Pop Culture WI: Marvel Comics implodes

I recall from a book or another source that Marvel Comics was in rather bad shape in the late 1970s because of poor management and missed deadlines until Jim Shooter became Editor-in-Chief. Let us assuming that Jim Shooter worked elsewhere in the late seventies and the revolving door of E-i-Cs at Marvel continues. Would its parent company, Cadence Industries, pull the plug some time 1979, and how would that affect the industry? I imagine that DC Comics might have less incentive to release Crisis on Infinite Earths. :p
 
It's even easier than that. I read the main thing that saved Marvel financially in this time period was its line of Star Wars comics. Prevent them from getting the license...
 
How late is this? Because once Chris & Dave get the new X-Men underway, you're on your way to success no matter who the EiC is. Once you've got John & Terry on the book...:cool::cool:

Plus, if Shooter's not around, you've prevented the most shocking death since Gwen, Jean's,:eek::eek: which was done on Shooter's orders: instead, you get Chris' alternate ending, & Rachel is main TL. Also, "Days of Future Past" never happens.
 
It's even easier than that. I read the main thing that saved Marvel financially in this time period was its line of Star Wars comics. Prevent them from getting the license...

I read the same somewhere as well.

Plus, if Shooter's not around, you've prevented the most shocking death since Gwen, Jean's,:eek::eek: which was done on Shooter's orders: instead, you get Chris' alternate ending, & Rachel is main TL. Also, "Days of Future Past" never happens.

DoFP might happened since it's John Byrne who came up with the idea. But assuming it didn't, I do fear for a timeline without the story.
 
How late is this? Because once Chris & Dave get the new X-Men underway, you're on your way to success no matter who the EiC is. Once you've got John & Terry on the book...:cool::cool:

New X-Men was a critical success, but it was not a major sales leader until Paul Smith became the artist. John Byrne has mentioned multiple times that the sales exploded after he left. He said tongue in cheek that he must have been holding Chris Claremont back, but I suspect the actual reason is that after the death of Phoenix the general comics reader finally understood that something really interesting was going on in X-Men.

Prior to Byrne becoming the artist, New X-Men was such a low seller that it was still published bi-monthly. Sales were improving to the point that the book became monthly just as Cockrum left.

In other words, New X-Men was not financially successful enough to save the company. G-S Xmen #1 came out in 1974. Sales exploded in 1981 or so. Star Wars came out in 1977.
 
Blackfox5 said:
New X-Men was a critical success, but it was not a major sales leader until Paul Smith became the artist.
Really? I recall Byrne issues running 600K copies a month, with return rates under 40%. That's a successful book.
Blackfox5 said:
I suspect the actual reason is that after the death of Phoenix the general comics reader finally understood that something really interesting was going on in X-Men.
Bear in mind, X-Men was always a kind of fringe book, even within the MU. I wonder if the shock to fans didn't get them talking about the book a lot more.
Blackfox5 said:
Prior to Byrne becoming the artist, New X-Men was such a low seller that it was still published bi-monthly. Sales were improving to the point that the book became monthly just as Cockrum left.
And John came aboard with #108 (the M'Krann crystal story), so it's about 1976. Soon enough?
 
Really? I recall Byrne issues running 600K copies a month, with return rates under 40%. That's a successful book.

I don't know the figures you are talking about, but I do know I have read John Byrne state multiple times that X-Men was not a huge success while he was on it. I have read other creators say the same thing. Sales were growing, and the book had become successful enough that the book went from bimonthly to monthly, but it was not the huge hit it became in the 1980s and would not have lifted the company by itself.

This link has some information on the improtance of the Star Wars book and the print runs of the other comics.

http://io9.com/5840578/how-star-wars-saved-the-comic-book-industry

It specifically states that Spider-Man was the best selling book and sold only 280,000 out of a print run of 590,000. Your print run of 600k and 40% return could very well be the case by the time Byrne's run ends, but it would place along those same lines. A popular book, but not something very different than its other top selling titles.

On the other hand, Star Wars sold a million copies off the bat. That's not printed, that is SOLD. And it would have happened at a time when X-Men probably sold between 100,000 to 200,000 sold.

So in the end, the Wein/Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne run did not have the same impact as Star Wars did, and it did not substantially change the financial condition of the company. Eventually with Shooter coming on board Marvel recovered, sales increased across the board, and Claremont's X-Men became very important to their success. That was not the case in the mid-seventies though.
 
Top