As a collector of trades, renumbering/new volumes are frustrating. I pay attention to this stuff more than most and the last time I was in my LCS, I was confused by the number of trades listed as "volume 1" for characters such as Daredevil and Captain America.
As a collector of trades, renumbering/new volumes are frustrating. I pay attention to this stuff more than most and the last time I was in my LCS, I was confused by the number of trades listed as "volume 1" for characters such as Daredevil and Captain America.
Sure. Of course, that can be frustrating within a long-running title, too. Such as, pre New52, all those Batman and Detective trades that would just be named after the storyline inside. The original run of trades for the Morrison/Porter JLA were like that, too, as were trades of Hellblazer, before they went back and restarted from the beginning with numbered trades that were more in keeping with later Vertigo titles.
So that problem is not just about renumbering. Though I can see where renumbering can make it harder, in cases where publishers are not doing a good job of trade dress.
I would guess that the #50 foil stamped issue of Silver Surfer Volume 3 helped a comic with great writing and beautiful art, worth the time spent, get an audience to check it out, and choose to spend more time with it. If a foil stamped cover gimmick got some of those readers there, then they were probably glad for it when they found a book that good.
A gimmick is still a gimmick.
And not every comic deserves a relaunch.
and if SS 50 had been a better comic, and the foil cover got people there, then a good comic got read. I don't know if I read it, so I can't speak to it.
Some would say guest appearances are a gimmick.
You could play the same game as you did above, but insert Amazing Spider-Man vol 1 #1. Which heavily featured the FF to entice their readers to give this new Spider-Man solo title a try.
I hear that most people seemed to think that was money well spent, and it looks like a lot of those FF readers stuck around.
But, hey. A gimmick is still a gimmick. That Spider-Man got a new #1 and guest stars on the cover.
I wonder if anyone at the time was mad that Amazing Fantasy didn't get to stick around and get to higher numbers. It can be awkward to have your longbox go from AF 15 to ASM 1.
Wasn't Amazing Fantasy ending with #15 which is why Lee used his Spider-man idea?
Plus, in the 90s, Amazing Fantasy did return at issue #16, so technically, it wouldn't go from AF 15 to ASM 1.
M
No.
That was Stan's story in Origins of Marvel Comics, but researchers and other people who were at Marvel have shown that wasn't the case. The plan was for Spider-Man to become the lead feature in AF (which had a title change for #15), and you can tell by the fact that Amazing Spider-Man had two stories in it, when other Marvel solo books had a single story, and by the "job numbers". Will Murray sussed this out in the mid 90's and wrote it up for Comic Book Marketplace magazine, I believe.
And in AF #15, there was this blurb: "The Spiderman will appear every month in Amazing."
Instead it was canceled and replaced by Two Gun Kid, and when the sales came in for AF #15, Spider-Man was put on the schedule, used up the stories that had been put together for AF and the rest is history.
As for the whole "New #1 argument", I think it shows that publishing has changed and mainstream comics are done in "seasons". It used to be that creative teams would switch all the time. In the 70's, stories at Marvel would be started by one creative team and finished by another. Now, creators pitch a run, and they want to differentiate it. I also miss the days when all the new TV shows would start in September, run uninterrupted through February and then repeat, when movies would play for months at a time in theaters, and networks would make showing a theatrical movie a big deal.
As a collector of trades, renumbering/new volumes are frustrating. I pay attention to this stuff more than most and the last time I was in my LCS, I was confused by the number of trades listed as "volume 1" for characters such as Daredevil and Captain America.
Sure. Of course, that can be frustrating within a long-running title, too. Such as, pre New52, all those Batman and Detective trades that would just be named after the storyline inside. The original run of trades for the Morrison/Porter JLA were like that, too, as were trades of Hellblazer, before they went back and restarted from the beginning with numbered trades that were more in keeping with later Vertigo titles.
So that problem is not just about renumbering. Though I can see where renumbering can make it harder, in cases where publishers are not doing a good job of trade dress.
I have to be honest, one of the main reasons I stopped collecting the Big 2 is because of the relaunches. You can argue otherwise, but when a title gets canceled just to restart, that implies to me 'what happened before doesn't matter, so a fresh start is needed.'
As a collector of trades, renumbering/new volumes are frustrating. I pay attention to this stuff more than most and the last time I was in my LCS, I was confused by the number of trades listed as "volume 1" for characters such as Daredevil and Captain America.
Sure. Of course, that can be frustrating within a long-running title, too. Such as, pre New52, all those Batman and Detective trades that would just be named after the storyline inside. The original run of trades for the Morrison/Porter JLA were like that, too, as were trades of Hellblazer, before they went back and restarted from the beginning with numbered trades that were more in keeping with later Vertigo titles.
So that problem is not just about renumbering. Though I can see where renumbering can make it harder, in cases where publishers are not doing a good job of trade dress.
I have to be honest, one of the main reasons I stopped collecting the Big 2 is because of the relaunches. You can argue otherwise, but when a title gets canceled just to restart, that implies to me 'what happened before doesn't matter, so a fresh start is needed.'
M
I would never argue otherwise. Every relaunch is both a potential jumping-on or 'come and try this out' point, and also an easy jumping off point. Whether the gains outnumber the losses is, well, the business the publishing division is in. Every attempt to shake things up and increase numbers will come with risk.
As a collector of trades, renumbering/new volumes are frustrating. I pay attention to this stuff more than most and the last time I was in my LCS, I was confused by the number of trades listed as "volume 1" for characters such as Daredevil and Captain America.
Sure. Of course, that can be frustrating within a long-running title, too. Such as, pre New52, all those Batman and Detective trades that would just be named after the storyline inside. The original run of trades for the Morrison/Porter JLA were like that, too, as were trades of Hellblazer, before they went back and restarted from the beginning with numbered trades that were more in keeping with later Vertigo titles.
So that problem is not just about renumbering. Though I can see where renumbering can make it harder, in cases where publishers are not doing a good job of trade dress.
I have to be honest, one of the main reasons I stopped collecting the Big 2 is because of the relaunches. You can argue otherwise, but when a title gets canceled just to restart, that implies to me 'what happened before doesn't matter, so a fresh start is needed.'
M
All that matters is if you enjoy it. I read a LOT of Marvel with the Marvel Unlimited app, including a lot of books I wouldn't have paid $4 to read.
Marvel needs to figure out how to create buzz beyond the all-new first issue. How they do this I don’t have the answer, but I would say it needs to be a long term thing and not reliant of the variant covers. Possibly they could do a big push on their tpb collections with an attempt get people to jump onto the floppies after. Image is great about having tpbs out almost immediately or during a break. Marvel likes to drop an overpriced hardcover on people first, then wait a year or so to do a tpb. But, something needs to be done. Many, many comic fans are beginning to complain of reboot fatigue.
And I am speaking of not just older readers, but new, young readers as well. As Brian Hibbs said in a recent Comics Beat article:
How about the new and young readership? Marvel actually was starting to attract some of them at our stores — books like “Squirrel Girl,” “Ms. Marvel” and the Jane Foster “Thor” title were racking solid sales for us outside of the “traditional” Marvel customer. But that new/younger readership? They literally don’t understand why you would start a book over again at #1. It makes no sense to them! And that confusion appears to have shooed a number of them off. In an equivalent sales period, our sales of the first issues of all of those series are actually below (dramatically so in the case of “Thor!”) the final issues of the “old series” — which was only on issue #8 for two of the three! But readers appear to be treating the relaunches as simply “issue #9.” That’s not typical consumer behavior.
I guess the publishers think kids won't pick up a high numbered issue these days, but I would wager no one on these boards would say their first comic book was a number one issue. Maybe we were just more open in decades past.
As a collector of trades, renumbering/new volumes are frustrating. I pay attention to this stuff more than most and the last time I was in my LCS, I was confused by the number of trades listed as "volume 1" for characters such as Daredevil and Captain America.
Sure. Of course, that can be frustrating within a long-running title, too. Such as, pre New52, all those Batman and Detective trades that would just be named after the storyline inside. The original run of trades for the Morrison/Porter JLA were like that, too, as were trades of Hellblazer, before they went back and restarted from the beginning with numbered trades that were more in keeping with later Vertigo titles.
So that problem is not just about renumbering. Though I can see where renumbering can make it harder, in cases where publishers are not doing a good job of trade dress.
I have to be honest, one of the main reasons I stopped collecting the Big 2 is because of the relaunches. You can argue otherwise, but when a title gets canceled just to restart, that implies to me 'what happened before doesn't matter, so a fresh start is needed.'
M
All that matters is if you enjoy it. I read a LOT of Marvel with the Marvel Unlimited app, including a lot of books I wouldn't have paid $4 to read.
Part of my enjoyment is not being seen as disposable consumer. I feel that way when a series is constantly relaunching.
Part of my enjoyment is not being seen as disposable consumer. I feel that way when a series is constantly relaunching.
M
How times have changed. Up until the late ’70s, and even into the ’80s, comics publishers generally assumed all their readers were disposable—that is to say, that their readers would be with them no more than five or six years at the most before growing up and moving on to other things.
Just out of curiosity, what’s the highest number a Dynamite series has gotten to?
Part of my enjoyment is not being seen as disposable consumer. I feel that way when a series is constantly relaunching.
M
How times have changed. Up until the late ’70s, and even into the ’80s, comics publishers generally assumed all their readers were disposable—that is to say, that their readers would be with them no more than five or six years at the most before growing up and moving on to other things.
Just out of curiosity, what’s the highest number a Dynamite series has gotten to?
I was waiting for that; it's like apples & oranges. Dynamite doesn't own the characters, they have to pay the licensing (unlike DC & Marvel). I spoke with Ande Parks about Lone Ranger & weaving things into stories for an arc down the line; he said there's no guarantee the next issue will happen.
The series they do run with aren't canceling just to relaunch with a new number one 3 months later.
They do an awful lot of mini-series instead of ongoing.
It's not as though I can't pick up a series until it's in triple digits!
Maybe issue numbering became a moot point right around the same time that publishers dropped those editorial note boxes that referenced past specific issues within the panels?
No secret that "continuity" isn't a priority anymore, so why should numbering be all that important?
...and just to keep this post "on-topic"; HAIL HYDRA!
Maybe issue numbering became a moot point right around the same time that publishers dropped those editorial note boxes that referenced past specific issues within the panels?
No secret that "continuity" isn't a priority anymore, so why should numbering be all that important?
...and just to keep this post "on-topic"; HAIL HYDRA!
Exactly. Whenever I saw those notes, I'd either pull the issue or add it to my want list. That's definitely a large part of why I like the continuous numbering instead of relaunching a title.
I agree with Matt and others in that when I see a title that relaunches all the time I tend to stay away. It's more than confusing the order of my long boxes though as it has been used lately by Marvel as a way to jack up prices as well. "We're launching 'Title X' with a new number one....and it'll be $2.99 $3.99!"
I was waiting for that; it's like apples & oranges. Dynamite doesn't own the characters, they have to pay the licensing (unlike DC & Marvel). I spoke with Ande Parks about Lone Ranger & weaving things into stories for an arc down the line; he said there's no guarantee the next issue will happen.
The series they do run with aren't canceling just to relaunch with a new number one 3 months later.
They do an awful lot of mini-series instead of ongoing.
Just because a publisher owns a character, it doesn’t mean they don’t know how long a series might last. Sure, DC knows Batman will sell no matter what, and Marvel knows X-Men will sell no matter what. But most Big Two titles are given short time frames in which to find their audiences. She-Hulk did well enough to last the twelve issues Soule signed up for, but not well enough to keep it going beyond that. Omega Men was nearly cancelled before its 12-issue arc ended, and if not for the success of Tom King’s Vision series, I think it would have been.
Dynamite pays for a license for a certain period of time. It's not the licensor who determines when Dynamite will cancel a series, it’s the sales of the books—the same as with any other publisher. Dynamite may have thinner margins because of paying licensing fees, but they make up for that in part by offering lower page rates to their creators.
Dynamite uses the miniseries format to avoid having to cancel an ongoing series every other month. Sales didn’t do as well as hoped? “That’s okay, it’s only a miniseries. We meant to end the series after five issues anyway.” It keeps them from looking like a complete failure of a company, and also allows them to try again with a different creative team sooner than they otherwise might. It’s better for them from a PR perspective, from a sales perspective (they get more #1s), and from a creator relationship perspective (if the talent knows exactly how many issues they get, they can be more productive and presumably will be happier and more willing to work with you again). It has nothing to do with the licensing agreement.
But, really, I was just yanking your chain, Matt. I can see why you’d get pissed by the Avengers or X-Men (the core books) getting relaunched every couple of years, but I don’t see something like Moon Knight having five volumes of series as being any different than The Shadow having ten volumes of series.
But, really, I was just yanking your chain, Matt. I can see why you’d get pissed by the Avengers or X-Men (the core books) getting relaunched every couple of years, but I don’t see something like Moon Knight having five volumes of series as being any different than The Shadow having ten volumes of series.
For the record, I think The Shadow only has 8 volumes, and to be fair, 3 of those were at DC and two were at Dynamite. In fact, its first volume was in 1964-65 and only lasted 8 issues. It didn't return for 8 years or so. Currently, most of what Dynamite puts out are limited series that are uniquely titled.
Why not go back to the uniquely titled story arcs? Spider-Man Blue, One More Day, etc?
I was waiting for that; it's like apples & oranges. Dynamite doesn't own the characters, they have to pay the licensing (unlike DC & Marvel). I spoke with Ande Parks about Lone Ranger & weaving things into stories for an arc down the line; he said there's no guarantee the next issue will happen.
The series they do run with aren't canceling just to relaunch with a new number one 3 months later.
They do an awful lot of mini-series instead of ongoing.
Just because a publisher owns a character, it doesn’t mean they don’t know how long a series might last. Sure, DC knows Batman will sell no matter what, and Marvel knows X-Men will sell no matter what. But most Big Two titles are given short time frames in which to find their audiences. She-Hulk did well enough to last the twelve issues Soule signed up for, but not well enough to keep it going beyond that. Omega Men was nearly cancelled before its 12-issue arc ended, and if not for the success of Tom King’s Vision series, I think it would have been.
Dynamite pays for a license for a certain period of time. It's not the licensor who determines when Dynamite will cancel a series, it’s the sales of the books—the same as with any other publisher. Dynamite may have thinner margins because of paying licensing fees, but they make up for that in part by offering lower page rates to their creators.
Dynamite uses the miniseries format to avoid having to cancel an ongoing series every other month. Sales didn’t do as well as hoped? “That’s okay, it’s only a miniseries. We meant to end the series after five issues anyway.” It keeps them from looking like a complete failure of a company, and also allows them to try again with a different creative team sooner than they otherwise might. It’s better for them from a PR perspective, from a sales perspective (they get more #1s), and from a creator relationship perspective (if the talent knows exactly how many issues they get, they can be more productive and presumably will be happier and more willing to work with you again). It has nothing to do with the licensing agreement.
But, really, I was just yanking your chain, Matt. I can see why you’d get pissed by the Avengers or X-Men (the core books) getting relaunched every couple of years, but I don’t see something like Moon Knight having five volumes of series as being any different than The Shadow having ten volumes of series.
I realize the property owner doesn't determine when titles are canceled, but you'd admit DC & Marvrl don't have to worry about losing permission to use a licensed property, like Dynamite does. They have to maintain specific sales with a character to pay the licensing fee. It's why I wind up buying 3 different Shadow mini-series at once.
So far there has only been 1 official ongoing series that got canceled. It was right when they got the licensing. It was at least a year before a new ongoing was announced, which became a mini-series.
For the record, I've hated mini-series since the 90s. There were too many Batman mini-series at once. I came to believe if it's not good enough for the ongoing, it's probably not worth a read. Despite my dislike of mini-series, it I don't the Shadow ones, I'm essentially done reading comic books.
Aside from that ridiculous Moon Knight series by Bendis for Vengeance of Moon Knight, I do not recall Marvel canceling the title to relaunch the title a couple months later. Dynamite certainly hasn't done that with the Shadow.
For the record, I think The Shadow only has 8 volumes, and to be fair, 3 of those were at DC and two were at Dynamite. In fact, its first volume was in 1964-65 and only lasted 8 issues. It didn't return for 8 years or so. Currently, most of what Dynamite puts out are limited series that are uniquely titled.
Why not go back to the uniquely titled story arcs? Spider-Man Blue, One More Day, etc?
That’s basically what Marvel and DC are doing now as far as their collections go, isn’t it? [Edit: And I thought you liked hyperbole. ;)]
And for the record, I'm not advocating for one side or the other. I don’t think anyone is advocating for more relaunches. I think relaunches should be done if, and only if, there is a major shift in the tone/direction of a series. I had absolutely no problem with Waid/Rivera/Martin’s Daredevil series getting a relaunch. Or with Soule/Garney’s Daredevil series getting a relaunch. But Waid/Samnee’s Daredevil series didn’t need to be relaunched just because of a move from New York to San Francisco. It didn’t keep me from buying the series though, and I didn’t take it as a personal affront, because it was a damn good series.
I'm curious to see if a larger shift to digital will change things. The more people who consume comics digitally, the stronger the incentive will be for Marvel to make people want to buy those older issues. Perhaps that will mark a return to longer-running series and fewer relaunches.
I realize the property owner doesn't determine when titles are canceled, but you'd admit DC & Marvrl don't have to worry about losing permission to use a licensed property, like Dynamite does. They have to maintain specific sales with a character to pay the licensing fee. It's why I wind up buying 3 different Shadow mini-series at once.
Every title by every publisher has a sales number they have to hit, licensing fee or not. My understanding is that Dynamite pays a licensing fee for one year, two years, whatever the contract may be. It doesn’t matter if they put out 36 books during that time period or none at all, the fee is the same. How they try to make a profit is by having multiple #1s featuring that licensed character come out during that time period. In order to get those #1s, they launch multiple miniseries and the occasional ongoing series. For all intents and purposes, the results are the same as they would be if they relaunched the series after every story arc. The only difference is a matter of perception.
For the record, I've hated mini-series since the 90s. There were too many Batman mini-series at once. I came to believe if it's not good enough for the ongoing, it's probably not worth a read. Despite my dislike of mini-series, it I don't the Shadow ones, I'm essentially done reading comic books.
And you are not alone. That’s why Marvel and DC have backed off of the format, save for oddball projects and event books. There was a time when it was used as a testing ground for an ongoing series (West Coast Avengers being a prime example). But the Big Two oversaturated the market with miniseries, and it came back and bit them in their collective ass, so instead we get several ongoing series that probably should instead be presented as limited series.
But, really, I was just yanking your chain, Matt. I can see why you’d get pissed by the Avengers or X-Men (the core books) getting relaunched every couple of years, but I don’t see something like Moon Knight having five volumes of series as being any different than The Shadow having ten volumes of series.
For the record, I think The Shadow only has 8 volumes, and to be fair, 3 of those were at DC and two were at Dynamite. In fact, its first volume was in 1964-65 and only lasted 8 issues. It didn't return for 8 years or so. Currently, most of what Dynamite puts out are limited series that are uniquely titled.
Why not go back to the uniquely titled story arcs? Spider-Man Blue, One More Day, etc?
Well, technically, the "volumes" aren't connected between that series in the 70s (the one in the 60s made him into a typical comic book superhero instead of a pulp character) from DC & the two in the 80s; which weren't connected* either.
There was a graphic novel by Marvel in the 80s also. Dark Horse had several mini-series; again not connected to the other "volumes" from DC & Marvel.
* in the final issue of the 2nd DC series, there's a line hinting that the 1st series (set in modern times) was a possible connection to his origins.
** Dynamite had a mini-series that was a prequel story for Blood & Judgment released by DC in 80s. Both by Chaykin & it was mentioned in the DC issues.
I remember when Brubaker was on CGS and he talked about spoilers. His take was basically that what really mattered is the story that centers around the spoiler moment. He was referring to Winter Soldier reveal and the third Summers brother. He said we shouldn't freak out too much when something is spoiled. Now THAT being said this recent need to spoil things 1 day before they are released by the company is a whole different issue. Give it a week I think.
I remember when Brubaker was on CGS and he talked about spoilers. His take was basically that what really mattered is the story that centers around the spoiler moment. He was referring to Winter Soldier reveal and the third Summers brother. He said we shouldn't freak out too much when something is spoiled. Now THAT being said this recent need to spoil things 1 day before they are released by the company is a whole different issue. Give it a week I think.
I think they did it because of the psychotic reaction by people in the internet. Death threats are not tolerable, and the fact that they were issued to the creative team shows me that some people just don't get that when the put something on the internet, it's different than telling their buddies in the comic shop.
Loved issue #2, especially how it tied the story back to Mark Waid's 95/96 run on Captain America (which in turn was a follow up to Peter Gillis' Super-Villain Team-Up #16-17).
You wouldn't have fascists/Nazis/etc. wearing Hydra shirts if Marvel didn't allow T-shirt companies to produce them and sell them. I mean, who’s really surprised that a modern day Nazi is wearing a T-shirt with the name and symbol of a fictional group of Nazi stand-ins, Secret Empire-inspired or not?
Comments
So that problem is not just about renumbering. Though I can see where renumbering can make it harder, in cases where publishers are not doing a good job of trade dress.
At the end of the day, though, there is always someone online that's got you covered. And the indicia inside can be a friend, as well.
That was Stan's story in Origins of Marvel Comics, but researchers and other people who were at Marvel have shown that wasn't the case. The plan was for Spider-Man to become the lead feature in AF (which had a title change for #15), and you can tell by the fact that Amazing Spider-Man had two stories in it, when other Marvel solo books had a single story, and by the "job numbers". Will Murray sussed this out in the mid 90's and wrote it up for Comic Book Marketplace magazine, I believe.
And in AF #15, there was this blurb: "The Spiderman will appear every month in Amazing."
Instead it was canceled and replaced by Two Gun Kid, and when the sales came in for AF #15, Spider-Man was put on the schedule, used up the stories that had been put together for AF and the rest is history.
As for the whole "New #1 argument", I think it shows that publishing has changed and mainstream comics are done in "seasons". It used to be that creative teams would switch all the time. In the 70's, stories at Marvel would be started by one creative team and finished by another. Now, creators pitch a run, and they want to differentiate it. I also miss the days when all the new TV shows would start in September, run uninterrupted through February and then repeat, when movies would play for months at a time in theaters, and networks would make showing a theatrical movie a big deal.
Time Marches On.
M
And I am speaking of not just older readers, but new, young readers as well. As Brian Hibbs said in a recent Comics Beat article: I guess the publishers think kids won't pick up a high numbered issue these days, but I would wager no one on these boards would say their first comic book was a number one issue. Maybe we were just more open in decades past.
M
Just out of curiosity, what’s the highest number a Dynamite series has gotten to?
The series they do run with aren't canceling just to relaunch with a new number one 3 months later.
They do an awful lot of mini-series instead of ongoing.
It's not as though I can't pick up a series until it's in triple digits!
No secret that "continuity" isn't a priority anymore, so why should numbering be all that important?
...and just to keep this post "on-topic"; HAIL HYDRA!
M
$2.99$3.99!"Dynamite pays for a license for a certain period of time. It's not the licensor who determines when Dynamite will cancel a series, it’s the sales of the books—the same as with any other publisher. Dynamite may have thinner margins because of paying licensing fees, but they make up for that in part by offering lower page rates to their creators.
Dynamite uses the miniseries format to avoid having to cancel an ongoing series every other month. Sales didn’t do as well as hoped? “That’s okay, it’s only a miniseries. We meant to end the series after five issues anyway.” It keeps them from looking like a complete failure of a company, and also allows them to try again with a different creative team sooner than they otherwise might. It’s better for them from a PR perspective, from a sales perspective (they get more #1s), and from a creator relationship perspective (if the talent knows exactly how many issues they get, they can be more productive and presumably will be happier and more willing to work with you again). It has nothing to do with the licensing agreement.
But, really, I was just yanking your chain, Matt. I can see why you’d get pissed by the Avengers or X-Men (the core books) getting relaunched every couple of years, but I don’t see something like Moon Knight having five volumes of series as being any different than The Shadow having ten volumes of series.
Why not go back to the uniquely titled story arcs? Spider-Man Blue, One More Day, etc?
So far there has only been 1 official ongoing series that got canceled. It was right when they got the licensing. It was at least a year before a new ongoing was announced, which became a mini-series.
For the record, I've hated mini-series since the 90s. There were too many Batman mini-series at once. I came to believe if it's not good enough for the ongoing, it's probably not worth a read. Despite my dislike of mini-series, it I don't the Shadow ones, I'm essentially done reading comic books.
Aside from that ridiculous Moon Knight series by Bendis for Vengeance of Moon Knight, I do not recall Marvel canceling the title to relaunch the title a couple months later. Dynamite certainly hasn't done that with the Shadow.
M
And for the record, I'm not advocating for one side or the other. I don’t think anyone is advocating for more relaunches. I think relaunches should be done if, and only if, there is a major shift in the tone/direction of a series. I had absolutely no problem with Waid/Rivera/Martin’s Daredevil series getting a relaunch. Or with Soule/Garney’s Daredevil series getting a relaunch. But Waid/Samnee’s Daredevil series didn’t need to be relaunched just because of a move from New York to San Francisco. It didn’t keep me from buying the series though, and I didn’t take it as a personal affront, because it was a damn good series.
I'm curious to see if a larger shift to digital will change things. The more people who consume comics digitally, the stronger the incentive will be for Marvel to make people want to buy those older issues. Perhaps that will mark a return to longer-running series and fewer relaunches.
There was a graphic novel by Marvel in the 80s also. Dark Horse had several mini-series; again not connected to the other "volumes" from DC & Marvel.
* in the final issue of the 2nd DC series, there's a line hinting that the 1st series (set in modern times) was a possible connection to his origins.
** Dynamite had a mini-series that was a prequel story for Blood & Judgment released by DC in 80s. Both by Chaykin & it was mentioned in the DC issues.
I think it's what most people expected.
The protagonist learns something or changes something that helps him defeat the antagonist.
You have now heard 95% of all stories ever created.
It's the journey, not the destination.
And I agree with @SolitaireRose it's about the journey. That's why I spoil stories before reading/watching when I can.
M
http://amp.dailydot.com/parsec/hydra-shirt-nazi-charlottesville/
http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2017/2017-07.html