|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 30, 2015 7:41:17 GMT -5
I don't know about you guys, but I absolutely HATE all the re-starts we've got lately from Marvel (and DC, to a smaller extent). I think 10-15 years from now it's going to be a real mess trying to find anything... say you want Iron Man #10... there are what, like 6 of those now? I think it may end up like baseball cards, where you can find 'classic' stuff from the 60s and 70s more easily than recent stuff.
Especially with online and digital, and the current trend for generic covers, I can see people buying wrong issues in droves.
What Dark Horse and IDW are both now doing is using a 'legacy' number. For example, in 'Conan the Avenger', the cover has #10 on it, but in the indicia it says '#210 in a series', which goes back to the beginning of Conan at Dark Horse. They do the same for some of the other titles... I noticed it in Dark Horse Presents as well.
IDW is now doing it for the new Disney line, but taking it one step further and 'counting' the previous publishers. In fact, it may have even been on the cover, ala when Marvel 1/2 went back to the old numbers after heroes reborn, but before the re-boot mania.
What do you guys think, would you like to see Marvel and DC do something like 'legacy numbers'? Don't care?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on May 30, 2015 7:47:01 GMT -5
I think it's absurd given the rationale. If they simply promoted story arcs properly and left the numbering alone, I think the sales effect would be the same. "PART ONE in a new story arc!" in big bold type on the cover with the number sequencing staying the same. With digital, and the fact that I only read digital and collected editions now, this is less of a problem for me, particularly if you can organize things chronologically by year and date, but it's still ridiculous that they had to throw away the numbering system because the "sheep" buy anything with a giant #1 on it. There was an is a better solution to the madness that we see now.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,923 
|
Post by Crimebuster on May 30, 2015 10:46:57 GMT -5
I like legacy numbers. They did it for a while after Heroes Return, and I appreciated it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 30, 2015 10:48:48 GMT -5
I think it's absurd given the rationale. If they simply promoted story arcs properly and left the numbering alone, I think the sales effect would be the same. "PART ONE in a new story arc!" in big bold type on the cover with the number sequencing staying the same. With digital, and the fact that I only read digital and collected editions now, this is less of a problem for me, particularly if you can organize things chronologically by year and date, but it's still ridiculous that they had to throw away the numbering system because the "sheep" buy anything with a giant #1 on it. There was an is a better solution to the madness that we see now. That's pretty much what Hellboy and the BPRD do, only they put the issue number on the title page just inside the cover. |
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on May 30, 2015 11:32:57 GMT -5
All I can say is that I miss when comic series had issue numbers in the triple digits.  |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 30, 2015 11:39:16 GMT -5
I think it's absurd given the rationale. If they simply promoted story arcs properly and left the numbering alone, I think the sales effect would be the same. "PART ONE in a new story arc!" in big bold type on the cover with the number sequencing staying the same. With digital, and the fact that I only read digital and collected editions now, this is less of a problem for me, particularly if you can organize things chronologically by year and date, but it's still ridiculous that they had to throw away the numbering system because the "sheep" buy anything with a giant #1 on it. There was an is a better solution to the madness that we see now. I agree... I think that trend won't last forever, though. I mean, there are two reasons for #1s to sell big: Either people like to be in 'at the beginning', or they think they're getting a comic that will be valuable. I think history will show (if it hasn't already) that #1s don't have any special value, it's 1st appearances people care about. That only leaves the 'in at the beginning' thing... I think you're right that better (or perhaps just different) promotion would work for that just as well. |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on May 30, 2015 11:40:33 GMT -5
When the first renumbering happened in the late '90s, I was pretty sad. I was looking forward to all these comics hitting 500, 600 etc.
When they started switching back and forth, I got annoyed. It makes things really confusing and seemed to be a marketing gimmick. "Well, #1s sell better than others, and anniversary issues sell, so let's try to make as many comics one or the other as possible." So Avengers reverted to its old numbering with issue 500 and then ended with 503 so it could have another number 1. The Captain America series reached 50, then ended to get #1. Because market research shows issues #51 sell comparatively poorly. I found it all cynical.
Flash forward a while. I no longer buy Marvel Comics the way I used to. I have long since stopped believing all these comics are part of one continuity. The holes are too large. And now I'm looking for good runs on the titles by good writers. And I kind of accept them all starting fresh with a number 1. I'm fine with Brubaker's Cap starting with a #1 (not sure why it needed a new #1 in the middle of his run). Waid's Daredevil. The Slott/Allred Silver Surfer. Let the series end when the creators leave.
Then an entire series can be a run.
We've lost the numbering anyway. We've lost the continuity.
So number them by creative teams I say.
|
|
|
|
Post by spoon on May 30, 2015 12:43:42 GMT -5
All I can say is that I miss when comic series had issue numbers in the triple digits. Me too. And we were getting close to some quadruple digits. I guess the legacy number could be stuck unobtrusively somewhere. I just think the "have your cake and eat it too quality" for resumptions of old number is annoying. A publisher goes back to #1 to garner sales, then resumes old numbering (usually temporarily) when a milestone number can be reached. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 30, 2015 13:10:02 GMT -5
I've never understood the big deal. Virtually no other type of periodical numbers the issues in the way that comics do. I definitely understand for some people it's a thing...but I just don't care at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 14:23:32 GMT -5
I'm with Slam. I wish they'd just get rid of issue numbers just use Vol. and issue starting over each year and just number the trade collections consecutively by Volume. If they are going to use the season approach for creative teams and storytelling, then just have the numbering reflect that, the volume number tells you which season (i.e. story) it belongs to and the issue number tells you what order to read that season in. Simple, easy to follow now and in the future. Takes emphasis away from issue number and puts it back on story. Allows for marketing and sales pushes at the start of each season, easy for collectors who need numbers to tell them how to organize their material to have a guide, etc. etc.
What is confusing down the road for potential new readers is having several Spider-Man collections labelled Vol. 1, several Batman collections labelled vol. 1, several X-Men labelled Vol. 1, several Avengers labelled Vol. 1. Books are a different animal than periodicals and have different expectations in the marketplace. Especially if trades are where publishers will make long term revenue. It's not happening now, things don't stay in print, but product confusion i the book market (rather than in specialist comic book stores where there are not casual purchasers for the most part) is more detrimental to growth than periodical numbering confusion.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 15:16:06 GMT -5
When a series is renamed, numbering starts at #1 again, but the inside indicia states it's place in the ongoing storyline, that's fine. Helpful even. When a series keeps the same title, reboots to #1 whenever they need sales, and then returns to old numbering later, that's a pain in the ass. I wouldn't even follow a title that did that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on May 30, 2015 17:38:27 GMT -5
That seems like a good idea. I really like relaunches - I'm a sucker for # 1 issues, and it makes perfect sense to me to differentiate different takes on the same character. (Although I'd pair this with title changes. Iron Man vol. 1 would be Invincible Iron Man, vol. 2 would be Amazing Iron Man, volume 3 woult be Yay! It's Iron Man! Groovy!"... or maybe I'd hire someone else to thing up the titles.)
But I don't see any reason they couldn't have two numbers. If some of their fanbase cares about this, there's no reason NOT to, and it would probably help retailers with back issue sales a little bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 18:27:18 GMT -5
I don't know about you guys, but I absolutely HATE all the re-starts we've got lately from Marvel (and DC, to a smaller extent). I think 10-15 years from now it's going to be a real mess trying to find anything... say you want Iron Man #10... there are what, like 6 of those now? I think it may end up like baseball cards, where you can find 'classic' stuff from the 60s and 70s more easily than recent stuff. You've made a very valid point about finding anything and that's why I hate reboots as well. When you say you want Iron Man #10 ... there are what, like 6 of those now? hit me like a tons of bricks. As a modest collector and a very picky one indeed you have to do the research make sure you want the "right thing" and that's makes it harder for us to want the right Iron Man #10. That's why I hate reboots period. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 30, 2015 18:32:42 GMT -5
I'm with Slam. I wish they'd just get rid of issue numbers just use Vol. and issue starting over each year and just number the trade collections consecutively by Volume. If they are going to use the season approach for creative teams and storytelling, then just have the numbering reflect that, the volume number tells you which season (i.e. story) it belongs to and the issue number tells you what order to read that season in. Simple, easy to follow now and in the future. Takes emphasis away from issue number and puts it back on story. Allows for marketing and sales pushes at the start of each season, easy for collectors who need numbers to tell them how to organize their material to have a guide, etc. etc. What is confusing down the road for potential new readers is having several Spider-Man collections labelled Vol. 1, several Batman collections labelled vol. 1, several X-Men labelled Vol. 1, several Avengers labelled Vol. 1. Books are a different animal than periodicals and have different expectations in the marketplace. Especially if trades are where publishers will make long term revenue. It's not happening now, things don't stay in print, but product confusion i the book market (rather than in specialist comic book stores where there are not casual purchasers for the most part) is more detrimental to growth than periodical numbering confusion. -M I agree on trades.. that's supposedly what they're fixing with the epic line... but we'll see if they actually stick with it. I think comics are very different from magazines, though... you don't collect magazines (in general). I suppose they could just date comics, but that will point out when things are late, and make it unclear exactly what you need when you collect stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 30, 2015 18:35:03 GMT -5
That seems like a good idea. I really like relaunches - I'm a sucker for # 1 issues, and it makes perfect sense to me to differentiate different takes on the same character. (Although I'd pair this with title changes. Iron Man vol. 1 would be Invincible Iron Man, vol. 2 would be Amazing Iron Man, volume 3 woult be Yay! It's Iron Man! Groovy!"... or maybe I'd hire someone else to thing up the titles.) But I don't see any reason they couldn't have two numbers. If some of their fanbase cares about this, there's no reason NOT to, and it would probably help retailers with back issue sales a little bit. Marvel seemed to be doing this for a while... you get the different adjectives (or none), but they've kinda abandoned that. |
|
