Marvel Ongoing Solo Titles

JewishHobbit

Avenger
Joined
Aug 4, 2003
Messages
26,683
Reaction score
0
Points
56
So we ran off topic in another thread on this idea so I thought I'd make an official thread for it.

With the current state of comics it just seems that Marvel cannot support much in the way of solo titles. The men struggle and the women are non-existent.

I honestly think that big names carry most of these titles, not quality, and anything new fails, with the exception of one or two oddities, like Venom.

So what's your thoughts on this? What titles do you think should be tried? Can a woman support a title at Marvel? Is there much of a future outside of team books? Should Storm get an ongoing?

What do you think?
 
Scarlet Spider's getting his own on-going so we'll see how that handles.

I guess a safe route (not fullproof) Marvel can take is to feature characters in back-up stories of the books that are selling before giving them full-blown titles of their own. But there's no telling how well any tactic wold work if Marvel refuses to lower the prices of their books. I'm comfortable with what few Marvel titles I read. If I had to, I'd suck it up and pay their suggested retailer prices for my ASM comics; because I know for me ASM works. I would be very shy of paying 4-5 bucks on a new title or new character I have little exposure to. You want me to take a chance with something new, lower that price and give that title some pre-teasers.
 
Hard to say... the comic buyer is far more fickle these days with the outrageuous prices of books...Back in the $1 or less comics, espcially pre-1984 (before baxter paper), it was easier to try many different titles for a while with different characters because you could simply "afford" it... by the mid 80's, I was buying about 35/40 Marvel titles, 35/40 DC titles, and about 20/25 independants...I had a 50% discount at the LCS where I was working... so that was about 50 to 60 bucks per month... nowadays, at even $3 per book less my 20% discount, it would cost me about $240 a month... and that's too much... so unfortunately, unless it's a character that I REALLY like a LOT, like this week's upcoming Scarlet Spider, I'mafraid I pass on books that I probably would have bought in the past...

Just sayin' ...

:yay:
 
It's all about the creative team and how you promote the book.
 
I'm not like that... I could care less if my favorite writer started writing a book with a character that I hated... I just would not buy that book...

:yay:
 
Well Didn't Bendis one of the highest seller writers of the current era fail to get Spider-Woman to sell? Also last I checked Moon Knight is setting the charts on fire.(What's funny is Moon Knight is actually my second favorite Marvel character but Bendis kept me off the book.)
 
Well Didn't Bendis one of the highest seller writers of the current era fail to get Spider-Woman to sell? Also last I checked Moon Knight is setting the charts on fire.(What's funny is Moon Knight is actually my second favorite Marvel character but Bendis kept me off the book.)

Actually, Moon Knight's sales are right around the same range as Spider-Woman's. Moon Knight #7's sales were 27,062. Spider-Woman #7's were 25,437. Spider-Woman #7 was the final issue of the series.

The only reason why Moon Knight has not been cancelled yet is because Bendis is writing the book, but these are rather poor sales considering the creative team.
 
Huh I actually meant to put Not setting the charts on fire. I just think in this economy readers are going to take a chance on a unproven character.As much as I love him this is Moon Knight's 3rd ongoing in 5 years. They should have waited a bit longer to relaunch the book.
 
I can at least understand Marvel's reasoning with Moon Knight. They had their highest profile creator and one of his top artists launching the book. It really should have performed better, but I guess people are getting burned out by Bendis or something.
 
I was burnt out by him years ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if people finally got tired of him.
 
Id love to see another Quicksilver solo. I loved Son of M and wish that had been made into one. Id love to get Hine and Martinez back on a followup to that that is ongoing. Id make the extended Magnus family his supporting cast. Wanda, Magneto and Polaris definetly could help keep things interesting
 
I can at least understand Marvel's reasoning with Moon Knight. They had their highest profile creator and one of his top artists launching the book. It really should have performed better, but I guess people are getting burned out by Bendis or something.

You also need to remember that not everyone follows creators. Many, possibly most, people follow the characters they like, and Moon Knight is probably not most people's favorite character.
 
Another Tomb of Dracula or Blade comic?
 
Hmm... what do you think about a Scarlet Witch ongoing idea? She's been gone and in limbo for years now and now she's back and I think most everyone are interested in what's going to happen with her. Could she get an ongoing apart from the Avengers? Cameos and guest stars could include Avengers or family members or even X-Men or X-Factor. I'm not sure what the plot would be but would there be enough interest for people to at least start the title and give it a chance to build?
 
An ongoing? I doubt she'd be able to keep an ongoing. A mini-series, perhaps.
 
What about the Human-Torch?
 
Hmm... what do you think about a Scarlet Witch ongoing idea? She's been gone and in limbo for years now and now she's back and I think most everyone are interested in what's going to happen with her. Could she get an ongoing apart from the Avengers? Cameos and guest stars could include Avengers or family members or even X-Men or X-Factor. I'm not sure what the plot would be but would there be enough interest for people to at least start the title and give it a chance to build?
The Scarlet Witch hasn't been an actual character since Disassembled. I'm not really sure where they'd go with her, but I suspect it'll depend on how A vs. X plays out. In the wake of that, sure, I could see someone taking a stab at a series to re-establish who she is and what she's all about when she has a personality and isn't just a plot device. That could fuel some interesting stories. Disassembled, House of M, and Children's Crusade have all raised her profile among the masses considerably, so there might be enough interest for people to check it out for a few issues, at least.
 
Sad when DC has so many B-list solo books these days..sure they wont all make it..but some will.
 
You also need to remember that not everyone follows creators. Many, possibly most, people follow the characters they like, and Moon Knight is probably not most people's favorite character.

The comic book industry is dominated by people following creators.

Do you think that Aquaman would be doing well if it weren't for Johns? Just today at my comic book shop, the clerk at my store is still astonished on how well Aquaman is selling and how much people are loving it since it never happened before.
 
I typically don't give a crap about creators. I've only just recently began eying a few... namely Liu and Remender. Still, I won't necessarilly buy everything they write.

I'm one of the few Bendis supporters around here but it's not like I'd follow him anymore than I would anyone else. I buy for the characters and the concepts... but mostly the characters.
 
I buy about 50/50 for characters and creators. I'd buy a comic with cautious optimism if it featured creators I like but characters I usually don't, but I'd probably stay away from a comic with characters I like but creators I don't out of fear that the creators would just tarnish the characters for me. I actually can't really articulate how I decide what to buy because it's pretty case-by-case, but creators and characters do both factor into it pretty heavily.
 
I'm 50/50 too. I always keep an eye on favorite characters, but in the age of extreme mischaracterization and internet breaking changes, I generally keep my eye on creators more. Many writers whose books I'd give a chance to, and very few disappoint. Every so often they have their low moment. One example is Tony Bedard on Blue Beetle. Loved everything he's done until that book, but he's got a tough act to follow there 'cause I liked Jaime's Blue Beetle the first time around.
 
I didn't even both picking up Blue Beetle this time around. Not a single reason to redo his early days after Giffen and Rogers did such a fantastic job the first time. :o
 
I tried the new BLUE BEETLE and gave up after 2-3 issues. I just couldn't bare reading a redone version which was so thuddingly average. It's like replacing a rare gourmet steak with a McDouble With Cheese.

My tastes run a mix of both for ongoing titles; I follow certain characters as well as creators to a degree. Because AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is linked to my childhood, no matter how bad things got with his title editorially, I would always give it a chance every few years and it would get an infinite amount of those sporadic chances. The X-MEN franchise burned me out at a certain point and I rarely try it. But there are other characters that I'll usually give a chance every time they get a new book, such as MOON KNIGHT or the DEFENDERS. I have been off and on with DAREDEVIL since the 90's, etc.

I do follow creators too. I've followed Christos Gage onto X-MEN LEGACY. I've read about 65% of everything Slott has written for Marvel within the 21st century and I even gave his run on JLA CLASSIFIED a go. I followed Fraction on a few books, and Brubaker, and even Bendis years ago when I enjoyed/tolerated his work. Robert Kirkman is likely another large instance, although not even he could get me to try THE INFINITE.

Which takes priority for me? I guess the test was this last MOON KNIGHT volume. If it had been launched by anyone else, I'd have tried it, given it an issue. But by then, I no longer liked Bendis, and fled it due to that. So I guess creator trumps franchise for me at this stage. This wasn't true when I was a kid, but what do kids know?

The alchemy of what makes a hit book is not always an exact science; in theory this IS art, after all. Ideally, it is a mixture of a franchise that the audience either never stopped loving or wants back again, with a creative team that not only is of high quality and popularity, but is deemed appropriate for the franchise. For example, Mark Millar made WOLVERINE sell epically, but faded on FANTASTIC FOUR in terms of sales after less than a year.

I would like to see Marvel try as hard with some heroine titles as they have in recent years with Moon Knight, Black Panther and even Hercules to a degree. MS. MARVEL had a long volume at 50 issues, but since then and the end of SHE-HULK material, it's become problematic. X-23 in theory had "fame" from TV and video game appearances, and it couldn't last two full years. Storm would have been a no-brainer choice I think at the peak of the X-Men's popularity in the late 80's to early 90's, but now I don't think would sell very easily. Not even Bendis could make SPIDER-WOMAN sell at acceptable numbers to Marvel for long. While the MC2 version of SPIDER-GIRL lasted as a fringe cult book for over a decade, Arana/Spider-Girl has gotten two tries at ongoing series, and both folded after 12 issues or less. MYSTIQUE and ROGUE both had stabs at solo titles in the recent past (and by that I mean "in the Joe Q era"), and both didn't last 3 years. While it's hard for Marvel to launch ANY new ongoing title recently - not even 2nd tier Wolverine spin-off's are safe - the lack of any solo heroine titles is a bit of a blemish. Even after canning 6-8 titles from the New 52, DC is willing to replace at least one with a heroine led book (WORLD'S FINEST, which is now a Huntress/Power Girl book). DC was willing to cut VOODOO a chance for 8 issues but BLACK WIDOW is getting zippo in 2012, "AVENGERS" year. Does anyone see how absurd that seems? The problem is that aside for those examples I just mentioned - Ms. Marvel, She-Hulk, Storm, Spider-Woman, X-23, Arana/Spider-Girl, and/or Black Widow - no other heroine either has had their own series or could in theory lead one. Most of Marvel's other heroines are too firmly entrenched in teams, such as Rogue or Invisible Woman. They could try a team of them - would LADY LIBERATORS work the same way as BIRDS OF PREY worked? - but frankly, Marvel lacks the stones. Surely, LADY LIBERATORS would suffer from a crappier title - even cutting it to LIBERATORS smacks of cliches about feminism. BIRDS OF PREY at least sounds scary. Marvel seems to be trying to shove Valkyrie out there, but I don't think she'll ever shake the stigma of being a B-List Defender. Ironically, the Marvel female character who has had the longest run of solo title issues is PATSY WALKER during her "teen dating" era throughout the 40's, 50's, into the 60's. She was naturally made a superheroine as Hellcat for AVENGERS and DEFENDERS in the 70's - and before someone claims she was a riff on Black Cat, she debuted a few years before Felicia Hardy did. But she's never caught on, and the last HELLCAT mini by Kathy Immonen was downright weird.

A part of me still feels the Marvel Universe isn't the same without Janet Van Dyne/Wasp around. She was one of few founding heroines of iconic teams, beside Invisible Woman and Jean Grey/Marvel Girl. Of them, only Sue is alive. But none of them have the iconic solo status as Wonder Woman did. Part of me always wondered what the Marvel Universe would have looked like had Stan Lee alongside Jack Kirby and/or Steve Ditko chose to revive Sun Girl from the Timely Comics era like they did with Captain America and Namor. She was one of few Golden Era Marvel heroines who wasn't draped in war propaganda like Miss America was.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"