Blogs:

Newsarama Blogs Home > Article: On “New” vs. “More”

On “New” vs. “More”

January 26th, 2012
Author Graeme McMillan

I think everyone has noticed that Marvel has started publishing a number of their books more than once a month. They’ve been ramping up on this for a while, and it’s something I’ve kind of shook my head at, because it’s a desperate ploy to gain marketshare that doesn’t promote sustainability on any level. It’s a cash grab, pure and simple, and when you couple that with the fact so many of their books are creeping up on $3.99, I shudder to think of the long-term effects.

And I can hear you shaking your own head now. Okay, maybe I can’t hear you doing that, but I can imagine the chuckling: “Desperate? Marvel is the number one publisher in comics!” – but I’ll stand by my words. When DC launched their new 52 last September, Marvel didn’t fight back with awesome. They fought back with the only real tool in their shed: more. They’re not increasing the frequency of their books out of generosity, they’re doing it to dominate the market. And in the absence of anything even resembling new, all we get is more.

That’s Image Comics’ Eric Stephenson, writing about Marvel’s recent moves and – worryingly, perhaps, for Marvel fans – making a lot of sense. He goes on to point out the similarity in recent Marvel storylines (“Other characters get the Hulk’s powers. Other characters get Spider-Man’s powers. Other characters get hammers like Thor. Now, if that recent Iron Fist image from an upcoming issue of New Avengers is any indication, a bunch of characters will be imbued with the Phoenix Force. I know DC went green by using recycled paper, but maybe Marvel’s trying to recycle in other ways”) and event structures (“Civil War, House of M, World War Hulk, Secret Invasion, Shadowland, UltimatumFear Itself, Spider-Island, X-Men: Schism, and now, Avengers Vs. X-Men. It’s all-out hero on hero action in the mighty Marvel manner, again and again and again”), and it makes for pretty depressing reading. “These are not serious creative statements,” he says, “It’s more like a bored child reaching into the toy box trying to find new ways to wring some meager enjoyment out of faded old playthings.”

The same argument can be made for DC’s New 52 initiative – especially in the second wave, which removed titles like Mr. Terrific and OMAC which, if not entirely original, were at least something different from the DC norm, in favor of another Batman book and the return of Earth-2 as an ongoing concern, something we haven’t for more than quarter of a century. Less immediate repetition than Marvel, perhaps, but also less room for defending the work with a “This Is What They Want.” Because, as Stephenson admits, Avengers Vs. X-Men may be filled with ideas and characters we’ve seen countless ways already, but it’ll sell, and in far greater numbers that more “deserving” books like Fatale, The Manhattan Projects or Casanova, even though those books all have the same writers as AvX. Is the problem with the comic industry’s obsession with familiarity not the creators – who are doing new work, for the most part – or the publishers – which are, after all, businesses which exist solely to make money – but the readers, who not only indulge in the endless nostalgia and everything-we’ve-seen-before, but do so in such volume that it drowns out other, more original comics that need the attention to survive?

I don’t know. It could be a circular argument (If only more original work was pushed more, more people would know about it, so it would sell better, so more people could afford to do it, so it could be more popular, which would mean it would be talked about more and pushed more, because the ad dollars would see more return on investment, and so on) that leads nowhere. But the more I think about it, the more I think there’s a missing piece in the argument that the Big Two are only interested in maintaining existing intellectual property versus creating some new stuff…

10 Responses to “On “New” vs. “More””
  1. Jane A Says:

    Ultimately the readers vote with their dollars as always. The transition to digital will make this even more apparent, no comics left in the stores to collect dust that way.

  2. Simon DelMonte Says:

    He has a point, though I will note once again that he seems to enjoy tearing down DC and Marvel in a way that seems to insult those of us who prefer DC or Marvel to Image.

    But, yeah, Marvel does seem to be running in circles. It really doesn’t have to. Amazing Spider-Man seems surprisingly fresh these days. X-Factor is always a breath of fresh air. There are lots of ways to stick with the tried and true and yet be innovative. Eight months of the Avengers and X-Men fighting each other isn’t one of them.

    DC, though, does seem to be doing things that are a little less repetitive. Have we ever seen anything like Demon Knights? Has anyone really done what Lemire and Snyder are doing in tandem with the Red and the Green? New? Maybe not. Something different? Yeah.

  3. Ivan Brandon Says:

    I’d wager the problem is we’ve continually targeted an audience that has never expressed anything more than a desire to see the X-men fight the Avengers strictly because the content they enjoy is also printed on paper in the same basic size dimensions with the same kinds of staples as what we’re trying to sell.

    We have doubled and tripled down on the idea that we have any claim at all to those readers by virtue of form and not content and then been frustrated when reality didn’t follow.

    And y’know- I’m as guilty of it as anyone. But it doesn’t work. It never did.

  4. Seth Finkelstein Says:

    Is it bad that I actually kind of enjoy the double shipping? If it means I get more complete story arcs from a title before its creative team changes or half of the characters get shuffled around due to the latest big event? The first team of New Avengers got about 25 issues to create team chemistry and stories before the team was shaken up. The Heroic Age Avengers (Bendis and JRJr) basically had 12 before Fear Itself came along. And one of those stories mostly stared the Illuminati. While I agree that it might cost more per month, I feel that I get more personal satisfaction.

  5. Nathania Says:

    When companies who have marketshare make desperate moves, I tend to think it must be b/c their rates of growth are slowing and the projections don’t look good. Perhaps Marvel is attempting to beef up the cash coffers to adjust the changes occurring within the publishing industry at large.

  6. Dave S Says:

    Sour Grapes. His comments would have more impact if Image were actually capable of putting out event books or capable of shipping more than 12 issues of their comics in a year. A while back Image tried doing a big Marvel-style crossover in “Image United.” Fast forward a few years later and here we are still waiting for issue 4! It’s hard to put out more than one issue a month when you can barely do one issue a year.

  7. Joe S. Walker Says:

    Watch out for flying sparks from that grinding axe!

  8. jidasfire Says:

    I don’t know. I can’t personally say it bothers me, seeing as I only read a couple of Marvel books, and when they come out extra times a month, that means I get more story. Honestly, considering how often comics come out late or not at all or just plain get canceled, seeing more of a book I like doesn’t bother me.

    Also, I don’t really get why Image wants to throw themselves into a Marvel vs. DC war. Image is the leading (or one of the leading anyway) indie publishers in the country, and they offer things Marvel and DC simply don’t, except for maybe Vertigo. Honestly, their best move, instead of bashing, is probably to point that out for all the people who are sick of retcons and “event comics.”

  9. Joseph V. Smith Says:

    I think that the concept of comic book clashes between super heroes is a way to make money. I am having no part in this and I am not buying the books. Bottom line.

  10. Tyler Says:

    This is a non issue. Stephenson actually insults comic buyers by implying that we’re being forced to buy books we don’t want to. I buy books I like. If Uncanny X-Force, a book that I like, ships an extra issue, then good. I buy the book because I like it. So why wouldn’t I want more? If I had a financial restraint, then I would, like a mature adult, re-evaluate my purchases and adjust accordingly. I’m not being forced into anything, and if I didn’t want to buy it, I wouldn’t. So why piss and moan about that?

    Also, of course comic book clashes between superheroes is a way to make money. You think Marvel does this for free? Because they just enjoy writing stories without having bills to pay? They’re a business. If you don’t like the story, that’s fine. If you’re not a fan of the creators or characters, great, skip it. But complaining that a story is only being told only to make money is like complaining that the only reason your boss pays you is because you work for him. Grow up.

Leave a Reply »