here we go:
prollum 1) gimmicks vs events.
there's a line, however thin, in comics that divides the gimmicks from the events.
events are beneficial. they make attempts at garnering new readers, while pleasing current readers. they're purposeful tales that advance characters and/or storylines. typically very memorable.
gimmicks are hurtful. they make attempts at garnering new readers, while pissing off current readers. they're purposeless tales that do nothing for characters and/or storylines. unfortunately very memorable.
bottom line, both aim to make a sale. but the way they go about it is completely different, and its painfully obvious.
a great example is no man's land, dc's huge and experimental, year-long batman tale of last year. it was a tremendous starting point for new readers -- almost like a brand new series. it reintroduced dozens of characters, told straight-to-the point stories, included many jump-in one-shots along the way, and at the same time continually brought along an amazingly intriguing story, that played out like a movie.
there were new artists and writers on almost every issue, giving even the creative staff chances to find something to enjoy about the book and characters.
best of all, even months, years later, there are lasting effects, that those who got to be part of that event get to enjoy, with the knowledge that "they were there."
truly a fantastic event.
then, something like joker: last laugh comes along, hoping to destroy everything NML accomplished.
and entirely pointless tale, that takes a then-overused character, and uses him even more. storylines dont make sense, characters dont hold true, very little gets done. but every book in the dcu has a tie-in, hoping to benefit in sales by featuring the joker on the cover.
the ploy was to attract new fans to books that, otherwise, would go unbought.
"oooh, the joker's in 'supergirl,' i should check it out!"
no, son, you should not.
gimmicks might get a "quick-high" in sales, but in the long run, only serve to hurt a books reputation and the fan's dignity. if you've got a "wacky" idea, at least do it right. it could only help you.
prollum 2) hot artists.
hot, not sexy.
"hot artists" need to realize that they're hot, not because they're comic gods, but because they're great artists. they're popular (and, thus, rich) because of the fans. and, thus, they OWE the fans.
j. scott campbell (my personal fav artist, btw) did 7 issues of "danger girl" in a little over 2 years. the last of his books to sell was a scrap book that was nothing more than his sketchbook of unpublished, unfinished works. ... and even THAT was delayed 2-3 times, for more than 6 months.
joe mad has done 10 or so issues of battle chases in a little over 2.5 years.
jim lee's resume includes pencilling 3 covers and a 4 page batman b/w story in the past five years.
todd mcfarlane "tells stories" now.
thats a damn shame, for every one of'em. they were/are the hope for comics, almost single handedly. if they create a book, people will buy it, crap or otherwise. its like having a star baseball player on your team -- whether the record sucks or not, people will tune in to watch.
look at the combo of loeb/mcguinness on superman. adding loeb was a beautiful move, comic fans everywhere have loved it -- but comic fans are already buying comics. adding a super hot artist like mcguinness on a book means that random passer-bys are interested in it. like it or not, art sells books much more than writing.
if those 4 above mentioned guys started putting out books regularly, they, alone, could help comics over all sales -- just those four!
