As opposed to pirating? Why would someone who has no problem with stealing decide to start paying for stuff all of a sudden?
DC's New 52: Reviews and Discussion (Spoilers welcolme and likely)
- Thread starter JD
- Start date
As opposed to pirating? Why would someone who has no problem with stealing decide to start paying for stuff all of a sudden?
Who's talking about pirating? I was referring to the notion that the New 52 was apparently created in the first place with the primary objective of drawing the attention of new readers. The sales figures really do not prove that "new readers" were or are buying the New 52. They just prove that people in general were buying them.
@JD all three of those books are in the New 52 Verse. Legion Origins is the origin of the Legion.
@JD all three of those books are in the New 52 Verse. Legion Origins is the origin of the Legion.
Which Levitz has told about six billion times, to date.
Um. So, rebooting their ENTIRE LINE doesn't count as an event? While it's not a crossover or a summer event... it's still a MAJOR event... probably the BIGGEST thing they have done since 1986.
I would say this goes to show: events sell books.
Yep. If a fan doesn't want an event or events to continue happening the biggest way to make your voice clear to the companies is to not buy the books when they come out. I say this because whenever this is brought up to a writer or an editor they always say sales proves otherwise.
Sure, but this was an event done right. A way to restart the universe so new readers would have a jumping on point, as well as a handjob for the nerds so they wouldn't feel like the world they were invested in never existed to begin with. And then, ideally, you could go on for a decade until it got too messy to keep track of again. My point though is, I'm thankful that I can currently pick and choose titles without feeling the need to pick up any other ones that are meant to ride the coattails of success.
Last edited:
I don't know if it was an event done "right". Especially with what we've come to learn about the genesis of the relaunch and the left hand not seeming knowing what the right hand was doing, or still is doing. Also it wasn't a restart of the universe. It was a merging of several timelines and a continuing of a fraction of others. Like I said there are several flaws to the relaunch. The biggest thing it has done is got people reading their comics and that is what it was supposed to do.
As far as events go, I wouldn't mind a return to the early 90's method of having book-end issues and then having the event take place in the annuals. This allowed, for the most part, the reader to get the bookends and then pick and choose the annuals they wanted. It also allowed the creators the opportunity to tell a story based solely on the event, without affecting the stories they were trying to tell in the main books. Most chose to set the annual either before or after the storylines going on in the main books and the few that chose to have the annual take place in the middle of an on-going story had that opportunity, as well. It also allowed the publisher the ability to give the title to a different creative team if they or the book's creative team did not want to write the annual.
Being a DC fan, I loved Armageddon: 2001 and Eclipso: The Darkness Within for these reasons and more (the less said about Bloodlines, the better). I also loved DC's use of the annuals for "Themes" instead of an event storyline, such as 1994's annuals being Elseworlds and 2005's being "Year One" stories.
Being a DC fan, I loved Armageddon: 2001 and Eclipso: The Darkness Within for these reasons and more (the less said about Bloodlines, the better). I also loved DC's use of the annuals for "Themes" instead of an event storyline, such as 1994's annuals being Elseworlds and 2005's being "Year One" stories.
I miss old school annuals. Annuals now don't feel special or worth the bother getting in my opinion and only a few of them have had any interesting story. The best annual recently that I've read and bought was last year's Superman/Batman Annual #4 written by Paul Levitz that was a sequel to the Batman Beyond episode where Superman was freed from Starro's influence. Magnificently written issue and the art was terrific. Had the cover as my avatar for a couple of months afterwards.
You know, I'll complain as much about events as the next guy, but it just occurred to me that Infinity War--as an event--had almost exactly the same structure as Blackest Night. That is, there were:
1)the miniseries (a most bodacious series, too).
2)a plot-edifying and actually-intended-to-entertain tie-in to the ongoing of the characters most intimately bound to the event (Warlock and the Infinity Watch), without which some stuff in the event itself doesn't make sense (principally the big reveal of the cosmic entities Eternity and Infinity in Infinity War #6, although arguably that shit doesn't make sense anyway, who cares), and
3)about fifty tie-ins that all had the same plot (as Blackest Night had its participants fight off zombie versions of loved ones, Infinity War generally had its participants fight off the Magus' evil, gross doppelgangers), and these were at best pointless and interruptive of stories in progress, and at worst quite bad.
The comics falling under section 1 are fine. Comics under section 2 are also fine (nobody hates the concept of stories). The problem comes with comics under section 3. These are what cause event fatigue, and what need to be done away with entirely. Putting 'em in annuals would be an improvement, but isn't going far enough.
1)the miniseries (a most bodacious series, too).
2)a plot-edifying and actually-intended-to-entertain tie-in to the ongoing of the characters most intimately bound to the event (Warlock and the Infinity Watch), without which some stuff in the event itself doesn't make sense (principally the big reveal of the cosmic entities Eternity and Infinity in Infinity War #6, although arguably that shit doesn't make sense anyway, who cares), and
3)about fifty tie-ins that all had the same plot (as Blackest Night had its participants fight off zombie versions of loved ones, Infinity War generally had its participants fight off the Magus' evil, gross doppelgangers), and these were at best pointless and interruptive of stories in progress, and at worst quite bad.
The comics falling under section 1 are fine. Comics under section 2 are also fine (nobody hates the concept of stories). The problem comes with comics under section 3. These are what cause event fatigue, and what need to be done away with entirely. Putting 'em in annuals would be an improvement, but isn't going far enough.
So, events are ok, as long as they are done right? No one sets out to make a bad comic, a bad event, a bad anything. Shit happens, and generally it's in hindsight one can see the wrong choices. But no one sets out to make a bad summer event.
And comic events are here to stay because they sell things.
Absolutely, DC made a smart decision in not HAVING to buy each book. But, to you point about events, this was a BIG EVENT. That's why it got the attention it did.
Agreed with all of this. I think that's the best way to handle events. Much more fun.
I think it's less a question of events and more a question of events that turn every title into an unreadable chapter of a giant crossover that makes no sense unless you buy the entire line.
That's why, with the exception of Crisis, the events that largely confined themselves to the annuals were the best. You could buy the ones you wanted and skip the ones you didn't without it affect the regular titles all that much.
That's why, with the exception of Crisis, the events that largely confined themselves to the annuals were the best. You could buy the ones you wanted and skip the ones you didn't without it affect the regular titles all that much.
Of course the reboot was an event "done right" - they spent two years planning it, and it upended the entire market.
We still don't really know if Jim Lee's "Last October" comment was meant for two years ago or he meant last year. If it was two years ago they organized and planned the relaunch pretty poorly in my opinion. Also how was it "Done right"? I still don't get that comment. That seems to be a fan opinion.
You'll notice my gripe was specifically with crossover events. Meaning ones that involve every single title in the line. Of course, all the new 52 had the hooded lady show up, which'll become significant at some point, but I'm enjoying the simplicity of the ride so far.
DC beat Marvel in sales.
For now they did. As I said that was what the relaunch was supposed to do...generate sales and it did that magnificently. Marvel's closing the gap now though and quicker than at least I expected. We'll see over the next few months if this trend continues or if Marvel can take control, which I predicted could happen by the time we reach next summer. We seem to be going around in circles. I don't think anyone has stated that the relaunch isn't successful...I'm merely suggesting that it's all peaches and cream either.
So for a few months, they'll have sold more comics than Marvel.
THAT'S all there is to "done right"?
So in a few months time (the gap is closing pretty quickly), Marvel will be back to their old way of doing crossovers "right"? Simply by selling more than the competition?
Yes. The objective of the publishing side is to sell lots of comics and GNs and maximize their profits. That is what a corporation is about: profit.
Do you know how far down DC's sales would have to sink for this not to be a complete success?
Yep. There's no right answer to the "success" of content - some people will hate what others will love. I prefer to stick with what can be measured; as far as whether something is "good" or not, I recognize a jury of one.
Similar threads
- Poll
