X-books sales - August 2002
Paul O'Brien
Thrills! Statistics! And most of all, the X-books being thoroughly
hammered by 1980s toy revivals. 7 Zark 7 rules! Whether you like it
or not.
Source data is here: http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/1658.html
Usual disclaimers apply. These figures are based on initial orders
through the direct market. They do not cover sales outside North
America, nor to newsstands, nor re-orders, nor is there any guarantee
that the copies ordered by stores will actually be sold. Diamond
publish the chart positions and the relative sales levels in
proportionate terms. Actual sales figures are estimates prepared by
ICV2 by extrapolating from known sales data provided by minor
publishers. General trends are, however, likely to be valid.
Now, you may recall that last month, the Gen13 giveaway issue shifted
108,249 copies, charting at number 4 (behind both Transformers books and
Battle of the Planets). This was drastically lower than the orders for
Batman: The Ten Cent Adventure, and I wondered whether this meant the
gimmick only worked once, or that Gen13 was a dud. Well, here's your
answer.
1,32: FANTASTIC FOUR
Sep Fantastic Four #47 - 49,778 ( -2.0%)
Oct Fantastic Four #48 - 48,616 ( -2.3%)
Nov Fantastic Four #49 - 49,111 ( +1.0%)
Dec Fantastic Four #50 - 52,471 ( +6.8%)
Jan Fantastic Four #51 - 47,714 ( -9.7%)
Feb Fantastic Four #52 - 46,355 ( -2.8%)
Mar Fantastic Four #53 - 44,949 ( -3.0%)
Apr Fantastic Four #54 - 44,808 ( -0.3%)
May Fantastic Four #55 - 43,563 ( -2.8%)
Jun Fantastic Four #56 - 42,947 ( -1.4%)
Jun Fantastic Four #57 - 42,829 ( -0.3%)
Jul Fantastic Four #58 - 42,661 ( -0.4%)
Aug Fantastic Four #59 - 43,378 ( +1.7%)
Aug Fantastic Four #60 - 705,109 (+1,525.5%)
1 year (+1,316.5%)
6 mnth (+1,468.7%)
Obviously the high orders of Fantastic Four #60 are meaningless in terms
of general trends because the issue is so cheap - nine cents - as to be
effectively a promotional giveaway. What will really matter is how many
of those readers are held in future months and whether it's sufficient
to justify the cost to Marvel of effectively giving away 700,000 comics.
Incidentally, as you may have read elsewhere, one individual store
ordered 200,000 copies of Fantastic Four #60. Those copies include
adverts for his store on the cover, and they were printed specially for
him under a deal directly with Marvel. As I understand it, they are not
orders placed through Diamond and are therefore not included in the
above figures.
Leaving him aside, orders for the Fantastic Four freebie were a little
more than six and a half times the orders for last month's Gen13
freebie. That surely cannot bode well for Gen13.
The Fantastic Four book also shipped 8% MORE copies than Batman: The Ten
Cent Adventure. Perhaps the promise of a self-contained story rather
than a glorified trailer for a megacrossover was a bright move.
Issue #59, a normal priced fill-in issue, also ships in August. It
charted at number 32, with a mild increase in sales.
2. TRANSFORMERS: GENERATION ONE
Apr Transformers: Generation One #1 - 119,251
May Transformers: Generation One #2 - 115,655 ( -3.0%)
Jun Transformers: Generation One #3 - 131,586 (+13.8%)
Jul Transformers: Generation One #4 - 126,124 ( -4.2%)
Aug Transformers: Generation One #5 - 122,829 ( -2.6%)
Nothing terribly surprising about these figures on their own. What's
interesting is that Transformers: Armada has promptly dropped below the
five-month-old Generation One miniseries. Clearly there's less
nostalgia value attaching to Armada, and that must make it a tougher
sell.
3. ULTIMATES
Jan Ultimates #1 - 149,289
Feb Ultimates #2 - 107,342 (-28.1%)
Mar Ultimates #3 - 102,956 ( -4.1%)
Apr Ultimates #4 - 103,153 ( +0.2%)
May Ultimates #5 - 102,524 ( -0.6%)
Jun Ultimates #6 - 99,473 ( -3.0%)
Jul Ultimates #7 - 102,396 ( +2.9%)
Aug Ultimates #8 - 112,570 ( +9.9%)
6 mnth ( +0.1%)
In the de facto number two position this month, and also outselling
Armada - and with a 10% sales increase over last month. This must bode
well for Ultimates to cement itself at the top of the charts once
Transformers: Generation One is out of the way. Love the book or hate
it, it's plainly a huge hit.
4. TRANSFORMERS: ARMADA
Jul Transformers Armada #1 - 135,930
Aug Transformers Armada #2 - 109,532 (-19.4%)
I do believe I see a craze peaking.
5,10. THUNDERCATS
Aug Thundercats #0 - 96,745
Aug Thundercats: Reclaiming Thundera #1 - 101,551 (+5.0%)
Number ten for the zero issue, number five for the first issue of the
miniseries itself. This is very respectable but not as earth-shattering
as Transformers or, for that matter, Battle of the Planets. I'm betting
this is the tail end of the retro craze and it's all downhill from here
for the nostalgia revivalists.
6. AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
Aug Amazing Spider-Man #34 - 79,588 ( +0.0%)
Sep Amazing Spider-Man #35 - 83,559 ( +5.0%)
Oct Amazing Spider-Man #36 - 86,456 ( +3.5%)
Nov Amazing Spider-Man #37 - 87,112 ( +0.8%)
Dec Amazing Spider-Man #38 - 88,666 ( +1.8%)
Jan Amazing Spider-Man #39 - 90,788 ( +2.4%)
Feb Amazing Spider-Man #40 - 90,551 ( -0.3%)
Mar Amazing Spider-Man #41 - 92,896 ( +2.6%)
Apr Amazing Spider-Man #40 (resolicited) - 99,273 ( +6.9%)
May Amazing Spider-Man #41 (resolicited) - 97,947 ( -1.3%)
Jun Amazing Spider-Man #42 - 96,537 ( -1.4%)
Jul Amazing Spider-Man #43 - 98,980 ( +2.5%)
Aug Amazing Spider-Man #44 - 100,070 ( +1.1%)
1 year (+25.7%)
6 mnth (+10.5%)
Still riding the crest of the movie, although the book's been on a
general climb for months. I must admit I don't get why Straczynski's
version of the character is doing so well - it's good, but not THAT good
- but clearly it's working.
7. SPIDER-MAN/BLACK CAT: THE EVIL THAT MEN DO
Jun Spider-Man/Black Cat: The Evil That Men Do #1 - 118,204
Jul Spider-Man/Black Cat: The Evil That Men Do #2 - 101,607 (-14.0%)
Aug Spider-Man/Black Cat: The Evil That Men Do #3 - 99,110 ( -2.5%)
More normal miniseries sales patterns here.
And finally, here come the X-books.
8,9. NEW X-MEN
Aug New X-Men #117 - 120,414 ( -0.2%)
Sep New X-Men #118 - 118,542 ( -1.6%)
Oct New X-Men #119 - 115,828 ( -2.3%)
Nov New X-Men #120 - 116,782 ( +0.8%)
Dec New X-Men #121 - 112,227 ( -3.9%)
Jan New X-Men #122 - 109,246 ( -2.7%)
Feb New X-Men #123 - 105,642 ( -3.3%)
Mar New X-Men #124 - 104,138 ( -1.4%)
Apr New X-Men #125 - 104,185 ( +0.0%)
May New X-Men #126 - 103,189 ( -1.0%)
Jun New X-Men #127 - 99,672 ( -3.4%)
Jun New X-Men #128 - 99,018 ( -0.7%)
Jul New X-Men #129 - 98,817 ( -0.2%)
Aug New X-Men #130 - 98,796 ( -0.0%)
Aug New X-Men #131 - 98,805 ( +0.0%)
1 year (-17.9%)
6 mnth ( -6.5%)
Infinitesimal changes this month, so the book looks to be pretty much
stable over the last few months. For those keeping track, the books
outselling New X-Men this month comprised one giveaway comic, one
Spider-Man book getting a rub from the movie and with impressive sales
climbs over the last year, and five books which didn't exist when
Morrison took over the X-Men.
Number 10, as I've already said, is Thundercats #0. At number 11,
Ultimate Spider-Man #25, continuing its own steady climb up the charts.
12. ULTIMATE X-MEN
Aug Ultimate X-Men #9 - 100,109 (+0.6%)
Sep Ultimate X-Men #10 - 99,862 (-0.2%)
Oct Ultimate X-Men #11 - 99,329 (-0.5%)
Nov Ultimate X-Men #12 - 100,668 (+1.3%)
Dec Ultimate X-Men #13 - 100,442 (-0.2%)
Jan Ultimate X-Men #14 - 97,690 (-2.7%)
Feb Ultimate X-Men #15 - 94,713 (-3.0%)
Mar Ultimate X-Men #16 - 96,150 (+1.6%)
Apr Ultimate X-Men #17 - 95,887 (-0.3%)
May Ultimate X-Men #18 - 94,143 (-1.8%)
Jun Ultimate X-Men #19 - 92,815 (-1.4%)
Jul Ultimate X-Men #20 - 92,927 (+0.1%)
Aug Ultimate X-Men #21 - 93,216 (+0.3%)
1 year (-6.9%)
6 mnth (-1.6%)
Not much of note here. Holding very steady indeed. But next, the first
two Chuck Austen issues of Uncanny X-Men. And the big question is -
what happens to sales with Casey replaced?
13,14. UNCANNY X-MEN
Aug Uncanny X-Men #397 - 116,247 ( -1.1%)
Sep Uncanny X-Men #398 - 112,744 ( -3.0%)
Oct Uncanny X-Men #399 - 110,158 ( -2.3%)
Nov Uncanny X-Men #400 - 125,044 (+13.5%)
Dec Uncanny X-Men #401 - 105,646 (-15.5%)
Jan Uncanny X-Men #402 - 101,145 ( -4.3%)
Feb Uncanny X-Men #403 - 97,079 ( -4.0%)
Mar Uncanny X-Men #404 - 95,386 ( -1.7%)
Apr Uncanny X-Men #405 - 93,909 ( -1.5%)
May Uncanny X-Men #406 - 91,356 ( -2.7%)
Jun Uncanny X-Men #407 - 88,448 ( -3.2%)
Jul Uncanny X-Men #408 - 87,074 ( -1.6%)
Jul Uncanny X-Men #409 - 86,942 ( -0.2%)
Aug Uncanny X-Men #410 - 87,008 ( +0.1%)
Aug Uncanny X-Men #411 - 86,875 ( -0.2%)
1 year (-25.3%)
6 mnth (-10.5%)
And the answer is no. Well, I suppose if you were being very generous
you could say it's stemmed the decline, but really, that's a "who cares"
reaction.
15. BATTLE OF THE PLANETS
Jul Battle of the Planets #1 - 109,797
Aug Battle of the Planets #2 - 71,982 (-34.4%)
I can almost feel sanity returning to the world. It's the highest
placed Image book, by the way. Number sixteen, if anyone really cares,
is Spider-Man: Blue.
17. WOLVERINE
Aug Wolverine #167 - 70,237 ( -1.0%)
Sep Wolverine #168 - 70,909 ( +1.0%)
Oct Wolverine #169 - 71,314 ( +0.6%)
Nov Wolverine #170 - 73,398 ( +2.9%)
Dec Wolverine #171 - 72,909 ( -0.7%)
Jan Wolverine #172 - 71,574 ( -1.8%)
Feb Wolverine #173 - 69,684 ( -2.6%)
Mar Wolverine #174 - 69,340 ( -0.5%)
Apr Wolverine #175 - 75,528 ( +8.9%)
May Wolverine #176 - 69,061 ( -8.6%)
Jun Wolverine #177 - 67,450 ( -2.3%)
Jun Wolverine #178 - 67,390 ( -0.1%)
Jul Wolverine #179 - 68,083 ( +1.0%)
Aug Wolverine #180 - 67,892 ( -0.3%)
1 year ( -3.3%)
6 mnth ( -2.6%)
Last of the four Matt Nixon fill-ins, and no real change to sales. Then
again, very little seems to change the sales on Wolverine...
18. X-TREME X-MEN
Aug X-Treme X-Men #4 - 95,445 ( -2.7%)
Sep X-Treme X-Men #5 - 89,825 ( -5.9%)
Oct X-Treme X-Men #6 - 86,876 ( -3.3%)
Nov X-Treme X-Men #7 - 84,326 ( -2.9%)
Dec X-Treme X-Men #8 - 80,818 ( -4.2%)
Jan X-Treme X-Men #9 - 77,767 ( -3.8%)
Feb X-Treme X-Men #10 - 74,457 ( -4.3%)
Mar X-Treme X-Men #11 - 72,892 ( -2.1%)
Apr X-Treme X-Men #12 - 71,855 ( -1.4%)
May X-Treme X-Men #13 - 69,741 ( -2.9%)
Jun X-Treme X-Men #14 - 67,195 ( -3.7%)
Jul X-Treme X-Men #15 - 65,915 ( -1.9%)
Jul X-Treme X-Men #16 - 65,688 ( -0.3%)
Aug X-Treme X-Men #17 - 64,961 ( -1.1%)
1 year (-31.9%)
6 mnth (-12.8%)
Same old story here, really. It's on a slow crawl downwards and there's
no real sign of that turning around.
JLA is the highest placed book for DC at number 21. If you're wondering
what happened to Green Arrow, the answer is that Kevin Smith left last
month - and this month sales are down 10%, with the title dropping
straight out of the top 20 to number 25. Kevin Smith's name sells
comics. The figures prove it time and again. (Then again, without a
Kevin Smith run to precede it, who'd have thought anyone could get Green
Arrow into the top 25?)
Number 26 is Geoff Johns' first issue of Avengers. Sales are back up to
where they were six months ago, but not up to pre-Kang War levels.
At number 28, Incredible Hulk continues to climb. Sales are now up 46%
on last year.
Call of Duty: The Wagon debuts at number 33 with orders of 43,258.
38. X-STATIX
Aug X-Force #119 - 51,854 ( +7.8%)
Sep X-Force #120 - 51,777 ( -1.5%)
Oct X-Force #121 - 49,274 ( -4.8%)
Nov X-Force #122 - 48,501 ( -1.6%)
Dec X-Force #123 - 47,554 ( -2.0%)
Jan X-Force #124 - 45,670 ( -4.0%)
Feb X-Force #125 - 44,404 ( -2.8%)
Mar X-Force #126 - 43,016 ( -3.1%)
Apr X-Force #127 - 42,014 ( -2.3%)
May X-Force #128 - 41,124 ( -2.1%)
Jun X-Force #129 - 39,662 ( -3.6%)
Jul X-Statix #1 - 47,303 (+19.3%)
Aug X-Statix #2 - 41,140 (-13.0%)
1 year (-20.7%)
6 mnth ( -7.4%)
Ouch. This clearly indicates that the retailers have no faith in the
relaunch bringing in any new readers to this book. Marvel can't be
happy with those figures.
39. CALL OF DUTY: THE BROTHERHOOD
Jun Call of Duty: The Brotherhood #1 - 37,558
Jul Call of Duty: The Brotherhood #2 - 30,139 (-19.8%)
Aug Call of Duty: The Brotherhood #3 - 40,176 (+33.3%)
40. CALL OF DUTY: THE PRECINCT
Jul Call of Duty: The Precinct #1 - 33,102
Aug Call of Duty: The Precinct #2 - 39,823 (+20.3%)
Jesus. Talk about an upward correction. This is bizarre - especially
given that it comes before the first issue shipped. Those first issues
are going to be worth something...
41. EXILES
Aug Exiles #3 - 48,259 ( -7.9%)
Sep Exiles #4 - 44,444 ( -7.9%)
Oct Exiles #5 - 42,659 ( -4.0%)
Nov Exiles #6 - 42,220 ( -1.0%)
Dec Exiles #7 - 40,075 ( -5.1%)
Jan Exiles #8 - 39,382 ( -1.7%)
Feb Exiles #9 - 37,563 ( -4.6%)
Feb Exiles #10 - 37,542 ( -0.0%)
Mar Exiles #11 - 37,446 ( -0.3%)
Apr Exiles #12 - 38,766 ( +3.5%)
May Exiles #13 - 38,306 ( -1.2%)
Jun Exiles #14 - 38,448 ( +0.4%)
Jul Exiles #15 - 38,955 ( +1.3%)
Aug Exiles #16 - 39,133 ( +0.5%)
1 year (-18.9%)
6 mnth ( +4.2%)
And it's happy news for Exiles, which now clearly looks to have turned
the corner and started a slow crawl back up the charts. Good for them.
The Weapon X oneshots place at 42, 43, 44, 46 and 47 with orders ranging
between 38,797 and 37,669. Passable orders for that sort of event, I
think. If you care, the books were (in descending order) Wild Child,
Agent Zero, Marrow, Kane and Sauron. The number 45 slot which breaks up
their block is held by Green Lantern #153.
Number 53 is Micronauts #2, another nail in the coffin of the nostalgia
revival.
59. AGENT X
Aug Deadpool: Agent of Weapon X #1 - 36,309 (+56.8%)
Sep Deadpool: Agent of Weapon X #2 - 32,377 (-10.8%)
Oct Deadpool: Agent of Weapon X #3 - 31,224 ( -3.6%)
Nov Deadpool: Agent of Weapon X #4 - 31,630 ( +1.3%)
Dec Deadpool: Funeral for a Freak #1 - 29,550 ( -6.6%)
Jan Deadpool: Funeral for a Freak #2 - 27,660 ( -6.4%)
Feb Deadpool: Funeral for a Freak #3 - 26,901 ( -2.7%)
Mar Deadpool: Funeral for a Freak #4 - 26,021 ( -3.3%)
Mar Deadpool #65 - 27,362 ( +5.2%)
Apr Deadpool #66 - 26,652 ( -2.6%)
May Deadpool #67 - 26,437 ( -0.8%)
Jun Deadpool #68 - 26,275 ( -0.6%)
Jul Deadpool #69 - 26,828 ( +2.1%)
Jul Agent X #1 - 37,418 (+39.5%)
Aug Agent X #2 - 32,531 (-13.1%)
1 year (-10.4%)
6 mnth (+20.9%)
Not exactly a great second issue here either, but still significantly
ahead of the last issue of Deadpool. Then again, there's obviously more
prospect of the relatively low-key Simone Deadpool picking up new
readers with this stunt than the "everyone's talking about it" X-Force.
67. SOLDIER X
Aug Cable #96 - 32,921 ( -0.4%)
Sep Cable #97 - 34,412 ( +4.5%)
Oct Cable #98 - 32,959 ( -4.2%)
Nov Cable #99 - 32,875 ( -0.3%)
Dec Cable #100 - 36,224 (+10.2%)
Jan Cable #101 - 31,385 (-13.4%)
Feb Cable #102 - 30,196 ( -3.8%)
Mar Cable #103 - 28,852 ( -4.5%)
Apr Cable #104 - 28,316 ( -1.9%)
May Cable #105 - 27,267 ( -3.7%)
Jun Cable #106 - 26,175 ( -4.0%)
Jul Cable #107 - 26,765 ( +2.3%)
Jul Soldier X #1 - 36,497 (+36.4%)
Aug Soldier X #2 - 30,661 (-16.0%)
1 year ( -6.9%)
6 mnth ( +1.5%)
Another sharp second issue fall. Thus far, this relaunch gimmick is not
looking like a tremendous success.
70. CHAMBER
Aug Chamber #1 - 29,794
A dismal start for the latest X-Men Icons miniseries. I think it's time
Marvel retired the "Icons" banner, and recognised that the quality of
minis put out under that name thus far has not given it a good
reputation.
71. X-FACTOR
Apr X-Factor #1 - 46,768
May X-Factor #2 - 40,076 (-14.3%)
Jun n/a
Jul X-Factor #3 - 31,649 (-21.0%)
Aug X-Factor #4 - 29,701 ( -6.2%)
What is wrong with you people? Marvel finally produces a good X-Men
miniseries and it winds up its run at number 71. Shame.
75. SABRETOOTH: MARY SHELLEY OVERDRIVE
Jun Sabretooth: Mary Shelley Overdrive #1 - 35,776
Jul Sabretooth: Mary Shelley Overdrive #2 - 31,549 (-11.8%)
Aug Sabretooth: Mary Shelley Overdrive #3 - 28,507 ( -9.6%)
Another unimpressive sales figure, but this time I'm not complaining.
The Avengers Icons: Vision mini debuts at number 82, in another
illustration of how unenticing the "Icons" line has become.
91. X-MEN EVOLUTION
Nov X-Men Evolution #1 - 32,619
Dec X-Men Evolution #2 - 25,035 (-23.3%)
Jan X-Men Evolution #3 - 23,841 ( -4.8%)
Feb X-Men Evolution #4 - 19,858 (-16.7%)
Mar X-Men Evolution #5 - 18,499 ( -6.7%)
Apr X-Men Evolution #6 - 17,407 ( -5.9%)
May X-Men Evolution #7 - 16,747 ( -3.8%)
Jun X-Men Evolution #8 - 15,927 ( -4.9%)
Jul X-Men Evolution #9 - 15,243 ( -4.3%)
Aug X-Men Evolution #10 - 24,647 (+61.7%)
1 year ( n/a )
6 mnth (+24.1%)
?!?
Okay, I have no clue what's going on there. Any ideas?
That's the lowest selling X-book. Further down the charts, Joe Casey's
new WildCATS series debuts at number 100 with orders of 22,127. I think
the magic words are "Not long for this world."
Marvel's lowest selling title in August is Elektra: Glimpse & Echo #2,
placing at number 130 with orders of 17,143. Given that the parent book
isn't exactly healthy itself, you have to wonder what possessed Marvel
to think a spinoff miniseries was going to pay for itself.
Adam Pollina's miniseries for DC, Big Daddy Danger, debuts at a
disastrous number 181, with orders of 9,675. This is supposed to be a
nine issue miniseries, but unless DC have their eye on the trade
paperback market for the book, I suspect they may be rethinking that one
right now.
So... comments?
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
NTL - even worse than I'd heard.
Jim Connick
"Paul O'Brien" wrote
<snip lots>
: 91. X-MEN EVOLUTION
: Nov X-Men Evolution #1 - 32,619
: Dec X-Men Evolution #2 - 25,035 (-23.3%)
: Jan X-Men Evolution #3 - 23,841 ( -4.8%)
: Feb X-Men Evolution #4 - 19,858 (-16.7%)
: Mar X-Men Evolution #5 - 18,499 ( -6.7%)
: Apr X-Men Evolution #6 - 17,407 ( -5.9%)
: May X-Men Evolution #7 - 16,747 ( -3.8%)
: Jun X-Men Evolution #8 - 15,927 ( -4.9%)
: Jul X-Men Evolution #9 - 15,243 ( -4.3%)
: Aug X-Men Evolution #10 - 24,647 (+61.7%)
: 1 year ( n/a )
: 6 mnth (+24.1%)
:
: ?!?
:
: Okay, I have no clue what's going on there. Any ideas?
Isn't this cancelled as of number 9?
Thus, the huge spike in figures could be down to retailers ordering stacks
of a book they know they don't have to pay for in order to meet Marvel sales
incentives?
This situation was hinted at by Rich Johnston a couple of weeks ago.
Jim
Sean Walsh
news:QszeTaVp...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...
>
> 4. TRANSFORMERS: ARMADA
> Jul Transformers Armada #1 - 135,930
> Aug Transformers Armada #2 - 109,532 (-19.4%)
>
> I do believe I see a craze peaking.
Think of this as a nostalgia spin-off. Something the nostalgia crazies (like
me, sorta) don't really need.
> 6. AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
> Aug Amazing Spider-Man #34 - 79,588 ( +0.0%)
> Sep Amazing Spider-Man #35 - 83,559 ( +5.0%)
> Oct Amazing Spider-Man #36 - 86,456 ( +3.5%)
> Nov Amazing Spider-Man #37 - 87,112 ( +0.8%)
> Dec Amazing Spider-Man #38 - 88,666 ( +1.8%)
> Jan Amazing Spider-Man #39 - 90,788 ( +2.4%)
> Feb Amazing Spider-Man #40 - 90,551 ( -0.3%)
> Mar Amazing Spider-Man #41 - 92,896 ( +2.6%)
> Apr Amazing Spider-Man #40 (resolicited) - 99,273 ( +6.9%)
> May Amazing Spider-Man #41 (resolicited) - 97,947 ( -1.3%)
> Jun Amazing Spider-Man #42 - 96,537 ( -1.4%)
> Jul Amazing Spider-Man #43 - 98,980 ( +2.5%)
> Aug Amazing Spider-Man #44 - 100,070 ( +1.1%)
> 1 year (+25.7%)
> 6 mnth (+10.5%)
>
> Still riding the crest of the movie, although the book's been on a
> general climb for months. I must admit I don't get why Straczynski's
> version of the character is doing so well - it's good, but not THAT good
> - but clearly it's working.
Amazing Spider-Man over 100K. When's the last time that happened? (I think
it's been a while)
> Not much of note here. Holding very steady indeed. But next, the first
> two Chuck Austen issues of Uncanny X-Men. And the big question is -
> what happens to sales with Casey replaced?
>
> 13,14. UNCANNY X-MEN
> Aug Uncanny X-Men #397 - 116,247 ( -1.1%)
> Sep Uncanny X-Men #398 - 112,744 ( -3.0%)
> Oct Uncanny X-Men #399 - 110,158 ( -2.3%)
> Nov Uncanny X-Men #400 - 125,044 (+13.5%)
> Dec Uncanny X-Men #401 - 105,646 (-15.5%)
> Jan Uncanny X-Men #402 - 101,145 ( -4.3%)
> Feb Uncanny X-Men #403 - 97,079 ( -4.0%)
> Mar Uncanny X-Men #404 - 95,386 ( -1.7%)
> Apr Uncanny X-Men #405 - 93,909 ( -1.5%)
> May Uncanny X-Men #406 - 91,356 ( -2.7%)
> Jun Uncanny X-Men #407 - 88,448 ( -3.2%)
> Jul Uncanny X-Men #408 - 87,074 ( -1.6%)
> Jul Uncanny X-Men #409 - 86,942 ( -0.2%)
> Aug Uncanny X-Men #410 - 87,008 ( +0.1%)
> Aug Uncanny X-Men #411 - 86,875 ( -0.2%)
> 1 year (-25.3%)
> 6 mnth (-10.5%)
>
>
> And the answer is no. Well, I suppose if you were being very generous
> you could say it's stemmed the decline, but really, that's a "who cares"
> reaction.
Maybe it's a "haven't noticed because we abandoned UXM months ago and have
yet to take notice of any salvation" reaction...?
> 15. BATTLE OF THE PLANETS
> Jul Battle of the Planets #1 - 109,797
> Aug Battle of the Planets #2 - 71,982 (-34.4%)
>
> I can almost feel sanity returning to the world. It's the highest
> placed Image book, by the way.
I'm honestly still trying to remember Battle of the Planets.
> 39. CALL OF DUTY: THE BROTHERHOOD
> Jun Call of Duty: The Brotherhood #1 - 37,558
> Jul Call of Duty: The Brotherhood #2 - 30,139 (-19.8%)
> Aug Call of Duty: The Brotherhood #3 - 40,176 (+33.3%)
>
> 40. CALL OF DUTY: THE PRECINCT
> Jul Call of Duty: The Precinct #1 - 33,102
> Aug Call of Duty: The Precinct #2 - 39,823 (+20.3%)
>
> Jesus. Talk about an upward correction. This is bizarre - especially
> given that it comes before the first issue shipped. Those first issues
> are going to be worth something...
I'll bet Joe and Bill are out a shitload of money having bought so many
issues of these series themselves to get sales spikes like those... :p
> 70. CHAMBER
> Aug Chamber #1 - 29,794
>
> A dismal start for the latest X-Men Icons miniseries. I think it's time
> Marvel retired the "Icons" banner, and recognised that the quality of
> minis put out under that name thus far has not given it a good
> reputation.
Or perhaps they should get more name creators and more noticable characters?
I like the idea of the Icons line........but for cripe's sake, why the f*ck
is Chamber an Icon?
> 91. X-MEN EVOLUTION
> Nov X-Men Evolution #1 - 32,619
> Dec X-Men Evolution #2 - 25,035 (-23.3%)
> Jan X-Men Evolution #3 - 23,841 ( -4.8%)
> Feb X-Men Evolution #4 - 19,858 (-16.7%)
> Mar X-Men Evolution #5 - 18,499 ( -6.7%)
> Apr X-Men Evolution #6 - 17,407 ( -5.9%)
> May X-Men Evolution #7 - 16,747 ( -3.8%)
> Jun X-Men Evolution #8 - 15,927 ( -4.9%)
> Jul X-Men Evolution #9 - 15,243 ( -4.3%)
> Aug X-Men Evolution #10 - 24,647 (+61.7%)
> 1 year ( n/a )
> 6 mnth (+24.1%)
>
> ?!?
>
> Okay, I have no clue what's going on there. Any ideas?
To add to the confusion, it's getting cancelled. With #10, I think.
> That's the lowest selling X-book. Further down the charts, Joe Casey's
> new WildCATS series debuts at number 100 with orders of 22,127. I think
> the magic words are "Not long for this world."
Which is a shame, since his last WildCATS series was quite good.
> Adam Pollina's miniseries for DC, Big Daddy Danger, debuts at a
> disastrous number 181, with orders of 9,675. This is supposed to be a
> nine issue miniseries, but unless DC have their eye on the trade
> paperback market for the book, I suspect they may be rethinking that one
> right now.
Yikes. We might be seeing this decade's Sonic Disruptors... ;p
When DC launched the message board on their site for this series, there
must've been a good dozen-or-so threads wondering what the f*ck "Big Daddy
Danger" was. And I'll bet however many people are frequenting that board
still aren't sure...
--
Sean
Sean-Walsh.com!!! Just guess the URL...
New Gods Library: http://fastbak.tripod.com
Quantum Piett! http://www.geocities.com/quantumpiett/
My latest eBay auctions: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/slwalsh/
¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
James Moar
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 3. ULTIMATES
>
> In the de facto number two position this month, and also outselling
> Armada - and with a 10% sales increase over last month. This must bode
> well for Ultimates to cement itself at the top of the charts once
> Transformers: Generation One is out of the way. Love the book or hate
> it, it's plainly a huge hit.
It seems Mark Millar's providing What They Want. Which isn't what I'd
have guessed They Want,
>
> 5,10. THUNDERCATS
> Aug Thundercats #0 - 96,745
> Aug Thundercats: Reclaiming Thundera #1 - 101,551 (+5.0%)
>
> Number ten for the zero issue, number five for the first issue of the
> miniseries itself. This is very respectable but not as earth-shattering
> as Transformers or, for that matter, Battle of the Planets. I'm betting
> this is the tail end of the retro craze and it's all downhill from here
> for the nostalgia revivalists.
There's still MASK, He-Man, Visionaries, She-Ra, Inhumanoids and Brave
Starr to go...
(I don't think anyone's signed up the last four yet. But it's hard to
keep up.)
>
> 6. AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
> Aug Amazing Spider-Man #34 - 79,588 ( +0.0%)
> Sep Amazing Spider-Man #35 - 83,559 ( +5.0%)
> Oct Amazing Spider-Man #36 - 86,456 ( +3.5%)
> Nov Amazing Spider-Man #37 - 87,112 ( +0.8%)
> Dec Amazing Spider-Man #38 - 88,666 ( +1.8%)
> Jan Amazing Spider-Man #39 - 90,788 ( +2.4%)
> Feb Amazing Spider-Man #40 - 90,551 ( -0.3%)
> Mar Amazing Spider-Man #41 - 92,896 ( +2.6%)
> Apr Amazing Spider-Man #40 (resolicited) - 99,273 ( +6.9%)
> May Amazing Spider-Man #41 (resolicited) - 97,947 ( -1.3%)
> Jun Amazing Spider-Man #42 - 96,537 ( -1.4%)
> Jul Amazing Spider-Man #43 - 98,980 ( +2.5%)
> Aug Amazing Spider-Man #44 - 100,070 ( +1.1%)
> 1 year (+25.7%)
> 6 mnth (+10.5%)
>
> Still riding the crest of the movie, although the book's been on a
> general climb for months. I must admit I don't get why Straczynski's
> version of the character is doing so well - it's good, but not THAT good
> - but clearly it's working.
I think it's that he's able to bring in Babylon 5 fans from inside and
outside comics, whilst most writers don't have that crossover
recognition. The same with Kevin Smith.
Doesn't quite explain why Joss Wheedon's stuff doesn't do so well,
unless it's that people want to see beloved writer X take on beloved
character Y, rather than create new character Z.
> 8,9. NEW X-MEN
> Aug New X-Men #130 - 98,796 ( -0.0%)
> Aug New X-Men #131 - 98,805 ( +0.0%)
> 13,14. UNCANNY X-MEN
> Aug Uncanny X-Men #410 - 87,008 ( +0.1%)
> Aug Uncanny X-Men #411 - 86,875 ( -0.2%)
> And the answer is no. Well, I suppose if you were being very generous
> you could say it's stemmed the decline, but really, that's a "who cares"
> reaction.
The gap between the two "core" books is larger than I thought.
Maybe Chuck Austen will get word of mouth (even if the word is just
that Casey's gone). Maybe not.
>
> 15. BATTLE OF THE PLANETS
> Jul Battle of the Planets #1 - 109,797
> Aug Battle of the Planets #2 - 71,982 (-34.4%)
>
> I can almost feel sanity returning to the world.
Mark my words, between now and the return of sanity lies a Rainbow
Brite revival.
> 38. X-STATIX
> Aug X-Statix #2 - 41,140 (-13.0%)
> 1 year (-20.7%)
> 6 mnth ( -7.4%)
>
> Ouch. This clearly indicates that the retailers have no faith in the
> relaunch bringing in any new readers to this book. Marvel can't be
> happy with those figures.
To be selfish about this, I kind of worry that changing the name will
drive off all the gritted-teeth X-Force completists.
And I expect a new X-Force book fairly soon.
>
> 39. CALL OF DUTY: THE BROTHERHOOD
> Jun Call of Duty: The Brotherhood #1 - 37,558
> Jul Call of Duty: The Brotherhood #2 - 30,139 (-19.8%)
> Aug Call of Duty: The Brotherhood #3 - 40,176 (+33.3%)
>
>
> 40. CALL OF DUTY: THE PRECINCT
> Jul Call of Duty: The Precinct #1 - 33,102
> Aug Call of Duty: The Precinct #2 - 39,823 (+20.3%)
>
> Jesus. Talk about an upward correction. This is bizarre - especially
> given that it comes before the first issue shipped. Those first issues
> are going to be worth something...
Could be four or five dollars.
> 59. AGENT X
> Not exactly a great second issue here either, but still significantly
> ahead of the last issue of Deadpool. Then again, there's obviously more
> prospect of the relatively low-key Simone Deadpool picking up new
> readers with this stunt than the "everyone's talking about it" X-Force.
It also sounds like it'll be the book to go through the biggest change
of the relaunches, which could help or hinder.
> 70. CHAMBER
> Aug Chamber #1 - 29,794
>
> A dismal start for the latest X-Men Icons miniseries. I think it's time
> Marvel retired the "Icons" banner, and recognised that the quality of
> minis put out under that name thus far has not given it a good
> reputation.
Sounds sensible.
> 91. X-MEN EVOLUTION
> Aug X-Men Evolution #10 - 24,647 (+61.7%)
> 1 year ( n/a )
> 6 mnth (+24.1%)
>
> ?!?
>
> Okay, I have no clue what's going on there. Any ideas?
Guilt feelings?
--
James Moar
James Moar
James Moar <jw...@st-and.ac.uk> wrote:
Forgot to finish this sentence...
> It seems Mark Millar's providing What They Want. Which isn't what I'd
> have guessed They Want,
but then, what do I know? *I* want lots of things that can't shift
10,000 copies...
--
James Moar
Brian Doyle
"Paul O'Brien" <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QszeTaVp...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...
> 2. TRANSFORMERS: GENERATION ONE
> Apr Transformers: Generation One #1 - 119,251
> May Transformers: Generation One #2 - 115,655 ( -3.0%)
> Jun Transformers: Generation One #3 - 131,586 (+13.8%)
> Jul Transformers: Generation One #4 - 126,124 ( -4.2%)
> Aug Transformers: Generation One #5 - 122,829 ( -2.6%)
>
> Nothing terribly surprising about these figures on their own. What's
> interesting is that Transformers: Armada has promptly dropped below the
> five-month-old Generation One miniseries. Clearly there's less
> nostalgia value attaching to Armada, and that must make it a tougher
> sell.
There can't actually _be_ any nostalgia for Armada, it's never existed before.
The Generation1 books have 15 years of toon, comic and a scarily dedicated fanbase to
work with. Armada is an unknown property at present.
> 4. TRANSFORMERS: ARMADA
> Jul Transformers Armada #1 - 135,930
> Aug Transformers Armada #2 - 109,532 (-19.4%)
>
> I do believe I see a craze peaking.
Again, not a craze yet, might pick up once the toon debuts later in the year. The
intro issue of #1 was confusing because nobody had a clue who anyone was, meaning
some of it read like one of those Liefield issues with so many identical new people
standing around having to introduce themselves, you longed for him to give up and
just go for an old Legion style role call panel.
Laura M. Parkinson
>And here we go again with the usual routine. Stand by for excitement!
>Thrills! Statistics!
Wow, have we been getting more into X-Treme X-Men lately, Paul? ;)
>And most of all, the X-books being thoroughly
>hammered by 1980s toy revivals. 7 Zark 7 rules! Whether you like it
>or not.
Hey! I'll have you know that in the entire first issue, there was nary
a 7-Zark-7 to be seen. Thank the gods. From the limited bits I've
seen, Battle of the Planets the comic seems to actually be a blend
between Battle of the Planets the show, and the other
translations/editings of the original. Or perhaps even blended with
the original itself.
Yay!
>Now, you may recall that last month, the Gen13 giveaway issue shifted
>108,249 copies, charting at number 4 (behind both Transformers books and
>Battle of the Planets). This was drastically lower than the orders for
>Batman: The Ten Cent Adventure, and I wondered whether this meant the
>gimmick only worked once, or that Gen13 was a dud. Well, here's your
>answer.
>Aug Fantastic Four #60 - 705,109 (+1,525.5%)
Ouch.
I say, ouch.
>3. ULTIMATES
>Jan Ultimates #1 - 149,289
>Feb Ultimates #2 - 107,342 (-28.1%)
>Mar Ultimates #3 - 102,956 ( -4.1%)
>Apr Ultimates #4 - 103,153 ( +0.2%)
>May Ultimates #5 - 102,524 ( -0.6%)
>Jun Ultimates #6 - 99,473 ( -3.0%)
>Jul Ultimates #7 - 102,396 ( +2.9%)
>Aug Ultimates #8 - 112,570 ( +9.9%)
> 6 mnth ( +0.1%)
>
>In the de facto number two position this month, and also outselling
>Armada - and with a 10% sales increase over last month. This must bode
>well for Ultimates to cement itself at the top of the charts once
>Transformers: Generation One is out of the way. Love the book or hate
>it, it's plainly a huge hit.
Well, at least these numbers will stand until the resolicitation of
#8... where we'll see if the retailers start to lose faith.
At least, I'm fairly positive that #8 was the one that got cancelled
(to be resolicited) this month.
>6. AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
>Aug Amazing Spider-Man #34 - 79,588 ( +0.0%)
>Sep Amazing Spider-Man #35 - 83,559 ( +5.0%)
>Oct Amazing Spider-Man #36 - 86,456 ( +3.5%)
>Nov Amazing Spider-Man #37 - 87,112 ( +0.8%)
>Dec Amazing Spider-Man #38 - 88,666 ( +1.8%)
>Jan Amazing Spider-Man #39 - 90,788 ( +2.4%)
>Feb Amazing Spider-Man #40 - 90,551 ( -0.3%)
>Mar Amazing Spider-Man #41 - 92,896 ( +2.6%)
>Apr Amazing Spider-Man #40 (resolicited) - 99,273 ( +6.9%)
>May Amazing Spider-Man #41 (resolicited) - 97,947 ( -1.3%)
>Jun Amazing Spider-Man #42 - 96,537 ( -1.4%)
>Jul Amazing Spider-Man #43 - 98,980 ( +2.5%)
>Aug Amazing Spider-Man #44 - 100,070 ( +1.1%)
> 1 year (+25.7%)
> 6 mnth (+10.5%)
>
>Still riding the crest of the movie, although the book's been on a
>general climb for months. I must admit I don't get why Straczynski's
>version of the character is doing so well - it's good, but not THAT good
>- but clearly it's working.
Well, is it that Straczynski's version is THAT good, or that the
previous few have been THAT bad?
>13,14. UNCANNY X-MEN
>Aug Uncanny X-Men #397 - 116,247 ( -1.1%)
>Sep Uncanny X-Men #398 - 112,744 ( -3.0%)
>Oct Uncanny X-Men #399 - 110,158 ( -2.3%)
>Nov Uncanny X-Men #400 - 125,044 (+13.5%)
>Dec Uncanny X-Men #401 - 105,646 (-15.5%)
>Jan Uncanny X-Men #402 - 101,145 ( -4.3%)
>Feb Uncanny X-Men #403 - 97,079 ( -4.0%)
>Mar Uncanny X-Men #404 - 95,386 ( -1.7%)
>Apr Uncanny X-Men #405 - 93,909 ( -1.5%)
>May Uncanny X-Men #406 - 91,356 ( -2.7%)
>Jun Uncanny X-Men #407 - 88,448 ( -3.2%)
>Jul Uncanny X-Men #408 - 87,074 ( -1.6%)
>Jul Uncanny X-Men #409 - 86,942 ( -0.2%)
>Aug Uncanny X-Men #410 - 87,008 ( +0.1%)
>Aug Uncanny X-Men #411 - 86,875 ( -0.2%)
> 1 year (-25.3%)
> 6 mnth (-10.5%)
>
>
>And the answer is no. Well, I suppose if you were being very generous
>you could say it's stemmed the decline, but really, that's a "who cares"
>reaction.
Although to be more fair, this could really turn around once the first
issue or two actually hit, and get read. Oh, I'm not saying I hold out
extreme amounts of hope for it, but it could happen.
I also have to wonder out of idle curiosity - just how low would such
a flagship book have to go before getting the axe?
>15. BATTLE OF THE PLANETS
>Jul Battle of the Planets #1 - 109,797
>Aug Battle of the Planets #2 - 71,982 (-34.4%)
>
>I can almost feel sanity returning to the world. It's the highest
>placed Image book, by the way.
*pout*
Shoulda been higher.
>17. WOLVERINE
>Aug Wolverine #167 - 70,237 ( -1.0%)
>Sep Wolverine #168 - 70,909 ( +1.0%)
>Oct Wolverine #169 - 71,314 ( +0.6%)
>Nov Wolverine #170 - 73,398 ( +2.9%)
>Dec Wolverine #171 - 72,909 ( -0.7%)
>Jan Wolverine #172 - 71,574 ( -1.8%)
>Feb Wolverine #173 - 69,684 ( -2.6%)
>Mar Wolverine #174 - 69,340 ( -0.5%)
>Apr Wolverine #175 - 75,528 ( +8.9%)
>May Wolverine #176 - 69,061 ( -8.6%)
>Jun Wolverine #177 - 67,450 ( -2.3%)
>Jun Wolverine #178 - 67,390 ( -0.1%)
>Jul Wolverine #179 - 68,083 ( +1.0%)
>Aug Wolverine #180 - 67,892 ( -0.3%)
> 1 year ( -3.3%)
> 6 mnth ( -2.6%)
>
>Last of the four Matt Nixon fill-ins, and no real change to sales. Then
>again, very little seems to change the sales on Wolverine...
*pout*
Shoulda been lower.
And yeah, I'm starting to think that they could have a "very special"
fill-in issue of Wolverine both written and painted by monkeys, and
it'd still sell about the same.
>38. X-STATIX
>Aug X-Force #119 - 51,854 ( +7.8%)
>Sep X-Force #120 - 51,777 ( -1.5%)
>Oct X-Force #121 - 49,274 ( -4.8%)
>Nov X-Force #122 - 48,501 ( -1.6%)
>Dec X-Force #123 - 47,554 ( -2.0%)
>Jan X-Force #124 - 45,670 ( -4.0%)
>Feb X-Force #125 - 44,404 ( -2.8%)
>Mar X-Force #126 - 43,016 ( -3.1%)
>Apr X-Force #127 - 42,014 ( -2.3%)
>May X-Force #128 - 41,124 ( -2.1%)
>Jun X-Force #129 - 39,662 ( -3.6%)
>Jul X-Statix #1 - 47,303 (+19.3%)
>Aug X-Statix #2 - 41,140 (-13.0%)
> 1 year (-20.7%)
> 6 mnth ( -7.4%)
>
>Ouch. This clearly indicates that the retailers have no faith in the
>relaunch bringing in any new readers to this book. Marvel can't be
>happy with those figures.
Again, I guess I'll have to be fair and say that things could change
after the first issue or two of the relaunch actually have a chance to
hit. Although I kinda doubt it a bit more in this case, since it's
pretty much the same book (from what I gather) as it has been for a
year, in shiny new packaging.
Although it might at least pick up some readers from people who don't
want to start halfway through a long series, or from people who didn't
actually realize that this wasn't the "same old" X-Force.
>39. CALL OF DUTY: THE BROTHERHOOD
>Jun Call of Duty: The Brotherhood #1 - 37,558
>Jul Call of Duty: The Brotherhood #2 - 30,139 (-19.8%)
>Aug Call of Duty: The Brotherhood #3 - 40,176 (+33.3%)
>
>
>40. CALL OF DUTY: THE PRECINCT
>Jul Call of Duty: The Precinct #1 - 33,102
>Aug Call of Duty: The Precinct #2 - 39,823 (+20.3%)
>
>Jesus. Talk about an upward correction. This is bizarre - especially
>given that it comes before the first issue shipped. Those first issues
>are going to be worth something...
Well, unless everyone's decided that it sucks and doesn't want to
touch it with a ten-foot-pole after that...
>59. AGENT X
>Aug Deadpool: Agent of Weapon X #1 - 36,309 (+56.8%)
>Sep Deadpool: Agent of Weapon X #2 - 32,377 (-10.8%)
>Oct Deadpool: Agent of Weapon X #3 - 31,224 ( -3.6%)
>Nov Deadpool: Agent of Weapon X #4 - 31,630 ( +1.3%)
>Dec Deadpool: Funeral for a Freak #1 - 29,550 ( -6.6%)
>Jan Deadpool: Funeral for a Freak #2 - 27,660 ( -6.4%)
>Feb Deadpool: Funeral for a Freak #3 - 26,901 ( -2.7%)
>Mar Deadpool: Funeral for a Freak #4 - 26,021 ( -3.3%)
>Mar Deadpool #65 - 27,362 ( +5.2%)
>Apr Deadpool #66 - 26,652 ( -2.6%)
>May Deadpool #67 - 26,437 ( -0.8%)
>Jun Deadpool #68 - 26,275 ( -0.6%)
>Jul Deadpool #69 - 26,828 ( +2.1%)
>Jul Agent X #1 - 37,418 (+39.5%)
>Aug Agent X #2 - 32,531 (-13.1%)
> 1 year (-10.4%)
> 6 mnth (+20.9%)
>
>Not exactly a great second issue here either, but still significantly
>ahead of the last issue of Deadpool. Then again, there's obviously more
>prospect of the relatively low-key Simone Deadpool picking up new
>readers with this stunt than the "everyone's talking about it" X-Force.
*nods*
It's still horribly unfair...
>70. CHAMBER
>Aug Chamber #1 - 29,794
>
>A dismal start for the latest X-Men Icons miniseries. I think it's time
>Marvel retired the "Icons" banner, and recognised that the quality of
>minis put out under that name thus far has not given it a good
>reputation.
Especially since Chamber isn't exactly what I'd think of as an X-Men
"Icon."
Personally, I'd say Marvel should just take a bloody break from the
minis for a while, rather than rushing out half-assed jobs without a
really good reason to exist four times a month, with an occasional gem
in the rough which gets overlooked amidst all the rest.
>71. X-FACTOR
>Apr X-Factor #1 - 46,768
>May X-Factor #2 - 40,076 (-14.3%)
>Jun n/a
>Jul X-Factor #3 - 31,649 (-21.0%)
>Aug X-Factor #4 - 29,701 ( -6.2%)
>
>What is wrong with you people? Marvel finally produces a good X-Men
>miniseries and it winds up its run at number 71. Shame.
As I said...
>75. SABRETOOTH: MARY SHELLEY OVERDRIVE
>Jun Sabretooth: Mary Shelley Overdrive #1 - 35,776
>Jul Sabretooth: Mary Shelley Overdrive #2 - 31,549 (-11.8%)
>Aug Sabretooth: Mary Shelley Overdrive #3 - 28,507 ( -9.6%)
>
>Another unimpressive sales figure, but this time I'm not complaining.
Well, I might complain since it's still a bit high. *snort*
But then, I'm cynical like that.
>91. X-MEN EVOLUTION
>Nov X-Men Evolution #1 - 32,619
>Dec X-Men Evolution #2 - 25,035 (-23.3%)
>Jan X-Men Evolution #3 - 23,841 ( -4.8%)
>Feb X-Men Evolution #4 - 19,858 (-16.7%)
>Mar X-Men Evolution #5 - 18,499 ( -6.7%)
>Apr X-Men Evolution #6 - 17,407 ( -5.9%)
>May X-Men Evolution #7 - 16,747 ( -3.8%)
>Jun X-Men Evolution #8 - 15,927 ( -4.9%)
>Jul X-Men Evolution #9 - 15,243 ( -4.3%)
>Aug X-Men Evolution #10 - 24,647 (+61.7%)
> 1 year ( n/a )
> 6 mnth (+24.1%)
>
>?!?
>
>Okay, I have no clue what's going on there. Any ideas?
People started realizing that it was actually a decent series, and it
took a while for the non-comic folk to maybe realize that a comic of a
show they like to watch existed?
Not that it really matters, since I'm pretty sure that #10 is the one
that got cancelled, with the series slated to end prematurely at #9.
Figures.
>Marvel's lowest selling title in August is Elektra: Glimpse & Echo #2,
>placing at number 130 with orders of 17,143. Given that the parent book
>isn't exactly healthy itself, you have to wonder what possessed Marvel
>to think a spinoff miniseries was going to pay for itself.
Especially a spinoff miniseries with such a bizarre art style, and
also in the bastardized PG+ category, which is just not too good in
the first place. It's too "mature" for the kids and younger readers,
and yet can't really do anything that would be too mature, for a good
bit of drama or realism...
I could see them maybe doing, say, an Elektra or Punisher miniseries
in the PG category to try to get a bit of a larger audience, but not
this.
--
-'-,-'-<<0 Trickster 0>>-'-,-'- lpark...@mindspring.com
http://lparkinson.home.mindspring.com
"Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be
destroyed." -Richard Adams, Watership Down
Laura M. Parkinson
><Paul O'Brien wrote:>
>: Jul X-Men Evolution #9 - 15,243 ( -4.3%)
>: Aug X-Men Evolution #10 - 24,647 (+61.7%)
>: 1 year ( n/a )
>: 6 mnth (+24.1%)
>:
>: ?!?
>:
>: Okay, I have no clue what's going on there. Any ideas?
>
>Isn't this cancelled as of number 9?
>Thus, the huge spike in figures could be down to retailers ordering stacks
>of a book they know they don't have to pay for in order to meet Marvel sales
>incentives?
>This situation was hinted at by Rich Johnston a couple of weeks ago.
Ooooo, meow. I never even thought of that explanation.
I was kinda rooting for it to be the comic itself, but yeah, this
robably does make more sense.
Laura M. Parkinson
>In article <QszeTaVp...@esoterica.demon.co.uk>, Paul O'Brien
><pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Number ten for the zero issue, number five for the first issue of the
>> miniseries itself. This is very respectable but not as earth-shattering
>> as Transformers or, for that matter, Battle of the Planets. I'm betting
>> this is the tail end of the retro craze and it's all downhill from here
>> for the nostalgia revivalists.
>
>There's still MASK, He-Man, Visionaries, She-Ra, Inhumanoids and Brave
>Starr to go...
>
>(I don't think anyone's signed up the last four yet. But it's hard to
>keep up.)
*blink*
Has someone actually signed up to do MASK?
COOL! I predicted that one to myself!
>> 15. BATTLE OF THE PLANETS
>> Jul Battle of the Planets #1 - 109,797
>> Aug Battle of the Planets #2 - 71,982 (-34.4%)
>>
>> I can almost feel sanity returning to the world.
>
>Mark my words, between now and the return of sanity lies a Rainbow
>Brite revival.
My Little Pony!
And don't forget about Strawberry Shortcake...
Oh, and then there's always the Care Bears.
... I think I'm scaring myself.
>> 38. X-STATIX
>> Aug X-Statix #2 - 41,140 (-13.0%)
>> 1 year (-20.7%)
>> 6 mnth ( -7.4%)
>>
>> Ouch. This clearly indicates that the retailers have no faith in the
>> relaunch bringing in any new readers to this book. Marvel can't be
>> happy with those figures.
>
>To be selfish about this, I kind of worry that changing the name will
>drive off all the gritted-teeth X-Force completists.
>
>And I expect a new X-Force book fairly soon.
Well of course. They have to protect the trademark.
HBWolf21
>
>Well of course. They have to protect the trademark.
Can't we just get a new "New Mutants" book instead? Or would that clash with
the plans of Morrison?
Joey
Billy Bissette
news:jwm1-280720...@pam80-1-17-150.man.dial.ntli.net:
It might lose some diehard Deadpool collectors who simply want a
complete run.
On the other hand, its the only relaunch I even care about, and that
is entirely due to Gail Simone already doing a good job.
>> 70. CHAMBER
>> Aug Chamber #1 - 29,794
>>
>> A dismal start for the latest X-Men Icons miniseries. I think it's
>> time Marvel retired the "Icons" banner, and recognised that the
>> quality of minis put out under that name thus far has not given it a
>> good reputation.
>
> Sounds sensible.
Well, Marvel could try the idea of hiring good writers to write about
characters that actualy *are* icons.
The Icons banner isn't about Icons, its about the characters that
Marvel knows in advance can't sell a series, else they'd have a series.
So you get books about characters that can't sell a book, and which
are not written by names which can sell a book on their own.
Marvel should:
1) Realize the idea as executed is innately flawed. (But how can they
not?)
2) Have good stories by good writers about characters that actually
*are* icons. (But these characters already have books, or at least
feature prominently in group books, or both.)
3) Have really darn popular/great writers write really excellent stories
about characters that might not actually be icons, or are icons that
people don't really care about, in the hopes that their Icon appearance
raises interest in other books. (Perhaps the most forward thinking
idea, but it is more likely they will continue as they do now and
eventually can the idea instead.)
Samy Merchi
2002:
>>38. X-STATIX
>>Jul X-Statix #1 - 47,303 (+19.3%)
>>Aug X-Statix #2 - 41,140 (-13.0%)
> Although it might at least pick up some readers from people who
> don't want to start halfway through a long series, or from people
> who didn't actually realize that this wasn't the "same old"
> X-Force.
Or who resented the name. :b
--
Samy Merchi | sa...@iki.fi | http://www.iki.fi/samy | #152235689
Reader of superhero comic books, writer of superhero fanfiction
"*Astrolabe*...whirls...*twirls*!"
Jeremy Henderson
Parkinson) wrote:
>>There's still MASK, He-Man, Visionaries, She-Ra, Inhumanoids and Brave
>>Starr to go...
>>
>>(I don't think anyone's signed up the last four yet. But it's hard to
>>keep up.)
>
>*blink*
>
>Has someone actually signed up to do MASK?
Ahh, MASK...just what America needed in the 80s, a cartoon that
promoted bad spelling to children (MASK stood for Mobile Armored
Strike Kommand, if I recall correctly).
HBWolf21
>>>Starr to go...
>>>
Isn't there a Robotech comic in the planning stages too? Man that series takes
me back...
Joey
Billy Bissette
news:urv6kucs21h45rr5h...@4ax.com:
And Brave Starr was better in teaching political correctness through
the idea of "cowboys and indians in space, and the cowboy is an indian"?
(And yes, it really did harp on political correctness.)
MASK was a bad GIJoe knock-off, with a wannabe Transformers theme (the
cars "transformed" from their "mask" of a regular vehicle into the real
combat machines they were). Brave Starr was He-Man in the future past
without the quality of writing or animation (and yes, I'm being serious).
Some of these things should stay nostalgia, and some should stay
forgotten. (She-Ra being another.)
Now Galaxy Rangers... That deserves a return. Maybe even Sabre Riders
and the suprisingly not actually garbage Jason and the Wheeled Warriors.
Lia Brown
<brian...@afdigest.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"Paul O'Brien" <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:QszeTaVp...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...
>> Nothing terribly surprising about these figures on their own. What's
>> interesting is that Transformers: Armada has promptly dropped below the
>> five-month-old Generation One miniseries. Clearly there's less
>> nostalgia value attaching to Armada, and that must make it a tougher
>> sell.
>
>There can't actually _be_ any nostalgia for Armada, it's never existed before.
Yes, it's a new series spinning off from the Transformers franchise.
>> 4. TRANSFORMERS: ARMADA
>> Jul Transformers Armada #1 - 135,930
>> Aug Transformers Armada #2 - 109,532 (-19.4%)
>>
>> I do believe I see a craze peaking.
>
>Again, not a craze yet, might pick up once the toon debuts later in the year. The
>intro issue of #1 was confusing because nobody had a clue who anyone was, meaning
>some of it read like one of those Liefield issues with so many identical new people
>standing around having to introduce themselves, you longed for him to give up and
>just go for an old Legion style role call panel.
Yeah, I didn't think too highly of the first issue. The writing
wasn't even technically all that good...hell, that weird re-captioned
Armada comic from the toy packages was much more entertaining ;)
http://www.jagaroth.freeserve.co.uk/articles/arm/index.htm
Lia
"I'd give you a massage, but I don't know you too well and your
boyfriend can manipulate reality." --NotWedge
Freedom Force: http://tatooine.fortunecity.com/bear/353/ffintro.html
Brian Hance
200+ post thread on Jem and the Holograms at this point. Damnit.
*sigh*
--
Brian "Where's drh when you need him" Hance
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself.
They're pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings."
Humphrey Bogart from THE BIG SLEEP
The Phoenix
>I'm dissapointed. This is racmx. This SHOULD have devolved into a
>200+ post thread on Jem and the Holograms at this point. Damnit.
>
>*sigh*
Yeah, really!
Ahhh, for the good ol' days...
J
IRC: Foenix/Kinetix | Jason Bourgeois | Foe...@subreality.com
Unofficial torch-lighter of the Church of X-Books
Official Keeper of XBooks Future Histories and Rachel Summers Flame
"I'm me. That's all I need to be." ~ Brucha S. Meyers
Jeremy Henderson
<bai...@coastalnet.com> wrote:
> Now Galaxy Rangers... That deserves a return. Maybe even Sabre Riders
>and the suprisingly not actually garbage Jason and the Wheeled Warriors.
Galaxy Rangers ruled, at least it did in my memory, it's been almost
20 years since Isaw the cartoon, so I may just be misremembering it as
better than it was (see Dungeons and Dragons cartoon as example).
Jasonand and the Wheeled Warriors actually was a pretty good cartoon,
much better than the silly "guys driving around in cars made of
plants" concept appeared.
If they were gonna bring back an old anime, I'd have much preferred to
see Starblazers return than Battle of the Planets.
Andy Sheets
news:aXF09.140844$_51....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> When DC launched the message board on their site for this series, there
> must've been a good dozen-or-so threads wondering what the f*ck "Big Daddy
> Danger" was. And I'll bet however many people are frequenting that board
> still aren't sure...
It's too bad because Pollina's not a bad artist at all and the concept
sounds kind of fun. Something about masked luchadors and comics just goes
together naturally, at least I think so :)
Andy
Sean Walsh
news:VDT09.569$w45....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
I'll be curious to see how Phil Hester's wrestling mini/maxiseries over at
Image does in comparison to this one...
Andy Sheets
news:jwm1-280720...@pam80-1-17-150.man.dial.ntli.net...
> I think it's that he's able to bring in Babylon 5 fans from inside and
> outside comics, whilst most writers don't have that crossover
> recognition. The same with Kevin Smith.
>
> Doesn't quite explain why Joss Wheedon's stuff doesn't do so well,
> unless it's that people want to see beloved writer X take on beloved
> character Y, rather than create new character Z.
That's it. I also think there's a small factor that while JMS did Babylon 5,
which is straight up sci-fi, and Smith is known for movies with lots of
raunchy jokes, Whedon is known for Buffy, and there's probably a certain
percentage of fans who are too kewl to watch a show called Buffy the Vampire
Slayer ;)
Andy
Eric J. Moreels
Yes, but that wasn't announced until after #10 had been solicited.
> Thus, the huge spike in figures could be down to retailers ordering stacks
> of a book they know they don't have to pay for in order to meet Marvel
sales
> incentives?
> This situation was hinted at by Rich Johnston a couple of weeks ago.
Possibly, but would there have been that many late orders filed for this,
considering the cancellation with #9 wasn't announced until late in the
ordering cycle for August product.
Could also be that #10 was set to introduce the X-Men: Evolution version of
Mr Sinister as well as resolving a sub-plot across the last few issues
involving Beast. Just from the preview pic of #10's cover posted at my
X-Fan site, a lot of positive buzz was generated about this issue, much from
fans of the cartoon series who had never picked up the comic before and were
looking to give it a try with #10.
Kinda ironic, huh?
--
Eric J. Moreels
X-Fan Editor-in-Chief
e-mail: xf...@ihug.com.au
Web: http://x-mencomics.com/xfan
Support X-Fan! Buy X-Fan Gear at http://www.cafepress.com/xfan
AIM: XFan2k
"Jim Connick" <ckod@ -spam - hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HFF09.23415$vN6.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Brian Doyle
"James Moar" <jw...@st-and.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:jwm1-280720...@pam80-1-17-150.man.dial.ntli.net...
> There's still MASK, He-Man, Visionaries, She-Ra, Inhumanoids and Brave
> Starr to go...
>
> (I don't think anyone's signed up the last four yet. But it's hard to
> keep up.)
She-Ra will probably be along soon if He-Man does well.
Visionaries was a great toon, political intruige, selfish amorality in the lead
wizard guy Merklynn, farmers using magical spells to fertilise their lands being sued
by those who didn't have access to the same spells under the terms of unfair
competition.
It'd be nice if they could get around to finishing that last story from the Marvel
comic, the one that got cancelled half way through.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
Sean Walsh wrote:
> Amazing Spider-Man over 100K. When's the last time that happened? (I think
> it's been a while)
I would guess that it was either during the Clone Saga or at the time of the
Byrne/ Mackie relaunch.
--Marc
Marc-Oliver Frisch
Paul O'Brien wrote:
> Not much of note here. Holding very steady indeed. But next, the first
> two Chuck Austen issues of Uncanny X-Men. And the big question is -
> what happens to sales with Casey replaced?
[snip]
> Aug Uncanny X-Men #410 - 87,008 ( +0.1%)
> Aug Uncanny X-Men #411 - 86,875 ( -0.2%)
> 1 year (-25.3%)
> 6 mnth (-10.5%)
> And the answer is no. Well, I suppose if you were being very generous
> you could say it's stemmed the decline, but really, that's a "who cares"
> reaction.
I guess it's fully up to Austen's writing now if he's going to stay around
longer than Casey did.
> Number 26 is Geoff Johns' first issue of Avengers. Sales are back up to
> where they were six months ago, but not up to pre-Kang War levels.
Rather disappointing, considering that AVENGERS used to be one of Marvel's
constant Top Ten titles for years after the Busiek/ Perez relaunch. I hope
Johns and Dwyer have the stuff to let it mount the charts again.
> 70. CHAMBER
> Aug Chamber #1 - 29,794
>
> A dismal start for the latest X-Men Icons miniseries.
Which is probably a shame, since the premise of the story sounds rather
solid for once.
> That's the lowest selling X-book. Further down the charts, Joe Casey's
> new WildCATS series debuts at number 100 with orders of 22,127. I think
> the magic words are "Not long for this world."
What's strange is that #2 of the book is absent from the PREVIEWS order
form, although it appears in the catalogue. It couldn't possibly have been
sacked already, or could it?
--Marc
Marc-Oliver Frisch
Eric J. Moreels wrote:
> Could also be that #10 was set to introduce the X-Men: Evolution version
of
> Mr Sinister as well as resolving a sub-plot across the last few issues
> involving Beast. Just from the preview pic of #10's cover posted at my
> X-Fan site, a lot of positive buzz was generated about this issue, much
from
> fans of the cartoon series who had never picked up the comic before and
were
> looking to give it a try with #10.
I like the Rich Johnston thesis better. ;)
--Marc
Laura M. Parkinson
>Jeremy Henderson <hell...@verizon.net> wrote in
>news:urv6kucs21h45rr5h...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 01:30:55 GMT, lpark...@mindspring.com (Laura M.
>> Parkinson) wrote:
>>
>>>>There's still MASK, He-Man, Visionaries, She-Ra, Inhumanoids and Brave
>>>>Starr to go...
>>>>
>>>>(I don't think anyone's signed up the last four yet. But it's hard to
>>>>keep up.)
>>>
>>>*blink*
>>>
>>>Has someone actually signed up to do MASK?
>>
>> Ahh, MASK...just what America needed in the 80s, a cartoon that
>> promoted bad spelling to children (MASK stood for Mobile Armored
>> Strike Kommand, if I recall correctly).
You recall correctly.
Luckily, I already knew that was wrong at the time, and it didn't
screw up my spelling. ;)
> MASK was a bad GIJoe knock-off, with a wannabe Transformers theme (the
>cars "transformed" from their "mask" of a regular vehicle into the real
>combat machines they were).
Hey, but it was fun!
> Now Galaxy Rangers... That deserves a return. Maybe even Sabre Riders
>and the suprisingly not actually garbage Jason and the Wheeled Warriors.
Galaxy Rangers I remember liking fairly well. Sabre Riders I don't
recall at all. Jason and the Wheeled Warriors I absolutely loved at
the time, and about all I remember is just being horribly disappointed
at the episode where they *finally* found Jason's father, only to lose
him again in some bizarre warp or something.
Laura M. Parkinson
>I'm dissapointed. This is racmx. This SHOULD have devolved into a
>200+ post thread on Jem and the Holograms at this point. Damnit.
Bah.
That's Truly Outrageous.
Laura M. Parkinson
>
>Paul O'Brien wrote:
>
>> That's the lowest selling X-book. Further down the charts, Joe Casey's
>> new WildCATS series debuts at number 100 with orders of 22,127. I think
>> the magic words are "Not long for this world."
>
>What's strange is that #2 of the book is absent from the PREVIEWS order
>form, although it appears in the catalogue. It couldn't possibly have been
>sacked already, or could it?
Nah, if it's in the catalogue but not in the order form, I suspect
it's probably just a mistake in leaving it out of the one. Hell, the
Diamond Dateline usually has a fairly large list of things like this
that they screwed up printing. Well, some of them are the fault of the
publisher of the book/item, but not all.
Samy Merchi
> Brian Hance <bha...@net-prophet.com> rhapsodized in blue:
>
>>I'm dissapointed. This is racmx. This SHOULD have devolved into a
>>200+ post thread on Jem and the Holograms at this point. Damnit.
> That's Truly Outrageous.
Truly, truly, truly outrageous.
Whoaa Jem (Jem) / the music's contagious (outrageous) / Jem is my name
no one else is the same / Je--
uh...nevermind...
Paul O'Brien
Connick <ckod@-spam.-.invalid> writes
>
>Isn't this cancelled as of number 9?
>Thus, the huge spike in figures could be down to retailers ordering
>stacks of a book they know they don't have to pay for in order to meet
>Marvel sales incentives? This situation was hinted at by Rich Johnston
>a couple of weeks ago.
I think we have a winner.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
NTL - even worse than I'd heard.
Paul O'Brien
<lpark...@mindspring.com> writes
>
>Has someone actually signed up to do MASK?
I think I remember reading somebody was bidding for it, yes.
Anyone done Jem & The Holograms yet?
Paul O'Brien
Bissette <bai...@coastalnet.com> writes
>
> Well, Marvel could try the idea of hiring good writers to write about
>characters that actualy *are* icons.
Brian Vaughan is writing the Chamber miniseries, and he writes Hood and
Y, both of which are good. On the other hand, he also wrote the Cyclops
miniseries, which wasn't. Still, I think there's a reasonable prospect
that Chamber's miniseries could be decent.
The problem is that this is a book for which there is no demand.
Nobody's interested in seeing a spin-off miniseries from the most
heatless X-Men book of them all, and none of the creative team have the
fanbase to sell the series on their own.
Christian Henriksson
<pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> sayeth thus:
>And here we go again with the usual routine. Stand by for excitement!
>Thrills! Statistics! And most of all, the X-books being thoroughly
>hammered by 1980s toy revivals. 7 Zark 7 rules! Whether you like it
>or not.
Am I the only one who hasn't got a clue about Transformers, Battle of
the Planets, 7 Zark 7, and all these other wonderful buzzwords people
are using everywhere?
>3. ULTIMATES
>Jan Ultimates #1 - 149,289
>Feb Ultimates #2 - 107,342 (-28.1%)
>Mar Ultimates #3 - 102,956 ( -4.1%)
>Apr Ultimates #4 - 103,153 ( +0.2%)
>May Ultimates #5 - 102,524 ( -0.6%)
>Jun Ultimates #6 - 99,473 ( -3.0%)
>Jul Ultimates #7 - 102,396 ( +2.9%)
>Aug Ultimates #8 - 112,570 ( +9.9%)
> 6 mnth ( +0.1%)
>
>In the de facto number two position this month, and also outselling
>Armada - and with a 10% sales increase over last month. This must bode
>well for Ultimates to cement itself at the top of the charts once
>Transformers: Generation One is out of the way. Love the book or hate
>it, it's plainly a huge hit.
Personally, I'm waiting for the trade, but this looks like a promising
book.
>6. AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
>Aug Amazing Spider-Man #34 - 79,588 ( +0.0%)
>Sep Amazing Spider-Man #35 - 83,559 ( +5.0%)
>Oct Amazing Spider-Man #36 - 86,456 ( +3.5%)
>Nov Amazing Spider-Man #37 - 87,112 ( +0.8%)
>Dec Amazing Spider-Man #38 - 88,666 ( +1.8%)
>Jan Amazing Spider-Man #39 - 90,788 ( +2.4%)
>Feb Amazing Spider-Man #40 - 90,551 ( -0.3%)
>Mar Amazing Spider-Man #41 - 92,896 ( +2.6%)
>Apr Amazing Spider-Man #40 (resolicited) - 99,273 ( +6.9%)
>May Amazing Spider-Man #41 (resolicited) - 97,947 ( -1.3%)
>Jun Amazing Spider-Man #42 - 96,537 ( -1.4%)
>Jul Amazing Spider-Man #43 - 98,980 ( +2.5%)
>Aug Amazing Spider-Man #44 - 100,070 ( +1.1%)
> 1 year (+25.7%)
> 6 mnth (+10.5%)
>
>Still riding the crest of the movie, although the book's been on a
>general climb for months. I must admit I don't get why Straczynski's
>version of the character is doing so well - it's good, but not THAT good
>- but clearly it's working.
Again, I read the trades, but as a former Spider-Man reader who jumped
ship shortly after Aunt May was brought back, I only see good in what
JMS is doing (well, almost).
> But next, the first
>two Chuck Austen issues of Uncanny X-Men. And the big question is -
>what happens to sales with Casey replaced?
>
>
>13,14. UNCANNY X-MEN
<snip>
>
>And the answer is no.
Interesting answer. A case of late-minute editing or deliberate?
>Well, I suppose if you were being very generous
>you could say it's stemmed the decline, but really, that's a "who cares"
>reaction.
Indeed.
>18. X-TREME X-MEN
>Aug X-Treme X-Men #4 - 95,445 ( -2.7%)
>Sep X-Treme X-Men #5 - 89,825 ( -5.9%)
>Oct X-Treme X-Men #6 - 86,876 ( -3.3%)
>Nov X-Treme X-Men #7 - 84,326 ( -2.9%)
>Dec X-Treme X-Men #8 - 80,818 ( -4.2%)
>Jan X-Treme X-Men #9 - 77,767 ( -3.8%)
>Feb X-Treme X-Men #10 - 74,457 ( -4.3%)
>Mar X-Treme X-Men #11 - 72,892 ( -2.1%)
>Apr X-Treme X-Men #12 - 71,855 ( -1.4%)
>May X-Treme X-Men #13 - 69,741 ( -2.9%)
>Jun X-Treme X-Men #14 - 67,195 ( -3.7%)
>Jul X-Treme X-Men #15 - 65,915 ( -1.9%)
>Jul X-Treme X-Men #16 - 65,688 ( -0.3%)
>Aug X-Treme X-Men #17 - 64,961 ( -1.1%)
> 1 year (-31.9%)
> 6 mnth (-12.8%)
>
>Same old story here, really. It's on a slow crawl downwards and there's
>no real sign of that turning around.
I'm giving Claremont the next storyline. If numbers aren't turning
around with that, I think it's be up for cancellation as soon as
Claremont decides he wants to leave.
>38. X-STATIX
>Aug X-Force #119 - 51,854 ( +7.8%)
>Sep X-Force #120 - 51,777 ( -1.5%)
>Oct X-Force #121 - 49,274 ( -4.8%)
>Nov X-Force #122 - 48,501 ( -1.6%)
>Dec X-Force #123 - 47,554 ( -2.0%)
>Jan X-Force #124 - 45,670 ( -4.0%)
>Feb X-Force #125 - 44,404 ( -2.8%)
>Mar X-Force #126 - 43,016 ( -3.1%)
>Apr X-Force #127 - 42,014 ( -2.3%)
>May X-Force #128 - 41,124 ( -2.1%)
>Jun X-Force #129 - 39,662 ( -3.6%)
>Jul X-Statix #1 - 47,303 (+19.3%)
>Aug X-Statix #2 - 41,140 (-13.0%)
> 1 year (-20.7%)
> 6 mnth ( -7.4%)
>
>Ouch. This clearly indicates that the retailers have no faith in the
>relaunch bringing in any new readers to this book. Marvel can't be
>happy with those figures.
Then again, we have to wait until issue 4 to be certain what the end
results are. (That goes for the other 2 relaunches as well, of
course.)
>41. EXILES
>Aug Exiles #3 - 48,259 ( -7.9%)
>Sep Exiles #4 - 44,444 ( -7.9%)
>Oct Exiles #5 - 42,659 ( -4.0%)
>Nov Exiles #6 - 42,220 ( -1.0%)
>Dec Exiles #7 - 40,075 ( -5.1%)
>Jan Exiles #8 - 39,382 ( -1.7%)
>Feb Exiles #9 - 37,563 ( -4.6%)
>Feb Exiles #10 - 37,542 ( -0.0%)
>Mar Exiles #11 - 37,446 ( -0.3%)
>Apr Exiles #12 - 38,766 ( +3.5%)
>May Exiles #13 - 38,306 ( -1.2%)
>Jun Exiles #14 - 38,448 ( +0.4%)
>Jul Exiles #15 - 38,955 ( +1.3%)
>Aug Exiles #16 - 39,133 ( +0.5%)
> 1 year (-18.9%)
> 6 mnth ( +4.2%)
>
>And it's happy news for Exiles, which now clearly looks to have turned
>the corner and started a slow crawl back up the charts. Good for them.
Yup, nice to see.
Christian Henriksson
(che...@tiscali.se)
--
"Drink," said the Irish priest,
"is this country's great curse.
It makes you quarrel with your neighbours.
It makes you shoot at your landlord,
and it makes you miss."
James Moar
Henriksson <che...@tiscali.se> wrote:
> Lo and behold, on Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:33:13 +0100 Paul O'Brien
> <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> sayeth thus:
>
> >And here we go again with the usual routine. Stand by for excitement!
> >Thrills! Statistics! And most of all, the X-books being thoroughly
> >hammered by 1980s toy revivals. 7 Zark 7 rules! Whether you like it
> >or not.
>
> Am I the only one who hasn't got a clue about Transformers, Battle of
> the Planets, 7 Zark 7, and all these other wonderful buzzwords people
> are using everywhere?
Well, many of the TV shows which popularised these things were seen as
half-hour toy commercials, and I think Sweden might have clamped down
fairly hard on them.
Saves you realising how cheesy all these things were, at least...
--
James Moar
Sean Walsh
news:ai18a7$7r9$06$3...@news.t-online.com...
Now that I think of it, I recall a Jemas statement that made reference to
the Clone Saga dropping sales on Spider-Man from 400K a month to 40K. So
probably the Clone Saga...
Brian Doyle
"Samy Merchi" <sa...@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:Xns9259D367C...@130.232.1.14...
> lpark...@mindspring.com (Laura M. Parkinson) wrote on 28 heinä 2002:
> > Brian Hance <bha...@net-prophet.com> rhapsodized in blue:
> >
> >>I'm dissapointed. This is racmx. This SHOULD have devolved into a
> >>200+ post thread on Jem and the Holograms at this point. Damnit.
>
> > That's Truly Outrageous.
>
> Truly, truly, truly outrageous.
>
> Whoaa Jem (Jem) / the music's contagious (outrageous) / Jem is my name
> no one else is the same / Je--
>
> uh...nevermind...
"But we're the Misfits, our songs are better,
The Misfits, the misfits, and we're gonan get her..."
Actually, I'd better stop there, "Misfits" defines too many of the membrs of this NG
(Myself included of course, as the fact I actually like the Misfits in the show
should let on.)
:)
Brian Doyle
> In message <3d4348e5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Laura M. Parkinson
> <lpark...@mindspring.com> writes
> >
> >Has someone actually signed up to do MASK?
>
> I think I remember reading somebody was bidding for it, yes.
>
> Anyone done Jem & The Holograms yet?
Not that I'm aware of, but I did find a "proper" album Samantha Newark, the singing
voice of Jem, recorded as part of a group called "The Belltower". She actually has a
really nice voice, even if the album was a little alternative for my tastes.
Brian Doyle
"Christian Henriksson" <che...@tiscali.se> wrote in message
news:t1h8kus8m18tt9o31...@4ax.com...
> Lo and behold, on Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:33:13 +0100 Paul O'Brien
> <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> sayeth thus:
>
> >And here we go again with the usual routine. Stand by for excitement!
> >Thrills! Statistics! And most of all, the X-books being thoroughly
> >hammered by 1980s toy revivals. 7 Zark 7 rules! Whether you like it
> >or not.
>
> Am I the only one who hasn't got a clue about Transformers, Battle of
> the Planets, 7 Zark 7, and all these other wonderful buzzwords people
> are using everywhere?
This is the Internet, so "Yes, you are".
You really never had Transformers at all in Sweden?
Samy Merchi
heinä 2002:
>> Am I the only one who hasn't got a clue about Transformers,
>> Battle of the Planets, 7 Zark 7, and all these other wonderful
>> buzzwords people are using everywhere?
>
> You really never had Transformers at all in Sweden?
If Sweden had a policy anything like Finland's, that could indeed be a
'no'. Finnish TV never showed any of these. Transformers, fortunately,
had the benefit of being accessible to those who had cable and could
watch UK channels such as Sky Channel. The other two I've never heard
of though.
Laura M. Parkinson
>"Brian Doyle" <brian...@afdigest.freeserve.co.uk> wrote on 29
>heinä 2002:
>
>>> Am I the only one who hasn't got a clue about Transformers,
>>> Battle of the Planets, 7 Zark 7, and all these other wonderful
>>> buzzwords people are using everywhere?
>>
>> You really never had Transformers at all in Sweden?
>
>If Sweden had a policy anything like Finland's, that could indeed be a
>'no'. Finnish TV never showed any of these. Transformers, fortunately,
>had the benefit of being accessible to those who had cable and could
>watch UK channels such as Sky Channel. The other two I've never heard
>of though.
Well, 7-Zark-7 was actually a character in Battle of the Planets. Not
in the original version of the anime, or in the other editings, just
in Battle of the Planets. Because, see, at the time it came out, they
ended up cutting so much out as "unsuitable" that they ended up having
to put in an extra character (in this case a robot to oversee the team
from a special station), just to take up a bit more time, and to help
explain things since some of the key bits that would otherwise do this
were now gone.
Battle of the Planets was the first U.S. edit of an anime in the '70s
called Kagaku Ninja Tai Gatchaman (aka Science Ninja Team Gatchaman,
or just Gatchaman). Really hacked up, with the introduction as I said
of 7-Zark-7 and other robot characters. Plus the changing of one
fairly normal boy on the team to an android that spoke gibberish when
he tried to communicate, because a) you couldn't have a young kid like
that going out and risking his life, and b) he had to speak gibberish
because, apparently, when you took out all the vulgarity from his
language, he didn't really have much that he was saying otherwise.
Plus they changed all the character names, even when there was no real
reason. I could see changing perhaps "Ryu" to something, and "Jinpei,"
(to Tiny and Keyop, the android), but changing Jun to... Princess? And
Ken and Joe (normal American names) became Mark and Jason. Plus I
believe that they changed the bad guys into robots and aliens, because
you couldn't have the team beating up other humans or some such. I'm
not completely sure of all the details. And we won't even go into the
man/woman main villain... But yet somehow, the show was still great.
At any rate, the same show also later (in the early '90s I THINK, not
sure) got edited as G-Force by Ted Turner (still somewhat heavily
edited, and with name changes like Joe/Jason becoming Dirk Daring, but
not nearly so hacked as BotP), and later still got *another* edit as
Eagle Riders (which I haven't actually manged to see yet, myself).
Then for anime fans, the show got a "reboot" (sorta like in the
Ultimate comics style), and released under the regular name of
Gatchaman, and had I believe the first series somewhat rewritten and
completely smooshed together into three key episodes. There, the
characters kept the same names as in the Japanese, IIRC, and the
English version wasn't edited from the Japanese (since, well, it was
more a straightforward anime release).
And now, the Battle of the Planets comic just had its debut issue
released from Image about a week and a half ago. Go G-Force! And as I
said elsewhere, it doesn't seem to be straight Battle of the Planets,
more a blend of the various takes on it.
And yeah, that's probably a *lot* more info than you needed or even
necessarily wanted, but... I'm a fan. ;)
Snowlock
Paul O'Brien wrote in message ...
>6. AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
>Aug Amazing Spider-Man #34 - 79,588 ( +0.0%)
>Sep Amazing Spider-Man #35 - 83,559 ( +5.0%)
>Oct Amazing Spider-Man #36 - 86,456 ( +3.5%)
>Nov Amazing Spider-Man #37 - 87,112 ( +0.8%)
>Dec Amazing Spider-Man #38 - 88,666 ( +1.8%)
>Jan Amazing Spider-Man #39 - 90,788 ( +2.4%)
>Feb Amazing Spider-Man #40 - 90,551 ( -0.3%)
>Mar Amazing Spider-Man #41 - 92,896 ( +2.6%)
>Apr Amazing Spider-Man #40 (resolicited) - 99,273 ( +6.9%)
>May Amazing Spider-Man #41 (resolicited) - 97,947 ( -1.3%)
>Jun Amazing Spider-Man #42 - 96,537 ( -1.4%)
>Jul Amazing Spider-Man #43 - 98,980 ( +2.5%)
>Aug Amazing Spider-Man #44 - 100,070 ( +1.1%)
> 1 year (+25.7%)
> 6 mnth (+10.5%)
>
>Still riding the crest of the movie, although the book's been on a
>general climb for months. I must admit I don't get why Straczynski's
>version of the character is doing so well
Beacuse it's Stan's Spiderman. The dialogue is good, the art is good. The
characters are the ones we know. It's straigtforward solid writing that
isn't trying to be too clever. It's a formula that Marvel should start to
implement on a lot more titles.
>7. SPIDER-MAN/BLACK CAT: THE EVIL THAT MEN DO
>Jun Spider-Man/Black Cat: The Evil That Men Do #1 - 118,204
>Jul Spider-Man/Black Cat: The Evil That Men Do #2 - 101,607 (-14.0%)
>Aug Spider-Man/Black Cat: The Evil That Men Do #3 - 99,110 ( -2.5%)
>
>More normal miniseries sales patterns here.
Maybe for the percentage of the decline but not total volume. Wow.
Remember a few years ago when everyone thought Spiderman was a washed up
character?
It'll be interesting though if there's room on the top 10 for both JMS and
Kevin Smith ongoing Spidey books.
>8,9. NEW X-MEN
>Aug New X-Men #117 - 120,414 ( -0.2%)
>Sep New X-Men #118 - 118,542 ( -1.6%)
>Oct New X-Men #119 - 115,828 ( -2.3%)
>Nov New X-Men #120 - 116,782 ( +0.8%)
>Dec New X-Men #121 - 112,227 ( -3.9%)
>Jan New X-Men #122 - 109,246 ( -2.7%)
>Feb New X-Men #123 - 105,642 ( -3.3%)
>Mar New X-Men #124 - 104,138 ( -1.4%)
>Apr New X-Men #125 - 104,185 ( +0.0%)
>May New X-Men #126 - 103,189 ( -1.0%)
>Jun New X-Men #127 - 99,672 ( -3.4%)
>Jun New X-Men #128 - 99,018 ( -0.7%)
>Jul New X-Men #129 - 98,817 ( -0.2%)
>Aug New X-Men #130 - 98,796 ( -0.0%)
>Aug New X-Men #131 - 98,805 ( +0.0%)
> 1 year (-17.9%)
> 6 mnth ( -6.5%)
>
>Infinitesimal changes this month, so the book looks to be pretty much
>stable over the last few months. For those keeping track, the books
>outselling New X-Men this month comprised one giveaway comic, one
>Spider-Man book getting a rub from the movie and with impressive sales
>climbs over the last year, and five books which didn't exist when
>Morrison took over the X-Men.
Sounds like you're trying to justify the slip. Look at that loss...
October to August, over 17,000 books. If George Lucas decided to produce
Episodes 7, 8 and 9 in comic book form with Jim Lee on pencils, it still
doesn't expalin why the Morrison book is falling off so sharply. If the
numbers were static your justification of the placement slip would maybe
carry some water. But this book is clearly failing.
>12. ULTIMATE X-MEN
>Aug Ultimate X-Men #9 - 100,109 (+0.6%)
>Sep Ultimate X-Men #10 - 99,862 (-0.2%)
>Oct Ultimate X-Men #11 - 99,329 (-0.5%)
>Nov Ultimate X-Men #12 - 100,668 (+1.3%)
>Dec Ultimate X-Men #13 - 100,442 (-0.2%)
>Jan Ultimate X-Men #14 - 97,690 (-2.7%)
>Feb Ultimate X-Men #15 - 94,713 (-3.0%)
>Mar Ultimate X-Men #16 - 96,150 (+1.6%)
>Apr Ultimate X-Men #17 - 95,887 (-0.3%)
>May Ultimate X-Men #18 - 94,143 (-1.8%)
>Jun Ultimate X-Men #19 - 92,815 (-1.4%)
>Jul Ultimate X-Men #20 - 92,927 (+0.1%)
>Aug Ultimate X-Men #21 - 93,216 (+0.3%)
> 1 year (-6.9%)
> 6 mnth (-1.6%)
>
>Not much of note here.
Except that it's showing at least an infintesimal (sp?) upward trend. Two
months of consecutive gains in a row while the core books continue (at least
a suttering) freefall.
>13,14. UNCANNY X-MEN
>Aug Uncanny X-Men #397 - 116,247 ( -1.1%)
>Sep Uncanny X-Men #398 - 112,744 ( -3.0%)
>Oct Uncanny X-Men #399 - 110,158 ( -2.3%)
>Nov Uncanny X-Men #400 - 125,044 (+13.5%)
>Dec Uncanny X-Men #401 - 105,646 (-15.5%)
>Jan Uncanny X-Men #402 - 101,145 ( -4.3%)
>Feb Uncanny X-Men #403 - 97,079 ( -4.0%)
>Mar Uncanny X-Men #404 - 95,386 ( -1.7%)
>Apr Uncanny X-Men #405 - 93,909 ( -1.5%)
>May Uncanny X-Men #406 - 91,356 ( -2.7%)
>Jun Uncanny X-Men #407 - 88,448 ( -3.2%)
>Jul Uncanny X-Men #408 - 87,074 ( -1.6%)
>Jul Uncanny X-Men #409 - 86,942 ( -0.2%)
>Aug Uncanny X-Men #410 - 87,008 ( +0.1%)
>Aug Uncanny X-Men #411 - 86,875 ( -0.2%)
> 1 year (-25.3%)
> 6 mnth (-10.5%)
Another clear indication that story and art are what sells comics more than
anything. Rotating artists and hack plots are no way to run a railroad. If
Austen goes back to the core of what makes the X Men tick, he has a chance.
If he's going to continue with what the line's doing now, then the slide
will continue.
>17. WOLVERINE
>Aug Wolverine #167 - 70,237 ( -1.0%)
>Sep Wolverine #168 - 70,909 ( +1.0%)
>Oct Wolverine #169 - 71,314 ( +0.6%)
>Nov Wolverine #170 - 73,398 ( +2.9%)
>Dec Wolverine #171 - 72,909 ( -0.7%)
>Jan Wolverine #172 - 71,574 ( -1.8%)
>Feb Wolverine #173 - 69,684 ( -2.6%)
>Mar Wolverine #174 - 69,340 ( -0.5%)
>Apr Wolverine #175 - 75,528 ( +8.9%)
>May Wolverine #176 - 69,061 ( -8.6%)
>Jun Wolverine #177 - 67,450 ( -2.3%)
>Jun Wolverine #178 - 67,390 ( -0.1%)
>Jul Wolverine #179 - 68,083 ( +1.0%)
>Aug Wolverine #180 - 67,892 ( -0.3%)
> 1 year ( -3.3%)
> 6 mnth ( -2.6%)
>
>Last of the four Matt Nixon fill-ins, and no real change to sales. Then
>again, very little seems to change the sales on Wolverine...
An interesting comparison would be the month to month trend of Wolvie during
the whole first year of the loss of adamantium storyline. Not total volume,
but percentage changes over an equal number of months to what's presented
above. Is it really a static title, or is it just a bad title who's single
positive is its name recognition that's managing to at least hold it in
place? In the character over creator debate, this is a shining example that
it's the characters that form the backbone of the company.
>18. X-TREME X-MEN
>Aug X-Treme X-Men #4 - 95,445 ( -2.7%)
>Sep X-Treme X-Men #5 - 89,825 ( -5.9%)
>Oct X-Treme X-Men #6 - 86,876 ( -3.3%)
>Nov X-Treme X-Men #7 - 84,326 ( -2.9%)
>Dec X-Treme X-Men #8 - 80,818 ( -4.2%)
>Jan X-Treme X-Men #9 - 77,767 ( -3.8%)
>Feb X-Treme X-Men #10 - 74,457 ( -4.3%)
>Mar X-Treme X-Men #11 - 72,892 ( -2.1%)
>Apr X-Treme X-Men #12 - 71,855 ( -1.4%)
>May X-Treme X-Men #13 - 69,741 ( -2.9%)
>Jun X-Treme X-Men #14 - 67,195 ( -3.7%)
>Jul X-Treme X-Men #15 - 65,915 ( -1.9%)
>Jul X-Treme X-Men #16 - 65,688 ( -0.3%)
>Aug X-Treme X-Men #17 - 64,961 ( -1.1%)
> 1 year (-31.9%)
> 6 mnth (-12.8%)
>
>Same old story here, really. It's on a slow crawl downwards and there's
>no real sign of that turning around.
Okay, here's a controversial thought. And before flaming please use your
heads and think abstractly instead of PC. Stan Lee was Jewish. All of his
creations were WASPs. I seem to remember him saying that the buying public
in America liked their heroes to be blond/blue white males because that was
the primary market; so that's why Stan and Jack created. This team is
comprised of four or five women, a black male, and Indian Male and one white
guy (if Gambit is part of the team now... dropped the book long ago so I'm
not sure.) Is that why this book doesn't succeed? When McFarlane released
the Spawn movie, he wanted Al Simmons' buddies to be white so it didn't seem
to the public like an all black movie. Now, shame on us and all if the
color of a person's skin or gender really influences the buying habits. But
could that be part of the problem with this book? The stories are by
Claremont, the artist is one of the tops in the industry. There is no real
reason for this freefall that I can see. At the very least it should be
falling at the same percentage as the other two core books. The stories are
no worse than those in Uncanny X Men and the art is better than the art of
both of the other books. The characters are also the classic X Men
characters that the readers can recognize. So is this "minority" team the
cause of this books continued fall? Is it that it's readers don't have any
characters that they can relate to? Pretty sad if that's it, but the
argument is there...
Something else that's kind of interesting... Joe Q removed Claremont from
the core books because it was claimed CC's writing didn't mirror the movie
enough. Well, Morrison's Prof X Walks, the school is there but it seems the
focus now is on an altrusitic corporation. The X Men are outted instead of
lying in the shadow as a fringe group. Magneto is dead. Uncanny doesn't
have a single X man who was in the movie (unless wolverine is in the book).
Cyke and Jean are on the rocks and probably more examples that I can't think
of right now. Way to go, Joe. Mission accomplished, huh?
>38. X-STATIX
>Aug X-Force #119 - 51,854 ( +7.8%)
>Sep X-Force #120 - 51,777 ( -1.5%)
>Oct X-Force #121 - 49,274 ( -4.8%)
>Nov X-Force #122 - 48,501 ( -1.6%)
>Dec X-Force #123 - 47,554 ( -2.0%)
>Jan X-Force #124 - 45,670 ( -4.0%)
>Feb X-Force #125 - 44,404 ( -2.8%)
>Mar X-Force #126 - 43,016 ( -3.1%)
>Apr X-Force #127 - 42,014 ( -2.3%)
>May X-Force #128 - 41,124 ( -2.1%)
>Jun X-Force #129 - 39,662 ( -3.6%)
>Jul X-Statix #1 - 47,303 (+19.3%)
>Aug X-Statix #2 - 41,140 (-13.0%)
> 1 year (-20.7%)
> 6 mnth ( -7.4%)
>
>Ouch.
Heh. Glad to see a relaunch failing. Hate to see anyone's hard work not
pay off, but after all the flames I endured speaking out against this rip
off book with bad art when it first launched under very questionable
circumstances, it's satisfying that it's doing exactly as I predicted it
would; even factoring in the relaunch.
>71. X-FACTOR
>Apr X-Factor #1 - 46,768
>May X-Factor #2 - 40,076 (-14.3%)
>Jun n/a
>Jul X-Factor #3 - 31,649 (-21.0%)
>Aug X-Factor #4 - 29,701 ( -6.2%)
>
>What is wrong with you people? Marvel finally produces a good X-Men
>miniseries and it winds up its run at number 71. Shame.
Cause the characters are not known?
Lia Brown
Before my family had a VCR, I taped all the Misfits songs onto audio
cassettes, with a microphone held up to the TV. I still have all
those tapes, too <g>
Lia
"He has given us a sign! He has given us...HIS SHOE!!"
Freedom Force: http://tatooine.fortunecity.com/bear/353/ffintro.html
BlakGard
>>200+ post thread on Jem and the Holograms at this point. Damnit.
>
>Bah.
>
>That's Truly Outrageous.
Misfit!
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
BlakGard
>>> Battle of the Planets, 7 Zark 7, and all these other wonderful
>>> buzzwords people are using everywhere?
>>
>> You really never had Transformers at all in Sweden?
>
>If Sweden had a policy anything like Finland's, that could indeed be a
>'no'. Finnish TV never showed any of these. Transformers, fortunately,
>had the benefit of being accessible to those who had cable and could
>watch UK channels such as Sky Channel. The other two I've never heard
>of though.
Well, I'm an American, and I've never heard of "7 Zark 7." I only vaguely
recall a mention of Battle of the Planets.
BlakGard
>>>> Battle of the Planets, 7 Zark 7, and all these other wonderful
>>>> buzzwords people are using everywhere?
>>>
>>> You really never had Transformers at all in Sweden?
>>
>>If Sweden had a policy anything like Finland's, that could indeed be a
>>'no'. Finnish TV never showed any of these. Transformers, fortunately,
>>had the benefit of being accessible to those who had cable and could
>>watch UK channels such as Sky Channel. The other two I've never heard
>>of though.
>
>Well, I'm an American, and I've never heard of "7 Zark 7." I only vaguely
>recall a mention of Battle of the Planets.
Er... I take that back. I remember it, now... quite fondly, in fact. I knew it
better as its colloquial title: "G-Force."
Brian Doyle
"BlakGard" <blak...@aol.comix.net> wrote in message
news:20020729032818...@mb-fc.aol.com...
> Er... I take that back. I remember it, now... quite fondly, in fact. I
knew it
> better as its colloquial title: "G-Force."
That was a slightly different dub, though it was broadly the same thing.
Christian Henriksson
<jw...@st-and.ac.uk> sayeth thus:
No, I do think some were shown here (Masters of the Universe comes to
mind at least) - it's just that I never watched. IIRC, no one really
did. :)
Christian Henriksson
<Snowlock...@worldnet.att.net> sayeth thus:
>
>Paul O'Brien wrote in message ...
>
>>7. SPIDER-MAN/BLACK CAT: THE EVIL THAT MEN DO
>>Jun Spider-Man/Black Cat: The Evil That Men Do #1 - 118,204
>>Jul Spider-Man/Black Cat: The Evil That Men Do #2 - 101,607 (-14.0%)
>>Aug Spider-Man/Black Cat: The Evil That Men Do #3 - 99,110 ( -2.5%)
>>
>>More normal miniseries sales patterns here.
>
>Maybe for the percentage of the decline but not total volume. Wow.
>Remember a few years ago when everyone thought Spiderman was a washed up
>character?
>
>It'll be interesting though if there's room on the top 10 for both JMS and
>Kevin Smith ongoing Spidey books.
Probably. JMS is the one most at risk, though.
<snip>
>But this book is clearly failing.
You did note that the biggest part of that slip came in the first four
of those ten months, didn't you?
But you're right that it certainly could be doing much better.
>>12. ULTIMATE X-MEN
>>Aug Ultimate X-Men #9 - 100,109 (+0.6%)
>>Sep Ultimate X-Men #10 - 99,862 (-0.2%)
>>Oct Ultimate X-Men #11 - 99,329 (-0.5%)
>>Nov Ultimate X-Men #12 - 100,668 (+1.3%)
>>Dec Ultimate X-Men #13 - 100,442 (-0.2%)
>>Jan Ultimate X-Men #14 - 97,690 (-2.7%)
>>Feb Ultimate X-Men #15 - 94,713 (-3.0%)
>>Mar Ultimate X-Men #16 - 96,150 (+1.6%)
>>Apr Ultimate X-Men #17 - 95,887 (-0.3%)
>>May Ultimate X-Men #18 - 94,143 (-1.8%)
>>Jun Ultimate X-Men #19 - 92,815 (-1.4%)
>>Jul Ultimate X-Men #20 - 92,927 (+0.1%)
>>Aug Ultimate X-Men #21 - 93,216 (+0.3%)
>> 1 year (-6.9%)
>> 6 mnth (-1.6%)
>>
>>Not much of note here.
>
>Except that it's showing at least an infintesimal (sp?) upward trend.
It certainly does - for two running months. But it's clearly lying
fairly steady compared with most other books on this list.
I don't think you're right. I think that Claremont by now is regarded
as out of touch with his audience, and the general comic buying public
has moved on to other things, seemingly fresher and better.
And I like X-treme!
>At the very least it should be
>falling at the same percentage as the other two core books. The stories are
>no worse than those in Uncanny X Men and the art is better than the art of
>both of the other books. The characters are also the classic X Men
>characters that the readers can recognize. So is this "minority" team the
>cause of this books continued fall? Is it that it's readers don't have any
>characters that they can relate to? Pretty sad if that's it, but the
>argument is there...
If there's any reason above any other for me not being able to relate
to, say, Bishop, it's that he's a comic book character. A fairly close
second is that he's a mutant with superpowers. Very, very distant, and
certainly not among the top 5, is the fact that he's black.
Otherwise, I relate very well to him. :)
>>38. X-STATIX
>>Aug X-Force #119 - 51,854 ( +7.8%)
>>Sep X-Force #120 - 51,777 ( -1.5%)
>>Oct X-Force #121 - 49,274 ( -4.8%)
>>Nov X-Force #122 - 48,501 ( -1.6%)
>>Dec X-Force #123 - 47,554 ( -2.0%)
>>Jan X-Force #124 - 45,670 ( -4.0%)
>>Feb X-Force #125 - 44,404 ( -2.8%)
>>Mar X-Force #126 - 43,016 ( -3.1%)
>>Apr X-Force #127 - 42,014 ( -2.3%)
>>May X-Force #128 - 41,124 ( -2.1%)
>>Jun X-Force #129 - 39,662 ( -3.6%)
>>Jul X-Statix #1 - 47,303 (+19.3%)
>>Aug X-Statix #2 - 41,140 (-13.0%)
>> 1 year (-20.7%)
>> 6 mnth ( -7.4%)
>>
>>Ouch.
>
>Heh. Glad to see a relaunch failing. Hate to see anyone's hard work not
>pay off, but after all the flames I endured speaking out against this rip
>off book with bad art when it first launched under very questionable
>circumstances, it's satisfying that it's doing exactly as I predicted it
>would; even factoring in the relaunch.
Did you say that 15 issues after Edginton leaving, it would be selling
more than it was at the time?
Christian Henriksson
lpark...@mindspring.com (Laura M. Parkinson) sayeth thus:
>Samy Merchi <sa...@iki.fi> rhapsodized in blue:
>
>>"Brian Doyle" <brian...@afdigest.freeserve.co.uk> wrote on 29
>>heinä 2002:
>>
>>>> Am I the only one who hasn't got a clue about Transformers,
>>>> Battle of the Planets, 7 Zark 7, and all these other wonderful
>>>> buzzwords people are using everywhere?
>>>
>>> You really never had Transformers at all in Sweden?
>>
>>If Sweden had a policy anything like Finland's, that could indeed be a
>>'no'. Finnish TV never showed any of these. Transformers, fortunately,
>>had the benefit of being accessible to those who had cable and could
>>watch UK channels such as Sky Channel. The other two I've never heard
>>of though.
>
>Well, 7-Zark-7 was actually a character in Battle of the Planets. Not
>in the original version of the anime, or in the other editings, just
>in Battle of the Planets. Because, see, at the time it came out, they
>ended up cutting so much out as "unsuitable" that they ended up having
>to put in an extra character (in this case a robot to oversee the team
>from a special station), just to take up a bit more time, and to help
>explain things since some of the key bits that would otherwise do this
>were now gone.
>
>Battle of the Planets was the first U.S. edit of an anime in the '70s
>called Kagaku Ninja Tai Gatchaman (aka Science Ninja Team Gatchaman,
>or just Gatchaman).
Right about here, I started to zone out. :D
...
Someone certainly must be - the comic books are selling like hotcakes.
Well, lukewarm cakes.
~consul
> combat machines they were). Brave Starr was He-Man in the future past
> without the quality of writing or animation (and yes, I'm being serious).
I usually don't say religious phrases, but Barve Starr just GOD DAMN pissed me
off. I just never liked it.
--
"american girls . . . all feathers and creme,
coming to bed so edible . . ."
Jameson Stalanthas Yu
(remove the 'x's for e-mail) xdedes...@dolphins-cove.com
http://www.dolphins-cove.com
~consul
> Visionaries was a great toon, political intruige, selfish amorality in the lead
> wizard guy Merklynn, farmers using magical spells to fertilise their lands being sued
> by those who didn't have access to the same spells under the terms of unfair
> competition.
> It'd be nice if they could get around to finishing that last story from the Marvel
> comic, the one that got cancelled half way through.
Excellent cartoon and comic book. I think about 2/3 of the posting racmxers knew
the spells by heart. :)
~consul
> "Christian Henriksson" <che...@tiscali.se> wrote in message
>>Am I the only one who hasn't got a clue about Transformers, Battle of
>>the Planets, 7 Zark 7, and all these other wonderful buzzwords people
>>are using everywhere?
> This is the Internet, so "Yes, you are".
> You really never had Transformers at all in Sweden?
That's almost unAmerican. :)
Kate the Short --- Spamblocked!
"Snowlock" <Snowlock...@worldnet.att.net> sat on the sofa and said:
>Paul O'Brien wrote in message ...
>
>>Aug New X-Men #117 - 120,414 ( -0.2%)
>>Sep New X-Men #118 - 118,542 ( -1.6%)
>>Oct New X-Men #119 - 115,828 ( -2.3%)
>>Nov New X-Men #120 - 116,782 ( +0.8%)
>>Dec New X-Men #121 - 112,227 ( -3.9%)
>>Jan New X-Men #122 - 109,246 ( -2.7%)
>>Feb New X-Men #123 - 105,642 ( -3.3%)
>>Mar New X-Men #124 - 104,138 ( -1.4%)
>>Apr New X-Men #125 - 104,185 ( +0.0%)
>>May New X-Men #126 - 103,189 ( -1.0%)
>>Jun New X-Men #127 - 99,672 ( -3.4%)
>>Jun New X-Men #128 - 99,018 ( -0.7%)
>>Jul New X-Men #129 - 98,817 ( -0.2%)
>>Aug New X-Men #130 - 98,796 ( -0.0%)
>>Aug New X-Men #131 - 98,805 ( +0.0%)
>> 1 year (-17.9%)
>> 6 mnth ( -6.5%)
>>
>
>Sounds like you're trying to justify the slip. Look at that loss...
>October to August, over 17,000 books.
Yes, but let's look at the percentages.
NEW X-MEN 1 year (-17.9%)
6 mnth ( -6.5%)
UNCANNY 1 year (-25.3%)
6 mnth (-10.5%)
X-TREME 1 year (-31.9%)
6 mnth (-12.8%)
Of the three, Morrison's had the *least* drop in sales, percentage-wise,
over the past six and twelve months. And, he is still selling more books
than the other two. Claremont's drop would be more likely a "failure"
since it's lost nearly twice the percentage total of readers, and is
selling way fewer titles.
>>12. ULTIMATE X-MEN
>>Aug Ultimate X-Men #9 - 100,109 (+0.6%)
>>Sep Ultimate X-Men #10 - 99,862 (-0.2%)
>>Oct Ultimate X-Men #11 - 99,329 (-0.5%)
>>Nov Ultimate X-Men #12 - 100,668 (+1.3%)
>>Dec Ultimate X-Men #13 - 100,442 (-0.2%)
>>Jan Ultimate X-Men #14 - 97,690 (-2.7%)
>>Feb Ultimate X-Men #15 - 94,713 (-3.0%)
>>Mar Ultimate X-Men #16 - 96,150 (+1.6%)
>>Apr Ultimate X-Men #17 - 95,887 (-0.3%)
>>May Ultimate X-Men #18 - 94,143 (-1.8%)
>>Jun Ultimate X-Men #19 - 92,815 (-1.4%)
>>Jul Ultimate X-Men #20 - 92,927 (+0.1%)
>>Aug Ultimate X-Men #21 - 93,216 (+0.3%)
>> 1 year (-6.9%)
>> 6 mnth (-1.6%)
>>
>>Not much of note here.
>
>Except that it's showing at least an infintesimal (sp?) upward trend. Two
>months of consecutive gains in a row while the core books continue (at least
>a suttering) freefall.
I'll give you that. It seems to be putting out consistent product in terms
of art and storyline, and seems to have found its audience at this point.
>>13,14. UNCANNY X-MEN
>>Aug Uncanny X-Men #397 - 116,247 ( -1.1%)
>>Sep Uncanny X-Men #398 - 112,744 ( -3.0%)
>>Oct Uncanny X-Men #399 - 110,158 ( -2.3%)
>>Nov Uncanny X-Men #400 - 125,044 (+13.5%)
>>Dec Uncanny X-Men #401 - 105,646 (-15.5%)
>>Jan Uncanny X-Men #402 - 101,145 ( -4.3%)
>>Feb Uncanny X-Men #403 - 97,079 ( -4.0%)
>>Mar Uncanny X-Men #404 - 95,386 ( -1.7%)
>>Apr Uncanny X-Men #405 - 93,909 ( -1.5%)
>>May Uncanny X-Men #406 - 91,356 ( -2.7%)
>>Jun Uncanny X-Men #407 - 88,448 ( -3.2%)
>>Jul Uncanny X-Men #408 - 87,074 ( -1.6%)
>>Jul Uncanny X-Men #409 - 86,942 ( -0.2%)
>>Aug Uncanny X-Men #410 - 87,008 ( +0.1%)
>>Aug Uncanny X-Men #411 - 86,875 ( -0.2%)
>> 1 year (-25.3%)
>> 6 mnth (-10.5%)
>
>Another clear indication that story and art are what sells comics more than
>anything. Rotating artists and hack plots are no way to run a railroad. If
>Austen goes back to the core of what makes the X Men tick, he has a chance.
>If he's going to continue with what the line's doing now, then the slide
>will continue.
I think Austen will be returning to the core. Fingers crossed.
I think I have to agree with you, Snowlock. (Scary, ain't it?) I think
it's like Ultimate in a way-- it hasn't been relaunched again and again
over the past two years. It's been consistently poor, but it features only
one character. It's not like the rest of his teammates have died, moved to
other books, or changed personalities. He's it.
Personally, I used to like Wolverine. But I dropped the book after the 3-4
issue cage match thing that Tieri did. Just couldn't take it any more. I
couldn't even tell you what issues they were.
>>18. X-TREME X-MEN
>>Aug X-Treme X-Men #4 - 95,445 ( -2.7%)
>>Sep X-Treme X-Men #5 - 89,825 ( -5.9%)
>>Oct X-Treme X-Men #6 - 86,876 ( -3.3%)
>>Nov X-Treme X-Men #7 - 84,326 ( -2.9%)
>>Dec X-Treme X-Men #8 - 80,818 ( -4.2%)
>>Jan X-Treme X-Men #9 - 77,767 ( -3.8%)
>>Feb X-Treme X-Men #10 - 74,457 ( -4.3%)
>>Mar X-Treme X-Men #11 - 72,892 ( -2.1%)
>>Apr X-Treme X-Men #12 - 71,855 ( -1.4%)
>>May X-Treme X-Men #13 - 69,741 ( -2.9%)
>>Jun X-Treme X-Men #14 - 67,195 ( -3.7%)
>>Jul X-Treme X-Men #15 - 65,915 ( -1.9%)
>>Jul X-Treme X-Men #16 - 65,688 ( -0.3%)
>>Aug X-Treme X-Men #17 - 64,961 ( -1.1%)
>> 1 year (-31.9%)
>> 6 mnth (-12.8%)
>>
>>Same old story here, really. It's on a slow crawl downwards and there's
>>no real sign of that turning around.
That's true.
>Okay, here's a controversial thought. And before flaming please use your
>heads and think abstractly instead of PC. Stan Lee was Jewish. All of his
>creations were WASPs. I seem to remember him saying that the buying public
>in America liked their heroes to be blond/blue white males because that was
>the primary market; so that's why Stan and Jack created. This team is
>comprised of four or five women, a black male, and Indian Male and one white
>guy (if Gambit is part of the team now... dropped the book long ago so I'm
>not sure.) Is that why this book doesn't succeed?
I think that there may be a very slim minority of buyers who are thinking
that way. But Claremont has a history of using lots of female characters,
and of using lots of international characters. Storm and Bishop and
Jubilee were core members of the team for quite a while before Generation X
started, and New Mutants and Generation X and even X-Force all had a good
bit of diversity.
But.
>The stories are by
>Claremont, the artist is one of the tops in the industry. There is no real
>reason for this freefall that I can see.
At this point, I've gotten sick of Claremont's writing. But I still buy
the book because the art can be nice and I like the characters. The art is
a bit different from the traditional stuff, though-- the computer coloring
over the pencils makes it a little hard to read at times. I think those
two things can turn people off.
>At the very least it should be
>falling at the same percentage as the other two core books. The stories are
>no worse than those in Uncanny X Men and the art is better than the art of
>both of the other books. The characters are also the classic X Men
>characters that the readers can recognize.
Yes and no. And here's where the real analysis comes in.
Issues #1-4: Storm! Rogue! Bishop! Psylocke! Beast! Sage! Thunderbird!
Rumors of Gambit joining again. Oh, yeah, I'm there. I really like Rogue,
Hank is great, Betsy is still a fave of mine, I like Ororo, Bishop is
definitely tolerable, and I'm intrigued by Neal. Gambit is tolerable, too.
And Sage is kind of nifty.
Issues #5-8: Beast's gone. Betsy's dead. Bishop has a first name? I'm
sick of T-Bird being called rookie every few panels. At least Bishop's
acting a little like a cop. Sales slip beginning at this point, as those
who liked Betsy leave, and those who liked Beast leave for Morrison's book.
Issues #9-17: Lifeguard? Slipstream? Aliens? Who are these people? What
happened to the diaries? It's nice that Gambit's back, but can he please
bitch-slap Bishop so I don't have to hear "Lucas" treating the newbies as
rookies every third panel?
The characters *aren't* the classic X-Men that everyone recognizes. Three
of them are very new, out of about nine people, and there isn't enough time
during an alien invasion to flesh out their likes, dislikes, opinions,
attitudes, etc. Sage as a heroine is also an unknown quality, so it's
almost four new people. In terms of not being able to relate to the
characters, I think *this* is why readers can't relate to them. As a white
chick, I can't connect with Lifeguard or Slipstream (her alien bits
notwithstanding). But I like Storm and Rogue and Sage, and I even like
Bishop and Gambit. I'd probably like the others if I knew anything really
*about* them, other than what their powers are and how they're going to
stop this particular invasion.
If readers came because they liked Claremont, they're mostly still there.
But some of them probably feel that he isn't nearly as good as he used to
be. If they came for the characterization, it's a little lacking.
And let me tell you, it'd be a lot easier to drop X-Treme, on issue #17,
after a year and a half, than to drop Uncanny, which I've got over three
hundred issues of. I think inertia is protecting Morrison and Casey a lot
more than it protected Claremont.
>Something else that's kind of interesting... Joe Q removed Claremont from
>the core books because it was claimed CC's writing didn't mirror the movie
>enough.
I thought it was because it wasn't *accessible* to the movie audiences.
There's a difference between being exactly like the movie and being
involved in weird alien battles and stuff. Not that Morrison or Casey are
that much more accessible right now, but the stuff right after the movie
came out was *really* bad-- that whole six-month-gap thing made the books
hard to get into if you were a regular reader, much less returning after
ten years, much less if you'd never read the books before.
>>38. X-STATIX
>>Aug X-Force #119 - 51,854 ( +7.8%)
>>Sep X-Force #120 - 51,777 ( -1.5%)
>>Oct X-Force #121 - 49,274 ( -4.8%)
>>Nov X-Force #122 - 48,501 ( -1.6%)
>>Dec X-Force #123 - 47,554 ( -2.0%)
>>Jan X-Force #124 - 45,670 ( -4.0%)
>>Feb X-Force #125 - 44,404 ( -2.8%)
>>Mar X-Force #126 - 43,016 ( -3.1%)
>>Apr X-Force #127 - 42,014 ( -2.3%)
>>May X-Force #128 - 41,124 ( -2.1%)
>>Jun X-Force #129 - 39,662 ( -3.6%)
>>Jul X-Statix #1 - 47,303 (+19.3%)
>>Aug X-Statix #2 - 41,140 (-13.0%)
>> 1 year (-20.7%)
>> 6 mnth ( -7.4%)
>>
>>Ouch.
>
>Heh. Glad to see a relaunch failing. Hate to see anyone's hard work not
>pay off, but after all the flames I endured speaking out against this rip
>off book with bad art when it first launched under very questionable
>circumstances, it's satisfying that it's doing exactly as I predicted it
>would; even factoring in the relaunch.
Ah, but again, the figures tell a different tale...
X-STATIX Jun X-Force #129 - 39,662 ( -3.6%)
Jul X-Statix #1 - 47,303 (+19.3%)
Aug X-Statix #2 - 41,140 (-13.0%)
1 year (-20.7%)
6 mnth ( -7.4%)
DEADPOOL/AGENT X Jul Deadpool #69 - 26,828 ( +2.1%)
Jul Agent X #1 - 37,418 (+39.5%)
Aug Agent X #2 - 32,531 (-13.1%)
1 year (-10.4%)
6 mnth (+20.9%)
CABLE/SOLDIER X Jul Cable #107 - 26,765 ( +2.3%)
Jul Soldier X #1 - 36,497 (+36.4%)
Aug Soldier X #2 - 30,661 (-16.0%)
1 year ( -6.9%)
6 mnth ( +1.5%)
X-Statix has an increase of 19% followed by a decrease of 13%. That's a
difference of only 6% increase. That tells me that the book has found its
audience over the past year, and that most retailers have *already* gained
or lost customers due to the stealth relaunch. Some diehards will leave,
and some curious fans will see the book as a jumping-on point. Overall,
though, I see it as closer to a bump when an issue hits #100 or #101 and
it's treated as a new storyline and a new jumping-on point for fans. I
don't see that as a failure, however. And I don't think we can truly make
an informed judgement about the book's success or failure until we see the
figures for X-Statix #5-8. For example, Ultimates #2 had a drop of 28%,
but #8 showed an increase of 9% over #7.
Agent X, on the other hand, has been given an increase of 39% followed by a
decrease of 13%. That's a huge jump! Then again, Gail Simone and UDON
have been generating positive reviews and a lot of fun. *I'm* likely to
try the first issue to see what it's like, and I haven't bought DP (other
than the Dazzler issue) in ages. Gail's only been on the book for six
months, as opposed to the year of settling on X-Statix, and the book has
really gone up during her tenure. It's a contrast from the nosedive it
took since the "miniseries" approach was used on the title. Personally, I
think Gail will be more likely to keep the 20% boost after issues #1-2, but
I think sales for issues #5-8 will tell more of the story.
Then we have Soldier X. It's been a little more consistent than Deadpool
has, to be sure. But it's been dropping a lot. It gets a 39% increase
like Gail's Agent X did, but it loses 16% of its sales on #2. I think this
one is more likely to fall. It's got the fewest readers, and I haven't
heard nearly the buzz on this one as I have for Agent X. Again, we'll need
to look at issues #5-8 to see the drop or rise after the first issue or two
is actually read by consumers.
>>71. X-FACTOR
>>Apr X-Factor #1 - 46,768
>>May X-Factor #2 - 40,076 (-14.3%)
>>Jun n/a
>>Jul X-Factor #3 - 31,649 (-21.0%)
>>Aug X-Factor #4 - 29,701 ( -6.2%)
>>
>>What is wrong with you people? Marvel finally produces a good X-Men
>>miniseries and it winds up its run at number 71. Shame.
>
>Cause the characters are not known?
Probably. It's damn good, though. Can't wait for #4.
kate.
| Kate the Short - http://www.enteract.com/~katew/ - ICQ# 8375030 |
| X-Men and Comic Book FAQs: http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/ |
| Dungeons & Dragons rgfdFAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/faq/ |
| Alpha Delta Pi Sorority page: http://www.geocities.com/adpi-vu/ |
____________________________________________________________________
Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence.
-- H.L. Mencken
Brian Doyle
"~consul" <xdedes...@dolphins-cove.com> wrote in message
news:3D458A36...@dolphins-cove.com...
> Brian Doyle wrote:
>
> > Visionaries was a great toon, political intruige, selfish amorality in the lead
> > wizard guy Merklynn, farmers using magical spells to fertilise their lands being
sued
> > by those who didn't have access to the same spells under the terms of unfair
> > competition.
>
> > It'd be nice if they could get around to finishing that last story from the
Marvel
> > comic, the one that got cancelled half way through.
>
> Excellent cartoon and comic book. I think about 2/3 of the posting racmxers knew
> the spells by heart. :)
Dude, I'm so sad I can not only recall all the normal spells, but also Darkstorms
counterspell (Only used once in the show, I think), all the vehicle drivers spells
(Never used the in the toon or comic, only came with the toys) and the spells the
comics gave Virulina (Still one of my favourite villainess names) and Galadria.
Sigh.... All I need now is a powerstaff, an amoral wizard, and the complete
suspension of all the laws of science on Earth, and the planet is MINE!!!!!!
Brian Doyle
> Brian Doyle wrote:
>
> > "Christian Henriksson" <che...@tiscali.se> wrote in message
> >>Am I the only one who hasn't got a clue about Transformers, Battle of
> >>the Planets, 7 Zark 7, and all these other wonderful buzzwords people
> >>are using everywhere?
> > This is the Internet, so "Yes, you are".
> > You really never had Transformers at all in Sweden?
>
>
> That's almost unAmerican. :)
As I'm British and I know they appeared all over Europe, Japan and the Antoipodes,
I'd say "Unworldly"!! :)
Paul O'Brien
--- Spamblocked! <ka...@enteract.com.invalid> writes
> Gail's only been on the book for six months, as opposed to the year of
>settling on X-Statix, and the book has really gone up during her
>tenure. It's a contrast from the nosedive it took since the
>"miniseries" approach was used on the title.
In fairness, the Tieri run only plummetted over its eight issues because
it shot up with the first one thanks to the miniseries gimmick.
~consul
> "~consul" <xdedes...@dolphins-cove.com> wrote in message
>>>You really never had Transformers at all in Sweden?
>>That's almost unAmerican. :)
> As I'm British and I know they appeared all over Europe, Japan and the Antoipodes,
> I'd say "Unworldly"!! :)
'Unamerican' as a concept of US consumerism and marketing. We (me, since you're in the UK, the US, not have a market in Sweden!?!?!
Christian Henriksson
But moneywise, XXM is bringing nearly exactly the same amount as UXM,
and has done so, or better, during its entire lifespan.
> >>18. X-TREME X-MEN
> And let me tell you, it'd be a lot easier to drop X-Treme, on issue #17,
> after a year and a half, than to drop Uncanny, which I've got over three
> hundred issues of. I think inertia is protecting Morrison and Casey a lot
> more than it protected Claremont.
This is probably a great reason. Hadn't really thought of it before.
Unfortunately, that's not how percentages work. Those 13% are based on
the figure of 47,303, when they have to be based on 39,662 for you to
use them in a subtraction like that.
So the real increase is actually only 3.7%. Not impressive at all.
> Agent X, on the other hand, has been given an increase of 39% followed by a
> decrease of 13%. That's a huge jump!
Which corresponds to an increase of 21.3%. Very good, but then we also
have to take into account that Deadpool began from a much lower level.
> Then we have Soldier X. It's been a little more consistent than Deadpool
> has, to be sure. But it's been dropping a lot. It gets a 39% increase
> like Gail's Agent X did, but it loses 16% of its sales on #2.
Still, that's an increase of 14.6%, which is much better than
X-Statix, for example. But again, it started at a lower level than
X-Statix did.
> I think this
> one is more likely to fall. It's got the fewest readers, and I haven't
> heard nearly the buzz on this one as I have for Agent X. Again, we'll need
> to look at issues #5-8 to see the drop or rise after the first issue or two
> is actually read by consumers.
Agreed.
Christian Henriksson
Christian Henriksson
<xdedes...@dolphins-cove.com> sayeth thus:
>Brian Doyle wrote:
>
>> "~consul" <xdedes...@dolphins-cove.com> wrote in message
>>>>You really never had Transformers at all in Sweden?
>>>That's almost unAmerican. :)
>> As I'm British and I know they appeared all over Europe, Japan and the Antoipodes,
>> I'd say "Unworldly"!! :)
>
>
>'Unamerican' as a concept of US consumerism and marketing. We (me, since you're in the UK, the US, not have a market in Sweden!?!?!
In fact, you (i.e. the US) have an enormously huge market in Sweden.
Just don't flog your stuff in the form of ads badly disguised as
children's TV, because there's where we have all our restrictions.
Anything else, and it's sold here in Sweden.
Billy Bissette
> Just don't flog your stuff in the form of ads badly disguised as
> children's TV, because there's where we have all our restrictions.
> Anything else, and it's sold here in Sweden.
But that's what we learned to do from Japan, where shows are even
more driven by related product sales. (And poor toy sales can do in an
otherwise okay show.)
Christian Henriksson
<bai...@coastalnet.com> sayeth thus:
Yes, but Japan hasn't got all that big a market in Sweden, so that's
the wrong way to go. If your aim is to make it on Swedish markets,
that is. Somehow, I imagine that isn't the highest thing on American
companies' wish lists.