>>>Oh, and the fourth Batman film, for all its faults, featured a Batman and Robin that were much closer to my best memories of the comics' versions than any of the first three films.

Blecch, Pat, what Batman comics were YOU reading when you were younger? BATMAN AND ROBIN didn't attract any new comic buyers because it was a rancid piece of dung. I hardly think that a movie in which the superheroes have portruding rubber nipples ws suitable for kids, and B&R was an $80 million (or how ever much it cost) embodiment of the wrong-headed notion that comics are idiotic mind-candy that cannot possibly be taken seriously. (My favorite idiotic moment in the film: near the very end, Batman, Robin, and Batgirl have defeated Poison Ivy, and have learned that Mr. Freeze is about to ice the city -- time is supposedly of the essence, and yet the next time we see our intrepid heroes they're all wearing COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COSTUMES -- hey, saving the city is one thing, but making a fashion statement is something else...). For the record, I didn't think BATMAN FOREVER was quite as bad -- it was goofy and badly-written, but at least it had energetic performances from Jim Carrey and Tommy L. Jones. Equating B&R with the old BATMAN TV series doesn't cut it for me -- the old series was a send-up, but a fairly affectionate one, spoofing the extremes that were fairly common in comics up til that point. I can detect no affection in Schumacher's witless and gaudy film; it seems more like a conveniet rack on which to hang his fetishistic imagery. And corny/fun dialgoue like "What a way to Go-Go," is light years from Bats whipping out his Bat-credit-card in my book.

Not that I would ever get off the subject.

[This message has been edited by JE Smith (edited 02-22-2000).]

>>>>>Oh, and the fourth Batman film, for all its faults, featured a Batman and Robin that were much closer to my best memories of the comics' versions than any of the first three films.

Blecch, Pat, what Batman comics were YOU reading when you were younger? <<

The Julie Schwartz-edited titles of the 1960s, that's what. The ones in which Batman was a dedicated hero, not an obsessed one. The ones in which Batman had a sense of justice, not of vengeance. The ones where Batman SMILED once in a while, for god's sake.

George Clooney's Batman impressed me as a guy that younger heroes like Robin and Batgirl could actually look up to and admire, not simply be scared by. THAT is the Batman I remember.

The Batman of the first three films (and, unfortunately, of too many of today's comics) is a boogie man, not a hero.

Best, Pat

We're talking about bringing people in our industry, about turning them into comic book readers, not about buying Batman. FBOFW's daily strip creates FBOFW fans out of comic strip fans. The Batman movie turned a lot of movie fans into comic fans. How long we kept them is another topic. Personally, I think we rode the wave of new fans from the first Batman movie (and the friends they later recruited for us) right into the speculator frenzy a few years later. It was our growth spurt that attracted the speculators.



If you, as a parent, wouldn't let them see the show, then you, as a parent, probably couldn't find many comics you would let them read anyway. We didn't even have Akiko back then. That also was the problem with Batman 4. Why bring in people who want something you don't carry, and haven't since the sixties? Unless what they liked about Batman and Robin was the rubber suits ......

Switching to quoteing JE Smith


Mostly they just drew from the same version:
The happy sixties Batman, not the classic Bob Kane villian. But you are correct, the old TV show LOVED Batman



Not that there's anything wrong with fetishistic imagery.......

Rik

Jim Hanley pointed out


And even then these comics were know properties. How many copies of Marvel Triple Action 37 is a store going to sell? Probably about as many as they sold of issue 36. These days a large percentage of a stores monthly order is on issues 1, 2 and 3 - completely unknown product. Most Marvel titles are just a year away from the last reboot of the title, hardly established mainstays. Dark Horse runs mostly mini-series, and Image has only a handful of titles numbered over 12. Maybe the problem isn't just that the risk is too high on leftover comics, but that the market is too volatile.

Rik

Rik:

Now, we're cooking with gas. You've hit a raw nerve with me that I probably haven't articulated properly. Publishers' insistance on pursuing the mega-hit, at the expense of regularity in sales is where the risk has been shifted towards retailers.

In Hollywood, this thinking has bloated the studios' costs, but exhibitors do not have the risk shifted towards their bottom lines. (At least, I don't think so. Steve? Mark? Scott?)

[This message has been edited by Jim Hanley (edited 02-26-2000).]

I think that the idea of starting a new mini series every fourth issue is more of a jumping off point than a jumping ON point. We have to regain readers with every new start. This has made the ordering process an ongoing nightmare no matter what system you use. Is it any wonder that DC has the most consistent sales with the only other barometer on my cycle sheets being X-titles that have 100+ issues behind them?
A restart in the numbering system has turned off many would-be readers. So has the proliferation of mini series'. Xena fans were rabid for the Topps series when it first started but I couldn't keep track of three 2 and 4-issue series' running at the same time -- each with a photo and art cover -- so how could the casual reader make heads or tails of the mess? X-Files seemed to enjoy the longest run of the mass-appeal comics and I don't think that a consistent numbering system played a small roll in that.
Anyone think Dark Horse would be more successful if they published Oh My Goddess #38 instead of Oh My Goddess One-shot Special of the month? I've always thought so but I've been drowned out by the nay-sayers.
In trying to capture the #1 dollars I thnk we've lost many readers and certainly lost the casual reader to confusion.
So what does all this have to do with risk? Try ordering Image comics which included 24 issues numbered #3 or less in the February Previews. Many are solicited with 3 covers (two from creators whose own books are late) and guess at what you might sell. I'll bet that 40% or more don't ship before April, the supposed shipping date. I don't care what your tracking method is, you'll be guessing just like me and guessing means I'm taking the risk -- all or it.

Phil Boyle
Coliseum of Comics

Jim H: As you said, "Publishers' insistence on pursuing the mega-hit at the expense of regularity in sales..." is precisely the problem!

As a warehouse manager and new accounts rep trying to train new retailers in the eighties and early nineties, I used to try to tell them that it was the books that sold the same month after month that would pay their rent and cover their payroll.
The notion that mega-successes (X-Men comics,Batman movie merchandise, Pokemon, whatever) can be predicted or duplicated is so insane on the face of it that it's always boggled my mind that anyone at any level of the industry ever regarded such phenomena as anything other than found money--put it in your pocket and don't ask questions, but for God's sake, don't ever stake your success on either its continuation or on being able to predict the next one!
Phil's point about re-starts and miniseries is an excellent one, too. The final issue of every miniseries constitutes an excellent excuse for some readers to stop buying a title. When was the last time a new miniseries sold better than its predecessor unless a superstar creator was involved? Possibly never.
The notion of stability as a virtue, however, doesn't seem to have much appeal in an economy where the Dow Jones closes over 10,000. It's not just the comics biz--it's American culture and economics, and it's going to collapse soon. We were just first to go....

Jim -
I didn't realize we were gone. It may be coming and needs to be routed in another direction but gone is a bit premature.

Phil Boyle
Coliseum of Comics

I think Jim Friel has a point; it's not enough for young stockbrokers these days to get steady, long-term gains; they want IPO's which will double in value by this evening. The comics equivalent of this is putting out three dozen #1's or specials a year devoted to a certain character rather than concentrating upon the character's regular ongoing series. (Chaos! seems to thrive upon this.)

Retailers: are you able to break your sales down between such 'regular' issues and 'special' ones? If so, which brings you more income month after month? It seems to me that, with pull folders being so prevalent, customers' regular purchases would form the backbone of a store's finances.

There's no doubt that the slow & steady wins the race. I've made more money off Catwoman at 1/10th the sales over the last 2 years than I've made of Battle Chasers. Give me consistency or I'll give your book death. Promises and missed deadlines don't pay the rent. They also make the next issue a real guessing game -- haven't seen Danger Chasers in 7 months, will anyone still care? If they don't, I eat books. If they do, I look foolish for selling out in a day.
I still haven't found the words to properly thank such tireless creators.

Phil Boyle
Coliseum of Comics