Return to Comics

Open Source Heroes – Part II

All publishers are Columbuses. The successful author is their America. The reflection that they – like Columbus – didn’t discover what they expected to discover, didn’t discover what they started out to discover, doesn’t trouble them. ~~ Mark Twain

~~~

I provided in Part I flawless, exhaustive proof that the comic book world can support another publisher of superhero books, I would go so far as to say it even needs another. (Admittedly, my idea of “flawless, exhaustive proof” may be skewed by my years in the software industry. I have fond memories of eight figure deals brokered solely on three word pitches like “on-line breakfast cereal.”) This business about Marvel and DC owning the superhero market? Pish. Posh. Too many superhero titles on the racks already? Not when you remove all the crep. I think the comic buying marketplace -- the whole of it, not just the direct market -- is screaming for another line of superhero product. They’re looking for an excuse not to buy Marvel and DC, they want a complete and wonderful tapestry of Gadgetman and Infinityguy stories and they want them told their way.

And I have no idea what that way is. Look, I’m the big ideas guy here, someone else can fill in the details.    

There are basically three ways to go about creating this rich, universal canvas on which to base this new comic book company (we haven’t picked a name yet, we’re waiting for input from the VC’s, you know, to get buy-in). The first is purely organic. Start from scratch, maybe telling pulp stories and then moving to what we now consider traditional superhero comics, introduce characters slowly all the while allowing various creators to lend their voice and spirit to the universe and individual character lore. The characters will eventually grow into icons, some becoming brands unto themselves. Wonderful stories will be told, television shows and movies made, words and ideas lifted right from the stories and into our everyday lexicon. Eventually, 30, 40, 50 years down the road we’ll have a wholly formed comic book universe from which hundreds, nee, thousands of characters will have sprung and a 38% market share achieved.

The only thing one would need to pull this strategy off was best verbalized by my brother every time we got ourselves ass deep in some stupid scheme typically involving lighter fluid, duct tape and beer. Picture the shit roughly six inches from the fan, at which point Tom would calmly say, “All we need now is a time machine.” That’s what you’d need to pull off the “organic method”.

You see, Bob, Jerry, we’re in the 21st century now, we need results yesterday or sooner. We’ve got investors to satisfy and a hungry fan base that’s none to happy they can’t buy action figures and HeroClix for each and every one of Gadgetguy’s 38 villains for Christmas this year. If you want to grow your superhero universe organically you’re going to have to go back in time to maybe 1960 or so to do it. Maybe you have already. Bob does look like a young Stan Lee. Regardless, we don’t have time to sit around waiting for things to mature, life moves too fast. Hell, I cut two movie deals and an Underoos licensing contract while I typed that last sentence.

So “organic” is out. The next option is holistic.

With the holistic approach we sit down and map out the entire universe before hand, the characters, relationships, alliances, mysterious-forces-at-work, maybe even the unique physics, chemistry and psychology. (Careful with that last one.) This has to be done in a way that provides not only a clarifying framework but flexibility for the creators. Maybe you get together a group of experienced creators and an editor or two and start bouncing ideas around. Maybe you generate a bible of sorts that can serve as the guidebook for all scripting to come. Maybe you play a drinking game where everyone has to take a shot of Stoli whenever someone “creates” a character that’s a direct rip-off from the big two. Again you see why I’m not a details guy.

This approach may be more structured but it certainly has its risks. Much of Superman and Batman’s mythology was developed over time – an overly thought out approach would undoubtedly have robbed some of the charm from these characters. (Not that there was much charm left after the 90’s got through with them.) Interestingly, despite decades of storytelling, the mythology around many of Marvel’s prominent characters remains largely unchanged, perhaps because they were products of a more modern approach to comic book superheroes. The other risk is the outward appearance that these are “corporate” creations, perhaps limiting their appeal to certain readers and quite naturally inviting comparisons to the big two. This results in ongoing creators having a larger credibility hurdle to clear than they might with a more organic approach and possibly limiting the breadth and style of storytelling. That should be your matra guys, don't limit breadth and style. 

Who would want to do things this way? Who could possibly have the time, energy and wherewithal to generate this sort of hitchhiker’s guide? I’m so glad you asked, because as it turns out my buddies over at Platinum Studios have done exactly that. Along this exact formula, Platinum Studios has created the Macroverse, a full-blown comic universe complete with superheroes, non-super heroes, parallel universes and its very own 1,000 page (plus) bible. The Macroverse bible was originally created with input from the likes of Greg Weisman (creator of Gargoyles ), Marv Wolfman, Cary Bates, and Danny Fingeroth among others. Platinum’s recently released COWBOYS & ALIENS graphic novel falls under the Macroverse umbrella and there are apparently more titles to come. I’m not sure how quickly the Macroverse will impose itself on the varying Platinum titles but a conversation I had with Platinum CEO Scott Mitchell Rosenberg some time back leads me to think it won’t be long. Despite his current focus on the film side of the industry, Rosenberg is an old comic book guy who seems to have a pretty good feel for this sort of thing. One of the charms of his Malibu Comics titles were that they were released as parts of the greater Malibu “Ultraverse” rather than one-offs cobbled together as an afterthought.

Here’s the real kicker to the holistic approach done right: intellectual property control. You wanna do movie deals? Sell Gadgetguy underpants, computer games and fruit rollups? In today’s comic book world, where even 12-year-old fan-fic writers can be heard uttering the phrase “creator owned property”, you better own the IP free and clear. (This is one of the reasons Platinum, while they’ll accept comic book pitches on any other genre, will not listen to anything relating capes and tights. In this way they minimize potential legal entanglements.) The real truth about this approach is that it’s not necessarily about doing comics really, really well, it’s at least as much about creating jet fuel for far more lucrative licensing and movie deals. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with that -- I’m a businessman, not an artiste -- but everyone won’t agree with that approach, many will hate it. So the important thing when implementing this strategy is to remember that while doing comics really, really well may not be part of your mission statement, that doesn’t automatically mean they have to be done poorly.

Anyway, Bob, Jerry, I know for a fact your day jobs at Costco don’t pay enough to take the Platinum Studios route and the VC guys said they were tied up funding a Chinese version of You Tube - besides neither of you know enough other industry types to pull together a whole universe from scratch anyway. Maybe what you need is a third way, a way I like to call Open Source Heroes. In Part III I'll primer that for you.   

Open Source Heroes – Part I

I didn’t comment on it at the time -- I rarely comment on anything in a timely fashion these days -- but a little exchange that took place over at The Engine struck a chord with me and after some ruminating here’s where I got to.

The post in question is this one wherein an **ahem** enterprising young soul attempted to pimp his superheroes forum for all those of mind to discuss this genre of writing. Capes and tights are a verboten topic on The Engine but before the lead bouncer could pull the plug Larry Young had this response:

“Don't take this the wrong way, but if you're starting out in comics, why would you do a superhero story? The superhero audience is already being well-served by Marvel and DC, so that audience really isn't going to care about your characters or situations, so that's a non-starter, and Marvel and DC aren't going to hire you because even if your comic is The Best Superhero Comic Ever, well, they've already got their comics scheduled out for a while and best of luck, etc.”   

The idea that Marvel and DC “own” the superhero market, lock, stockings and cowl seems unassailable from a 10,000 foot view, but obviously there is some room around the margins. The success, however relative, of titles like SPAWN, ASTRO CITY, THE AUTHORITY, PLANETARY and INVINCIBLE show that superheroes can find an ongoing audience while existing outside the mainstream universe of the big two. And yes, I realize several of these are published under the Wildstorm imprint, and are technically DC publications, but if the logic is that people won’t buy a non-DC/Marvel book because they don’t care about characters or situations outside of same, how are these different? How do they have any kind of audience? The answer is that these books have succeeded due to their creative teams and that people will buy non-big two superhero comics so long as they are done really, really well.   

What does this mean for Bob and Jerry Comicreator and their fresh new take on the genre? Will GadgetMan and InfinityGuy find an audience on the order of SPAWN, ASTRO CITY or INVINCIBLE? Not likely unless Bob and Jerry happen to be industry pros who’ve already spent years cutting their teeth on other projects, and establishing their superhero cred at Marvel or DC, or more likely both. Or I suppose they could be like Robert Kirkman who seems to have simultaneously put the lie to Young’s premises that readers aren’t interested in superhero books outside the mainstream universes and that writing these books won’t lead to work at the big two. But I’m willing to set Kirkman’s success aside in an exception-that-proves-the-rule sort of way. On the whole, I agree with Larry that for young comic book creators there are less bullet-ridden and probably more gratifying paths to sequential success than capes and tights. But the fact is, there is a path, it might be a difficult one, but it’s there nonetheless.

Let’s assume for a moment, just for fun, that the comic book industry is a growing one. That it’s not just all these wonderful independent graphic novelists and manga creators who are attracting a crowd but all aspects of sequential storytelling are on the uptick; that it’s not just a bubble, it’s a trend. And then you go to the movies and you see it’s not just 18-to-34-year-old male geeks exiting Fantastic Four and Superman Returns and Batman Begins and you go home read the reactions to this and then read that something with as much charm and potential as this got no traction at DC and then you reread your own comments about Marvel, and you finally start to think that maybe there is a market for superheroes outside the big two, providing they were done really, really well (and different), of course. 

Of course, now I’m talking more about me than you. You probably don’t think like this because you’re smart enough not to hit your head against that wall, even hypothetically. But I’m not as smart as you and I’m sure you’ll be shocked to find out that I have a hair-brained scheme or two just waiting to hatch. In Part II I’ll lay these out, or maybe Part II and Part III. We’ll see how long-winded I get.   

Go to Part II

DC, Marvel and the Female Reader

I’ve been following the reactions to DC’s announcement of the MINX line with passing interest, despite the somewhat predictable tenor of the responses. (The inestimable Johanna Draper Carlson has the best round up of reactions I’ve come across.) For my own part, I’m not that curious about the imprint or the announced titles, but I’m not the target market. For that matter, if DC had announced that readers such as myself were part of the target demo, failure to reach the young female age group would be a foregone conclusion. My real interest in it is as a business/marketing exercise, additionally, by combining the details of the MINX deal with Marvel Publisher Dan Buckley's interview over at ICV2, I think you get real insight into the differences between the two companies.

I’ve written before that Marvel and DC were fully capable of attracting young, female readers and I still believe that. I think there are four basic keys to accomplishing this:

• Utilize established, well-regarded talent that understands the audience and has proven ability to reach it;
• Make a long-term commitment – years, not months;
• Create stand-alone stories; i.e. outside of and completely divorced from the mainstream superhero universe;
• Focus distribution through non-direct market channels.

DC seems to be marking all four of these, although the jury is certainly still out on one and two. The financial commitment would indicate an intention to stay with this effort for a while, but we’ve all seen companies throw wads of cash around on new products, divisions, etc., only to abandon them without explanation, so we really have to wake a wait and see approach. DC does have a proven track record of establishing an imprint and keeping it (relatively) clean of the DC universe and even the DC brand. And while MINX books will surely find their way to the comic shops, I doubt anyone believes that’s where they’ll do the most damage. All-in-all, if the stories are good and DC stays committed, I give this initiative pretty good odds for success, however you might define it.

Let’s contrast that with Marvel. You can read the Buckley interview in its four parts here, here, here and here. The second part is where he discusses Marvel’s approach to reaching this audience. (The cryptic nature of some of Buckley’s responses shows he’s got a bright future as a White House Press Secretary.) Marvel’s approach boils down to, “You want girly books? They’re in the back. You gotta go down that aisle of superhero books to get there. See the superhero books? Those right there, the Marvel ones, with the pretty colors and Spider-man stories. You ever read any of those? Why don’t you try one of those?” I’m making it sound worse than it is (I’m sure some would say I’m sugar-coating it) but the foundational difference is that while DC is actually a publishing company subsidiary to a much larger company, meaning by and large they have to act as such, Marvel's publishing division is really an intellectual property holding company with some branding and marketing responsibilities. Their biggest purpose is to make sure the IP is properly maintained for the big boys in the film and licensing divisions. Secondarily, there’s a focus on maintaining the “Marvel” brand. Nearly everything gets the Marvel imprint, and those that don’t, like the Max line, still utilize highly protected Marvel-owned characters like Punisher, Howard the Duck, Son of Satan and Squadron Supreme.

Judging by the nature of the deals done in the last few years it seems pretty clear Marvel publishing has little interest in anything that doesn’t explicitly promote the Marvel brand or intellectual property. (At one point in part three Buckley touches on the differences between the Max and Essential lines in terms of “branding issues” - the idea that either is an actual brand is either telling or funny, depending upon how you feel about Buckley.) That isn’t necessarily a bad thing but it does make reaching that much-desired young female audience – in truckloads, I mean - a bit of a reach as that group is likely to sidestep anything blatantly Marvel or sniffing of capes and tights. Further, the type of talent Marvel would need isn’t likely interested in working with the dusty old house IP, they’ll need creator-owned freedom which doesn’t exactly lend itself to a smooth, lawyer-free licensing trail. All of which helps makes sense of the latest goofball character Marvel rolls out in his own six-issue miniseries – it’s so hard core comic types like myself can wander into the comic lounge and say, “Hey baby, let me refresh that trademark for you.” After all, you never know when Nicholas Cage might want to make another movie.

Meanwhile, DC doesn’t even warrant a line-item in the Time Warner Annual Report. They’ve got to act more like a real publishing company and like all publishing companies these days they want a bigger piece of the graphic novel pie. They’re perhaps a little better situated than most to accomplish that.

It’s kind of cool and trendy to stand outside of all this and declare how Marvel just doesn’t get it. I think they get it just fine. They are simply not structured institutionally or philosophically to attract a mass of young female readers, not that these readers aren’t welcome, just don’t expect any special treatment. For DC, MINX is what they hope is a sound business decision. Time will tell even if Time Warner won't.

The Official Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide #36

I haven’t really looked at one of these in years; the last one I bought was number 10, back in 1980. Not much has changed. Well, okay, the production values are certainly better. And prices have gone up. But this is basically the same beast and there’s a certain comfort in that.

As far as I’m concerned the biggest change -- which I’m sure was implemented some time ago -- is the reliance on the 10 point Comic Book Guide Grading over the old standby Good-Fine-Mint system. The more basic system isn’t abandoned complete -- the letter associations appear right above the numbers on every page -- but the CGC numbers serve as a more permanent reminder of the industry’s collector/investor influence, one that hasn’t always been kind. (And any negative perceptions associated with the collector’s side of the industry are probably not helped by the fact that the company which dominates direct market distribution also publishes the guide.) The valuations associated with the various ratings have changed as well. In 1980 a Good comic was typically worth one-third of its Mint version. These days Good has been devalued to about 7.5-8% of the high end ratings for Near Mint versions. Apparently there is no way for a comic to ever be “Mint” in today’s market, which is kind of sad. 

While I find the price listings fascinating and actually enjoyed several articles (in both the old and new volumes) the advertisements are the most compelling. As you would expect, most of the ads in the 1980 book are pretty cheesy. Goofy drawings, text pounded out on the old Smith-Corona, or even hand-written, and promises of cash for comics were the order of the day in 1980. The ads are universally more professional in the current edition. Not surprising with a color, full page ad running $2500 and black and white $900 and many advertisers marketing across multiple pages - it seems only prudent they would spend at least a little on the actual ad production. (Which, thankfully, hasn’t completely eliminated the occasional oddball.) I was surprised at how many of the advertisers had no web page – just email addresses.

I didn’t give this much time, but I did find a couple of folks from the 1980 book still in the current one: Doug Sulipa, Lone Star Comic and Redbeard’s Book Den. I’m sure there were several others. Lone Star has a pretty good on-line site that I’ve bought from on more than one occasion.

Here’s Doug Sulipa’s ad from my 1980 book (click for larger image):

All the ads were printed on yellow paper back then. In some future post I’ll put up some of the ads – from both books. A geat deal of unintentional humor there.

Collector’s price guides are nothing unique; nearly every hobby has some published record establishing prices, laying out the ground rules and providing space for advertisers. But I wonder how many of the guides themselves actually turn in to collector’s pieces? According to my current book the 1979 and 1980 volumes I have are now worth as much as $140.

Lot’s of fun stuff in these guides, but for now I’ll leave you with the top ten books by dollar value from the 1980 and 2006 editions:

	1980 Title					$$				2006 Title				$$
1	Marvel Comics #1					26,488				Action Comics #1				550,000
2	Action Comics #1					26,458				Detective Comics #27				450,000
3	Detective Comics #27					20,728				Marvel Comics #1				400,000
4	Donald Duck					18,644				Superman #1				335,000
5	More Fun Comics #52					17,112				All-American Comics #16				200,000
6	Whiz Comics #2					15,970				Batman #1				150,000
7	Walt Disney’s C & S #1					14,932				Captain America #1				150,000
8	Superman #1					13,288				Flash Comics #1				120,000
9	Adventure Comics #40					12,664				More Fun Comics #52				97,000
10	Captain America #1					11,925				Whiz Comics #2				90,000

Comics By The Numbers – February 2006

My latest Comics by the Numbers column -- reviewing February's Direct Market sales -- is up over at PopCultureShock. This was easily one of my top three PopCultureShock columns ever, so I have to insist you go there straight away and read.

 

Comic Books and the Movies – Part II

Some time back I posted my view of one facet of what may be coming for the comic book industry, in a somewhat dubiously titled post, “The Future of the Comics Industry?” That post explored the growing number of publishers who have established relationships with movie studios, or in some cases, like Marvel, are actually assuming the role of movie producer. At the end of that post I promised a follow-up explaining how companies might make money a lot of money in the near term but might want to batten down the hatches over the longer haul.

My delay in posting the follow-up was to allow me time to digest Edward Jay Epstein’s fascinating book, “The Big  Picture: Money and Power in Hollywood.” (Highly recommended for anyone with so much as a passing interest in how Hollywood works. It won’t take long to get through, unless you have my unfortunate habit of reading five books at once.) I’ve also been pouring over a number of articles Epstein has written for Slate - the latest of which is here, and will lead you to others if you’re so inclined. Epstein’s numbers and analysis went a long way towards helping me understand how a company like Marvel might have success producing movies.   

The Mighty Marvel Manner

With their much publicized assumption of $525 million in movie production debt, Marvel moved to the front of any discussion regarding comic books and movies. The initial reactions to this move were mixed, with most people unsure how to balance the unquestioned past successes against the failure of others as well as the notion that what remains in the stable may not be nearly as compelling as Spider-Man, X-men and the Fantastic Four.

Most of the discussion has centered around the potential success or failure of the planned slate of movies: beginning with Captain America and ranging through such properties as Iron Man, Thor, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Power Pack and Doctor Strange. Beyond Captain America, and maybe Iron Man, none of these are even remotely recognizable to the non-comic reading public and most don’t even enjoy icon status within that select group. How can Marvel possibly think any of these will have success at the box office? The answer is simple: they don’t. These movies will likely be regarded as box office failures when viewed through the narrow lens of movie production finance and it seems quite likely Marvel knows this going in, as does financier Merrill Lynch. As Epstein frequently points out, very few Hollywood movies make money via theatrical release – at least in the traditional business sense where the phrase “making money” might be interpreted to mean “earning a profit after all expenses are paid.” According to Epstein, on par, studio movies bring in about $1.00 for every $1.40 doled out in expenses. That really makes you question Marvel’s move, doesn't it? Why do the deal at all? Because in the modern world of Hollywood accounting the cash cows are not theatres, but television licenses and DVD sales. Here’s the money line from the original press release:

“Marvel will receive a gross participation on all revenues from the facility as the producer of each film and will retain all of the film-related merchandising revenues. These merchandising revenues and the gross participation are neither pledged as collateral nor subject to any cash restrictions under the facility. Marvel will also receive all profits, including all revenue streams (including box office receipts, DVD/VHS sales, television, and soundtrack sales) after film costs, distribution fees, marketing, principal repayment, and interest. In addition, Marvel will have the ability to build its own film library through this initiative.” [Emphasis added.]

Prior to this move Marvel’s profit participation in their various adaptations was fairly restricted -- as is the case with most licensers -- but this sets up a new downstream that could generate income for years. Studios have been bought and sold for the value of their film libraries alone and as long cable and satellite providers continue to add stations (heck, even if they don't) the demand for content will be there. Equally, there are nearly as many ways to package and repackage DVD content as there are for old comic book stories.

A lot depends on Marvel’s ability to put out entertainment of at least passable quality. (Insert NEW AVENGERS joke of your choice here.) But that’s probably not as difficult as it sounds judging by some of the crep I clicked through on the various HBO incarnations last night.

Can I Get a Franchise With That?

While comic book films may not need to profit directly off their theatrical releases, they do need to create a buzz positive enough to generate DVD sales and, perhaps more importantly, provide at least modest momentum for sequels. Or they should if you’re trying to simultaneously build a film library, create an interest in licenses for underpants, fruit snacks and video games, and -- hopefully -- provide a little boost for your R&D, errrr, publishing division.   

Not all franchises need to be of the Spider-Man or Batman tent pole variety, nor do the characters or vehicles themselves need to enjoy broad public awareness. One thing we’ve learned over the last few years is that it doesn’t take a 99th percentile Q-rating to find some success at the box office,  and presumably the riches that follow. Of the millions who contributed to Daredevil’s $180 million worldwide gross, how many do you suppose knew anything about the character before they walked into the theater? How many knew Blade had been a comic book? Or Men in Black? Or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? All of these had good to great box office success (in terms of raw numbers) across multiple releases. And all of them continue to spin off revenue for their various studio ownership. Which is certainly why Marvel is listing sequels to both Hulk and Punisher on their production slate.

The beauty of this for anyone who isn’t DC or Marvel is that the barrier for getting your comic book with movie franchise potential franchise optioned is considerably lower than one might have thought some years ago. Here is Atmosphere Entertainment’s Mark Canton in the press release announcing that his company will work with Platinum Studios to develop a movie based on the graphic novel KILLING DEMONS:

"'Killing Demons' is the kind of movie I really like making. It's in the vein of 'Men In Black' – an exciting, heroic big-screen adventure with comedic moments, lots of action and franchise potential.” [Emphasis added.]

KILLING DEMONS? It was actually a very well done graphic novel, albeit one that even most comic book fans aren’t aware of.

The Oncoming Train

So there’s revenues to be had, although you’d be hard-pressed to discern where income is derived from a simple reading of a studios income statement. (Epstein lays everything out in his book – apparently this kind of info is disseminated to the studios, but not made readily public.)  Much of it comes after a movie leaves the theater, a period which seems to be shrinking daily as studios strive to move quickly to that DVD/TV revenue stage and take advantage of the theatrical release’s advertising. 

As long as DVD and television revenues hold up, studios will continue to make money. For that matter, any knew technology, say Blu-ray DVD, that might force consumers to repurchase some part -- preferably all -- of their entertainment library is also a good thing. But it can’t be all good news, can it? There has to be some disruptive force on the horizon and you’ve probably already guessed what it is. The nature of that light from the omnipresent oncoming train? It’s from the front of your computer; it’s that little red LED flickering away as your hard drive is accessed. I suppose you could also say it’s from the ever-growing reach of broadband and wi-fi, and from TIVO and bittorrent and DVDXCopy and iPods and really anything else that involves file sharing, data transfer or storage.   

It’s becoming increasingly easier for even the least technical among us to store data files – often without really knowing that’s what is being done. Call it a form of convergence if you will, but we’re not far away from a time when movies are tossed around the Internet in the same fashion MP3’s are today. I don’t think this spells the end for DVD sales or the current delivery model for televised programming, but there’s an adjustment period coming and the product that is most likely to be affected first are the premium services, specifically movies. The studios are clearly aware of this and seem determined not to fall down the same rat hole the recording industry currently finds itself in, but it’s hard not to imagine a financial setback, despite their efforts in the areas of digital rights management (DRM) and content delivery. The music industry has had to undergo a significant restructuring to their business model in order to stay financially viable and all indications are that Hollywood will as well. 

         

Comics By The Numbers – January 2006

My latest Comics by the Numbers column -- reviewing January's Direct Market sales -- is up over at PopCultureShock/Buzzscope. It's a bit later than planned but still absolutely indespensible information for getting through your day. 

Holy Marketing Batman

I have newfound respect for Frank Miller. No, not because he’s humming in tune with the little right winger inside me (I’m actually pretty middle of the road politically, placing me to the right of most comic book fans) rather, I never knew what a damn smart marketer the guy was.

Now I don’t think he manufactured his widely reported commentary simply to sell a book -- I believe he believes what he’s saying -- but I do think he’s publicizing his viewpoint (repeatedly) because he knows his audience and what kind of response it will invoke. Here’s an excerpt from him from EISNER/MLLER regarding his storytelling process - fitting, I think:

“I enjoy the performance. Beyond that, and this probably going to sound like sacrilege, but I do have an imaginary audience in my head, and I am provoking them, and prodding them, and tricking them, going, 'They’re going to hate this.'”

Miller might be just as happy taking shots at the current administration, but sadly BATMAN: HOLY TERROR isn’t likely to be on the suggested reading list for Paul Wolfowitz’s next seminar.

There’s nothing really nutty, over-the-top or even particularly conservative about using al-Qaeda as a villain. They’re bad guys; terrorists. We’re not talking about a broad swipe at Muslims or middle-easterners -- even the majority of middle-eastern Muslims don’t like al-Qaeda, and in fact most of the efforts against al-Qaeda are centered in the middle-east -- but it’s been fascinating to see many in the comicblogosphere (and the blogosphere at large, for that matter) leap to the assumption that a comic utilizing a recognized terrorist organization as the antagonist will be immediately offensive to all Muslims, with some even suggesting it might have a similarly riotous affect as the Danish cartoons.   

And that’s at least part of the reaction’s genesis, right?

"A cartoon targeting the Muslim world. I bet that'll go over great," is a popular quote running around the Internet. Which is pithy and convenient, particularly in the way it ignores the actual context of the Danish cartoons (the depiction of Muhammad being the major offense), not to mention the political environment of Denmark. But it seems to me that equating al-Qaeda with the whole of the Muslim world is exactly what they would want and is exactly wrong.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that Miller isn’t regulary noted for things like subtlety and nuance and it’s entirely possible he’ll go overboard with the anti-al-Qaeda sentiment in way that might be offensive to some Muslims. But isn’t it more likely to be along the lines of last seasons 24 storyline? There was certainly negative reaction to it but as far as I know Keifer Sutherland’s house is still standing. And since the likelihood of Miller depicting Mohammed is about equal to that of Time Magazine actually running the Danish cartoons, I think he’ll emerge relatively unscathed as well.   

So the question is, are you more or less likely to take a peak at BATMAN: HOLY TERROR (whenever it should finally hit the stands) now that you’ve read Miller’s comments? I’d wager for most of you it’s more, as by nature we enjoy having our hackles raised by sentiment to which we are diametrically opposed almost as much as we do the comforting endorsement of those same sentiments. For Miller’s part, I think that’s his genius here. He knows full well what the reaction of the overwhelming liberal comic readership will be and he’s smartly playing against it in way that can only help build interest for what might otherwise be received as just another dark, Miller Batman book.      

The Key to Avoiding Con Lines

Stay home. Of course it would kind of suck to stay home after you prepaid to get in, wouldn’t it?

So the NY Comic Con was a bit of a mess, eh? It’s starting to sound like fire marshals should have their own booth at these gigs. My sense of things is that if you’re going to have a problem, that’s the kind of problem you want. How the relative levels of disgruntlement are resolved will go a long way toward assuring people that next year will be different, but for all the grumblings I’ve read I didn’t read a one saying they wouldn’t try again next year. But I’m sure somebody did and won't.

I’ve been to a lot of trade shows and conventions over the years (not one related to comics) and the gripes are universally similar for any well attended show: the lines are too long, the aisles are too crowded, they need more space. Then, a few years later things slow down and everyone is complaining about how lackluster the show is, and man, the industry’s in the dumps, and remember when we used to have huge lines and packed aisles? Those were the days. They used to have to turn people away. 

If they have the same problem next year, without another massive bump in attendance, then you have issues. For now, chalk it up to growing pains and be happy we have them.

For those of us who weren’t able to be turned away from the show in person there’s tons of panel coverage out there. Here are links to Newsarama’s various Con-related articles. (Chris over at Two Guys Buying Comics has some interesting thoughts on the various Marvel announcements.)

Comic Book Resources had some decent coverage as well – although much of it mirrored Newsarama's. I really liked this Steranko piece though. Is there a book on this guy somewhere? He seems like a character among characters. And, of course, Heidi’s coverage is a must, including links to a couple of the better photo galleries from the event.

Marvel 2005 Fourth Quarter Earnings

The earnings report is up (here is the overview) and as expected, the fourth quarter of 2005 was pretty solid. This despite the fact that toys sales stunk up the joint. Net sales for toys were $12 million versus $21.8 million in fourth quarter 2004 – and then there was a $12.5 million dollar write down for terminating an early contract with, er, themselves. Anyway, the whole thing can probably be blamed on the nasty little warning the Thing Hands received.

The short term affect has been to bump Marvel stock about 8% to high of $17.5o, although things don’t look great for the bulk of 2006 as this article reports. (Hat tip: The Beat.) But 2007? Blue skies, baby.   

A couple of interesting notes from the announcement:

• The Publishing Segment finished with a net of $92.4 million for 2005, up from $86.0 in 2004. That makes at least six consecutive years of increases (2000 is as far back as my records go) and marks a doubling of revenue from the $45.2 million reported in 2000.
• Apparently there’s a Fantastic Four cartoon to debut this year, with Wolverine and Iron Man animated shows in development.
• The rights for Iron Man have reverted back to Marvel and Hulk may soon do the same. That’s a good thing. 
• A Luke Cage movie seems to have dropped off the development radar, but Ant-Man, The Avengers, Black Panther, Captain America, Cloak & Dagger, Doctor Strange, Hawkeye, Nick Fury, Power Pack and Shang-Chi are all possibilities for the new Marvel Film segment. We should see something from this group in 2008. (Even money on Captain America.)
• Revised guidance has Marvel raising the diluted EPS (earnings per share), largely as a result of their on-going share repurchase program.