Over on the blogomain of Heidi MacDonald, Paul O’Brien looks at Marvel’s sales for September with his customary wit and cynicism. Of things to note this month, the value of the Civil War brand, and the downside of such a brand on other books in the Marvel line:
Neil Gaiman and John Romita Jr’s relaunch of the Kirby concept [the Eternals] has fallen under the radar with all the big stunts going on at the moment - this isn’t even in the league of MARVEL 1602 where sales are concerned. On the flip side, though, it’s selling very well for an Eternals book.
That last line? I think that’s called “damning with faint praise.”
October 27th, 2006 at 8:09 am
My problem with this….
If it were some book on a different imprint (DC’s Vertigo or maybe even one of Marvel’s other imprints) and had some sort of grassroots popularity, instead of leveling backhanded compliments we’d be complaining “Oh, no one is buying this FANTASTIC BOOK!”
Maybe Gaiman/RomitaJr’s Eternals Isn’t that great. Maybe it is. I think it’s a bit too early to really tell. But my point is, there’s a fine line between being justifiably cynical towards a company’s marketing department and questionably cynical to a book’s sales while ignoring it’s artistic worth.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Not surprising, he does weekly reviews of Marvel x-books and usually spends the first 10 lines says how much he hates x-books, and he wish there werent so many and bla bla bla. I allways wonder why he keeps spending time on them then
October 27th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Because he loves the X-Men, but not enough to overlook the fact that you can’t polish a turd.
//\Oo/\\
October 27th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
It took Paul the better part of a year to realize that the Marvel Adventures books weren’t neccesarily aimed at the direct market and now finally comments as such.
He has still yet to catch on that books like Eternals will see their real sales once they’re in Hardcover.
October 27th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
It’s not just Paul. Talk to Romita Jr. about it. He’s PISSED. Gaimen and him on anything should be selling through the roof. Quesada probably put him on WWH to make up for it.
October 27th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Just for the record, I honestly didn’t intend that to come across as a backhanded compliment - although reading it back, I can see why it might. But it was meant at face value.
As for Ian’s comment, he’s just plain wrong. The Marvel Adventures imprint launched in March 2005, and my comment that month was “These books don’t exist to target the direct market audience.” I was more equivocal about its predecessor, the Marvel Age imprint, which launched in March 2004 - but then MARVEL AGE SPIDER-MAN #1 was a top fifty title, and even then I observed that the digest format was at least as important as the monthly.
Bad Ian. No rewriting history.
October 27th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
If Marvel wanted the Eternals to sell like hot cakes, they should’ve put a Civil War logo on it and the lemmings would lap it up!
The fans are that dumb.
It also does not help that 1602 burned some readers and Eternals reads like Neil recycled the parts of Sandman that DC would not let him do in the first place due to the mature readers label.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
It just seems like Gaiman is just having fun telling popcorn stories at Marvel. I don’t think he cares if they’re good or not…
October 27th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
I’ll take Gaiman’s popcorn stories over 90% of what is out there any day of the week.
October 28th, 2006 at 12:09 am
As long as it gets us Neil Gaiman’s Shogun Warriors, I’ll be happy.
October 28th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Not that it’s complete crap, but Eternals hasn’t been exactly brilliant either. I was expecting more from Gaiman, quite honestly.
October 28th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
It IS bothersome that Gaiman’s Eternals plot wise reads like Miracleman Plus Transformers.