Dave Galanter
December 1st 1969 - December 12th 2020
He was loved.

Black Panther >> View Post
Post By

In Reply To

Subj: Re: That arguement is antiquated.
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 07:21:57 pm EDT
Reply Subj: Re: That arguement is antiquated.
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 02:28:35 pm EDT

Previous Post

> You've been saying that garabage for weeks. That's what happens in every other comic book, but in the case of the Black Panther, who you supposedly are a fan of, it's off limits. And what a suprise, coming from you. The series is a success.

No other series has ever used half as many crossovers and guest stars in such a blatant attempt to push up sales. If Hudlin had half an idea of what he was doing, why has the Cannibal plot been dangling since the first arc?

> No other series has ever used half as many crossovers and guest stars >in such a blatant attempt to push up sales.

Thatguy, I'd like to address that point you made above. First of all, let me make it clear that I much prefer reasoned, civil debate rather than shouting matches, so understand that I am respectfully disagreeing with you here, not trying to pick a fight.

Your assertion that the BLACK PANTHER series depends on crossovers and guest-stars more than any other series is not correct, in my opinion.

Since CIVIL WAR was the big crossover event that just ended this year, I decided to look at a couple of other, ongoing monthly Marvel series to see how many tied-in with CIVIL WAR, and compared that with BLACK PANTHER.

I considered an issue of a comic to be an "official" Civil War tie-in when it displayed the Civil War banner (or trade-dress) on the cover.
Here's what I found:

Amazing Spider-Man tie-ins: #530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538

Fantastic Four tie-ins: #536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541,542, 543

Black Panther tie-ins: #18, 21*, 22, 23, 24, 25

Final tally: Amazing Spider-Man: NINE
Fantastic Four: EIGHT
Black Panther: SIX

Note: BLACK PANTHER #21 was released with two covers, one which did not display the CIVIL WAR banner and one that did. I counted it anyway.

Of course, the current crossover now at Marvel is WORLD WAR HULK. I checked Marvel's official list of titles tieing in to WWH. The BLACK PANTHER title was not on the list -- although GHOST RIDER, HEROES FOR HIRE and PUNISHER WAR JOURNAL (among others) are on the list.

As for guest-stars being added to "push-up" sales, I actually see nothing wrong with that as long as the guest appearances make sense within the context of the story. But even if you look at the majority of guest-stars who've appeared in the series -- not counting the wedding issue in which everybody showed up -- I'd say its hard to make the case that these guest-stars would have an appreciable effect on sales.

Luke Cage, the Falcon, Brother Voodoo, Blade, the Inhumans, Namor, Monica Rambeau,and Shang-Chi has all made guest appearances. NONE of them is even starring in their own comics, so I doubt that many people would suddenly pick up an issue of BLACK PANTHER just to see them. I don't really see how this is any different than, say, what I've seen in the pages of MS. MARVEL and THUNDERBOLTS, both titles that routinely have guest appearances from other characters in the Marvel U.

Now some have made the argument that Storm was added to the cast in order to increase sales. Maybe so, but again, I don't see how that's any different than what other titles have done. They added Spider-Man and Wolverine to the Avengers cast, and now Avengers is Marvel's best-selling franchise. So should BLACK PANTHER be held to a different standard?

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2021 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2021 Powermad Software