There really is very little in this world that’s more enjoyable to me than having new episodes of DOCTOR WHO, so I’m pretty well giddy to see the show come back in such fine form this past Saturday.
In response to one of your answers, about telling people to change art that doesn't work, and then doing it: does anyone ever say no?
I don't mean like a petulant child, but is there scope for artists or writers to argue their case against changes you or other editors want made? Especially people who you have a trusted relationship with?
If so, are there any examples of times where they fought back and ultimately proved you wrong, or where you relented and ultimately wished you hadn't?
Thanks for another good one, Tom (though I am shyly obliged to point out that I'm "Rabiroff" with two "r"'s -- not "Rabinoff" with an "n"). This week's question is another one for the Tom Brevoort biographical profile. Almost every creator I've interviewed has talked about a stage in their fandom when they evolved from following particular characters or universes to following favorite artists or writers (or, in the case of an elite few, favorite editors). Do you recall when this happened for you, and who those first select creators were?
Per Wikipedia: SQUID GAME CHALLENGE is 10 episodes. The first five episodes of Squid Game: The Challenge were released on 22 November 2023. Episodes 6–9 will be released on 29 November, while episode 10, the finale, will be released on 6 December.
Thanks for the answer to last week’s question Tom! I believe I’ve got that Torch-Namor battle you mention in DECADES - MARVEL IN THE ‘40s The Human Torch vs. The Sub-Mariner, a nice little thematic collection of their battles. I’ll have to track that Cap one down though!
Whoops, as it turns out, I *do* have that that MARVEL VISIONARIES: STAN LEE you mention—thanks for putting so much of the Timely/Atlas stuff out there.
I’m sorry to hear that Avengers Inc. is coming to an end - I enjoyed reading it every month, as I do with all of Al Ewing’s titles. I hope there’s room for Ewing and Kirk to bring things to a conclusion.
It seems like recently there has been a trend at Marvel of creators returning to characters they wrote years ago and writing new stories set at the time they originally wrote them. There's the new Daredevil Black Armor, along with Magneto, Maestro, Secret Wars etc. Is this a specific stategy of sorts, or what went into this decision?
Man I just get so disappointed and mad when interesting new books like Avengers Inc. get passed over by most readers, while we get seemingly endless revivals of Carnage.
Unfortunate news about Avengers, Inc. If I ran the world, I might propose that the eye-watering profits of Marvel Studios be used to subsidize the comics division in such a way that the you’re able to float some cash and take a risk on series that don’t catch immediately. It could be viewed as experimental R&D for what sort of stories people like after things a series has had time to build momentum. Then again, the comic division predates Marvel Studios and may well outlast it, so that’s probably not a good source of income to become reliant on.
It’s clear so far that there is (or was) a plan for Avengers, Inc to serve a narrative role in the greater Marvel landscape, what with the return of certain characters and promises of “tie-ins” to the main Avengers series.
Here’s my question: when the numbers dictate it’s time to wrap a series that isn’t quite stand-alone, does that leave editorial folks in a lurch, moving around narrative beats in other series, or rewriting future plans? Or do you hedge your bets beforehand, making plans that rely on supporting books no more than five issues out?
It's always easy to spend other people's money, but in the end, as harsh as the marketplace can be sometimes, it's in everybody's best interests for the material to be self-sustaining. Given twice as many issues, there's no real evidence that the sales would suddenly pop up and improve. I can't think of a single series where that's what happened. There have been books that took an issue or two to catch on, but not really one that began to pop with issue #6 or later.
Regarding a title like Savage Avengers, or Hickman’s New Avengers: The former is a Conan team-up book, the latter is an Illuminati comic. Do you think they’d have sold equally well if they weren’t called [ADJECTIVE] AVENGERS?” And does it matter as much as putting out a good comic? Would they have sold as well as CONAN TEAM-UP or ILLUMINATI?
Since you only mentioned as upcoming Who the final two of the Fourteen specials (and speaking of which, in case you didn't see it, Fourteen's first appearance beyond that single post-regeneration word was in a short done for Children In Need which does some interesting retcons/explanations (the significantly changed appearance of one character has been stated by Davies as canon and how they'll appear from now on) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AkP0cBxUnQ ) Fifteen's first episode will be a return to the Xmas Day specials, so just a few weeks after the third Fourteen episode.
Seems the Squid Game Challenge was a bit closer to the original than you thought. Netflix has stated that three contestants required medical attention, and there are letters which are likely precursors to lawsuits from contestants claiming they suffered from hypothermia and nerve damage during Red Light/Green Light as it was filmed in 32F weather and per their claims involved up to 20 minutes of standing still rather than 2 max they'd been told.
Thanks as always for making Sundays a little more comic-centric, and a little more fun. I'd like to ask you about Steve Ditko. I know he was phasing out of mainstream comics work at about the time you started with Marvel, but did you have any personal or professional contact with him? Did you ever hear about him from Roger Stern or Tom DeFalco, who worked with him on Speedball? Or anyone who worked with him on any other Marvel properties?
Certainly, "the old order changeth" (to use Marvel's Shakespearean/ Asgardian phrasing) and many of the people who met or even actually collaborated with Ditko have passed on. Still, I wonder if there might be some Ditko stories floating around the Marvel offices - although those offices have changed, too, haven't they?
If Marvel were to ever put together something to memorialize or celebrate Ditko - perhaps in three years, on his 100th birthday? - a collection of such oral histories might be one way to go.
Just another voice chiming in to say the Avengers, Inc. cancelation stings. Ewing is one of the best writers Marvel has had in the last decade but he sadly can't seem to sell a book on his name alone. Makes me pine for the days when Grant Morrison allegedly brokered a deal to keep The Invisibles going as long as JLA was selling...
Bummer about Avengers Inc. I could say a number of various negative things about it but I enjoyed it -- including displeased having to wait twelve months for the threads, as it were, to be resolved. But question about the art: Was it drawn old school -- on paper -- and if so, did it go straight to coloring without being inked? Looked kind of rough rendering-wise.
Anyway, my real question is: Is their a system to who designs and layout covers and how the artists are selected? Whether or not there's a single way, how does that sausage get made? Too: A lot of covers look like they would work better with the image flopped. That's a me thing, right?
I'm a fellow long-time Who fan from back in the Tom Baker days and was delighted when nu-Who started up but due to what was going on in my life at the time, I missed the Catherine Tate years of Tenant's run and came back for the Moffat/Smith era.
All this by way of saying, this relaunch picked up on the very stories I had missed. I can't complain about that but, as you've said, I found it a bizarre way to draw in new viewers. So much of the emotion relied on previous connection.
And that info dump at the start can't have been part of the original script.
But for all that, it was indeed a pleasure to have the Doctor back on our screens. I'm afraid I was always more of a Moffat fan than a Davies one. Davies' dismissal of continuity and his willingness to be childishly silly has always struck me as undermining something of the seriousness of the stakes and the stories themselves. I accept many feel differently but I just wish we could have a little less hand-waving away and a little more engaging with the wonder of the Doctor's unique role in the galaxy.
I am reminded of a blog comment I saw years ago about the Moffat era where the commenter said he was sick of all the continuity and ongoing stories and just wanted 45 minute one-and-done funny adventures before heading out on a Saturday night. I recall being amazed and thinking "Continuity and ongoing stories are some of what I love the most about this show!"
Different courses for different horses.
Perhaps it is a little akin to the current Krakoan age of the X-Men (Which I LOVE and of which I have read every issue) but which rubs some people the wrong way....
Did you see the behind-the-scenes doc which accompanied "The Star Beast"? Mills and Gibbons got to visit the set and they were suitably impressed that their old story was being brought to such faithful life.
What's your ideal setting for watching this beloved show? Do you gather the family around and watch along together, or is it more of a silence-and-a-single-malt at your side kinda time?
Just wanted to get your perspective on solo characters. We know there have been some good runs that last for a longer period than most but for the last few years characters have to get reboot or refreshed to get the reader interest back.
I think there’s a certain sales goal that is a requirement but most runs have had that 5-6 issues for TPB policy in recent years.
Will mini series be more prevalent in the future? We currently have some which I think is great because it can focus on other characters that typically don’t get the focus they deserve but it would be awesome if more maxi series were approved as well.
There are solo characters that get new solos consistently and others that do not; is that typically editorial or upper managements call?
And do you see less interest in super heroes that are patriotic? I think the spy, super soidier, and powers aspect of them is always intriguing but with individuals like Captain America and Captain Britain is it harder for writers to find an in with those types of characters? And how important is writer/artist combo, interviews, and promo art for solo runs and are certain characters only given a certain budget?
These might be questions that are too BTS but as always thanks for any response and have a great week.
In response to one of your answers, about telling people to change art that doesn't work, and then doing it: does anyone ever say no?
I don't mean like a petulant child, but is there scope for artists or writers to argue their case against changes you or other editors want made? Especially people who you have a trusted relationship with?
If so, are there any examples of times where they fought back and ultimately proved you wrong, or where you relented and ultimately wished you hadn't?
Thanks!
Thanks for another good one, Tom (though I am shyly obliged to point out that I'm "Rabiroff" with two "r"'s -- not "Rabinoff" with an "n"). This week's question is another one for the Tom Brevoort biographical profile. Almost every creator I've interviewed has talked about a stage in their fandom when they evolved from following particular characters or universes to following favorite artists or writers (or, in the case of an elite few, favorite editors). Do you recall when this happened for you, and who those first select creators were?
Per Wikipedia: SQUID GAME CHALLENGE is 10 episodes. The first five episodes of Squid Game: The Challenge were released on 22 November 2023. Episodes 6–9 will be released on 29 November, while episode 10, the finale, will be released on 6 December.
Thanks for the answer to last week’s question Tom! I believe I’ve got that Torch-Namor battle you mention in DECADES - MARVEL IN THE ‘40s The Human Torch vs. The Sub-Mariner, a nice little thematic collection of their battles. I’ll have to track that Cap one down though!
https://www.marvel.com/comics/collection/73960/decades_marvel_in_the_40s_-_the_human_torch_vs_the_sub-mariner_trade_paperback
Whoops, as it turns out, I *do* have that that MARVEL VISIONARIES: STAN LEE you mention—thanks for putting so much of the Timely/Atlas stuff out there.
I’m sorry to hear that Avengers Inc. is coming to an end - I enjoyed reading it every month, as I do with all of Al Ewing’s titles. I hope there’s room for Ewing and Kirk to bring things to a conclusion.
Thanks Tom!
It seems like recently there has been a trend at Marvel of creators returning to characters they wrote years ago and writing new stories set at the time they originally wrote them. There's the new Daredevil Black Armor, along with Magneto, Maestro, Secret Wars etc. Is this a specific stategy of sorts, or what went into this decision?
Man I just get so disappointed and mad when interesting new books like Avengers Inc. get passed over by most readers, while we get seemingly endless revivals of Carnage.
Unfortunate news about Avengers, Inc. If I ran the world, I might propose that the eye-watering profits of Marvel Studios be used to subsidize the comics division in such a way that the you’re able to float some cash and take a risk on series that don’t catch immediately. It could be viewed as experimental R&D for what sort of stories people like after things a series has had time to build momentum. Then again, the comic division predates Marvel Studios and may well outlast it, so that’s probably not a good source of income to become reliant on.
It’s clear so far that there is (or was) a plan for Avengers, Inc to serve a narrative role in the greater Marvel landscape, what with the return of certain characters and promises of “tie-ins” to the main Avengers series.
Here’s my question: when the numbers dictate it’s time to wrap a series that isn’t quite stand-alone, does that leave editorial folks in a lurch, moving around narrative beats in other series, or rewriting future plans? Or do you hedge your bets beforehand, making plans that rely on supporting books no more than five issues out?
Thanks as always for a great newsletter
It's always easy to spend other people's money, but in the end, as harsh as the marketplace can be sometimes, it's in everybody's best interests for the material to be self-sustaining. Given twice as many issues, there's no real evidence that the sales would suddenly pop up and improve. I can't think of a single series where that's what happened. There have been books that took an issue or two to catch on, but not really one that began to pop with issue #6 or later.
I know it's not a Marvel book, but didn't that sales pattern happen with The Walking Dead?
Regarding a title like Savage Avengers, or Hickman’s New Avengers: The former is a Conan team-up book, the latter is an Illuminati comic. Do you think they’d have sold equally well if they weren’t called [ADJECTIVE] AVENGERS?” And does it matter as much as putting out a good comic? Would they have sold as well as CONAN TEAM-UP or ILLUMINATI?
Since you only mentioned as upcoming Who the final two of the Fourteen specials (and speaking of which, in case you didn't see it, Fourteen's first appearance beyond that single post-regeneration word was in a short done for Children In Need which does some interesting retcons/explanations (the significantly changed appearance of one character has been stated by Davies as canon and how they'll appear from now on) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AkP0cBxUnQ ) Fifteen's first episode will be a return to the Xmas Day specials, so just a few weeks after the third Fourteen episode.
Seems the Squid Game Challenge was a bit closer to the original than you thought. Netflix has stated that three contestants required medical attention, and there are letters which are likely precursors to lawsuits from contestants claiming they suffered from hypothermia and nerve damage during Red Light/Green Light as it was filmed in 32F weather and per their claims involved up to 20 minutes of standing still rather than 2 max they'd been told.
Back in 2003 when I was young and foolish, I tried to annotate JLA/Avengers #3. It and the thread commenting on it are still up at https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.comics.dc.universe/c/1-8gET0e-0I/m/ifYkw8lOFUUJ (may need to scroll up to the top for the original post; this link seems to land on a later followup comment by me)
Tom,
Thanks as always for making Sundays a little more comic-centric, and a little more fun. I'd like to ask you about Steve Ditko. I know he was phasing out of mainstream comics work at about the time you started with Marvel, but did you have any personal or professional contact with him? Did you ever hear about him from Roger Stern or Tom DeFalco, who worked with him on Speedball? Or anyone who worked with him on any other Marvel properties?
Certainly, "the old order changeth" (to use Marvel's Shakespearean/ Asgardian phrasing) and many of the people who met or even actually collaborated with Ditko have passed on. Still, I wonder if there might be some Ditko stories floating around the Marvel offices - although those offices have changed, too, haven't they?
If Marvel were to ever put together something to memorialize or celebrate Ditko - perhaps in three years, on his 100th birthday? - a collection of such oral histories might be one way to go.
Thanks,
Steve
Add me to the sad, vocal minority who bought and loved Avengers Inc. it quickly became my favorite current Marvel book.
But my taste often takes me to the books off to the side and I feel they fail a lot more often than they succeed.
Thanks for trying it!
Just another voice chiming in to say the Avengers, Inc. cancelation stings. Ewing is one of the best writers Marvel has had in the last decade but he sadly can't seem to sell a book on his name alone. Makes me pine for the days when Grant Morrison allegedly brokered a deal to keep The Invisibles going as long as JLA was selling...
Bummer about Avengers Inc. I could say a number of various negative things about it but I enjoyed it -- including displeased having to wait twelve months for the threads, as it were, to be resolved. But question about the art: Was it drawn old school -- on paper -- and if so, did it go straight to coloring without being inked? Looked kind of rough rendering-wise.
Anyway, my real question is: Is their a system to who designs and layout covers and how the artists are selected? Whether or not there's a single way, how does that sausage get made? Too: A lot of covers look like they would work better with the image flopped. That's a me thing, right?
I'm a fellow long-time Who fan from back in the Tom Baker days and was delighted when nu-Who started up but due to what was going on in my life at the time, I missed the Catherine Tate years of Tenant's run and came back for the Moffat/Smith era.
All this by way of saying, this relaunch picked up on the very stories I had missed. I can't complain about that but, as you've said, I found it a bizarre way to draw in new viewers. So much of the emotion relied on previous connection.
And that info dump at the start can't have been part of the original script.
But for all that, it was indeed a pleasure to have the Doctor back on our screens. I'm afraid I was always more of a Moffat fan than a Davies one. Davies' dismissal of continuity and his willingness to be childishly silly has always struck me as undermining something of the seriousness of the stakes and the stories themselves. I accept many feel differently but I just wish we could have a little less hand-waving away and a little more engaging with the wonder of the Doctor's unique role in the galaxy.
I am reminded of a blog comment I saw years ago about the Moffat era where the commenter said he was sick of all the continuity and ongoing stories and just wanted 45 minute one-and-done funny adventures before heading out on a Saturday night. I recall being amazed and thinking "Continuity and ongoing stories are some of what I love the most about this show!"
Different courses for different horses.
Perhaps it is a little akin to the current Krakoan age of the X-Men (Which I LOVE and of which I have read every issue) but which rubs some people the wrong way....
Did you see the behind-the-scenes doc which accompanied "The Star Beast"? Mills and Gibbons got to visit the set and they were suitably impressed that their old story was being brought to such faithful life.
What's your ideal setting for watching this beloved show? Do you gather the family around and watch along together, or is it more of a silence-and-a-single-malt at your side kinda time?
Solo runs and patriotic heroes
Just wanted to get your perspective on solo characters. We know there have been some good runs that last for a longer period than most but for the last few years characters have to get reboot or refreshed to get the reader interest back.
I think there’s a certain sales goal that is a requirement but most runs have had that 5-6 issues for TPB policy in recent years.
Will mini series be more prevalent in the future? We currently have some which I think is great because it can focus on other characters that typically don’t get the focus they deserve but it would be awesome if more maxi series were approved as well.
There are solo characters that get new solos consistently and others that do not; is that typically editorial or upper managements call?
And do you see less interest in super heroes that are patriotic? I think the spy, super soidier, and powers aspect of them is always intriguing but with individuals like Captain America and Captain Britain is it harder for writers to find an in with those types of characters? And how important is writer/artist combo, interviews, and promo art for solo runs and are certain characters only given a certain budget?
These might be questions that are too BTS but as always thanks for any response and have a great week.