How often would you relaunch "Captain America" with a new #1?

[Lorendiac]

According to the Grand Comic Book Database Project (http://www.comics.org/search.lasso?query=Captain+America&type=title&sort=alpha) there have been issues titled "Captain America #1" published in:

1941
1996
1998
2002
2005

Also, in 1968, the "Tales of Suspense" title changed to "Captain America" with #100. That was the Cap series that ran for the next 28 years until the "Heroes Reborn" event interfered and that series was killed at #454.

I'm not counting special miniseries that had more complicated names. I'm only looking at those series that have used the nice simple phrase "Captain America" as the entire title.

Now to me, that is a lot more #1's than Captain America really needs, and if I were seriously collecting him these past few years, I'd find it a real pain to try to keep all the monthly issues of each of the last four series neatly sorted out in a long box in chronological order.

So the question is simple: If you were in charge of the Captain America title for the next few decades, how often would you feel the need to "relaunch" him with yet another brand new "Captain America #1" comic book?

I'm not talking about erasing all the old continuity from previous stories and rebooting everything from scratch, the way DC did to Superman and Wonder Woman about twenty years ago after Crisis on Infinite Earths. I'm just talking about "ending" one series with high numbers, and "relaunching" the character with a new series with much lower numbers, even though all of the previous stories are supposedly still existing as part of his ongoing continuity if a new writer ever wants to refer to one of them (by bringing back an old villain from 1991 or whatever). Apparently the major reason for doing this with various heroes and team concepts is that there's evidence that putting that magic #1 on the cover tends to get higher sales figures than the exact same story would get if it were the first issue of a new writer's run on the character, but were being published as #121 of the old series instead of #1 of the new series!

Cap is just an example of the general problem. If you really don't care about Captain America or anything Marvel does to him, then substitute the title of some character you do care about, who only has one regular monthly title, and ask yourself how often you'd want to see it "relaunch" as a "new series." Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Invincible, Savage Dragon, Spider-Girl, Wolverine, or whoever you like.

[Jake V]

Keep it how it was, with relaunching whenever a massive tonal shift occurs. Heros Reborn necessitated a new series, as did Heros Return. The MK launch was a massive stylistic shift and needed a new #1 to signal that the book has changed. The most recent relaunch was brought on as part of a massive Avengers-line relaunch, with relaunches of Iron Man, Avengers and Thunderbolts.

The next relaunch should be part of whatever new stylistic or tonal shift occurs.

[Nick Kal]

Captain America under Brubaker should continue as is forever. If it gets a new #1 it'll be well after Brubaker is off.

[Alan2099]

I don't like renumbering. Why change the system just because you have a new creative team?

[StoneGold]

$$$. And that's why I'd reboot the book. To make more $$$.

[Expletive Deleted]

As often as necessary, taking into account financial and aesthetic considerations.

[Hellpop]

It is absolutely ridiculous, and we are all at fault for buying into this system that artificially creates "new" #1's. There were major tonal shifts in comics well before this current era, and no one felt the need to restart the title. I really can't believe that people think a new #1 for a long running series is going to appreciate in value.

One of the few things I've agreed with Joe Quesada about was going back to the original numbering for ASM and FF, wven if it was just to sell a 500th issue. But what they've done with books like Cap and Iron Man is just silly.

[Charagon]

Once. The book that started in 96 should be the one numbers are based on today.

[Capt Hunter]

I think that relaunching is stupid.... Cap would be at #560.... That is a great number for a comic book....

BTW I just responded to this same thread over at Superherohype.....

[Mr. Nobody]

Every month! hey, why not?

I kind of like the big numbers, it implies your buying a nice sense of history along with your current issue in addition an issue # 487 of a series just seems like a bigger accomplishment than an issue #4 or whatever. But when it comes down to it i'll buy it either way so long as the stories good.

I know their intention with the reboots is to supposedly give new readers a jumping on point but doesn't that work both ways? Sure it'll bring in readers in the short term but by effectively ending the old series, aren't they also giving the books long term supporters a good chance to get out, especially if they aren't happy with the new direction? If the concept of Captain America appeals to a person and the stories are good, chances are they're going to be reading it regardless of some arbitary number. A new #1 will inevitablely spike sales for a few months but its not going to stick there, obviously or y'know, they probably wouldn't be doing them all the time. If they have what seems like a good jumping on issue and they really want to get people's attention there are better ways to do it. Remember when they were doing those twenty-five cent promotion issues a couple years back?

[Mr. Nobody]

Once. The book that started in 96 should be the one numbers are based on today.

That was vol. 2, Rob's cap, i think a second reboot was a necessity there, to wash their hands of it as best as possible and let people at least try to move on with their lives and pretend that whole trajedy never happened.

[The Shadow]

Do what the Ultimates did... and I think Peter David has said this as well... have a 12 issue "Season 1" then a "season 2" and so forth.

[Charagon]

Which is the stupidest idea ever concieved.

Ultimates 2? Sure, then have twelve issues of Ultimates 3. Then 4. Then, relaunch with a new Ultimates 1!

Hell, just start every new arc with a new issue one! In fact, take a que from the 90's Venom series and just make a different mini-series for every arc!

[The Shadow]

Which is the stupidest idea ever concieved.

Ultimates 2? Sure, then have twelve issues of Ultimates 3. Then 4. Then, relaunch with a new Ultimates 1!
Why don't you like it?

We're at Season 16 or 17 of the Simpsons... why can't it work for a comic?

Ultimates 3, Ultimates 4, Ultimates 5, Ultimates 6... Ultimates 11, Ultimates 12

[Siddon]

I'd go with every 10 years I think that relaunches are very important for the success of a title and I would rather be a little annoyed then to see my favorite titles struggle. But every year thing is a little to crazy for me.

[Mr. Nobody]

Which is the stupidest idea ever concieved.

Ultimates 2? Sure, then have twelve issues of Ultimates 3. Then 4. Then, relaunch with a new Ultimates 1!

Hell, just start every new arc with a new issue one! In fact, take a que from the 90's Venom series and just make a different mini-series for every arc!

I don't see anything wrong with it. Twelve issues is just right for a nice sized trade paperback, the numberings easy to keep track of, so there's no concern about figuring out what order your supposed to be reading these in, its gives the creators a set number of issues to aim for, as far as wrapping up all their storylines goes.

[Red State Cap]

Captain America should revert to the consecutive total from Volume 1, period. Vol. 2 was crap. Volume 3 was about half crap. Volume 4 was total excrement. Volume 5 is great so far.
Frankly renumbering is unnecessary and incredibly annoying. Captain America is a flagship title with nearly a 40-year history. Instead of using the cynical gimmick of renumbering/rebooting, how about quality writing and artwork to sell comics and keep the fans happy? What a revolutionary concept!

RSC

[Paradox]

Lorendiac wants us to put on our editors' caps:

So the question is simple: If you were in charge of the Captain America title for the next few decades, how often would you feel the need to "relaunch" him with yet another brand new "Captain America #1" comic book?

Other: However often I thought was appropriate. That's a market driven decision, and the market changes all the time.

[Hombre]

Captain America should revert to the consecutive total from Volume 1, period. Vol. 2 was crap. Volume 3 was about half crap. Volume 4 was total excrement. Volume 5 is great so far.
Frankly renumbering is unnecessary and incredibly annoying. Captain America is a flagship title with nearly a 40-year history. Instead of using the cynical gimmick of renumbering/rebooting, how about quality writing and artwork to sell comics and keep the fans happy? What a revolutionary concept!

RSC

Here's what I think Red: considering that C.A. Vol. 1 continued its numbering from Tales of Suspense and started out at #100, the best thing would have been to keep the numbering from Vol. 3 onwards and indefinitely, especially since the Vol. 4 relaunch was unnecessary and artistically poor.

Since we've rebooted once again, and this time with a sense of true artistic rebirth, my opinion is that the vol. 5 numbering should stick without any more #1 for at least as long as did the numbering from the original vol. 1.

[DDM]

$$$. And that's why I'd reboot the book. To make more $$$.

Comic books did very well in the 70's & 80's without petty reboots. Marvel is looking for superficial gimmicks for the #1 book, but refuses to use the character's history as a resource. This impatience to develop characters over long term & need for instant gratification is hurting the comic book industry as a whole. In time, constant rebooting will lose more readers than gain.

[Kirk G]

Why don't you like it?

We're at Season 16 or 17 of the Simpsons... why can't it work for a comic?


It is different than comics, because TV shows are endlessly repeated on air, and there is no mention of which episode number it is.

Also, when we number a comic issue, it should forever be the reference point in the continuity. Example: Captain America #100 is the revealation that Zemo may not be dead, guest staring the Black Panther and Agent 13. There should NEVER be another number 100, or else you invite confusion.

Also, you can hold comic issues in your hand, shuffle them, and organize them.
You can't do that with TV Shows... they are a real time experience. (Don't talk to me about DVDs or complete seasons on DVD...that's a new marketing gimic, much like trade paperbacks and collections, I think)

Plus, with the Simsons, we don't know which episode is coming up tonight... especially if it is in reruns or syndication...
But with comics, at least you have some idea of what is coming next, espeically if it is a continued story.... and if they begin reprinting IN ORDER.

Exception: the disaster that occured when Marvel was reprinting Tales of Suspense issues of Cap under Marvel Tripple Action, and used the same cover of the Z-Ray on at least three different issues, not everyone with the same story reprinted inside. (Joe Bob says go check it out if you want to be confused.) The only compairable mistake occurred when the Return of the Grey Gargoile story from Journey into Mystery #113 was reprinted two or three times in the Thor Annual and again in Marvel Spectacular within a month or two of each other! Ooops! :eek:

[BoosterBronze]

I dont like relaunches, and its hard to express why.

Mainly it makes a #1 issue not feel special, like they used to when I was a kid. #1's used to hold a sort of magic, and that's gone now.

[The Shadow]

It is different than comics, because TV shows are endlessly repeated on air, and there is no mention of which episode number it is.
What about a show like 24 with a specific time designation? You can't watch 24 out of order or else you'd be screwed nor can you catch season one 7-8pm and then watch season 4 9-10 am without getting TOTALLY lost.

You have to watch 24 season 1 ep 1,2,3 etc. Any deviation messes up the story.

Then the next year you have to watch 24 Season 2 ep 1,2,3, etc. Then 24 season 3 and so on.

It could work for comics I think. You'd have to read Ultimates Vol 1 1-12, then Ultimates Vol 2 1-2 and so on.

[StoneGold]

I dont like relaunches, and its hard to express why.

Mainly it makes a #1 issue not feel special, like they used to when I was a kid. #1's used to hold a sort of magic, and that's gone now.
And the bolded part might not explain that at all?

[streator]

voted "other".
i would only relaunch the title if it needed to be relaunched, meaning:
-poor sales necessitating a revamp
-some radical change with the character that differs completely from previous incarnations

/both of these would have to happen under extreme circumstances. for example, i think it was not needed to relaunch the book in 2002 or last year.

[The Scribe]

It depends.
Only when it's absolutely necessary.
I don't think renumbering any comic is a good idea, unless it's absolutely unnecessary.
Relaunching for the sake of relaunching is a bad idea.

[markus]

As often as I can get away with it.
Sorry, absolutely zero scruples when it comes to exploiting the suckers whose purchases make #1s sell so much better. If people are dumb enough to swallow it, I'd label every issue #1.

[BoosterBronze]

And the bolded part might not explain that at all?

True it might. But also in the past I thought that Captain America #1 or Wolverine #1 were special things that happened in the past, and therefore, when a #1 issue of anything came out, I felt the need to grab it, so I could make it in on the 'ground floor' so to speak.

I'm not opposed to Marvel making money, and I'm not a zealot who hate's new #1s. I just think they cheapen something cool.

[BlackKnight]

True it might. But also in the past I thought that Captain America #1 or Wolverine #1 were special things that happened in the past, and therefore, when a #1 issue of anything came out, I felt the need to grab it, so I could make it in on the 'ground floor' so to speak.

I'm not opposed to Marvel making money, and I'm not a zealot who hate's new #1s. I just think they cheapen something cool.

People seem to refuse to understand this. I don't care what number my comic is, I am just tired of people trying to claim there are other reasons for them being rebooted other then gimmick sales.
They aren't more accessable, unless ever time your starting over your droping all history that came before. So that reason is false.
I understand if people just like it because it helps them compartmentalize there comics in there boxs or there heads. That makes sense to me even though I don't do it or need it.

The only time that a #1 makes sense is if a comic has been gone for an extended period of time, say at least 2 years or so, maybe even 1.
:D

[StoneGold]

I'm not opposed to Marvel making money, and I'm not a zealot who hate's new #1s. I just think they cheapen something cool.
Fair enough. It's just whenever I hear the word "when I was a kid," that sets some alarm bells off. Like people who consider themselves adults complaining about the lack of quality programming on Nickelodean.

[BoosterBronze]

Fair enough. It's just whenever I hear the word "when I was a kid," that sets some alarm bells off. Like people who consider themselves adults complaining about the lack of quality programming on Nickelodean.

Dude, reading your post made me spit water out my nose laughing. I just got this image of two guys in suits smoking pipes and complaining about Nickelodeon shows.

[Ned Leeds]

They can relaunch all the time as long as we keep getting damn good stories.

[Huh?]

Comic books did very well in the 70's & 80's without petty reboots. Marvel is looking for superficial gimmicks for the #1 book, but refuses to use the character's history as a resource. This impatience to develop characters over long term & need for instant gratification is hurting the comic book industry as a whole. In time, constant rebooting will lose more readers than gain.Dead on! The main problem with #1 reboots is that it is a gimmick, like the variant cover. Sure, it helps sales in the short term, but over the long haul it will drive long time readers away. Does the industry not remember the 90's? I, and everyone I knew left comics in 1991 and I'm the only one that came back, but that took ten years to happen. :eek:

[Kirk G]

What about a show like 24 with a specific time designation? You can't watch 24 out of order or else you'd be screwed nor can you catch season one 7-8pm and then watch season 4 9-10 am without getting TOTALLY lost.

You have to watch 24 season 1 ep 1,2,3 etc. Any deviation messes up the story.

Then the next year you have to watch 24 Season 2 ep 1,2,3, etc. Then 24 season 3 and so on.

It could work for comics I think. You'd have to read Ultimates Vol 1 1-12, then Ultimates Vol 2 1-2 and so on.
Yes, I would agree, even though I have never watched this TV show "24".

It would make sense to run through a comic storyline from stem to stern... however, it is not always possible to do that and never was 100% assured.

Back in the 1960s, when Marvel was on the rise, we school kids were desperate to get our hands on back issues to follow the characters and learn what had come before. It wasn't possible to find back issues at a store, and the only source was either reading at your friend's house, trading (gasp!) with others, or scoring them at the school carnival white elephant sale.

To some extent, that is still true. Unless you have a used comic book store (more and more rare these days) in your town, or friends to loan to you, or you are willing to go purhase on e-bay or mile high, or some other vendor, you will aren't assured of having the whole story, unless it is currently unfolding. As a result, you've got to be in for every issue in your comic shop (similar to tuning in for 24 every week) except there is no way to get eariler episodes of 24, right?

I can attest to the fact that even as kids in the 60s, we found ways to construct what we had missed... reading letters pages, reviews of issues by other fans, reading house ads, and next issue boxes.... You may be missing issues # 73 & 74, but if you had the issue 76 and 77, you could read the letters pages and figure out what you had missed, sort of. Can't do that with TV.

Plus, with comics, you can go back and re-read that issue, or page, or pannel, time and time again.... and we did... to get it right...to searchout a detail or a flaw in Stan Lee's plotting or writing... to see if we could find the clue as to how Iron Man was going to pull the fat out of the fire in the next issue or two... or in the one we were still missing....

I still say that comics are different cause you could still re-reference them and that was half the fun.... the pursuit of the details was engrossing, and the thrill of the hunt for missing issues and storylines were still possible.

Comments anyone?

[BlackKnight]

Yes, I would agree, even though I have never watched this TV show "24".

It would make sense to run through a comic storyline from stem to stern... however, it is not always possible to do that and never was 100% assured.

Back in the 1960s, when Marvel was on the rise, we school kids were desperate to get our hands on back issues to follow the characters and learn what had come before. It wasn't possible to find back issues at a store, and the only source was either reading at your friend's house, trading (gasp!) with others, or scoring them at the school carnival white elephant sale.

To some extent, that is still true. Unless you have a used comic book store (more and more rare these days) in your town, or friends to loan to you, or you are willing to go purhase on e-bay or mile high, or some other vendor, you will aren't assured of having the whole story, unless it is currently unfolding. As a result, you've got to be in for every issue in your comic shop (similar to tuning in for 24 every week) except there is no way to get eariler episodes of 24, right?

I can attest to the fact that even as kids in the 60s, we found ways to construct what we had missed... reading letters pages, reviews of issues by other fans, reading house ads, and next issue boxes.... You may be missing issues # 73 & 74, but if you had the issue 76 and 77, you could read the letters pages and figure out what you had missed, sort of. Can't do that with TV.

Plus, with comics, you can go back and re-read that issue, or page, or pannel, time and time again.... and we did... to get it right...to searchout a detail or a flaw in Stan Lee's plotting or writing... to see if we could find the clue as to how Iron Man was going to pull the fat out of the fire in the next issue or two... or in the one we were still missing....

I still say that comics are different cause you could still re-reference them and that was half the fun.... the pursuit of the details was engrossing, and the thrill of the hunt for missing issues and storylines were still possible.

Comments anyone?


Another way that comics differ from TV series is the media. Comics usually come in a monthly standard, will TV Series come out weekly for the majority of the season.

So a TV series can have less happen in one episode because the fans don't have to wait for 30 days to find out what happens next. As a side note that is my big problem with decompression and the idea that if it works for TV it should work for comics.

Another thing is when a TV series is either going to take a few weeks off or end of season they leave with a huge cliff hanger so that the fans remember and want to come back after waiting for weeks to months. This is why I think the decompression to fit into trades will hurt comics in the long run.

[Jolly Mon]

I don't see anything wrong with it. Twelve issues is just right for a nice sized trade paperback, the numberings easy to keep track of, so there's no concern about figuring out what order your supposed to be reading these in, its gives the creators a set number of issues to aim for, as far as wrapping up all their storylines goes.

What I liked was in the olden days, when the story dictated the number of issues it took up. If the story was short, one issue. If it was an epic, 10-12 issues. In-between, 3 or 4 issues. Due to the desire to package everything to re-sell as trades, we are falling into the "every-story-has-to-be-SIX-issues" rut. Honestly, the 1st six issues of New Avengers should have been done in three issues, but that wouldn't make a good-size trade, would it?

Almost forgot the subject of the thread: Don't relaunch, just write good stories.

[Mr. Nobody]

What I liked was in the olden days, when the story dictated the number of issues it took up. If the story was short, one issue. If it was an epic, 10-12 issues. In-between, 3 or 4 issues. Due to the desire to package everything to re-sell as trades, we are falling into the "every-story-has-to-be-SIX-issues" rut. Honestly, the 1st six issues of New Avengers should have been done in three issues, but that wouldn't make a good-size trade, would it?

Its not something i'd want them to do with every comic, but for some it could work really well. Most formats have certain restrictions as far as space is concerned. Movies usually need to be between ninty minutes and two hours, tv shows have to be around either twenty or forty minutes long, comics have to be twenty-two pages. Having these restrictions doesn't necessarily mean the end product is going to suffer it just requires a certain amount of planning to make it make them work.

For the Ultimates the twelve issue format has worked incredibly well, its the right number of issues to carry a an extended arc with a little more of an epic feel, without too getting unweldly, while smaller stories can be told as subplots in segments therein. I think the reason its worked so well here is Mark Millar has set a limit to the length of his run. While it feels like he could easily carry the stories further a few issues without feeling like were suffering through filler material, since there's a space limit he really has to choose what's worth putting in and what can be left out and the end results probably that much stronger for it. I do like single issues stories though and don't think every single comic has to have an epic twelve issue arc, so its not as though i was suggesting every comic be published this way.

[StoneGold]

Dead on! The main problem with #1 reboots is that it is a gimmick, like the variant cover. Sure, it helps sales in the short term, but over the long haul it will drive long time readers away. Does the industry not remember the 90's? I, and everyone I knew left comics in 1991 and I'm the only one that came back, but that took ten years to happen. :eek:
No doubt, it's a gimmick, but is it really driving anyone away? Let's look at the recent reboots. You've got Runaways, which went from the cancelation block to a fairly healthy book. You've got Avengers which went from a fairly healthy book to a consistant top 10 placer. You've got Captain America, which is enjoying better sales than it has in years. Ultimates 2 has enjoyed healthy sales. I don't know if we should count Thunderbolts, since that had some significant time off, so I'm going to leave it out. The only reboot that seems to have been a failure is Iron Man, but that's more due to the lack of issues than anything else, and the same thing would have happened had the book kept the older numbering.

Now granted, we don't really have any long term numbers, but it's not like rebooting a book is something you can do all that often. Captain America has had 3 1/2 reboots in the last 10 years (Heroes Reborn is kind of hard to count as a reboot exactly). And sales on the latest version make the book something of a hit.

[DDM]

No doubt, it's a gimmick, but is it really driving anyone away? Let's look at the recent reboots. You've got Runaways, which went from the cancelation block to a fairly healthy book. You've got Avengers which went from a fairly healthy book to a consistant top 10 placer. You've got Captain America, which is enjoying better sales than it has in years. Ultimates 2 has enjoyed healthy sales. I don't know if we should count Thunderbolts, since that had some significant time off, so I'm going to leave it out. The only reboot that seems to have been a failure is Iron Man, but that's more due to the lack of issues than anything else, and the same thing would have happened had the book kept the older numbering.

Now granted, we don't really have any long term numbers, but it's not like rebooting a book is something you can do all that often. Captain America has had 3 1/2 reboots in the last 10 years (Heroes Reborn is kind of hard to count as a reboot exactly). And sales on the latest version make the book something of a hit.


New Avengers sales are not balanced since they include the varient cover. A comic book dealer must order a certain about New Avengers to get one varient cover. Therefore, the sales figures do not reflect the New Avengers "popularity."

Varients can only go on for long--like all gimmicks do--to give way to the substance of the matter. Marvel's problem is ignoring good stories with incessant gimmicks. Endless relaunches is one gimmick.

[StoneGold]

New Avengers sales are not balanced since they include the varient cover. A comic book dealer must order a certain about New Avengers to get one varient cover. Therefore, the sales figures do not reflect the New Avengers "popularity."

Varients can only go on for long--like all gimmicks do--to give way to the substance of the matter. Marvel's problem is ignoring good stories with incessant gimmicks. Endless relaunches is one gimmick.
Even take away the variant covers, the book is still selling at a higher industry level than it has ever. And keep in mind, it's keeping pace with miniseries events with multiple covers. And not the first issue. That's big, however you look at it. And it still doesn't address the fact that every other relaunched book I mentioned is doing not only stronger than it was, but way stronger, without all the alternate covers.

[Lorendiac]

Over on the forums on DC's own website, someone asked: "I hate to be a stickler for details... but wasn't the 1941 series actually called Captain America Comics?"

It turned out he had the truth on his side. To set the record straight before I lead anyone else astray, I'm reprinting the response I gave him. (Naturally, I pin the blame on someone else entirely for this little fiasco :))

*****

So I'm too trusting; so sue me :)

At the link I gave above, the Grand Comic Book Database Project listed several different series called simply "Captain America," including the one from 1941. They've gone to so much trouble on their database that I assumed they knew what they were talking about. After you raised this point, I clicked on a couple of things to bring up a big scanned image of the cover of the first Captain American comic book, and sure enough, it says CAPTAIN AMERICA in great big letters and then the word "comics" in much smaller letters underneath the lower right corner of the word "AMERICA." That was a dirty trick for them to pull on me!

*****

In other words, near as I can tell, there never was any comic book simply titled "Captain America #1" until Rob Liefeld started his "Heroes Reborn" version of the character in 1996. Please make all necessary adjustments to your memory banks! We apologize for any inconvenience! :)

[StarsAndGarters]

Please don't reboot. In fact, go back to the old Tales of Suspense numbering (intermediary issues included) when the total reaches #600.

[RonnieThunderbolts]

I liked your style Stars anf Garters. If we included the original Golden Age issues, the Silver Age issues (not numbering, as it started with issue 59), Heroes Reborn, Heroes Return, Marvel Knights, and the current series, it would total today, with issue 10 at 579 issues of Captain America, not including 12 issues of Captain America: Sentinel of Liberty, and 14 issues of Captain America and the Falcon.

Next month would be the 580th issue! Can you believe it? Ha! That is awesome... They should definitely use this numbering... it just makes sense.

[StarsAndGarters]

I liked your style Stars anf Garters. If we included the original Golden Age issues, the Silver Age issues (not numbering, as it started with issue 59), Heroes Reborn, Heroes Return, Marvel Knights, and the current series, it would total today, with issue 10 at 579 issues of Captain America, not including 12 issues of Captain America: Sentinel of Liberty, and 14 issues of Captain America and the Falcon.

Next month would be the 580th issue! Can you believe it? Ha! That is awesome... They should definitely use this numbering... it just makes sense.That would be sooooooo sweet. Like sickeningly sweet. :D We should so get them to do it. Start writing letters!

[The Shadow]

They should definitely use this numbering... it just makes sense.
To us comic readers... but a new reader would see Captain America #11 and then the next issue is 580! LOL

Imagine the confusion. On a more serious note I think constant confusion has hurt the industry... my friend who quit collecting went into a shop after 12 years away and he had no idea what happened... Cap was at 10, the Avengers was gone replaced by New Avengers, Jason Todd was alive again... he said the three constants were (Marvel wise anyway) the Fantastic Four, Amazing Spider-Man and Uncanny X-Men but I had to tell him all but Uncanny had been rebooted a couple of times and reverted back to their initial numbering.

[Red State Cap]

No doubt, it's a gimmick, but is it really driving anyone away? Let's look at the recent reboots...You've got Captain America, which is enjoying better sales than it has in years...Captain America has had 3 1/2 reboots in the last 10 years (Heroes Reborn is kind of hard to count as a reboot exactly). And sales on the latest version make the book something of a hit.
I attribute Cap's success due to the fact that Marvel hired the best writer and illustrator (Brubaker/Epting) for Cap AT LEAST 20 years. Quality work instead of gimmicks. What a concept!
I, for one, am buying Cap in spite of the reboot to #1, not because of it.

RSC

[StoneGold]

I attribute Cap's success due to the fact that Marvel hired the best writer and illustrator (Brubaker/Epting) for Cap AT LEAST 20 years. Quality work instead of gimmicks. What a concept!
I, for one, am buying Cap in spite of the reboot to #1, not because of it.

RSC
Don't get me wrong, the talent on the books is what's propelling all the relaunches, short of maybe Runaways, since that had the same talent as when was originally cancelled. But it's hard to ignore that all the relaunched books are selling well, for one reason or another.

[Red State Cap]

Don't get me wrong, the talent on the books is what's propelling all the relaunches, short of maybe Runaways, since that had the same talent as when was originally cancelled. But it's hard to ignore that all the relaunched books are selling well, for one reason or another.
What do you think the reaction would be to a committment a) to bring top talent to Captain America and b) to make a committment to permanently revert to the consecutive number from Volume 1?
As far as I can tell, from both this board and others, the continual re-boots are pretty much loathed by the core fan-base. So in fact, the re-boot to #1 of the current Cap title may actually be a drag on the sales, rather than a boon. I checked it out before buying #1, and if it hadn't been good stuff I wouldn't have bought it.

RSC

[Jake V]

What do you think the reaction would be to a committment a) to bring top talent to Captain America and b) to make a committment to permanently revert to the consecutive number from Volume 1?
As far as I can tell, from both this board and others, the continual re-boots are pretty much loathed by the core fan-base. So in fact, the re-boot to #1 of the current Cap title may actually be a drag on the sales, rather than a boon. I checked it out before buying #1, and if it hadn't been good stuff I wouldn't have bought it.

RSC
Yeah, but the core fan base "loathes" pretty much everything that's successful. They hated New Avengers and it's Marvel's #1 book. They hate huge company-wide crossovers, and Infinite Crisis and House of M are doing huge business.

They might claim to hate relaunches but they buy them every single time. Both Marvel and DC know better than to give the fans what they say they want.

[Hombre]

I attribute Cap's success due to the fact that Marvel hired the best writer and illustrator (Brubaker/Epting) for Cap AT LEAST 20 years. Quality work instead of gimmicks. What a concept!
I, for one, am buying Cap in spite of the reboot to #1, not because of it.

RSC

That's why there isn't much we can say on the matter of falling for relaunches, we've been buying these books for a lifetime... personally, and I must have said it several times, I thought something special did happen in 1998-1999, there was a renewed focus and some good series started, and the number ones made it feel like a new start.

[Huh?]

I've got a brilliant idea. Why doesn't Marvel use the same type of issue numbers they used on ASM for a while, only make every issue a #1!!!!!!!!!!

Like this

Captain America 1 (580)
Captain America 1 (581)
Captain America 1 (582)

[Lord Grog]

Cap's relaunches over the past few years have been irritating, and somewhat ridiculous. I voted "other," btw. I think relaunches should only be done with extreme changes in the series. New Avenger, IMO, is one such instance. The team bears very little resemblance to the old team, and the relaunch fit. Another example is the recent relaunch of Green Lantern. It brought Kyle's run as the flagship GL to a close, and reintroduced us to Hal. It wouldn't have fit to have the numbering the same when you no longer have the same main character. I can also accept a relaunch if continuity is wiped and the character is completely rebooted (although that is rarely welcome or called for).

In instances like that, relaunches are appropriate. In any other case, I would have liked to see Cap's book up in the 500's, not at 10. "Heroes Reborn" should have been a mini series that replaced the regular books for a year (or better yet, never happened), with the books picking back up where they left off. Apparently enough others felt the same way, since the original numbering is back in some places, but not on poor Cap's book.

[StoneGold]

Yeah, but the core fan base "loathes" pretty much everything that's successful. They hated New Avengers and it's Marvel's #1 book. They hate huge company-wide crossovers, and Infinite Crisis and House of M are doing huge business.

They might claim to hate relaunches but they buy them every single time. Both Marvel and DC know better than to give the fans what they say they want.
More to the point, people may loathe them, but they still buy them because it's a #1, and we're genetically predisposed to or something. Which in itself is only worth a one or two issue sales increase. But then, if you can hook those new #1 readers with quality writing and art, like Brubaker and Epting on Cap, you've got a legit hit on your hands, one that might not have been as big if they had just continued the MK renumbering. Because while there have been a lot of people moaning and groaning over renumbering, there's also been a lot of people saying "I've never liked Captain America, but I tried it with the new first issue, and wow, it was really good."

[BlackKnight]

More to the point, people may loathe them, but they still buy them because it's a #1, and we're genetically predisposed to or something. Which in itself is only worth a one or two issue sales increase. But then, if you can hook those new #1 readers with quality writing and art, like Brubaker and Epting on Cap, you've got a legit hit on your hands, one that might not have been as big if they had just continued the MK renumbering. Because while there have been a lot of people moaning and groaning over renumbering, there's also been a lot of people saying "I've never liked Captain America, but I tried it with the new first issue, and wow, it was really good."

Yep it is a good sales gimmick to get new readers to look. Why the look at a comic they never looked at before because there is a pretty #1 on the cover is beyond me, but they do, so I am not knocking the fact it increases sales. However, you have to have something to keep the readers. In Cap's case it is good writing and art.

A reboot still needs something to keep it going.

[Harold of the Rocks]

Because it's unnecessary. But it doesn't bother me either way. "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet."

[The Shadow]

I attribute Cap's success due to the fact that Marvel hired the best writer and illustrator (Brubaker/Epting) for Cap AT LEAST 20 years.
What about when Waid and Garney were doing the book? It was on a HUGE upswing because of great art and fantastic stories... Heroes Reborn killed it... but it was a fantastic book at the time and it falls well within your 20 years timeline. Not dissing Ed and Epting,... just making sure Garney and Waid get their props.

[Vegetarian Goat]

I voted "other"- I'd make every issue a new number one. With a foil cover.

[StoneGold]

I voted "other"- I'd make every issue a new number one. With a foil cover.
Only foil? No hologram, pop-up, glow in the dark, bulletproof cover?

[Vegetarian Goat]

Only foil? No hologram, pop-up, glow in the dark, bulletproof cover?

i thought that went without saying :confused:

[StoneGold]

Is Sandman a successful book? Not really because the sales numbers don't support it. It's a helluva good read and critically acclaimed... but it wasn't a success by a business definition.
Actually, it is very much so in trades. But that's trades.

[Paradox]

Red State Cap overgeneralizes:

As far as I can tell, from both this board and others, the continual re-boots are pretty much loathed by the core fan-base.

Maybe that's what you can tell from message boards, but if there were some way to actually prove it, I'd be willing to give 10:1 odds that the vast majority of the "core fan-base" is pretty indifferent to it, as they are to most things. What you're seeing is angry people, and angry people are much more likely to post their views on the 'Net than the indifferent.

[Evan Lanctot]

Every single friggin' month.



Evan :D

[Lorendiac]

It's been over a week, so I figure anyone who was really interested in voting has probably had their fair chance by now. Here are the results from all the different places where I started this poll.

After carefully subtracting my own extra votes, I ended up with 183 votes cast, gathered together from eight forums. Here's how the figures break down, rounded off to the nearest tenth of a percent:

1. "Never." 55.7%
2. "I'd wait at least 20 years." 8.7%
3. "I'd wait at least 10 years." 7.7%
4. "I'd wait at least 5 years." 1.1%
5. "Relaunch at the start of each new writer's run on the character." 3.8%
6. "Relaunch at the start of each new story arc." 6.6%
7. "Who cares about the monthly issues? Just make it easy to sort out the TPB collections." 3.3%
8. "Other (please explain)." 13.1%

So a fairly narrow majority favors the idea that a well-established series with high numbers never needs to be restarted with new numbering. The rest of us are quite divided. Among those who preferred "Other," there was a wide range of opinions. For instance, I believe more than one participant independently came up with the idea of having every single monthly issue say "#1" on the cover, so as to never lose the sales boost that "first issues" are said to consistently get from customers drifting through the local comics shop! :)

Others seemed to feel that an old series should only be relaunched with a new #1 under one or more of the following special circumstances (I'm combining several people's opinions here into one master list):

A) It's a Total Reboot with all the old continuity being thrown away so that this is "truly" the "first issue" of the Rebooted Version of the superhero in question
B) The previous series starring this hero has already been cancelled and forgotten for at least a year or so before the new one gets started
C) When there's some sort of huge shift starting in tone, style, direction, etc. (which does not necessarily mean every single time one writer's run ends and another writer's run begins on the character)
D) The old title character has just been replaced by a brand new character, although the old continuity is still supposed to have happened (for instance, more than one voter offered the opinion that it would have been tolerable to see the Green Lantern title of the 1990s get relaunched with a new #1 when Kyle Rayner took center stage, replacing Hal Jordan).

Someone suggested mimicking the approach that TV series use when arranging their episodes on DVDs. "Season 1: Episode 1; Season 1: Episode 2," and so forth. At the end of a year (more or less), switch over to "Season 2: Episode 1," and carry on from there.

And at least one person took the trouble to post a quick reply, explaining that he had voted "Other" because he really didn't care one way or the other!

On the other hand, the suggestion that surprised me the most was an idea proposed by Lobok on the Talk@Newsarama forum, who suggested the silly things don't really need issue numbers at all! Just the month and the year, both clearly printed on the front cover, so that it remains easy to keep a ton of Captain America comics (or any other superhero series) sorted out in strict chronological order. "Jan 2005," "Feb 2005," "Mar 2005," "Apr 2005," and so on and so forth, nice and simple.

Come to think of it, I believe that's the way most monthly (or weekly) magazines, outside of the comics industry, traditionally have done it, and it seems to have worked for them pretty well.

I asked one or two follow-up questions to make sure I understood his proposal. For instance, if three of Marvel's mutant titles were doing a three-month, nine-part crossover story arc called "X-Cruciating Headache," would it be fine with him for each cover to say "X-Cruciating Headache: Part 1 of 9," etc.? He said he had no objection. He also offered the opinion that if we got rid of the numbers, the publishers might take more time to advertise on the cover that a particular comic was the very first issue of a new run by a new writer or artist who had just arrived at the title, regardless of how old the title actually was.

I am not ready to say that Lobok converted me to his way of thinking, but he definitely gave me something new to think about. He may be right; so far I haven't found a great counterargument to prove he's definitely wrong about comics not really needing the numbers at all!