The concept of relaunching an established comic book series has undergone a bit of an evolution over the course of the medium’s history. Whereas once a relaunch was a matter of necessity (a book was cancelled and had to wait until a hole in the publishing schedule enabled it to try again), these days it seems to be one of sheer convenience. With books “ending” one month and returning the next with a “BOLD NEW DIRECTION” that sometimes is not that bold or new, many have begun to wonder if the little number in the corner of their monthly comics even matters anymore, or if comics as a medium have begun to morph from a medium with a strong reverence of what came before to one more concerned with making a quick buck by exciting cultural speculators all across the many internets.
This column will take a slightly more objective approach to the debate, one that views introductory issues as a genre in and of itself. As the old saying goes, you only have one chance to make a first impression. While comics have proven this functionally false by making relaunches the name of the game, I’m willing to bet that more often than not there is a lot of conceptual continuity that can be drawn from debut issue to debut issue, no matter the era those debuts happened to be published in. Or if not, there are at least some discrepancies we can drag to the forefront and make fun of mercilessly. Either/or. With that, welcome ladies and gentleman to Reboot Nation!
On tap this week we have the brand spanking new debut for everyone’s favorite merry, now militaristic, mutants the X-Men! With this week’s Uncanny X-Men #1, it marks the first time this title has been relaunched in its 48 year history. Join us we travel back to 1963 to the very first X-Men #1 to see how these two stack up when placed next to each other.
Yes yes I know, technically the book was not called “Uncanny X-Men” when it launched. Fun fact, the “Uncanny” wasn’t even added until well into Chris Claremont’s legendary run on the book with issue 142 and that was just one of FOUR primary title changes this book has gone though, but the original numbering remained consistent giving the book one of the longest volume runs of any Silver Age comic prior to this relaunch (fiddlesticks!).
Despite becoming the pan-cultural icons we know them as today, the X-Men started out as the little book that could. After writing countless character origins up until that point, Stan Lee chanced upon a very simple idea that had occurred to literally no one prior. Rather than thinking up an elaborate origin story for why his characters ended up with powers, he simply decided to have them born that way. While Lee may have been aware of the unique circumstances the original team had surrounding them, it would not be until much later that the characters became virtually synonymous with racial and cultural bias and by generally promoting peaceful coexistence, the book took on an added meaning that many have attempted to replicate but none have truly succeeded at.
Which brings us to 2011’s Uncanny X-Men #1 by the one-two punch team of Kieron Gillen and Carlos Pacheco. While taking his lumps and ultimately illustrating some of the most recognizable super heroes to the average shmoe walking down the street, Pacheco and his sharp, bright pencil work is a more or less time tested and approved commodity. However Gillen is still very much in the early stages of, if there is any righteousness in the world, his hopefully long and storied career, with this relaunch arguably his biggest gig to date other than possibly taking over the last volume of the book from Matt Fraction. While many would call the gig an almost intolerable task, Gillen recognized the potential he was given. While the book was very much a continuation of what had been established before, by renumbering it and drawing a very distinct line in the sand, Marvel effectively made him just a little less beholden to what came before, allowing him to craft a newer, in-continuity beginning for the characters than we’ve seen before.
The primary differences between the two debuts are blatantly obvious to some. Comics in 1963 and comics in 2011 are wildly different animals in more ways than can be accurately described, but lets give it a shot. Right off the bat, the differences in artistic technique are apparent, especially due to Jack Kirby not quite being Jack Kirby when he took on this project. While his work is still distinctively his, the monumental depth and precision that his work would develop in later years wasn’t quite present yet. Compared with Pacheco’s hyper realistic, proportionate work, Kirby’s stuff may as well be cave paintings,albeit gorgeous, vintage ones.
On top of this, saying nothing about the actual language used in both works, the 1963 story was a much for definite debut. The X-Men came, they saw, they conquered, and went home. There was a beginning, middle and end to the story, as was the custom for single issue stories at the time. The idea that a point of plot would lead DIRECTLY to the following issue was virtually unheard of at that point, and almost every single comic wrapped up in some way, shape or form. Now, things function quite different, and 2011’s Uncanny debut ending in a question mark and not a period is a common place tactic in modern day comics. In 1963, there were no guarantees that the next issue would be picked up, necessitating a more complete story. Whereas a 2011 Hyper-Mainstream Marvel Comic will, more likely than not, be picked up for at least a couple of issues, allowing the story to breathe a little more.
As I began to absorb the two simultaneously, I began to notice some very distinct thematic similarities. Simply put, the overall structure, minus the aforementioned period/question mark conundrum, is remarkably similar. The story progresses from a VERY exposition-filled introduction (in 2011’s case, an entirely tongue in cheek one, but exposition is exposition), into bare bones character introduction/statement of purpose, following by a confrontation that the heroes very quickly appear to have the upper hand with before realizing (literally, in 2011’s case), that they very much do not, before the situation rights itself. If these comics were pop songs, they’d have the exact same form, and I personally find this immensely compelling. Whether or not Gillen did this intentionally remains to be seen, but I take an immense amount of satisfaction in seeing this level of conceptual continuity present in comics almost 50 years apart.
However, the question remains: which is the stronger debut? Since this is itself the debut of this little column, I might as well try and define my own attributes of a strong first. First and foremost, every character must have a unique voice and exist distinctly apart not only from the others in the book, but from any other character the medium may include. Moreover, like any good piece of writing, it must draw the reader in as soon as possible, ideally within the first three pages if not the first five. It must also provide a compelling reason to actually KEEP reading, or in a medium dependent on staggered storytelling, you have officially failed. Given that, I am stunned to admit that the 2011 X-Men debut actually fares out a little stronger than the 1963 version.
Put your torches and pitchforks away. Got it? Good. Now let me explain.
Comics in 1963 were very different beasts than they are now, when the idea of a super hero is very much defined and more or less set in stone in most people’s eyes. However, even in 1963 there was a need for unique, distinctive passion. A desire for three dimensional storytelling that was very much possible even given the fetal nature of the art form. X-Men #1 does not achieve it. By the end of the issue, sure we are given characters with archetypes, but we ultimately have no sense of their internal motivations. Plus, we are given an enemy that is completely void of motivation other than to cause trouble. While this is a fairly commonplace situation for comics at the time, it does not help build the story toward a memorable conclusion. In 2011, even if you had never read or heard of any of the characters before (a virtual impossibility, but bare with me), you’d have a better sense of (most) of the their individual motivation and their reason for being than 1963 offers. On top of this, while not containing a definitive ending to be sure, 2011 is constructed in a way that it creates mysteries that actually compel readers to want answers. The only things left to chance in 1963 are largely based around small details in the plot as opposed to questions raised by the story. Simply put, its not entirely surprising that this book was cancelled after 60 some-odd issues: one dimensional characters, easy to absorb situations and plot twists with zero depth. Looking at both completely in a vacuum, 2011 is the one I’d want to know more about.
Final Standoff: X-Men #1 (1963) < Uncanny X-Men #1 (2011)
(Writer’s note: thanks for taking a chance on this new column! Stay tuned every other week for more cross-time analysis courtesy of moi. Since comics these days are so enamored with teasing whats to come in the backmatter, I feel pretty confident in letting three upcoming parings out there to whet your whistle: Resurrection Man vs Resurrection Man, Ultimate Spider-Man vs Ultimate Spider-Man & X-Force vs X-Force!)
