Mark Craddock of Comic Book World, Inc. in Florence, Kentucky read Steve Bennett's recent column commenting on the performance of the Scott Pilgrim movie (see "Confessions of a Comic Book Guy--Whatever Happened To Scott Pilgrim?") and had this to say:

I think I'm mystified that the failure of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World seems so hard to answer.  The property is a niche within a niche market.  Of the 100,000 copies of volume 6 of the series that went into distribution, how many actually went to the direct market?  How many will be returned from the mass market?  Scott Pilgrim isn't Watchmen.  It hasn't seeped into the collective unconscious for over 20 years.  And it's not by someone considered a master of this field (who manages to create PR for himself in various ways--good and bad every few years).  Why would it post anything close to say Watchmen's ticket sales?

I think I'm glad that filmgoers aren't just going to make a film successful because its based on a comic.  I'm embarrassed to acknowledge my fear that Hollywood actually may believe this.  Let's take a look at Jonah Hex and Catwoman since both are minor characters.  Regardless of the quality of their films, why would anyone assume they'd be blockbusters?  Neither have a huge tradition of success in the comics field.  Sure, a well made film will have the benefit of word of mouth to drive ticket sales, and that still could happen in Scott Pilgrim's case, but people have to see the film for that to happen.  Just like people have to be interested enough to read a book for it to sell well and continue.  I don't think Hollywood's interest in comics is bad, but we, more than anyone else, should know that comics aren't some kind of magic bean for success.  Or we'd all be living quite different lifestyles.

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff of ICv2.com.