So I came across this comic a few weeks ago from Non Sequitur:
And it had me thinking. In a lot of ways, it seemed a bit obvious in retrospect — and then watching the episode of South Park (a NSFW moral to the story here) with the Jonas Brothers really rattled it around in my head. Are comic book fans getting exploited for fantasy, whether it be power, sexual, or otherwise? Is this a willing symbiosis? Is it a fair one?
Now, there’s been a lot of discussion regarding the “fantasy” economy that we comic consumers seem to inhabit. Don’t believe me? The Dark Knight is the #4 best-selling film worldwide. As we reported several months ago, copies of Amazing Spider-Man with Barack Obama garnered enormous lines, and sold into third and fourth and fifth printings. With the recession as bad as it ever was, Heidi MacDonald notes that tickets for the San Diego Comic Con are still selling like hotcakes, and you know as well as I do that many participants are coming from outside the San Diego area.
So it’s obvious that fans are willing to shell out the cash — now the question is, looking how content producers respond. The “geek” audience has been widely coveted, with genre spectaculars coming out every May (like I discussed awhile back in Dial H for History). Radical Comics, meanwhile, has combined Hollywood and comics to create properties that span both mediums. Meanwhile, on the TV side of things, Comedy Central has been trying to mine that territory with Krod Mandoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire (not to mention Hugh Jackman going on the Daily Show tonight), and even Stan Lee himself was used to promote Who Wants To Be A Superhero. And let’s not forget the celebration of geek culture known as the Big Bang Theory, which recently hit Blog@ and the Mothership when it showcased Battle for the Cowl.
Now, one could certainly argue that fans are going to shows that are catered to their tastes (and a lot of people would agree with you). But I look at this a bit more cynically — I think the real hook that fans are falling to is that of validation and compulsion. Validation, in the fact that many can remember (I sure can, and I’m a pretty young guy) when their habit was seen as “uncool.” But now that comic book films are being fought over like oil fields for summer tentpole features, it’s a cathartic feeling to know you’re in the know when you’re waiting several blocks to get into X-Men Origins: Wolverine. You can finally explain the intricacies of the Weapon X program, and your friends will thank you for it!
All right, so perhaps I’m being a bit cynical on that front. But the other hook — compulsion — is the root of the “fantasy economy” I discussed earlier. We hear all the time about completists, people who must buy every issue of Action Comics or Amazing Spider-Man, no matter how much they love or hate it. There’s also the element of impulse spending, whether it be on a new title or hard-to-find collectibles. (I’ve been guilty of it myself — I have a prop Thor hammer on my TV, and it takes a lot of restraint on my part to hew to my $15-a-week budget when I buy books to review for Best Shots.) But if you’re a Batman junkie, and Warner Bros. is offering a high-profile, and POPULAR fix? Well, that’s what the movie studios and comic companies are anticipating — that readers will buy and buy across genres and mediums.
But here’s the real debate: is this fair? One the one hand, comics, even with the recent price hikes over at the Big Two, are still much more bang for your buck than a movie (and sometimes even video games, especially if you’re trying to keep to a budget). They are mass printed, and come out on a blisteringly fast basis compared to film and video games (and could certainly go toe-to-toe with some television stations). Does giving money towards these projects — no matter what the medium — help comics as a whole?
Indeed, there is that element of choice, which is the heart of this matter: if you love comics, you buy them, and hopefully you buy what you buy because you like the product and not because you feel obligated. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, I really have no answer as to the rightness or wrongness of the situation: only that it exists. I dig comics, and that’s why I write about them and, more importantly, buy the books. What do you think, Rama readers? Are we being targeted too much? Is such a thing possible? Sound off!
April 30th, 2009 at 9:28 am
“One the one hand, comics, even with the recent price hikes over at the Big Two, are still much more bang for your buck than a movie (and sometimes even video games, especially if you’re trying to keep to a budget)”
That does not make any sense at all, if by bang for your buck you mean 22 pages of usually decompressed storyline (written for the TPB) lots of ads, 4$ each, mediocre content a lot of time… Wow, I guess the economy does not affect everyone the same…
April 30th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Well, as a female comic book fan, I can safely say I’M not being targeted too much [/bitter sarcasm]
I’m personally ok with being part of a target audience, as long as I feel the people targeting me are one of us (one of us…) Like, I enjoy BBT, but it’s no Spaced, you know? It’s why I like what Radical’s doing, even though it’s roughly the same thing Virgin was trying to do. What does Richard Branson know about comics?
April 30th, 2009 at 10:03 am
How could it be “unfair” to make a movie based on a comic book, or to mention Batman in a sitcom? You’re not really making much sense here.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:13 am
@Eric Arsenault: But look at it in this context — $3-4 for a 22-30 page comic (look at DC with their co-features) with unlimited replay value, versus movie tickets ($10-$12) for 90-140 minutes of value. If you’re looking for inexpensive entertainment that fits your schedule, there is a price advantage.
And the argument you make with the trade is exactly right-on: but the prices of a softcover trade ($12-15 — less if you buy at a con or online) is about equal, if not less, to what you’d spend at a movie, unless you go alone and buy no food or drinks.
As for the decompressed nature and overall quality, it’s certainly a valid argument for some books — but you could easily argue the same for movies, too. To use a personal example, I feel I got a lot more fun out of Ghost Rider #35 (or my Invincible Iron Man trade) for less money than the ticket I bought for the Wanted film.
April 30th, 2009 at 10:23 am
No offense, David, but I think you are WAY off base on a number of things:
1) I don’t see how you can assert that a $4.00 comic book gets you more bang for the buck than a $10 movie or even a $50 video game. Breaking it down by dollar per entertainment hour, movies are about $5/hr, video games are about $2-3/hr. If a traditional comic book is read in 15 minutes, that means a comic book is costing you a whopping $16/hr. That is the very definition of no value for your money.
Using the example you used in your response, can comic books be a greater value than a movie? Maybe, but not a DVD. Plus, the “unlimited replay value” of a monthly comic book exists, but in my experience, it’s become more and more infrequent as individual issues are part 2 or 3 of 6 (or 7 or 8 or 12). It may be enjoyable, but ultimately unsatisfying because you don’t get a whole story.
And I don’t think that studios and publishers are necessarily looking to cross-pollinate. I think Didio has gone out of his way to say that he doesn’t make publishing decisions based on what’s going on in other mediums (I don’t know if that if that is actually true, but there you have it).
Also, I don’t think that studio heads are looking for comic book characters to exploit, they’re looking for properties to build franchises on, something that’s easily translatable to a visual medium and already has a story attached to it. Super heros are natural fit, but I think studios couldn’t give a flip about the integrity of the characters (LXG). On the other hand, big screen success has never translated into print sales for the original character (Blade).
And you know, what? The hobby is STILL uncool. Not the characters, but the hobby. All you have to do is look at the sales numbers to see that the industry is shrinking, not expanding with new readers.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:33 am
@Aqualad: Just to reiterate, I’m not arguing that it is unfair that there are comic book movies or mentioning Batman in a sitcom, but I’m discussing the fact that these content producers (movies or otherwise) are trying to milk a particular (and surprisingly lucrative) audience to the point of ubiquitousness. I’m just opening up the discussion here!
@MrWesley: No offense taken, sir! At the risk of going off topic — when I say “more bang for the buck,” I mean that you can get a full story for less money, like Ghost Rider #35 or Invincible Iron Man TP. Certainly there are decompressed stories (and less than good books), you are totally right-on, but I know that I can get a full story for $3 if I buy wisely. (You are totally right on most DVDs, which is why I didn’t include them in the mix.) And while you are correct that Editorial at the Big Two are not spearheading the cross-pollination, it is certainly happening through licensed products — look at the Iron Man cartoon, the Wolverine video game, or the Taco Bell comics.
Keep the discussion going! Agree with this article or no, I’m totally digging it, and want to get your take — are comics fans being exploited?
April 30th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Mr Wesley said: “And I don’t think that studios and publishers are necessarily looking to cross-pollinate. I think Didio has gone out of his way to say that he doesn’t make publishing decisions based on what’s going on in other mediums (I don’t know if that if that is actually true, but there you have it).”
I think that would be obvious, given what DC decided to do with Batman over the past year… Just like 1989’s Batman movie created a lot of new comics fans (I know, because a lot of my friends suddenly got interested), TDK certainly had the potential to do the same thing. Instead, DC decided to make the books completely unfriendly to new readers, and then took Bruce Wayne off the table entirely.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
well, i guess i’ll take on that last question first. in a certain sense they/we are, but i don’t think my following examples were mentioned in your article. the most glaring one is found in this month’s JSA (which had me misty more than once), and was mentioned here on blog@, the three part cover that someone expects someone else to buy three copies of the same comic to get the whole thing of. so now your $3 comic becomes a $9 investment. then there’s times when we’re not so much exploited as treated with contempt, like legion fans are, and were, when during an anniversary year they are without a book!
April 30th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
but, not to be accused of piling on, but i too have to disagree with comics having “unlimited replay value”. uh, i guess theoretically they do, but i can only image someone would have to have a mental disorder for this to actually be true. only a handful of comics can be, should be and are read more than once.
April 30th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
oh, and i love non sequitur, Dinae is one of the all-time great characters. and who wouldn’t probably read that ninja comic?