Mikester

• Pal Nat has posted the crossover you demanded! (Well, actually, not so much demanded as inspired by this post.) Go, look, be afraid.
• Over the last few days Rick Veitch has been relating his (heretofore unrevealed) involvement in the development of the Sentry for Marvel Comics, with Paul Jenkins. You can read all the chapters thus far right here, each accompanied by Veitch concept art, with more chapters to come.

  The very few times I’ve read stories involving the Sentry, he hasn’t really done anything for me. I gathered he was a Superman-type character, only with mental and/or confidence problems, and never felt the need to seek out more about him. Learning about Veitch’s connection to the character increases my interest a bit, at least in taking a look at the initial Sentry series, even if Veitch himself didn’t contribute his art or his particular storytelling style or perspective to the final printed product (which would have gone a long way toward making me more interested in that story).

  Plus, this sort of has me wanting to reread Maximortal again, which in a way seems to have some minor metacommentary/thematic connections to The Sentry, if taken to much greater extremes.

• I keep meaning to add this to the sidebar, because it’s an awesome site and you should visit it: Dateline: Silver Age, a great, simple concept beautifully presented.
• Bully the Little Patriotic Bull celebrates Independence Day with another mini-gallery of flag-cover comics. And speaking of Bully, content from one of his previous Independence Day posts has turned up in a couple of other blogs recently. They do give him credit, but essentially present the entire post in full, thus giving no one any reason to go back to Bully’s original post. That’s a terrible thing to do to a six-year-old stuffed bull.

  Anyway, you should all be visiting Bully’s site on a regular basis. Accept no substitutes!

Like this late ’93 Malibu Comics house ad for Dinosaurs for Hire, which is totally making fun of Jim Shooter’s Warriors of Plasm comic at Defiant:

Another bit of business about that cover is the “GENESIS” logo, which was Malibu Comics’ early ’90s crossover event for their adventure/superhero books. And, oddly enough, a few years later DC Comics ran a crossover event also called “GENESIS.” Coincidence? Well, probably. But DC’s event didn’t involve Dinosaurs for Hire, and therefore was vastly inferior.

In other news:

• As you may have seen linked above, here’s a website devoted to celebrating the writing of Jim Shooter.
• Another comics writer of some note, Kurt Busiek, has a new website going, including a weblog. Good reading from one of the industry’s most beloved creators.
• I’m surprised this doesn’t happen more often: a customer was looking for a DC Archives volume that I knew didn’t exist. “But I saw it upon the Internets,” sez he, so a quick Googling later, I found what he was talking about: this page of mock-ups for Archives fans are hoping for, including the one the customer had asked about. Ah, well, that may not have worked out, but we had a Showcase Presents volume for the same character, so everyone was happy.

  I’d totally love to have a Firestorm Archives, by the way. Those early issues on nice paper? Fantastic.

  …What?

You folks have been nice enough to play along with my thing from yesterday regarding what the comics marketplace would be like with Marvel’s and DC’s characters/teams/franchises restricted to single titles. Just to reiterate…this isn’t something I’m hoping will happen, or think will happen (beyond perhaps a condensing of titles into larger periodical anthologies in the face of rising cover prices). This is just a little thought experiment, wondering just what would be different, what situations it would improve or make worse.

I was asked in the comments if the retail end would take a hit if we didn’t have (for example) the half-dozen Wolverine titles for people to buy. And granted, Wolverine comics usually do sell well. In general (and I’m bolding that so that I don’t get a bunch of comments from people who need to tell me that they don’t fall within the generalities I’m about to describe — take it as a given that yes, I know), judging by my instore observations, if a customer buys just one Wolverine series, they buy the one just called Wolverine.* A large percentage (but not 100%) of those customers also buy the spin-offs, Wolverine: Origins and Wolverine: Weapon X. A much smaller percentage also buy the Wolverine: Noir mini-series and Wolverine: First Class (the first not being “in continuity” and the latter probably “not serious enough” — surely points counted against these comics for the discerning Wolverine buyer).

This pattern shouldn’t be any surprise. Amazing Spider-Man usually outsold Spectacular, Sensational, Web of, and Adjectiveless, barring special issues or high-profile creators (such as Todd McFarlane on those early Adjectiveless issues).

I think Batman/Detective and Superman/Action might be exceptions to this, where the titles have been around for 70 years, with neither book in each pair really standing out as the “home” title for the character, and where the sales levels are probably a lot closer. (Don’t have the numbers in front of me, so bear with me.) I still suspect the comics with the character’s actual names in the title have the edge over the generic anthological-legacy titles.

Er…what was the original question again? Oh, yes, is having multiple Wolverine titles sufficiently bringing in the bacon? Well, yes, probably. Would the loss of those other Wolverine titles mean 1) enough of a rise in sales in the main Wolverine comic to balance out those lost sales, and/or 2) that the freed-up money would automatically go to other non-Wolverine comics? The answers are “probably not” and “maybe so, maybe no.” People buying the other Wolverine titles were, in general (bolding again, you notice) already buying the primary one, so there wouldn’t be much of a bump there. As for the second option….

The money for those extra Wolverine comics has got to come from somewhere. Assuming the customer doesn’t just outright decide that he doesn’t need to pick up Wolverine: The Roaring ’20s #1 (guest-starring the Great Gatsby), he needs to increase his comics budget by taking away his disposable income from other things to accommodate this new comic, or he keeps his comics budget constant by dropping another comic in favor of this new one, and I’m sure Marvel hopes he’s dropping a comic by another company.

As prices increase on the standard 32-page format, the cannibalization of sales from other titles may have become the more commonly-chosen option by consumers when faced with new books. If so, the freeing of money for those Wolverine fans who read every Wolverine comic would go back to non-comic needs. But, now (in my original thought experiment — remember that?) that those fans aren’t faced with a rack filled with multiple Wolverine titles they need to keep up with, the possibility exists of spending money on other titles, should they so choose. You know, “boy, I’d like to buy Man-Thing War Journal, but I need to keep up with my Wolverine stories.” Well, now they can buy Man-Thing War Journal.

Not to say that it would all balance out. Man-Thing War Journal would likely not sell as well as Wolverine: The Roaring ’20s (which does sound like an awesome comic, come to think of it). But it, and other new titles, could have a chance in a market where so much of the consumer’s dollar isn’t tied up by trying to keep on top of multiple titles from particular franchises. A dozen different midrange titles featuring a dozen different characters/concepts versus a half-dozen titles all starring the same guy, at varying sales levels…diversity seems it would be, in the long run, a little healthier. And you never know…one of those other titles might catch on and become a top tier seller.

And in the end, this is all just, as I’ve said repeatedly, a thought experiment…just some armchair publishing in an imaginary world where economic realities take second place to some flights of fancy.

Good Lord, did any of that make any sense? Again, this is just some brainstorming, not a Call for Action. There are objections to be made at every level of assumption here, I realize, but my mind has been drifting in this direction over the last few days regarding the impact of multiple seemingly-redundant titles and I thought I’d try to throw my meanderings out there. Thanks for your patience, and of course I’m always interested in what you’d have to say.

Just for a chance of pace, here are a couple of links to people who can actually maintain a coherent line of thought:

• Dave introduces a new feature on his site: Space Cabby Sunday, DC Comics’ Silver Age-iest space character. Enjoy, won’t you?
• Pal Dorian has managed to find a minority sidekick character from the 1940s who wasn’t an offensive caricature. (HINT: It ain’t Chop-Chop.)
• Speaking of comic book franchises: Tim O’Neil gives his preamble to a coming series of essays on the X-Men. Promises to be good readin’.

* Yes, it’s called Dark Wolverine now. Come to think of it, I wonder if the name change, which in essence does away with a Wolverine flagship title simply titled Wolverine, is a disincentive to sales from people simply wanting a central Wolverine title and aren’t interested in any of the ancillary books. Then again, it may very well be countered by the number of people buying it because of the temporary “new direction.”

What if the characters/teams from Marvel and DC were allowed one starring title, and that’s it? Only one X-Men comic, only one Batman comic, only one Wolverine comic, only one Spider-Man comic — you know, like that.

Okay, there are some caveats that you’re probably wondering about. Yes, spin-offs would probably be allowed…as implied above, you could have an X-Men title and a spin-off with X-Men character Wolverine, but you couldn’t have a dozen X-Men titles and a half-dozen Wolverine titles. Just one each, please. And you couldn’t have both Action Comics starring Superman and Superman. Just one or the other.

And I’m going to be hardnosed and say “no mini-series or one-shots.” If you’ve got a four-part Flash story, it can be told one chapter per month over four months’ time in the Flash comic, and not in a concurrently-running Flash: Let’s Beat Feet mini-series. I’ll say okay to annuals, though, provided they are annual and not, say, every nine months.

Team books are still allowed…you can have a Justice League starring characters who have their own titles, for example. But not multiple Justice League comics. One’s plenty.

I haven’t been pondering these in excruciatingly exact and specific detail or anything. Just the process of articulating these ground rules is probably more effort than I’ve actually put into this thought experiment. Plus, I’m not addressing what the exact economic impact on the Big Two would be…I’m going to assume, for the purposes of this, that Marvel and DC can get by just fine on the profits from this more limited range of titles.

So what would it be like? I mean, other than looking like what the publishers were putting out in the industry’s earlier decades? For one, I think readership may be higher…fans no longer having to decide which X-Men title they’d want to follow, or how many they could afford, or if it was even worth the trouble trying to jump into the cavalcade of mutant books. The cost of entry would be much lower.

Events in the stories would have more impact. Something significant happening in a Superman comic, to be continued in next month’s issue of that series, wouldn’t be diluted by other events in other Super-titles in the interim.

Maybe a wider variety of books? Would no longer devoting funds to buying the multiple monthly Avengers comics mean a greater likelihood of trying out a new non-Avengers title? Not to mention the fact that not having multiple variations on the same theme…i.e. that half-dozen of Wolverine titles…means more room on the rack for other material.

Would there be a trending upward in quality, stemming from more competition for fewer open slots for certain books? Or would that creative energy, instead of competing for a slot in the monthly Batman comic, instead be driven to other concepts? Would almost have to be, I think.

Anyway, this is all getting a bit convoluted, considering what kicked this off was me looking at our comics rack and thinking “you know, if there were just one ongoing X-Men title, it’d probably sell enormously well. Hell, even I’d buy it.” Given the rules above, however, Marvel, being Marvel, could still get around the one-title limitation by spinning off every character into his or her book. “Coming from the House of Ideas this summer: Boom Boom #1!”

It’s possible that something like this may become a reality, if only because the standard monthly comic book format is increasing in price. At $2.99 to $3.99 a pop, people are still picking up all the different Wolverines, but should the periodical format eventually get up to, say, $6.99 an issue, I’d imagine the comic-reading public would be less inclined to follow a half-dozen different Wolverine series. I know everyone assumes we’ll move into some kind of trade paperback standard by that point (assuming the comics market will be able to adapt at all), but I have a hard time seeing the industry abandon the periodical market entirely. Years ago I mentioned the Amazing Heroes April Fool’s column reporting a $2.95 100-page format combining several related titles into one giant book (like having X-Men and New Mutants under the same cover), and joke or not, I think something like that may be what we’re heading toward. Well, it’d be a bit more than $2.95, of course, but you know what I mean.

So that’s a lot of meandering rambling and half-baked thinking on the topic from me. Like I said, this is just something I’ve been sorta thinking about as I see the new comics rack at the shop. I thought I’d brainstorm a little about it here on the site, and if you have anything to add, feel free.

I don’t have really anything to add that you haven’t already heard regarding the recent passings of Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, and Michael Jackson. That’s a pretty large swath of pop culture celebrity to be cut away from the world, and one I would have felt funny just ignoring and moving on with the funnybook talk.

I remember Ed as, what else, Johnny Carson’s support crew, always on the chair/couch there next to Johnny’s desk, ready with a hearty chuckle or a well-timed straight line. Not so much a relationship between sidekick and host as it was a finely-honed comedy team. I loved Johnny, and Johnny loved Ed, and if Johnny loved Ed, then that was good enough for me…I loved Ed, too.

Oddly enough, when I think of Farrah Fawcett, I don’t think of her famous pin-up poster, or of her role on Charlie’s Angels. I think of some six-or-eight page color insert in…Omni Magazine, I want to say, though I’m pretty sure that’s wrong…advertising the then-upcoming surely-spectacular hit film Saturn 3, in which she starred. I’m not even sure I ever got around to seeing Saturn 3 all the way through on cable, but I do remember how fascinated I was with that magazine preview insert, and that weird robot. …That’s not really saying much about Farrah, specifically, I realize.

And Michael Jackson…it’s hard to say where I fall on my opinion on Michael Jackson. There’s no denying his impact and importance on the music industry, as well as there’s no denying his peculiar exploits over the years, or the outright scandals. It’s a strange mix of admiration, revulsion, and pity. While he created some wonderful things (I mean, look at this track listing…you know nearly all of these songs), his existence seemed to be an endless succession of near-caricatural examples of the extremes of celebrity.

Anyway, my condolences to their friends and families. So long, Ed. So long, Farrah. So long, Michael.