REEDING INTO THINGS [Vol. 2] #1: THE NEEDLESS #1

[Joel Phillips]

<img src="http://x-mencomics.com/xfan/images/columns/ritlogo.jpg" align=left width=115 height=100 border=0 alt="Reeding Into Things">By Joel Phillips, old_ky_shark@hotmail.com

New Ongoing Series!… The Needless #1


I think that both the pleasure and displeasure that comes from the idea of a series with a new #1 issue comes from a lack of understanding about what the function of issue numbers is… not the primary function, which is easily understood (keeping track of the order issues go in), but the secondary functions issue numberings serve.

First off, we should make a distinction between reasonable and frivolous #1 issues. Launching a twentieth X-Men series, however blatant an attempt to squeeze more money out of an already swollen franchise, is not a frivolous #1. Similarly, if a franchise is being completely retooled, a new #1 can be called for. However terrible an idea Heroes Reborn may have been, it made sense to restart the titles for that, as it really wasn’t a continuation of the last 400+ issues, but a new direction entirely.

However canceling the old series for no creative reason, just to start it right up the next month with a new #1 issue, is pretty ridiculous and unnecessary. I know why companies do it: the logic is that a new #1 issue makes more money than issue #327. And the sales statistics support that, at least where big name franchises (the ones that would be rebooted) are concerned. The problem is that this sales spike is not permanent (if it was, it wouldn’t be called a spike). A new Spider-Man series (for example) with a #1 on the cover is going to sell huge, but by #5 that’s going to come down to human levels again.

The odd thing is that the spike for a new #1 is only slightly greater than the spike for a big number anniversary, like the recent Fantastic Four #500 or Amazing Spider-Man #500. Though sales were better than average for Wolverine (Vol. 3) #1, by relaunching the title Marvel fell just short of the #200 mark, which could easily have gotten them nearly as big of a bump.

What’s more, #1 issues are really just trying to grab fence sitters. If I have no interest in a franchise, I’m not going to give it a try just because it starts over at #1. The difference in sales between a new #1 and the issues afterwards, is the difference between fence sitters you couldn’t sell to and the people who were sold already. The key to getting higher sales continuously is to sell the concept to the fence sitters, not lure them in for two or three issues with a cheap gimmick and then lose them again.

Going beyond the initial pull of the #1, there is the argument that lower issue numbers attract new readers, the idea being that someone is more likely to hop on at #20 than at #320. In my experience, the exact opposite is true. At #320, I know this title has been around a while and has gone through creator changes, and because of that there is no expectation that I know everything that has come before. At #20, the franchise is still in its infancy, possibly even with its first writer still at the helm. That means that, even though there may be less total continuity accumulated, its weight is increased, because the creative force behind that continuity knows it, likes it, and continues to work within it. Look at a run of 25 issues or more by any creator: whatever level of attention they have or have not paid to any continuity that preceded their own run, their work is steeped in their own continuity, their own larger story. That’s a good thing, and it makes their work deeper and richer. But it’s not “new reader friendly”, which is one of the arguments for small issue numbers.

Let’s go back for a moment to those fence sitters, the ones who will hop on at #1s and anniversaries and big revamps, but never stay for any length of time. There are plenty of tricks to get them to give you a try (I just listed a few), but how do you get them to stay? It’s actually pretty simple: tell good stories. Is anyone surprised when critically acclaimed and fan celebrated creative teams, placed on a popular franchise, immediately increase the sales of the title and sustain those sales over time? Who do you think those extra readers are? They are the guys you couldn’t sell on the franchise before, but have gotten to now. It’s got nothing to do with what number is on the cover.

There’s one remaining problem with frivolous #1 issues, and it has to do with the changing perception of comic book readers. We’re getting older, the medium is getting older, and the stories and creators are matching that shifted demographic. A twelve year old might think it’s cool to grab the new #1 issue, but a twenty year old isn’t as easily impressed. The older we get and the more we see, the harder we are to impress. Remember the days when foldouts and collectible cards and foil covers were selling points for an issue? Those days are gone… and it’s time for the frivolous #1 to join them in the gimmick graveyard.

<center><hr width=75%></center>

Joel Phillips is fully aware of how cheap a gimmick rebooting the column is… or didn’t you read the column?

The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer, and are not reflective of ComiX-Fan or its other staff in general.

[Matt Lazorwitz]

Bravo, Joel. I absolutely agree with everything you said. A well thought out arguement all the way through.

[Robb Welch]

LOL, while I agree with you Joel, I must confess I have not read your collum in a LONNNGG time and most likley would have not had the gimick in the title not peaked my intrest. and I'm reminded of how fond I am of your rants since I left Comixfan in the first place, so I might just keep reading...
Until part five anyway...

Crap I proved you right.

[Ryan Day]

Originally posted by Joel Phillips

The odd thing is that the spike for a new #1 is only slightly greater than the spike for a big number anniversary, like the recent Fantastic Four #500 or Amazing Spider-Man #500. Though sales were better than average for Wolverine (Vol. 3) #1, by relaunching the title Marvel fell just short of the #200 mark, which could easily have gotten them nearly as big of a bump.

But thing is that Marvel apparently can have it both ways. They re-start a series, and people buy the #1. They revert to the original numbering for #500, and people buy #500.

The key to getting higher sales continuously is to sell the concept to the fence sitters, not lure them in for two or three issues with a cheap gimmick and then lose them again.

Well, yes. Obviously. But that's a lot easier said than done. What ultimately matters is that Marvel has received a potentially significant sales boost for several issues at no extra cost.

It’s actually pretty simple: tell good stories. Is anyone surprised when critically acclaimed and fan celebrated creative teams, placed on a popular franchise, immediately increase the sales of the title and sustain those sales over time?

You're mixing up two different things: "tell good stories" and "fan celebrated creative teams". There are plenty of good stories being told every month, every week. Quality is no guarantee of sales whatsoever.

As far as the creators go, there are very few creators out there who can really increase the sales on a book all by themselves. There are only so many superstar artist + iconic character combinations you can pull off. And those superstar artists cost superstar money; writing #1 on the cover costs nothing.

All comics should strive to tell good stories. But the flipside of your logic is: If the story is good, who cares if there's a frivolous number one? If Marvel wants to pull in some extra cash by changing the volume, why should the reader care?

A twelve year old might think it’s cool to grab the new #1 issue, but a twenty year old isn’t as easily impressed.

But that twenty year-old should be impressed with #213?

Remember the days when foldouts and collectible cards and foil covers were selling points for an issue? Those days are gone… and it’s time for the frivolous #1 to join them in the gimmick graveyard.

Of course, those things went to the graveyard because people stopped buying them. People will still shell out cash for a brand new First Issue, so companies will keep producing them.

[Joel Phillips]

I have a sinus infection, and wrote this column while having a sinus infection, and now that I reread it I'm upset with myself for having posted it. Several points that you picked up on, which I'll address momentarily, are simply the result of me either being unclear or flat omitting something from the column. Not at all my finest hour, and I apologize for it.

Originally posted by Ryan Day
You're mixing up two different things: &quot;tell good stories&quot; and &quot;fan celebrated creative teams&quot;.

You're totally right, because I just really wrote that section badly. My intended point was that there is a perception that big name creators automatically equal good stories. This perception exists for fans and comic publishers alike. Is it a flawed perception? Of course. But it does exist. So the logical solution would be to stack up better (read: better known) creators. Which is pretty much what the companies are doing.

But you're right... what I meant and what I said in that paragraph are not the same thing. So, my bad.

There are plenty of good stories being told every month, every week. Quality is no guarantee of sales whatsoever.

Well yes and no. We both know that the worst issue of an X-Men title is going to outsell the best indie title every day of the year. But those titles exist in separate circles.

With titles that aren't big time franchises, quality and word of mouth (which usually springs from quality in these cases) do dictate how well that title sells. For the big time franchises, there is a collection of fans that will always buy the title, no matter what, and a collection of fans that won't buy the title, no matter what. The only room for movement lies with the fence sitters, and for those readers quality is absolutely a determining factor in whether or not they pick it up.

(Of course taste is subjective, so opinions of quality change from person to person, but that's an entire other conversation altogether.)

But the flipside of your logic is: If the story is good, who cares if there's a frivolous number one? If Marvel wants to pull in some extra cash by changing the volume, why should the reader care?

Another problem that could have been solved if I was clearer. I forgot to make the point that I personally have never given up on a title because of a new #1. I do think they're cheap gimmicks, and that's what the column is about, but I forgot to make clear that I'm not an extremist who's going to flip out over a title being renumbered. Wolverine, which I cited as an example in my column, is one of my favorite titles right now, post relaunch. Take that for what it's worth.

Back to your question: "should care" and "do care" are very different things. Nobody should care whether or not character A and character B have ever slept together, but there are a surprising number of people who do. It's the same way with #1 relaunches. I know people who have dropped titles over it, and I'm betting you know some too. Again, not something I practice, but there are people who do care, whether they should or not. And they are usually the same people who were firmly in the "buy it under any circumstances" crowd before, which is the last category you want to start losing readers from.

But that twenty year-old should be impressed with #213?

:LOL: OK, this one I don't think is my fault, because it still reads fairly clearly to me. What I meant is that a twenty year old fence sitter doesn't care what number is on the cover at all, whereas younger readers are still impressed by such things.

Of course, those things went to the graveyard because people stopped buying them. People will still shell out cash for a brand new First Issue, so companies will keep producing them.

Yes, you're right. Like I said, this is just a column about my opinion of relaunches as cheap gimmicks. But I understand why they are done, and I don't expect it to change. The great part about being a columnist and not an employee at Marvel or DC is I get to stand on my soapbox and talk about the way I think things should be, without having to care about things like making money.

[cicada rosa]

Great article, absolutely true points. God I hate re-vamped #1's. Jumping on to issue #320 also gives you a nice amount of backstory to explore as well. In my opinion, this can be kind of fun; to not only await whats going to happen, but also to learn about a rich history of the character(s).

Man I hate re-vamped #1's

[catseye107]

I am so anti-revamp its nuts.. however most of the fun of collecting to me was finding the back issues. it was getting hooked on a good story and then wanting to find out more about the characters that hooked me on X-men, FF, Avengers (east and west). I know that many dont wanna look up the back issues or complain that you cant always find the back issues, but reading the parts that you can help fill in the blanks.. ... (rambles on to infinity).

[Patrick James]

YES!!!

An appropriate call for the death of these tediously gimmicky #1 issues and reboots!

[Lobster Johnson]

]Originally posted by Joel Phillips

The problem is that this sales spike is not permanent (if it was, it wouldn’t be called a spike). A new Spider-Man series (for example) with a #1 on the cover is going to sell huge, but by #5 that’s going to come down to human levels again.

Marvel found the solution to this problem: Just reboot again after the first arc (12 numbers). See Ultimates ;)

But you are right it's just stupid to reboot a series for the sole reason of selling more issues. But I don't mind it so much that I'll drop the whole series. Still looking forward to Powers vol.2 #1 :yes:

[Marty P]

Good column Joel!

I would like to ad that sometimes it also withholds an older reader to by a (new) # 1 title. Looking at myself, I didn't buy Weapon X # 1, Emma frost # 1, etc... (and the rest of those issues) because I thought that it just wouldn't last very long.

(though I got Weapon X eventually, because of the good things that was being said about it here on Comixfan :D )

[Youri Zoutman]

I really never understand why everyne get's so upset about the issue numbers!
I don't buy it becuase it's number whatever, but becuase of a good creative team or story!!

[bmack]

I am really hoping that Marvel does not restart Uncanny. It makes me mad.... mad enough to kill :mad:

~ The Mack

NOTE: I am not really going to kill anybody... this was a Mr. Macky quote from an episode of South Park. But I would still be very mad :p

[Wolverine]

Great column. you continue to do good work

[Robb Welch]

I dont understand the numbering thing myself. It made me angry when they re-started ONCE MORE for heroes return and then i got ****** when they did it to the spider-books..... but beyond that sometimes renumbering can be fun.

Ultimates and Powers make sense to me.

And you can always go the OTHER way with renumbering. For example, quantum and woody skipped #18 and went all the way to #32!!

[Paul Shinn]

Good column Joel, on a topic that I have certain issues with (not renumbered #1 "issues" you understand! :rolleyes: :p ).

I can abide rebooting a franchise when it really is an entirely new direction. As you mentioned in your column, Heroes Reborn ushered in an entirely different direction for Avengers, Captain America, Iron Man and the FF. As such, restarting from #1 seemed appropriate in this instance. I do have to question the second reboot for Heroes Return, restarting these titles as vol.3, as these titles were in effect a continuation of the Heroes Reborn storyline.

Looking at other examples, the Spiderman relaunch a few years back seemed to me to be a case of unnecessarily rebooting, purely to get a #1 on the stands. Yes, to begin with Peter was no longer Spiderman and someone else had taken over the mantle, but only an idiot would have really thought that would last. A few issues in and both of the rebooted Spider-titles were indistinguishable from the previous volume. This reboot was obviously done to try and distance the Spider-titles even more from the negative response to things like the Clone-saga (although if they really wanted to achieve that, then it probably wasn't a good idea giving Howard Mackie sole writing duties! :rolleyes: ).

The recent Wolverine relaunch was another example of rebooting for the sake of rebooting. Yes, I gather there was a new creative team and something of a new direction for Wolverine (or as much of a "new direction" as Wolverine is capable of), but did it really warrant a new #1? Wolverine's ongoing series had recieved new creative teams and directions before, so why did this one warrant a #1? I don't think it did, and as Joel points out, if they'd kept with it they would have soon had a #200 on the shelves!

Other notable reboots would have to include the renumbering and retitling of Deadpool and X-Force. In the case of Deadpool, the reboot was appropriate to the storyline - as far as the reader was aware, Deadpool at this point was either dead or Agent X, so to have the title continue as Deadpool wouldn't work.
Likewise, I was initially surprised that X-force continued with the old numbering when Milligan took over. There was absolutely no similarities between this and the former X-force, save the name. When the reboot did happen, it was fitting with the story.

Just a few observations and thoughts.

[Your Momma!]

I actually like it when series reboot to nr. 1.
For early comiccollectors it is a great way to know when to jump in. If I hear great things about a comic but if it's already a few dozen issues old I wouldn't know where to start buying. With a reboot a just buy the nr.1 and start collecting!!! :p

[ImpossibleM]

Originally posted by Raven
I really never understand why everyne get's so upset about the issue numbers!
I don't buy it becuase it's number whatever, but becuase of a good creative team or story!!

You're right, the creative team or story is what makes a comic, not its actual number.

But I think that folks are miffed by the effects that usually accompany a relaunch, meaning a perhaps unnecessary change to an already good title--that could entail changing anything, from the creative team to the story to whatever. So, yes, a number is just a number, but sometimes that number comes with baggage, espceially if it's another #1. (Sometimes that baggage is even good.)

Great article.

[Ryan Day]

Originally posted by Paul

The recent Wolverine relaunch was another example of rebooting for the sake of rebooting. Yes, I gather there was a new creative team and something of a new direction for Wolverine (or as much of a &quot;new direction&quot; as Wolverine is capable of), but did it really warrant a new #1? Wolverine's ongoing series had recieved new creative teams and directions before, so why did this one warrant a #1? I don't think it did, and as Joel points out, if they'd kept with it they would have soon had a #200 on the shelves!

I don't think -- and I have no evidence whatsoever to back this up -- that #200 would make too much of a sales splash. It just doesn't feel all that significant.

But I think Wolverine is actually a case where the re-launch was a good idea. Here you've got a character who's absolutely mired in convoluted continuity, rife with 18 different mysterious origins and memories that are implants one week, real the next and just imagined a week after that.

Rucka and Roberson had one obvious aim for the book, and that was to take Logan back to the basics. It was important to make a clean break from the old book and say to readers that they didn't have to know anything about the character to follow the book.

And, as someone who hadn't read a Wolverine issue in probably ten years, that strategy worked for me.

[Jibril]

I've genereally been against it because it IS a gimmick. I'm utterly shocked ANYONE is impressed. The only #1 I plan on buying in May (or whatever) is Alpha Flight ( i currently don't collect any X-Men titles because i don't have the money... i read Exiles and that's it right now. Nice, and safely not related to anyhting else story wise) But i know there's a lot of people who will buy that X-Men #1 and i have no idea why they might do this..

And dammit I want to be able to own Uncanny X-Men #500. And #600. If they re- number I can't do that.

Just think.. what if DC had decided to re- number Action Comics or Detective Comics? Would another Action #1 have the same value as Action #1000 will?

[Iron Man]

Originally posted by Ryan Day


I don't think -- and I have no evidence whatsoever to back this up -- that #200 would make too much of a sales splash. It just doesn't feel all that significant.

But I think Wolverine is actually a case where the re-launch was a good idea. Here you've got a character who's absolutely mired in convoluted continuity, rife with 18 different mysterious origins and memories that are implants one week, real the next and just imagined a week after that.

Rucka and Roberson had one obvious aim for the book, and that was to take Logan back to the basics. It was important to make a clean break from the old book and say to readers that they didn't have to know anything about the character to follow the book.

And, as someone who hadn't read a Wolverine issue in probably ten years, that strategy worked for me.

i wasnt interested in wolverine and never read any issues of it but when it restarted i got ish 1 and i couldn't stop especially when leo fernandez did an arc so i think it is great for new readers and bad for old readers

[akellard]

I think a volume-styled #1s are fair enough (for example The Ultimates). Especially when it's a consistent issue amount per volume like 12 issues. Plus it gives more creative freedom, such as larger time gaps in the volumes (ref Ultimates vol. 2) and a better opportunity for new creative teams to jump on and make it 'their' comic without things being awkward.

But I agree otherwise, seemingly random #1s are a bit insulting; especially to long time collectors I'd imagine.

[Mike Gonzalez]

What should be utilized are volume numbers. A v1 or v2 should be present along with issue numbers on the cover.

[Alex Groff]

Joel, nice work as always. I don't agree with everything, as always, but I like the way you make me think.

In general, to riff on what Ryan, Paul and Akellard said, there are circumstances where a relaunch is appropriate-- and other cases, like The Ultimates, where we are looking at something other than a regular series.

Going with Ryan, Wolverine now is fundamentally different than it was under previous writers. (The third arc may refute this, but for now....) The fact that it is being moved to MARVEL KNIGHTS fits this transition away from superherodom and towards a gritty, realistic style; the MARVEL KNIGHTS banner should have appeared with #1. Of course, I would have liked it better as the initial pitch, a MAX series titled Logan, but that's just me. (And while yes I'm tired of the words gritty and realistic, Logan is one of the few characters that they should be attached to.)

And going with Paul and Akellard: I actually like the idea of The Ultimates: have an author and artist tell a story, longform or shortform, and that's it. Maxiseries, although that word still has the stigma of Crisis and the Secret Wars attached to it. It encourages creators to tell meaningful stories because it's their run and they're not dealing with someone else's plots. After #280, Claremont has wrapped up all of his plots (yes he wrote #1-3 but they're new plots) and Uncanny could have started over. After 40 issues from Morrison, time to start over again. The issue here is meaningful change: not simply a change of creators, but a change in focus and intention. Even with the same cast, (as with The Ultimates, it's a new story, and that's the key element.

Everyone who's buying any book just to keep a collection will have no excuses left: authors and artists will have to survive on their own merit, and the better ones will be able to soar with this shift in focus. Just my two cents.

[Niels van Eekelen]

You know what?

I used to get upset about this too, but recently I've really grown to like the concept of comic series being produced in 'seasons,' like it is with Sleeper, or Ultimates.

Neither of those titles, if you look at it objectively, have much of a reason to restart at #1, but it really works for them.


(Edit: nope, didn't read page two of the comments before posting this.)

[pdm]

Golly, Joel, does that mean you won't be buying a copy of THE UNCANNY, SENSATIONAL, AMAZING, ASTONSHING, NEAT-O, COOL X-MEN #1?:rofl:

Seriously. I agree with you 100%!