It's been a while since I've picked up the Sunday New York Times, and I swear it's not (entirely) because the people in the New York Times commercials are all kind of annoying. I randomly grabbed the paper yesterday and imagine my surprise at seeing a giant picture of Thor on the cover of the Arts section. And not movie Thor, either. The Travis Charest variant cover Thor.
It would seem that the New York Times took a trip to the Marvel offices to get the current lay of the land in the world of the biggest American comic book publisher and independent producer of a whole lot of summer block busters. It's somewhat of a puff piece, and if you pay attention to the behind-the-scenes stuff there isn't a whole lot that's new, but there are some interesting things to be found in the article.
- Tom Brevoort on the challenge of growing the comic book readership: “We love the guys that have been here every month. But it’s not an exclusive relationship. It’s an open marriage where we see and seek others as well – and as many others as we can get in.”
- The New York Times reporter thinks that Rich Johnston is exaggerating (a bit) when he says “In order to read Thor, you have to buy 10 mini-series for $4 an issue at 22 pages each.” But really, he's not that far off.
- Marvel has created what it calls the "creative committee" made up of : CCO Joe Quesada, writer Brian Michael Bendis and Publisher Dan Buckley. They meet several times a year with Marvel Studios execs to discuss film and multimedia projects.
- The New York Times reporter seems kind of perplexed with the bald head and beard look, which he references twice in the article.
- The President of Production for Marvel Studios, Kevin Feige, looks at the comic books as story fodder for the films “because it’s a hell of a lot less expensive to take a chance in a comic than it is take a chance in a movie. It’s the cheapest R&D there is, but the best R&D there is.”
The sub-headline in the actual paper is about Marvel facing a mighty foe in publishing world uncertainties, but the article really doesn't delve too deep into that, focusing instead — surprise, surprise — on how the Marvel Studios side of the business is doing gangbusters.
You can find the whole article in the link above. (Unless there are New York Times paywall issues, but I was able to get right through.)
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Some rights reserved.
I kind of hate puff pieces like this from newspapers. Did this writer use to work for Wizard?
I’m sure Marvel is happy to be in the Times. When I read it this weekend, I thought it was informative, but not very insightful.
Disappointing that they didn’t actually credit Charest on the print edition. (Who the the heck is “Marvel Characters, Inc”? Does he draw the books written by “TBA”?) Considering the industry’s history of crediting (or not) the creators, and the comments about the books being cheap RnD, it left a bad taste.
Bit of a let down for sure. I’m curios what the industry is doing to bolster my beloved hobby.
Marvel has boardrooms dedicated to specific heroes, that was probably the coolest thing i learnt from this.
I’d have liked tro see some kind of follow-on to the observation that Civil War sold 300k, Siege sold 100k, now we get Fear itself. How does the Times think it will do, based on journalistic observation? Seemed like they were just quoting people without doing any kind of actual research & drawing any actual conclusions.
@PotatoPope – puff peice is right.
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who finds the people in the New York times commercials so irritating.
Ugh.
Ha!
@NawidA You know that Marvel is in business to make money right??
The President of Production for Marvel Studios, Kevin Feige, looks at the comic books as story fodder for the films “because it’s a hell of a lot less expensive to take a chance in a comic than it is take a chance in a movie. It’s the cheapest R&D there is, but the best R&D there is.”
Really? Then why don’t they spend any money from the film or licensing side to try and keep the publishing side from sinking? I suppose they figure by the time the ever-dwindling number of fanboys shrinks to the point that the publshing wing is no longer profitable, they will have found some other “cheap R&D”. Maybe fanfiction?
“In order to read Thor, you have to buy 10 mini-series for $4 an issue at 22 pages each.” But really, he’s not that far off.
If that’s true, then Batman is completely inpenetrable at this point. Talk about convoluted, trying to follow that storyline through comics and trades is a disaster.
@NaveenM –it is an interesting statement in that Marvel is basically out of the creator owned business. Sure there is icon and some other things, but for the most part they are just recycling old legacy characters on a regular basis.
i’m sure they spend a proportionate amount of cash to what projected profits are….not enough readers=not a good investment