personal opinion
I think that seeing numbers like X-Men 196 and Amazing Spider-Man 532 and FF 535 are turnoffs to new readers and collectors. What it communicates is that the material is so deep that you will never be able to catch up on the conversation. It feels like taking a new girlfriend to a high school reunion. She won't understand most of what is going on. I think that Marvel should probably aim for series to run until about issue 50 or so and then restart. Not saying that there aren't good entry points into the run, but that the renumbering gives the advantage of making it look like it is easy to get into as well.

Posted by bigdaddyhub2 on 2007-03-13 13:24:35
Despise re-numbering
I would side with Tom on this, and could not disagree more with the first response to this column. I cannot see how high numbers on any particular title turn would turn off new readers or collectors. Rather, what turns me off is having to sift through rebooted or broken numbering to understand a series' continuity (particularly if I've been away for awhile).

Marvel is not a new company, and neither are the perennial titles. Is there anyone over the age of 7 collecting comics that does not know this? I actually tend to consider Marvel's perennial titles...venerable, and would like to see them treated as such. We've read them as kids, they have been around since before many of us were born, and hopefully will continue to be around after most of us are gone. I believe this venerability should continue to be reflected in a title's numbering. There's nothing wrong with starting a new title at #1, but re-starting numbering on existing titles (even reboots) reeks of trendiness, transience, and maybe even disdain. 'Look its the New Avengers! We're not your daddy's Avengers! We're hip, new and we use ipods!'. Hold-over from a different age...meaningless? I completely disagree. Bucking tradition in this case seems to me to be simply destroying perspective.

Practically speaking: Beyond being a reader/fan, I've been collecting Marvel on and off for 30 years. Why make it difficult for collectors to follow numbering? I'm pushing 40, and sadly admit I still don't understand volume numbering too well, probably since it seems to differ depending on the publication. Want to make it easy for collectors to do their collecting? Maintain the simple, traditional sequential numbering on all your perennial titles. Nothing could be simpler, and we always know where we left off, and what we're missing when we come back. Case in point, I have been thinking about collecting past issues of Cap again. But I honestly have no idea what volume he just died in. I could spend an hour online trying to figure this out I guess. But maybe Marvel would be willing to do me a huge favor and pick up the original sequential numbering again when Steve Rogers comes back to life in the Negative Zone?

Which brings me to my final point: Thanks Tom for a perfect opportunity for me to ask you for a restoration of old numbering on the perennial titles that have lost it. Off the top of my head...Daredevil, Hulk, Cap, Thor, Avengers (New or Old, its still the Avengers!). Wouldn't be too hard. You could just count all the issues that have come and gone since the sequential numbering stopped, add it to the last sequential number, and we are back in continuity business. Sweet!




Posted by Loob on 2007-03-13 16:56:00
What I suppose you should count in favour of maintaining numbering is that the number of the cover is effectively the "age" of the book in question; to many readers' eyes this is a badge of honour, that this series has endured for as long as it has.

And of course, it makes collections decidedly simpler to organise. :)

And honestly, when you relaunch titles with new #1s all the time, you wind up drowning out the genuinely new books - something like Runaways didn't get the immediate sales attention it might have, for example, because any reader wanting to jump on a new book could go for the first issue of New X-Avenger Reloaded, or what have you. (I have to wonder how sales figures compare between its first issue and its most recent?) Although having said that, it occurs to me that Runaways did that exact thing after #18 of its first run...

Posted by Fetsur on 2007-03-13 17:31:40
Two numberings?
I think the best solution for the numbering of the Marvel comic books is to have two different numberings. For example, New Avengers #1 should have been called New Avengers #1/Avengers (Season 2) #504. I think the reboots should have a new numbering AND keep the old one. For instance, Joss Whedon Runaways could have been rebooted so that his first issue would have been called : Runaways Season 3 #1 (Issue 37). I think it is the best way to beneficiate from "the number one hype" AND to keep the continuity of the series since its beginning in the 60s or so. (I'm sorry if my English isn't quite correct, I'm french)

Posted by softverre on 2007-03-13 18:41:00
If you're gonna do it, go all the way...
I'd say either preserve continuous numbering, or go whole hog as Aubrey suggested and simply number them by story arc. At least then you'd be doing it to make the book more accessible to new readers rather than as a sales stunt.

Posted by CylverSaber on 2007-03-13 23:04:11
Re: softverre --

I know for a while some Marvel books did carry two numbers. "Iron Man" and "Avengers" in the years before "Avengers: Disassembled" carried both the issue number of the current volume as well as "original" number. You can see an example here. I was happy with that numbering to be honest, as it was a nod to the past while still matching the publishing realities of the present.

So Tom, any chance of reverting "Iron Man" back to its original numbering in time for the movie? :)

Posted by ljacone on 2007-03-14 06:42:13
Well, my link didn't post, so copy & paste:

http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=111292&zoom=4

Posted by ljacone on 2007-03-14 06:42:46
I've thought the same thing, about numbering based on storylines, rather than sequential issues. It would make a series more like a number of sequential mini-series, rather than one long story and quite possibly be easier for new readers to jump on.

BUT...

I do like looking at a long box full of comics and an unbroken run of X-Men. Plus, the numbering helps you keep storylines in order. You know the 52 comes before 53.

Posted by NewChad on 2007-03-14 09:00:50
loob
Loob,
Your response validated my opinion. Long time (older) collectors and readers want the old sequence, new readers don't. I was away from comics for close to 20 years, and I jumped back on when I started looking again and found that New Avengers was at issue 6. I thought, "I can still get onboard!" I would not have done that if it were issue 518. I think it would be a mistake to go all the way and renumber every arc, but I do think that there should be a numbering limit before a series restarts. Just a great way to get new readership on board.

Tom, don't renumber Iron Man high. IF anything, renumber it with 1 when the movie releases.

Oh, and about the long numbering being a mark of validity for an older series, forget that. There is not a citizen of america who doesn't know who the old guard heroes are. Their lunchboxes, underwear, blankets, cartoons, movies, and watches have been showing them the standard favorites since they were born.

Posted by bigdaddyhub2 on 2007-03-14 10:19:16
I agree with Tom and diasgree with Aubrey. I mean what kind of name is Aubrey anyway. Seriously though I love long sequential numbering. it gives me a sense of history and density that doesn't exist with shorter numbers. It makes a big difference to me.

Posted by bomaya on 2007-03-14 16:00:27
If you have a "series of mini-series", a la Venom of the 90's (or Power Pack and Fairy Tales of today), you need to set a few ground rules for the audience. Some dangers of starting from scratch each time:

1 - You are basically saying there will be no "done in one" issues here.
2 - You have to have the same artist throughout the mini (this method may actually work better for books with rotating artists - inconsistent art can hurt sales on books, I say with no factual evidence but my own buying habits).
3 - similarly, though this is Marvel and not the other guys, the story arc has to have the same writer throughout - A consistent voice is needed.
4- For long-term customer satisfaction, each mini-series should have a beginning/middle/end, plus fit into a larger arc. Less "Ultimate Gahlaktus" and more "Veronica Mars" or "Annihilation".
5 - A trap I'd avoid is making every single miniseries for a character a major "event" - sure, the 'situational adventure' minis like Dr. Strange and Wonder Man don't sell as well (YET), but fans will feel the "hype burnout" a lot faster if every arc of Iron Man is a "LIFE CHANGING ISSUE NUMBER 1"
6- But on the other side, each mini-series must be worth a whole mini-series. They have to feel stuffed full of information - a complete movie, not just a few chapters.



Having said all that, I'm all for trying it on 2-3 of Marvel's 70ish titles. I'd be more inclined to pick up series in the middle that way (For most comics I miss the boat on initially, whether it be Annihilation or SM

Posted by stuckinazkaban on 2007-03-14 21:17:21
Also, it might be a smart idea as part of the Marvel Wiki project to create "Continuity Guidelines" for particular characters or series, so that one would know "Runaways 1-18 then Runaways 1-18 then Runaways/Young Avengers 1-4 then Runaways 19-24 then Runaways summary book then 25-30" (as an example). Other, more complicated wikis would try to trace what order to read THE NEW WARRIORS or WOLVERINE in.

Just a thought/challenge to the public.

Posted by stuckinazkaban on 2007-03-14 21:20:06
Renumbering is just a pain in the neck
I've hated the renumbering that's been going on at Marvel since the Heroes Reborn/Return series. While I understand a #1 on the cover is a short-term sales jump, the numbers drop drastically on every single #2. The problem with renumbering is it implies that it's new reader-accessible, and I often find that while many creators try real hard, they can't simply ignore a characters' history because it's a number 1 issue, nor should they.

Renumbering Iron Man#1 for the current series, for instance, seemed pointless. This isn't a different character behind the suit, nor does it completely ignore the series' before it. Why bother making it a number one? Is it the same Tony Stark? Yes. Same one that battles alcoholism from the story in the 80s? Yes.

Marvel's gray area of continuity (Tony was in Afghanistan and not 'Nam) is part of the problem, I guess. But it still makes it MUCH easier for readers, fans, and collectors to know what issues come after others. Randomly titled 6-issue series would make havok with trying to figure out in what sequence those stories are told, and is the one problem I have with un-numbered trades.

Posted by wienerdog1027 on 2007-03-15 11:58:46
actually, stuckinazkaban, the Civil War tie-in miniseries takes place between Runaways #21 and #22, not #18 and #19.

Posted by Fetsur on 2007-03-15 13:05:09
son of numbers
if you got a real good story you should let the surprise for the readers of UNCANNY X-MEN 62345 trough 1 9873423, I mean...is it a better proof of love and respect ... is it possible to ask for more ?

Posted by notapotatoe on 2007-03-16 08:03:58
It would be easy in the short term to do ASTO
Says the person behind NEW AVENGERS and MIGHTY AVENEGERS, while THE AVENGERS languishes only in my dreams of it one day returning...

Posted by skagandboneman on 2007-03-16 08:19:54
NOOO!!
Mr. Tom B...please please NO WAY NO HOW should you eliminate traditional numbering! Going to a numbering style of #1-6 then #1-6 over and over for each story arc is, in the long run, going to be MORE confusing for new readers. Who wants to sift thru all of that down the road?
I am a long time reader (25 years, with a break) so to me traditional numbering is important. You see, I actually didn't mind when the BIGS had their Vol. 1s put on hold for the Heroes Reborn stories. That made sense...Onslaught "killed" the heroes, Franklin created a pocket universe for them to survive in...so a Vol. 2 made all the sense in the world. Once that story was resolved, and the heroes returned to the traditional Marvel U...I was a more than a bit saddened that a Vol. 3 was created...and a tad bit of my childhood love for Marvel comics went away. I would have liked to see Vol. 1 continued in all cases. But I read on...and I lasted about one year or a bit more with the Vol. 3 runs. That is when my break came. Not just because of the Volume issue, but because I got married, had a couple kids, so I was just too busy (and broke!) to continue reading. But, the attraction (and money) returned to me a few years later, and I came back to see the Vol. 3 runs still going, but they now had dual numbers! After figuring out what was going on, I was glad those two numbers were there. At least i was able to put the Vol. 3 into relation with the comics I already had. I was actually more than happy to see Spider-Man and Avengers go back to their original numbers exclusively, just a year after I started reading again. So, the way things are now, I say they are as cleaned up as they could be, with one exception. Marvel should not have taken out which Volume the comic is from in their print info on the opening page. I mean, I think Capt. America is on Vol. 5, but in time I will probably forget...especially if he is restarted yet again. Lack of Volume listing makes buying back issues tough, and honestly less fun. If you start a new comic, like Mighty Avengers, throw a Vol. 1 in there...just in case for later on. And if you restart a comic, let's say New Avengers, a few years from now (would it still be "new" though;), you should add a Vol. 2. in there. SO...my longwinded opinion is to NOT get rid of traditional numbering and to NOT go with dual numbers as a long term tactic. That would be worse in the long run. I don't think you will gain new readers because of either of those tactics, but I guarantee you will lose at least one.
Thanks for your time, Tom B.!

Posted by nemler on 2007-03-17 12:43:54
Big numbers never turned me away
I was 4 or 5 when I got my first comic, Spectacular Spider-Man #147. Right in the middle of the Inferno event. Honestly it didn't cross my mind that there was 146 issues before. On the contrary, when I was old enough, I started back issue hunting.

Posted by sferre on 2007-03-19 09:33:50
Post #2
I don't see my initial post anymore...so, uh, the short version again is...renumbering would be a mess in the long run. At least now there are a couple titles still running on their Volume 1 sequence. Let's not lose those too...

Posted by nemler on 2007-03-20 13:23:07
As Captain America #25 sold out 2 weeks ago, the owner of my shop told me about a little joke he played. You see, he wanted to see if he had any other Captain America #25s in stock- which he did- Volume 3 and 4 (volume 5 being the current run) he told a customer about the sellout of the issue and how he had older issues that were also #25. Some poor schmuck (who listened in on the whole story) bought vol 3 for $4 (more than it was worth)

I'm on the side of continuing run- I like that Uncanny is nearing #500 and FF and Amazing Spiderman are well over that.

Posted by twl7569 on 2007-03-20 18:23:07
Pathetic
To quote wienerdog1027: "Marvel's gray area of continuity (Tony was in Afghanistan and not 'Nam) is part of the problem, I guess."

No, it isn't part of the problem, it IS the problem. What was the point of changing Tony's past to Afghanistan? It's not like we're winning that war either.

Here's the solution:

Create new character, i.e. X23-publish a #1 issue.

Continuation of same character with new story arc - keep sequential numbering.

We're comic readers first and collectors second. We know the attraction to a number 1 as much as you know how much a number one sells. Problem is... How many number ones does a title get before it is no longer taken seriously? Everytime we get a new flashy, hot, up and coming artist we don't need a number one. So, I suppose when Steve Rogers returns, he'll have no longer fought in WWII? Maybe Panama? No, Panama's too far in the past for all the ADD/ADHD sufferers to be able to keep up with.

I have it!!! Let's make every issue a number one. I mean, that's what we're talking about here isn't it? Lack of attention span? Because we know that people wouldn't read Spiderman #500 right? Oh, wait, but they do... Oh well, that's not important. I say that this month's issue of every comic should be a #1 and then next month, make that one a #1 and every month there after. What's more collectable than a #1, right? And who cares about content, or continuity, or the fact that the core of comics readers are those that have a life long relationship. Is it coincidence that the continuation and growth of the comics industry runs paralell to the age of their readership? I think not. We grew up and got careers and brought our comics with us.

Keep your hands out of my continuity... You already have your hands in my bank account the way it is.



Posted by WrenchDevil6 on 2007-03-21 08:51:04
"We grew up and got careers and brought our c
That is exactly right. 20 years ago when I was in high school, the comic shop was full of high school kids. Now, the comic shop is full of 30 to 40 somethings. So if you take all the long running series' and start them over, you will be hurting alot of age old relationships. And I highly doubt you will gain new (and younger) readers. Afterall, 20 years ago my comics were 75 cents, and I was making $7.00 and hour. Now...comics are $2.99 and I guarantee you high school kids are making more more than $8.00 an hour. So they certainly won't be looking to spend that money on a $3 comic book.
And one other thing...I bet DC is waiting for you to reset your #s..because when you do they will start advertising how they are a history rich company and universe. Which would be true...


Posted by nemler on 2007-03-21 14:18:17
What's even more pathetic...
Is the fact that a few of us have responded to this blog honestly and thoroughly, only to have our post deleted because they didn't fit the mold of what a repsonse should say or look like. It's funny to see that it could be taken that something that those of us who have been supporting the comics industry for thirty plus years could say, could have an impact of any measure.

Don't open the blog post for responses, Tom, or whomever, if you can't handle the truth that is presented within them.

Posted by WrenchDevil6 on 2007-03-22 11:57:15
Thanks to whoever...
I see that my and nemler's responses have been returned. I appreciate it and I'm sure that nemler does as well.

Posted by WrenchDevil6 on 2007-03-22 13:58:03
Cheering Into the Void
I realize that no one is even possibly going to read this, nor does it solve anything or change anyone's day. I just wanted to say that I was so, so happy when I saw that the old numbers were returned to the Fantastic Four series a few years ago. This may be because I purchased issue #361 when it came out, but I felt terrible when it had to restart. It felt like their history had all disappeared, and this may not count as much for many books, but I think there are few - as you say, perennials - that deserve it. So please don't stop renumbering the best!

Posted by PseudoSherlock on 2007-03-28 08:17:54
Its a fad
Im seeing alot of the comics now on the stands that say ISSUE #1 and its not just coming from marvel but DC has been doing it to about all there titles. It looks tragic to me because I know who the characters are and what I can expect from that artist or writer. The ISSUE #1 thing really to me is trying to say lets cut all the back issues and lets start over, now back in the 90's when an ISSUE 1 came out once a year from one title was like WOW I have to pick that up but now its like hey been there done that.

Posted by terciera on 2007-03-29 03:27:05
Renumbering is Death of Legacy
of a great long history of Marvel Mythoplogy. You used to be able to refer to a number of a title and people could say " Ah yes the legendary such and such saga." Now you say Cap #25 and the response is "which one?!" Cap #25 A,B,C,D, Heroes Reborn, Avengers Dissassembled, Bosoms Amok!, etc! My simple solution to avoid the confusion and save yourself the work involved in trying to make sense of convoluted storylines is buy the old comics! Issues of any given series from before 1987 or so will have continuity, better writing, generally better art (admittedly no computer coloring but I'm no great fan of that anyway) and an unbroken chain of history that has been smashed in recent years by greedy attempts to cash in on an unrelenting series of #1 issues for every title every year or so! Old comics are vastly better! You can find them as easily as you can find variant cover BLAH for $25! Your thoughts?
Gene

Posted by ejoedirte on 2007-05-30 13:02:23
Not hard to jump on
What I've liked in recent eyars was the keeping of the traditional numbering but numbering the storylines on the cover. Example "Uncanny X-Men 489 reads "The Extremists pt. 3 of 6". This works on 2 levels: 1) keeping the traditional numbering alive, letting you know you're getting the REAL deal (not some new off shoot that may or may not be canon) and 2) lets you know where in a storyline you are and how far back you need to go if you want to follow the whole thing. Makes jumping on MUCH easier.

Posted by coconutphone on 2007-08-12 12:41:36