>>77065101The comics would do about as well as any other obscure Batman mini or ongoing. Have they cancelled '66 yet? About that well. At best.
Those movies were incredibly popular, yes, but comics is a closed shop. New readers don't come in faster than old readers leave; new readers don't come in much at all, and old readers tend to hang around but change their pull lists according to internal market trends (ie, what's hot with other neckbeards).
We can tell this is the case because neither of the two Nolan movies that actually did well managed to change the comic book sales figures for their years of release (Begins did horrible business, but WB were expecting it to and it outperformed Catwoman, so it got the sequels money).
What should have happened, if movies (or TV) impacted sales at all would be the same effect that Walking Dead has seen - the main title comic rising to the top or near the top of sales charts and remaining there, after languishing significantly further down before being cross-promoted. Walking Dead's peak audience is in the region of 18 million souls - that's actually so low that most big-budget movies would be considered flops if they were only seen by that many people domestically. Green Lantern was seen an average 14 million times in just three months - even that should have sent sales through the roof.
The fact is, most people don't want to read comics, and even with 18 million peak viewers, Walking Dead isn't really doing that well. 70 to 80 thousand sales (to retailers via Diamond) and *maybe* a significant proportion of the estimated non-Diamond market, but notably not on floppies or later collected volumes, just on the first couple of volumes in various forms - these are not good companion publication figures for a tv brand so well known and watched that it now has a spinoff tv show as well. Even Playboy is doing far better.
