A few months ago, we had Dennis Hopeless on The Hour Cosmic, and we were discussing, among other things, his “Avengers Undercover” series wrapping up. He had a lot of fascinating things to say about the art of ending a series, but when we got into the discussion of the pros and cons of announcing books as ongoings (that wind up lasting 8 or 10 issues) versus announcing books as miniseries, Hopeless says that, at least at Marvel, the idea of a huge ongoing, going 50+ issues, is more or less dead. He qualifies it slightly, by saying that there are certain characters (most likely those with starring movie roles) can sustain a longer than average series, but that everything is moving more towards a “seasons” model, like television. He talks about how, for “Avengers Arena,” he had a long and a short version of how that book would go, and the 18 issue series they got was the long version.
This isn’t a surprise to anyone reading Marvel nowadays – as of September, Marvel’s two highest-numbered books are “Avengers” and “Deadpool,” both printing #35 this month. Rumor has it that “Avengers” is wrapping up with #44, and if recent history has taught us anything, “Deadpool” probably won’t last too much longer in its present incarnation. Both of those books are bi-weekly books that launched in late 2012 as a quasi-response to DC’s New 52, and have retained the same writers (though not the same artists) as the #1 issue featured.
This is a stark difference from how the comics industry, for years, operated. Before the New 52, “Action Comics” reached #904, and “Detective Comics” was at #881 before getting relaunched. Sure, many books, such as “Amazing Spider-Man” had gone to a lower numbering before eventually being “corrected” into the original numbering, but the industry standard was to attempt to last as long as possible. It was a mark of pride when an book hit 100 issues, and anything over 200 was celebrated as a milestone worthy of over-sized issues, variant covers, and special creative teams imported in for the occasion.
Last month, out of the 300+ series in the Diamond sales estimates, only 13 titles are numbered over 50. In fact, DC (not counting Vertigo) and Marvel are not publishing any books higher in number than #35. Now, relaunches and renumberings happened all the time in the past, but never in such a way that the vast majority of mainstream comics appear, to the casual eye, to be “new” books.
Part of this, no doubt, is strategy. If a kid walks into a comic store and sees “Journey Into Mystery” #645, an untrained reader may think that they can’t buy it, lest they pick up 50 years’ worth of back-issues. #1 issues are also, undoubtedly, the biggest selling issues of a book, and so relaunching allows new readers a convenient jumping on point, and offers companies a nice boost in sales, albeit temporarily. But comics weren’t always this way – recently, I was at a Hero Initiative event and got to chatting with Fred Van Lente, a writer of great comics, and he was saying how in the 1950’s, publishers didn’t believe that kids would take a chance on a comic that was “unproven,” and so many times would artificially inflate numbering to make it look like a book had more of a history than it actually did.
And yet, the 50’s and early 60’s debuted many of the characters we know and love today, and didn’t always do so in comics named for that character. Thor didn’t debut in “The Mighty Thor” #1 – he debuted in “Journey into Mystery” #83. The Hal Jordan Green Lantern debuted in “Showcase” #22, and Spider-Man first appeared in “Amazing Fantasy” #15. The industry had a system for trying out new characters that didn’t always rely on a new series being launched around them, and so when a new book was launched around a character, it was a big deal. (Of course, that also involves creating new characters that aren’t simply supporting players for already successful characters, which is a rarity nowadays)
Continued belowThat also means that when an ongoing was launched, it was a major vote of confidence that a character could support a monthly series. The most indicative example of this is Wolverine. Wolverine debuted in 1974, joined the X-Men in 1975, got his first miniseries in 1984 and, finally, an ongoing in 1988. When that series was finally launched, it was a relatively sure bet that it wouldn’t fall on its face. Not all characters were treated with such care, but contrast that with “Talon,” a book DC published for 18 issues in the last two years. The concept of the Court of Owls was introduced in 2011, “Talon” started publication in 2012, and it was cancelled in 2014.
Contrast that with Spider-Woman at Marvel. Created in 1977, the character was given an ongoing in 1978, which lasted for 50 issues before being cancelled. The concept was considered bankable, and the book was given four years to attempt to find its market before being shuttered. This type of commitment to a book simply doesn’t exist anymore, for better and for worse.
What is so interesting, to me, about Marvel’s model is that this isn’t a relaunch to kickstart the entire line, like DC’s New 52, this is the new normal. Marvel books are now, for better and worse, going to remain low in numbering. This trend has been slowly happening at the House of Ideas, but with “Amazing Spider-Man” being relaunched, it appears that this is simply how business is done.
And so, with that in mind, let’s examine the pros and cons of this technique.
Obviously, #1 issues sell better than just about any other issue of a series. This is especially true today, when books like “Rocket Raccoon” have their numbers inflated by online retailers, and with the comics speculation market heating up again (though not to the degree of the early 1990’s). Having a new #1 issue every 2-3 years for a property means a significant boost. How significant? Let’s look at “Captain Marvel” to illustrate the difference.
“Captain Marvel” volume 4 was a critical success, taking writer Kelly Sue DeConnick to a new stratosphere of popularity, as well as creating a fan community known as the Carol Corps, which has been noteworthy for their inclusion and kindness to the fan community. When the series ended in November of 2013, #17, the final issue, sold just over 18,000 issues. When the book was relaunched in March 2014, still under the pen of DeConnick, it sold just over 44,000 copies. Here is a book, essentially, just taking a 6 month hiatus, and comes back to more than double its last issue’s sales. If you need to know, financially, when Marvel does this, look no further.
But there is another benefit to relaunching a book that “Captain Marvel” doesn’t illustrate: it is a great way to drastically change direction on a title, and lets the audience know that quite clearly. Over at DC, next month sees the release of “Batgirl” #35, the start of the “Batgirl of Burnside” direction of the book which, from previews, interviews, and images released, seem to be a tonally 180 from what Gail Simone was doing on the book. If this was a Marvel book, there would be a few months of a layover, and then the book would launch again with a new #1 and some title dress proclaiming a “bold, new direction,” and the book’s sales would skyrocket temporarily before, most likely, settling into the typical level.
Now, this isn’t to say that DC won’t see a boost from #35’s sales – it most likely will, but I sincerely doubt we’ll see the book double its sales (please, fans, prove me wrong – the book looks amazing). The tone of the book will, more than likely, be far more different than the shift from “Thor: God of Thunder” to the new, female-led “Thor” title, both written by Jason Aaron. And yet, Marvel is relaunching “Thor” as a new title.
Continued belowThis is also far more similar to how we ingest most other media, especially television. In a few weeks, Arrow and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. will return for new seasons, and we will see recap episodes, “Previously on…” introductions, and articles on “How to catch up on…” – all of them designed to bring in new viewers to an ongoing, moving train. Networks are clear with their labeling of episodes: Season Two, Episode 7. It lets folks know that each season is a new jumping on point.
By having a new #1 every few years, it allows creators to tell a full formed story with a beginning, middle, and end, and then lets them pass the baton to someone else to run with, and lets the audience know that is what is going on. Sure, Marvel doesn’t do this with every book – we just saw Warren Ellis and Declan Shalvey hand off to Brian Wood and Greg Smallwood on “Moon Knight” after only 6 issues, for instance, but it is more common than not to see Marvel start over when a new direction/theme/creative team is desired on a book.
When I first started thinking about this article, I was coming at it from a perspective of a guy who missed seeing triple digit books. I remember saying to my wife at the time of the New 52 that I was legitimately bummed out that my daughter wouldn’t be reading “Action Comics” in the 1000s. Now, to be fair, that still might happen. We may see all of these books revert back to their original numbering somewhere down the road, but this trend seems to be here to stay, at least in the short term.
And that is ok – for the most part, this accomplishes everything I want from the comics industry: healthy turnover and opportunities to bring in new readers. However, part of me still longs for the iconic, long runs on one (volume of a) title that, seemingly, are now a thing of the past. Geoff Johns handled “Green Lantern” volume 4 for its entire run, up to its conclusion at #67, before taking the first 21 (counting the #0 issue) of volume 5, as well as the “Rebirth” miniseries that preceded volume 4. Throw in annuals and specials, and we’re talking 100 issues or so under the same pen. That may never happen again or, if it does, it will be across a number of volumes, or with significant fill-in work, or with major tonal shifts within the run. Hell, even Johns’ run had three different characters as the “main” characters – Hal Jordan, Sinestro, and Simon Baz.
But looking at this now, all put together, I think I am in favor of the “season” model more than any other right now. It seems to fit how we consume media better, it seems to attract new readers to a title, and it seems to allow for critical stagnation to be at a minimum. Sure, part of me will always pine for the numbering from my childhood, but part of me also laments the loss of Ecto-Cooler and the lack of Superfriends reruns on TV. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to move back into my parents’ house, get some fat kid underoos and Billy Madison my way through elementary school, either. The seasons model is what works right now, and I’m fine with it.
But “Action Comics” #1000 would be pretty dope, right?
All information about sales numbers are courtesy of the invaluable Comichron
