that editorial pushed for the adoption reveal during Gillen's run so it would be ready to go for when Bendis got the book. A two year planning lead is not unreasonable, especially for an a-list series like "Iron Man". And, it is also assumed that the "Iron Man in space" plot was a mandate that Gillen just happened to make work very well with his high concept. (In other words, the baggage may have been planned to carry over.)

Dominic wrote:Marvel has always pushed the idea of a cohesive universe harder than DC. This actually picked up in the 80s, following "Crisis on Infinite Earths". (In contrast, I recall at least one introduction to a "Secret Origins compilation from DC that conceded they were willing to be loose with details and origins.)

In the early decades of comics maybe.. But the whole point of "Crisis on Infinite Earths" for DC was to simplify the stories and make it all much more cohesive and easier for readers to follow. One DC universe rather than a multiverse with only one version of the characters. The problem was they hadn't really planned it out all that well and that eventually resulted in Zero Hour being an attempt to further reconcile those problems.

Marvel rewarded the OCD of the fandom for long enough that the fans came to expect it. In the last decade, Quesada actively started ignoring things like cohesion and such for the sake of a good run (often written to be compiled later). People would froth and complain that Quesada's Marvel was getting things wrong, when it was a question of Quesada not caring. (Look up articles about "One More Day" for examples of this. JMS was going out of his way to try and make it work. Quesada just hand-waved it as unimportant.)

Part of a good run (and writing in general) is cohesion. It's not "OCD" fans that came to expect it, that's how it should be done. There's a good reason why OMD was panned by fans and critics alike. It was a terrible story that was only done because Quesada wanted to "put the genie back in the bottle" and didn't care about any of the details in doing so, let alone making it a "good run". JMS actually quit working on the title and wanted his name removed from the final issue because he refused to write it the way Quesada wanted it.

Traditionally, Marvel fans care more about making stuff fit and DC fans cared more about things being good.

I don't think that's true. One of, if not the biggest complaints I've seen about DC ever since the launch of the New 52 has been about stuff not fitting. Again, some of their past reboots have been all about attempts to simplify and reconcile stories to help make things fit better.

Even if you dispute the idea of "Secret Wars" leading to a reboot, "All New All Different" Marvel is being aggressively marketed as a point for new readers to buy in.

That's the thing about "Secret Wars"... One of the biggest criticisms I've seen about it is that it was such an anti-climatic ending that didn't do much. It wasn't the big reality resetting event it was played up to be. Some things changed in the aftermath of course, but largely, things went right back to the way they were before it all started. Much like DC did after Infinite Crisis, there was a time jump which serves as a better jumping on point for readers than the event itself.

I am liking the Bendis "Iron Man" book. But, I am not pretending that I can see the creative or editorial logic of carrying over a baggage heavy plot point from a run that ended 2 years ago (even if I really like that run).

Most readers aren't like you Dom. They care about and like the sense of continuity. Just because there's a new writer on the book doesn't mean they drop whatever the previous writers have established.

In the early decades of comics maybe.. But the whole point of "Crisis on Infinite Earths" for DC was to simplify the stories and make it all much more cohesive and easier for readers to follow. One DC universe rather than a multiverse with only one version of the characters. The problem was they hadn't really planned it out all that well and that eventually resulted in Zero Hour being an attempt to further reconcile those problems.

DC had it planned in general terms. But, in 1985, CoIE was unprecedented, so the bumps were understandable. "Zero Hour" was not meant to fix problems with CoIE specifically so much as it was meant to maintain and clean some of the things that had happened since CoIE.

More fundamentally, the streamlining that "Crisis on Infinite Earths" was supposed to create involved tossing a significant amount of backstory. That was unthinkable for Marvel. (I know Marvel fans who have never understood how DC could do such a terrible thing, or why DC fans would stand for it.)

There's a good reason why OMD was panned by fans and critics alike. It was a terrible story that was only done because Quesada wanted to "put the genie back in the bottle" and didn't care about any of the details in doing so, let alone making it a "good run". JMS actually quit working on the title and wanted his name removed from the final issue because he refused to write it the way Quesada wanted it.

I know that JMS wanted his name taken off of "One More Day". But, he wrote it to Qesada's specification (which is why he wanted his name taken off).

"One More Day" was bad. Plenty of reasons. But, there are still (nearly a decade later) people howling and complaining about how they want MJ and the marriage back. No matter how good "Spider-Man" comics have been since MJ was written out, people are still going to howl and compain because "One More Day" was published at all.

Quesada wanted MJ gone, and did not care about the details. But, that was not the real problem with that story. (Why the hell would the devil care about a single marriage? Why?) In real terms, Quesada should have just tossed the marriage with an editorial mandate rather than wasting 4 issues of a comic. But,

I don't think that's true. One of, if not the biggest complaints I've seen about DC ever since the launch of the New 52 has been about stuff not fitting. Again, some of their past reboots have been all about attempts to simplify and reconcile stories to help make things fit better.

The traditional distinctions have broken down a bit, likely due to changes at both companies. DC now is not the DC of my youth. Similarly, Marvel is not the company it was 20 years ago.

That's the thing about "Secret Wars"... One of the biggest criticisms I've seen about it is that it was such an anti-climatic ending that didn't do much. It wasn't the big reality resetting event it was played up to be. Some things changed in the aftermath of course, but largely, things went right back to the way they were before it all started. Much like DC did after Infinite Crisis, there was a time jump which serves as a better jumping on point for readers than the event itself.

"Secret Wars" had a solid ending if one reads it as a Doom v/s Reed story. (And, after the initial "event", that is the only way it can be read.) But, as an event, it was terrible. Delays bled momentum. And, there were obvious changes from the start (even assuming that the "start" was Hickman's run on "Avengers" and "New Avenger", rather than "Age of Ultron").

I still tend to think that "Secret Wars" was meant to get rid the multiverse (based on the tone and direction of the lead-in, as well as Quesada's known disdain for the idea of a multiverse). But, even putting aside the creative crutch a multiverse offers, Marvel had high-selling books that relied on a muiltiverse to work. (Would you want to knock "Spider-Gwen" off the market?) In theory, Marvel could just publish unrelated series and not try to make them fit. But, fans would be up and arms and demand that the series fit somehow or another.

Marvel lost an opportunity to use "Secret Wars" to streamline and modernize. "One More Day" and the marriage could have been simultaneously wiped out. Much of the baggage characters like Iron Man picked up in the 90s could have been formally removed. (Less baggage would have made the "jump on" easier for new readers.)

Alright, now I'm gonna scratch the surface of the iceburg that is comic book history and how it pushes new readers away. Comics have been around for a long time. Long before any of us here on this forum were born by a long shot. That's a lot of backstory and history. And for someone who might be looking to start reading comics, that can be an intimidating factor. It's actually one of the reasons I resistant to start watching Dr. Who, because it had been around since before Star Trek even and all that history was a lot to try to catch up on.

But here's where Who succeeds and comics don't: Dr. Who started a new series back in... I wanna say 2005(ish). It was clearly meant to be the start of a new series and a jumping on point for people that were interested. And it's been telling a more or less cohesive story since. And see, that's the thing: Comics is the only medium where you're supposed to just take a single story arc as not being part of larger narrative. I mean, imagine if Star Trek did that. "Oh, season one is worth watching even though season three makes it so that season one never happened". Fans would throw a fit, casual watchers would quit watching and it would be regarded as an epic fail. But, in comics? Nope, that's just Wednesday. Anyway, I'll elaborate more on this later, but just wanted to throw that out there as another hurtle that comic companies have for drawing in new readers.