^Ah, never mind, then.
IDW's newest plans
- Thread starter ryan123450
- Start date
Indeed. I was surprised that they never did a post-TNG follow-up to Countdown [i.e., Captain Data & co], since (a) it was talked about as a distinct possibility at the time, (b) it had high-for-IDW sales to use as a launchpad and (c) it gave them the most room to build an ongoing continuity, as they tried with their non-movie Transformers comics (although, while that same TF continuity is nominally ongoing, there's been a couple of jarring shifts along the way).
Did they try to and it was spiked, leading to the "lost episode" approach?
IDW said something about a pre-Countdown comic concerning Data's resurrection a while ago - but The Needs of the Many (which explicitly includes Countdown in it's STO backstory) got there first. Whether that dissuaded IDW from telling a version of the story I don't know.
Of possible interest on this point...
The latest issue of the movie adaptation mini-series has the Spock-Prime/Kirk mind-meld scene. And in the comic's adaptation of the scene, Picard and Data appear as part of the Hobus Star backstory.
Countdown raises a lot of 24th-century questions, ones that I hope someone eventually addresses.
Speaking as someone who not only reads comics, but writes and draws them as well (and yeah, I got a Trek thing or three in my Documents folder), I can understand where IDW's coming from in terms of sticking with what they know sells, but as a fan, it's supremely underwhelming watching the solicits slide in every month and being disappointed with what I see.
I've essentially divested myself of IDW's Trek output by this point, but it was somewhat before their recent re-focus on TOS and AbramsTrek, because their TNG stuff was just leaving me cold, I'm just not that enamored with TOS, and adaptations of pre-existing work (i.e., their recent "novelizations" of TWoK and AbramsTrek) hold no interest for me.
To Andy, I offer my sincerest condolences in regards to your frustrations in getting Titan published through IDW. I had, on an earlier thread, surmised that IDW's lack of a license for Voyager (which, given the nature of their other Trek licenses, might have been necessary for Tuvok's inclusion) could've been a deal-breaker for any prospective Titan pitches. Still, the fact that one of the novel series' architects and the actor famous for portraying one of the principal characters couldn't get IDW to budge is disheartening to say the very least. I sincerely hope this truly isn't your swan song writing Star Trek fiction, as I've always found your stuff a joy to read.
IDW's tunnel vision with the license is also disheartening to me as a comics professional, since working on a Trek comic is something I've long aspired to give a shot. Hell, one of those Trek projects I mentioned might end up a webcomic just so I can do something with it besides take up hard-drive space.
I would sincerely love to support IDW's Trek output if it meant more stories in the vein of what I want to read. I just wish it didn't mean buying comics that I don't want to read.
I've essentially divested myself of IDW's Trek output by this point, but it was somewhat before their recent re-focus on TOS and AbramsTrek, because their TNG stuff was just leaving me cold, I'm just not that enamored with TOS, and adaptations of pre-existing work (i.e., their recent "novelizations" of TWoK and AbramsTrek) hold no interest for me.
To Andy, I offer my sincerest condolences in regards to your frustrations in getting Titan published through IDW. I had, on an earlier thread, surmised that IDW's lack of a license for Voyager (which, given the nature of their other Trek licenses, might have been necessary for Tuvok's inclusion) could've been a deal-breaker for any prospective Titan pitches. Still, the fact that one of the novel series' architects and the actor famous for portraying one of the principal characters couldn't get IDW to budge is disheartening to say the very least. I sincerely hope this truly isn't your swan song writing Star Trek fiction, as I've always found your stuff a joy to read.
IDW's tunnel vision with the license is also disheartening to me as a comics professional, since working on a Trek comic is something I've long aspired to give a shot. Hell, one of those Trek projects I mentioned might end up a webcomic just so I can do something with it besides take up hard-drive space.
I would sincerely love to support IDW's Trek output if it meant more stories in the vein of what I want to read. I just wish it didn't mean buying comics that I don't want to read.
Wow wasn't suspecting a comic artist to get in this talk but I agree with you. I think there's been enough TOS stories told and they should have tried writing some good TNG stories even if it was one shots not a whole miniseries.
So there should be no more of something that sells well?
Hehehe. Well, IDW didn't deliberately set out to write TNG stories that not enough people were happy with. And several of the IDW mini-series have been sets of one-shots in the guise of a mini-series. Obviously, marketing studies informed them that comic mini-series do do better than one-shots in this current day and age.
I notice that IDW only has one solicitation for november. Issue 2 of the Khan mini-series. Wonder why they are cutting back on the trek titles. At one point they used to have 2 or 3 issues out a month.
They aren't selling as fast as originally planned? No secret there.
Also, wasn't the final issue of the Captain's Log series supposed to have come out in november? until it got canceled?
I'm wondering if we'll start to see this "new" direction after the new year? I don't think IDW needs to oversaturate the market.
IDW has shown zero reluctance towards one-shots with the other properties they handle. They've published several Transformers, Doctor Who, and Angel one-shots. Unlike the Alien Spotlight and Captain's Log "one-shots," IDW hasn't released those one-shots under an umbrella title. That may indicate that insofar as Star Trek is concerned IDW believes that standalone one-shots won't sell; that may have been your point, but what you said was broader and more generalized than that, which manifestly isn't true.
With their current levels of output, it's pretty hard to oversaturate the market. IDW certainly isn't being as aggressive as Marvel was nearly fifteen years ago with four monthly ongoings, a bimonthly ongoing, and specials every quarter or so, and I don't think that anyone would say that Marvel was "oversaturating" the market.
If anything, I'd argue that IDW is underserving the market. I think it's telling that Doctor Who, a property that IDW has had for half the time that they've had Star Trek, has an ongoing monthly series, while with Star Trek they seem to be throwing stuff at the wall in the hopes that something will stick.
Taking together what I said to Ian above and now this, I'd say that IDW's problem is that they still haven't figured out what comic book audiences want from Star Trek.
Actually I've heard a lot of people say that Marvel's '90s strategy was a case of oversaturation -- that they put out more Trek content than there was a paying audience for, and so they were unable to turn a profit.
Aside from that, though, I'd agree that IDW isn't oversaturating anything.
Aside from that, though, I'd agree that IDW isn't oversaturating anything.
Marvel couldn't turn a profit on the Star Trek comics, but it wasn't due to oversaturation. It was due to the deal they made with Paramount; the comics would have had to sell something like 3 to 4 times what they actually sold for Marvel to see one cent. Cutting back to one or two titles a month wouldn't have magically made the Deep Space Nine comics suddenly sell 150k per issue. Star Trek has always been a midlist comics title; you could put Todd McFarlane and the ghost of Jack Kirby on the book and it's still not going to crack the top ten. Marvel's problem was that they paid Paramount as though it were a top ten comics property, and once they realized what they'd done they walked away because they were simply throwing money down a hole with every issue they published.
But that's typical. Licensees typically make bad deals where the Star Trek brand is concerned. I don't know if the problem is that Paramount overcharges (though history suggests that they do) or that the public doesn't care enough about Star Trek to want to spend money on it (hence, bargain outlet shelves stuffed to the gills with Playmates' movie toys). Star Trek has a broad fanbase, but does it have a dedicated one? I'm not so sure any longer.
But that's typical. Licensees typically make bad deals where the Star Trek brand is concerned. I don't know if the problem is that Paramount overcharges (though history suggests that they do) or that the public doesn't care enough about Star Trek to want to spend money on it (hence, bargain outlet shelves stuffed to the gills with Playmates' movie toys). Star Trek has a broad fanbase, but does it have a dedicated one? I'm not so sure any longer.
I wouldn't mind it if IDW puts out maybe 2 books a month, at most.
I miss the great days of DC. To this day, imo, they still have put out the best trek comics.
I miss the great days of DC. To this day, imo, they still have put out the best trek comics.
I remember attending a panel KRAD held on the subject of Trek comics, which I was reminded of when Allyn posted his analogy regarding McFarlane and Kirby. And that brought up something else that I think has contributed to the decline in interest in Trek comics.
The comic industry at present is built largely more on the talent rather than the characters and IPs. There are still fans of a particular series or character, but the mainstream comic publishers promote the writers and artists as much or more than the actual book they're working on.
No disrespect for the current crop of Trek comics writers and artists, but IDW really doesn't have a lot of big names working on their comics, with the possible exception of John Byrne, who, again, no disrespect intended, isn't as much of a hot ticket creator as he was in the 70s and 80s. Most of the writers and artists they have working on their Trek books are largely unknown or known only for working on other IDW properties.
Getting back to the KRAD panel, one of the things I'd asked him about was the fact that many artists are somewhat scared off from working on Trek due to having to adhere to likenesses and tech reference (myself included, I'm an okay artist, but I have zero confidence when it comes to portraits or likenesses). That's apparently why many Trek comics are produced by talent largely unknown outside their Trek work.
If IDW wants to be competitive with their Trek material, they need to widen their scope of promotion to draw in the casual comic reader and not just the Trek fan. Whether that comes from seeking out more well-known talent or varying their offerings beyond what they've done so far is anyone's guess, but in my humble personal opinion, what they're currently doing isn't working.
The comic industry at present is built largely more on the talent rather than the characters and IPs. There are still fans of a particular series or character, but the mainstream comic publishers promote the writers and artists as much or more than the actual book they're working on.
No disrespect for the current crop of Trek comics writers and artists, but IDW really doesn't have a lot of big names working on their comics, with the possible exception of John Byrne, who, again, no disrespect intended, isn't as much of a hot ticket creator as he was in the 70s and 80s. Most of the writers and artists they have working on their Trek books are largely unknown or known only for working on other IDW properties.
Getting back to the KRAD panel, one of the things I'd asked him about was the fact that many artists are somewhat scared off from working on Trek due to having to adhere to likenesses and tech reference (myself included, I'm an okay artist, but I have zero confidence when it comes to portraits or likenesses). That's apparently why many Trek comics are produced by talent largely unknown outside their Trek work.
If IDW wants to be competitive with their Trek material, they need to widen their scope of promotion to draw in the casual comic reader and not just the Trek fan. Whether that comes from seeking out more well-known talent or varying their offerings beyond what they've done so far is anyone's guess, but in my humble personal opinion, what they're currently doing isn't working.
See, here's where there is significant risk. I'm a Trek fan. I'm not a comics fan. Superhero comics leave me cold. I never developed a taste for them when I was 13, so there's no nostalgia factor, which is pretty much the only reason a 50-year-old would read 'em.
I read Trek comics because they're TREK, not because they're comics. And the more IDW tries to make them feel like comics, the less interest I have.
Not all comics are superhero comics. There are a number of acclaimed comics creators who don't specialize in superhero work, at least not exclusively. Comics are a medium, not a genre.
Yeah, but stuff like Love & Rockets (which I consider one of the most important literary works of the last 30 years, in any medium or genre) aren't what fanboys point to when they say "comics."
To the vast majority of fans and non-fans alike, "comics" = 'costumed superheroes." And that's the way I was using the word. Pointing out exceptions to the rule (which Star Trek comics are) doesn't negate my point.
But to be pedantic, I'll put it thus: Any effort to make Star Trek comics more like superhero comics would lessen my interest in reading them.
YMMV.
Who says we were talking about "fanboys?" That's a straw man. The statement was that they need to draw in a larger percentage of comics readers. Which obviously includes people who read all types of comics, not just outsiders who have a narrow, stereotyped perception of comics.
Similar threads
