Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I generally agree with this. Lengthy but worthwhile read.


http://comicsalliance.com/dc-comics-marvel-golden-age-silver-age-comics-history/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_112492

^ Yes, quite lengthy, but I got the gist, and generally I agree as well. To some extent, DC has made itself better because of it (eg, better characterization), but yeah, I always had the impression DC never liked its younger brother outflanking it.

TBH, the article is fine until he hits COIE. After that, it begins to sound more and more biased, imo.

Nothing we all dont already know, but always interesting to read about.

Thanks!

I think the point is that even today DC doesn't seem as comfortable in their own skin, compared to Marvel. That the transition to something more Marvel-like just never ends, hence the constant retreat back for a company wide revamp every decade.

I'll buy that.
DC needs to find a middle ground. In trying to ape Marvel they end up as Marvel lite.
Busiek showed quite well the differences between the big two in JLA/Avengers. DC is is just a bigger brighter more hopeful world. Thats not a negative.

Originally posted by roughrider
I think the point is that even today DC doesn't seem as comfortable in their own skin, compared to Marvel. That the transition to something more Marvel-like just never ends, hence the constant retreat back for a company wide revamp every decade.

They've only did a COMPLETE reboot twice in it's 80 years of publication and even the last reboot wasn't really a complete one. Since their reboot, DC's sales has increased and wanted a shock in the market. It was great actually, because it brought people back into the stores and increased Marvel's sales, forcing them to do Marvel NOW.

Originally posted by roughrider
I think the point is that even today DC doesn't seem as comfortable in their own skin, compared to Marvel. That the transition to something more Marvel-like just never ends, hence the constant retreat back for a company wide revamp every decade.

I don't agree, tbh.

It hasn't been "the Marvel way" since the 80s. Now it's just the way comics are written, because the audience is more mature and has higher standards in a lot of ways.

Originally posted by Golgo13
They've only did a COMPLETE reboot twice in it's 80 years of publication and even the last reboot wasn't really a complete one. Since their reboot, DC's sales has increased and wanted a shock in the market. It was great actually, because it brought people back into the stores and increased Marvel's sales, forcing them to do Marvel NOW.

Zero Hour in the 1990's was an attempt to fix continuity problems that still persisted after COIE. It had the odd effect of making Hawkman unavailable for several years, as DC editorial realized they had been publishing contradictory versions of him. And Infinite Crisis reopened all the old wounds of COIE and reversed things by bringing back the troublesome multiverse they killed off twenty years earlier. I consider those additional attempts to redefine their line. By contrast, Marvel tried it once with Heroes Reborn but quickly reversed things two years later, and now have their cake and eat it too with the Ultimateverse.

Originally posted by roughrider
Zero Hour in the 1990's was an attempt to fix continuity problems that still persisted after COIE. It had the odd effect of making Hawkman unavailable for several years, as DC editorial realized they had been publishing contradictory versions of him. And Infinite Crisis reopened all the old wounds of COIE and reversed things by bringing back the troublesome multiverse they killed off twenty years earlier. I consider those additional attempts to redefine their line. By contrast, Marvel tried it once with Heroes Reborn but quickly reversed things two years later, and now have their cake and eat it too with the Ultimateverse.

But Zero Hour wasnt a complete reboot.

Just contrast this with all the maxi series Marvel has don since Secret Wars in the 1980's - they all been about nothing more than large scale wras and conflicts. Only the Onslaught saga/Heroes Reborn event was an attempt to start over, and quickly abandoned. DC has done it at least three more times to varying intensity since COIE, trying to dramatically alter the backstory of their universe. Zero Hour may have been a soft reboot, but a reboot nonetheless.

Yes, a very soft boot, but it didnt effect everything.

I know this is a DC Vs Marvel thread and all, but I want to share this with you guys.I was thinking of doing a thread about this.But I eventually decided not to.Is DC planning another reboot in 2015?

http://www.newsarama.com/21375-could-a-new-dc-crisis-lead-to-another-reboot-in-2015-we-analyze-the-clues.html

What do you guys think?The majority of comments in that article is mostly negative.One guy even said "Quit reinventing the wheel!" The New 52 isn't even 10 years old.

Originally posted by Igniz
I know this is a DC Vs Marvel thread and all, but I want to share this with you guys.I was thinking of doing a thread about this.But I eventually decided not to.Is DC planning another reboot in 2015?

http://www.newsarama.com/21375-could-a-new-dc-crisis-lead-to-another-reboot-in-2015-we-analyze-the-clues.html

What do you guys think?The majority of comments in that article is mostly negative.One guy even said "Quit reinventing the wheel!" The New 52 isn't even 10 years old.

A shake up is going to happen, but there wont be another reboot.

Man i hope not. Even regular fans are going to be put off by that.

Originally posted by Igniz
I know this is a DC Vs Marvel thread and all, but I want to share this with you guys.I was thinking of doing a thread about this.But I eventually decided not to.Is DC planning another reboot in 2015?

http://www.newsarama.com/21375-could-a-new-dc-crisis-lead-to-another-reboot-in-2015-we-analyze-the-clues.html

What do you guys think?The majority of comments in that article is mostly negative.One guy even said "Quit reinventing the wheel!" The New 52 isn't even 10 years old.

That soon? No. I kinda have my fingers crossed that they might try spinning out the pre-52 universe into it's own line and doing a split ala Marvel 616and Ultimates.

If they do a full anything it would more likely than a full reboot, perhaps, be a full reversion. The nu52 didn't work as planned in the long run, after all, and I don't see them trying 'something that's not the Nu52 or the old universe, but yet a third version we're sure you'll love! Really!', as that'd alienate fans of both old and nu and hammer in the 'you can't trust us to stick with something' effect that's hurt them recently. Still, I wouldn't bet on a full anything.





However, I think The Other Problem DC has, "that DC got it into their collective head that they needed to be Very Serious," is going to hamstring them for some time no matter what they do. Right now they have much less diversity in style than Marvel, and it's limiting them.

Originally posted by Q99
That soon? No. I kinda have my fingers crossed that they might try spinning out the pre-52 universe into it's own line and doing a split ala Marvel 616and Ultimates.

If they do a full anything it would more likely than a full reboot, perhaps, be a full reversion. The nu52 didn't work as planned in the long run, after all, and I don't see them trying 'something that's not the Nu52 or the old universe, but yet a third version we're sure you'll love! Really!', as that'd alienate fans of both old and nu and hammer in the 'you can't trust us to stick with something' effect that's hurt them recently. Still, I wouldn't bet on a full anything.





However, I think The Other Problem DC has, "that DC got it into their collective head that they needed to be Very Serious," is going to hamstring them for some time no matter what they do. Right now they have much less diversity in style than Marvel, and it's limiting them.

Hmm, never thought of that. They could reintroduce Pre-Flashpoint universe.

Anyway, why do you think DC doesn't have diversity? I think that's wrong. DC has had numerous war books, a western, they have produced more street level books, since the 52 started, more magic/super natural, space books, etc..

The New 52 had a rocky start both on panel and off, but it did give us some really good books. They just need to keep it up while improving the books that have been falling behind.

DC has faced a lot of controversy too, which didn't help (though I honestly don't think all of it was warranted).

I can't imagine that things after COIE were smooth, though. That was a far bigger shift in the status quo than the N52 has been.

==

Zero Hour and IC were pretty soft reboots and retcons, which are little different to the things Marvel did with many of their properties, so it's not specifically a DC problem; it's staffers in general not being decisive.

Originally posted by Igniz
I know this is a DC Vs Marvel thread and all, but I want to share this with you guys.I was thinking of doing a thread about this.But I eventually decided not to.Is DC planning another reboot in 2015?

http://www.newsarama.com/21375-could-a-new-dc-crisis-lead-to-another-reboot-in-2015-we-analyze-the-clues.html

What do you guys think?The majority of comments in that article is mostly negative.One guy even said "Quit reinventing the wheel!" The New 52 isn't even 10 years old.

You know why they lost momentum? Because they were counting on the Green Lantern movie to be a breakout hit in 2011, expand the appeal of DC to non comics fans, and it would have coincided with the debut of The New 52. They would have had the kind of synergy Marvel has going on right now, releasing anywhere between 2-4 movies a year. When GL flopped critically and commercially, there was nothing but the comics, one new movie that came out two years later (Man Of Steel), and now the next DC Universe movie doesn't come out until 2016.

I knew Grant Morrison was tempting fate when he named that series Final Crisis. DC gets restless too quickly. They will do some major shakeup in time for the release of Batman vs. Superman, I Think.

Originally posted by -Pr-


I can't imagine that things after COIE were smooth, though. That was a far bigger shift in the status quo than the N52 has been.



I can't know for sure as I wasn't around at the time, but it does seem people forget that post crisis wasn't the original universe when they flip out about how the reboot shows how stupid dc is and how it could never work. I'd bet that people were pretty made post COIE at first too as people always are after these things. Assuming the editors stop being dicks and let the writers really stretch there legs (as well as bring in more fresh blood for the new stuff) I think once more time has passed it will be fine.

Originally posted by roughrider
You know why they lost momentum? Because they were counting on the Green Lantern movie to be a breakout hit in 2011, expand the appeal of DC to non comics fans, and it would have coincided with the debut of The New 52. They would have had the kind of synergy Marvel has going on right now, releasing anywhere between 2-4 movies a year. When GL flopped critically and commercially, there was nothing but the comics, one new movie that came out two years later (Man Of Steel), and now the next DC Universe movie doesn't come out until 2016.

I knew Grant Morrison was tempting fate when he named that series Final Crisis. DC gets restless too quickly. They will do some major shakeup in time for the release of Batman vs. Superman, I Think.

Both companies lose momentum and quickly at that. Look at Marvel NOW's sales and how they quickly renumber books and start events rapidly one after another. DC has been seeing an increase in sales, overall, and this is why they will NOT do another reboot. Sales are fine. It's the smaller companies that are gaining, too.

Originally posted by Golgo13
DC has been seeing an increase in sales, overall, and this is why they will NOT do another reboot.

I'll remember your quote.

If they choose to reverse The New 52 in the same way Marvel once did the Heroes Reborn universe, I'm counting it as another reboot.

Originally posted by roughrider
I'll remember your quote.

If they choose to reverse The New 52 in the same way Marvel once did the Heroes Reborn universe, I'm counting it as another reboot.

I'm just guessing. DC has never done two close reboots together. 2 Major ones in their entire publishing history.

Like I said earlier, I can see them bringing back the Pre-Flashpoint timeline (I miss those characters, but I hope they don't do that.)

Remember in 2015 will be the 30th anniversary of the Crisis and we already saw the Anti-Monitor at the end of Forever Evil.

Having a being like the Anti-Monitor active - who eats entire universe and dimensions - it's the perfect tool to cause another shakeup in DC history.

You can have a shakeup and not have a complete reboot.

Btw, if they DO a reboot and bring back the pre flashpoint timeline, you can probably thank Geoff Johns. He tweeted a few days ago that he misses writing the JSA.

Really?
As just a fan, not a writer, i can see a lot of good things that came from the New52. Some bad, too.
But, as a writer, there are few things worse than being stuck writing what you dont like.

Originally posted by riv6672
Really?
As just a fan, not a writer, i can see a lot of good things that came from the New52. Some bad, too.
But, as a writer, there are few things worse than being stuck writing what you dont like.

Yeah, i really like what has spun out of the 52. Its not petfect, but no company is. All johns said is that he misses the JSA. A lot of fans do. Not that he hates the 52.

Originally posted by Golgo13
Yeah, i really like what has spun out of the 52. Its not petfect, but no company is. All johns said is that he misses the JSA. A lot of fans do. Not that he hates the 52.

We just need more time to let go eventually we'll accept it more

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
I can't know for sure as I wasn't around at the time, but it does seem people forget that post crisis wasn't the original universe when they flip out about how the reboot shows how stupid dc is and how it could never work. I'd bet that people were pretty made post COIE at first too as people always are after these things. Assuming the editors stop being dicks and let the writers really stretch there legs (as well as bring in more fresh blood for the new stuff) I think once more time has passed it will be fine.

Yup.

Originally posted by Golgo13
Yeah, i really like what has spun out of the 52. Its not petfect, but no company is. All johns said is that he misses the JSA. A lot of fans do. Not that he hates the 52.

Given how other writers have flat-out ignored his directives, I'd be mad if I were him.

Originally posted by roughrider
Having a being like the Anti-Monitor active - who eats entire universe and dimensions - it's the perfect tool to cause another shakeup in DC history.

AM is around in SCW and IC, and neither of those were reboots.

Originally posted by Golgo13
Hmm, never thought of that. They could reintroduce Pre-Flashpoint universe.

Anyway, why do you think DC doesn't have diversity? I think that's wrong. DC has had numerous war books, a western, they have produced more street level books, since the 52 started, more magic/super natural, space books, etc..


There's much less variety in author voice, and much more a house style.


Look at Daredevil, Hawkeye, She-Hulk, Uncanny X-men, Moon Knight, Ms. Marvel, and Uncanny Avengers. Each of these books is different from each other in basic style. Marvel, basically, gives the authors a lot of room to stretch their wings without dictating style too much. They make sure things fit together planning wise- better than DC even, continuity tends to mesh well- but how they get to point A to point B and in what style is very much left to the individual creative team.

Daredevil, Hawkeye, and Moon Knight. These three are all street level, but they are *drastically* different. Daredevil is heroic, often light-hearted, with serious stories in there, but also often weird foes and a fun feel. Hawkeye is extremely low-level, often slice of life-y, focusing on the low powered adventures between Avengers stuff, where the neighborhood's mobsters are a continual problem. Moon Knight.... Moon Knight is a detective, and he's crazy. His missions are weird, and the style is stark. Moon Knight isn't even 'colored' white, the artist simply doesn't fill in his white areas, he is an absence in the page, and he has an egyptian god speaking in his head.


DC has more street titles, but they don't have near that variety of *style* between all of them but together.

DC books, while they have a few in different genres, give a lot less openness to other styles. Their superhero books resemble each other a lot more. The writers don't get to stretch their voices as much.



I'll mention two DC books that very much do/did have their own style: Wonder Woman, and Batwoman with the old team. Batwoman looked like nothing else in the line. Wonder Woman doesn't. But the others? There's far more resemblance across titles, because the editors instruct and edit the writers to keep them more in the house style. And when Wonder Woman's team leaves, you can bet you'll see art more like Superman And Wonder Woman or Justice League, and it's tone is going to change.






A problem is, saleswise, if it's not Superman, Batman, Justice League, or a few other individual titles, it is sliding down. The gap between the big books and everyone else is too big.

DC can have 5 issues of Batman Eternal in the top 10, put out the same number of books, and still be behind 16% in market share (this April, that happened). That's how bad it is. A good


The controversies and writer changes of a lot of the minor ones have gotten people convinced that they can't count on writers in minor ones finishing their stories. They don't think DC thinks any but the big two are important so they don't trust 'em, in short.






Compared to now? Things kept together much better. That was an 'up' era, the reason why reboots even caught on.

The reboots of Superman (Bryne's Man of Steel) and Wonder Woman (George Perez) and Flash (Wally taking the helm) were popular and successful, and other books went along fine or picked up sales too.

Even though it was a big shift in status quo, business wise it was much smoother sailing.


Nu52 started out with big sales across the board, but those problems are killing sales of all but the core titles and a few exceptions.




This, I doubt. Comic movies may inspire a few people to move over, but they rarely significantly boost, or harm, comic sales.

The failure of Green Lantern hurt the DC movie universe, but not the comic one.

Originally posted by Golgo13
Both companies lose momentum and quickly at that. Look at Marvel NOW's sales and how they quickly renumber books and start events rapidly one after another. DC has been seeing an increase in sales, overall, and this is why they will NOT do another reboot. Sales are fine. It's the smaller companies that are gaining, too.


Uh, Marvel's actually at a 17+ year high. In April, they produced the same number of books as DC and beat them in market share by 16%. Which is further from DC than DC was from Image (Image is also doing well right now, btw).

May, DC put out 87 comics to Marvel's 74, still lost in market share by 4%, and this is a *good* month for DC.

This is a rather one sided state of affairs, honestly.



Marvel has, with Marvel Now, announced they're doing a 'season' strategy, where they do a run with one creative team, a complete story, end it, then start with a new #1 and possibly the same creative team, maybe a different one, but a new direction in any case.

Marvel Now is a rousing success that's causing marvel to, proverbially, 'rake in the money.'




Originally posted by Golgo13
Btw, if they DO a reboot and bring back the pre flashpoint timeline, you can probably thank Geoff Johns. He tweeted a few days ago that he misses writing the JSA.

As one of the architects and brains behind the Nu52, making both the JLA and the Lantern corners of it, I doubt he'll be a primary cause. He may miss the JSA, but he's also not one of the opponents of the Nu52 by any means.

If they do reboot, it's more likely going to be due to sales. And possibly a major change in management, corporate cannot be happy.

Originally posted by Q99
There's much less variety in author voice, and much more a house style.


Look at Daredevil, Hawkeye, She-Hulk, Uncanny X-men, Moon Knight, Ms. Marvel, and Uncanny Avengers. Each of these books is different from each other in basic style. Marvel, basically, gives the authors a lot of room to stretch their wings without dictating style too much. They make sure things fit together planning wise- better than DC even, continuity tends to mesh well- but how they get to point A to point B and in what style is very much left to the individual creative team.

Daredevil, Hawkeye, and Moon Knight. These three are all street level, but they are *drastically* different. Daredevil is heroic, often light-hearted, with serious stories in there, but also often weird foes and a fun feel. Hawkeye is extremely low-level, often slice of life-y, focusing on the low powered adventures between Avengers stuff, where the neighborhood's mobsters are a continual problem. Moon Knight.... Moon Knight is a detective, and he's crazy. His missions are weird, and the style is stark. Moon Knight isn't even 'colored' white, the artist simply doesn't fill in his white areas, he is an absence in the page, and he has an egyptian god speaking in his head.


DC has more street titles, but they don't have near that variety of *style* between all of them but together.

DC books, while they have a few in different genres, give a lot less openness to other styles. Their superhero books resemble each other a lot more. The writers don't get to stretch their voices as much.



I'll mention two DC books that very much do/did have their own style: Wonder Woman, and Batwoman with the old team. Batwoman looked like nothing else in the line. Wonder Woman doesn't. But the others? There's far more resemblance across titles, because the editors instruct and edit the writers to keep them more in the house style. And when Wonder Woman's team leaves, you can bet you'll see art more like Superman And Wonder Woman or Justice League, and it's tone is going to change.






A problem is, saleswise, if it's not Superman, Batman, Justice League, or a few other individual titles, it is sliding down. The gap between the big books and everyone else is too big.

DC can have 5 issues of Batman Eternal in the top 10, put out the same number of books, and still be behind 16% in market share (this April, that happened). That's how bad it is. A good


The controversies and writer changes of a lot of the minor ones have gotten people convinced that they can't count on writers in minor ones finishing their stories. They don't think DC thinks any but the big two are important so they don't trust 'em, in short.






Compared to now? Things kept together much better. That was an 'up' era, the reason why reboots even caught on.

The reboots of Superman (Bryne's Man of Steel) and Wonder Woman (George Perez) and Flash (Wally taking the helm) were popular and successful, and other books went along fine or picked up sales too.

Even though it was a big shift in status quo, business wise it was much smoother sailing.


Nu52 started out with big sales across the board, but those problems are killing sales of all but the core titles and a few exceptions.




This, I doubt. Comic movies may inspire a few people to move over, but they rarely significantly boost, or harm, comic sales.

The failure of Green Lantern hurt the DC movie universe, but not the comic one.

Disagree on this. Look at some of DC's titles like Harley Quinn, Detective Comics (the new team), Green Arrow, etc... All have their own tone and are different from one another. Quinn is a Deadpool, slapstick, funny book. Detective Comics is all about detective work for Batman in contract to Snyder's book, and Arrow is mystic kung fu style, which is awesome.

Then you have books like Green Team and Movement, which all had their own voice, too.

And books you just mentioned in Batwoman and WW. DC has just as much variety, IMO. And we're not even including Vertigo, which is under DC as well.

Marvel's sales slide down as well. Look at a book like FF or Fantastic Four, which gets in the top 5, then slides all the way near 50 the next month. Marvel NOW's sales are dipping as was seen in a report at CBR. The constant events and renumbering inflates sales.

Originally posted by Q99
Uh, Marvel's actually at a 17+ year high. In April, they produced the same number of books as DC and beat them in market share by 16%. Which is further from DC than DC was from Image (Image is also doing well right now, btw).

May, DC put out 87 comics to Marvel's 74, still lost in market share by 4%, and this is a *good* month for DC.

This is a rather one sided state of affairs, honestly.



Marvel has, with Marvel Now, announced they're doing a 'season' strategy, where they do a run with one creative team, a complete story, end it, then start with a new #1 and possibly the same creative team, maybe a different one, but a new direction in any case.

Marvel Now is a rousing success that's causing marvel to, proverbially, 'rake in the money.'






As one of the architects and brains behind the Nu52, making both the JLA and the Lantern corners of it, I doubt he'll be a primary cause. He may miss the JSA, but he's also not one of the opponents of the Nu52 by any means.

If they do reboot, it's more likely going to be due to sales. And possibly a major change in management, corporate cannot be happy.

Marvel has always been the #1 company in terms of sales. DC usually rules the top 10, but the difference from Marvel is their secondary characters always sell better. That's not a knock, DC's sales have increased to 7% in the last few months, which is good and closing the gap.

Originally posted by Golgo13
but the difference from Marvel is their secondary characters always sell better.

I disagree there

if some of them sell better then why do they get cancelled

Thats a subject i've commented on.
In todays quick turn around world, both Companies IMO, dont give new books a chance to find an audience, axing books way too soon.
As an analogy, now classic sitcoms like Seinfeld, Cheers, and All in the Family initially got ratings that experts say would have gotten them cancelled prior to one whole season today.

Okay, rant over.

Originally posted by Q99
There's much less variety in author voice, and much more a house style.


Look at Daredevil, Hawkeye, She-Hulk, Uncanny X-men, Moon Knight, Ms. Marvel, and Uncanny Avengers. Each of these books is different from each other in basic style. Marvel, basically, gives the authors a lot of room to stretch their wings without dictating style too much. They make sure things fit together planning wise- better than DC even, continuity tends to mesh well- but how they get to point A to point B and in what style is very much left to the individual creative team.

Daredevil, Hawkeye, and Moon Knight. These three are all street level, but they are *drastically* different. Daredevil is heroic, often light-hearted, with serious stories in there, but also often weird foes and a fun feel. Hawkeye is extremely low-level, often slice of life-y, focusing on the low powered adventures between Avengers stuff, where the neighborhood's mobsters are a continual problem. Moon Knight.... Moon Knight is a detective, and he's crazy. His missions are weird, and the style is stark. Moon Knight isn't even 'colored' white, the artist simply doesn't fill in his white areas, he is an absence in the page, and he has an egyptian god speaking in his head.


DC has more street titles, but they don't have near that variety of *style* between all of them but together.

DC books, while they have a few in different genres, give a lot less openness to other styles. Their superhero books resemble each other a lot more. The writers don't get to stretch their voices as much.



I'll mention two DC books that very much do/did have their own style: Wonder Woman, and Batwoman with the old team. Batwoman looked like nothing else in the line. Wonder Woman doesn't. But the others? There's far more resemblance across titles, because the editors instruct and edit the writers to keep them more in the house style. And when Wonder Woman's team leaves, you can bet you'll see art more like Superman And Wonder Woman or Justice League, and it's tone is going to change.

Honestly, while I agree that DC does watch over its writing staff far too closely, I often feel that Marvel doesn't do it as much as they should.

Giving writers freedom is one thing, but if there's no accountability, then it's going to make fans just as unhappy, imo.



they do suffer, and it's sad, imo.

quite rightly so. this isn't the first time dc has ****ed up promising arcs by changing the writing staff (they did it preboot too, sadly), and it annoys how they can't leave shit alone sometimes.



I was speaking more from a continuity standpoint than a sales one.

Originally posted by Kazenji
I disagree there

if some of them sell better then why do they get cancelled

Lol what? They do sale better, but sales dip and they end up renumbering them.Nature of the beast.

Originally posted by riv6672
Thats a subject i've commented on.
In todays quick turn around world, both Companies IMO, dont give new books a chance to find an audience, axing books way too soon.
As an analogy, now classic sitcoms like Seinfeld, Cheers, and All in the Family initially got ratings that experts say would have gotten them cancelled prior to one whole season today.

Okay, rant over.

Yup. It's all about sales for both companies, obviously. Marvel is MASKING their problems by continuously pumping out huge events, renumbering their books, and DOUBLE shipping. It inflates sales. DC has nearly the same gimmicks, too.

April had an inflated month where the number one book was TASM and on top of that, DC had several titles that were delayed, thus the reason for such a big gap.

http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2014/2014-04.html

Looking at DC's and Marvel's state, both companies are doing well. Their sales ARE up.

Anyway, what do you think of Kirman's statements that Marvel is a poorly run company?

http://www.blastr.com/2014-1-13/robert-kirkman-slams-marvel-destroying-comic-book-biz

Originally posted by Golgo13
Yup. It's all about sales for both companies, obviously. Marvel is MASKING their problems by continuously pumping out huge events, renumbering their books, and DOUBLE shipping. It inflates sales. DC has nearly the same gimmicks, too.

April had an inflated month where the number one book was TASM and on top of that, DC had several titles that were delayed, thus the reason for such a big gap.

http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2014/2014-04.html

Looking at DC's and Marvel's state, both companies are doing well. Their sales ARE up.

Anyway, what do you think of Kirman's statements that Marvel is a poorly run company?

http://www.blastr.com/2014-1-13/robert-kirkman-slams-marvel-destroying-comic-book-biz

Both companies are run poorly, just in different ways, imo.

One's run by Jackasses the other by idiots

BTW, here is the estimated units for both DC and Marvel.



Things really aren't that bad. As long as sales increase.

Originally posted by Golgo13
Yet, DC's SALES are up 6%. You can't get the complete picture by just looking at the market share. Marvel's Market share has been going down as well.


Over the last 6 months? Marvels has been going up.


The entire industry has been a bit up, but proportionally Marvel and Image are growing more than DC.


DC vs Marvel, here's the pattern starting from last september, starting with Villain's Month-

DC +12% (3d Villain's Month)
DC +1%
Marvel +0.7%
Marvel +8%
Marvel +6%
Marvel +6%
Marvel +9%
Marvel +16% (Amazing Spider-man #1)
Marvel +4%



Meaning, on DC's big gigantic "everything in 3d month," they won by less than Marvel did on a month without a line-wide event, and the boost from that event lasts a mere two months. Marvel has had no big line-wide events during that period, they average 6-8% ahead without those, and managed to outdo a line wide event with a non-line-wide event by 4%.

I also want to note that 9%- That was not a weak DC month. That was a week when they had 4 major books come out and take the top 4 slots and put out more books than Marvel.




The last month there was the finale of one event (Forever Evil) and the opening of another (Future's End), as well as the first issues of Justice League United and Superman Doomed, which only got them within 4%, and that's not the kind of release schedule they can keep up solidly.


Now, let's backshift a full year. Let's see how they compared in the same months a year before:

DC +5% (the 'issue 0 month')
Marvel +4%
Marvel +4%
Marvel +4%
Marvel +3%
Marvel +5%
Marvel +12% (Age of Ultron/Guardians of the Galaxy #1)
Marvel +12% (Thanos Risiing/Issue 2 of the prior)
Marvel +5%


So, comparing these two blocks- An average month has increased from a 4% lead to marvel to a 6-8% lead from Marvel, which is a huge increase. Marvel has more up-months, and their up months last year were equal to DC's Villain's Months, and this year surpassed it. The latest 'weak Marvel/Strong DC' month, this May, would've been above-average for Marvel last year.


Marvel's lead is growing.








What do you even mean by 'inflating'?

They're going up and staying up using a business model that looks sustainable...


If it's 'consistently selling more,' how is it inflated?





That's fairly unlikely, they did so only by publishing a lot more comics. That means that per-comic they're well behind.

Last month DC was in full mode and Marvel wasn't. What happens when the reverse happens? Or both have average months? Or both have good months at the same time?

I'll again point to the 9% marvel win month.


I know you're a DC fan, but that doesn't change the market.


If that 5% is representative, then we may just be looking at a return to last year's status quo, but we may be looking at 5% Marvel advantage being a good month for DC, and only DC advantages on books where they do major line-wide things like 3d month.

^^im not denying Marvels market share is less than DCs, but when the two companies are both firing their events, dc can compete. It was pretty evident last month when dc closed the gap. Marvels share went down. I think they will continue to compete when dc pumps out their next weekly and crisis event.

And sales are up, so its not like dc is struggling.

Originally posted by Golgo13
^^im not denying Marvels market share is less than DCs, but when the two companies are both firing their events, dc can compete. It was pretty evident last month when dc closed the gap. Marvels share went down. I think they will continue to compete when dc pumps out their next weekly and crisis event.


The fact that the gap is widening on months where DC is not having event books isn't good, especially as they don't have more total events than Marvel. The monthlies will have to carry the flag so to speak- and there's been poor-selling monthlies before, especially later in their runs.

Competing in events is one thing, and DC can do that, but they need to find a way to transfer that to non-event months and comics.




Mind, this is quite a similar to the situation that got the Nu52 reboot rubber stamped. Corporate wasn't happy with it then, so they probably aren't now.


Here is a page with some info on longer trends


TOP 300 COMICS DOLLAR SALES
May 2014: $25.06 million
Versus 1 year ago this month: -1%
Versus 5 years ago this month: +34%
Versus 10 years ago this month: +41%
Versus 15 years ago this month: +48%
YEAR TO DATE: $121.02 million, -3% vs. 2013, +24% vs. 2009, +44% vs. 2004, +51% vs. 1999
ALL COMICS DOLLAR SALES
May 2014 versus one year ago this month: -2.01%
YEAR TO DATE: -1.13%



If total industry sales aren't up, and the others have increased in market share more... it's coming from someone.


Though on the bright side, look at those 5 and 10 year comparisons! Industry be doing well.

Again, constant relaunching and events have inflated their sales.

CBR did a.good.article on how Marvel NOW relaunches are trending down and are a result of weak sales.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=52488

Is comics sales just a small part of the story now, for both companies? Being big and best selling in other media - movies, video games, TV - seems to be just as important. Grant Morrison noted in his book Supergods about how important it is now to be launching on multiple platforms, not just be a comics series. In this aspect, Marvel seems well ahead of DC, overall. The best Marvel movies are equal to the best DC movies in quality, and they are way ahead in terms of quantity and awareness.

Originally posted by roughrider
Is comics sales just a small part of the story now, for both companies? Being big and best selling in other media - movies, video games, TV - seems to be just as important. Grant Morrison noted in his book Supergods about how important it is now to be launching on multiple platforms, not just be a comics series. In this aspect, Marvel seems well ahead of DC, overall. The best Marvel movies are equal to the best DC movies in quality, and they are way ahead in terms of quantity and awareness.

Yup. I pretty much agree. Although WB has produced the best super hero trilogy to date and seems to be changing if WB produces their new lineup.

Dc still kicks more ass in the game and tv/ animation department though.

Originally posted by Golgo13
Again, constant relaunching and events have inflated their sales.

Again, what definition of 'inflating' are you use when they consistently manage 6-8% market share advantage and when, as the article you link mentions, the relaunches don't actually have that big effects?

Also, would you not say that by this same logic, DC's gimmick covers and monthly books are inflating numbers on their side?




Note, Marvel's mid-level books are doing better than DC's.

It's talking about how relaunches don't raise sales for long and have dimishing returns effect, which is true, but the average sale of a mid-tier marvel book still trends to noticeably higher.

"Weak sales" in this case still means better sales than DC by a good margin, just weaker compared to when the books start for real.


Remember, DC can put out 13 more comics than Marvel in a month, have half the top-10 and still have lower total sales. Think about what that means on the average sales of each book.

Originally posted by Q99
Again, what definition of 'inflating' are you use when they consistently manage 6-8% market share advantage and when, as the article you link mentions, the relaunches don't actually have that big effects?

Also, would you not say that by this same logic, DC's gimmick covers and monthly books are inflating numbers on their side?




Note, Marvel's mid-level books are doing better than DC's.

It's talking about how relaunches don't raise sales for long and have dimishing returns effect, which is true, but the average sale of a mid-tier marvel book still trends to noticeably higher.

"Weak sales" in this case still means better sales than DC by a good margin, just weaker compared to when the books start for real.


Remember, DC can put out 13 more comics than Marvel in a month, have half the top-10 and still have lower total sales. Think about what that means on the average sales of each book.

Marvels mid tier books has Always done better in sales. Nothing.really new. What mattets.right now is that.dcs.sales and units are up conpared to pre flashpoint.

Read the link i posted. Relaunchs do inflate sales in the short term for marvel, but after a few issues the sales go right back down to what it was before.

Originally posted by roughrider
Is comics sales just a small part of the story now, for both companies? Being big and best selling in other media - movies, video games, TV - seems to be just as important. Grant Morrison noted in his book Supergods about how important it is now to be launching on multiple platforms, not just be a comics series. In this aspect, Marvel seems well ahead of DC, overall. The best Marvel movies are equal to the best DC movies in quality, and they are way ahead in terms of quantity and awareness.

True enough.Marvel is doing a better job of making people go to the movies than DC does.Even the upcoming Guardians Of The Galaxy movie got my friends to actually want to see the movie because of the trailers alone.Funny thing is, they're not comic fans.They're the people who like watching movies.Don't get them wrong.They know about Marvel and DC.Its just that they don't even know Guardians Of The Galaxy is actually a Marvel property.Although trailer is just one part, how good will the movie be once it comes out is another matter.Although no doubt GOTG being in the shared MU cinema will benefit other Marvel Movies since Thanos is in it.

Originally posted by Igniz
True enough.Marvel is doing a better job of making people go to the movies than DC does.Even the upcoming Guardians Of The Galaxy movie got my friends to actually want to see the movie because of the trailers alone.Funny thing is, they're not comic fans.They're the people who like watching movies.Don't get them wrong.They know about Marvel and DC.Its just that they don't even know Guardians Of The Galaxy is actually a Marvel property.Although trailer is just one part, how good will the movie be once it comes out is another matter.Although no doubt GOTG being in the shared MU cinema will benefit other Marvel Movies since Thanos is in it.

Im going to predict GOTG will be the second best MU movie.

Originally posted by Golgo13
I think they will continue to compete when dc pumps out their next weekly and crisis event.

And sales are up, so its not like dc is struggling.

I forgot to comment on this.All I will say, is if DC's crisis event turns out to be another reboot, I may start going Indy Comics for me.And rebooting means DC's sales have gotten stale Best wishes to both Marvel and DC.

Originally posted by Igniz
I forgot to comment on this.All I will say, is if DC's crisis event turns out to be another reboot, I may start going Indy Comics for me.And rebooting means DC's sales have gotten stale Best wishes to both Marvel and DC.

Comics sales in general have gotten stale. Dan Didio has even mentioned this. Look at the reports. Both TPB and floppies have decreased. HOWEVER, comics have never been more accessible. Even though it's a small percentage, people are going digital and even turning to trades more than floppies. Something which DC generally leads, I think.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Both companies are run poorly, just in different ways, imo.

Pretty much.

I personally don't see how the two are supposed to be equally badly run- there's a lot of complaints from DC about management that aren't present at Marvel, and Marvel has an easier time coordinate their books and making critical darlings too.

Also, something else I want to emphasize about those Marvel relaunches- they aren't done just for sales, they're done to signify the end of the sale. Marvel does story arcs with complete beginnings, middles, and ends, and does so regularly. If there's still call for the title after, it gets a relaunch, if it doesn't, it gets a proper finale. Which works out good creatively either way.





DC used to have a really solid mid-card. JSA, most Titans iterations, Booster Gold, Flash (when it wasn't an upper-card, which is admittedly pretty often), yadda yadda.

Their mid-card has weakened since the reboot.

I'd actually say their number of top-sales books has increased in size some (more Batman books for example), but not enough to balance out the thinning middle.

Originally posted by Q99
I personally don't see how the two are supposed to be equally badly run- there's a lot of complaints from DC about management that aren't present at Marvel, and Marvel has an easier time coordinate their books and making critical darlings too.

Also, something else I want to emphasize about those Marvel relaunches- they aren't done just for sales, they're done to signify the end of the sale. Marvel does story arcs with complete beginnings, middles, and ends, and does so regularly. If there's still call for the title after, it gets a relaunch, if it doesn't, it gets a proper finale. Which works out good creatively either way.





DC used to have a really solid mid-card. JSA, most Titans iterations, Booster Gold, Flash (when it wasn't an upper-card, which is admittedly pretty often), yadda yadda.

Their mid-card has weakened since the reboot.

I'd actually say their number of top-sales books has increased in size some (more Batman books for example), but not enough to balance out the thinning middle.

Sorry, I was talking about their C list characters. Anyway, characters like Aquaman, Flash, Green Lantern, etc... still outsell characters like the Hulk and Iron Man. The sales have declined, but so has Marvel's.

And agree to disagree on the rest.

BTW, I hear many complaints about Marvel and how they run things. Increase in price, double shipping, and an endless amount of relaunches. Not to mention constant events. Most of which are average.

Also, the sales were dismal before the reboot as well. Teen Titans sold roughly around 25-30 K before the reboot. Pretty much the same in the DCnU.

Teen Titans have been horrible for a long time.

Something that may affect the balance in the future:

DC has a new royalties system

A higher level is now needed before creators get royalties, a pretty substantially higher level.

Oh yes, comic beat also has a regular month-to-month analysis

March DC

March Marvel

April DC

April Marvel

So you can see some pro tracking of what books are sliding fast/holding sales well/etc..


A quick count of April says Marvel has 33 books over 30k sales, and DC has 21 (or 24 if you count Eternal as x4).