|
|
Post by driver1980 on Apr 1, 2024 10:36:56 GMT -5
I did enjoy what I read of Marvel’s New Universe, particularly DP 7 and Star Brand. I did like and appreciate the realistic nature that they were going for, such as the issue of Star Brand where Ken Connell had to get his bearings and work out his directions while flying. I also appreciated the real-time nature of the stories. (I gather the realism didn’t last)
Obviously, the concept didn’t have great success. I don’t need to go into the details as a knowledgable forum like this one no doubt knows the history. There have been a lot of debates about the various factors that led to failure, and, like the death of, say, a wrestling promotion, the reasons for failure can be numerous.
What I’d like to specifically discuss (although thread drift is fine!) is whether launching eight titles was too ambitious.
Would launching fewer titles have worked, or not made any difference?
I remember reading an interview with a videotape licensee years ago, who was launching a range in the UK, and he said something like, “We’d already got a lot of releases in North America, and didn’t want to flood the UK market with all the releases available in North America.” Spacing things out made sense.
Now, that’s not the best comparison I could make, but whether we’re talking comicbooks, videotape ranges or chocolate bar variations, flooding the market is counter-productive. I’m certain Marvel weren’t the first publisher to launch a lot of titles near-concurrently, but New Universe launched 8 titles - and none of them were spin-offs or tied to existing material, so were starting from scratch in a crowded market.
By launching 8 titles which weren’t tied to existing material, did the concept have any chance of gaining traction?
It’s a shame it failed because, as a kid, I preferred something like that than another Spidey or X-Men book. It felt different. It would have been nice to see it succeed, but for the reasons stated above - and some might disagree with my views - did it ever have any chance?
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2024 11:16:44 GMT -5
It's an interesting topic, and I'll reply based on just having been there and having a lot of initial excitement to check out all of the titles. I indeed bought the first issue of every title when they came out (and not as a "speculator", truly just wanted to read them).
Before I answer the "too many" titles question, here are my more global thoughts on the line. Trying to do something outside of the superhero norms of the past and do some ambitious "world building" in the process, I think it wasn't a bad concept. The excitement of the 80's indy stuff was already poking holes at the traditional material like the existing Marvel superhero mainstream world. I know personally, even as someone who had been growing up on a hardcore diet of traditional Marvel and DC, I was definitely gravitating to a wider body of content over the last couple of years.
But I think the difference with the New Universe is that it WASN'T the next Ninja Turtles or Cerebus or certainly Watchmen. The stuff that made you really go "whoa, this is REALLY different and cool". It looked kinda mainstream, it read kinda mainstream, it was just "different". And I think there was some good content even though no big hits, I personally kind of liked Star Brand. But I dropped that and all of the titles quickly, there was just too much other competing content to pick from at that time.
So in theory, yeah, maybe a little more focused line-up could have helped initially, but I don't know that any of the titles were really set up for much success overall. I've had this theory for awhile though, and it's kind of half-baked, but I wonder if New Universe was a little too early. If it had been the early 90's and in the hands of some of the new wave of hotshot young creators at that point, I wonder if it could have delivered both that "fresh concept" benefit with a little more exciting creative delivery. Again, interesting topic!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Apr 1, 2024 12:11:53 GMT -5
The main problem with the New Universe line was that the suits in the executive suite were against it from the start, reluctantly greenlighting it primarily to placate Jim Shooter, and were happy to pull the plug on it first chance they got. The money was all in exploiting existing properties like Spider-Man and X-Men and in licensed titles like Transformers and G.I. Joe so they had zero interest in a line consisting entirely of new, untried characters and concepts. It was a miracle it lasted as long as it did and there was no chance of it surviving Shooter's canning. At least that's what I've been told.
Cei-U!
I summon the doomed experiment!
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 1, 2024 12:53:47 GMT -5
I think this was just another case, certainly one of the earlier ones, of trying to shoehorn a shared universe and expecting fanboys to slaver over it. And it hasn't stopped. Now we see it with movies where everyone and their dog thinks that they can just slap together a shared universe and everyone will lick it up because there was one that was successful before. Except that the ones that were successful developed over time and gradually became what they were over time and with some good (and some bad) product.
I do think that starting with eight books was far too many. I was buying quite a few comics in 1986, but there was absolutely no way I could justify jumping on the the bandwagon for eight new books on top of the ones I was already buying. So I didn't buy any. I suspect I wasn't alone in that. If they had started with one or two quality books and tried to build on that, it might, just might, have been more successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Apr 1, 2024 13:42:10 GMT -5
I think this was just another case, certainly one of the earlier ones, of trying to shoehorn a shared universe and expecting fanboys to slaver over it. And it hasn't stopped. Now we see it with movies where everyone and their dog thinks that they can just slap together a shared universe and everyone will lick it up because there was one that was successful before. Except that the ones that were successful developed over time and gradually became what they were over time and with some good (and some bad) product. Yeah--one of the attractions of the early independents was that each book was it's own thing, driven by a creator who was invested in that book. So First had American Flagg, Mars, Grimjack, Sable, etc., and they all looked and felt unique. You followed some, didn't follow others, but probably enjoyed them more because of that. I do think that starting with eight books was far too many. I was buying quite a few comics in 1986, but there was absolutely no way I could justify jumping on the the bandwagon for eight new books on top of the ones I was already buying. So I didn't buy any. I suspect I wasn't alone in that. If they had started with one or two quality books and tried to build on that, it might, just might, have been more successful. The later indies, like Malibu, assumed a shared universe. When my partner and I were shopping things around, part of the agreement was that characters could be used in other books or x-overs whether you liked it or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2024 14:44:18 GMT -5
This topic got me thinking, Dakota North came out a little earlier in that same year. Feels similar, outside of regular continuity, more real world. Only lasted through 5 bimonthly issues, maybe it just wasn't popular, or maybe had to clear space for other stuff like New Universe, I'm not sure. I also just remembered Watchmen started the month before the New Universe launched, that's a little tough timing too, another incremental title a lot of us were already adding to our monthly purchases back in the day.
Maybe in hindsight it really was too many titles at once, and this isn't quite apples to apples since this later imprint had a lot of connection to mainstream Marvel, but the 2099 imprint only launched 4 titles at the start and then added more along the way. Probably a similar phased approach would have at least given more flexibility to tinker with the New Universe format as they went versus being "all in" with the investment of 8 titles all at once. Kinds of sets up a bigger fall ultimately. I don't know that would have saved the New Universe per se, but might have been more prudent.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Apr 1, 2024 14:54:51 GMT -5
Think about this... Jim Shooter not only created a "new universe" at Marvel, but he created another new universe at Valiant, and then another at Defiant. They might not have all been perfect, but that's an incredible record of creativity and being able to wrangle creative types into a cohesive vision.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Apr 1, 2024 18:32:08 GMT -5
I think this was just another case, certainly one of the earlier ones, of trying to shoehorn a shared universe and expecting fanboys to slaver over it. And it hasn't stopped. Now we see it with movies where everyone and their dog thinks that they can just slap together a shared universe and everyone will lick it up because there was one that was successful before. Except that the ones that were successful developed over time and gradually became what they were over time and with some good (and some bad) product. Yeah--one of the attractions of the early independents was that each book was it's own thing, driven by a creator who was invested in that book. So First had American Flagg, Mars, Grimjack, Sable, etc., and they all looked and felt unique. You followed some, didn't follow others, but probably enjoyed them more because of that. I do think that starting with eight books was far too many. I was buying quite a few comics in 1986, but there was absolutely no way I could justify jumping on the the bandwagon for eight new books on top of the ones I was already buying. So I didn't buy any. I suspect I wasn't alone in that. If they had started with one or two quality books and tried to build on that, it might, just might, have been more successful. The later indies, like Malibu, assumed a shared universe. When my partner and I were shopping things around, part of the agreement was that characters could be used in other books or x-overs whether you liked it or not. I think this is an important point: if you discover a new prose author you want to check out for some reason or anther, you don't expect it to be part of some "shared universe" or to have to buy multiple other books by completely different writers in order to get the full picture of what's going on in the fictional world of this particular book. And that goes even for genre books that are part of a series. Imagine if in order to read, say, the James Bond books you also had to read Young Bond, plus the Miss Moneypenney series, and the Secret Origin of Blofeld, and "The M Generation", and on and on. All that might be cool if someone did want to start a shared universe that way with multiple interconnected series but it wouldn't and shouldn't be expected as if it were the normal state of affairs in any detective series (or whatever) you'd read. Yet somehow it became that in American comics. I know nothing about the New Universe - until I read this thread I'd been assuming it was something from the 1990s or 2000s - but it wouldn't have been something that would have caught my eye back then. I was looking for something different at that point in my comics reading, without knowing what, exactly, and it was the independents that ended up giving it to me, with a few exceptions like Alan Moore's stuff for DC. But I think even if it ha happened a few years earlier, II wouldn't have been too interested unless there was something about a specific character or concept that attracted me or a favourite creator. A new shared universe just by itself would have meant nothing in particular |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 1, 2024 21:40:39 GMT -5
I do think 8 titles were too much, because they weren't 8 good ones. About half of that were good and the rest detracted from what they were trying to do.
I think Shooter learned his lesson, by the time Valiant launched, to start small and build upon your success, before moving on the the grandiose event stuff. Valiant proper started with Magnus, then Solar (Magnus was on its 4thissue, when Solar, Man of the Atom, debuted), the Rai, as a flipbook, with Magnus, then Harbinger, X-O Manowar, Rai and the Future Force, Shadowman, then Archer & Armstrong and eternal Warrior debuted together, with the Unity event. All built slowly, introducing one character and establishing his world, before adding another, then another, then another, until we had a viable universe, to bring together, in Unity.
I blame the success of the Valiant line for giving everyone shared universe fever, as that seemed to be the real catalyst, with the other indies. Eclipse had some crossovers, within certain titles, as had First, but usually limited to the same writer or something like Cynosure, for First and Grimjack. However, they all succumbed to crossover fever, after Crisis and the others, with Total Eclipse and Crossover, as well as Continuity's attempts at such things. Their comics had been shared universe, from the start, but Neal was so erratic in his publishing that they never really gained traction (and were horribly written).
|
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 1, 2024 22:17:55 GMT -5
Yeah, from what I've seen, if they started out with 4 titles like Marvel 2099 did (We'll just say the initial 4 could be Star Brand, Psi Force, DP7, and Nightmask), and then gradually introduced other titles (and from what I've heard, Kickers Inc. and Marc Hazzard: Merc werent supposed to be NU titles to begin with) after those titles gain some traction, it might have worked better. Best to start slow before dropping people in with too many titles.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Apr 2, 2024 4:30:03 GMT -5
Yeah, from what I've seen, if they started out with 4 titles like Marvel 2099 did (We'll just say the initial 4 could be Star Brand, Psi Force, DP7, and Nightmask), and then gradually introduced other titles (and from what I've heard, Kickers Inc. and Marc Hazzard: Merc werent supposed to be NU titles to begin with) after those titles gain some traction, it might have worked better. Best to start slow before dropping people in with too many titles. And from what I heard, not all titles were excellent. At the time I only followed DP7 (which from what I heard was among the best of the NU) and I don't consider it an unforgettable masterpiece. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Apr 2, 2024 4:38:37 GMT -5
I know nothing about the New Universe - until I read this thread I'd been assuming it was something from the 1990s or 2000s - but it wouldn't have been something that would have caught my eye back then. I was looking for something different at that point in my comics reading, without knowing what, exactly, and it was the independents that ended up giving it to me, with a few exceptions like Alan Moore's stuff for DC. But I think even if it ha happened a few years earlier, II wouldn't have been too interested unless there was something about a specific character or concept that attracted me or a favourite creator. A new shared universe just by itself would have meant nothing in particular It was intended to be a more "realistic" superhero universe. The big problem is that for me, fundamentally, "realism" and "superheroes" are two antithetical concepts. You can make great superhero comics. You can also write some that will be studied in universities. But they will never be "realistic". There's a reason why cities aren't populated by Batmen and Daredevils (if we want to limit ourselves to superheroes without superpowers) busy fighting crime with batrangs and backward somersaults. The suspension of disbelief in superhero comics is very high. They weren't the only ones who wanted to create a "universe like ours but where suddenly people with superpowers appear!". The problem is that then we end up in the same tropes as superhero comics (rightly so, otherwise it would be another genre). |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Apr 2, 2024 5:00:49 GMT -5
You make some fair points, Zaku.
I don’t think all of the realism that was tried was unworthy, though. Ken Connell trying to get his bearings and utilise some navigation was at least different from a comicbook world where someone living in Mobile, Alabama gets powers - and then flies to New York City without any problem. Not that I need every Superman comic to show him working out latitude and longitude, but a little thing like Connell getting his bearings can work while giving us the superhero stuff as well.
Real time also has benefits. Someone (not me) once worked out that there had been 17,000+ Spidey stories since 1962. Marvel does not move in real time, but if we presume Spidey has had several adventure a week (with days off), the maths that this person worked on was that Spidey would need 48+ years to have been able to fit in all of those adventures we’ve seen since Amazing Fantasy #15. Now, we switch our brains off and just enjoy the ride, but if you think about it deeply, it doesn’t work, and it also means we’ll never see proper change.
At least with a real time approach, if a publisher stuck to it, we could see proper change, just like we see on TV where the inevitable ageing of characters means change. I don’t watch UK soap opera Coronation Street, but actor William Roache, born in 1932, has been with the show since it debuted in 1960. Anyone who may have followed him since the beginning might have seen some change because who wouldn’t change over 63+ years? So a real-time approach in comics (some, not all) could really allow proper change without resetting the status quo, or allowing someone to be 29 years old forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Apr 2, 2024 5:21:58 GMT -5
I know nothing about the New Universe - until I read this thread I'd been assuming it was something from the 1990s or 2000s - but it wouldn't have been something that would have caught my eye back then. I was looking for something different at that point in my comics reading, without knowing what, exactly, and it was the independents that ended up giving it to me, with a few exceptions like Alan Moore's stuff for DC. But I think even if it ha happened a few years earlier, II wouldn't have been too interested unless there was something about a specific character or concept that attracted me or a favourite creator. A new shared universe just by itself would have meant nothing in particular It was intended to be a more "realistic" superhero universe. The big problem is that for me, fundamentally, "realism" and "superheroes" are two antithetical concepts. You can make great superhero comics. You can also write some that will be studied in universities. But they will never be "realistic". There's a reason why cities aren't populated by Batmen and Daredevils (if we want to limit ourselves to superheroes without superpowers) busy fighting crime with batrangs and backward somersaults. The suspension of disbelief in superhero comics is very high. They weren't the only ones who wanted to create a "universe like ours but where suddenly people with superpowers appear!". The problem is that then we end up in the same tropes as superhero comics (rightly so, otherwise it would be another genre). Intersting. I agree that the superhero genre is inherently unrealistic - obviously! - and that thus one of the reasons Watchmen and Dark Knight caught on with fans in the 1980s is that aging fans like me were ready for the sort of re-imagining they offered. But I think it's worth looking at the difference between those two, where they pointed.
In later years the only interesting superhero series I can think of are Planetary - which I only heard about after it was almost finished - and Ennis's The Boys.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Apr 2, 2024 5:27:29 GMT -5
You make some fair points, Zaku. I don’t think all of the realism that was tried was unworthy, though. Ken Connell trying to get his bearings and utilise some navigation was at least different from a comicbook world where someone living in Mobile, Alabama gets powers - and then flies to New York City without any problem. Not that I need every Superman comic to show him working out latitude and longitude, but a little thing like Connell getting his bearings can work while giving us the superhero stuff as well. I just wanted to start a thread about this: How many elements of "realism" can you put into a superhero comic before it stops being, well, a superhero comic? Watchmen has always been held up as an example of "realism," but we find some tropes of the genre in it downright unrealistic. For example, in one issue we find a slightly overweight man and a woman in stiletto heels who single-handedly rout a gang of criminals. Ask any martial arts or street fighting expert: it simply can't happen.  |
|
