LogFAQs > #922221658

Zeus posted...

although it seemingly set a terrible precedent considering how many comics nowadays seem to adjust themselves to fit the films, etc.

I don't know if that specifically set the precedent, but I definitely agree that comics have kind of been ruined by spending the last decade and a half or so bending over backward to retcon tons of their own stuff to better conform to the movies.

Sadly, Marvel's gotten a lot worse at doing that than DC has. What's that? The X-Men movies changed their costumes into black leather suits because that looks better on camera than yellow spandex? We'd better change it in the comics as well, no matter how shitty it looks in print! What's that? Pepper Potts hasn't actually been in Iron Man for almost 40 years, and she hasn't been a love interest for Tony for longer than most comic readers have been alive? Fuck it, she's in the film (because it was based on the early 60s storyline), so we'd better shitcan her marriage and bring her back to date Tony again.

It does make sense from their perspective, though. Is it better to cater to the 100k readers or so you already have, or to try and pander to get the millions of people who are watching the movies to start buying comics? Unfortunately, apart from an occasional minor bump, it almost never works to increase sales at all, and usually just winds up driving more of the regular readers away, so in the long-term it decreases sales.

That seems to be the trend these days in general - comics will desperately pander to pretty much ANYONE in the hopes of creating new long-term fans, but it almost never works, and they ultimately wind up alienating the fans they already have. Whether it's trying to pander to film audiences, SJWs, hipster teens on Tumblr, or whatever. Those people may bitch about/praise whatever you're doing on the Internet, but none of them are actually going to buy the book.


---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family