...it's come to my attention that we now need to lay down a few laws about their use.Attention, Marvel:
#1:
If the title already has a decimal point in it, you cannot have a point one issue.Can you imagine going up to the counter of your local comics shoppe and having to ask for "Iron Man Two Point Oh Seven Point One??" That's just embarrassing, although I'm sure it would lead to many a "Who's On First" routines.
Your call, Marvel...change the title of the magazine to something reasonable, or no Point One issue.
#2:
If you're only six issues in, yet you need to offer a "perfect jumping on point" to your comic, you're doing something wrong. So the new rule:No Point One issue if your comics' regular number is lower than 24,
I know, I know, what are the odds of that, when every comic is rebooting its numbering as fast as a Wall Street firm shredding its records. Still, we can hope, right?
Any more suggestions?
7 comments:
Here is another novel approach, just focus your story telling on events immediately important to the story. Why all of a sudden is there this huge concern with people being able to get in on the story where it is? DC is starting over and Marvel is stuffing pointless junk in their books?
Ooh, I've got one, though it kinda ties in with your second point:
Don't launch a series with a 0.1.
If this whole .1 business is designed to be self-contained "jumping-on" points, what's the... um... point of having one before the #1 issue? With wary customers skipping the skippable, this could really shoot new series in the foot right at the starting gate.
For example, my LCS ordered their copies of Ghost Rider #1 based on how the 0.1 sold, which was apparently super low. Consequently, they were sold out well before the end of the day. It's highly likely sales will continue to go down from there.
This whole decimal point gimmick is getting to be worse than ridiculous? I don't even GET the point of it!
Great. Then they'll try what DC did, with .1 Year Later titles.
Like Mcnerderson said!
What's with all this "noob" approach to comics? What about the people actually reading the books/not falling for these simplified approach?
It's starting to feel like the 90s/Liefeld era all over again!
("Sensational 1st issue!" "All-new 1st issue debut premiere!!"...)
Phillip stole mine, so yeah... hi!
The fabled Jumping On Point they all want to get to is a bit mystifying (and have you READ any of those .1s? They're not all easy intros, believe me - just as I predict some post-Flushpoint #1s will be confusing to new readers). I have one guy I know who plans to get into comics with DC's relaunch. He told me this. So DC's got at least ONE new reader (if he makes good on the promise).
I'll let you know how THAT goes.
I find the whole "too complex for noobs" attitude both self-serving ("I get it, but you never will") and self-defeating. Here's an oldie but a goodie, my take on coming in on Avengers #16 (1965), one of the most continuity dependent comics ever.
Post a Comment