#I’m in my oddly specific nostalgia arc

[otome-mondays]

What are your in depth feelings about Okazaki's route?

Hi Anon, thanks for asking! Since you asked for in depth feelings, this post contains spoilers for all of Okazaki’s route in Collar x Malice and Collar x Malice Unlimited! There are also a ton of CG spoilers here too! I’ll keep this post under a read more because of said spoilers :)

Content warnings (for game and post): guns, police, terrorism, suicide, ptsd, depression, death. Please be mindful of your triggers and skip this post if you feel the need, your mental health is worth more than a silly analysis post :)

I am going to start this off with the huge disclaimer that I played Okazaki’s route in my senior year of high school and his route was the first proper Otomate route I played, so I probably have some huge nostalgia blinders on! Okazaki is also my favorite from CxM, so that, again, will make this post very biased.

I bought Collar x Malice not realizing it was an otome game, but after looking it up I was pretty excited! One of my friends can vouch that Okazaki was one of two characters I was most hyped for, and originally I only wanted to play his route first. This was also the first time I realized otome games can have route orders and some routes would be locked. Otome is a very niche genre, and back then it was even more niche with only like 10-15 Otomate titles officially localized and I generally only had access to the NTT Solmare, Voltage, and other mobile-focused company games. After trying to search for people saying I could confidently play Okazaki’s route first, I just went for it and I’m glad I did! Okazaki’s route is very introductory to the game, similarly to Mineo’s. Speaking of introductions, let’s start specifically with the common route.

So Okazaki’s introduction as this more aloof, kinda silly guy made me even more invested in picking his route first. I usually play otome titles with guides, and this guide telling me I couldn’t pick the character but had to choose the correct options made me so relieved I looked up a guide first. Okazaki’s introduction of climbing through a window was so funny to me, I was instantly attached. I was kind of indifferent and even skeptical towards every other love interest at this point too. Okazaki, oddly enough, seemed the most normal and carefree of the options, which further solidified my stance on him being my favorite before the route even started. I liked that even though he doesn’t really know what’s going on and is obviously keeping tabs on Yanagi and Friends, he’s willing to be a friend to Ichika and help her look into these X-Day cases.

Before Okazaki discovers she’s stuck with the collar because of Adonis, he’s really kind and helpful. He’s looking out for her safety, helping her conduct investigations, and being a friend to her. But once it’s revealed that she has connections to Adonis, we start to see another side of Okazaki. Okazaki is somebody who is very dedicated to his job as as this route goes on we see and learn more about why he is the way he is. Okazaki’s route covers PTSD, depression, and suicidal ideation very well in my opinion. It’s very obvious that watching his first SP partner die by saving Okazaki from dying has effected him deeply, which is exactly what would happen in real life. Seeing Okazaki slowly change from wanting to die for the sake of somebody he deems a good person because he thinks so low of himself to being ok with the mistakes he’s made and learning to cope with his trauma and move on was a great experience for me. I was also in the depths of a depression episode around the time I played his route, so it was nice to be able to relate to a character who was going through similar problems. I think his character arc was really something amazing.

So his tragic ending was something that really hit me. I played all the bad endings before the good ending, and I was actually in tears over this ending. I understand why he was ready to end it all. It was really nice to see that he did grow and change enough to listen to the part of him that wanted to keep living for Ichika since that’s what she wanted, even if he was killed right after she was.

As for his good ending, I liked how cute it was and that they do get a happy ending together. I don’t really have much thoughts beyond that other than it was a suiting good ending lol.

After I finished playing his route, I realized Okazaki was a fairly polarizing character which I didn’t really expect but I can kinda see why. He’s got some toxic behaviors, but so do all of these characters. I can see why some people don’t like his flaws though because they can be considered more “clingy” than some others. I think this is ok for me though because it transforms from putting her on this perfect angel pedestal to more of oh people care for me perspective. He still definitely has more to work on through some therapy though, I’m not going to deny that.

Now for the fandisc…man I was disappointed with this. It’s a nice story, don’t get me wrong, but it basically has all his growth undone and we go through it all over again but shorter and now he’s more jealous than before (to me at least). This is the only fandisc I’ve played through as of writing, and I know not all after stories aren’t as disappointing as his but man I’m going to be sad if more of my favs get this treatment.

I think Okazaki still ends up being a very well written character overall, in both the CxM universe and otome games in general, but the fandisc definitely ruins some of his writing for me. His route is also always going to be one I treasure, considering it fully pushed me into enjoying more of these games and wanting to play more.

[punzoblr]

Remember when we all thought Dream was bleach blonde? Yeah me too

[cartoonfangirl1218]

Fav animated series creators

Greg Weismann, Brandon Vietti, Paul Dini, Bruce Tim and Justin Halpern

 I put all these together since these shows are based on Dc comics. I’m sure many agree that Justice League, Batman, most of the DCAU set the bar for quality animated shows. I mean they took a cartoon and made it layered and mature. It made the comics understandable to this non-comic reader, it had action, and heart and humor that I can still appreciate watching it again (I do have a gesture but my hands are tied 😏). Plus the show can got renewed, twice! young Justice quickly rose in the shadow of the DCAU as one of my favorite shows ever. Maybe some of it is nostalgia clouding my vision but Young Justice also ups the stakes by comparing it to the real world, adding and changing their world and having the guts to kill Kid Flash (though I still have hope🙏). Finally Justin Halpern created the new Harley Quinn series which is just so freaking hilarious. It doesn’t have any overarching arc (yet....) but it’s funny and a great stress reliever. 

Craig Gerber, Frank Agones, Chris Sonneburg, and Dana Terence

 I lump these together as the new Disney since their tv shows are still airing (Elena of Avalor, Ducktales, Tangled, and The Owl House respectively) If people still think Disney shows for kids are simplistic, they have not seen these. They have heart, family betrayal, death, and world building. Also I love their songs, I can’t deny that.  

Dan Povenmire, Jeff “Swampy” Marsh, Jeff Goode, Bob Schooley, and Mark McCorkle 

These are creators of shows that are finished but are still classic Disney like Dan/Jeff’s Phinezs and Ferb whose boundless imagination and songs gripped at least every millennial like “Gitchee Gitchee Goo” or taught us valuable lessons like “Carpe Diem” and “Aglets.” Plus it featured one of the most iconic villains ever, Dr. Doofenshmirtz! Jeff Goode crested the equally iconic American Dragon: Jake Long which I think was one of the first times I really saw urban fantasy with all the magical creatures wandering about New York with one protector to help them, all. I only wish they got to continue the series with one more season. Finally the famous Kim Possible, what else can I say that hasn't been said but “what’s the stitch?” 

Noelle Stevenson 

I loved her Lumberjanes stories and I am addicted to her She Ra and the Princesses of Power! Like the above mentioned shows it took some of its source material and made an original spin on it like Adora and Catra’s tense relationship, Glimmer’s failures and guilt in becoming queen, Entrapta changing sides while also paying some homage like the funny Roll the Dive episode. It also does very well in making progressive strides like Bow’s two dads and the non binary Double Trouble.

Bryan Konietzko and Michael Dante DiMartino I’ll keep this short since I’m sure there have been countless essays and analyses already more eloquent than mine. But Avatar: The Last Airbender is an amazing show with Zuko’d complex one of a kind redemption arc, Katara’s passionate and strong action girl nature, Aang coming to terms with the genocide of his tribe and the absolute power and responsibility he holds at such a tender age and it’s amazing action sequences and eastern based cultures. 

Vincent Chalvon-Demersay and David Michel Around the same time as Kim Possible, I was getting my double dose of spy action with Totally Spies and loving it. It is also such a fun series with its bright pastels and rather oddly specific villains but it also had its heart too with the girls’ close friendship and being one of the few shows in my childhood that I can remember where they actually got time progression, continuity and even graduate. 

Marc Brown 

I couldn’t do a complete list of fav animated shows without mentioning Arthur. Definitely one of the few shows that I can watch again without cringing over a preachy moral. Yes, there’s a moral but it does it in an entertaining way. 

[laffiteslanding]

So, Mary Poppins Returns...

SPOILERS AHEAD

Things I liked:

- Dick Van Dyke is a national treasure and his cameo was beautiful. You can feel the love and joy radiating off of him, and the fact that he can still move like that is incredible.

- Jane Banks: Badass Union Organizer

- The traditional animation looked gorgeous

- General sense of optimism is mostly carried over from the first film

- Admiral Boom is just a really fun character every time he’s on screen.

Things I didn’t like:

- Far too many action scenes. In traditional musicals the big music and dance sequences are the equivalent of big set pieces in action films. Here the action interrupted the plot and seemed to take away from time that could have been spent building characterization or expanding some dance numbers.

- That animated chase scene is the worst offender of those sequences. It left me confused and with a bad case of tonal whiplash. Plus the way the scene is written, it seems like Mary Poppins either deliberately puts the kids in danger or knows it’s a real possibility. Either way, it’s not in her character to do that, and it caused a mental break from the world’s reality.

- The structure was incredibly reminiscent of the first. It was like they took the outline of the original and just plugged in new names and songs. This, along with the next point, leave this film feeling emotionally empty with a climax that rings hollow.

- You wouldn’t know this was during the Great Depression if they didn’t tell you. This could have been a great contrast to the joy Mary Poppins brings, and feels strange and like a missed opportunity. It’s just oddly dismissed and belittled outside a few throwaway lines.

- General characterization of Mary Poppins, Jack, and Michael. Jack felt like a Bert-lite or fan-fiction self insert. He was less of a character, more of a plot device. Lin deserves better.

- Michael started out feeling like a unique character, but became more and more a shadow of his father. This could have been an interesting arc, but we don’t spend enough time with him for his characterization to be anything beyond “I’m sad because my wife died” when they reach the climax. He gets a little more character development afterward, but it’s rushed and feels incomplete.

- As for Mary Poppins, I actually think Emily Blunt did a decent job with the character, but way she was written felt a bit off. She explains too much, gives backstory, and performs a weirdly sexual vaudeville number in front of cartoons and little kids. She also seems to have a weird thing for endangerment, first with the kids in the vase, then with the lamplighters for no particularly good reason.

- We also seem to get too many scenes of Mary’s frame of mind. She’s become a main character when she’s supposed to be an instigator or catalyst for the main characters to grow (think the issues with Jack Sparrow in the Pirates sequels) When we see her smiling saying “Off we go!”, we know things are going to be fine. There’s no tension or mystique about Mary Poppins in this one, and she needs that edge lest she become a shallower character.

- An example of this ruined mystique: the kids ask Mary to do something magical or fun and we’re generally supposed to be unsure of her reply. Every single time in this film she tells them “yes” and you can see it coming from a mile away. In short, Mary Poppins is become predictable when in actuality, you shouldn’t be able to predict what she’ll do. That’s a crucial part of the Poppins’ magic they’re leaving out.

- Songs were fine, and even catchy at times, but far too derivative. I shouldn’t be able to say “oh, this is this movie’s “Step in Time” or “Spoonful of Sugar””, at least not if the movie wants to have its own identity or try something new.

- Weak villain motivation. Why does Colin Firth hate the Banks family so much? And why them specifically? Did they steal all the toffee candy from him when he was a child?

- As stated previously, the lack of a solid emotional climax. I felt charmed at times, but you have to have that moment where everything you’ve seen before comes together to create a truly beautiful moment. In the original, it’s the one-two punch of Bert’s conversation with Mr. Banks and Mr. Banks’ epiphany at the bank, and here it’s....? I think it’s supposed to be the children singing to their father that he should cheer up because they are all there and their mother lives in them? But the moment comes off a bit weird and disconnected from the previous scenes. Definitely not as powerful as it should be.

- “The past is the past/it lives on as history/and that’s an important thing/The future comes fast/Each second a mystery/For nobody knows what/Tomorrow may bring” is a bit better than last year’s “Let the past die”, but still seems dismissive given that the whole movie is one huge nostalgia trip. Disney - either embrace the fact you’re selling nostalgia or make something that’s actually new. You can’t have it both ways.

- The built-in “you need to remember how to be a child” counter-argument the movie provides. In context it made sense for Michael, so that was fine, but it also seemed addressed at potential backlash for being a sequel to a beloved classic. And that’s just plain old emotional manipulation.

- Above all, the fact that this was a stealth remake/reboot in the form of a sequel. Which would have been fine, if they had called it that. But because they billed it the way they did, Disney invites comparison to the original, and this in my mind did not live up. It was still good, but it was far from great.

[album-of-the--year-blog]

Reason - ‘Love Girls’

By Mercia Tucker

Love, Girls

Love is a shapeshifter.

I’m angry at men because I trust very easily and in trusting very easily I also enjoy being protected. I’ve been shown the extreme side of no protection and I’ve been in a place where I’ve trusted and I’ve literally given someone my life and they’ve shown me that ‘I can take it.’

Love is a prayer. Love is a shelter. Love is a voice. Love is a key. Love is a storm. Love is a revolution. Love is a flight. Love is a sharpened iron. Love is an intoxication. As it moves between the different mediums through which sensory impressions are conveyed, so it takes on different forms. The feeling of love as an abstract concept flits through our cognisance almost as a thing of folklore; enchanting and captivating, awakening our higher selves. The reality of love, particularly failed love, is harsher in its discharge; sometimes dangerous, sometimes mispronounced, always kaleidoscopic.

Reason’s Love Girls is the storytelling arc of the journey of love and all its intricacies. As a collection of his life experiences with women it runs the gamut of typical rapper braggadocio to poignant introspection. It’s a reckoning of himself, a reasoning - if you will - underlied by his experiences with love over the years.

Love is an awakening.

I’m fighting all the demons that’s inside me for pureness, so I ask you not to blame yourself if I ever falter ... And I’m just telling you that fucking up isn’t obvious, it happens to the best of us from rappers to pastors, from actors to sports stars to regular folks ‘cause the matters of the heart don’t have a camera focus

His journey in love includes having gone through a divorce two years ago. Reason’s interpretation on wax of matters of the heart had only ever been in relation to one woman, his first love. That changes significantly on this record, and the difference is palpable. Choosing to commit to marriage so early in life meant that he bypassed an almost sacrosanct institution of your 20s; the exhilaration and turbulence of experiencing different romantic relationships in a quest for self-awareness.

He moves from titles like The Blessed Girl – more profane than pious – where money runs the show to The Happy Girl, whose affections come laced with a narcotic edge. The Perfect Girl is the one he fights for a committed relationship with, The Bad Girl tempts him, and The Angry Girl is the one that he’s pushed to new levels of fury. He ends off with The Blues (The Good Girl) where he’s faced with the choices of hurting someone to explore himself and his compulsions. There’s something about listening to the journey of this man awakened to newer versions of himself, enlightened in ways previously unknown that’s oddly familiar but comforting at the same time.

The wonder in the work is that while it’s written from his own perspective, as he scrolls down the list of the different kind of women he’s encountered, nostalgia quietly sits on your shoulder resting its head on yours as you collectively revisit the different women you’ve been at different stages of your life and relationships. You take the journey with him; bringing up the painful bits, lifting the corners of your mouth in a wry smile at the mischievous ones, evaluating where you are and how far you’ve come.

With his experiences now diversified and his reference with relationships not just a single point, what comes forth on Love Girls is the man re-invented.

Love is a redeemer.

Always having a choice and a voice, creating and sustaining my own desired lifestyle, most importantly mapping and shaping my future

As love takes on its different forms, Antoine de Saint Exupery’s words “No single event can awaken within us a stranger whose existence we had never suspected. To live is to be slowly born” find credence. The takeaway from Reason’s pièce de résistance is that love is a regenerative thing. It’s about making mistakes and learning from them, letting all your life’s experiences mould you into your best self. And while the rigorous kind of scrutiny into that personhood is more often than not reflected in relationships with others – more specifically romantic relationships – the truest significance of that effort is in falling in love with yourself again. Our impulses cling to complacency but the beauty of love is in redemption and regeneration.

Mercia Tucker is: a Universe of a woman, whole worlds inside me. Follow her @MissMercy_ and support her work HERE.

[comicsbeat]

By Brian Hibbs

The solicits for August 2017 Marvel comics have finally been released – the start of “Marvel Legacy” – and I think it is now fair to ask if Marvel actually hears or heard any of the criticism of their line over the last few months.

People have complained about (among other things) the lack of “the real” Marvel characters, about over-expansion watering down the line, about tired creative teams who should be replaced, and about a reliance on gimmicks over substance. And, based purely on the solicitations, Marvel does not immediately appear to have taken virtually any of these points to heart.

Let’s take those more or less in order, starting with “the real” Marvel characters. Now I, for one, find this particular complaint pretty drastically overblown: despite the new consensus of the internet, I would argue to you that characters like Tony Stark, Steve Rogers and “original Thor” are actually really uninteresting characters who have, largely, outstayed their welcome – there’s a reason that these characters keep getting replaced with new versions again and again and again: unless you’re exclusively mining nostalgia, it’s hard to keep these characters fresh and relevant at all. Watch and see: after they come back, some creator will be trying to replace them again within five years. It happens every time.

If anything, I think Marvel’s actual mistake was having all of those characters off-stage at the same time – you look around the “Marvel Universe” and you recognize almost none of the characters… well, that’s jarring. But it isn’t true that the OG versions are inherently fascinating enough to freeze them in amber, in my considered opinon.

#gallery-0-5 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-5 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 50%; } #gallery-0-5 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-5 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

Either way, that was what people are saying that they wanted: “the real” versions back. But reading these solicits, it doesn’t appear that any of the characters are back in these “Legacy” renumbered comics – yes, it looks like they’re setting up stories where they will come back eventually, but they’re not back here at the time of the actual repositioning itself. Here’s the text for, say, Invincible Iron Man #593: “THE SEARCH FOR TONY STARK Part 1 Tony Stark has vanished! The mystery deepens as Stark friends and foes must decide, finally, who will wield the power of Iron Man! All the contenders are in position, and all the armor is polished. There can only be one Armored Avenger! The path to the most startling Iron Man story ever begins here!”

This would appear to be clearly saying that while Tony is coming back, he isn’t in this comic book. I’m going to assume he’s going to show up again probably just in time for “issue #600”, because: comics. But what’s the reason for a reader who has decided he doesn’t like the current direction of “Iron Man” to jump on here at this “jump on” point? Not only is the comic seemingly not giving them what they asked for, it’s doing so under the exact same creative stewardship that has already driven them away from the book.

Think that is strong words? Well, here’s “Iron Man”’s sales arc over the last while (thank you Xavier Lancel for making the chart, and ICv2 for the numbers)

06/14 Iron Man v6 #28 – 28,027 ( -0.9%)

…

06/15 Sup. Iron Man #9 – 33,989 ( +6.2%)

…

10/15 Invincible Iron Man #1 – 279,514

10/15 Invincible Iron Man #2 – 66,664 (-76.2%)

11/15 Invincible Iron Man #3 – 59,069 (-11.4%)

12/15 Invincible Iron Man #4 – 57,639 (- 2.4%)

01/16 Invincible Iron Man #5 – 49,225 (-14.6%)

02/16 Invincible Iron Man #6 – 63,234 (+28.5%) (War Machines)

03/16 Invincible Iron Man #7 – 57,972 (War Machines)

04/16 Invincible Iron Man #8 – 46,520 (War Machines)

05/16 Invincible Iron Man #9 – 49,334 (+6.0%) (CV2)

06/16 Invincible Iron Man #10- 49,141 (- 0.4%) (CV2)

07/16 Invincible Iron Man #11- 49,439 (+0.6%) (CV2)

08/16 Invincible Iron Man #12- 50,571 (+2.3%) (CV2)

09/16 Invincible Iron Man #13- 48,394 (- 4.3%) (CV2)

10/16 Invincible Iron Man #14- 43,888 (- 9.3%) (CV2)

11/16 Invincible Iron Man # 1- 97,713

12/16 Invincible Iron Man # 2- 81,271 (-16.8%)

01/17 Invincible Iron Man # 3- 44,184 (-45.7%)

02/17 Invincible Iron Man #4- 36,600 (-17.2%)

03/17 Invincible Iron Man #5- 38,746 (+ 5.9%)

04/17 Invincible Iron Man #6- 31,561 (-18.5%)

05/17 Invincible Iron Man #7- 28,266 (-10.4%)

Those numbers look awful, the book is cratering and the audience isn’t interested in it, delivering some of the lowest “Iron Man” sales of all time – so why is this specific “legacy” iteration going to be any different?

It isn’t just “Iron Man”, of course – of the twenty-nine “Marvel Legacy” comics on the August order form, only two are entirely “new” series (“Falcon” and “Spirits of Vengeance”), and of those remaining twenty-seven, only a single one has a different writer in place (“Cable”, replacing James Robinson with Ed Brisson… in a move that seems like it was going to happen with or without “Legacy”) than it did two months before. And virtually every one of those comics has a similar sales trajectory.

Keeping the creative teams the same seems… well, strange to me. Marvel has reached a point with its publishing program that it has chased enough readers away that the don’t have a single ongoing Marvel Superhero comic that is not a first issue in the month of June that even sold 60,000 copies. If you told Jim Shooter or Tom DeFalco that, I suspect they might laugh in your face (books that sold under 100k back then got the axe!)

So, if you’re flopping on that level, why on earth would you stick with exactly the same creators in exactly the same iteration of titles? I’m not saying “get rid of X!”, but at least change up who is doing what book to bring some fresh energy in.

Here’s your kicker, for all of these new “Legacy” books, Marvel has set a target number of sales that it expects – and also that gates things like certain variant covers – and Iron Man’s reads like this: “Meet or exceed 225% of orders for Invincible Iron Man #7 [MAR171004] with orders for Invincible Iron Man #593 regular cover” Two hundred and twenty five percent, oy!

Now to be fair, Marvel does often downgrade such ambitious targets in the face of retailer incredulousness, and there are some indications that something is going to happen with these targets as well, but in all official documentation available to me today Marvel is claiming that we should more than double our orders for something that essentially the exact same product as it was the month before. The current lowest percentage for any of the “Legacy” books is 125%. The highest is 250%.

What does meeting that gate get you? Well, again, this is only for now, because Marvel has this nasty nasty habit of changing and adding permutations as we get closer to “Final Order Cutoff” (which sucks because that means as a retailer you have to do your math and calculations multiple times unless you don’t place “initial orders” [which can carry its own consequences, see below]) – but currently if you meet that gate, then you’ll be allowed to order 1) “INVINCIBLE IRON MAN #593 DAVIS LH VAR LEG” (which despite lack of that word in the actual product name is the “Lenticular Homage” Variant) 2) “INVINCIBLE IRON MAN #593 ZDARSKY HOW TO DRAW VAR LEG”, and if you “only” match 200% of your orders, then you get blessed to be able to order 3) “INVINCIBLE IRON MAN #593 TRADING CARD VAR LEG”. This doesn’t include the 1:10 and 1:50 covers. Three of these five covers don’t even yet have art for which a retailer can base a decision upon, either!

But, in short if you don’t order 225% of a previous issue of “Iron Man”, then you are not allowed to order any copies of those two variants. None at all.

Now the Lenticular covers are fairly new – in fact, originally the announced plan was to simply have a “Homage” variant for each “Legacy” book. The one for IM #593 is a call-back to IM volume 1 #150. These covers were originally announced as not being lenticular at all, and, oddly, the lenticular is a replacement and not an addition – there’s no longer a non-lenticular edition of any of them.

But the thing is: Lenticular covers (like those on DC books like the whole “Villains Month” stunt a few years back, or more recently on “The Button” storyline) are very popular with customers, to the point where it is my experience that if the lenticular is available, the vast majority of customers prefer the “fancy” one. And in the case of the Marvel “Legacy” covers, this should be even greater because the Lenticular has the same cover price as the regular edition. From a particular POV, the “regular” cover is now far far less desirable as a result.

But again, you can’t order any copies of the lenticular of “Iron Man” if you don’t order 225% of the regular one. Another problem: this kind of line-wide stunt really becomes an “all-in, or stay out” kind of program – it simply isn’t rational to think you can carry a few of the lenticular covers, but not all of them. That’s not how audience response works. If you buy-in, you have to buy-in across the board.

You’re not even a comic book retailer, and you see the conundrum, right? If you get 225% of the one you can order the other, more desirable version, but then you lose pretty much any demand for the “regular” edition in the first place, even if you can sell 300% or more of the fancy version. Literally, you are being asked to purchase comics you can’t sell, in order to gain access to comics that you can. While a small handful of people are willing or able to buy multiple copies of the same insides, the largest majority of customers just want a single version to buy.

That’s madness.

Compounding this situation, Marvel has also announced that you can not receive your regular discount on the Lenticular edition – a massive break from decades of business. Instead, your discount is capped at 50%, removing up to nine percentage points of margin from their largest accounts. That doesn’t necessarily sound like much to the lay person, but please let me assure you that those points of margin are where the actual profit (if any!) of selling comics comes from.

And let’s compound it again: Marvel is also saying that it can only guarantee orders for those covers that are placed by the Initial Order deadline of August 24 (again, these are books shipping in October) – anything placed after that date, even if it is before “Final Order Cutoff” dates in September runs the risk of being allocated. This gives very little time to figure out what you need, and, in fact, runs entirely contrary to how a significant number of retailers now do business.

When you add these things together, it’s very hard to see how a store can stock the lenticular covers in a way that is profitable, unless their intention is to mark them way up for the aftermarket. In fact, that becomes almost a self-reinforcing principle since it seems clear to me that a significant number of stores in any given market are going to opt out of stocking the lenticulars at all because of the low chance at making a profit in a non-mercenary way. This, in turn, increases the demand at the places that do have them, and nearly guarantees that these comics will be speculator-bait and chum for a frenzy as a result. At least one prominent retailer has already openly embraced such a plan, gleefully saying that he intends to sell these for double cover price to all of the customers the less ethically-challenged amongst will be turning away.

And it’s not like he doesn’t have a point – there’s a clear opportunity to profit here that becomes inherently self-reinforcing.

The question for me always becomes: what is the publisher trying to accomplish? Marvel clearly knows, has known, and probably always will know how to sell a speculator-bait launch or first issue. Look back at that “Iron Man” chart – almost two hundred and eighty thousand copies of that first issue in 2015 on the market for a book that clearly had a long-term audience of less than a quarter of that. That’s all from variants – it had a 1:15, three different 1:25 variants, and what looks like no less than four different “beat this threshold to order any” covers (it was 160% of “Old Man Logan” #1 back then) There was also a one-per-store “party” variant, and a number of store-exclusive covers as well.

So they know how to sell a first issue – and these lenticular are going to sell to the national market like a house on fire because they are speculator-bait – but how do they sell a fourth issue? Marvel kind of sucks at that.

For “Legacy” to be a success (a success that the market needs right now!), Marvel needs their lapsed readers to come back. And the problem that I see is that selling the flash and sizzle as the main selling point is sure to induce a speculator frenzy, but will do very little to bring back the lapsed. We’ve played this song before. Played it to death, and the audience doesn’t want to hear it any more.

But again: who is Marvel trying to attract? If it is speculators, they’re set. But if it is the lapsed reader, creating a speculative product that the market doesn’t have easy and equal easy and simple access to seems like entirely 100% the wrong tack to take.

It seems to me that all the talk of a new direction with “Marvel Legacy” is actually yielding very little change at all – in fact, most of the comics that are going to the same comic they were going to be before this rebranding effort was pitched. Sure, there might be certain storylines that have been pushed back or forward as a result, but there’s not the level of wholesale change that the audience appears to be demanding.

Right now “fancy” covers are trying to cover a multitude of underlying problems with the actual core product. This is not the first time such a thing has been tried, and I wish I can remember who it was, but I remember talking to a retailer who told me they had built a literal chair out of the leftover copies of “Adventures of Superman #500” they had; with similar stories about just how many unsold and unsalable copies of “Turok” #1 were left over. Those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it, and while I’m hopefully we’ve wised up as a class to not fall down that same rabbit hole again, when I see Marvel’s August plans, added to DC’s August books with foil covers (three), Lenticulars (two) and even a glow-in-the-dark cover I think “Damn, we’re there again, where greed and glitz has overwhelmed common sense”

That time of the crash and the few years after it was dire for comics, and this time is likely to be significantly worse, as we don’t have a core of books selling at 100k or more to keep things propped up.

I think it will be great for them if Marvel sells a bunch of dollars of comics in October thanks to manipulative processes designed to get the greedy moving – but it won’t mean a damn thing if come January “Iron Man” is back to selling under 40k again because speculator bait never ever has led to stable long-term growing sales.

Until Marvel is willing to think about the long-term steps needed to right their ship they’re going to remain in danger of collapsing the entire market; and there is literally nothing they’ve shown us from “Marvel Legacy” so far that doesn’t literally feel like rearranging the deck chair on the Titanic.

I hope to god I’m wrong; otherwise 2018 is going to suck.

**************************

Brian Hibbs has owned and operated Comix Experience in San Francisco since 1989, was a founding member of the Board of Directors of ComicsPRO, has sat on the Board of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, and has been an Eisner Award judge. Feel free to e-mail him with any comments. You can purchase two collections of the first Tilting at Windmills (originally serialized in Comics Retailer magazine) published by IDW Publishing, as well as find an archive of pre-CBR installments right here. Brian is also available to consult for your publishing or retailing program.

Tilting at Windmills #261: Marvel Comics and The Deck Chairs of the Titanic By Brian Hibbs The solicits for August 2017 Marvel comics have finally been released – the start of “Marvel Legacy” – and I think it is now fair to ask if Marvel actually hears or heard any of the criticism of their line over the last few months.