• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Thursday Aug 14, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST. This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

How Kurt Busiek ruined comics

kguillou

Avenger
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
26,815
Reaction score
25,400
Points
103
Hey guys, so i read this article over at CBR, titled " How Kurt Busiek (unwittingly) ruined Superhero comics" and there's some interesting points made. The writer pretty much makes the case that Kurt Busiek and Alex Ross' Marvels book pretty much led to the destruction and current stagnation of Marvel and DC's books. Basically, because Marvels was essentially a book about looking backwards and reflecting on history, Marvel and DC have since then decided to concentrate more on the past instead of moving forward like comics used to do decades ago. Thus we have the current stagnation of comics where the big Two are afraid to move their characters forward and instead favor the constant retreading and retconning of past stories.

Anyway, just wondering what you guys think about all this. While i personally wouldn't blame Marvels for this, i do think the writer made some very valid points about the industry as a whole.

Article here: http://goodcomics.comicbookresource...tingly-ruined-marvel-and-dc-superhero-comics/
 
I don't think comics are particularly stagnant. People are trying new things with the characters all the time. It's just that a lot of the things they're trying suck.
 
Read comics from the 60's through the 90's, and ask if the comics we read today are better or worse. For me, it's clear that comics are better than ever, especially in the Marvel Universe. (I'm a bit different in my view of DC's comics. Currently, I'm going through my weekly comic orders, and dropping a bunch of them.)
 
Good article. The writer's theory isn't that out there. Personally I think that the high cover prices and torrents are killing comics right now just like every other publication.
 
Not to mention comic accessibility is getting harder. Remember the days where you could go to your local pharmacy or grocery store and buy your monthlies there? When i was a kid i bought all my comics from a pharmacy shop, those days are gone and comic book shops are scarce.
 
Most book stores (the nationwide chains like Borders, ect.) do have the tall skinny racks that rotate 360 degrees. That's where the monthlies can be found if you don't have a LCS. Those type of book stores are in every shopping mall.

But, I hear ya, these days it's mostly about the trade paperbacks.
 
Thats true i forgot about places like Barnes and Noble and Borders, but yeah its mostly about the trade paperbacks. Personally, i wish companies like DC and Image would take a cue from marvel and push towards digital comic availability.

I've used Marvel's digital subscription and its an awesome way to read the comics you've always wanted to read for a cheap affordable price. I would love it if DC would stop being stubborn and made their Vertigo titles available online for a monthly fee. They've got such a rich library of books and unless you're rich, it would cost you a fortune to read complete stories of Y The Last Man, or Sandman, or 100 Bullets etc etc.
 
The article kind of blames Marvels for a bunch of **** that it then admits doesn't really have anything to do with Marvels and much more to do with stupid people making ****** creative decisions.

It seems much more the case that two things of actual consequence – the direct market, and the aging of the comics-reading audience – had various effects good and ill, the former of which including things like Marvels (and in a somewhat similar vein, Kingdom Come) and the latter including the various reactionary and counterproductive creative decisions the article notes.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, my eyes were glazing over about a third of the way into that article. But I love the term "nostalgia porn."

Personally, I think comics have moved ahead just fine. Make a list of your favorite comics from the last 5-10 years, and I think you'll find a nice variety that didn't exist 30 years ago.

Comics' problems come more from how the product is delivered than the actual content.
 
While I do agree that endless "back-peddling" has mangled how many comics are written, it is worth saying that often times whenever a writer tries moving things forward, one of a few things happen:

1). The publisher loses nerve and back-peddles, often caving to a vocal minority (Morrison's X-Men)
2). The fan-base, itself a vocal minority of fans on the internet, throws up such a storm that the publisher back-peddles
3). The idea and/or execution is flawed and doesn't work regardless

In a way you could argue most writers these days are really working with things created decades ago more than they create anything of their own. You could also argue that fans have seemed to become less patient, open minded, or forgiving of new characters, ideas, or concepts. Many are jaded because so many have come and gone, regardless of quality.

Still, I think this is a far better article on what plagues comics these days: http://comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=25315

Essentially, a retailers lays the blame on:
- Too many comics in general
- Too many comics that the fans don't believe "matter"
- That a price tag over $3.99 has caused a backlash that cripples B and C list titles
- That the publishing schedule, often of "feast or famine" quantity, decreases foot traffic in shops
- That many comics are not as entertaining compared to other media
- That publishers are too detached from reality or retail to really see what is the problem, instead expanding on franchises that can't handle it. He cites JSA as an example; he sold 30 copies a month when it was one $2.99 book; once it stretched to two (with one at $4), he sells 20 of JSA and 8 of JSA ALL STARS, selling fewer copies than before with higher wholesale and shipping cost.
 
Last edited:
See i dunno, i think that even though we fans do b*tch alot about changes, it really depends on if its a good change or bad change. There HAVE been changes to characters over the years that the fans have generally been very receptive to. For example, IronMan. When Warren Ellis completely revampled Ironman and gave Tony extremis powers and a new suit and all that, the fans loved it, myself included. It was an evolution of the character and it did new things with him. The same can be said with Bucky or even Thor. They've been doing very different things to those characters in recent years and the fans have been receptive towards it. Its when they backpeddle and try to bring back an old status quo thats fans start to *****. Look at Spiderman, the very definition of regression. Marvel's scared to do new things with him because somehow it will ruin the character they think. Just look at how OMD was received.

I think if you look at the times when Marvel (or DC) did try to do something different or move their characters forward, they were much more critically acclaimed than when they tried to move them backwards. Bendis finally unmasked Daredevil and we got the best DD stories in decades. Brubaker made Bucky Captain America, now everyone loves Bucky. Joss whedon crafted new X-men adventures that didnt involve magneto, or any of the x-men's old villains and we got arguably the best critically acclaimed x-men stories in years. I think fans are more open-minded than you think.
 
Last edited:
But, if you want to read Brubaker's Captain America, how many books do you have to buy? One. Even during REBORN, you only had to buy that, because the main title took time off. Even SECRET AVENGERS coming up is an AVENGERS title, not a Captain America title.

On the other hand, if you want to read about Hulk, what do you have to buy? HULK, and INCREDIBLE HULK, and all of the related mini-series and one shots like PRELUDE TO WAR OF THE HULKS: ALPHA or BETA or GAMMA or MOE or CURLY or GREEDY. Many of which are $4 and the Loeb ones stink. Not to mention while before we had Hulk and She-Hulk, and now we have Skaar, we have Rulk, Red She-Hulk, that other son of Hulk's from the Microverse...

What if you want to read Deadpool? In the 90's he had one book. Now he has 4-9 books between mini's and one shots. Who is to know what to read? Is the fan expected to buy them all? Assuming all fans are completists in the middle of the worst recession in 20 years displays so little of a sense of reality that some in the editorial board may seriously need to see a professional to realize this is 2010, not 1980, nor will it ever be 1980 again. What about WOLVERINE? Well, he has his own book, but it isn't WOLVERINE; that is his son's book now. You also have X-23 floating around. You have to dig for WOLVERINE: WEAPON X at $4 a pop which fans have NOT embraced as the sole Logan book. If anything, amping Daken for Dark Reign has made Wolverine sell LESS than he ever has.

On the other hand, if you want to read about the Fantastic Four, how many books do you buy? One, with few exceptions. It's not the best seller but it is steady, and is what counts. That would change if suddenly the Four got four books. Or imagine if DAREDEVIL suddenly got three books? Don't laugh...dumber things have happened.
 
No, i know exactly what you mean Dread. In my humble opinion, i think whats happening is that the publishers are very aware that comics are a dying a breed so the best thing to do in their eyes is to take what they can get and milk the hell out of what they can. If there ever is a decent Daredevil movie down the road, you can bet your ass DD will get 3 books. If the FF4 film franchise ever gets its act together, there will absolutely be four FF4 books. Its all about milking the product for a quick buck.

Marvel keeps insisting that Deadpool's popularity has multiplied ten-fold since Wolverine Origins and thus why we have so many Deadpool books....i call total BS on that. I could totally be wrong but i have a very hard time believing Deadpool's books sell SO well that he warrants 5 ongoings. They're hoping that if they throw enough Deadpool in our face then eventually we'll buy all his books. I'd love for somebody to show me the sales on his books. Oversaturation is never a good thing, even in terms of sales. The more people get of something the less the want it, law of diminishing returns, its Economics 101. Didnt work in the 90's and it wont work now.

My personal favorite book at Marvel is Daredevil and has been for years because its always been ONE book, one direction, one character narrative journey. It always keeps me wanting more because i only get a little bit of it at a time. If DD had 3 books a month with three different story directions, sure it'd be cool at first, but then after a few months i'd be burned out from so many DD, that i'd probably stop buying his books all together. Thats whats happening to alot of franchises as we speak and its killing the industry.
 
The thing about on/off weeks in the article Dread linked hit home; when I was any kind of regular reader I was perpetually going "GUARDIANS NOVA DARKHAWK HERCULES DETECTIVE COMICS AUGH **** YES" and then the next week / 2 / 3 "Well um I guess Outsiders is this week, I probably won't actually get cancer from reading that?"
 
No, i know exactly what you mean Dread. In my humble opinion, i think whats happening is that the publishers are very aware that comics are a dying a breed so the best thing to do in their eyes is to take what they can get and milk the hell out of what they can. If there ever is a decent Daredevil movie down the road, you can bet your ass DD will get 3 books. If the FF4 film franchise ever gets its act together, there will absolutely be four FF4 books. Its all about milking the product for a quick buck.

Marvel keeps insisting that Deadpool's popularity has multiplied ten-fold since Wolverine Origins and thus why we have so many Deadpool books....i call total BS on that. I could totally be wrong but i have a very hard time believing Deadpool's books sell SO well that he warrants 5 ongoings. They're hoping that if they throw enough Deadpool in our face then eventually we'll buy all his books. I'd love for somebody to show me the sales on his books. Oversaturation is never a good thing, even in terms of sales. The more people get of something the less the want it, law of diminishing returns, its Economics 101. Didnt work in the 90's and it wont work now.

My personal favorite book at Marvel is Daredevil and has been for years because its always been ONE book, one direction, one character narrative journey. It always keeps me wanting more because i only get a little bit of it at a time. If DD had 3 books a month with three different story directions, sure it'd be cool at first, but then after a few months i'd be burned out from so many DD, that i'd probably stop buying his books all together. Thats whats happening to alot of franchises as we speak and its killing the industry.

I know that comic publishers are trying to maintain the habits of fans, but the article I linked to actually has some good examples of why what they are doing kind of backfires often in real life. I am aware that movies do dictate what characters get how many books, and it is a mistake.

Imagine a fan walks into a store after seeing IRON MAN 2 and just wants to try the comic. That alone becomes an adventure in choice selection between ongoings, mini's, one shots, and trades. He needs a store clerk to navigate as if he is installing a second hand appliance in Mandarin. This is really not a way to win a fan. It even frustrates long term ones. Which Iron Man books matter, and which are junk? Does the junk really have to be there?

In the message board for that article, a few fans ask the retailer who wrote it why he doesn't simply "not order" small titles from the Big Two that he *knows* will go nowhere and than the fans will eventually abandon. The response was one never really knows what the fans will stick with or abandon short term, and that most fans *expect* a shop to have at least some of everything every week, or they may consider it "too small" and head for a competitor. And frankly Marvel and DC know this, know that retailers will order "some" of EVERYTHING they put out, and so they may be intentionally flooding the market.

Say you want to read about the X-Men. Trying to figure out which of the 3-6 X-Men books (not counting the spin off's) is best for you and your taste alone is a whole conversation, isn't it? And that has become a problem, especially in an era of $4 cover price and less consumer spending power, and more media distractions like video games and Internet that just didn't exist in 2000 even as they do now.

The irony is even Image is getting back into the game. INVINCIBLE is very slowly spawning spin-off's. So far they have been mini's, but so far they won't be.

The thing about on/off weeks in the article Dread linked hit home; when I was any kind of regular reader I was perpetually going "GUARDIANS NOVA DARKHAWK HERCULES DETECTIVE COMICS AUGH **** YES" and then the next week / 2 / 3 "Well um I guess Outsiders is this week, I probably won't actually get cancer from reading that?"

It does get annoying when one week I may only need $10 for comics and then another I need $30-$35. And that buys you less books than it used to with $4 titles, even with my shop's 10% discount on all comics over $15.

On the plus side, the comic shop of mine that offers the 10% discount, a 3 store chain, requires a mass transit ride to get to, so if the 10% discount doesn't make up for the $2.25 fare price, it isn't worth it. Fortunately I live in an area of Brooklyn that does still technically have a comic shop within walking distance. It is about 1-2 miles, but still walking distance (15-20 minutes each way on foot). Many other places are not as fortunate.

There are actually some months where an even amount of comics come out every week, but they usually average maybe 1-3 out of 12.
 
We've gotta admit one thing tho, part of it is our fault too. I mean we have given Marvel reason to believe that "more is better". Two words: New Avengers. When New Avengers launched, everybody was like "Spider-man and Wolverine? On the same team?! AWESOME!" and tons and tons of people bought new avengers for that purpose. Thus leading marvel to believe that all they had to do to make a book sell was insert an A-list character and sales would go through the roof. Well it worked for New Avengers, but it seems like fans wised up after that gimmick because i seem to remember books like Agents of Atlas and Incredible Hercules trying that same trick of inserting spiderman and wolverine and it didnt work well for those titles. Just because something works once doesnt necessarily imply that its the golden standard for everything.
 
That's the thing; fans realized the gimmick. The question is if the publishers realize that the climate has changed and adapt accordingly. Or will they continue to act like it is still 2006. Even THAT is a long time ago in terms of the market.
 
Read comics from the 60's through the 90's, and ask if the comics we read today are better or worse. For me, it's clear that comics are better than ever, especially in the Marvel Universe. (I'm a bit different in my view of DC's comics. Currently, I'm going through my weekly comic orders, and dropping a bunch of them.)

I only skimmed the article, but I don't think he was necessarily talking about the quality of the comics being produced. If I remember correctly, this was also the guy who wrote the 'Superheroes are Dead' (or some variation of that) article. Several people mistook that as literally dead, when he meant more along the lines of creatively stagnant (though I guess you don't get as many hits on your page and/or heated Keyser Soze/Teardrop debates if the article would was titled Superheroes: Going Anywhere or What?). I think he's saying this book was one of the key things that lead to what he perceives as said creative stagnation.

Like I said, I haven't fully read the article, but if he's really trying to push the idea that Marvels somehow single handled started the current trend of bringing old continuity and history, I disagree. Though, I should read the article before actually making any points.

I might do that. Maybe
 
Last edited:
People that bought New Avengers because Spidey and Wolverine were in it are c**ts.
 
I'll fully admit that at the time i was intrigued with the idea of spidey and wolvie on an avengers team. That book is actually half the reason i got back into comics after a loong hiatus...i know i know, i am ashamed of myself.
 
Not to mention comic accessibility is getting harder. Remember the days where you could go to your local pharmacy or grocery store and buy your monthlies there? When i was a kid i bought all my comics from a pharmacy shop, those days are gone and comic book shops are scarce.
I hear you on those. My first ever comic book (an Avenger's title [Love you Cap!]) was bought in a supermarket. Hopefully with the Disney merger, things will be easier with distribution.
 
It's a combination of a lot of things, all referenced in this thread. Yes, chain book stores like Borders carry comics, but the variety isn't great. At the one in Lawrence, for instance, we get some of the major Marvel stuff (any of the big line crossovers like "Siege" and "Secret Invasion", plus "New Avengers", "Captain America", "Iron Man", and anything with Spidey, Hulk or Wolverine), anything with a recognizable DC character ("JLA", a few "Batman" titles, "Superman", anything "Green Lantern" and sometimes "The Flash"), and any licensed "Star Wars"/"Futurama"/"World of Warcraft" crap for the kids.

Sounds like an easy way to get a fix? Well, no. As people have discussed here, too much other stuff is available in ever-dwindling comic shops, and getting it all is far too expensive.

As for looking backward and becoming stagnant creatively, that works both ways. Some people look to the classics from their companies and come up with brilliant ideas (look at DnA's work at Marvel, and how they've used all the old space-opera shtick so well). The problem is that the execs at these companies (mostly Marvel) don't understand that they can, and have, gotten new people interested with new ideas and new twists. Sometimes this can mean the Big 3 of the Avengers are finally coming together again, which is good, but sometimes it can mean "One More Day", an awful device used to sloppily bring Spider-Man back to an old status quo (when really, all they should've done was let Dan Slott write it sooner).
 
I also think that part of the problem is, and this is a problem that pertains more to marvel than DC, is that alot of these characters were designed with a specific "journey" and after 40-50 years of stories, fans are starting to realize that these characters will never pass a certain point in their journey and the stories will recycle over and over.

You know how in most anime's there's a character who has a specific goal they're trying to achieve? Usually by the end of the anime, the character either achieves that goal or there is some sort of closure. The thing is anime are finite whereas Marvel and DC character stories are infinite and after a certain while the stories start to become stale. We've seen Peter Parker grow up throughout the 60's, 70's, 80's and most of the 90's. After the 90's instead of going a step further marvel hesitated and decided to go backwards and thats what alot of spidey fans are pissed off about, the journey has suddenly come to a halt.

Will Bruce Banner ever find a cure or even a way to control the hulk? Probably not. Will the X-men and the mutants ever be accepted into society? Probably not. Will Daredevil ever find any kind of happines? Nah. Thats part of the problem. These companies are trying so hard to preserve the essence of what made these characters work in the 60s, that sometimes they fall on their face and we get horrible, horrible stories that move the characters backwards instead of forwards.
 
Last edited:
Whether comics are truly suffering to a severe degree from "looking back too much" or not is debatable, but one surefire way to stop that is to simply have publishers completely stop resurrecting dead characters. If an editor took over Marvel or DC and just flat-out said, "There will be absolutely no resurrections while I'm in charge of this company, period," creators might 1) be forced to think a little more carefully about whether they really want to kill characters and 2) actually come up with more new characters and put the time in to build them so that the readership embraces them. Sure, they'll lose a few longtime fans if they kill their favorite third-stringer and bring in a new character, but backtracking loses readers too. I know this for a fact because I've stopped reading a ton of DC's comics myself since they started trotting out old characters at the expense of newer, more compelling (in my opinion, obviously) ones.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"