I think there's a more fundamental question involved here of whether there exists any market for new characters any more, at least within the context of the shared universes, even when they are created by the biggest talents. There don't seem to be enough sales out there to build an audience for an Aztek, or a Skyrocket (and the other new characters in the Power Combany), or a Bloodhound; and it's not just talented newcomers like Jolley who can't do it, it's seasoned pros like Busiek and Morrison.

So when was the last time a genuinely new character managed to carry a book into a third year of publication with healthy prospects? Anything since Hitman? If so, I can't think of it. For that matter, even team books and new versions of old characters don't do all that much better when not set in Gotham city. And when was the last time that a character introduced or developed mainly in one of the team books managed to graduate to a solo title? [Emma Frost, probably. A successful solo title, again using the "not in imminent danger of being cancelled when issue #25 hits the stands"? Can't think of anything since freaking Firestorm and Wolverine]

The market is speaking, and it sayeth that nobody interested in the big shared universe wants new characters, no matter who's making them.

That's an interesting point, Jeff, and it might speak to the big two's unwillingness to let a book hang around the way a Hellboy was allowed to develop, but also it speaks to the idea that anchoring a series is the only way a new character is useful, and it's not: you're never going to get to see a seemingly minor character 'break out' as it were, and you're not going to get those 2 to 3 years of X-Men storylines around Nocenti and Adams' minor character from an LS.

It's cumulative effect that really bothers me here: sure, the Power Company tanked. But those characters still exist, and DC can make use of them: someone could come along and write a JLA arc dealing with them. Maybe it would be good, maybe not, but the potential exists. Without a steady pool of such characters, you're heading for stagnation even faster, in my opinion. You need the Azteks, the Zauriels, the Azraels, the Tarantulas of the DCU whether or not they ever hold down their own series.

I would love to see the Big Two die. I have a special attachment to the characters, but there's just not a lot out there from DC and Marvel anymore that excites me, unless it's done by one of DC's boutique imprints, which I don't think really count. The death of DC and Marvel will be a long and possibly disastrous process, but I think it needs to happen for comics to evolve past nostalgic onanism. Comics need to realize that the only way they can become a viable form of literature is if people can pick up a graphic novel, read it, like it, and never worry about whether or not there's anything else to the story. I buy some graphic novels for non-comics-reading friends, but I would never subject them to the confines of the DC and Marvel universes. DC and Marvel, unfortunately, are feeding the "nerdification" of comics fans with their slavish devotion to continuity and recycling stories. When an art form becomes something that only initiates can understand, it becomes marginalized and ignored. It's happened to Star Trek, it will happen to Star Wars once the movies are finally completed, and it's happened to stuff like The X-Files and Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Alias (I don't watch Alias, but it doesn't have the greatest ratings). So I say: we'll always have our back issues -- death to the Big Two!

Well, this is probably the last one I'll respond to for a couple of hours (who says having all friday to yourself leads to wasted time? Not like I have a goddamn second book and a novel to be working on...) so you'll have to bear with me:

To a degree, I agree with you, Greg, and to a degree I think I have to disagree. The idea that comics aren't already a viable form of literature is absurd bullcrap. We can point to plenty of valid literature come out of all sort of places in these little narrative chains of images, including the big two. Furthermore, as a man who works professionaly in the science fiction and fantasy genres at this point, I can promise you, you'll see plenty of nostalgic onanism in other varieties of 'valid literature' (unless you think the universe really needed ten goddamn volumes of the Wheel of Time books) and you're aware of it in your examples (although I'd argue that Star Trek isn't an art form, it's a particular intellectual property within a sub-set of a genre that crosses a couple of different art forms like films, television, books and even comics) so that I don't feel like I need to spend much time addressing: the death of the big two won't necessarily bring an end to the initiate stage of comics. (Tom Bondurant wrote a great post about Stephen Grant and his position on that, actually.)

I do, however, think that the obsession with continuity is now to the point of a fetish. I agree with you there. I don't think it will change if DC and Marvel die, however: fannishness is universal.

Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that comics aren't a viable form of literature -- hell, I read 'em and champion them as much as I can. I just meant that comics fans in general (I count myself one of them) bemoan the fact that comics aren't accepted more by "the mainstream," whatever the crap that is. Well, comics will never be accepted by the mainstream as long as DC and Marvel are the dominant publishers and nerdish navel-gazing is the dominant paradigm. Sure, there's fetishism (if that's a word) in other genres, but the things that break out of their genres don't demand obsessive knowledge about every teeny tiny part of it (I've never, for instance, seen any hint of a Thomas Covenant movie). Comics fans need to shit or get off the pot. Either accept that comics are going to be regulated to a tiny section of society, or stop trying to get people to read Spider-Man after they see the movie and instead champion books that don't require years and years of backstory. I still don't understand why the comics business didn't push Unbreakable more, since that movie didn't concentrate on a comics character, but it instead showed why we read comics in the first place. Independent comics are probably the best way, ironically, of getting comics into "the mainstream." DC and Marvel are dinosaurs -- big and impressive and scary, but probably doomed.

I don't understand. What does this have to do with Snapper Carr? Get this off-topic stuff out of here.

Seriously, I agree with pretty much everything in the initial post. There's really no reason for writers and artists to hold onto their best ideas until they have the leverage to showcase them as creator-owned properties. That is the true legacy of Kirby, Ditko, Siegel, Shuster, and all the rest. All the old guys got royally shafted and everyone else eventually learned from their mistakes.

Greg - I'd go so far as to say that all this whining about mainstream acceptance has hurt comic books as an art form more than anything else. Art doesn't pull on the pantleg of the mainstream begging for acceptance: art goes about its business and doesn't care one way or the other what outsiders think of it. If I may be so crude, fuck mainstream acceptance. I don't know of a single novelist (and at this point I actually know several of them) who sits around bemoaning mainstream acceptance. Do good work, and they'll either discover it now or later. It probably will be the independents that make it if only because they're not so goddamn neurotic about it.

Ralf - uhm, I don't know what to do when we agree.

Matt:

That's kind of my point, sort of. Comics fan do whine about the lack of mainstream acceptance, but they expect it to come from the classic superhero properties, which ain't gonna happen. If anything, mainstream acceptance will come from the independents, because they're doing work that will be discovered for its own merits. It's a shame, however, that comics fans aren't letting the Big Two know that they're not to going to take yet another revival of Teen Titans or another X-book just because it fits into continuity. That's why I said the death of DC and Marvel will be a slow, painful process, but I think it will happen. But I agree that mainstream acceptance shouldn't be the end-all and be-all of art -- it just seems like the fans of art forms that don't have it crave it. Jennifer Garner in Elektra is not going to get people to buy back issues of Daredevil, after all, but American Splendor (the movie) might get people to look for the comic book.

I have to disagree with the assertion (hardly limited to this thread) that only the standalone graphic novel can attract readers. It's certainly a convenient form for doing so, and yet every so often a work will come along that not only takes full advantage of the monthly serial form but actually reads better in it - Morrison's New X-Men being the last example that comes to mind, and one that disproves pretty much every negative (if well-earned) statement about Big Two storytelling here.

I don't think serialization itself is what's slowly killing the Big Two. The fact that for every New X-Men there are ten of New Avengers and Superman/Batman and Identity Crisis, or that only a third as many Direct Market readers are willing to try Morrison and Quitely on We3 as they were on New X-Men and the Big Two are wholly dependent on those same readers... that's what's killing them.

At this point, what would people accept as mainstream acceptance? There is TIME, New York Times and the New Yorker each lauding the artistic acheivements of comics, and if you duck by Thought Balloons, you'll see that these are only a few out of many.

I don't really have anywhere to go with this and it's hardly an original observation, but when it comes to 'mainstream acceptance,' there seems to be an attachment between morals and economics that I really dislike.

So yeah, fuck the non-comics reading public.

Jennifer Garner in Elektra is not going to get people to buy back issues of Daredevil, after all, but American Splendor (the movie) might get people to look for the comic book.

Define "people."

Also, a nit: I think people may be using the term "continuity" a bit loosely here. I don't think either company has a real continuity any more like they had in the 1970s, where there was an assumption that everything that happened had to fit, somehow, with what had gone before. That notion seems to have died at least ten years ago. Hell, the two most recent Captain America writers have used the Red Skull for two arcs in a row. There's no indication whatsoever that the Ed Brubaker arc acknowledges the Robert Kirkman story as having happened. That kind of thing is more the rule than the exception now.

What we have now is less "continuity" than an endless remixing of high points. This is not to contest Matt's main point. I suspect he's probably right: the endless remixing without new characters - not even new villains, mostly! - makes Big Two superhero comics a closed system, and we all know there's only one direction the entropy arrow can go in such things.

Now, my big disagreement: it is NOT true, surely, that the Big Two can only profit from licensing and subsidiary media rights if they own all their properties outright. That's just a matter of contract. If Matt sells his novel to a hardback publisher who turns around and sells it to paperback for him, said publisher will get half the paperback money, will it not? (Excepting hard/soft deals a la Tor etc.) Isn't that also true if Hollywood options Matt's book or actually makes a movie of it? Does anything prohibit Marvel buying rights to the next Nova that would leave ownership with the future Marv Wolfman but ensure Marvel a split of the subsidiary pie?

Isaac - So yeah, fuck the non-comics reading public. Not really quite what I meant... what I was going for was more fuck this constant bleating about acceptance. I don't care what Time has to say about the art form one way or another. Or McSweeny's. Or the Globe and Mail. It's pointless and bringing up an argument that 'We'll never have mainstream acceptance because of X" doesn't really interest me anymore, one way or another. To my mind, if a comic book comes along and it is good (and yeah, that's pretty subjective) then it will find an audience and acceptance, not the other way around: a hunger for acceptance won't make a good comic book.

Marc - I don't think serialization itself is what's slowly killing the Big Two. The fact that for every New X-Men there are ten of New Avengers and Superman/Batman and Identity Crisis, or that only a third as many Direct Market readers are willing to try Morrison and Quitely on We3 as they were on New X-Men and the Big Two are wholly dependent on those same readers... that's what's killing them.

Quite honestly, I don't necessarily include Superman/Batman in a list of what's wrong just because it's not really my deal: sure, it's a continuity obsessed wankfest but giving people a comic book where they can have that if they want it is fine by me. I personally don't think it's serialization that's killing the big two, per se, as much as it is a tendency to flog the horse without feeding it or putting it away for the night with hay and water: there's much less of a desire to make *use* of all Morrison created for them in New X-Men than there is an immediate desire to undo it all: Magneto's still alive, there's really a Xorn, Magneto's helping to rebuild Genosha so he's not such a bad guy, etc etc. In a period when most creators are keeping their A game for themselves, Morrison can do 'Seaguy' and 'We3' and still bring the big concepts to the company product and they cannot get away from it fast enough.

Jim - Now, my big disagreement: it is NOT true, surely, that the Big Two can only profit from licensing and subsidiary media rights if they own all their properties outright. That's just a matter of contract.

It's true insofar as they refuse to see it. Like I said with my musings on what Vertigo could become or what Epic could have been for them, they can make creator owned setups into their bread and butter, if they want to... and I suspect they'll have to if they want to exist in th future. Nothing prohibits the set-up you postulate with the future Marv for the next Nova save the companies themselves.

The one problem with creator-owned properties in that situation is they can't feed into the shared universe, so one way or another the shared universes die.
Personally, I would hate to see that. A large proportion of my favourite comics take place in the DCU (not all by any means, but a lot), and to my mind both John Constantine and Superman (say) are richer characters from the knowledge that they're nominally in the same world (although of course the Vertigo titles haven't acknowledged that for a decade or so - a mistake in my view).
The best writers in comics have always worked within the sandboxes (with obvious exceptions), and I don't see that changing. I think the main problem isn't lack of new characters, but lack of new *writers* - when it comes to *good* writers out there people are still talking about Grant Morrison, Pete Milligan, Peter David, people who've been writing comics for 20 or 30 years now (Morrison and David both started writing comics before I learned to walk).
The big two *desperately* need to get *NEW* writers in, because even the best writer will settle into a rut eventually - Grant Morrison's stuff is still always good, but it reads like a Grant Morrison comic, you know?
The big two need to forget their basic policy of 'only if you've been published before' and start actively seeking out new talent. If someone's already got a creator-owned series with a big buzz around it before DC picks them up, they're not going to use their best ideas for their revival of Captain Carrot And The Amazing Zoo Crew or whatever. But if they're new and unpublished, even if they do creator-owned work as well, later, they'll still be in the habit of trying new things in the comic they're doing for DC/Marvel.
Don't get me wrong, I would shed no tears about those two companies collapsing - I think their treatment of creators over the years has been pretty appaling (DC less so than Marvel over the last 30 years or so, but still not great) - but I love the DC universe, I think there are a billion story possibilities in it still unplumbed, and I don't think a shared-universe story *has* to degenerate into a continuity-obsessed wankfest. But they desperately need new writers in order for that to work...

Honestly, I suspect the Big Two already have the talent they need (although new blood would certainly be welcome as well) and I like to imagine that most writers have enough ideas that they could spare a couple for the shared universe, particularly if "creator-participation" deals (like Ellis got for Planetary) become more widespread.

(Besides -- how many avenues are there for creator-owned superhero-ish work anymore? New superhero universes are pretty much DOA, leaving just the occasional Invincible or Noble Causes, of which the market can only support so many. See Newsarama's report on the top 100 comics of 2004 to see how the odds are stacked against new, independent creations these days.

The problem as I see it isn't that the writers can't come up with the good stuff, it's that the publishers aren't asking for it. I know you can't exactly chain a freelancer to a desk and say, "Create!" but seeing Marvel populate its "new young hero" line primarily with knockoffs of existing heroes, or watching DC put top talent on books that are surefire sellers anyway rather than something unproven, doesn't instill me with a lot of confidence that the Big Two are looking for the kind of innovation we're talking about.

The one thing that does make me hopeful is the Seven Soldiers project -- granted, it's revitalizing old concepts instead of creating new ones from the ground up, but it's still a pretty clear effort toward putting some new toys into the sandbox, as it were. And with Morrison at the helm, it's going to have much more of a chance at success than, say, the new Firestorm.

I don't think creator ownership is the problem. Plenty of creators would be willing to create new characters for DC or Marvel given the upfront money and the creator participation deals that exist now. The problem is the market isn't interested in new characters, at least not enough to make them profitable for the big companies.

Or maybe you're all right.

My feelings are pretty similar to those of Steve and David. A professional writer--that is, one who writes for a living, creating day after day regardless of how inspired he or she feels--probably shouldn't be worried about giving away his "best" creation and losing ownership. A writer who runs out of good ideas quickly isn't going to last long.

(Besides, a writer who creates a character for a company-owned universe can always create a thinly disguised variant for creator-owned projects. It's not like it hasn't been done.)

More of a problem is the resistance on the part of companies and fans to accept new creations into the fold. People read DC and Marvel comics because they like the DC and Marvel properties, not because they want something new. People who want something new have plenty of other comics to pick from.

One solution (of sorts) is for writers to make sure their creations have something to offer the shared universe. Make it fill a conceptual hole (e.g., 'Marvel has no magic / tech / totem / whatever teen heroes, so...'). Make it deal with the shared universe's themes in a new way. Make a counterpoint to existing characters. Etc. Make people think of your work as valuable to the shared universe, and it'll last.

Maybe. I'm trying, here...

Yes, I'm replying to myself. Sorry! I had another thought...

I think I'm arguing for stronger brand identity. Slim down the shared universes. Make sure every book using them has a purpose. If a creator has a great idea that doesn't fit the universe, publish it as its own thing--that's what your Vertigo / Icon lines are for. Make the shared universe the crown jewel of your publishing empire--make it consistently high-quality, make it something everyone wants to participate in, and make it something that will create zealous and devoted new fans. Once your core universe is running smoothly and your independant project imprints are maintaining steady cash flow, consider launching a secondary, limited-run shared universe--2099, Milestone, Wildstorm--and close it up once it's run its course. Repeat.

I'm available if Marvel or DC needs a new head of publishing...

Andrew Hickey: The best writers in comics have always worked within the sandboxes (with obvious exceptions), and I don't see that changing. I think the main problem isn't lack of new characters, but lack of new *writers* - when it comes to *good* writers out there people are still talking about Grant Morrison, Pete Milligan, Peter David, people who've been writing comics for 20 or 30 years now.

I think the best writers showcase their quality regardless of which sandbox they're playing in - the big two's, someone else's, or their own. As far as new writers, I see people talking about Kirkman or Slott or Bedard or Diggle or Rucka or Brubaker or Vaughan or ... I don't really think there's any particular dearth of new writing talent.

Alex:
It sounds like you're kind of asking DC and Marvel to reverse the way they operate. Right now, Vertigo/Icon are the prestige lines and the shared universes are the bread and butter. I don't see how DC or Marvel could slim them down to any significant degree when it's where they're making their money.

I'm going to align against Matt, I think. First, the evidence is pretty solid that continuity is less important in comics today than it has been in the last thirty years. (However, exposition is also in its worst state; my experience is that there are few books in the DCU and MU whose backstory I don't already know well that I can pick up and have enough explained to me for the current story to be clear.)

Second, I don't think the DCU or MU will wither. They might shrink, to be sure, but it's abundantly clear that both have enough corporate-owned characters in need of maintenance to keep going indefinitely--X-Men, Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, Wonder Woman.

Third, the appeal of the corporate-owned characters is sufficient to attract creative writers, and these writers will not simply re-use existing creative elements; they'll inevitably inject new elements. How many of us would be excited to write Superman or Batman? Wouldn't you be excited to use your terribly-clever new villain against the greatest superhero of them all?

In fact, I'd say it this way: people with dreams of working in superhero comics dream of creating the next Superman or Spawn or Wonder Woman, but they also dream of creating the next Joker or Darkseid or Bullseye.

That being said, there is also no question that the diversity of the comics medium has never been greater and there has not been more potential for non-superhero comics to break out since the 1960s. So the DCU and MU will continue to represent an ever-smaller chunk of the entire medium, but this can only be a good thing.

The tipping point for diversity in comics came in the early 90s, at least for me; that's the point at which I could go into a comics store and know that there were comics I was not interested in because of their genre or style or subject. I analogize to a book store--I go into a book store, I don't look at every book, just the sections of it I'm interested in.

But my perspective may not be reliable.

"I'm also aware that many independent comics are created by studio set-ups of their own."

And this is the point where the rest of the argument becomes meaningless. Will a closed system *always* tend towards entropy? Sure, that's our definition of a truly closed - as opposed to only seemingly closed - system. Are the "Big Two" closed in the Big Picture. Sure, why not. But then, so is the planet Earth, and in a few billion years the sun will shut down and no one will be reading comic books anyway.

The idea that ever comic book creator out there is a potential Indy darling like Spiegalman, or a master craftsman like Eisner is absurd. The idea that everyone wants to be silly, and should be is insulting. There have always been people who want to work with the characters of their youth, from Thomas to Morrison to Slott. And if at somepoint even Batman becomes so irrelevent that no one will work on him out of love, there will always be money. Do you think that the writing staff for "Joey" or "The Simpsons" are getting points up front, the same as the creators? At some point - or shall we say all along - the Big Two will simply hire assembly workers to work under contract, just as Eisner did.

Marvel and DC may make bad business decisions, fail to follow market trends like Manga or appeal to female readers. They may have to settle for smaller market shares as more McFarlanes strike it rich "in studio" and go on to compete with "The Big Two". But they are no more obliged to go out of business because they have a (closed) shared universe than Coke is for only selling soda pop.

David Oakes

Oddly enough, I just read the Sims/Macfarlane Spawn #6 backissue last night. What synchronicity. But of course, Matt is a lot less self-righteous and self-obsessed than Sims and Macfarlane, who have their own little creator-owned wankfest in that issue. (Plus, Matt's a genius.)

Wow, I let this thing go and suddenly people are commenting on it. Okay, in turn:

Greg, I don't think it's necessarily the same thing to argue that the Big Two need new characters to tell stories with and to argue that it has anything to do with continuity, although I do think that continuity becomes much more of a straightjacket without new characters. I think our main difference is in effect: I agree with you that they'll shrink, but that they have enough characters to keep going for a while... I just don't know how profitable that is. When 10,000 comics sold is a good run, I honestly worry about the long-term viability of the hobby.

That being said, there is also no question that the diversity of the comics medium has never been greater and there has not been more potential for non-superhero comics to break out since the 1960s. So the DCU and MU will continue to represent an ever-smaller chunk of the entire medium, but this can only be a good thing.

I agree with this, I just don't want them to become so small a chunk of the medium that they go out of business, that's all. Right now I'm digging on a lot of books I wouldn't have gotten the chance to back in the day. I just hope the shared universes can maintain viability.

David - I don't really understand, and as far as I can tell you didn't explain, why the argument becomes meaningless. If anything, the fact that the Image founders immediately ran out and created their own 'micro-studios' sort of proves my point to some degree, does it not? I didn't argue at any point that every comic creator is an indy darling or an Eisner, I argued that financial reasoning provides a great barrier to the aspiring creator giving new brainchildren to the big two. In my scenario, a comic book creator, having watched the Ditkos and the Kirbys as they came up and lost the rights to their work, will be hesitant to add more when the financial jackpot... the movies or toys or what have you... relies on maintaining ownership. Clearly, others have already pointed out the Morrisons who in fact love the sandboxes and have added to them anyway, and I believe I even went so far as to mention that oftentimes in those cases, said creators are immediately marginalized by an extremely conservative creative culture (watch how New X-Men is treated like it has leprosy in favor for a return to the storytelling tropes of the early 1990's and Rob Liefeld is enlisted for yet another run). In short, I don't think they're obliged to go under for the reasons you suggest I do. I think they may well be forced out of business because they're hemorrhaging readers. (I should point out, again, this is not an outcome I want: I love superhero comics and always will, especially DC.)

Nathan - well, again, the only dog I have in this hunt is that I really, really, really want to write Superman someday before I die.

Matt - If you believe that the Big Two are going under because they are hemmoraging readers, then this really has nothing at all to do with new characters, closed systems, studio sweatshops, or anything else that has come up so far, does it? Yes, "new creators" might bring something, well, "new" to the table, tnad thereby attract this salvatory (OK, pun intended) "new audience". But you could just as easily hire new wage slaves to write stuff that people want to read. It has nothing to do with quality per se, and everything to do with whether or not Editorial is going to admit they have a problem, and what they are going to do about it.

As for the Image Founders and their "micro-studios", yes, the ability of Todd McFarlane to make rediculous ammounts of money has got to effect the up-and-coming generation of comic creators. But the real point that I was making was that Image was immediately able to go out and find people to work for their studios, rather than everyone betting "If Todd can do it, so can I!" Capitalism needs workers just like any other economic system, and so far, it keeps finding them. There is no reason to believe that the Big Two won't be able to find them for as long as they care to try.

If anything, I expect the pendulum to swing back the other way, to create a culture more like the early 90s when Image showed all the promise of Youthful Rebellion and A New Way of Doing Things. Rather than "mainstream" comics using "indies" as a testing ground, poaching talent that has proven itself to pump up sales on "THE NEW ADVENTURES OF CORPORATE ICON(TM)", we will once again see the corporate sponsored comics as a place to hone your craft, until you make a name for yourself, at which point you start using your stardom to work for you. But it is always going to be a balancing act. Corporate properties with long term universes and continuity are creatively restrictive, but at the same time are obliged to change to keep up with the current market. Private ownership of an Indy hit may make you a lot of money, but are going to have to do something to pay the bills until the market gets around to recognizing your genius.

So no, as long as comics exist, the Big Two aren't going anywhere. They may get more creator friendly, to the point that "The Big Two" can no longer be used as an epithet, they may hunker down and become complete sweat-shops, as bad as anything we saw in the Golden Age. But there is way too much invested - creatively as well as financially - for Superman and Spider-man to simply disappear just because Todd Nauck can keep 100% of the revenue from "Wildguard: the Shampoo".

So, in short:
1. A new creator can't create new characters for the big two because the big two aren't hiring new creators. (The hypothetical new creator might want to do so in order to establish a following and name for himself, if 'twere otherwise.)

2. An established, 'midlist' creator would be a fool to create new characters for the big two because they're already reasonably well known and to do so would be less financially wise than keeping ownership.

3. Big name, big money creators can afford to be fools to some degree.

4. The market is deeply averse to new characters no matter who's writing them*

4 footnote. With the possible exception of the 'huge-name' creators. Moore, Miller, or Gaiman could probably launch a brand-new character into some success. *

4 subfootnote. But these people have sufficient grudges against the big two or past bad experiences that this is less than likely to actually happen.

5. The market consists of:
a. maybe 25,000 or so hardcore shared-universe fans, interested in continuity-rich stories; either of the nostalgic or the antinostalgic variety.
b. Larger groups of fans of a particular franchise (X-dudes, Batman, Superman, Spiderman being the ones big enough to support books. Legion, very marginally.) These franchise fans can be further subdivided into a minority that enjoys the 'soap opera' continuity of their chracters (b1), and a majority that just wants to read cool stand-alone storylines.(b2)

6. The people in group (a) aren't interested in new characters. (Why? Because it's not possible to create a good new character in the current environment? Because their comics budget is overcompeted for as it is?)

7. The people in group (b1) will give new characters with tight connections to their francise of choice a shot, but will drop them if those connections weaken.

8. The people in group (b2), the largest current market, have no interest whatsoever in new characters.

9. So, it is in the companys' interests to put their best/most reliable writers on b2-oriented projects like "best of" remixes of old continuity.

10. Unresolved question: just who was it that drove the huge sales figures for Identity Crisis, anyway? What is is that drives a fan to buy that book and not the last big cross-over? Or the next? [Or with Countdown keep up the momentum?] Similarly, who's buying IC and not the regular Justice League books, and why?

Nice recap, Jeff R.

IMO, DC and Marvel aren't going anywhere anytime soon as long as licensing revenue continues to fill their coffers (Dreamwave and its albatross of a Transformers license serves as a perfect counterpoint) and they continue to serve up a steady diet of "what the people want" with an ocassional taste of "try this." Let's be honest, though; the majority of comic book readers/buyers these days are not clamoring for new characters or new storylines.

No different from Hollywood, The Big Two's bread is buttered by the familiar. Sequels have represented more than 20% of Hollywood's annual box office receipts since 2000 and each one opens on more screens than its predecessor did. It's the rare independent film that breaks out from the pack, and even rarer for it to be a true independent along the lines of a Blair Witch Project as opposed to a pseudo-independent like Passion of the Christ.

The major broadcast networks dole out recycled versions of Friends and "Fat Guy with Hot Wife" every season while variations of CSI and Law Order dominate the weekly Top 20 ratings. Meanwhile, an offbeat show like Scrubs gets shifted all over the schedule, and truly original concepts get shunted over to HBO...if they're lucky.

The answer for the comic book industry - Big Two and indies - lies in balancing that tricky line between giving a relatively smally and finicky audience what they want, as well as some of what they don't know they want. (And, of course, to resist publishing crap because Creator X is the flavor of the month.) To their credit, Marvel and DC both make a valiant attempt, publishing non-core property titles like a Warlock or a Fallen Angel, or tweaking exisiting formulas a la Gotham Central, not to mention Vertigo, Icon, etc. Unfortunately, especially in Marvel's case, the margin for error w/r/t to sales is pretty narrow and if a book doesn't get immediate support, unless it's tied in to the X-Men, Spider-Man, Batman or Superman - all of which have healthy revenue streams from merchandising able to support lower-selling titles - it's a pretty short leash. That's the reality of business.

Of course, the elephant in the room is that big two comics publishers aren't even really comics publishers anymore; they're licensing firms. Marvel's stock price, in particular, lives and dies on the spin-offs, not on the books; and insofar as the recent movies have started to blur into each other, Marvel does have a real problem on its hands, it's stable of 5000 characters notwithstanding. At some point Marvel comes to a point where the licenses it is offering up are, frankly, not worth that much; who's going to the Nomad movie? Marvel needs new concepts to shop. But of course who wants to give Marvel free concepts?

I assumed Epic was the way around this problem; a great IP landgrab in which Marvel gets new properties in return for acting as a vanity press, basically. That Marvel shut it down was to me very odd. That Marvel hasn't set up something to replace it (though perhaps ICON gives Marvel a cut of the rights) even odder. Marvel can still sell comics even without new comics--the brand new hat on Malibu Stacy syndrome will see to that, if nothing else--but selling comics alond won't keep Marvel shares up.

Well, before the mighty marketing'n'licensing clout of the Big Two dissipates, I DEMAND that a Kamandi movie be made.

I tend to agree with the "negative outcome is likely, but undesired" strain of thinking above.

I hate to say this, but Dreamwave is either a canary, whose silence (following tremendous racket) will scare/warn other companies (not just Marvel and DC), or it is the lead lemming. I do not claim to know what the case will be. (But, I fear Dreamwave is, erm was, more avian than mammalian.)

I know someone who runs a shop. Just for the hell of it, I asked him to recommend some superhero type books. He had to reach. He counts Spiderman's merits purely on the basis of Spiderman being an iconic character. He is less charitable with many other titles. His job and livelihood is comics, and even he is jaded.

Some companies, such as Dark Hose or Devil's Due can sustain licenses. But, Dark Horse has Star Wars. The rules on that license are different than other licenses. And, one has to wonder how it will look in a year, after Episode 3 has come and gone. Devil's Due, like Dark Horse, has a small stable of "in-house" titles that nobody seems to complain about. And, one will notice that they have been shucking licenses since their birth/rebirth about two years back. No more HeMan, no more Micronauts. (And, Micronauts, was at first, a solidly written comic.)

Dark Horse, and Devil's Due are smartly run companies. But, they are exceptions.

As a closing point, I would like to say that I have been reading (with great interest) this blog for several months. I seem very few good reactions to current mainstream books. (I tend to agree with 75% or so of what I see here.) I see a great deal of looking back at the comics of yesteryear, and a great desire to see good *new* comics. In other words, most everyone hear looks back because there is little good to look forward to from "the big two".

I will always like comics. They are a good form of narrative. But, I do not see many prospects for comics in the future.

And, as for a Kamandi movie, do you really want that? Sure, you may love Kamandi, but do you really want your favorite savage boy to get the Catwoman treatment?

Conspiracy theory time: The main shared-universes of the big two companies require a full and complete reboot in order to be able to attract the new readers that are needed, but the powers that be don't agree with the plan, so a group of conspirators (Johns, Bendis, Byrne, Meltzer, Strazinski,etc.) are setting out to deliberately damage the framework of the continuities until the publishers have no choice but to do a full-out reboot. [Hey, it's the best explanation for Disassembled and Doom Patrol I've thought of...]

Oh, and as long as he's (1) fighting talking gorillas and (2) messing around with glorious CGI Kirbytech, I'm on board with any Kamandi movie they want to bring out...

I hate to say this, but Dreamwave is either a canary, whose silence (following tremendous racket) will scare/warn other companies (not just Marvel and DC), or it is the lead lemming. I do not claim to know what the case will be. (But, I fear Dreamwave is, erm was, more avian than mammalian.)

I don't think Dreamwave's fate is necessarily indicative of anything. I wouldn't expect it to have any more impact on Marvel and DC than the fates of CrossGen, Chaos, First, Eclipse, Kitchen Sink, etc. did. I expect similar problems for Devil's Due, IDW, and most other second tier publishers based on past evidence.

I know someone who runs a shop. Just for the hell of it, I asked him to recommend some superhero type books. He had to reach. He counts Spiderman's merits purely on the basis of Spiderman being an iconic character. He is less charitable with many other titles. His job and livelihood is comics, and even he is jaded.

I'm not surprised. Store owners or longtime readers are those most likely to be jaded through constant overexposure.

I did not mean to say that Dreamwave would drag Marvel/DC down.

What I did mean was the Dreamwave may be a preview of things to come for the industry in general. I may disagree with the details of a few of your examples, but we seem to agree on the overall trend.

Oh, and Jeff, about your conspiracy theory......I wonder if we should be attributing to deliberate purpose what can be easily explained by stupidity.