CBC's New Fresh Question #5: Is overexposure a problem in comics? Plus Batman!

[randomguy]

Hey there! Every other Wednesday, on new comic day, we here at the CBC like to throw out a question to the comics-reading public to encourage discussion and chat about some of the bigger issues in comics today. Questions range from being about specific storylines and trends to being about broader issues concerning comic books, manga and comic strips. Any and all topics are fair game!

We also take submissions from Toon Zone posters, so if you have an idea for a Fresh Question, be sure to e-mail or PM me, randomguy.

Our previous question can be found here.

With the intros out of the way, let's get on to this week's question!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, starting this April, Wolverine will be getting himself a second ongoing series, Wolverine: Origins. Many fans have complained about this, believing that the character shows up in too many books and is spread too thin.

These sorts of complaints are common for the more popular characters, like Superman, Batman and Spider-Man. Some say it dilutes the character, others don't like a character showing up in their book for no real reason, and some...

Psst...

Uh, yeah? What is it, Batman? Do you have something to add to today's conversation or are you just going to pose heroically?

I'm making a cameo to boost your sagging ratings. I mean, you got five responses in the last Fresh Question. Lame. I'm also contractually obligated to be a jerk to you, which is why I stole your lunch money and punched your mom in the face.

Darnit, who said you could do that? Just who the heck do you think you are?

What, are you dense? Are you retarde...

Forget it. That joke is way past its sell-by date anyway.

Anyhow, there's even a school of thought that say that multiple titles and an over-abundance of appearances by popular characters makes it harder for independents, non-superhero books and titles starring second-tier characters.

But there's also a school of thought that says these are the popular and most reliable characters, and that they take better to the wide exposure than most characters would. If the demand exists for 15 Batman appearances a month, why not have your publishing reflect that? It would seem to be smart business sense, and it keeps the numerous Batman fans happy.

So what do you think? Are there genuinely overexposed characters in comics, and is it hurting those characters or comics themselves? Which characters? Or is it all misguided controversy?

Do you think overexposure is a problem in today's superhero comics?

 

[Lorendiac]

Overexposed? Big deal.

Overconnected? Horrible!

What gets under my skin is when Batman has a bunch of appearances in one month, in stories written by many different people - and they are all supposed to be tied together in one big fat package deal, so that to have a clue what's actually going on in any given piece of the story, we're expected to cough up our hard-earned money for every piece, whether we like it or not!

Guess what? In late 2003 and early 2004, there were one or two Bat-related titles I was still buying, even after "Hush" ended - not with a bang, but a whimper. Then I heard that "War Games" was coming up, around the fall of 2004. What did I do? Right! I dropped all Bat-related titles and I don't think I've bought a single monthly issue of any of his (or his various sidekicks') regular monthly titles since that time.

In essence, DC was saying to fans like me, "Hey, Lorendiac! If you want to buy and appreciate the Bat-stories by writers you admire and enjoy, then you also have to pay through the nose for a bunch of related installments by writers you don't admire and don't enjoy! It's a package deal! All or nothing! Take it or leave it!" And I said, "Fine! I'll leave it! You just lost a customer!"

Now, if DC had permitted various writers on each title in the Batman group to keep doing their own things, starting, developing, and resolving their own plotlines from start to finish, then I could have continued to do selective shopping and ignore anything that didn't appeal to my tastes. I would not have lost any sleep on the subject of "overexposure." But DC didn't do that - so I decided to wash my hands of the whole mess.

Likewise, if Wolverine pops up in UXM and AXM and a couple of Wolverine title and a bunch of other things next month, I just hope the stories in each title will stay independent of anything going on with Wolverine in any other title, every month of the year, so that potential fans can easily follow any writer's work that appeals to them, while blissfully ignoring any other writer they don't really care for!

 

[kid_flash]

Overexposure is a problem. Without a doubt. Some solutions...

1) Two ongoing, mainstream titles per character, if the character demands it (i.e. ACTION COMICS and SUPERMAN). These two titles are separate from one another, free to tell whatever stories each creator has to tell, while sticking to a basic vision of the character (i.e. changing Superman's costume in one comic but not the other is not cool, but I'd be totally fine if one comic wanted to get Clark unemployed, so long as it was eventually concluded; the two can stay in separate time periods). The exception to this two-title rule would be something along the lines of LEGENDS OF THE DARK KNIGHT, which was basically an anthology series where writers and artists could tell a continuity-free story set in the Batman world, or SPIDER-MAN: TANGLED WEB, essentially the same idea but with Spider-Man. I'd even allow stuff like Devin Grayson's excellent GOTHAM KNIGHTS series, which was about the Batman family.

2) Any guest appearances should be necessary to the story being told. I don't wanna hear about a guest-appearance of Batman in GREEN LANTERN only to find out GL "just happened" to be flying through Gotham City and Batman told him to get out.

3) Any guest appearance should be consistant with the vision of the character established in that character's ongoing monthly. First, this means that if Superman shows up, he's not suddenly all high-and-mighty and the big boy scout, just to show how the title character is really the down-to-earth one. Or, as the popular example seems to be around the board, if Batman shows up, don't just make him off to be a jerk just to show how your dark character still has a sense of humor while Batman's just a big ass.
This also means that if a character shows up, at no point should he/she use phrases such as "It looks like it...but then again my judgment's been a bit clouded these days*" with the asterisk pointing you to a small box that says "see recent issues of CAPTAIN AMERICA." That's called advertising.

Basically, the stronger and more unified the vision of the character, the better the quality. Then again, through some editorial miracle, Batman stayed almost entirely consistant through the year-long NO MAN'S LAND arc that included four monthly titles and others coming in and out as needed, so anything's possible.

 

[melibell21]

i love the "what, are you dense? are you ret...."

i think batman shows up too much and most writers make him out to be jerk. it doesn't help batman, it just makes whoever is in that book look like a great guy in comparison. batman is their scapegoat.

 

[Anthonynotes]

Overexposure? Hmm...

Regular Superman comics in 1946:
Superman
Action Comics
More Fun Comics/Adventure Comics (Superboy, who IIRC moved from "More Fun" to "Adventure" that year when "More Fun" switched to humor stories)
World's Finest Comics

In 1956:
Superman
Action Comics
World's Finest Comics
Adventure Comics (Superboy)
Superman's Pal, Jimmy Olsen
Superboy

In 1966:
Superman
Action Comics
World's Finest Comics
Adventure Comics (Superboy)
Superman's Pal, Jimmy Olsen
Superman's Girl Friend, Lois Lane
Justice League of America
Superboy

In 1976:
Superman
Action Comics
World's Finest Comics
Superboy & the Legion of Super-Heroes
Superman Family
Justice League of America

In 1986:
Superman
Action Comics
World's Finest Comics (cancelled this year)
DC Comics Presents (also cancelled)
"Man of Steel" miniseries
Justice League of America (IIRC, cameos, not being a regular member at the time)
All-Star Squadron (the Earth-2 Superman, in occasional appearances)
Crisis On Infinite Earths

In 1996:
Superman
Action Comics
Man of Steel (series)
Adventures of Superman
(IIRC) Occasional appearances in Superboy and (whatever JLA book was out that year)
(Probably missed a few...got rid of my 90's run of Superman books between apartment moves...)

In 2006:
Superman
Action Comics
JLA
Infinite Crisis
Superman/Batman
And any others I'm missing...

Think being overexposed is a long-running trait of the top-sellers going back decades; however, do agree that things wouldn't be hurt much by paring back somewhat in the "must buy every issue to get the storyline" department, as others above noted...

 

[Stu]

It all depends. If I don't want to read dozens of Batman related titles a month, then they can sit in the store and I can be blissfully ignorant to whatever happens in that title. To use Spider-Man as an example, I can happily read Friendly Neighbourhood Spider-Man and Marvel Knights can gather dust, as before this silly The Other arc, they didn't matter to each other.

What I do object to is the number of sheer pointless crossovers that do absoultly nothing other than boost up sales. The lead into Infinity Crisis was shockingly bad, simply because there was a good, 4, 5 minis one had to collect to read before the main story got started. I heard they're crap, but I never read them. Now, as someone who wants to read Infinity Crisis, I pick up the book and am failing to understand what is going on. The only reason I read the damn thing is to find out why Batman is going to give up the cape and cowl for a year!

But basically, as long as I can understand what's going on in the title I want to read without having to read others, I'm happy.

 

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

I have some thoughts on this, although many have already been covered. Brainatra's list is interesting, but doesn't mean (nor do I think Brainatra meant it to mean) that overexposure of a character is a good idea. It's just been around longer than we think. However, instead of typing one of my long, rambling essays, I'll field this idea out there and see if anything comes of it:

I remember a TV critic pointing out at one point that a new season had something like 20 hours of sitcom per week, and that he just didn't think there was that much funny in Hollywood for all of it, or even any of it, to be good. I also remember a few seasons ago when ABC built nearly an entire TV season on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? only to discover that it was not that hard to kill the goose laying the golden eggs with excess affection.

Now, as much as we may like to think otherwise to justify our hobby, I don't think that there's any superhero with enough depth to be able to produce 3-7 books per month every month. I just don't think there's that much hero in DC or Marvel for all of it, or even any of it, to be any good, and crap comics only hurt the perception of comics by the general public and the industry as a whole. A mass proliferation of X-books in the 90's led to the downfall of the franchise and possibly Marvel as well, not unlike how Who Wants to be a Millionaire? nearly killed ABC. That's the real danger of overexposure in comics.

Or is it?

-- Ed/Ace

 

[BlackCat]

There's not much left to add, with most of the points already covered. kid_flash basically summed up what I was going to say.

 

[randomguy]

Thanks to all for posting! Some interesting thoughts in here. For the most part, I too agree with kid_flash, but something else caught my eye...

Now, as much as we may like to think otherwise to justify our hobby, I don't think that there's any superhero with enough depth to be able to produce 3-7 books per month every month. I just don't think there's that much hero in DC or Marvel for all of it, or even any of it, to be any good, and crap comics only hurt the perception of comics by the general public and the industry as a whole. A mass proliferation of X-books in the 90's led to the downfall of the franchise and possibly Marvel as well, not unlike how Who Wants to be a Millionaire? nearly killed ABC. That's the real danger of overexposure in comics.

Or is it?

This is a very good observation, and one I can back up with anecdotal evidence.

Not too long ago, I walked into my local comic shop with a friend of mine. We were killing time before the movie we were going to attend was starting. He was a moderate comic book fan who had read Batman: Year One, Preacher, and some others, and really loved superhero movies. But he tended to stay away from the comic shops.

My LCS organizes their books by publisher (Marvel, DC, Dark Horse and Image all get a section, and there's a big indie section for all the rest), and then by character or family. Once we reached the section containing all the X-books, my friend looked absolutely dumbfounded.

Him: "There's this many books about the X-Men?"

Me: "Yeah. I mean, most of them are spinoffs that aren't directly about the X-Men... but there's definitely a glut of titles on the market."

Him: "That's stupid. No wonder more people don't read comic books. Where would you even start?"

Me: "Astonishing X-Men or Ultimate X-Men, I guess, but most casual fans don't even get that far."

Him: "Yeah. If someone doesn't have a friend to tell them that how are they supposed to pick up one of these?"

And we walked out of the shop in a couple of minutes, with my friend feeling vindicated in his habit of not regularly buying comics and me wondering just how much unexpected damage overexposure might do to the industry. The notion that overexposure might reflect poorly on comics in the mainstream isn't one that gets thrown about often, but it's a fair point and one that warrants further reflection.

 

[Reed Richards]

theres definately a level of overexposure out there. The X-titles are a great example of this. As are the various Superman and Batman titles. At some point the casual or newbie fan just has to throw their arms up in frustration at trying to follow 4 separate books that are ALL cannon. Its not fair.

The best solution might be to designate a "main" book (remember the triangles?) and declare that all of the side books had to be independant of main storylines. This allows for greater creativity in the side books (baring radical, major events like killing the main or various supporting characters) and might serve as a nice stepping stone for newer writers to develop their chops on that book before moving into a "main universe" book for a prolonged period of time.

As for Wolverine-- I think we've seen enough of him and Marvel is going to be scaling him back some (but I DO love him in New Avengers)

As for the bad cameos....remember when the "new" Fantastic Four debuted? I LOVED that story arc and the idea of the new FF, but in the final issue of the arc there was a "Punisher" cameo that was the equivalent of GL flying through gotham and being told to beat it by Batman. Or in a 90's Web of Spiderman an amnesiac Colossus "cameoed" in an issue (as a special mystery guest) but he only had 2 or 3 lines and never even armoured up...

 

[Spider-Man]

I knew I waited too long to reply to this!

I think overexposure it on the way out but it’s moving out slowly. A great example is the X-Books. In the 1990s I think at one point there was upwards of 17 - 20 different X-Books a month not including mini-series. And while there’s about half that now (still a big number) the power of that brand is waning because of overexposure.

Within the past few years Marvel launched comics for Jubilee, Rogue, Gambit, and Nightcrawler and none of them survived the first year. If this was ten years earlier they would have survived but people realize now just how many X-Books there are now and are becoming conscious of picking the ones right for them and not just dumping money with anything that has a big X on it. The X-Books still have major pull but it’s nothing compared to what it was about ten years ago. And I think that’s a result of the overexposure.

But just an interesting footnote one of Marvel’s newest and most hated characters X-23 has actually resulted in sales bump in a few of the titles she has guest-starred in. The power is still there to draw more readers to other titles through an appearance but it doesn’t work anymore for established characters. Spider-Man has appeared in any comics and it makes nary a dent but that’s because he appears everywhere and that diminishes and pull he may have to draw readers elsewhere.

And that does hurt sales. If there are so many “main” titles to a franchise it just wears out the reader. That’s why I like DC moving to having just two main titles for Batman and Superman but keeping some of their respective satellite titles. I wish Marvel would take the hint and do the same to X-Men and Spider-Man. We don’t need three monthly Spider-Man comics especially when one has no purpose. We don’t need four main X-Men comics when one of them is on it’s last legs (at least until the big revamp in the summer).