This begs the question "Why not just make every issue put out on the stands #1?"

Or why not start over at #1 after every story arc no matter if the story is one issue or ten issues long?

Does Ultimates REALLY need to start over at #1 after only 13 issues? Is this to create an easy to follow jumping on point for readers who are confused by all the continuity of 13 previous issues? Is this going to be the new model for comics, a #1 after every couple months?

I'm with you. Makes no sense at all. What is teh point of having numbers at all if you are going to constantly re-start at number 1????

From what i read its not even an overhaul its just a new arc.

you may as well just do a string of miniseries or one-shots. Point's moot, though. I've gotta say that even though the art by Hitch is fascinating, it's so long between issues that I've totally lost any interest in it. Did they even come out with the 13th issue yet? If they did, I probably have it but the story itself is not at all memorable. Ah well. No big loss. -Rick

Seems like an idea left over from the Jemas regime.

Years ago, as a joke, I suggested we start doing volume numbers, the way real magazines (and many British comics) do. So every 13th issue would be a "Number One" -- Vol. XXI, No. 1, Vol. II, No. 1, etc.

On NEXT MEN I began numbering the story arcs. 1 of 4, 1 of 6, that sort of thing. The regular numbers remained in plain sight on the covers. Yet each "first issue" showed a spike in sales.

In other words, yes, some people really are that stupid. And apparently M***** knows it.

(By the way -- do you guys really think you can go on blaming Jemas forever?)

At first I thought that this was just another scheme on the part of Marvel to get people to buy the big number one collectors issue. Then I read an interview with Mark Millar. Now I am far (lightyears away actually) from bein a Millar fan, but his idea, and it is his idea, is not so bad. Basically, Ultimates will end each of its series at number 13, and start again in a different place in the world, a different team, and with a different creative team. Quite similar actually to what JB mentioned. Now that I think about it, I'm probably giving Millar too much credit for coming up with this, because by the sounds of it, the idea came from JB years ago.

Sure, it sounds like a gimmick but in this case, really, why not? It's not as if anyone's tampering with an established series. If defining "the rules" of this book means starting again at number one every twelve issues, so what? If the intent, albeit impacted 'neath layers of cynicism, is to create an environment where a perceived easy jumping-on point to new readers is handy I don't see the harm. What if it actually works? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Ultimates will end each of its series at number 13, and start again in a different place in the world, a different team, and with a different creative team.

***********


I'm trying to imagine the same creative team lasting on a book for 13 issues, these days. . . .

It is the same creative team...Bryan Hitch is the artist for Ultimates vol 2 #1

Personally I don't care one way or the other...I only buy the book to look at Hitch's art and that is it...


Where he goes I go.

The whole "Ultimate" universe seemed confusing to me. I heard they were done to avoid having to deal with years and years of continuity. People didn't want to start at a # 509. But if the stories go on too long they will eventually build up years of continuity themselves. Starting over is one way to combat this perhaps.

I don't have a problem with the next Ultimates story beginning with a #1 issue. The first story was more like a limited series than an ongoing anyway.

DW

"You've spent too much time around all this Democratic rabble." - Kor (John Colicos)

I started reading Superman and Batman comics in 1956. The characters were then roughly 18 and 17 years old, respectively. By the end of the first story I read of each I knew who they were, where they lived, what they did and who most of their friends were.

And those were 6 or 8 page stories.

The notion that a "line" has to reboot itself every so often (especially every year!) points up nothing more than the bad, lazy writing that infects comics today. With a full 22 pages to play with every issues, there is absolutely no reason a good writer cannot have every new reader comfortably "on board" by the time s/he turns the last page.

The weird thing about Marvel's current practices is that they'll restart an existing book with the same creative team/direction on one hand (Ultimates, X-Force - X-Statix, Peter Parker - Spectacular Spider-Man, Cable - Soldier X, etc.) but then leave the numbering intact for the REALLY dramatic revamps (Milligan/Allred's X-Force, Arcudi's Thunderbolts, Priest's new direction for Black Panther, etc.). Don't understand it at all.

I'm happy enough they restored the old numbering to FF and Amazing Spider-Man (And Avengers when #500 comes out, if I heard right) that if they really want to restart a series that's only been around 13 issues more power to them.

<<I'm trying to imagine the same creative team lasting on a book for 13 issues, these days. . . . >>

It's simple if you give them over 2 years to produce 'em. Even these slacks can usually handle that. I think editorial is mostly to blame though. Knowing how slow Hitch is (and yes, he should be faster) they should have wiated until he was done with issue 9 and then solicit #1. That is if they must have Hitch and really, without Hitch, there'd be no Ultimates or not as popular at any rate. At least they'd have no missed deadlines, hopefully. -R

Thanks for responding, JB. The only renumbering I remember enjoying was that She-Hulk cover where you returned and were attempting to change the issue number in the left hand box! I think Renee (hope that's the right name) managed to stop you though.

I never purchased or read an "Ultimate" line. Maybe its the different continuity or maybe the superlative "Ultimate". I feel as a fan I already own the "Ultimate" FF comic book run (Three guesses which run it is?) and the "Ultimate" X-Men, etc.

Has anyone on the board ever been influenced to buy a comic because it has been restarted? Maybe the Byrne Victims are not an accurate representative of the fanboy universe. But still, will this marketing strategy make you go purchase it?

If a book gets re-started and the creative team is good, I'll check it out. But if it is a shitty team like say Erik Larsons total piece of utter amatuerish crap The Defenders then no!

It is the same creative team
________________________________________

That is true. I cannot remember whether or not Millar and Hytch will finish the whole new arc, or set the stage for a new creative team. Perhaps he meant after the next 13 issues.

_________________________________________

With a full 22 pages to play with every issues, there is absolutely no reason a good writer cannot have every new reader comfortably "on board" by the time s/he turns the last page.
_________________________________________

Boy do I ever agree with this statement. This is one of the things that I find the most wrong with in the comics industry. I recall that as a kid I could "jump" on board with just about any title, and at least get the jist of things enough so that I am not lost. Plus, whatever happened to the little blurbs refferencing a previous issue when it comes to rellevant things, like when a character mentions the last time they faced whatever badguy, and at the bottom it would say "Way back in FF 135" (or whatever). I cannot recall the last time I saw something like this, and it always made me want to purchase the refferred issue to get the full story.

I liked Duncan Fegredo's work on ULTIMATE ADVENTURES. Of all of the ULTIMATE offerings, this one was the most palatable.

Has anyone on the board ever been influenced to buy a comic because it has been restarted? Maybe the Byrne Victims are not an accurate representative of the fanboy universe. But still, will this marketing strategy make you go purchase it?

Not in and of itself for the most part.

I have started getting books starting with a new #1, but it's because there's a significant direction change or a new creative team that I'm interested in, not because of the number. If it was #108 or #572 rather than #1, I still would have picked it up. The only time I can think of that a new #1 in and of itself drew my attention to a book I wasn't already getting was the Giffen/Bierbaum Legion of Super-Heroes series. (And there's a book that actually needed a restart after Zero Hour! )

To be honest, restarting the numbering is more likely to get me to drop a book than pick it up. Occasionally, momentum plays a part in whether or not I'll stick with a book. So take the momentum away and... well... you know.

Not really. If anything, it's an excuse to stop buying.

I liked Duncan Fegredo's work on ULTIMATE ADVENTURES. Of all of the ULTIMATE offerings, this one was the most palatable.

------------------

Sure, art-wise it was good. Fegredo is a really good artist. The writing was s**t though.

"The notion that a "line" has to reboot itself every so often (especially every year!) points up nothing more than the bad, lazy writing that infects comics today. With a full 22 pages to play with every issues, there is absolutely no reason a good writer cannot have every new reader comfortably "on board" by the time s/he turns the last page."

Are you talking about in-story information presented or those little paragraphs that sometimes go on the interior cover or splash page? I remember Marvel used to sum up their characters in one or two sentences on the splash page. Today, some comics in the independent sector have "Previously in Captain Fonebone..." blurbs on the interior front covers.

DW

"You've spent too much time around all this Democratic rabble." - Kor (John Colicos)

"The notion that a "line" has to reboot itself every so often (especially every year!) points up nothing more than the bad, lazy writing that infects comics today. With a full 22 pages to play with every issue, there is absolutely no reason a good writer cannot have every new reader comfortably "on board" by the time s/he turns the last page."

So... you ARE referring to the little blurbs on the splash pages? That's part of it, right?

DW

"You've spent too much time around all this Democratic rabble." - Kor (John Colicos)

The English language can be our friend.

So, you're saying that the old blurbs on the splash pages of the comics of yesteryear didn't count as part of the 22 pages?

Edited to correct tenses.

DW

"You've spent too much time around all this Democratic rabble." - Kor (John Colicos)

Maybe I'm just weird, but I'm much more likely to pick up a book that is NOT a #1. A book at #103 or #456 has been around for a while and proven itself (and has more of a chance of being around in the future), while a #1 has a good chance of being the latest "hot" thing that will be gone before it gets very far into the double-digits.

Granted, there are a plethora of exceptions to this rule (you have to give new books a chance), and I wouldn't call it a definiteve standard. But shouldn't comics at least be aspiring to this? If the "jump on board anytime" philosophy is present?

I don't have a problem with a title like "The Ultimates" doing it. It's when it happens to grand ol' titles like Fantastic Four, Amazing Spider-Man and Incredible Hulk that I get bothered.

DW

"You've spent too much time around all this Democratic rabble." - Kor (John Colicos)

Darin, you're talking about two different things:

1) Summing up the character: Like our masthead, a quick origin for the character or team featured in the book.

2) Previously in...: What current Marvel does with the entire first page (or in the first couple of pages) that describes the story arc. Or what Dark Horse and various other titles do, using the inside front cover as a tool for "Previously in..."

JB is talking about neither of these. And I'm not mindreading here.

From reading him over the years, he's never been a huge fan of 1. I know he doesn't like 2. What he's saying, basically, is that every issue has the potential to be someone's first. Therefore, there shouldn't be a special demarcation where it's an easy "jumping on point." Every issue should provide easy access to a new reader about the character, situation and surroundings. Marvel and DC did it for decades. Some creators still do it to this day.

The laziness factor comes into play when a creator can't take the time allowed in 22 pages, and the tools available to him/her, to tell their story as well as invite new readers to pick it up, not turn it away. If a creator has to use the first page of a comic, and several paragraphs, to fill people in on what's going on then that's probably the first clue that they are being lazy and not doing their job...especially if we are talking about easily accessible, mainstream superhero comics that first and foremost should be aimed at children and definitely should be aimed at attracting new readers with every issue.



Matt Reed

"JB is talking about neither of these."

I'm detecting a discrepency. The splash page is usually counted as part of a comic book's 22 pages of story content, is it not?

DW

"You've spent too much time around all this Democratic rabble." - Kor (John Colicos)

As I recall, the renumbering is being done not so much to spike sales (although it's not a bad idea, since Marvel is a public company, and as such is responsible to its stockholders to get as much revenue as possible), but to give an impression of a new "season". The first major arc of stories is done, and now we start the new arc of stories.

I really don't mind these situations. Comic sales are too low as it is. Number EVERY book #1 if you have to, I don't care. Just tell me a good story worth my bucks (very important these days, as I just performed a massive purge of my buy list due to unhappiness of what I was reading). If you do that, I'll buy your book, regardless of the number.

The splash page is usually counted as part of a comic book's 22 pages of story content, is it not?

Of course it is. But a "splash page" and a "text page" are two entirely different things. Current Marvel is using a "text page" in place of a "splash page" to fill people in on what has gone before. The real kicker is that they aren't doing it in the story. Hell, they aren't even conveying this information in what we typically associate with comic books! They expect a new reader, someone unfamiliar with the characters, to pick up a book and read five or six paragraphs about what has gone before...BEFORE reading the actual comic. Classic Marvel never needed to do this. Ever. And they also never had an accesibility problem either.

Now, with a multitude of different "arcs" and training people not to pick up a book until the publishing company tells you to (ie. This is a "Jump on Issue!!" or "New Entry Point!!!") they are discouraging readers, who aren't lucky enough to stumble into a shop when ULTIMATES Vol 2 #1 ships, from buying their product.

Short answer: Everything you need to know in order to enjoy the book, be you a new or old reader, should be contained in the book. A "text page" on page number 1 is not a part of the book. It stands outside the book and says to a new reader, "Here's a whole bunch of info. Good luck sorting it out and enjoying the pages within!"



Matt Reed

"But a "splash page" and a "text page" are two entirely different things."

I know. But what I'm trying to find out here is if JB feels the splash page blurbs were enough to satisfy the subject of this statement from JB: "By the end of the first story I read of each I knew who they were, where they lived, what they did and who most of their friends were."

I know that the text page does not count as part of the 22 pages, which is why I specifically asked if he felt what went on the splash page was something he counted as part of the 22 pages. It seems to me that at least some of them did indeed inform potential new readers of the who, where and what.

DW

"You've spent too much time around all this Democratic rabble." - Kor (John Colicos)

I don't like that first page of text that Marvel currently uses, but I am not opposed to a SHORT "last issue" type of blurb. I compare it to those "previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer" clips that show 10 seconds of what's happend prior to the new episode.

<<I am not opposed to a SHORT "last issue" type of blurb. I compare it to those "previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer" clips that show 10 seconds of what's happend prior to the new episode.>>

Back in the 80s, the Legion of Super-Heroes had a "Previously" paragraph at the beginning of each issue's letter column, which did the trick nicely and stayed out of the way of the actual story. Of course, this was back in the long ago, when comics actually had letter columns...

The guys who did Soldier X used to do the text page as a splash page. They'd recap while mocking the whole recap page concept. Best thing about the book, really.

But what I'm trying to find out here is if JB feels the splash page blurbs were enough to satisfy the subject of this statement from JB: "By the end of the first story I read of each I knew who they were, where they lived, what they did and who most of their friends were."


*******


You're not "trying to find out" anything. You missed the point of my original statement and you are going to keep pounding away at this the way you always do. "By the end of the story" is self explanatory. BY THE END OF THE STORY.

Stop being an ass.

So does the blurb (a caption, after all) count as part of the story?

DW

"You've spent too much time around all this Democratic rabble." - Kor (John Colicos)