|
Post by tarkintino on Aug 13, 2018 14:46:14 GMT -5
I preferred the original X-Men team to any of the successor line-ups.
There, I said it.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Aug 13, 2018 15:23:55 GMT -5
With the awesome creative teams Marvel had on those titles after Heroes Reborn I always wondered why Marvel didn't just put those guys on the books and skip all the HR nonsense? They did Heroes Reborn to bring the Image creators back into the fold to generate some hype for characters that, let's face it, had gotten stale. FF, Thor, Captain America, and Iron Man were not top sellers anymore, and using the very same creators who were eating their lunch as their competition to bring eyes back to characters who had lost their former luster was a smart move, even if the resultant comics were, by and large, a collection of dumpster fires. And I completely agree that the Heroes Return comics were superior in every way to the Heroes Reborn books.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2018 15:28:27 GMT -5
With the awesome creative teams Marvel had on those titles after Heroes Reborn I always wondered why Marvel didn't just put those guys on the books and skip all the HR nonsense? They did Heroes Reborn to bring the Image creators back into the fold to generate some hype for characters that, let's face it, had gotten stale. FF, Thor, Captain America, and Iron Man were not top sellers anymore, and using the very same creators who were eating their lunch as their competition to bring eyes back to characters who had lost their former luster was a smart move, even if the resultant comics were, by and large, a collection of dumpster fires. And I completely agree that the Heroes Return comics were superior in every way to the Heroes Reborn books. Good point. I also think this was the starting point of the renumbering nonsense that still goes on today 20 years later.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 13, 2018 17:27:51 GMT -5
For the last several weeks, I've been reading Dennis O'Neil's run on the Batman comics. They're certainly fair stories, but fair's about all I find them to be. Not even the Ra's al Ghul stories rise above "alright" for me. Something I really appreciate about O Neil is the effort he made to remind us that Batman was both a master escape artist and detective - qualities it's very difficult to highlight effectively simply because the problem with coming up with a seemingly inescapable problem or unsolvable mystery is the fact that you have to provide the solutions to these obstacles. Batman using his own momentum to swing from a rope by his neck while his hands remain tied behind his back so that he grab a torch with his feet and burn through the noose was a nice display of Batman's 'Every trap has its own built in escape' philosophy (Batman 227 'The Demon of Gothos Manor'). Even his simple "You can see where the kidnappers ran their fingernail over this map showing their destination", "Ah, I see Detective", "Actually, Ra's - there is no imprint. I just wanted to confirm that it was you who sent the map" is a clever bit of writing in Batman 232 and in my opinion, is as classic an element of Ra's first appearance as Batman 244's sword battle would be to the character overall. Batman deducing that the murder he was framed for in 'Wanted for Murder-One, The Batman' (Batman 225) was actually a suicide due to a missing dumbbell at the crime scene was a clever bit of writing though it owes more to Conan Doyle than to O Neil. Even when he wrote the opening arc for Legends of the Dark Knight some twenty years later, O Neil was careful to include a nice bit of deductive reasoning on Batman's part when he realizes that he's headed into a trap within his own home due to the lack of footprints on a snowy path between the time it last snowed and the time when Alfred failed to respond to an earlier call. 'Shaman' also included one of the funnier moments in comics when Batman needs to be caught sneaking around by the police but finds himself dealing with two officers so inattentive that they fail to hear him first, toss a pen against a wall, then, fail to hear him "accidentally" drop a desk statue on the floor, and finally, suspect there might be an intruder in their midst when they hear a Christmas tree being thrown through a glass window. Batman's "Oh. You caught me." is testament to the fact that unlike later writers, O Neil remembered that Batman has a sense of humour. Still, I wonder if there's a feeling that O Neil gets too much credit seeing as how his stories were frequently drawn by Neal Adams - an artist who certainly elevated any story he was assigned to. It still strikes me as strange that O Neil followed up his classic 'Five Way Revenge' (Batman 251) with a pretty subpar Joker tale in Batman 260. How subpar? Batman defeats the Joker by thinking about the funniest Marx Brothers rountines which counteracted the drug he had been given which made him spend the duration of the story laughing at unfunny things. I can certainly see someone reading this and thinking (wrongly), 'Guess O Neil can only write the Joker when he's got Neal Adams helping him'. And since it's something that bugs me - while I think O Neil has earned his place as one of Batman's 10 greatest writers, I do wish people would remember that prior to his arrival, we had some great writers and artists already returning Batman to his 'Creature of the Night' roots in the form of Gardner Fox (see Batman 201, 202) Frank Robbins, Irv Novick, and others. So, if you're using the term 'fair' as in, in the same level as Robbins and Fox, I can't really argue and certainly 'alright' isn't a slam at the guy, but at his best, I think O Neil deserves all the praise he gets (though if anyone wants to deride his Green Arrow/Green Lantern run, that's fine by me).
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Aug 13, 2018 21:32:09 GMT -5
They did Heroes Reborn to bring the Image creators back into the fold to generate some hype for characters that, let's face it, had gotten stale. FF, Thor, Captain America, and Iron Man were not top sellers anymore, and using the very same creators who were eating their lunch as their competition to bring eyes back to characters who had lost their former luster was a smart move, even if the resultant comics were, by and large, a collection of dumpster fires. And I completely agree that the Heroes Return comics were superior in every way to the Heroes Reborn books. Good point. I also think this was the starting point of the renumbering nonsense that still goes on today 20 years later. It was, which is really sad. I just wish Marvel realized that the sales bump was not JUST due to the number one, but the uptick in quality of heroes return..perhaps we wouldn't get annual reboots then.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 14, 2018 5:27:40 GMT -5
Good point. I also think this was the starting point of the renumbering nonsense that still goes on today 20 years later. It was, which is really sad. I just wish Marvel realized that the sales bump was not JUST due to the number one, but the uptick in quality of heroes return..perhaps we wouldn't get annual reboots then. I always thought that just placing the year number on these comics might mitigate the damage done by the renumbering scam.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Aug 14, 2018 11:17:14 GMT -5
It was, which is really sad. I just wish Marvel realized that the sales bump was not JUST due to the number one, but the uptick in quality of heroes return..perhaps we wouldn't get annual reboots then. I always thought that just placing the year number on these comics might mitigate the damage done by the renumbering scam. That's what they've done in Japan in a way for ages; every first new issue of a title in a year has a big number 1 on it. If it's a weekly, by the end of a year there is an issue 52 followed by a number 1 again next issue, for a monthly a 12 and then a 1, or a bi-monthly (Comic Nora was one which ran Venus Wars first by Yoshikazu Yasuhiko) 6 back to 1. On a back page in tiny type you could find the whole issue number. For a monthly, as they call months by their numbers anyway, it made perfect sense for the January issues to show Ichi for Ichigatsu and December Juni for Junigatsu.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 13:24:43 GMT -5
I still think comic fans spend way too much time focusing on trade dress than the actual quality of the comics (story and art) they are reading. If comics are periodicals, they should have just used periodical numbering (Vol. #, issue # with the volume changing each year), but because comic fans change their buying habits based on trade dress not based on quality of story, comic companies have to use trade dress as a marketing element. If comic fans placed less importance on trade dress, comic companies would too. But the fans buying habits shape the way comics are marketed and sold and comic companies won't change until the fans who make up the core customer base do, and that will happen as soon as hell freezes over twice. But the fans will continue to blame the comic companies for something that is done in response to what fans do on their own. There I said it.
-M
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Aug 14, 2018 14:08:33 GMT -5
I think it's not JUST trade dress. People like to start things at the beginning, which is what a #1 signifies. If they signified a beginning in another way, like with a 'NEW CREATIVE TEAM, NEW DIRECTION' banner, or something, I'm sure that would be the thing. Comics have chosen to use a #1 as a sign of a new start, so that's what people look for. Combine that with the 'first appearances are the most valuable' collector thing, and #1s have even more signifigance, to a casual fan, surely that's the one that will be worth something someday! So while I agree the companies do what their buyers vote for with their dollars, they also have the ability to nudge their buyers in the direction they want... its when both things go the same way when we get unfortunate trends like the #1 plague
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 19:47:06 GMT -5
I think it's not JUST trade dress. People like to start things at the beginning, which is what a #1 signifies. If they signified a beginning in another way, like with a 'NEW CREATIVE TEAM, NEW DIRECTION' banner, or something, I'm sure that would be the thing. Comics have chosen to use a #1 as a sign of a new start, so that's what people look for. Combine that with the 'first appearances are the most valuable' collector thing, and #1s have even more signifigance, to a casual fan, surely that's the one that will be worth something someday! So while I agree the companies do what their buyers vote for with their dollars, they also have the ability to nudge their buyers in the direction they want... its when both things go the same way when we get unfortunate trends like the #1 plague When fans continue to buy #1 issues at 30-50% higher rates (i.e. the average attrition rate between a #1 issue and a #3 issue for the last 2-3 decades)than #2 #3 or any other issue number, what do you expect companies to do? If fan/customers bought issue # 883 in as high quantities as they bought issues marked #1 even when #883 is marked as a fresh start with a new creative team and #1 is a continuation of the same ole same ole in terms of storyline and creative team, is it the companies fault the customer buys more of #1 than any other issue and if they are going to meet revenue goals they have to put out #1 issues because as much as fans say they don't want #1s and want things like legacy numbering, their wallets don't back up their words, and the wallet will speak much louder than anything fans say or type on a message board or social media. Sales trend basically show that customers are lying when they say they don't want #1 issues and want books to keep old numbering because with very few exceptions (Action #1000 and ASM #800 both backed by scores of variants to boost sales to the level a #1 would get and a regularly numbered issue wouldn't) because #1 issues continue to outsell other issues with different numberings. Now maybe that's retailers fault for ordering higher on #1s, but retailers have their own sales data based on actual customer purchases to inform their decisions on how to order those books and they continue to order higher on them. Publishers are businesses, they need to maximize revenue for their shareholders and for their employees. When your customer base reacts a certain way to one type of product in a way they do not react to and buy any other type of product, you produce more of that product or you are simply irresponsible businessmen. We don't blame Coca Cola for going back to Coke Classic after customers failed to buy New Coke, we blame them for trying to sell New Coke when customers demonstrated they wanted the old formula and we applaud them for being able to react to their customers after the failed experiment and produce the product their buying patterns showed they wanted. But when comic companies sell the product comic fans buying patterns have shown they wanted for decades, it's the comic companies fault for producing too many #1 issues. If customers want change, they need to speak with their wallets, not post on social media or message boards. If people keep buying #1 issues in greater quantities, then companies like Marvel and DC will produce them. If you are looking for causality, look to the if part of the statement, not the then part of the statement. Sure comic companies are COULD stop making #1s, but then where is the lost revenue going to be made up? Because the fan/customer has demonstrated quite clearly over the decades that it's not going to be in regularly numbered issues later in the series as attrition rates have been steady or increasing, not decreasing over the past several decades the longer a series runs despite any other changes such as to storyline or creative teams. Marvel tried that whole market a new storyline and creative team but keep the numbering in 2014 as part of the second year of it's Marvel Now books (an example below from Guardians of the Galaxy #11... with the numbering staying the same but a big ole #1 on the cover for the start of a new storyline, and guess what happened-they all sold the same as the next issue would have anyways with standard attrition levels because it wasn't an actual #1 and so customers didn't buy it at the same levels an actual #1 would have sold at. So what should a publisher like Marvel do? Accept lower sales and standard attrition rates and not publish #1 issues just because fans complain about it on the internet but don't back up their complaints with actual money spent, or do #1s where fans say they don't like it, but actually spend money on them and generate more revenue for the company? But yeah, it's all the publishers fault and the fans/customers bear no responsibility for it at all. It's always someone else's fault, that's the way the world works now isn't it? -M
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 14, 2018 21:03:59 GMT -5
I'm guilty as well but only in so far that number one issues usually indicate a new direction or a back to basics for a book that has lost it's way. I purchased Avengers # 1 a few months back because it returned the big three to the assemblers. I will admit it was a disappointment.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Aug 14, 2018 21:32:05 GMT -5
There used to be, and probably still is, where there are standing orders for extra copies of any #1 with many customers (shops and individuals). It became a systemic stock exchange sort of flaw feeding itself. And then they added #0s and variants... the collector focus has really skewed things. The old newsstand system was not reactive at all really, and the direct specialist shop was very reactive and non-returnable... and here we are. Let's hope the Walmart 100pagers and digests get to actual readers because if you aren't creating new readers there will be no collectors in the future to care about any of it.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Aug 15, 2018 7:56:58 GMT -5
It can also be noted that many #1 issues come with multiple/alternative cover choices and I know of 2 shops here in Phoenix that when folks put a new series on their pull list the LCS automatically places ALL the variant covers in the subscriber box and ordered this way thereby creating a larger #1 order than is necessary. Knowing the subscriber will likely only purchase a single issue then the LCS can have a bundle of guaranteed "extra" copies to sell.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Aug 15, 2018 16:07:00 GMT -5
I think the 1970's, overall, was a return to greatness for Batman. I'm currently rereading the excellent Englehart/Rogers run in Detective Comics and I think I'm enjoying it even more the second time. That said, the one significant problem I have with this era is the rather nonsensical decision to put Wayne Manor/The Batcave in moth balls and move Batman to a penthouse. The original thought process was to...modernize Bruce Wayne by putting him in the heart of the city?
Seeing that he spent most of his time as Batman prowling the streets anyway, and also seeing that Lucius Fox will soon be introduced, I think this move was rather pointless. It's also interesting how rarely Batman utilizes the Batmobile, his utility belt and personal aircraft in this era. It's hilarious to me how Bob Haney (or was it Aparo?) always had Batman renting a WWII bomber to make long distance flights in The Brave & the Bold. I assume that the editors and creators wanted to distance Batman a bit from his gadgets and vehicles because of their overuse in the 60?
|
|
|
Post by comicsandwho on Aug 15, 2018 17:59:09 GMT -5
When they first 'modernized' Batman, the 'Wayne Foundation'was a charity that invited people to come in and ask for assistance...which Wayne was able to provide, usually, but not always, with Batman getting involved. (This is similar to what happened to the Batman newspaper strip, after the TV show ended...the syndicate didn't have the rights to Batman, but nobody ever said they couldn't make Bruce Wayne the main character, so Bruce and Dick helped people, a bit like a more active version of an advice columnist! But, like Superman being depowered, the process of 'interviewing clients' was dropped fairly quickly, around 1971. I never actually read Engelhart and Rogers on 'Detective', but the 'Bat-gadgets' returned with a vengeance shortly afterwards, with Len Wein's arrival on the Batman title. Bob Haney...well, he didn't give a damn what anybody else did, he just did his thing, and DC let him, at least til Murray Boltinoff stopped editing the book.
|
|