Would you prefer a much smaller, back-to-basics Marvel Universe?

[Username taken]

I reject the premise. The "good old days" weren't simple or basic.

I remember them well. There were tons of books being published back then. Maybe there was only one Avengers, X-Men, Defenders and Fantastic Four title, but there was Inhumans, Eternals, Champions, Marvel Two In One, Marvel Team-Up, Marvel Premiere, Marvel Preview, Marvel Presents, Marvel Spotlight, Marvel Feature, Marvel Chillers, Amazing Adventures, Tales to Astonish and Astonishing Tales, Journey Into Mystery, the occasional Giant Size offering (like Giant Size Chillers), and several other titles under various names. And that's not even counting the individual books. I don't mean just Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Daredevil, Dr. Strange and Hulk. Omega the Unknown had a book. Deathlok had a book (under Astonishing Tales). Ka-Zar had a book. The Sub-Mariner had a book. Captain Marvel had a book. Ms. Marvel had one, too. Red Wolf had a book. Black Panther had a book. The Cat had a book. Dracula, Werewolf, Frankenstein, Ghost Rider and Son of Satan all had their own titles. Warlock had a book. Shang Chi had a book. Iron Fist had a book, as did Luke Cage before they formed one title as Power Man & Iron Fist. Spider-Woman had a book. Conan and Red Sonja had their own books. There were even books for the western heroes, like Kid Colt and Rawhide Kid. I mean come on, people! Cut the crap. I could literally go on all day naming all of the myriad titles that Marvel put out back in the "good old days."

So if you ask me should Marvel streamline, I'd have to ask, as compared to what/when...because that time in the Marvel Universe never really existed.

I agree with this.

There was never a time that Marvel didn’t publish non A-list books and to a large extent that was Marvel’s strength.

The only time Marvel scaled back was during the post 90s bust and eventually they expanded their line back.

I seriously suspect that most older Marvel fans didn’t get in via Avengers or Iron Man but rather through books like Ghost Rider, Defenders and even Eternals.

[Cel]

I reject the premise. The "good old days" weren't simple or basic.

I remember them well. There were tons of books being published back then.

Yeah--if you add up every book Marvel published in an entire decade, including minis, one-shots, and cancelled books that were replaced by other books. But in a year-to-year basis, Marvel definitely didn't have as many ongoings back then as they do now.

[Tiamatty]

It's always good to introduce new characters and elements, but not everyone needs their own solo book, at least not right off the bat. With some exceptions, solos should generally be given to characters who have proven themselves to be fan favorites; just throwing them out there after a minor appearance or two almost certainly dooms them to failure unless Marvel really promotes them, and even then, it's a long shot. Also, Marvel needs to do more limited series' to test the waters before giving new characters an ongoing. At the very least, a limited series will allow a character to get at least one arc in, while, especially in this day and age of decompressed writing, jumping straight into an ongoing risks having few to no plot points being resolved, making the series basically useless.

The issue there is that minis rarely do well any more. The Deadpool ones apparently do well enough for them to never frigging stop, but other than that? Not really. So minis might not be the solution, either.

[numberthirty]

The issue there is that minis rarely do well any more. The Deadpool ones apparently do well enough for them to never frigging stop, but other than that? Not really. So minis might not be the solution, either.

Certainly could be.

To me, it feels like testing the waters with a few minis might be a way to get a realistic feel for if said minis would be any sort of an improvement over just launching ongoings and hoping a handful of them will take.

[Tiamatty]

Certainly could be.

To me, it feels like testing the waters with a few minis might be a way to get a realistic feel for if said minis would be any sort of an improvement over just launching ongoings and hoping a handful of them will take.

Tough to tell. Does announcing a book as a mini lead to it having lower sales? It might. It certainly doesn't seem to help sales.

[Prof. Warren]

The vast majority of the DC titles in the top selling titles last month--Justice League, Wonder Woman, Detective Comics, Batman, Superman, Action Comics, Flash, Hal Jordan & The Green Lantern Corps, Harley Quinn, Nightwing, etc.--were all $2.99.

Yes, and if not for the higher priced books that pulled in bigger numbers - Doomsday Clock, Metal, etc. - DC wouldn't have even edged close to Marvel in dollars. If it's just their 2.99's against Marvel's 3.99's, Marvel crushes them, even when the units sold are in DC's favor - which is not often.

That's precisely what I was saying.

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting but it seems like you're saying "look how good DC's doing" when that's not really the case. When you claim 8 spots in the Top Ten and have an overall unit sale advantage but yet still trail your chief competitor in dollars, that's not good. It just isn't. It's like DC has to run twice as fast as Marvel just to stay a close second to them.

More pertinent to the topic of this thread, when you break down what DC had in the Top 50 as far as their regular ongoings, it's like eight titles. It's just that they all double ship. DC's solution to having too many books in their line that didn't sell well was to pare it down the essentials and double ship most of them. So now DC is basically Superman (and the Superman family books), Batman (and the Bat-family books), Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Aquaman, Green Arrow and Flash. Some people might like that streamlined approach but I certainly wouldn't want Marvel to emulate that.

While it's a bummer when books get cancelled, I'd rather Marvel always keep giving shots to B and C listers. I'd rather have sixteen issues of Hawkeye to enjoy then to never have had that book exist at all, you know? A title doesn't have to continue forever for it to have been worth doing in the first place.

[mugiwara]

It's always good to introduce new characters and elements, but not everyone needs their own solo book, at least not right off the bat. With some exceptions, solos should generally be given to characters who have proven themselves to be fan favorites; just throwing them out there after a minor appearance or two almost certainly dooms them to failure unless Marvel really promotes them, and even then, it's a long shot.

Fan favorites don't do much better.
The Thing, Luke Cage, Nightcrawler and Storm are long time fan favorites, and yet their latest solo series didn't get past 12 issues.
It seems that, baring some exceptions, the only way a solo can last more than one year is if the title written on the cover already existed in the 60s or in the 70s.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Yes, and if not for the higher priced books that pulled in bigger numbers - Doomsday Clock, Metal, etc. - DC wouldn't have even edged close to Marvel in dollars. If it's just their 2.99's against Marvel's 3.99's, Marvel crushes them, even when the units sold are in DC's favor - which is not often.

Only 7 titles had a higher than $2.99 price sticker. Seven titles make up a very small fraction of the publishing slate.

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting but it seems like you're saying "look how good DC's doing" when that's not really the case. When you claim 8 spots in the Top Ten and have an overall unit sale advantage but yet still trail your chief competitor in dollars, that's not good. It just isn't. It's like DC has to run twice as fast as Marvel just to stay a close second to them.

Marvel doesn't own over 50% of the market. As you've said, Marvel and DC sell at relatively the same levels. When you look at the unit share numbers, that's pretty obvious. Marvel only has more share of the dollars because it charges more in general for its comics. The majority of DC's slate is $2.99, while the majority of Marvel's is $3.99 for the same amount of content and they regularly venture into the $6 or $7 range.

For a pretty obvious example of this, in October of this year, the overall unit share showed a 3% difference between them, but the dollar share doubled that. That, even though in the top 100 titles, DC outnumbered Marvel. So, I doubt the people at DC think that the ship is going down, especially if they're moving more units.

More pertinent to the topic of this thread, when you break down what DC had in the Top 50 as far as their regular ongoings, it's like eight titles. It's just that they all double ship.

You realize Marvel's double shipped for years, right? But, point of correction, in terms of their regular ongoings, its actually over 20 titles in the top 100 and in the top 300, DC had 92 to Marvel's 84.

[XPac]

I vaguely remember a time in the late '70s/early '80s in which Marvel didn't have a ton of books. There was maybe only one or two Avengers and X-Men titles, no books featuring Legacy characters, and the Marvel Universe seemed a more "cohesive" place with only 20 or so titles. In some ways, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is like that Marvel of 30+ years ago. Should there be a massive culling of the Marvel Universe to get back to a "less is more" kind of philosophy?

If marvel was JUST about selling books, I'd definitely argue they should cut back on the number of books they publish. I think they put out more books than they need to, a lot of which I suspect they KNOW probably won't last 6 issues.

But marvel is about more than JUST selling comics... it's about generating IP's which can later be used for movies, tv shows, etc. Books like Jessica Jones and Runaways and Big Hero 6 didn't necessarily set the sales charts on fire, but they led to movies and tv shows and cartoons. Comics are now vehicles for creating other content for Disney.

[JudicatorPrime]

Yeah--if you add up every book Marvel published in an entire decade, including minis, one-shots, and cancelled books that were replaced by other books. But in a year-to-year basis, Marvel definitely didn't have as many ongoings back then as they do now.

There were a plethora of books being published every year. Besides, the OP didn't mention a specific year.

[JudicatorPrime]

I seriously suspect that most older Marvel fans didn’t get in via Avengers or Iron Man but rather through books like Ghost Rider, Defenders and even Eternals.

QFT. I didn't start off as a fan of the "A List" characters or teams. Quite the opposite. When I first discovered comics, I was driven to explore as much of the Marvel brand as possible. I plowed through the bargain shelf at my local comics store looking for titles and characters that I'd never heard about. Captain Marvel, Silver Surfer, Ghost Rider, Warlock, Black Panther, Inhumans, pre-Claremont and Byrne X-Men (which were heavy into reprint mode at that time), and the Two-In-One and Team-Up titles were some of the earliest books that caught my attention.

I think it would be a mistake to contract. Marvel isn't hurting for money. It can continue to push new and innovative titles well into the next decade and still turn a profit, relative to some of the early years, when it really did struggle. Everyone wants to take politics out of comics. Well, I say let's take all of the business analysis out of comics first. Go read Forbes or WSJ and have a 'Bucks on me.

[nickytesla96]

When I read "I want a smaller, back-to-basics universe" I read it as "I don't want comics like Eisner Award-winning Vision by Tom King and I want the universe to be more boring." I understand that's a bit of a strong overreaction (is it though?) but hey I'm salty lol.

Well, I say let's take all of the business analysis out of comics first. Go read Forbes or WSJ and have a 'Bucks on me.

Absolutely agreed.

It's always funny to me how skimming the comic sales thread every month or general comic sales discussions elsewhere, it's always the same, repeating talking points each time.

I play the card Moon Girl and Squirrel Girl's direct market orders are low!
I flip my facedown Trap Card Digital, trade paperback, and Scholastic sales!

What does the phrase "have a 'Bucks on me" mean?

[The Negative Zone]

I'd say scaling back certain franchises so you can keep up with that corner of the Marvel universe + at least one other book would probably be for the best. I definitely wouldn't want a really small Marvel Universe. The universe should evolve more. We have as much character regression as it is. Don't need an entire universe to regress.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I think judicatorprime meant Starbucks.

[Prof. Warren]

Only 7 titles had a higher than $2.99 price sticker. Seven titles make up a very small fraction of the publishing slate.

It matters when those higher ticket items are mostly the ones that were ordered at over 100,000 each.

Marvel doesn't own over 50% of the market. As you've said, Marvel and DC sell at relatively the same levels. When you look at the unit share numbers, that's pretty obvious. Marvel only has more share of the dollars because it charges more in general for its comics. The majority of DC's slate is $2.99, while the majority of Marvel's is $3.99 for the same amount of content and they regularly venture into the $6 or $7 range.

For a pretty obvious example of this, in October of this year, the overall unit share showed a 3% difference between them, but the dollar share doubled that. That, even though in the top 100 titles, DC outnumbered Marvel. So, I doubt the people at DC think that the ship is going down, especially if they're moving more units.

I don't think the ship is going down at DC either. Predicting the collapse of either of the Big Two is just online foolishness. But yet, DC does seem to have to work twice as hard as Marvel to be a close second to them.

You realize Marvel's double shipped for years, right? But, point of correction, in terms of their regular ongoings, its actually over 20 titles in the top 100 and in the top 300, DC had 92 to Marvel's 84.

For the most part, Marvel doesn't double ship on a regular basis. That is, most titles aren't designated as double shippers. Most, like ASM, have about fourteen or fifteen issues a year which means that they double ship a few times a year but not every month.

DC double ships most of their main titles now. A few books couldn't support that and they've gone to monthlies.

Point being, DC has slimmed down their line by increasing their double shipping. Less individual titles but shipped more often.

If that works for DC and it's readers, great. I just don't want Marvel to follow that route. I do think that Marvel will go into double shipping more - maybe even weekly, given the Avengers event coming up - but I hope it won't be at the expense of having room in their line for smaller titles.