Sparky Prime wrote:No, not entirely. There is also an objective quality to how well something is made.
Not when you're talking about your opinion of whether or not you like something. At no point were we talking about the technical side of anything like special effects, editing, sound, etc... we've only been talking about whether or not we like the current content, which is opinion, which is subjective.
Sparky Prime wrote:I don't deny that there are fans of it. But, consider how much more popular and healthier the franchise would be if the quality was better overall. And no, quality is not the difference between the current state and there no longer being a current franchise. The franchise doesn't go away just because there is no new content currently being produced. As andersonh1 pointed out earlier, Star Trek actually became MORE POPULAR after it got cancelled and went into syndication.
"Proper" Star Trek has always been considered too cerebral for a mass audience. That's why it had low ratings in the original series and why most Trek films haven't had the same success as a lot of other big budget movies. Appealing to a mass audience is a double edged sword, on the one hand, you gain new fans, but then you alienate (or at least risk alienating) existing fans. Again, now that they have new fans, they should start producing content that can appeal to or reference both. I think that's what they're trying with Picard, but the problem there is they have Kurtzman running it and he could write his way out of a paper sack.
Sparky Prime wrote:And again, since we're discussing the possible end of the comics industry, that definition is more appropriate.
And again, it isn't. We don't know that the comics industry will come to an end of producing new content here.
Alright, fine, then what term do you want to use for an industry or franchise that has completely stopped producing any new content and is effectively dead? I thought "Dark Age" worked fine, but you go ahead and suggest something better. We're discussing the possible death of an industry by referencing franchises and properties that have had periods where they were dead. I don't care what we call that period, just pick a term and we can stick with it. And remember, we're discussing periods of NO content, good or bad.
Sparky Prime wrote:Marvel wouldn't be here if they hadn't been bailed out by a rich fan and later by Disney. DC has Warner Brothers to lean on for movie and tv content, but the big two have not done themselves any favors when it comes to the comics themselves. The industry has continued in spite of them, not because of them.
The financial problems Marvel got themselves into in the 90's is not indicative of the industry as a whole. Nor is DC "leaning" on Warner Brothers for tv and movie content. That has nothing to do with comic books as an industry. It's the different Age's of comic books that I'm talking about here. Comic books as an industry fell into a huge decline around the 1940's, ending the Golden Age of comics. They later saw a resurgence in the late 1950's - beginning the Silver Age. They went into another decline (although not as drastic) before the Bronze Age came about in the 70's. They're in another decline. But who's to say we might not see an "Iron Age"?
These are all good points, and I hope you're right, but I just don't see that happening if things continue the way they are.
Sparky Prime wrote:
Laugh all you want, it's still true.
LOL yeah, that's why I was laughing. It wasn't sarcastic. I mean, I said it, so obviously I agree with you
Sparky Prime wrote:I think that's because they don't try to appeal to both once they've appealed to a larger audience. Transformers has managed to do that. There are the Micheal Bay movies for people that like those and Hasbro has continued to produce new toys, comics and cartoons that appeal to older fans as well. So they've been able to draw in new fans and keep the old ones happy as well. Owners of other properties aren't doing that, which is why they're alienating their core customer bases.
You do realize the Bay films were widely criticized and The Last Knight was a flop, right? Bumblebee (the first Transformers film not directed by Bay), which was somewhat more true to the source material was actually the best critically received of the Transformers live action franchise (by a HUGE margin I'd also point out). Imagine that. Something that appeals to BOTH, new and old fans alike, actually does better and something that is only intended to appeal to one or the other. I'd also say other properties try to do the same thing, but the reason why they are alienating their core customer base is because they tend to do it at the expense of the old characters and canon, so it doesn't come off satisfying.
There is often a disparity between critics and audiences. Critics tend to hate mass appeal movies while audiences tend to like them. Look at almost any movie's Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes scores and there's usually a difference. The Transformers movies were pretty universally hated by existing fans and critics alike, but they kept making so much money that they... kept making more of them. But, thanks to that we know have a franchise that can reference the old and the new in the same content. We have Barricade in IDW's current comic and toy line along with classic fan favorites. That's the way to do mass appeal right.