ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 145
Jun 9 10 2:17 PM
Posts: 3259
Jun 9 10 2:27 PM
jaymac wrote:...Didn't distributors complain that it wasn't worth their time to stock comics since they were a relatively low price and odd size compared to magazines? ...
Posts: 29
Jun 9 10 2:33 PM
Did comics in general hit a low point in the 1990s and then start to improve as we got closer to the 2000's?
Posts: 21225
Jun 9 10 2:50 PM
Registered Member
Posts: 321
Jun 9 10 5:12 PM
IamMightySore wrote: jaymac wrote: ...Didn't distributors complain that it wasn't worth their time to stock comics since they were a relatively low price and odd size compared to magazines? ...The anecdotal reason I have always heard (and it carries some logic) was that the Point Of Sale retailers (the drug stores, convenience stores, etc) didn't wish to carry comics anymore because the profit margin on them were so low...
jaymac wrote: ...Didn't distributors complain that it wasn't worth their time to stock comics since they were a relatively low price and odd size compared to magazines? ...
Jun 9 10 6:20 PM
MRCOMICBOOK wrote:IamMightySore wrote: jaymac wrote: ...Didn't distributors complain that it wasn't worth their time to stock comics since they were a relatively low price and odd size compared to magazines? ...The anecdotal reason I have always heard (and it carries some logic) was that the Point Of Sale retailers (the drug stores, convenience stores, etc) didn't wish to carry comics anymore because the profit margin on them were so low...I don`t buy that theory and my reasoning is how come retailers sell bottles of coke and candybars today? those are much cheaper than comics yet those are still sold, I think the lcs will be known as the downfall of comics distribution instead of the savior. Look at Europe, UK and Japan, there comics are still big sellers while here we think a comic like Walking Dead that sells 23,000 copies a month is a hit.
Posts: 475
Jun 10 10 6:04 AM
Posts: 5970
Jun 10 10 12:38 PM
Kirr Mistwelder wrote:Did comics in general hit a low point in the 1990s and then start to improve as we got closer to the 2000's?I would personally say that they didn't hit a low point until sometime after 1995, and didn't really get better until well into the 00s (mid 90s to mid 00s).That said, there were wretched comics before then (in the 90s, such as Maximum Carnage, but well before the 90s too) and there are terrible comics today. The 90s seem to get singled out as a paricularly bad time, but I don't think there was any more perponderance of bad comics then than in any other decade.
Posts: 1050
Jun 13 10 9:23 PM
Posts: 25843
Jun 13 10 10:04 PM
My name is Oedi and I soar amidst the stars far from the planet of my birth. I guess this starship is the closest thing I've got to a home now, for I am a refugee and an outlaw. Vanth Dreadstar, Syzygy Darklock, Willow 327, Rainbow and Skeevo are my family. We are revolutionaries. Our goal? To bring an end to the 200 year old war between the Instrumentality and the Monarchy!
Posts: 901
Jun 14 10 3:04 AM
Bronze Age
Posts: 10961
Jun 14 10 4:35 AM
Posts: 2810
Jun 14 10 6:01 AM
Golden Age
I liked the art; I hated the characters! They popped up out of nowhere--there was no point of reference to any of them, and little reason for the fans to pick up any interest in them. It's no surprise to me that the run only lasted two years. And it's no wonder to me that Superboy Prime ripped Risk's arms off...I'd been wanting to do that since issue #1.
Are you doing the Reader's Digest versions of your posts now? Thank You!!!I prefer it to the normal 20 pages of repetitious posts.
Posts: 1238
Jun 14 10 2:24 PM
MRCOMICBOOK wrote:I don`t buy that theory and my reasoning is how come retailers sell bottles of coke and candybars today?
Jun 14 10 2:27 PM
icemanjeff79 wrote:The X-Men books of the '90s (and I'm not talking about the spinoffs, just the core 2 X-Men titles) get a bad rap -- perhaps because of all of the (rather unnecessary) spin-offs. But the core titles had a few great runs that hold up til today. Specifically great was the period of time when Alan Davis was writing both books at once (and drawing one as well).
Jun 14 10 10:02 PM
Snappleshacks wrote:icemanjeff79 wrote:The X-Men books of the '90s (and I'm not talking about the spinoffs, just the core 2 X-Men titles) get a bad rap -- perhaps because of all of the (rather unnecessary) spin-offs. But the core titles had a few great runs that hold up til today. Specifically great was the period of time when Alan Davis was writing both books at once (and drawing one as well). Having recently bound the full runs of both main X titles and embarked on a read-through, I have to disagree. The Lobdell/Niceiza stuff is atrocious. I should be on the Davis period within the next week or so, but from memory the characterizations were still off. I was surprised how well most of the Claremont run held up, and equally surprised how quickly all good will is lost by his replacement hacks.
Jun 16 10 12:15 PM
icemanjeff79 wrote:But during L/N, I found all the older characters with the exception of Colossus to be very much on character
Posts: 1606
Jun 16 10 12:41 PM
Posts: 13462
Jun 16 10 12:54 PM
Andy Sheets wrote:The main problem with Lobdell on X-Men was that he never had a long-term idea of where he was going with his plots - he kept reiterating that he liked to write "organically" - so the books just meandered around without much really happening.
I told them that I had no idea, but I just thought it was a cool way to open a story. Imagine someone so strong that they could hurl Juggernaut across the sky! I ended up doing that opening sequence, but I still didn't know who Onslaught was.
"That became a problem later on, when other writers were told to give hints to Onslaught in their titles, but didn't know who Onslaught WAS!
"Larry Hama's clues in Wolverine, in particular, really didn't jibe with the later revelation that Onslaught was Professor X himself, corrupted by Magneto's mind..."
Jun 16 10 1:24 PM
Share This