What's the process a comic has to go through before it hits the stands? Do all books on your line need your approval, or just from it's assigned editor?
The point about Matter Eater-Lad Is interesting and it reminds me that DC has often tried to change Beast Boy's codename to "Changeling" and it has never stuck. Mainly because Beast Boy is a much more descriptive and catchy name.
But on the other hand, DC has often used its linewide reboots like New 52 or Rebirth to deage Gar compared to the rest of his classic Titans counterparts, so there's perhaps an argument to be made that the name "Beast *Boy*" is holding him back.
Since I was introduced to him in NTT he was always Changeling or Gar to me. I've never liked the Beast Boy name, but after the Teen Titans cartoon, that one is WAY out of the bag.
I find it difficult to commit to floppies these days with the uncertainty of how many issues a title will run. I was happy to learn more 10 issue series are being green-lit, but its not always obvious when a book is planned for 5, 10 or ongoing. Why don't more books have a (1 of 5) type listing on the cover to let people know what they are in for? I assume some concern is given to stating a book will be a certain number but than having to cancel early due to low sales... however I think the uncertainty of duration often leads to people (or at least myself) often just avoiding all together and potentially just trade waiting if there's good word of mouth. For example with the latest Scarlet Witch book(s) I am constantly confused as to how long a current re-titled version will run, and thus have just dropped out of the confusing continual relaunches all together. If I had the information that it was X of 5 or X of 10 I would be more willing to get in there and stay it out.
Odd that you mention Scarlet Witch as that seems to be a rare exception in that it keeps reinventing itself every now and again by changing title or volume number when numbers start to dip but overall keeping the Orlando/Witch train rolling. Feels like a very secure title.
David Lynch famously said "As soon as you finish a film, people want you to talk about it. The film IS the talking, the film is the thing. So you go see the film, it's the whole thing and it's there and it's it." It's a philosophy on art I think about a lot, and one that I think runs opposite to how Marvel (and frankly comics as a whole) have operated since Stan's Soap Box.
Especially as you have been doing this for 35 years through the rise of internet culture, and this newsletter for 3 years, what's your take on this?
Is the level of meta-commentary from the creators/publishers beneficial for the art? Is it valuable when the news cycle or fan conversation centers on a creator tweeting this or an editor saying that as opposed to a focus on the work?
I've gone through my own personal cycle on this, having been someone who has added plenty of grist to the rumor mill over time, and have really landed much closer to Lynch's perspective. Though I'm very curious how you feel about the conversation around the art that you help facilitate, versus conversation on the art itself. What drives you to be part of that conversation specifically?
I personally have read too much behind the scenes stories about the Claremont era X-men that it affects my enjoyment of the title a bit (editorial clashes, roads not taken, etc.) - my own fault of course but it has had an affect.
As sad as I am to hear that X-Factor is definitively canceled -- I adored the run and think Mark Russell & Bob Quinn are such a great tag team; I hope you find another project for them to work on again soon -- I absolutely understand the sentiment that you can do everything right and still not have the success you want. Sometimes it's a fluke of the market, sometimes it's just bad luck, and sometimes it's just unknowable.
So i just wanted to say thanks for having the bravery to try new ideas and the grace to move on from things that aren't working. As an editor that's kind of the whole job, but it's not always an easy one. But you're doing great and Marvel's the best it's been in years, imo.
I think my issue with X-Factor was that it WASN'T a new idea. It felt like X-Statix and even X-Statix felt a bit tired when they did the revival series last year.
How much more work does adding an extra book to your oversight add for you/an editor? Like, is there a baseline amount of work that being an editor for any number of books has, and then each book only adds a bit of extra work, or is it more like if you're an editor of 3 books, that's half as much work as editing 6 books?
Bouncing off of that, what do you think the maximum number of books you could serve as editor on is, and what's the fewest number of books you've had going on in the last, say, 20 years? Feel free to include/exclude the work of editors who are in subcategories of your office (wolverine office and things of that sort) in your answer.
As someone who has been getting a pretty good idea of the workload of a writer, artist and letterer recently, i'm curious what the workload of an editor looks like.
Thanks for making my own 'to read' pile feel much less daunting. Out of curiosity, when you add books to your piles, do you place them on top or at the bottom?
I love that MORE FUN COMICS cover, with Green Arrow griping about other characters intruding on "his" book. Dover and Clover may be the only DC characters left who haven't had a "grim 'n gritty" reboot yet.
Removing the Spirit from those PLASTIC MAN covers is just bizarre. I frankly would rather they not include the covers at all, rather than mutilate them like that. Is Eisner's estate particularly litigious or something?
Tom, how do you go about deciding on artists for new runs? Your books right now have a real mixture of styles to my eyes. Some absolutely beautiful breath-taking artists and some whose work I really dislike. And a recent announcement about an artist on a new run with a writer Ilove has me wondering whether to buy it or not.
Presumably you can't like all your artists to the same degree but you presumably do like all your artists at least a little bit? Or are you able to ignore your own subjectivity if the artist is well-liked by others/commercially successful?
TL;DR - would you ever/have you ever put an artist on a book whose work you personally don't like?
I'm so happy you watched and enjoyed FRIEREN: BEYOND JOURNEY’S END. It's my favorite show in recent years. DELICIOUS IN DUNGEON is another of my recent favorites right now too.
Do I have any questions? Not really. I'm just always happy anytime anyone mentions FRIEREN. 😊
Hi Tom, been an avid reader of X-Men & all things X for 45 years 🤯 & wanted to share two things I’m struggling with a bit on the new Uncanny book. First is the focus on these new mutant kids. The book has an A-List X line-up but 11 issues in and the stories are still focused on and revolving around the kids. (Except for the X-Manhunt tie-in which was my favorite issue so far because it was focused on the actual X-Men I’m reading the book for.) I was hoping after two/three issues the kids would move over to Exceptional (where I feel the “New Mutants” thing is working great) and let Uncanny rock with Rogue, Gambit, Nightcrawler, Jubilee & Wolverine. But it’s not looking like that is happening. I’m getting the feeling that I did years ago with the Inhumans. They were in the spotlight for a bit but for some reason the stories started focusing on new and young Inhumans instead of the awesome first family and not only did I lose interest, everyone else did. And they went away and haven’t had a book since. It’s a little dramatic but my point is that you have a top tier line-up and it’s being completely wasted. Second is that, and maybe it’s the reason for my first concern, is that the book reads like it is for kids or a really young audience. The dialogue, the interactions, the pet names for each other. It all feels kind of like a pre-teen drama. Was that the intention for Uncanny? To be geared to younger readers? It’s possible it’s just not for me. There will always be (I hope) an X book I dig. Enjoying Jed’s X-Men, although line-up wise it could use a shake up (Polaris, Banshee, Colossus, Dazzler, Thunderbird would all be amazing). Bummed that X-Factor is going away, hope it can make a return soon. But I’ve been reading this long I don’t plan to give up now. Thanks for listening
I totally agree that focus has kind of shifted to the kids. However I have to disagree, and say that it’s made the book much better for it. I struggled through the first few issues, the kids hadn’t connected to me yet. Now I can’t wait for more of them, but am finding Rogue and Logan less charming
I read something fascinating from Ryan North, where he said he was not very familiar with the Fantastic Four before taking up the job. When thinking of writers for a large title like that, how important is that background knowledge to you? Does it ever make a writer option more compelling because they are familiar with the characters, the books, the history of them? Or is it just about skill sets? It obviously paid off with Ryan North, because he's been fantastic.
Do you find that a 'bad/unpopular' adaptation in film or TV can have a bad ripple effect on a comic character?
I found that a lot of the hard work that Geoff Johns and artists like Ivan Reis and Carlos Pacheco put into Hal Jordan ground to a halt with the release of the (crappy) Ryan Reynolds movie.
Do poorly received adaptations hurt the source material in your opinion? at least temporarily?
I recently read that Superman Warlord collection - brilliant work.Some of the best Superman stories I have read in ages. I suggest you move it to the top of the pile Tom!
Tom, I'm curious about the editorial approach to X-MANHUNT. Reading RAID ON GRAYMALKIN, it felt like a clearly focused crossover between two series — to the point that it genuinely felt that both creative teams were collaborating together and splitting their duties. I was surprised to see X-MANHUNT come so quickly on the heels of that crossover, but the aesthetic approach couldn't be more different. In the case of X-MANHUNT, it almost feels like each creative team was simply told, "Xavier is at X location, and needs to accomplish Y," and then each individual team was left to their own devices to figure out how to fit that into their own respective story.
This is not a value judgment by any means. (It was frankly kind of nice to see the primary storylines continuing in each book!) I'm simply curious about the behind-the-scenes discussions that went into these events. RAID felt much more cohesive, yet I also appreciate how MANHUNT has allowed each series to continue telling its own story, even if the overarching crossover narrative seems a bit more disjointed. I think both are valid approaches to event storytelling, but I'm curious to learn more about why you took such different angles on such temporally close events. Thanks!
What's the process a comic has to go through before it hits the stands? Do all books on your line need your approval, or just from it's assigned editor?
And how far ahead are the writers writing?
The point about Matter Eater-Lad Is interesting and it reminds me that DC has often tried to change Beast Boy's codename to "Changeling" and it has never stuck. Mainly because Beast Boy is a much more descriptive and catchy name.
But on the other hand, DC has often used its linewide reboots like New 52 or Rebirth to deage Gar compared to the rest of his classic Titans counterparts, so there's perhaps an argument to be made that the name "Beast *Boy*" is holding him back.
Since I was introduced to him in NTT he was always Changeling or Gar to me. I've never liked the Beast Boy name, but after the Teen Titans cartoon, that one is WAY out of the bag.
I find it difficult to commit to floppies these days with the uncertainty of how many issues a title will run. I was happy to learn more 10 issue series are being green-lit, but its not always obvious when a book is planned for 5, 10 or ongoing. Why don't more books have a (1 of 5) type listing on the cover to let people know what they are in for? I assume some concern is given to stating a book will be a certain number but than having to cancel early due to low sales... however I think the uncertainty of duration often leads to people (or at least myself) often just avoiding all together and potentially just trade waiting if there's good word of mouth. For example with the latest Scarlet Witch book(s) I am constantly confused as to how long a current re-titled version will run, and thus have just dropped out of the confusing continual relaunches all together. If I had the information that it was X of 5 or X of 10 I would be more willing to get in there and stay it out.
Odd that you mention Scarlet Witch as that seems to be a rare exception in that it keeps reinventing itself every now and again by changing title or volume number when numbers start to dip but overall keeping the Orlando/Witch train rolling. Feels like a very secure title.
David Lynch famously said "As soon as you finish a film, people want you to talk about it. The film IS the talking, the film is the thing. So you go see the film, it's the whole thing and it's there and it's it." It's a philosophy on art I think about a lot, and one that I think runs opposite to how Marvel (and frankly comics as a whole) have operated since Stan's Soap Box.
Especially as you have been doing this for 35 years through the rise of internet culture, and this newsletter for 3 years, what's your take on this?
Is the level of meta-commentary from the creators/publishers beneficial for the art? Is it valuable when the news cycle or fan conversation centers on a creator tweeting this or an editor saying that as opposed to a focus on the work?
I've gone through my own personal cycle on this, having been someone who has added plenty of grist to the rumor mill over time, and have really landed much closer to Lynch's perspective. Though I'm very curious how you feel about the conversation around the art that you help facilitate, versus conversation on the art itself. What drives you to be part of that conversation specifically?
I personally have read too much behind the scenes stories about the Claremont era X-men that it affects my enjoyment of the title a bit (editorial clashes, roads not taken, etc.) - my own fault of course but it has had an affect.
As sad as I am to hear that X-Factor is definitively canceled -- I adored the run and think Mark Russell & Bob Quinn are such a great tag team; I hope you find another project for them to work on again soon -- I absolutely understand the sentiment that you can do everything right and still not have the success you want. Sometimes it's a fluke of the market, sometimes it's just bad luck, and sometimes it's just unknowable.
So i just wanted to say thanks for having the bravery to try new ideas and the grace to move on from things that aren't working. As an editor that's kind of the whole job, but it's not always an easy one. But you're doing great and Marvel's the best it's been in years, imo.
I think my issue with X-Factor was that it WASN'T a new idea. It felt like X-Statix and even X-Statix felt a bit tired when they did the revival series last year.
How much more work does adding an extra book to your oversight add for you/an editor? Like, is there a baseline amount of work that being an editor for any number of books has, and then each book only adds a bit of extra work, or is it more like if you're an editor of 3 books, that's half as much work as editing 6 books?
Bouncing off of that, what do you think the maximum number of books you could serve as editor on is, and what's the fewest number of books you've had going on in the last, say, 20 years? Feel free to include/exclude the work of editors who are in subcategories of your office (wolverine office and things of that sort) in your answer.
As someone who has been getting a pretty good idea of the workload of a writer, artist and letterer recently, i'm curious what the workload of an editor looks like.
Thanks for making my own 'to read' pile feel much less daunting. Out of curiosity, when you add books to your piles, do you place them on top or at the bottom?
I have entire bookcases full of unread books :(
I love that MORE FUN COMICS cover, with Green Arrow griping about other characters intruding on "his" book. Dover and Clover may be the only DC characters left who haven't had a "grim 'n gritty" reboot yet.
Removing the Spirit from those PLASTIC MAN covers is just bizarre. I frankly would rather they not include the covers at all, rather than mutilate them like that. Is Eisner's estate particularly litigious or something?
Tom, how do you go about deciding on artists for new runs? Your books right now have a real mixture of styles to my eyes. Some absolutely beautiful breath-taking artists and some whose work I really dislike. And a recent announcement about an artist on a new run with a writer Ilove has me wondering whether to buy it or not.
Presumably you can't like all your artists to the same degree but you presumably do like all your artists at least a little bit? Or are you able to ignore your own subjectivity if the artist is well-liked by others/commercially successful?
TL;DR - would you ever/have you ever put an artist on a book whose work you personally don't like?
So how do we ask a question for an upcoming newsletter?
You just have :)
I'm so happy you watched and enjoyed FRIEREN: BEYOND JOURNEY’S END. It's my favorite show in recent years. DELICIOUS IN DUNGEON is another of my recent favorites right now too.
Do I have any questions? Not really. I'm just always happy anytime anyone mentions FRIEREN. 😊
Murewa, you have fantastic taste in anime! Loving Storm, by the way. It's my favorite of the current line.
Thank you so much. 🖤🖤🖤
Hi Tom, been an avid reader of X-Men & all things X for 45 years 🤯 & wanted to share two things I’m struggling with a bit on the new Uncanny book. First is the focus on these new mutant kids. The book has an A-List X line-up but 11 issues in and the stories are still focused on and revolving around the kids. (Except for the X-Manhunt tie-in which was my favorite issue so far because it was focused on the actual X-Men I’m reading the book for.) I was hoping after two/three issues the kids would move over to Exceptional (where I feel the “New Mutants” thing is working great) and let Uncanny rock with Rogue, Gambit, Nightcrawler, Jubilee & Wolverine. But it’s not looking like that is happening. I’m getting the feeling that I did years ago with the Inhumans. They were in the spotlight for a bit but for some reason the stories started focusing on new and young Inhumans instead of the awesome first family and not only did I lose interest, everyone else did. And they went away and haven’t had a book since. It’s a little dramatic but my point is that you have a top tier line-up and it’s being completely wasted. Second is that, and maybe it’s the reason for my first concern, is that the book reads like it is for kids or a really young audience. The dialogue, the interactions, the pet names for each other. It all feels kind of like a pre-teen drama. Was that the intention for Uncanny? To be geared to younger readers? It’s possible it’s just not for me. There will always be (I hope) an X book I dig. Enjoying Jed’s X-Men, although line-up wise it could use a shake up (Polaris, Banshee, Colossus, Dazzler, Thunderbird would all be amazing). Bummed that X-Factor is going away, hope it can make a return soon. But I’ve been reading this long I don’t plan to give up now. Thanks for listening
I totally agree that focus has kind of shifted to the kids. However I have to disagree, and say that it’s made the book much better for it. I struggled through the first few issues, the kids hadn’t connected to me yet. Now I can’t wait for more of them, but am finding Rogue and Logan less charming
Thank you for the answer!
I read something fascinating from Ryan North, where he said he was not very familiar with the Fantastic Four before taking up the job. When thinking of writers for a large title like that, how important is that background knowledge to you? Does it ever make a writer option more compelling because they are familiar with the characters, the books, the history of them? Or is it just about skill sets? It obviously paid off with Ryan North, because he's been fantastic.
Do you find that a 'bad/unpopular' adaptation in film or TV can have a bad ripple effect on a comic character?
I found that a lot of the hard work that Geoff Johns and artists like Ivan Reis and Carlos Pacheco put into Hal Jordan ground to a halt with the release of the (crappy) Ryan Reynolds movie.
Do poorly received adaptations hurt the source material in your opinion? at least temporarily?
I recently read that Superman Warlord collection - brilliant work.Some of the best Superman stories I have read in ages. I suggest you move it to the top of the pile Tom!
Tom, I'm curious about the editorial approach to X-MANHUNT. Reading RAID ON GRAYMALKIN, it felt like a clearly focused crossover between two series — to the point that it genuinely felt that both creative teams were collaborating together and splitting their duties. I was surprised to see X-MANHUNT come so quickly on the heels of that crossover, but the aesthetic approach couldn't be more different. In the case of X-MANHUNT, it almost feels like each creative team was simply told, "Xavier is at X location, and needs to accomplish Y," and then each individual team was left to their own devices to figure out how to fit that into their own respective story.
This is not a value judgment by any means. (It was frankly kind of nice to see the primary storylines continuing in each book!) I'm simply curious about the behind-the-scenes discussions that went into these events. RAID felt much more cohesive, yet I also appreciate how MANHUNT has allowed each series to continue telling its own story, even if the overarching crossover narrative seems a bit more disjointed. I think both are valid approaches to event storytelling, but I'm curious to learn more about why you took such different angles on such temporally close events. Thanks!