Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 6
Topic: A Better Alternative To Renumbering/Relaunches (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6426
Posted: 05 February 2016 at 7:53pm | IP Logged | 1  
I was referring to when both companies were explicitly marking the month AND year side-by-side on the cover, just as you might normally see on any other newstand publication like a Playboy, Good Housekeeping, etc.

**

I see what you mean.

X-Men 109 actually hit the stands in November 1977. Here's Mike's Amazing World of Comics entry: http:Link

Mike's page is a fun site to look up when a comic actually hit the stands.

Interestingly, Mike's site shows that the second Fantastic Four with a cover date was posted as "January 1996" on the cover, but actually shipped on November 28 1995.

Edited by Mark Haslett on 05 February 2016 at 7:56pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
Posted: 09 February 2016 at 4:49am | IP Logged | 2  
Just wanted to add something as some non-UK members may be unaware of our UK reprint titles.

From 1978 until 1985, Marvel UK published a Spider-Man comic, reprinting Spider-Man tales and various back-up strips (such as Thor). It ran for a rather eerie 666 issues - Mephisto's plan, I'm sure - and had that sense of history. When I bought something like the 534th issue, I remember being impressed by the history behind it.

It did reinvent itself over time. It started off as SPIDER-MAN COMICS WEEKLY. It then had these names over time:

SUPER SPIDER-MAN
SPIDER-MAN COMIC
SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN WEEKLY
SPIDER-MAN AND HULK WEEKLY
SUPER SPIDER-MAN TV COMIC
SPIDER-MAN AND HIS AMAZING FRIENDS
THE SPIDER-MAN COMIC
SPIDEY COMIC

Now, it is debatable whether it was really the same comic. Yes, it clocked up an impressive 666 issues, but, for instance, SUPER SPIDER-MAN TV COMIC was very different to previous incarnations: It had photos from the Nicholas Hammond series, a lot of competitions, etc. And due to various mergers, Spider-Man did join with other heroes at times.

All that said, I liked the fact it reached 666 issues. It could have been so easy to renumber/reboot the above titles, but instead we got what we got.

As I've stated previously, high numbers don't always equate to quality. It would be entirely possible for a title to run for 800 or 900 issues - and have 700 or 800 bad issues. However, there is something appealing about high numbers and history
Back to Top profile | search
 
Lance Hill
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 April 2005
Posts: 991
Posted: 09 February 2016 at 1:48pm | IP Logged | 3  

 QUOTE:
It was, as I understand it, his decision to resume the numbering on THE FLASH when Barry Allen's success in SHOWCASE led to getting his own title. Such a decision no doubt generated squeals of delight among hardcore fans (both of them...) but it was meaningless to 99.999% of then-current readers.


That was a particularly strange decision. It wasn't even the exact same title - the original series was "Flash Comics" (an anthology!) and the revival was "The Flash".
Back to Top profile | search
 

Sorry, you can NOT post a reply.
This topic is closed.

<< Prev Page of 6
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login