Comic Book Resources

Well … you win the “Most Depressing CSBG” post award.

Is this a regular feature? If so, it’s awesome; and if it’s not, it should be. I’ve been wondering over the past few years what the ratio between Batman appearances to total output by the DCU imprint was.

Would it be possible create additional listings that include character families, like the Batman family or all the titles featuring the Avengers?

“Number of comics featuring Dazzler: 1″

Aww, poor Dazzler.

Hey, it’s an increase of infinity percent over April.

Michael P:
Infinity times 0 is still 0. Get your math in order when bringing the snark

What are Batman’s stats if you take out Vertigo, Wildstorm, etc?

Batman’s appearances go down by 2 if we only use DCU, because he is featured in the Brave and the Bold and Super Friends comics. So it’s something like 14 books out of 75, which makes for 18.6%. But I decided to include all published materials for all companies just to be fair.

Also, the Batman numbers don’t include stuff like Red Robin, Batgirl, Sirens, or Azrael, where he probably doesn’t show up.

Its kind of odd that you don’t hear as many complaints about Spider-Man being over-exposed and in every book as you do Wolverine, but he’s got Wolverine beat percentage-wise (at least this month), hands down.

Spider-Man’s in a lot of books and his main solo title comes out more than once a month. Wolverine is only the star of one solo ongoing title, but he pops up in as many places as Spider-Man (and usually alongside Spider-Man these days.)

D’oh! Wolverine has two solo titles each month, not one. But Spider-Man publishes five issues of his solo titles every month now that he’s got Web and Spider-Man Family.

Its kind of odd that you don’t hear as many complaints about Spider-Man being over-exposed and in every book as you do Wolverine, but he’s got Wolverine beat percentage-wise (at least this month), hands down.

I think that’s because Spider-Man’s been the company icon from the very beginning, and the number of titles he appeared in built up over time. But with characters like Wolverine, the expansion of titles feels like it happened (and in Deadpool’s case, practically did) overnight.

Also, with more violent aspects of Wolverine and Deadpool (or Punisher or Lobo), I think that people don’t WANT the characters to succeed because they’re not necessarily “good guys.”

It’s also weird because it really does feel like Spider-Man is less oversaturated now than he was at one time. I chalk it up to the fact that Spidey now has one solo title that’s published almost weekly, rather than 3-4 solo titles as he did in the past (I don’t count Web as a true solo title as its meant to focus on supporting characters). Thus, it seems like there is less Spidey out there, when there is really more.

You know, as cool as it is to hate the man, Rob Liefeld is truly the last comic creator to really make significant character contributions to either Marvel or DC, at least significant as far as extremely marketable goes, not actual literary quality of the character.

I mean as major as Geoff Johns, Morrison, Bendis, Millar and Brubaker are at revitalizing old franchises, have they had much luck with introducing major moneymaking characters? Even Liefeld’s Image compatriots, none of their character contributions stuck very much at Marvel.

The original Venom is gone but I guess he still is kind of there. Gambit is a shadow of himself in popularity, along with other Jim Lee created characters like Jubilee and Omega Red. Same goes for the other image guys. But Cable and Deadpool? Still huge, still getting a lot of focus, still playing major roles in storylines. And Deadpool is on par with becoming a breakthrough character along the lines of Wolverine.

Two breakthrough characters with marketability and staying power may not sound like much, but compared to everyone else in the past 20 years that’s a lot!

How do Hulk, Iron man, Superman and Green Lantern compare?

I’d actually be more worried about Ironman in the year after civil war, and Osborn this last year – I could easily see it hitting in the region of 30%+ at points.

How about how many comics written by Morrison & Ennis?

% of Marvel comics i’m buying:
0%
DFTBA

Infinity times 0 is still 0. Get your math in order when bringing the snark

I realize you’re just kidding, but this actually is not true. W/o getting too deep in the details, infinity times zero is considered indeterminate, its value varies depending on how “strong” the infinity is – for example, in loose terms, infinity squared (which is still infinity) is stronger than just regular infinity. There are examples where infinity times zero equals 0, times when it equals infinity, and times when it equals 257 or any other number you like. In short, you get YOUR math in order, mother fucker

Maybe Liefeld created Cable and Deadpool, but if he had been steering those characters this entire time, I guarantee you they wouldn’t be NEARLY as popular as they are now. Those characters have a slew of other, more talented creators to thank for keeping them in the spotlight, and giving them personalities outside of “Grizzled time-traveller with big guns”, and “Badass ninja assassin”, respectively.

By the time Liefeld left Marvel, Cable and Deadpool barely had any character development to speak of, since entire arcs of “X-Force” went by without anything of note happening. C&D were blank-slates with cool designs, begging for someone to come along and adopt them. Gambit was truly a “one-note wonder” in this case, as far too many creators focused on his relationship with Rogue, to the extent that any stories featuring the character that DIDN’T also have Rogue in them were destined to fail, mostly thanks to the Animated Series doing the same thing. Venom would have lasted far, far longer had Marvel not watered him down almost immediately and over-exposed the character to insane lengths, with a new #1 every other month and guest spots in a dozen other titles.

Deadpool WILL end-up like Venom, probably sooner rather than later. The reason he lasted this long and was able to have this mega-revival was because Marvel didn’t go the Venom-route the first time around, back during the McGuinnes/Kelly run, and kept to the one solo title and spotted guest appearances. Now they have this second huge chance with Deadpool, and they’ve spread him so thin, it’s bound to die a horrible death. Lessons aren’t being learned from the past, obviously, and before we know it, we’ll be seeing Wade Wilson sell his identity to the highest bidder, and we’ll be given “Wade Wilson: Anti-Deadpool” while some new guy dresses in the old duds.

Pray I’m wrong, and Marvel starts pulling-back before it’s too late. But if history tells us anything, it’s that they’ll do the exact opposite.

Ben – We’ve already had a faux Deadpool in the form of Agent X.

I like Deadpool as a character, but I really can’t be bothered to buy any of the current series – Cable and Deadpool remains one of my favourite series ever, but that was because it balanced Cables serious messiahnistic plans and Deadpools daftness making a more rounded book. Without Cable there to play the straight guy/manipulator it’s just a bit too strong for me, especially as Deadpool is an inherantly unstructured character when left to his own devices. He’s like the comics equivelant of garlic or chilli – great mixed with other things but I’m not going to eat anything with them as the main ingrediant.

Joe Kelly managed to find some structure for Deadpool, but mostly by donwplaying the idea that ‘Pool is insane and instead making him a depressed psychopath who endlessly ran his mouth in overcompensation. Other than his first few dead-serious appearances as a villain everyone else has written him as a frothing loon to one degree or another, basically Jim Carrey’s comedy persona as a mercenary.

Cass:
Ouch, I’ve been math served. D=

Two breakthrough characters with marketability and staying power may not sound like much, but compared to everyone else in the past 20 years that’s a lot!

When you’re right, you’re right T!

I can’t think of anyone who came close.

Maybe Liefeld created Cable and Deadpool, but if he had been steering those characters this entire time, I guarantee you they wouldn’t be NEARLY as popular as they are now.

But no character at Marvel or DC has been driven by one creator – their creator – for twenty years, so that’s an odd argument to make.

Wolverine wouldn’t have been as popular if it had stayed with Len Wein… Spider-Man sales went up when Dikto left… the X-Men didn’t take off until it had been through the hands of several creators etc etc

Deadpool WILL end-up like Venom, probably sooner rather than later.

Venom’s still pretty popular.

Wow. That’s quite a lot of Green Hornet– pardon my ignorance, but how much of a gamble is that on the film, based on the buzz around it?

Uhm… isn’t anything multiplied by zero, zero. If I have an infinite # of zeros the value is still zero.

I think the closest thing we have to major contributions to the DCU or MU by the prominent writers in the industry would be Stargirl or Larfleeze, and of course both of them are founded on other concepts. And of course I’m not counting things like Powers or the Authority.

Have there been ANY major breakout characters created since Deadpool? DC and Marvel started consolidating titles and giving characters multiple titles around the time Image was founded and other independent publishers popped up. So, a lot of the original concepts that might have once found a home at the Big Two, like Invincible or Irreedeemable, go elsewhere.

Jubilee first appeared in an issue of Uncanny X-Men four months prior to Jim Lee’s debut on the title, in an issue penciled by Marc Silvestri (another Image founder). I’m not trying to be snarky or come across as a know-it-all, but I know a bit more about Wolverine’s former sidekick than is probably healthy and the opportunity to use this knowledge in conversation rarely comes up. =)

I have to wonder if she might be a bit more popular now if any writer over the past ten years had any idea what to do with her, rather than re-defining her every five issues. The original, borderline slapstick version of the character was the best by far.

Earth 22 superman and Magog were created relatively recently ’96 by giant Alex Ross. And while Superman made his appearance and left, Magog played a lead role in the creation of the second JSA title and has his own title atm.

As far as new characters go, what about the one we were all discussing just a few posts ago? The Sentry. Granted, I don’t think he’s a good fit for the Marvel U, and I definitely think the writers like him more than the readers, but he’s been a pretty big character for several years now, and has had a few minis of his own.

It is a bit sad that most writers nowadays seem to focus only on revamping old characters and revealing shocking details you never knew about past events. Granted, sometimes it works great, and if it’s with some obscure character no one has been using, that’s great too. But it would be nice if there was more of an effort to make some new characters. Marvel tried a little with The Order, which unfortunately didn’t sell well. There’s quite a few new characters in Avengers: Initiative, too, but who knows if any of them will have any real staying power.

It is a bit sad that most writers nowadays seem to focus only on revamping old characters and revealing shocking details you never knew about past events.

It could be because they’ve seen creators of the past create characters that make millions, with the creators getting little to nothing in return – so why waste your ideas and creations on something you won’t get a piece of.

Alternatively – maybe there are deals in place now where you get a piece of the action from any creations, so the companies prefer creators to use older characters so that they don’t have to split the profits.

That’s all just speculation, but with the former, Warren Ellis for instance, creates lots of different stuff for properties he owns, but hasn’t created a new character (that I’m aware of) at Marvel since Pete Wisdom.
(There was Dirk Anger, but he’s just Nick Fury with a name change).

its value varies depending on how “strong” the infinity is

Cass, that was the perfect opportunity to use the term aleph-null in context on this site for the first time ever and you missed it. Opportunities like that don’t come every day.

I’m sure that’s a part of it, FGJ. But at the same time, the Big 2 obviously have a much bigger audience than pretty much any creator-owned comic will. So a creator might have a great idea for a character that would be really popular at Marvel, but do poorly as a creator owned title. It’s not worth millions if no one is paying for it. I’d think for some creators the idea of adding a character that could potentially grow in popularity beyond them would be somewhat of a draw in itself. But maybe that’s just me.

I’ve been saying for years that there’s a sad, sad dirth of Dazzler comics on the stands. And even this is just a one-shot…

And 5 Green Hornet books?! I was slightly interested, but now I just feel overwhelmed and will probably not touch any of them. I don’t feel like buying into another franchise. Heck, Moonstone’s output of Phantom comics has doubled in recent months and is practically bankrupting me as it is…

Cass,
you’re talking about limits and series. Infinite times zero (0, ZERO, cero, null, nix, void, nada) always will be 0. Last month there was 0 issues of Dazzler not a number that tends to 0. So if there’s anyone who should you get his math in order and not mix concepts…

Cass, that was the perfect opportunity to use the term aleph-null in context on this site for the first time ever and you missed it. Opportunities like that don’t come every day.

I actually don’t recall hearing the term before lol. But I’ve looked it up on wikipedia, and now I’m prepared to use it if ever that golden opportunity arises again.

you’re talking about limits and series. Infinite times zero (0, ZERO, cero, null, nix, void, nada) always will be 0. Last month there was 0 issues of Dazzler not a number that tends to 0. So if there’s anyone who should you get his math in order and not mix concepts…

I’m not mixing concepts, I’m simplifying based on what everyone means when they say “infinity times” some number. Infinity is not a number to begin with; in a technical sense, talking about infinity times 0 (or any other number) is meaningless, you might as well be asking what zebra times 0 is. You could define it to be an “extended real number” (as in Royden’s Real Analysis) and give it the property that infinity times zero equals zero (Royden does this, as a matter of fact), but that’s just a convention you’re choosing to adopt (he notes this fact), and you could equally well define it so that infinity times zero is infinity.

This may seem confusing, but in math, you can define anything anyway you like as long as it doesn’t create an inconsistency in your theory. For example, you could define zebra times zero to equal 57 (since, if you make no other assumptions about “zebra,” there is no inconsistency), but if you do that, you couldn’t add to that definition the property that zebra + 5 = 7, because that property would give you zebra = 2, and clearly 2*0 is not equal to 57 – this would be your inconsistency.

In general, however, when people say “infinity” they mean the standard, calculus / undergrad analysis definition of infinity in which – I’ll quote wikipedia – “the symbol *infinity* denotes an unbounded limit.” That is, it’s usual definition comes from the concept of a limit. Examples:

Taking Limits at As x –> 0
x * 1/x^2 = (zero) (infinity) = 0
x^2 * 1/x = (zero) (infinity) = infinity
x * 1/x = (zero) (infinity) = 1

Even using an intuitive sense of what infinity means, you could take this part of your point in the exact opposite direction:

Infinite times zero (0, ZERO, cero, null, nix, void, nada) always will be 0.

But infinite (the ultimate, beyond all, forever) times anything other than zero will always be infinite. Why shouldn’t zero have the same property? To borrow from my least favorite part of The Dark Knight, it’s like asking which wins, the unstoppable force (infinity) or the immovable object (zero)? You’re saying in every case the object wins, but how can you be sure? (AND NEVERMIND THAT THE OBJECT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH BATMAN IN THE MOVIE!)

To summarize, I think, sir, it would behoove you and redound to your benefit if you got YOUR math in order

Also, Bill, I really like what you’ve done here. I’ve been curious to know what these numbers would look like, especially for Spider-Man. I used to follow the story of MU Peter Parker pretty closely, but gave it up when the number of titles got out of control. I see now according to your numbers that Marvel’s releasing a Spider-Man book for each day of the year. That’s absolutely nuts. Has the number ever been that high before?

I guess one reason DC won’t be home to any brand new breakthrough characters anytime soon is because they seem to have resigned themselves to focusing on legacy characters. All of their “new” characters recently like Blue Beetle and Manhunter mostly seem to be new versions of old characters.

I think Prometheus could have been a breakthrough character if later writers didnt’t keep botching him. Worse, Sterling Gates did a GREAT job redeeming him in that Faces of Evil one-shot, and what does DC do with this new clean slate? Immediately kill Prometheus in order to give Green Arrow a new dilemma. What was the point of redeeming Prometheus as a badass just to kill him? And what was the point of wiping the slate clean of Ollie’s killing in Kevin Smith’s Green Arrow just to give him the exact same conflict again down the line?

In terms of non-derrivative characters created since Deadpool… I’d throw my guess in at Sentry being the most exposed on a regular basis. I’m probably forgetting someone though.

Fantomex seems to be slowly resurfacing too at the minute, and Danger seems to be showing her/its face regularly. Agent Brand, Phylla Vel, The Young Avengers, Stepford Cuckoos, Pixie, Amadeus Cho, Armor and Runaways are all also recent creations which are doing moderatly well for themselves.

I’m not going to theorize maths in a comics forum, if I would to give headaches to our fellows I’d recommend them any Shirow book, I was only noting the sentence you put: ” [...], but this actually is not true. W/o getting too deep in the details, infinity times zero is considered indeterminate. [...]“. the example you put there where the example of a limit, and when you said: “There are examples where infinity times zero equals 0, times when it equals infinity, and times when it equals 257 .”it’s clearly the example of a series. And yes, “you can define anything anyway you like as long as it doesn’t create an inconsistency in your theory”, or some like it, not exactly, the problem is that nobody has established such theory that could be applied at the case we’re talking here.
Obvioulsy you’re not a neophite in maths, but you shouldn’t mix those concepts with the idea of percentages. BTW “Hey, it’s an increase of infinity percent over April”. statisticly doesn’t exist the notion of “it’s an increase of infinity percent over April” (Michael P dixit).

But talkin’ about serious things and some of the posts here: T., Jim Lee didn’t create nor Gambit nor Jubilee (the former can be discussed, the later was created more than a year before Jim Lee were asigned as regular penciler of the X-Men).

About the success of the Liefeld creations: well, if you asked anybody 2 years ago, Deadpool would be as successful as X-23. If you’re talking about creating new meaning, succesful characters I can think about Gaiman or Robinson at DC. At Marvel? it’s quite more difficult, aside his debut mini, I don’t think the Sentry were a high marketable character, I just hope that the next one will not be the red Hulk and the rest of his partners.

In terms of non-derrivative characters created since Deadpool… I’d throw my guess in at Sentry being the most exposed on a regular basis. I’m probably forgetting someone though.

Sentry has been appearing regularly but I don’t think it’s because of fan demand. He definitely had a chance to become a breakthrough category, but like with Prmetheus over at DC, succeeding writers really ruined the character’s potential. Most fans just seem to hate him currently.

Fantomex seems to be slowly resurfacing too at the minute, and Danger seems to be showing her/its face regularly. Agent Brand, Phylla Vel, The Young Avengers, Stepford Cuckoos, Pixie, Amadeus Cho, Armor and Runaways are all also recent creations which are doing moderatly well for themselves.

I’m sure many of those characters will stick around for years to come. I don’t think Liefeld is alone in creating characters that people will continue to use. I mean as far as breakthrough characters, runaway stars whose popularity starts gaining a life of its own. None of those characters is currently close to that category.

About the success of the Liefeld creations: well, if you asked anybody 2 years ago, Deadpool would be as successful as X-23. If you’re talking about creating new meaning, succesful characters I can think about Gaiman or Robinson at DC. At Marvel? it’s quite more difficult, aside his debut mini, I don’t think the Sentry were a high marketable character, I just hope that the next one will not be the red Hulk and the rest of his partners.

I’m talking breakout stars in the mold of Spider-Man, Batman, Wolverine, etc as far as marketability. Sandman is definitely a popular character, but that’s only one character. Doesn’t beat Liefeld’s two. And James Robinson;s Starman, he’s only one character and while loved and critically acclaimed, I’m not sure he counts as a breakout star in terms of having been capable of carrying multiple solo titles and being used in a slew of guest appearances to boost sales. And again, even if you do count him as a breakout star that still only counts for one character for Robinson, meaning Liefeld is still leading that pack at 2 characters.

But talkin’ about serious things and some of the posts here: T., Jim Lee didn’t create nor Gambit nor Jubilee (the former can be discussed, the later was created more than a year before Jim Lee were asigned as regular penciler of the X-Men).

You’re right about Jim Lee not creating those characters. My mistake. My point still stands though, not many breakthrough characters created saleswise (not qualitywise) these days. Maybe FGJ’s theory of not wanting to give big companies the rights to profitable characters plays a role.

T. I haven’t the numbres but I’m pretty sure that during time Starman, Sandman and Death minis sold at least as well as Deadpool series. About of being capable of sustaining more than one title (maybe Sandman was, if we count the universe of the Dreaming and Death), lets be real, nor does Cable nor Deathpool can; in fact, right now I doubt that any of them could boost sales acting as guests, indeed, even not so long ago their combined efforts couldn’t save the series both shared.
If you put all Marvel or DC propaganda machinery at work almost any character can have a lot of series during a very short time. I may be wrong but, seeing the sales of all the titles except one, I doubt that within a year we’ll have more than one Deadpool series, and it will not be in the top 40. The current status of the character, IMHO, it isn’t due to the quality of the concept, even it isn’t due to a popular demand.

Other point that was already noted is that we can’t compare what we already have with what Liefeld created (or at least it’s what people said and I believe them, I left New Mutants just after Blevins left). And I’m not critizicing Liefeld; I remember clearly when everybody said that Liefeld was the best thing that happened to comics since McFarlane, where are all that raving masses now?

Resuming, I don’t think yours is a valid argument since the characters doesn’t seem the ones Liefeld created and the current “success” (as I told you, check the sale rates) they have now it’s not originated from a market demand, it comes from a desk decision. But yes, if we only look at the name of the chracaters and who created them, you’re right, maybe Liefeld is the latest most successful “creator”, at least at Marvel.

I do think that a lot of creators just aren’t willing to have their best ideas co-opted by the publishers they work for any more. McFarlane may only have Venom to his credit as a Marvel breakout character, but he also has Spawn over at Image. Plus, the way the business is run these days, it’s really hard to have a breakout hit. I mean, using SWORD as an example, that series got canceled before it even was available on shelves — and as this article shows, replaced by another Spider-man or Wolverine book. The potential breakout characters of the next decade may have already debuted and simply have been ignored and abandoned by editorial before they could catch on.

Maybe Liefeld created Cable and Deadpool, but if he had been steering those characters this entire time, I guarantee you they wouldn’t be NEARLY as popular as they are now. Those characters have a slew of other, more talented creators to thank for keeping them in the spotlight, and giving them personalities outside of “Grizzled time-traveller with big guns”, and “Badass ninja assassin”, respectively.

Wasn’t the time-travel aspect of Cable introduced after Liefield left ?

Wasn’t the time-travel aspect of Cable introduced after Liefield left ?

Doesn’t matter. As someone else pointed out, most of Wolverine’s most notable elements were added by later writers. Same goes for Superman. Same for Barry Allen Flash. Same for a ton of marketable breakthrough characters. Doesn’t change the fact Liefeld created the character.

Besides, the foundation that makes Cable cool on a visceral, lowest common denominator level is his visual, his big guns and his gruff badass attitude. Not his time traveling or convoluted continuity.

Tonio, say what you want but Deadpool has appeared in an A-list movie played by an A-list star, and that A-list star is about to play Deadpool in his own headlining movie in what hopes to be a movie franchise. That’s pretty marketable.

I’m waiting for Arana (I don’t know how to make the squiggle over the ‘n’) to become a huge breakout character. It can still happen. Wolverine took years to catch on.

based on today’s announcement by Marvel, i wonder if there’s a chance for Jewel to break out.

just want to add to the chorus: great feature – make it regular; expand the categories – avengers books, Geoff Johns books, bat-books, etc.

Nice

I’m sure that’s a part of it, FGJ. But at the same time, the Big 2 obviously have a much bigger audience than pretty much any creator-owned comic will. So a creator might have a great idea for a character that would be really popular at Marvel, but do poorly as a creator owned title. It’s not worth millions if no one is paying for it. I’d think for some creators the idea of adding a character that could potentially grow in popularity beyond them would be somewhat of a draw in itself. But maybe that’s just me.

But there’s no point creating a character worth millions if you aren’t getting millions from it.
A creator owned book might sell less copies, but the creator makes a lot more money off of each issue – and any licensing money that comes from the character goes directly to the creator.
So you can make a lot more, by selling a lot less issues.

As for the idea of creating a character that others take over and continues to grow in popularity… that’s more a fan dream.
When you’re doing it a a job, to keep food on your table, I don’t think that’s your top priority.

I always assumed Louise Simonson created Cable. She’s listed as the writer for his debut appearance.

This seems like as good a place to ask as any – how did Deadpool become so popular? He wasn’t this popular when I was reading comics in the ’90s; he was less popular when I got back into them in ’05; Cable & Deadpool wasn’t a best-seller… and now he’s everywhere? It seems like it happened out of nowhere, what did I miss?

I’ve been wondering the same thing.

His being in the Wolverine movie seemed to have something to do with it, even if Ryan Reynolds only got to act like him in one scene.

Also, how is the Sentry not a Superman derivative, going back a long way there.

I thought that might be it, Brad, and I guess the timing works, but it still makes very little sense. If Reynolds’ work in a mediocre Wolverine movie was responsible for a month’s worth of Deadpool variants, we should have had an entire year’s worth of Iron Man variant covers by now.