Quesada Signs Multi-Year Contract--One Comic Fan Cries

[Jerrel]

MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT RENEWAL
Quesada To Also Assume The Role Of Chief Creative Officer, Publishing

New York, NY, July 19 " Marvel Enterprises, Inc. announced today that it has extended its contract agreement with Joe Quesada, Editor-In-Chief of the company's Marvel Comics division. As part of the new deal, Mr. Quesada will also take on the added role as the Chief Creative Officer, Publishing.

Widely considered one of the comic book industry's most recognizable and acclaimed talents, Mr. Quesada has helped spearhead a new golden age for Marvel Comics and solidified its leadership position in the comic book arena. "I'm thrilled to have Joe as a partner in this resurgence of interest in the comic book market," says Dan Buckley, COO and Publisher of Marvel. "Joe has been invaluable in taking Marvel Comics into new and inventive creative directions, and the fans are responding to that. Thanks in part to his efforts, Marvel Comics has seen four straight years of revenue growth."

During Mr. Quesada's tenure, Marvel Comics has experienced a revitalization of the company's most-renowned comic franchises, and has also attracted the best and brightest writers and illustrators from all fields including the literary, film, television and " of course- comic books.

"Over the next couple of years, my ultimate goals will remain further growing Marvel Comics' leadership position and expanding our mainstream presence. I want comics to have the same consumer prominence as movies, TV and novels and in doing so continue to grow Marvel Comics as among America's premiere storytellers," said Mr. Quesada. "The success we have had is truly a team effort. The company's senior management, including Avi Arad and Alan Fine, has provided me and our publisher Dan Buckley with the opportunity to build Marvel Comics into more than just a comic book publisher. With their continued support, and the hard working editors, creators and staff, I am confident that Marvel Comics will continue to flourish as one of the most innovative and exciting literary outlets."

Quesada has really thrown continuity out the door for Marvel. Where as before you had to straign to find the inconsistancies now it seems that Marvel is wollowing in the fact that every book seems to happen in its own little world. The most blantant examples include the Planet X story acrh that occured in only the X-Men title. I this story Magneto takes over all of Manhattan and begins a genetic clensing by rounding up all humans into camps, but no other book even so much as whispers about it happening. Heck If all you read was Spider-Man or DareDevil you would have no idea that it even happened. With in the same month you could read about the rounding up of humans in one book and read about SM or DD fighting crime not 2 blocks from the round ups, yet for some reason everything seems fine there.

A current example of the total unattention to continuity at Marvel is their House of M story line where the Scarlet Witch, after goin nutty and killed several Avengers, has reshaped the world into one rulled by her father Magneto. This story line has spured special House of M titles as well as story tie ins in some books but again it seems this is all hapening in a pocket dimetion. Hello Marvel if you say something has changed all of reality then have it change ALL of reality.

I've been a long Marvel fan but I feel that I may jump ship. Marvel seems to be going the way DC went prior to the Crissis on Infinite Earths and Marvel doesn't seem to want to fix it. In the X-titles mutants are every whare now. There's mutant night clubs mutant TV and mutant pop stars but you dont even so much as get a glance at that in any other book.
Marvel needs to get rid of Quesada and have their own Crissis to fix this horrible mess but seeing as how Marvel doesn't even want to hear fan's opinions in an open forum (Marvel has no official message boards unlike DC) I can see how they let this guy continue to srew the continuity up.

Spider-Man is the reason why I want to get into comics and it has been my dream to work on a Marvel book but if I had a choice I would never work with Quesada as the "Chief Creative Offiver."

[Skorixor]

expecting continuity through every single marvel comic of the actions of every other comic, is impossible, and rarely happened at marvel ever (the only continuity I can think of is the Secret Wars series that involved the entire marvel universe)

they are just taking it more extreme...there's no way for all the books to keep tabs on what every other person is doing in theirs...there are just too many books and too little time each month to do it




if you'd rather have just 10 titles at marvel, published bi-monthly, then you could have continuity...otherwise you can forget it

[Jerrel]

expecting continuity through every single marvel comic of the actions of every other comic, is impossible, and rarely happened at marvel ever (the only continuity I can think of is the Secret Wars series that involved the entire marvel universe)

they are just taking it more extreme...there's no way for all the books to keep tabs on what every other person is doing in theirs...there are just too many books and too little time each month to do it




if you'd rather have just 10 titles at marvel, published bi-monthly, then you could have continuity...otherwise you can forget it

I agree if it was little things but they do it with major events. When a writer at Marvel wants to do something he proposes it to the books Editor and when it looks like something that can have a major effect of other characters (ie killing a character off, having a character not known for killing kill someone, or say having a character take over a major US city) the Editor takes the story and proposes it to the Editor in Cheif, aka Cheif Creative Officer. Whats so hard for a guy to tell a writer "hey so and so proposed this story line I liked so I want you to either metion it in passing or if you want include it in your own stories go for it." Heck I doesn't take much. A clever writer could come up with a reason why the character isn't there. He or she could say well this story I'm doing happens right before and when its done I'll right one right after and metion it or they could say ok instead on NY the character goes to Chicago lookin for a villian when this happens.

As for too much going on to actually do it I have to disagree again. I'm not sure on the work loads but I can see there being one editor per 5 titles then there is the Editor in cheif who takes care of big praposals. Marvel does one big summer event each year, most resent being House of M, and most of todays writers (with the exception of those doin X-titles) go for more personal stories that affect the hero and the books supporting cast. The Editor in Chief usually aproves at least 5 events a year that would have ramifications (or at least make some one go man that was a close one) for all the books. Now if thats too many to keep tabs on then dont let that many big events happen.

One big problem to is that Marvel has too many book. Serriously does Nightcrawler, Gambit, Rouge, Emma Frost, Mary Jane Watson, or X-23 really need their own serries? Do they serriously need 5 Fantastic Four titles, 5 Spider Man titles, or 3 Wolverine titles when hes on ever X-Men roster? Comics have a 10 year cycle of being popular in the main stream. Right now there at a crest and so in responce they've flooded the market. This makes it hard for new readers to jump on and with the bad stories that result some fans leave and new readers are quickly turned off. Sending the company and sometimes industry into the crapper. This senerio happened in the mid 90"s resulting in Marvel declareing bankrupsy.

[X'an Shin]

One big problem to is that Marvel has too many book. Serriously does Nightcrawler, Gambit, Rouge, Emma Frost, Mary Jane Watson, or X-23 really need their own serries?

If people didn't buy the books, then Marvel wouldn't make them. It's a very simple concept called supply/demand.

This senerio happened in the mid 90"s resulting in Marvel declareing bankrupsy.

Yes, and we can see how awfully they've never recovered from that.

You're criticizing the #1 comics company out there for doing what's made them successful, as if it's going to be a hinderance or burden for business. You're not exactly making a case here.

[Jerrel]

The growth and decline of the comic industry is on a 10 year cycle linked with the growth and decline of comsumer cofidence. When confidence is low comic sales go up, along with movie and fiction sales. Some economist who have studies this credit it to the escape factor (when times are hard people will spend more to escape the reality for a moment). When this happens the companies put out more and more books to meet demand but this is a very hard balancing act.
In the early 90's the comic book market saw an increase is sales so the companies began several new serries such as Spider-Man, X-Men, New Warriors, Sleepwalker, Dark Hawk, and so on. Companies also realized that new readers where buying comics for their potential worth and so they began puting out alternate covers such as Spider-Man #1 gold, silver, green, and platnum covers and X-Men #1 with 5 diffrent covers that when put together make one long picture and once cover that was a fold out.
By the mid 90's comic books sales began to decline and many of the serries based off of not to popular characters began to get cancled. The decline wasn't exterme enough to send any comany into bankrupsy but a few costly vertures for Marvel that resulted in a net loss spurred Marvel to declare chapter 11. Today we see a similar case in growth for the industry fueled by the common cycle and the resent popularity in comic book movies. "If" the cycle stays true we can expect to see the begining of a decline in sales in a few years, if it hasn't already started (haven't picked up a wizard resently to see how sales are doing). However with the sucess of the movies I dont see any compant geting themselves into a simular situation that Marvel got into.
Let me make it clear that the sucess of the companies have no bearing on the sales of the books since the movie indusrty has become open to comic movies. I can very well see a comic company losing alot in comic sales but make up for it in movie deals. Also let me make it clear that I feel that we are still in the growth cycle or perhapse in the begining of the decline cycle and that serries will dot get cancled for a year to a year and a half after the decline is firmly established.

[Sai'nu]

I think since Stan Lee stopped being a major individual involved with the story telling... continuity has gone to the wayside. Indeed, you seldom get the sort of arcs that permanently change 'everything' in the comic book world. Spidey ends back up with M.J. The F.F. winds up being the original 4 eventually... etc, etc. Much like the mmo mentality of our devs... I think comic book writers are going for that 'this happens in a seperate world' feel.

One day you may see a comic book writer catch that and write a story how all of these occoured in different timelines... etc, etc.

[Krusshyk]

I am confused.

Jerrel, you say that the success of a book doesn't depend on sales at all? Maybe it's my own ignorance to the industry here, but that sounds crazy. I think you are referencing the huge comic-to-movie boom we have seen in recent years, but that doesn't make sense either. Why would any movie company say, "Hey...we want to make your comic into a movie. No, not that one...the other one. The one that nobody bought."

Why would SONY take a chance on a comic movie based on a character nobody even read?

Secondly, your argument for the 10 year comic sales cycle ignores at least one huge concept (I think).

The accessibility and technology of video games has dramatically increased in the last decade or so. Comic books and video games share a lot of the same themes and as such, are competeing mediums of entertainment. You go out and ask 100 kids how often the read comics or how often the play video games and I think the numbers would be staggeringly different, with video gaming coming out on top. It's a cultural trend that is developing here...reading just doesn't deliver for a lot of kids nowadays. Reading takes too long and the pay off doesn't come as instantly as it does with video games.

[Novall]

Ever since Marvel went Chapter 11 in the late 90's, comics have no collection value other then enthusiest. All of my Punisher 1985 LTD editions went from $50/80 range down to $10/40 range. Everything before 1980 is still retaining most of its value. My SpiderMan 129 (first appearance of Pun) is still worth in the $240s (or maybe more since I havent checked in about 4 months.)

[Jerrel]

I said that the sucess of the company no longer hinges on the sucess of the comic books. Meaning that the companies make enough from movie deals and to a lesser extent vedio games that loss of money on failing comics doesn't inpact them as much.

As for making comics based on failing characters I have yet to really see one. Spider-Man, Batman, The X-Men, Superman, Dare Devil, and Punisher are all sucessful characters who bring out sucessfull books for the most part. Secondly these characters are very ingrainded in the culture. Every one knows who these characters are to one extent or another. The few cases where unknowns have been used (ie Blade) the casual movie goer has no idea who it is and has no preconsived notions that this is a "comic" character, giving the movie makers more freedom in how they present the character.

As for teh 10 year cycle your right. Before, vedio games just wasn't a factor because it had yet to become mainstream. Vedio Games effect on the comic book can be possitive by intro ducing new people to the characters or can be destructive, re-enforcing people's tendancy to watch rather than read.

[Seret Sajet]

I just want to throw a fact out for the conversation. This came from a friend of mine currently working for Marvel Comics as an artist and has previously worked for DC/Vertigo and a few other independants.

Companies really don't give a crap about book sales. If the book sells 200 or 200,000 off the shelves it will not even make the companies blink. What DOES make them money in the bank is graphic novel sales. What a company looks for in a book is GN potential. If the book has steady sales and popularity then then they can bank on the sales of the compilations. Ever week with the regular books you will see 5-10 graphic novels hit stories. This is what the companies want to sell you.

So yes Marvel, DC, and everyone want more spin-offs with single character like Nightcrawler and Nick Fury because those mini-series often make great sales in graphic novel form. This is no industry secret, this is the way it is.

(and don't bash the Nightcrawler mini-series, my buddy is the one drawing it!)

[Skorixor]

As for making comics based on failing characters I have yet to really see one. Spider-Man, Batman, The X-Men, Superman, Dare Devil, and Punisher are all sucessful characters who bring out sucessfull books for the most part. Secondly these characters are very ingrainded in the culture. Every one knows who these characters are to one extent or another. The few cases where unknowns have been used (ie Blade) the casual movie goer has no idea who it is and has no preconsived notions that this is a "comic" character, giving the movie makers more freedom in how they present the character.

If I remember the spawn movie was pretty succesful, even though no one in mainstream knew anything about him at all

another test will be the upcoming Ghost rider movie, which most mainstream people are unaware of this marvel character
http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/ghostrider/

and I will say once again, that I must have that chopper!!

[Jerrel]

As for making comics based on failing characters I have yet to really see one. Spider-Man, Batman, The X-Men, Superman, Dare Devil, and Punisher are all sucessful characters who bring out sucessfull books for the most part. Secondly these characters are very ingrainded in the culture. Every one knows who these characters are to one extent or another. The few cases where unknowns have been used (ie Blade) the casual movie goer has no idea who it is and has no preconsived notions that this is a "comic" character, giving the movie makers more freedom in how they present the character.

If I remember the spawn movie was pretty succesful, even though no one in mainstream knew anything about him at all

another test will be the upcoming Ghost rider movie, which most mainstream people are unaware of this marvel character
http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/ghostrider/

and I will say once again, that I must have that chopper!!

Non mainstream characters movies are the most fun to me. For a long time people would look at comics and go thats kid's stuff, not realizing the indepth stories being told. Today that attitude diminished but if you go into a movie knowing that it's based off a comic some people have a preconsived notion as to how it should be which in some cases hinders the movie maker. If the masses dont know its a comic book character on the screen they have fewer expectations which inturn allows the movie maker more freedom and usually ends up with a better comic movie than it other wise would have been.