Why do feminists over inflate FEMTOR's sales?

http://imgur.com/a/8y1VE

I'm glad Feminists have a new hero to look up to and according to ComicChron:

>Thor (Issue 1) in Oct 2014 sold around 151,000

>Thor (Issue 2) in Nov 2014 sold around 89,000

>Thor (Issue 3) in Dec 2014 sold around 72,000

>Thor (Issue 4) in Jan 2015 sold around 69,000

I usually never pay attention to sales....and usually dont like when something doesn't do well....but.....

@vivide: Did Feminist murdered your parents?

Did Kelly Sue Deconnick beat you up, and stoled your bike?

Do you wake up every morning just to go on TheMarrySue.COM just to go into a fit of rage?

And that Original Thor runs didn't had Pr stunts with main stream attention and none was build with the bait plot who is she, and most of the articles ignore that the Original Thor still is in the new book many of the readers are still reading the pr stunt book only for him.

Cause its a good book so far

It's a pretty decent book oh and well after the huge announcement stirred a lot of people, noncomic book readers/other people decided to try the book out.

Nope but they have been recently been vocal about changing things in comics

@judasnixon: The man just likes his Thor.

Thorriors like him alot it seems.

please don't get mad at me anyone I don't even read anything I just know about the myths.

Try to justify a cheap gimmicks, for some reason they love this cheap gimmick characters, made as cliche as they can, but politically correct.

If they say that a character like this was a failure it would mean their concepts are wrong.

I dont have problems with the new characters for being new, i have problem because they arent their own thing and are being made for the wrong reasons.

that is a cool name for a fandom actually

Interesting opinions

Just comparing comic sales of a title through years is problematic, you have to compare it with books from the same cycle because of things like recession, economy, and other factors like Marvel Now, New 52. Marvel generally doesn't care about the drop of rate of a book rather its bottom line, its why they have so many book relaunches in general, its a delaying tactic, a short term solution, not a long term solution. I don't know what feminists are claiming but I do know that people who have been tracking comic sales for years with typically neutral reasons to do so are aware that current Thor is selling better than Thor God of Thunder even with the same writer and even despite a strong argument in being made that Thor God of Thunder's first run was of a better "artistic quality" and also had more unified fan and critical support. The ironic thing is that a lot of anti-female Thor fans don't realize, is a similar thing that a lot of anti-New 52 fans, a lot of anti-OMD fans, a lot of anti-Red Hulk fans, a lot of anti-Bendis fans don't realize. Is that when you oppose something so strongly and vehemently that you are talking about something, even in a negative manner so much and so often, you actually assist in somethings marketing and sales potential. Its just the age we live in. Compare how many anti-Thor fans make random posts and threads to how many actually make careful, considered efforts to rally around others like them to make a petition. Spider-girl fans were legendary in how they managed to extend that books lifespan because of how organized and dedicated they were.

Also why does everything turn into feminists this, Daniel Bryan fans that, with people on this site? Are people not able to make points anymore without invoking a group and generalizing them? Why do the Bloods keep on insisting that Daredevil is better than Blue Beetle? I mean I know why, its because that foolio poser wannabe gangster Matt Nerdlock wears there colors, and I am totally not biased even though I am a member of the Crips, I just like to point out that the Bloods have recently been really vocal about comic changes. Except I am not actually a member of the Crips, I am actually just a really intelligent and business savvy member of the Bloods who realizes that the more I criticize on and talk about Daredevil the more potential I have in making others interested in checking out the book and talking about it to others even if I am talking negatively about it. Therefore OP is probably a hardcore third wave modern feminist with a badge and certificate and everything.

@vivide: I saw it on a bunch of Thor threads compiling about Aaron recently.

It is pretty cool

Is this just trolling for you, or are you serious?

The more I thought about it the more I came to like the concept of Female Thor as much as I do Male Thor, honestly. It feels like something new and fresh to me. The more I see folks complain about her, the more I'm inclined to like her, too.

As for those sales numbers, it fell drastically after the first issue, which is understandable. They hyped the first issue and folks checked it out, then stopped. That happens when you hype stuff. The following months are declining, and that sucks, but it doesn't mean the character is going away. Nor should she.

It's a half decent read. Sales are a bad way to measure responses. Look at Scarlet Spider. relatively poor sales through out the run, yet a critical and fan darling.

you can't change history. so con't change the character

Because some people dont understand they are part of a thing called Justice Social Warriors, the nutjobs that want to control fantasy because they believe it cause and impact in real life, not that its a reflection of the society and times we are living.

#FullMcIntosh.

I dont call them SJW, i call them McHeroes.

This isn't necessarily true. While talking about something in a negative way can increase its viewership, if you what you're saying is REALLY taboo, then it will hurt the series. For example if female Thor had a racial stereotype, the news of that likely wouldn't be helpful for the series. But then, there is a weird thing where if a work does spectacularly bad, people will consider it funny enough to watch. For example, the film "The Room" was so unbelievably bad that people had to see it to believe it. It gained a cult following. However, if something is even worse than THAT, then it goes back to being not noteworthy, and nobody will be interested in it again. For example random youtube videos that are filmed without any planning or anything and only gain a few dozen views, at most.

"Waa, why do people support stuff I don't like?!"

@deathpoolthet1000: See I like that you have your own term "McHeroes" instead of "Social Justice Warriors", because at least thats being original. On the flip side there are people who are so Anti Social Justice Warriors that they fail to realize they can get as bad and often behave the same way. Take the exchange you use as an example. Two guys on Twitter? Some people will be okay with Mortal Kombat and some people won't be, and thats okay. Its preferences, when people started labeling others as misogynistic and SJW to somehow support their argument thats when I'm out. Then its more about individuals and egos and people sensitivity about others not conforming to their preferences instead of actually discussing source materials and ideas.

I think you meant to say the current Thor book right? I only read 5 issues but in that 5 issues the story was far from being only about her... Aside from the unworthy story that was created with an instant plot device, the other plots come from TGOT, subjective to make the argument that the book sales are only because of her...

@superadam said:

Its not intended to be absolutely true in every context, its just a general known pattern with human behavior and how they purchase things or are predisposed to buy things. People's strong reactions tend to cause strong reactions in others and the more things are talked about and observable latently the more people will tend to think about it predisposing them to it, not necessarily positively, but as far as purchasing habits it can be a significant factor.

I would say it would depend on what the racial stereotype was. If there was any room for interpretation? Positive versus negative as well as neutral? It could work out, for people that would object, many would support it in opposition. I don't want to drag a certain Batcover into this discussion, but many people were in support of a certain cover despite not reading or caring for the series it was attached to. Just supporting certain ideas. If the racial stereotype was one dimensional and with no room for interpreting it otherwise, the number of people who may stick up for the depiction may not be large enough to count and or if the stereotype was so lacking in noteworthiness no one cared and so one wanted to check out for curiosity. Other outcomes as well.

Of course that doesn't mean that controversy will always sell or that movie makers can rely on making successful films by making movies so bad that they are good, type movies, thats not what I said earlier is touching on, its to do with other variables and context. There are pros and cons. Can use comic events for example, many comic fans hate big events and crossovers, but sometimes people point out that they sell really well. So that people actually on the whole will still spend money on events. Which is true… to an extent. Except you can also examine short term profits versus long term effects on industry. Since you can argue whilst big events and series relaunches do have strong short term benefits, long term they may be hurting companies and contributing to longer term sales trends. Except thats a different discussion.

This is happening because they cant take criticism and dont like to debate, besides the whole fact they lack anything to prove their points.

Not everybody that fight them goes in the same term as them, today they losing the fight against skeptics and rational thinkers.

@asgaard said:

No my wording was as intended, saying current Thor is adequate to meaning current Thor series without having to specifically refer to the book. My friend, my posts tend to be long enough as it is, I try to take shortcuts where I can heh heh.

Also where do I say book sales are only because of her? 0_o

@deathpoolthet1000 said:

Who is they? Do you mean humans? Yes, many types of humans aren't good with criticism and prone to laziness.

@potatobaron: Good

@deathpoolthet1000: RIP Terry

McHeroes, they always say are open to debate and challenge people to prove them wrong, when this happens, they block people and take downs comments or the best, say they mean another thing.

A Rape Victim was talking about how Oracle help her to deal with her problems, since she saw Barbara Gordon turn all the horrible things that happened to her, to something good, to something that made her stronger, then say she was in favor of the Joker and Batgirl Cover for what it mean to her.

Cameron Stewart Batgril writer, block her.

https://twitter.com/ashpnx

Just a confirmation... You never said that... but you made a reference to people that tracks comics sales, they usually only use mathematics, but i could be wrong and you read some expert article that acknowledges the all scenario... I just didn't found any...

@deathpoolthet1000: Yes but singling out a certain group as having an exclusive trait when its not limited to them is a bad argument. Not saying you are making that argument, but many people who would criticize and mock "McHeroes" are going to make poor arguments, block people, so on, similar behavior as they "McHeroes" they are so opposed to and critical of. Some people refer to it as the pot calling the kettle black or similar.

I don't know the circumstance of a comic writer blocking an individual on Twitter. I'm a rape victim, why would that suddenly make my opinion about a cover more valid than anyone else's? It doesn't. Maybe he blocked them for trolling or he does't have time to explain his position. Maybe he is skeptical of the idea of people using a traumatic experience that happens to thousands as a way to support the position over something like a comic cover? Maybe he is an insensitive jerk face? Maybe he is a hypocrite McHero? I don't know, I won't pretend to either.

@asgaard said:

Tracking sales is more than about mathematics, its about context. I didn't read an article no, I have tracked comic sales since I have started reading comics, I find it interesting as well as occasionally reading into the business aspects of Marvel/DC. I also knew a bit about business, advertising and marketing. You won't be able to google for one article, you'd have to learn about general business practices, advertising/marketing and use that with the raw data certain sites have on comic sales and then there are also a few websites that offer analysis on what some of that data means as well.

OK... So with your knowledge on the subject what is you opinion on articles like this Feminist Thor selling way more comic books than dude Thor ? The numbers were manipulated, TGOT issue 1 sold (110443 not 65513) and doesn't acknowledge any context... Do you think it would be fair to use the word propaganda?

@trickyman86 said:

I think that happens sometimes, people being denied something because others complain, but thats either a business decision and a business would be bad if they only weighed the amount of people who complain instead of balancing the weight of something who complain about something versus those who want and would buy something. Or its say… an artistic/creative/ethics decision. Which also plays into business decisions but may factor in decisions that sacrifice certain practices that could be considered good business.

SJW's not buying the stuff they get changed, well yeah thats a bit weird in some contexts, but thats a people thing, like consider all the people who would oppose the "SJW's" over the Batgirl cover, how many of them were buying Batgirl and would have gotten that variant cover anyway? Which is okay, many people, its the idea of creative freedom and expression that they were arguing for, for others it was appropriateness and other stuff. In the end though its not the SJW's fault, its DC and the artist who drew the image (if we take DC at its word) because they made the end decision. Its the company who is offering something but then withdraws something it based on complaints, not the people who are complaining or the people who are demanding the opposite. Its… complicated. Lots of people complain about things that are never removed, because the people selling the thing probably have strong figures and evidence to suggest that its better business to sell than conform to some complaints. Some will modify or adjust or conform though and I doubt whether big businesses do it without money/publicity being a big factor. Which is to say I think people overestimate the power of the "SJW's" or misunderstand how businesses work. Unless I am underestimating the power of "SJW's" and there are so many SJW's that businesses do have to conform to them, in which case its just smart business practice, the same way I have to deal with the fact majority of people don't buy the comics I like and they often get cancelled with less than 10 issues **shrugs**

@trickyman86: Sorry had to delete your edited in image, CV rules have a no swearing (specifically F word) policy. Stephen Fry is awesome though.

@vivide: Now I have to go read Repaer Man again.

@asgaard said:

Its not a very good article. I mean its not horrible, but it has some inaccurate info and using issue one numbers in comics for comparisons is generally problematic. Most series issue ones sell big and experience a heavy drop off with following issues. Usually the higher the numbers as well, the bigger the drop off. So say a book sells two hundred thousand for issue one, will experience a significant percentage drop off (say 50 percent) than a book that starts off at one hundred thousand. Plus there are other certain factors like variant covers. While issue one issues usually get a few variants, those numbers aren't always equal and so variant covers need to be accounted for. So its generally better to wait for a couple of issues to use for comparison depending on what you are comparing.

Creative teams are a factor, economy, was TGOT a part of Marvel Now? I think it was, but if it wasn't then thats something that could hurt its sales/in the sense Marvel Now could have helped it.

Propaganda fair to use? I am not sure, I would be inclined to chalk it up to some ignorance and some data errors instead. I think that there overall general point as best as I can tell it, is fairly accurate and valid and thats that many peoples belief that female Thor would be a huge failure and would "suck" and (wouldn't) sell well because people wouldn't fall for this PR stunt and cheap gimmick was well wrong (in the financial sense) and that the company whose business is to sell comics would be able to sell a book around this creative change and that people would be interested would occur. I don't know if thats there point for certain though or their history/credibility.

I remember back when this announcement first happened, when arguments first happened, I actually made predictions about its sales that actually turned out pretty accurate because its not about whether you like the concept or execution (I think concept is interesting and that current execution is average) sales is more about knowing how casual fans operate and not being swayed by how online website fans make arguments or find preference.

@trickyman86 said:

S'alright. Oh well there was that hilarious episode of Law and Order, but I think thats a media thing in general. Media and news often simplifies things, generalizes them, does a really bad job of taking an accurate and in-depth approach to things. I don't think this means catering to SJW's specifically, really just the majority of people. For every example of a mainstream media source doing something that seems to cater to SJW's there is a mainstream media source talking about science in a way thats really painful.

A lot of people at CV fall into the young, male demographic, myself included, lots of us know comics and video games well, and so I can see why many of us would find that Law and Order episode really painful and cringe worthy over how it presents certain ideas, in such a warped, and simple to the point of parody way. Then again, as someone with a certain degree of understanding about science, there are many painful threads about science at CV, and many painful oversimplified science articles in the mainstream. Its not so much that mainstream media is trying to cater to anti-science types. Its just they care more about being accessible to a majority. Same as politics, sports, lots really.

@sc: Thanks :)... I m more elucidated how the comics sales work now, i really want to be assertive this time, but is very hard not think that this person also was undermining the facts to sell her story...

@asgaard said:

Well I am not sure if she was undermining the facts to sell her story. Like is the OP of this thread undermining facts to sell a story? I don't think either of them are, not sincerely (I made a joke about OP actually being a feminist but that was just a joke) I'd be more inclined to think they the evidence fits there belief and because of the nature of evidence and belief they are partially accurate and when people are partially accurate about anything they tend to focus on that rather than the parts where they aren't accurate. The reason why its important to extend good faith to others over their sincerity is because of reciprocity. If you are willing to take others at face value, its a good signal to others that they can take you at face value as opposed to second doubting or questioning your own motives. Like if we accuse that writer of having an agenda to sell the idea of female Thor because of her own personal agenda having nothing to do with good story telling/characters, or Thor in general, we could be right, but the writer could just accuse us of thinking that because of our own agenda which she could make up. So conversation essentially turns into two individuals/groups flinging accusations. Though unfortunately often in interactions people will make such accusations anyway even if you extend some courtesy on goodwill, but hey, you can only control your own actions and attitude, not others. ^_^.

Are you interacting with them in their article? Often a friendly and understanding if not neutral attitude helps others modify or alter their opinion.