How to use this Page

The Walt Disney Company has offered a first look at their upcoming animated superhero feature, Big Hero 6, an adaptation of an obscure Marvel Comics property of the same name. The CG film, directed by Disney veteran Don Hall (director, Winnie the Pooh; story supervisor, The Princess and the Frog), is described as “an action comedy adventure about brilliant robotics prodigy Hiro Hamada, who finds himself in the grips of a criminal plot that threatens to destroy the fast-paced, high-tech city of San Fransokyo. With the help of his closest companion — a robot named Baymax — Hiro joins forces with a reluctant team of first-time crime fighters on a mission to save their city.”

While Big Hero 6 has a release date of November 7, 2014 you can take the sneak peek-iest of sneek peeks below:

Tweet

Zoe Saldana might just add to her geek cred by adding Gamora from Guardisna of the Galaxy to her nerd icon roles as Lt. Uhura in the Star Trek reboot and Neytiri in Avatar.

If the gets the role, it would not be her first comic book performance. She played Aisha in The Losers, a role which required her to fearlessly do summersaults clad only in white panties, a useful skill should Gamora’s ultra-skimpy costume be adapted for the film. Saldana is known for being physical in her roles, so she’d be perfect as the tough assassin Gamora. Plus, they both look good in green.

GUARDIANS has previously cast Chris Pratt as Star-Lord, and former wrestler Dave Bautista as Drax the Destroyer.

Tweet

Marvel have announced that they’ll be publishing two new titles soon, both tying-in to their Superior Spider-Man series, and both of them focusing on villains. Which means the Spider-Man franchise at Marvel will now be made up of six titles, all of which feature a villain-of-sorts in the main role. We have Scarlet Spider and Venom currently on the go, and now July will see The Superior Foes of Spider-Man and Superior Carnage both released into the world (presumably picked up by a cup/coaster combination, and subsequently thrown out a window).

The creative teams are pretty good! The Superior-Spider Foes will focus on the five-strong member of the current Sinister Six, who are made up of Speed Demon, Shocker, Beetle, Overdrive and Boomerang. This is being billed as an ongoing series, and will be written by Nick Spencer, drawn by Steve Lieber. Boomerang appears to be the central character here, although I’m not sure what the ongoing premise of the book will be. It seems like it’ll be a look at life as a for-hire supervillain, and all that entails. Double-crosses, failed heists, an inevitable upcoming appearance from Spider-Man…

Superior Carnage follows the previous two successful Carnage miniseries Marvel have put out recently. Zeb Wells won’t be writing this one, but another member of his writing room at Robot Chicken will be - Kevin Shinick. And whilst Clayton Crain will only be on covers this time round, that does make space for Steven Segovia to come in as artist for the five-issue mini. The mini will focus on another attempt to take over and control the ‘Carnage’ symbiote, but this time it’ll be a villain trying to cause trouble, in the form of The Wizard.

Both books are out in July.

Tweet

The rumor’s provenance was impeccable: director Bryan Singer.

I can finally announce @ladygaga is joining #XMen #DaysofFuturePast as Dazzler. One of my all-time favorite characters. Can’t wait!

— Bryan Singer (@BryanSinger) April 1, 2013

But given the date…

Still, casting Gaga as the resident mutant singer/dancer/disco queen, it would kinda be genius.

Tweet

On March 30^th, WonderCon attendees got treated to a bonus feature in a Spotlight panel with Ann Nocenti, Jim Lee acting as her interviewer. The two had so much shared history that they reminisced about the “good old days” at Marvel as well as plunging into the current artwork that most impresses them on their work for DC. The panel opened with a tone-setting description from Nocenti of her time as a Marvel writer and editor, “back in the day when Marvel Comics was so much fun”, when you could “smoke and drink and have guns in the office”. Lee confirmed that the gun in the office was an observable phenomenon, and Nocenti added by way of explanation that guns were needed for “reference”.

Lee started off by introducing Nocenti as the “self proclaimed female token writer at DC” and asked her how her current state came to be, considering that in her Marvel days there were several women on staff. Nocenti commented that though there were women at Marvel, she recalled that there were never any women at comic cons back then, unlike the demographic at WonderCon. “It must have been rough on you guys”, she teased Lee. Some of her workmates at Marvel, she explained, were Mark Gruenwald, “the soul of Marvel Comics”, Larry Hama, who was known for “pounding, crazy music” in his office, and Peter Sanderson, a “living archive” of all things Marvel.

Nocenti obviously had fond memories of the bullpen days at Marvel, stating, “The physical bullpen made the place creative”. She had a steep learning curve upon arriving at Marvel with a fine arts background, and had a lot to learn under her first editor Jim Shooter, someone who she described as “having a beautiful sense of story” and who ingrained in her the need for a “can’t/must” moment of conflict for a hero. The maxim still holds true for Nocenti, she confirmed. “He’s right”, Lee said, “Conflict is one of the key things in drama”. “Louise Simonson also had a huge influence on me”, Nocenti added, a woman who had the “power to cloud men’s minds” according to legend, by infusing even her most severe criticisms with a “cheerful attitude”.

Nocenti shared some of the lessons she learned from editing at Marvel with the audience, including the need for the editor present a fan’s perspective to the writer or artist: “A good editor has to understand that a writer is working so hard, and is so over worked, that they need ideas thrown at them from a fan’s perspective”. But from the editor’s perspective, she observed, it often leads to bizarre conversations and often caused her to ask herself “Did I just say that?” when generating “wacky” ideas with writers. Nocenti particularly enjoyed crossover development in the bullpen, and feels that she wasn’t alone in that enthusiasm, sharing “really exciting creative meetings” where “everyone would want to play at the same party”. Her advice to editors is to “learn everything”, like a “captain knows how to run a ship”, and she feels that this approach was encouraged at Marvel, but is less common today. This enables an editor to “know what everyone’s going through”.

Lee presented Nocenti with a copy of a comic they had once collaborated on together, though she confessed she didn’t recall the book, X-Men #39. After flipping through it and chatting together, Nocenti declared, “This looks like a great story. I want to buy this and read this!”, to the audience’s amusement. Lee’s questions, however, led Nocenti into darker recollections, about the “mini implosion” period at Marvel that led to her departure. Ron Perlman, she narrated, came into her office one day, wanting to meet her, and was fairly charming, but the “next thing we knew, he had gutted Marvel” financially. It was a “very traumatic” experience for “old timers”, she commented, and brought to her attention a famous quote from Dorothy Parker: “Don’t put all your eggs in one bastard”. After leaving Marvel, Nocenti worked in journalism, teaching, and filmmaking, gaining a wealth of experience that she now finds useful for life back in comics.

Writing a story about Catwoman in Arkham Asylum, for instance, she said, is drawn from a combination of her experiences working “at a place like Arkam” in her youth, and also from later editing Prison Life Magazine, which contained the work of prisoners. She observed a psychological feature that she’s incorporated into comics, the fact that it’s often “one small thing” that drives people crazy, not necessarily the bigger issues in life. Her experiences as a journalist and activist also led Nocenti to visit China, and some of her observations there led directly to her recent writing on GREEN ARROW, particularly noticing the pervasive “firewalls” on internet access in China and the sense of surveillance. Though she enjoyed working on GREEN ARROW, Nocenti explained that she “just couldn’t find her connection” to the character and was happy to move on to writing CATWOMAN, a character who she felt immediately in sync with. Her work on KATANA, too, keeps her imagination on its toes, drawing on the “idea of ancient clans, where the rich hire Samurais and ninjas are like spies”.

Lee and Nocenti spent the remainder of the panel showing and discussing process artwork and completed panels from upcoming CATWOMAN and KATANA stories, and enthusing over their finer features. The images included the set up for what Nocenti described as a “big gang war” for Catwoman and scenes in Arkham with “old torture devices”. Nocenti’s work on KATANA is based on her own obsession with martial arts and Kurasawa and martial arts films. “All comic book writers are doing really is unloading their personal obsessions on the page”, she confessed. This leads the writer to worry that readers might not find it interesting, she said, but in the case of Katana, Nocenti’s obsessions have translated to plenty of interest from fans. Nocenti regularly practises karate and judo around the house to see how Katana would move and act, and makes things even more “realistic” through watching martial arts films. It’s clear that her adaptable nature, shown throughout her varied career paths, is still going strong, and that her personal enthusiasm for her projects is still one of Nocenti’s most defining features.

Photo Credits: All photos in this article were taken by semi-professional photographer and pop culture scholar Michele Brittany. She’s an avid photographer of pop culture events. You can learn more about her photography and pop culture scholarship here.

Hannah Means-Shannon writes and blogs about comics for TRIP CITY and Sequart.org and is currently working on books about Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore for Sequart. She is @hannahmenzies on Twitter and hannahmenziesblog on WordPress.

Tweet

Marvel is getting all cosmic with the looming threat of Thanos in the second Avengers movie, and in the run up to it, the new Infinity comic will reintroduce the weirder side of the Marvel U, with the Inhumans mixing it up weith Thanos in a saga penned by Jonathan Hickman (Avengers, Avengers VS. X-Men) and illustrated by Jim Cheung (Avengers: Children’s Crusade) Jerome Opena (Avengers, Uncanny X-Force), and Dustin Weaver (Avengers, Uncanny X-Men). Infinity kicks off with a Free Comic Book Day preview and then as a six issue mini-series in August.

“I’m very excited about Infinity for a number of reasons,” said Hickman. “First, I think it’s wonderful that the story is coming organically out of what’s been going on during Marvel NOW!. Things that we’ve seen unfold in Avengers, New Avengers, Thanos Rising, Guardians of the Galaxy, and others are the catalyst for Infinity. And second, for me personally, Infinity is the first big step in a series of big steps that make up the long term plans for the Avengers books I have the privilege of writing. It should be a lot of fun.” 

Hickman, Axel Alonso and Tom Brevoort will participate in a fan chat tomorrow April 2 at 2 pm EDT. More info here.

Tweet

I’m breaking continuity on Poisoned Chalice, my history of Marvelman, to say something about the current disposition of the character, and particularly to speculate on whether Marvel Comics are actually getting any closer to being able to publish it, as is being suggested around the Internet this past while.

As might be apparent from my previous posts, I like facts. I like to organise the facts into order, and see what they tell us. I generally don’t like to speculate, and I particularly don’t like posts that speculate based on information the writer alleges they have, but can’t reveal the sources for. None the less, that’s exactly what I’m about to do…

The first question to ask is, Who Owns Marvelman? The simple answer to this seems to be that Marvel Comics owns Marvelman. That is to say, they own the rights to the character and his assembled supported cast, as well as the milieu they conduct their adventures in. Or, to be more precise, they own one particular version of Marvelman and cast and milieu, which is the one they acquired from representatives of Mick Anglo Ltd in September 2009, to much general acclaim (obviously there’s a lot of ins and out here I’m brushing straight past, which will be filled in eventually in the ongoing Poisoned Chalice pieces, as we get to them). But Who Owns Marvelman? may not be the most important question here.

The thing is, it’s all very well that Marvel claim to own the 1950s L. Miller & Co / Gower Street Studio / Mick Anglo Ltd version of Marvelman, but that’s not the one most people really want. There are fans of that version of the character, certainly, but they would be in the minority – you only have to look at the sales figures for the Marvel reprints of those comics to see that. The version of Marvelman that the overwhelming majority of people want to see is the 1980s one, the one written – and pretty much completely reimagined – by Alan Moore. So, why can’t they use that one? After all, they own the original Marvelman, so is it not the same thing?

No, it not. Because Moore didn’t just use the pre-existing Marvelman characters and milieu, he added a few elements of his own, and one of these elements is the key to his version of the character.

The key to the 1980s Marvelman can actually be found in Moore’s original 1981 pitch to Dez Skinn, as reproduced in George Khoury’s Kimota! The Miracleman Companion (TwoMorrows, 2001), where he says (as quoted here),

The superhero genre is an offshoot of science fiction (amongst other things), and good sci-fi usually runs according to certain established laws. To my mind the most important of these is that the fantasy in any given story should stem from one divergence from reality. [...] If my Marvelman is going to fit logically into a gritty and realistic nineteen eighties then the character should at least have some pretence of credibility. Thus all the fantasy in the strip stems from one point… the crashing of an alien spacecraft in 1948. Everything else follows on from that.

That alien spaceship was being piloted by a member of the interstellar Qys race, the ancient enemies of the Warpsmiths, and the technology that Dr Emil Gargunza found there is what he used to create Marvelman and his companions, Young Marvelman and Kid Marvelman. And none of this had been in the original 1950s Marvelman stories. (For more details, go read this.)

So, that ‘one divergence’ of Moore’s, that contact between Earth and the alien Qys, is the linchpin on which the 1980s Warrior version of Marvelman hangs, and Marvel can’t proceed with their plans for the character unless they own the rights to it. Which they don’t.

Or do they?

The Warpsmiths and the Qys were owned between them by Alan Moore and Garry Leach, and were always mentioned separately in any contractual assignment of Marvelman. Although Alan Moore has signed contracts with Marvel for them to use his Marvelman work as long as they take his name off it, this doesn’t mean he had assigned them any rights to the Warpsmith property, and they have no rights to use the characters in any subsequent work. So, they’re stuck, aren’t they? No, perhaps not.

I am starting to hear stories from sources I cannot possibly name that Marvel have bought out Garry Leach’s rights, not only to all his Marvelman work, presumably including any news characters he co-created with Moore along the way, but also the 50% rights share he has in the Warpsmiths property. And, as has been seen in the recent Superman court cases and, ironically, also mentioned in the context of Neil Gaiman bringing the Angela character to Marvel’s Age of Ultron, 50% is enough to allow them to exploit the property, as long as they reimburse the owner of the remaining 50% fairly for that use.

So, is that it? Do Marvel finally have everything they need to proceed with their exploitation of one of the most talked about characters in comics’ history? No, of course not, as there’s still a number of things for them to get control of. But they’re much closer to it than they were. Perhaps all those times when Marvel said that Marvelman was ‘coming soon’ will finally come true. Although, having said that, I thought that might be the case about a year ago, too…

on Friday March 22nd, Kiel Phegley interviewed Marvel Comics’ Editor-in-Chief Axel Alonso on CBR:

Kiel Phegley: Lastly, with Neil writing and new characters appearing, this brings up the perpetual Marvelman question. Are we any closer to actually seeing this character show up in the Marvel U[niverse]?

Axel Alonso: We are, but I can’t say more.

And then there’s that intriguing quote on Bleeding Cool from artist Mark Buckingham at FablesCon, where he told them to ‘Wait six months’. So, were things moving at last? Was he getting ready to take up his pencils again, and to finally finish the story that he and Neil Gaiman started in June 1990? Once again, no. It seems the questioner should have stuck around for a longer answer.

To the original story, Bleeding Cool added this clarification from Buckingham a day later:

Just to clarify, before people get a little too excited, I’ve been saying the same thing to people ever since Marvel caught me by surprise with their big announcement of signing a deal with Mick Anglo’s people to bring Marvelman to Marvel. That was at the ‘Cup’o’Joe’ panel at SDCC way back in 2009. They caught me by surprise with that.

To be honest, nothing has really changed since then and no one has spoken to me directly from Marvel in quite a while. They reprinted lots of the lovely old Marvelman books but have remained quiet regarding the Miracleman material.

I’ve been telling people over a pint ‘maybe in six months’ or ‘I hope to hear something soon’ ever since.

I think most people know that, next to working with Bill [Willingham] on Fables, the one other project that means the most to me has always been working with Neil on Miracleman. We never finished our story and I really hope we will have a chance to return to it one day. But it is still just a hope at the moment.

After 20 years of waiting my enthusiasm for the MM book and working with Neil remains undiminished. The truth is, as was the case back in 2009, if Marvel do finally announce his return the little bleeders will probably find out before me.

…so perhaps the full quote, if someone had bothered to wait for it, would have been ‘Wait six months, then ask me again’…? It certainly seems that, not for the first time, Mark Buckingham was a witness to events, rather than their knowing instigator.

So, there you have it. It’s been 1348 days – or 3 years, 8 months, 9 days, if you prefer – since Marvel announced they owned Marvelman on the 24th of July 2009. Marvelman may be coming back, and Marvel may finally own the one thing they need to make that happen. But is any of this true?

Today, the 1st of April 2013, is both April Fool’s Day, when we attempt to deceive people into believing what isn’t true, and Easter Monday, when we celebrate the fact that a great man has risen from the dead.

Jason A. Quest said, on 4/1/2013 9:31:00 AM

Miracleman infringes on my character Captain Miracle!

Richard Caldwell said, on 4/1/2013 12:23:00 PM

Sneaky Padraig, hiding truth in an April Fools gag!

Don Murphy said, on 4/1/2013 2:34:00 PM

Hey Padraig, I know we don’t like each other, and maybe I am just confused here or missed a segment but I don’t understand one thing- when did you establish that Marvel actually owns ANYTHING? I missed that part. Because I don’t think they do. Because I don’t think Anglo and his record buddies owned anything.

Chris Hero said, on 4/1/2013 7:22:00 PM

Marvel bought out Leach? Really?? I can’t wait until we can know if this is true for certain or not. I mean, there are still a million other problems, not the least is Big Ben’s appearance in the comic and Skinn’s possiboe ownership of rights, but still, the Leach point is huge because I’ve been hearing forever that was the big hurdle. (Although I think that was before you did your serious digging and found out Skinn likely has a claim to something.)

I’m still convinced all Marvel bought was a quitclaim deed from shysters who never had any rights. I can’t wait to read the rest of Poisoned Chalice to find out if that’s true.

BTW – Regarding your last article’s comment on wanting to clear Skinn’s name…I totally understand that. I used to think he was a snake from everything I read about him, but when I had the opportunity to ask him some questions, he certainly gave me the impression he did his due diligence and was very forthcoming with everything I asked. He wouldn’t be the first well-intentioned businessman who was bad at math, that’s for sure.

Padraig O Mealoid said, on 4/2/2013 5:10:00 AM

Jason: I think that Mick Anglo might disagree with you…

Padraig O Mealoid said, on 4/2/2013 5:19:00 AM

Don: I sent you a message via Facebook about this, but in case you didn’t get it, here’s the gist of it again…

First of all, I don’t agree with you when you say ‘I know we don’t like each other’. I certainly bear you no ill will. I know we don’t agree on a number of things, but the world would be a poorer and less colourful place without you, and I’m always happy to see you commenting on my work here, anyway.

The thing with Marvel owning Marvelman: I have been drawing a bit of a veil over this for the moment, as I want to unroll the story in chronological order as much as possible, so will be dealing with all of that when I come to it, but I think I have made no secret of my opinion – if not here, elsewhere – that I also think that Marvel bought a pig in a poke. And I have some interesting bits of paperwork to go along with that opinion, as usual.

Padraig O Mealoid said, on 4/2/2013 5:34:00 AM

Richard: You might well say that, but I couldn’t possibly comment, to slightly misquote Francis Urquhart.

Padraig O Mealoid said, on 4/2/2013 5:49:00 AM

Chris: The next post is a sort of a catch-up post on what’s been covered up to now, as well as some exposition from me about the copyright situation up to that point. As I said to Don, I’m keeping my opinions on what – if anything – Marvel bought in 2009 until I catch up with that particular part of the story, although I don’t make any secret of the fact that I think they actually bought a whole lot a’ nothin’!

Neil Anderson said, on 4/2/2013 12:54:00 PM

Enjoying this series tremendously. One point I’d make is that Marvel did accomplish something with whatever they purchased in 2009–they reprinted old Marvelman stories, and the sky didn’t fall. Even if Mick Anglo had no claim on the property, compensating him to prevent a possible lawsuit from his or his estate might have been worth it. A meritless lawsuit can still be expensive. And given the cautious wording of the announcement back in 2009, Marvel appeared to be aware that there was more work to be done before they could reprint the Moore/Gaiman stories, though I doubt they anticipated it would take this long. One thing I’d like to see would be a list of all the people who could possibly sue if Marvel reprinted the Moore/Gaiman stories, with their comments (if any) on Marvel’s claim to be in the process of acquiring the rights.

Wednesday Runaround – Waiting For Thursday | Cfp said, on 4/3/2013 2:50:00 AM

[...] Pádraig Ó Méalóid breaks new ground on the Marvelman story; [...]

Fred said, on 4/3/2013 12:02:00 PM

One point: McFarlane confirmed that Angela completely belongs to Gaiman.

http://comicbook.com/blog/2013/03/26/todd-mcfarlane-confirms-neil-gaiman-owns-angela/

Tweet

A panel on Friday, March 29^th, the first day of programming at WonderCon brought together a rather iconic cast to discuss “iconic characters” and what keeps a character “true” to their origins over long periods of time. Mark Waid opened as moderator by pointing out that the table full of seasoned pros had more than 125 years of comics experience between them and most had worked on longterm characters and newer creations alike. The essential question posed by Waid was how to “vault” characters “into the 21^st century without losing what keeps them special”. The question seemed particularly pertinent to Waid, whose ongoing work on DAREDEVIL has evoked critical acclaim. Waid asked his panellists how they handle the “core elements of characters” to face this challenge.

J. M. De Matteis introduced an image that stayed with the panellists as a reference point for discussion. He felt that creators handling long-lived characters work “within a cage”, so they can’t “go wide” with the character in term of change, but they can “go deep” in terms of making new discoveries. For De Matteis, personally, it’s all about the “Big Why” of characters, figuring out what makes them tick. He prefers working with super-villains to pose questions about the formative impact of their past histories because there’s “always a little corner of the psyche to dig into”. Ann Nocenti, however, in her recent work with Catwoman found that “her archetype was pretty clear” as a troubled kid originally, “on the streets” originally, and moving through “foster homes”. Her intuitive approach is to “play with a character and see what feels right” and she doesn’t mind the fact that later creators will do the same with long-term characters. It’s “like treading water”, she said, “You give a sense of constant, dynamic action, but you’re really not moving far”, and she expects later creators to be under the same constraint.

Doug Mahnke’s challenges, as an artist working on long-term heroes, is rather specific, handling costumes and their overtones. He observed that heroes, even today, often don’t look “contemporary” because their appearance has become iconic and we no longer question the anachronism, like Superman’s “underwear outside his pants”. Other features like capes and boots, Mahnke said, “made sense at the time” they were created based on a “swashbuckling” influence. In fact, he explained, an artist’s job is to “bring out the majesty in the character. It doesn’t matter so much what they’re wearing”, but you can use costume as a “tool” to use to your advantage.

Several of the panellists then commented on the fact that objectively, some of the nomenclature and costumes of characters created decades ago would seem “stupid” now. Nocenti’s example was a resurrection of a minor character, Zebra Man who was “visually fantastic” but the name and concept bizarre. Slott felt that once an icon is an icon, “the fact that it’s an icon gives it weight”, preventing further critique from readers. Even Waid’s considered opinion was that “Green Lantern” is a “stupid name for a character, but after 75 years”, it has “gravitas”.

The panel then tackled the question of when and how exactly a character becomes officially iconic, and they set the bar high on awarding this status. De Matteis opined that “nothing about the character idea makes it iconic. It’s the execution”, and not every character reaches this status despite reasonably strong storytelling behind them. Dan Slott interjected that it only takes “one writer and one artist to do it”, like Frank Miller on DAREDEVIL. The discussion often drifted into slap-stick commentary on the more absurd aspects of superhero lore like the possession of a super vehicle as an icon accoutrement. Nocenti provided the little known detail that Cat Woman’s car is known as a “Catillac”. Slott confessed to proposing in a “meeting with real adults” that Superman’s car should be known as “Superman’s Ford Taurus of Solitude” with disasterous results.

Waid observed that some characters are iconic in pop culture without necessarily being long-lived, like Woody Woodpecker, who’s highly recognizable, but not a currently active character. Waid commented that the tendency toward merchandizing may encourage the slow-down or freeze of new developments in a character since “every character becomes a beach towel” in the end. The entire panel segued into a long and fairly serious discussion of Wonder Woman as a character and why she has, or has not, lived up to her iconic status in terms of actual comic storytelling.

Most felt, like De Matteis, that Wonder Woman comics have not always been “all that good”, nevertheless the character definitely qualifies as “iconic”. Waid had a fairly idiosyncratic theory behind why this is the case. He observed that there was a strong “sexual element” to the “first 10 years of the strip” that was later removed to render the character more “plain vanilla”, and that now, lacking that “x-factor of sexuality”, stories fail to live up to the early days (an issue, he said, he frequently discusses with Grant Morrison). Slott disagreed pointedly with Waid’s assessment. He instead blames the lack of verve in Wonder Woman comics to the fact that comics are essentially a “make dominated industry” that has not explored the “many angles of the character” sufficiently. Slott still feels that if the right team is put together, the stories can rise to iconic status again, without recourse to the “weird quirky bits”. His choice of phrase caused plenty of giggling among the panellists.

This led Waid to ask his panel how they decide what elements are most essential to a character, what continues to translate, and what can be left behind. De Matteis advised to “always approach the characters psychologically and emotionally” and not worry too much about the “other stuff”, and sometimes that psychological appeal can be found in lesser known characters. Nocenti commented that her current work on KATANA based on the strange but intriguing concept of a “girl with a sword” produced “good potential” for developing “obsessional love triangle” elements between herself, her murdered husband, and his murdering brother.“The less iconic a character, the more fun you can have!”, she enthused.

Slott agreed with Nocenti on  this idea, up to a point. When you’re handling an iconic character, readers lose the fear that their reckless lifestyles will do them in, whereas if a character is “unknown”, “Everyone is worried”, wondering if they will survive from issue to issue. Slott and Nocenti shared an interesting moment of commiseration, albeit brief, about their mutual killing off of Spider-based characters, and the emotional reaction of fans. “Screw letters from emotional fans”, Slott concluded, laughing, but Waid intervened by informing the audience that he’s sure Slott “weeps himself to sleep at night with 6 year olds’ fan mail” over the death of Spider-Man .

The panellists didn’t always find their subject matter easy to decipher, nor did they feel that there’s always an easy answer for why some characters “click” as icons and some don’t. Batman, particularly, has a mysteriously successful dynamic, they said. But some things do change. Waid observed that he “couldn’t have imagined a world where I walked down the street and everyone knew who Tony Stark was” until after the Iron Man films had been made. Waid suggested that iconic status for characters might be measured in the number of imitators who have sprung up. De Matteis returned to his general position that archetypal patterns determine iconic status, however. Slott provided examples, stating that Superman is like Hercules, Batman a being on a vengeance-quest, and Tony Stark is, too, iconic in formula, as a combination of “Man and Machine”, an icon that the world is ripe for right now.

The panellists’ parting thoughts during the Q and A period focused on an interesting point made from the audience about the superhero/villain ratio. With so many more supervillains than superheroes in comics, “recycling” them is the norm, but at what point do they become “stale” and need to be retired, at least for awhile? De Matteis was firm about the roles of the artist and writers, insisting that there are “no stale characters but stale interpretations of characters” and that good work will prevent this problem. “Every character is great if you did into them in the right way”, he said. Waid’s closing example to support De Matteis’ point was that “20-25 years ago, no one would have thought that GREEN ARROW would become 2 times the best selling DC book, and then get his own TV show”. His bottom line: “If you dig deep enough you can find something that resonates”, and that’s the key to creating an icon, something that may not happen overnight.

 Photo Credits: All photos in this article were taken by semi-professional photographer and pop culture scholar Michele Brittany. She’s an avid photographer of pop culture events. You can learn more about her photography and pop culture scholarship here.

Hannah Means-Shannon writes and blogs about comics for TRIP CITY and Sequart.org and is currently working on books about Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore for Sequart. She is @hannahmenzies on Twitter and hannahmenziesblog on WordPress.

Tweet

Even allowing for the fact that we’re not supposed to like any of the characters in Uncanny Avengers (only this week, Wolverine calls Japanese mutant Sunfire “a walking atomic bomb” and nobody bats an eyelid – not even Sunfire, whose mother died in Hiroshima!), the book is going to startling lengths with some of the characters. Particularly Havok, who gives a speech in the most recent issue which is incredibly alarming.

The message of this speech has absolutely horrible implications. Whilst it’s possible to see what the character is going for – which writer Rick Remender may or may not be intending to associate into the scene – the actual content of his speech is shameful. Hopefully the book is intending for readers to side against the character, but it’s remarkably hard to tell at this point.

The idea that ‘mutant’ is an ‘m-word’ is comprehensively wrong. The idea that equality is reached via erasing differences is wrong. And the message this scene puts across is that minorities – for, of course, mutancy in the Marvel Universe is used as a metaphor for the struggles of persecuted minorities round the world, be they of a different sexual orientation, gender, race, religion – should want to become invisible and fit into their surroundings. It’s a message that minorities should feel ashamed of who they are, and seek to become, quote “normalised”.

If the word ‘mutant’ is swapped out in this scene for “gay” or “African-American” or “Muslim”, the scene becomes downright offensive. Hopefully, this should all be leading towards some kind of twist of some kind – but at the moment, it’s astonishing how brave this book is in making the lead characters appear to be utterly awful people.

Tweet

Although once known for combative rhetoric and an aggressive stance, McFarlane Toys CEO Todd McFarlane sounded a conciliatory note when asked about the return of Angela in the pages of ULTRON WAR #10. McFarlane once fought a bitter lawsuit over the ownership of Angela with Neil Gaiman, and perhaps the settlement included a non-disparagement clause?

“Neil Gaiman and I had a resolution in our legal dispute, and as part of that he ended up with the rights of Angela,” the Spawn creator told Newsarama. “Whatever Neil chooses to do with something that he owns is at his complete and utter discretion.”

“The health of the industry is based upon having good stories and good characters, and a wide customer base,” McFarlane said to Newsarama. “If bringing some of these characters back to the fold in a meaningful way adds to that, then it just strengthens our industry.”

“Good stories that entertain are something that we all should applaud on any level,” McFarlane said. “Whether we’re doing it directly at Image Comics, or at our competition, it helps keep our industry that we love alive. I will sit back and be as interested as anyone else.”

Tweet

2013 is a busy year for comic book movies — we’ve already had Bullet to the Head and coming up there’s Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Man of Steel, Two Guns, Kick-Ass 2, R.I.P.D. and many more on their way.

As is The Wolverine, a new take on you know who. We haven’t had much to say about it, but here’s a new poster where Hugh Jackman gives new meaning to “rip”. A trailer will be along any second now as well. In addition to Jackman, the cast includes Will Yun Lee, Svetlana Khodchenkova, Hiroyuki Sanada, Hal Yamanouchi, Tao Okamoto, Rila Fukushima and Brian Tee. James Mangold directs.

Tweet

Oh boy, this is going to be dramatic! How is Tony going to get out of this one?

Iron Man 3 opens on May 4.How is Tony going to get out of this one?

Blackmeal created this slick motion graphics/EFX animation homage to Marvel Comics. The Ben-Day dots add a comic book-flavored touch of embellishment.

Tweet

As the first of several “Comic Book Roundtable” events to be held at the Soho Gallery of Digital Art under the auspices of gallery owner John Ordover and former Marvel editor, author, and educator Danny Fingeroth, this event exploring the life and legacy of Dr. Frederic Wertham was planned for the occasion of Wertham’s 118^th birthday, but in the lead up to the event, recent developments in scholarship about the controversial comic reformer shed new light on the evening’s subject matter. In February 2013 Librarian, professor, and scholar Carol Tilley discovered, after examining Wertham’s papers held by the Library of Congress, that some of Wertham’s methods and reports were questionable, sparking debate in comics scholarship and among comics fans.

“Surely You’re Joking Dr. Wertham” hit the controversy head-on by bringing together a distinguished panel for discussion, including Tilley, comics writer, editor, and educator Denny O’Neil, author and educator David Hajdu, practising physician, psychiatrist, and author Sharon Packer, and author, editor, art director, and cartoonist Craig Yoe. The Soho Gallery provided excellent accompaniment to the event in the form of Wertham-related images and quotes displayed as a digital exhibit, and hosting a reception afterward.

The evening opened to a thoroughly packed-in audience, among whom were many scholars and authors who have shown a public interest in Wertham’s career and legacy, including James Reibman, the official Frederick Wertham biographer designated by Wertham’s estate. Host and moderator Danny Fingeroth provided an introduction to Wertham in the form of slides including pictures of Wertham in and out of official capacity as a clinical psychiatrist working with children, and also reminded the audience of the other books Wertham authored aside from his now legendary Seduction of the Innocent, a critique on the “influence of comic books on today’s youth”, published in 1954. This placed Wertham within the context of other cultural reactions of the time that questioned the sex and violence being depicted in comics as appropriate for young readers.

Tilley started off the panel discussion by explaining exactly what her recent research has uncovered about Wertham’s work. While her original intention was to locate materials relevant children’s education, she found “other things” that she didn’t expect to find among Wertham’s documents which she found “well-organized” in a “couple of dozen plus boxes” at the Library of Congress. The documents included copies of Wertham’s other research papers and speeches spanning his career, among which she found “discrepancies” and “some indication that he did things like combine the testimony of kids” or “broke apart” the testimony of one child “into four or five” in order to use quotes. This practice also resulted in evidence of “deleted or added” phrases from the children’s testimony that Wertham presented in Seduction of the Innocent and other works. This resulted, Tilley said, in a general “perception” of evidence in Wertham’s book that was “not the same as the actual case” of his research materials. When questioned about whether these changes were negligible or whether they altered the meaning of the children’s testimony, she confirmed that these “additions and word changes did change the meaning of testimony”. While Wertham’s book has often been criticized for its “lack of attribution” in footnotes or bibliography, Tilley feels that she has “seen personally” that his use of sources was not exacting enough. For those interested in Wertham’s legacy, this was something of a bombshell, though Tilley has been public about some of these findings previous to the evening’s discussion.

Hajdu then commented on Wertham as a figure, reminding the audience that Wertham is  often a “handy symbol” of a wider movement against comic book excesses, and even a “personification” of the “cynicism toward comics in the late 40’s and 50’s”, even though he didn’t start this trend personally. Hajdu explained that even “newspaper comics incited criticism” prior to Wertham’s career and were often perceived as “crude, anti-literate” and examples of “defiant behavior” that raised public concern. The Catholic Church, particular, he noted, were active in inspiring state legislation against comics, due to their belief in the “power of aesthetics and the power of art” for both positive and negative influences on human behavior.

[Packer, Yoe, and Fingeroth]

O’Neil, himself raised Catholic, confirmed that his “first encounter with the (comic) witch hunters was in the pages of The Catholic Digest” and that he, as a young person “read and believed” that superhero comics, particularly, were potentially harmful. He related, to the audience’s amusement, that former Marvel editor Roy Thomas “as a kid” had participated in a book burning in Missouri where he “burned comics he was not interested in”, but rescued others he liked. Tilley briefly added that she had discovered evidence that librarians, too, had participated in comic burning and attempted to keep them out of libraries during this period because they were seen as “disruptive”.

Packer suggested that Wertham’s book title, Seduction of the Innocent, might have spoken particularly to a Christian demographic because of its suggestion of the massacre of the innocents by King Herod related in the New Testament of the Bible. This led to a reassessment among the panellists of Wertham’s title, since its original version was “All Our Innocents”. Fingeroth pointed out that this change made the title “very pulp sounding” and therefore more sensational.

Yoe’s background on the subject of juvenile delinquency as an author, and also his discovery of the “fetish art” of Joe Shuster confirmed that there were real-life implications for the more violent aspects of comic art, such as the case of the Brooklyn Thrill Killers who killed indigent people and molested women and when interviewed by Wertham as an expert witness, confessed to being inspired in their deeds by Shuster’s artwork. Yoe, however, prompted a wide-ranging and at times heated discussion on the subject of exactly how and when Wertham’s papers at the Library of Congress had been made available for research purposes. Both Yoe and Hajdu, upon requesting access in the past, had been denied use of the papers since they were “sealed” until the children who participated in the studies had passed away. “In many ways, I respect Dr. Wertham”, Yoe said, but “the Library of Congress is our library” and its contents “should be seen” regardless of the circumstances behind their compilation. Outspoken attendee and Wertham biographer Reibman, who was granted access to the papers at a much earlier date in order to work on his book, disagreed with Yoe’s statement in favor of “freedom of information”, arguing that sealing Wertham’s papers at the library was part of the “terms of the gift” to the library. Reibman’s frequent interjections on behalf of Wertham during the event contributed to a rather heated atmosphere.

Yoe questioned further why some individuals, and not others, were then granted access despite the terms of the gift. Hajdu chimed in that he had requested access “dozens of times” but had been denied despite his academic credentials. Yoe asked Tilley if, based on her experience as a librarian, this discrepancy was “unusual” or not. Tilley confirmed that in her experience, the sealing of the papers while at the Library of Congress and then granting access to only those individuals sanctioned by the estate of the deceased, was indeed “unusual”.  Attendee Karen Green, Graphic Novels Librarian at Columbia University, also commented that while “archives can be restricted”, for public documents this practice is “not usual”. Tilley provided further information about the situation by explaining that she was obliged to sign an agreement with the Library of Congress about the materials she accessed, even though a large portion of the Wertham papers consisted of “newspaper clippings” which “shouldn’t be restricted” anyway. Yoe brought some levity to the rapid fire questioning and often terse dialogue between he and Reibman by pointing out that Hajdu closely resembled a young Frederic Wertham and ought to have just turned up at the library, saying “I am here to see my papers”. Though Hajdu found the comparison amusing, he said “That’s the most offensive thing I’ve ever heard”.

[O'Neil and Hajdu]

Fingeroth then gathered the reigns of the discussion as moderator to direct attention back to the panelists and away from the discursive arguments breaking out among audience members. Fingeroth asked O’Neil, specifically, if he had felt any “lingering hesitation” about comics after his experience with The Catholic Revue in childhood. O’Neil related that Wertham’s legacy, but particularly the Comics Code had impacted his career in comics.  He was involved in “several public arguments” with administrators at comics publishing companies, wherein comics supporters felt the need to argue “comics are good, not evil anymore”. O’Neil’s personal feeling has always been, and still is, he said, that “If it’s censorship, it’s bad”, and often felt frustrated by the “vagueness of the language” in the Code itself, often leading comics creators to create elaborate avenues to get around the letter of the Code. He related a particularly frustrating incident where an IRONMAN story involving a “six story tall monster” crushing a police car was censored because it “showed disrespect to the police car” even though it also showed policemen being very brave in their fight against the monster. This kind of “idiocy” in the Code he particularly objected to, and added his motto that “blind worship of authority figures whether or not authority figures had any authority” should never be supported.

At this point, it was relevant to clarify that Wertham was not the founder of the Comics Code, though his work certainly paved the way for its development. Yoe reminded the audience that Wertham was, in fact, a progressive who was in support of the freedom of the press. It was more that Wertham “created the climate”, O’Neil supplied, which led to the Senate hearings, which led to the drafting of the Code. Both Yoe and O’Neil agreed that comics publishing was, in fact, in a very low economic position at the time of the Senate hearings anyway, due to the rise of paperback novel sales and TV watching. Yoe and O’Neil continued to discuss whether a “rating system” couldn’t have been created, rather than the unilateral Comics Code, in order to steer children away from more disturbing comics. Hajdu pointed out that the rating system was not in effect in Hollywood, by comparison, until the 1960’s, so there was not a particularly clear model to instate for comics at the time.

Fingeroth asked the panelists, and in particular, Packer, whether Wertham’s research was purely “anecdotal” or whether he furnished “hard statistics” when working with children. Packer provided some context as a clinical psychiatrists about the methods of the time during Wertham’s career. She compared Wertham to Sigmund Freud and pointed out that though “Freud was celebrated at that time”, “much of his original psychological literature” was “just as baseless” as Wertham’s methods. Tilley added that her survey of Wertham’s papers revealed that his “data was rich”, but it was just “how he used it rhetorically” that was “questionable”. Yoe commented that even though his rhetorical use of his data might lead us to view Wertham with increased suspicion, in the big picture, Wertham made a “pretty good case. Many comic books were not good for young children” in term of their content.

[Tilley and Packer]

Fingeroth took the question to a finer point. Did Wertham, he asked, in the opinion of the panelists, “take too many liberties” or not? Tilley stood her ground by asserting that “scientific investigation” requires accuracy, and a failure of accuracy is troubling from a scientist. Tilley added that her “personal sense” from working with the papers is that Wertham “cared more about getting rid of the comic book industry” than about his public cause of helping children develop in a psychologically  healthy atmosphere. Though he certainly “cared for kids”, she reminded, she still felt that Wertham used children as “leverage” to achieve this greater goal of attacking the comics industry. One of the things that gave her a less than sterling impression of Wertham’s personality was discovering detailed transcripts that he “noted meticulously” of phone conversations that contained potentially harmful gossip about people who he saw as enemies in his career. He “collected information”, she said, “looking for weak spots” in the lives of people he wanted to undermine, particularly people who acted as “consultants for the comic book industry”.

Fingeroth asked about Wertham’s movement, in his later career, toward criticism of the film industry and whether Wertham might have seen “comics as a stepping stone to a higher agenda” as a “career path”, but the general consensus among panelists seemed to be that comics were more easily attacked as a less profitable industry early in Wertham’s career, and that the tide of criticism had generally turned toward film around the time of Wertham’s developing interest in film. Film itself had, by the mid to late 60’s, become more overtly violent with works like Bonnie and Clyde.

The rather charged atmosphere during the panel discussion gave way to an extensive question and answer period involving the audience and spanned a number of subjects. Did the distaste the comic book industry came to feel for Dr. Wertham result in a generally negative portrayal of psychiatry within comics? Yoe agreed that there are certainly plenty of “sinister psychiatrists” portrayed in comics tradition, and Packer supplied examples from Batman mythology including the Arkham family. O’Neil added that the character Harley Quinn was originally assigned to “cure” the Joker of his madness and instead was “driven nuts” herself. A more pointed question was posed about whether the possibility that Wertham skewed his evidence really made the questions he was asking about the role of comics at the time irrelevant. Hajdu fielded this question by commenting that the “weakest criticism of Wertham is that comics can’t affect minds and hearts”. As an art form, Hajdu argued, comics certainly do have impact and can “transform people”. “Comics have that power”, he reminded.

O’Neil weighed the issue by confessing that as a comics creator “You launch a given work and you have no way of knowing how it’ll bounce” and he often worried during his early career what impact particular comic stories might have on “kids already imbalanced”. O’Neil gave and example of his decision-making when he declined to include a “martial arts move” in one of his comics because it was “simple and damaging” and judged that kids might too easily learn to implement it. The audience, of course, immediately wanted O’Neil to demonstrate the deadly move, but he refrained in the interest of safety. For the same reason, O’Neil never allowed Molotov cocktails in his works, sure that it was too much of a “temptation” for kids to “see if it would work” building their own.

The Beat’s own Heidi MacDonald asked a rather burning question from the floor, one that continues to puzzle readers and comics historians alike: “Why do you think he attacked comics specifically? What did he hope to get out of it?”. The panelists answered in various ways. Yoe felt pretty strongly that Wertham was, in fact, motivated primarily by the fact that he “cared about kids” and was worried about the impact of comics. Packer analyzed Wertham a little by pointing out that Wertham himself, despite being married for many years, had no children of his own and this might have created a kind of “displacement” of concern for children that drove him to extremes. Hajdu simply stated that he felt Wertham to be “attracted to sensationalist cases” whether as an expert witness in extreme criminal cases or his research. He was, Hajdu said, a “publicity hound” at heart. Even Yoe added the admission that without a doubt Wertham had a “raging ego” driving his career.

Questions continued to circle back to the central role of Tilley’s new research on Wertham’s inconsistencies. How do we reassess Wertham based on the incorrectly conveyed details of his research, which clearly skewed his information in order to more sensationally and fundamentally support his thesis, when the “big picture” of his message, that extreme violence and sex in comics can be inappropriate for child readers, does seem sensible? Fingeroth presented a list of Wertham’s more “progressive” tendencies, stating that it’s possible to “go through a checklist of Wertham’s beliefs and agree except for comics” and respect many of his social contributions.

The final assessment of the panelists revealed some consensus out of a wide-ranging interrogation of Wertham’s method and legacy. O’Neil reminded the audience that Wertham was certainly not the “black-hearted villain” that many comics fans feel him to be, but he did detrimentally present those working in comics, “demonizing” them and making them out to be the “seducers and corruptors” of society, a crusade that damaged comics for decades to come. Yoe felt that the fundamental problem with Wertham’s whole approach to his subject was not necessarily the assumption that comics could be damaging to young minds, but that he “didn’t see that comics could be an art form”, and never commented on their positive potential as an “educational” resource. Yoe left the audience with the question, a lingering one, “Why couldn’t he see that?”. If Wertham had seen the potential of comics as a positive force, no doubt our current view of his work would also be more balanced on the whole.

[The panelists and their moderator]

A predictably lively, but amicable, discussion period followed during the reception for the event, but if attendees expected definitive answers about the implications of Tilley’s new research on Wertham, they were left to their own devices. The panel discussion did provide solid context for Wertham’s life, work, and even a little for his motivations, as well as some solid information on what exactly Wertham’s failings as a researcher might be. Whether audience members were “pro-Wertham” or “anti-Wertham” initially, the discussion opened up new facets of his personality and work for further thought. Frederick Wertham may be less of a mystery now in the light of new research, but if anything, he’s even more of an enigma, confirmed as a complex figure. Learning more about Wertham changes perception of comics history, and that’s bound to change even more as scholars pay closer and closer attention to the records left behind in collections, personal archives, and thankfully, libraries.

The Comic Round Table events will continue this Spring at the SOHO Gallery for Digital Art with another hot topic in comics right now, the openly anti-gay position of Orson Scott Card and his work on SUPERMAN entitled “The Man of Steel vs. Orson Scott Card” on April 10^th.

Hannah Means-Shannon writes and blogs about comics for TRIP CITY and Sequart.org and is currently working on books about Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore for Sequart. She is @hannahmenzies on Twitter and hannahmenziesblog on WordPress.

Tweet

The relaunch of Captain Marvel, with Carol Danvers in the title role, started off very shakily. The first six-issues told a time-travel story which eventually teased together parts of the character’s origin in a way which wasn’t particularly as entertaining or dynamic as was hoped. Writer Kelly Sue DeConnick had previously proven herself to have a great voice and sense of humour in her work – but the first arc of this book didn’t give her much chance to do that. It felt like a side-story, blocking us from getting to the real adventures.

Which is why I’m delighted that ever since issue #6, the book has picked up massively. Taking the character back to present-day gives her a chance to be far more contemporary, and build up a far stronger individual voice. She can be funnier, because there’s more for her to react to, and she can build up a lasting supporting cast. Issue #11, out this week, shows just what the book should’ve been from the start. It’s immediately likeable, with instinctive art and a freeform story which segues between multiple interesting sub-plots.

The best of these storylines is one which sees Captain Marvel grounded. If she uses her power of flight, then she’ll start to build up permanant brain damage – which gives a twist which the character has needed for a long time. There’s nothing inherently interesting about a character who can fly, who also works as a pilot. If they crash the plane, it doesn’t matter, because they can always step out the cockpit and FLOAT AWAY. But giving her this twist means the character suddenly lives a much more high-stakes lifestyle. There’s a more immediate tension now we know she’s not safe at all times.

There’s a line in the issue – which is scripted by Christopher Sebala – in which somebody asks Cap “what’s it like to not be good at something for once?” That line captures the issue, and gives readers further motivation to root for the hero. Her frustration at not being able to get in the air also leads to many of the funniest moments of the issue. It feels like the book has now got a real grip on the voice of the lead character, giving her a lightness of tone that makes her more relatable and entertaining than before (she has previously had a tendency to be a little boring).

Filipe Andrade’s artwork – boosted, as everything is, by Jordie Bellaire’s colour, is a brilliant fit for the book. He’s quirky and left of centre without sacrificing storytelling ability. There’s a much more sudden sense of motion in the pages, but I also really like his refusal to cop out for easy spectacle. The sequencing in the pages works fantastically because he doesn’t use gigantic splashes and overwrought hero poses in each panel. In fact, he keeps the action sequences very tight, with smaller panels which keep an eye on the lead.

There’s a sequence where Captain Marvel blasts a group of guards with her energy, but Andrade doesn’t decide to have this take up half the page. Instead, he sets it in a small page-width panel at the top of, and sets the action at a distance from the reader. Whilst we still get to see Captain Marvel wipe out a group of goons, Andrade’s decision to keep the move locked within a single panel emphasises how normal and unexpected a day this is for the lead character. Even during sequences where Cap is on a flying motorbike and racing round like a lunatic, Andrade refuses to make this into a spectacle – you could replace the bike with a transit van and the pages would still work. It’s a small touch, and perhaps not something Andrade is consciously doing, but it adds to the relatability of the main character.

The narrative as a whole is very well constructed, too. Some of the supporting characters could come across as bringing a little too whimsy to proceedings – Cap makes friends with a young girl who is slightly too bluntly inspired by living next door to a superhero – but this is alrgely averted. The subplots are handled directly, by having Danvers walk between them – again, there’s an emphasis on how she’s having to live a very normalised life, and when put in a normalised setting her power and personality come through far more strongly. It’s all handled very nicely indeed.

Captain Marvel is rapidly rising in quality, emphasising the normalcy of the character’s life whilst also pushing the idea of her as inspirational and good fun. DeConnick’s voice comes through more strongly, and the whole thing feels a lot more natural and warm. Assisted by an excellent creative team, including Sebala, whose dialogue is witty and light, she’s set up a new dynamic which will hopefully stick with the character for a long time to come.

Steve Morris writes, tweets, and comics. Follow his epic journey!

Tweet

I think we can finally throw some dirt on the coffin of the Neil Gaiman – Todd McFarlane lawsuit.  The New York Times has announced that Gaiman’s Angela character (created for Spawn with Todd McFarlane, back in 1992), one of the objects of dispute, has moved over to Marvel.  Nothing says “the legal battle is over” like going back about your business — in this case, placing the character in a universe and making her active again.

According to the Times, Angela will make some sort of appearance at the end of Age of Ultron.  This sounds like it’s probably the sequence Joe Quesada is drawing.

“We were looking for a good entry point to tease our fans and to let them know she was going to be a major player,” he said. “Age of Ultron,” an event storyline that involves many of Marvel’s top heroes, seemed like the perfect spot. With so many big stories spoiled by the media (with the willing cooperation of the comic book companies) lately, Axel Alonso, the editor in chief of Marvel Comics, insisted the revelation of Angela’s participation did not count as a spoiler. Her presence is a bonus, “like the post-credit scenes in one of our Marvel studio movies,” Mr. Alonso said. The character’s appearance in “Age of Ultron” is designed to whet the appetite of fans.

After that, Angela will be popping up in Guardians of the Galaxy #5.  The bigger news being that Gaiman will be co-writing that issue with Brian Bendis.  Marvel’s listing of this, doesn’t say if Angela is joining the Guardians or if Gaiman is writing more than one issue… but you’d think they’d tell you if Gaiman was going to be the regular co-writer.  That’s bigger news than the Angela character turning up.

Marvel is spending a lot of time promoting  the Guardians comic ahead of the film.  Blade never got this kind of push.  And speaking of that, the second GoG Infinity comic is up at Comixology.  This one features Rocket Raccoon.  There’s a little more going on in this one and it takes advantage of the Infinity format much better than the first installment did.  It’s also free.

The other interesting thing is that Angela’s character, coming out of the Spawn universe, was very much an Angel.  A bounty hunter for Heaven.  Marvel has tended to shy away from Judeo-Christian characters, opting more for the likes of Thor and Hercules.  It will be interesting to see how Angela’s origins are portrayed in this incarnation.

Tweet

Marvel continue to tempt me with their extraordinary cover designs that are leaving many other publishers in the shade. Coming to Fearless Defenders blind of recent continuity, I had high hopes for this all female line-up, and was promptly swept off my feet.

Fearless Defenders #1 was an impulse buy – I picked it up along with a few other titles on the shelves on my new journey of Marvel discovery after being impressed by Hawkeye and Young Avengers. I’d heard a little about the new book from Bunn and Sliney but I hadn’t paid much attention as it didn’t seem to feature characters I immediately recognised. It was the cover that leapt out at me – two women fighting off the villainous hordes, in practical yet sexy clothing (no heels!), fighting back to back with sword, axe, and guns, and hey… a bionic arm? Whaddaya know, I do remember Misty Knight!

Both the first and second issues take their time introducing the various players, with Misty taking centre stage in #1, kicking ass and taking names. Her friend, archaeologist Dr. Annabelle Riggs is sweet and slightly reckless, accidentally unleashing the aforementioned hordes, leading to the appearance of the mighty Valkyrie. As she and Misty do their stuff, the dynamic of this title really comes to the fore – it’s a buddy cop comic essentially, the two of them trading on their different personalities to provide highly entertaining banter as a team of strong women forms around them. The plain talking Misty and the very Asgardian Valkyrie mesh well together almost immediately, the writer sidestepping the all too familiar trope of having lead ladies clash their personalities for pointless melodrama.

And speaking of pointless melodrama, let’s have a quick peek at the general reaction to #1 on the internet. Ah yes, “pointless”, “fanservice”, “socially inept”, “gratuitous”, “ill timed and forced”, and “pandering”. Whatever could these people be talking about? Well you know already of course, it’s the kiss between Annabelle and Valkyrie, the former planting a surprise smooch when saved by the latter. No more out of place you might think that the many women who reward Stark, Storm or Odinson with a quick lip attack after being saved from a burning building/tweet/spaceship and certainly less awkward than the costumes-stay-on sex favoured by Gotham’s finest, yet because both kisser and kissee were in this case both women, it gets called pandering. And the non-straight women who read comics rose up and replied, hell yes, pander me harder.

If Valkyrie swoops to your rescue the next time you’re being attacked by the undead, I defy you not to want to kiss her. Annabelle just had the ovaries to go ahead and do so, time from her perspective slowing down to savour the moment, and the Asgardian warrior did not seem terribly put out. On the contrary, #2 hints that it might be something she’d like to revisit at a later date, if you know what I am saying, hurr hurr.

If the cover to the first issue was enough to hook me, the second was what put it on my pull list. Well, the cover and the last page combined. Which I’m not going to spoil even though I really want to. Bah.

In this issue we are introduced to Dani Moonstar, and while my vintage Marvel reading did prod my memory with regard to Valkyrie and Misty, I admit that with Dani I was at a bit of a loss. However, enough information was fed to me in a few pages to give me some background, and I think prove that this book is very accessible for any new readers. And she pretty much kicks ass, despite the lack of powers. What really hit me again in this issue – and it’s a shame that this is something that leaps out – is again the lack of overt sexualisation of the characters. They are powerful and sexy women sure, but they are portrayed as heroes rather than just hot girls with their clothes torn off in towering heels.

It’s a little slower than the first issue, perhaps inevitable for plot building, but the opening sequence with Dani is terrific, as is the small diner scene between Valkyrie, Misty and Annabelle. Valkyrie’s failure to find new shield maidens is interesting given just how saturated this universe is with superwomen, and how readily she teams up with her new friends. I’m interested to see where this is all leading.

Each issue has been deliciously self-contained, demanding the reader is desperate for the next issue while also layering the characterisation deftly. It’s a bold move to be in the second issue and still have one of the three main players completely separate but it works well here, both in the short term and (I’d imagine) for the trade collection.

Yes there are tits. There is indeed ass. But for the first time, I get the sense that this is cheesecake that isn’t being aimed primarily at the male readers. There is a whole other demographic out there that loves reading about smart, sassy women who happen to be fantastically gorgeous without being objectified for the male gaze.

As a self-confessed fan of Catwoman, and an ardent supporter of more diversity in women characters in comics, my mantra is frequently this: “There’s nothing wrong with cheesecake. But it’s not all we want to eat.” In this case however… well this is damn fine and well written cheesecake.

PS – can I get my Catwoman/Nightwing cheesecake now please DC?

Fearless Defenders #2
Writer: Cullen Bunn
Artist: Will Sliney
Colourist: Veronica Gandini
Cover Artist: Mark Brooks
Letters: Clayton Cowles
Editor: Ellie Pyle
Publisher: Marvel

[Laura Sneddon is a comics journalist and academic, writing for the mainstream UK press with a particular focus on women and feminism in comics. Currently working on a PhD, do not offend her chair leg of truth. Her writing is indexed at comicbookgrrrl.com and procrastinated upon via @thalestral on Twitter]

Tweet

Okay he was only the head of Marvel for six months during Ron Perelman’s murky march to bankruptcy—in fact he was the guy in charge when Marvel filed—but former Marvel CEO Scott Sassa has been canned from his current gig at Hearst after steamy texts from a Las Vegas stripper showed up somewhere they shouldn’t.

“She was texting him sexy pictures, and he was responding using words you absolutely would not want your bosses to see,” a source said, adding, “He was also communicating with many other girls in New York, and wrote crazy things to them.”

But the LA stripper, helped by a boyfriend, then tried to blackmail Sassa — a single father of two daughters — saying she’d expose their raunchy messages if he didn’t give her money. A second source said, “She made a list of demands.”

When Sassa didn’t pay up, the boyfriend e-mailed the sex-text exchanges to horrified Hearst honchos, including CEO Frank Bennack Jr., Hearst Magazines president David Carey and Michael Clinton, president of marketing for the magazines.

Sassa headed Marvel for a brief, disastrous period in 1996, before ankling the gig for NBC.

Sassa’s other jobs over the years include CEO at Friendster, president at the Turner Entertainment Group, president and COO at Andrews Group and a job at Fox that ended badly. How does a person get to be CEO of so many troubled companies? That is a mystery of the finance world. On the plus side, he did greenlight Freaks and Geeks, so he was put here for a reason.

Tweet

by Paul O’Brien

The rolling program of Marvel Now! relaunches continued in January, with SUPERIOR SPIDER-MAN, NEW AVENGERS, SAVAGE WOLVERINE, UNCANNY X-FORCE, YOUNG AVENGERS and MORBIUS. Plus, there’s the miniseries DEADPOOL: KILLUSTRATED – and, just as interesting as the January launches, the continuing question of how the earlier Marvel Now titles are settling down.

Once again, Marvel had the largest share of the North American direct market, leading DC by 40% to 35% in units, and 35% to 32% in dollars.

Thanks as always to ICV2.com for permission to use these figures.

1,5.  SUPERIOR SPIDER-MAN
01/08  Amazing #548 -  97,959
01/09  Amazing #584 -  59,932
01/10  Amazing #619 -  56,837
01/11  Amazing #651 -  56,749
=====
01/12  Amazing #677 -  57,186  (  +5.9%)
01/12  Amazing #678 -  54,252  (  -5.1%)
02/12  Amazing #679 -  52,564  (  -3.1%)
02/12  Amazing #.1  -  50,624  (  -3.7%)
02/12  Amazing #680 -  51,872  (  +2.5%)
03/12  Amazing #681 -  52,143  (  +0.5%)
03/12  Amazing #682 -  57,143  (  +9.6%)
04/12  Amazing #683 -  59,153  (  +3.5%)
04/12  Amazing #684 -  57,454  (  -2.9%)
05/12  Amazing #685 -  58,121  (  +1.2%)
05/12  Amazing #686 -  58,337  (  +0.4%)
06/12  Amazing #687 -  62,680  (  +7.4%)
06/12  Amazing #688 -  60,409  (  -3.6%)
07/12  Amazing #689 -  59,859  (  -0.9%)
07/12  Amazing #690 -  58,976  (  -1.5%)
08/12  Amazing #691 -  60,767  (  +3.0%)
08/12  Amazing #692 -  91,071  ( +49.9%)
09/12  Amazing #693 -  59,772  ( -34.4%)
09/12  Amazing #694 -  58,461  (  -2.2%)
10/12  Amazing #695 -  58,185  (  -0.5%)
10/12  Amazing #696 -  57,950  (  -0.4%)
11/12  Amazing #697 -  59,872  (  +3.3%)
11/12  Amazing #698 -  87,537  ( +46.2%)
12/12  Amazing #699 -  80,048  (  -8.6%)
12/12  Amazing #.1  -  71,344  ( -10.9%)
12/12  Amazing #700 - 210,954  (+195.7%)
01/13  Superior #1  - 188,182  ( -10.8%)
01/13  Superior #2  - 112,546  ( -40.2%)
                       6 mnth  ( +90.8%)
                       1 year  ( +96.8%)
                       2 year  ( +98.3%)
                       3 year  ( +98.0%)
                       4 year  ( +87.8%)
                       5 year  ( +14.9%)

SUPERIOR SPIDER-MAN is this month’s flagship launch, and while it doesn’t quite match the sales of December’s AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #700 – which, after all, was the really key issue – the first two issues still put in an impressive showing. Although sales are likely to settle down to a lower figure, the storyline is clearly one that’s grabbed a lot of attention. After all, while you can view it as an attention grabbing stunt, you can also view it as a good old fashioned Silver Age superhero hook. Much worse things happened to Clark Kent back in the day.

There’s also a lot of reorder activity on this title. In fact, the same goes for several of the Marvel Now launches, which has to be a good sign for the whole line. In the case of this title, issue #700 adds a further 9,988 copies; issue #699 adds a further 5,144; issue #698 is up by 6,195; and even the Point One issue, which was actually Morbius’ origin story, piles on a further 5,099. As usual, I’ve added those extra sales into the figures above.

4,14. NEW AVENGERS
01/08  ---
01/09  New Avengers #49    -  90,040
01/10  New Avengers #61    -  78,202
01/11  New Avengers v2 #8  -  61,169
=====
01/12  New Avengers v2 #20 -  52,910  (  -0.0%)
02/12  New Avengers v2 #21 -  54,105  (  +2.3%)
02/12  New Avengers v2 #22 -  51,235  (  -5.3%)
03/12  New Avengers v2 #23 -  51,697  (  +0.9%)
04/12  New Avengers v2 #24 -  64,533  ( +24.8%)
04/12  New Avengers v2 #25 -  61,950  (  -4.0%)
05/12  New Avengers v2 #26 -  64,326  (  +3.8%)
06/12  New Avengers v2 #27 -  64,927  (  +0.9%)
07/12  New Avengers v2 #28 -  62,739  (  -3.4%)
08/12  New Avengers v2 #29 -  59,441  (  -5.3%)
09/12  New Avengers v2 #30 -  56,742  (  -4.5%)
10/12  New Avengers v2 #31 -  53,456  (  -5.8%)
11/12  New Avengers v2 #32 -  52,784  (  -1.3%)
11/12  New Avengers v2 #33 -  50,045  (  -5.2%)
11/12  New Avengers v2 #34 -  53,862  (  +7.6%)
12/12  ---
01/13  New Avengers v3 #1  - 116,280  (+115.9%)
01/13  New Avengers v3 #2  -  79,433  ( -31.7%)
                              6 mnth  ( +26.6%)
                              1 year  ( +50.1%)
                              2 year  ( +29.9%)
                              3 year  (  +1.6%)
                              4 year  ( -11.8%)
                              5 year  (   --- )

Following December’s relaunch of AVENGERS, here’s the B-title, also written by Jonathan Hickman. In fact, this is more of an Illuminati title; as we’ll see, Marvel’s latest marketing brainstorm seems to be to simply attach the same name to several unrelated teams. AVENGERS #1 came in at 187K, so this is quite some distance behind – but then, it is firmly the B-title.

6. SAVAGE WOLVERINE
01/13  Savage Wolverine #1 - 102,530

An ongoing title with Frank Cho writing and drawing the opening arc. You could, of course, view this as a continuation of WOLVERINE, but since there’s another book called WOLVERINE launching shortly, I’m treating this has the extra title. For comparison, though, the previous WOLVERINE title was generally selling in the mid-30K range, so this is a huge increase. This would also have posted a big gain over any year-to-year comparison since 2008.

7. UNCANNY AVENGERS
10/12  Uncanny Avengers #1 - 303,722
11/12  Uncanny Avengers #2 - 114,257  (-62.4%)
12/12  ---
01/13  Uncanny Avengers #3 -  92,165  (-19.3%)

When a book launches as stratospherically as UNCANNY AVENGERS did, it’s inevitable that there will be steep drops over the next couple of issues while retailers figure out the book’s regular sales level. Estimated orders of 92K for issue #3 is still an excellent number to be delivering.

9,11. AVENGERS
01/11  Avengers v4 #9  -  64,867
=====
01/12  Avengers v4 #21 -  54,803  (  -4.1%)
02/12  Avengers v4 #22 -  52,683  (  -3.9%)
02/12  Avengers v4 #23 -  52,222  (  -0.9%)
03/12  Avengers v4 #24 -  52,242  (  +0.0%)
03/12  Avengers v4 #.1 -  52,164  (  -0.1%)
04/12  Avengers v4 #25 -  65,664  ( +25.9%)
05/12  Avengers v4 #26 -  67,744  (  +3.2%)
06/12  Avengers v4 #27 -  68,885  (  +1.7%)
07/12  Avengers v4 #28 -  63,169  (  -8.3%)
08/12  Avengers v4 #29 -  61,653  (  -2.4%)
09/12  Avengers v4 #30 -  58,609  (  -4.9%)
10/12  Avengers v4 #31 -  62,495  (  +6.6%)
10/12  Avengers v4 #32 -  56,204  ( -10.1%)
11/12  Avengers v4 #33 -  53,336  (  -5.1%)
11/12  Avengers v4 #34 -  57,315  (  +7.5%)
12/12  Avengers v5 #1  - 186,989  (+226.2%)
12/12  Avengers v5 #2  -  99,028  ( -47.0%)
01/13  Avengers v5 #3  -  92,165  (  -6.9%)
01/13  Avengers v5 #4  -  83,088  (  -9.8%)
                          6 mnth  ( +31.5%)
                          1 year  ( +51.6%)
                          2 year  ( +28.1%)

Again, still finding its level. Issue #3 had rather more variant covers than #4, so the overall trend is smoother than it first appears. Also, issue #2 picks up reorders of 5,134, added into the figures above.

10. UNCANNY X-FORCE
01/09  X-Force v3 #11 - 51,817
01/10  X-Force v3 #23 - 50,848
01/11  X-Force v4 #4  - 51,381
=====
01/12  X-Force v4 #.1 - 50,399  ( -8.9%)
01/12  X-Force v4 #20 - 51,054  ( +1.3%)
02/12  X-Force v4 #21 - 50,654  ( -0.8%)
02/12  X-Force v4 #22 - 49,665  ( -2.0%)
03/12  X-Force v4 #23 - 48,867  ( -1.6%)
04/12  X-Force v4 #24 - 50,667  ( +3.7%)
05/12  X-Force v4 #25 - 50,851  ( +0.4%)
06/12  X-Force v4 #26 - 47,522  ( -6.0%)
07/12  X-Force v4 #27 - 46,325  ( -2.5%)
07/12  X-Force v4 #28 - 46,367  ( +0.1%)
08/12  X-Force v4 #29 - 45,159  ( -2.6%)
08/12  X-Force v4 #30 - 44,918  ( -0.5%)
09/12  X-Force v4 #31 - 44,061  ( -1.9%)
10/12  X-Force v4 #32 - 44,055  ( -0.0%)
11/12  X-Force v4 #33 - 43,589  ( -1.1%)
11/12  X-Force v4 #34 - 43,710  ( +0.3%)
12/12  X-Force v4 #35 - 47,736  ( +9.2%)
01/13  X-Force v5 #1  - 86,187  (+80.5%)
                        6 mnth  (+85.9%)
                        1 year  (+71.0%)
                        2 year  (+67.7%)
                        3 year  (+69.5%)
                        4 year  (+66.3%)

There’s no connection between this book and December’s launch CABLE & X-FORCE besides the name. Of the two titles, this is the one that inherits characters and storylines from Rick Remender’s run, and in an earlier time would simply have been a new creative team coming aboard a continuing series. But you’ve got to admit that they wouldn’t have got this sort of sales boost by taking that route.

13,15. ALL-NEW X-MEN
11/12  All-New X-Men #1 - 181,693
11/12  All-New X-Men #2 -  96,436  (-46.9%)
12/12  All-New X-Men #3 -  90,161  ( -6.5%)
12/12  All-New X-Men #4 -  86,677  ( -3.9%)
01/13  All-New X-Men #5 -  76,007  (-12.3%)
01/13  All-New X-Men #6 -  80,195  ( +5.5%)

Yes, sales went up for issue #6. It doesn’t seem to be due to variants, and I’d be surprised if incoming artist David Marquez had that sort of impact, which seems to leave the explanation that people just like the book. There are re-orders too, with issue #3 adding another 6,363 and issue #4 adding 6,012.

18. YOUNG AVENGERS
01/08  YA Presents #1 of 6  - 43,714
=====
01/13  Young Avengers v2 #1 - 71,254
                              5 year  (+63.0%)

Yes, it’s been that long since YOUNG AVENGERS shipped in a January. The book still has a fan base, though, and so do creators Kieron Gillen and Jamie McKelvie, who worked together on PHONOGRAM. A strong debut for a property that’s been allowed to drift for a surprisingly long time.

23. CAPTAIN AMERICA
01/08  Captain America v6 #34 - 127,626
01/09  Captain America v6 #46 -  73,184
01/10  Reborn #6              -  84,844
01/11  Captain America #614   -  42,119
=====
01/12  Captain America v7 #7  -  46,954  (  -1.7%)
02/12  Captain America v7 #8  -  43,487  (  -7.4%)
03/12  Captain America v7 #9  -  41,631  (  -4.3%)
04/12  Captain America v7 #10 -  41,474  (  -0.4%)
05/12  Captain America v7 #11 -  39,012  (  -5.9%)
05/12  Captain America v7 #12 -  38,800  (  -0.5%)
06/12  Captain America v7 #13 -  39,456  (  +1.7%)
07/12  Captain America v7 #14 -  36,812  (  -6.7%)
07/12  Captain America v7 #15 -  36,433  (  -1.0%)
08/12  Captain America v7 #16 -  35,155  (  -3.5%)
09/12  Captain America v7 #17 -  34,279  (  -2.5%)
10/12  Captain America v7 #18 -  38,318  ( +11.8%)
10/12  Captain America v7 #19 -  40,205  (  +4.9%)
11/12  Captain America v8 #1  - 123,667  (+207.6%)
12/12  Captain America v8 #2  -  64,377  ( -47.9%)
01/13  Captain America v8 #3  -  59,836  (  -7.1%)
                                 6 mnth  ( +64.2%)
                                 1 year  ( +27.4%)
                                 2 year  ( +42.1%)
                                 3 year  ( -29.5%)
                                 4 year  ( -18.2%)
                                 5 year  ( -53.1%)

25. INDESTRUCTIBLE HULK
01/08  Incredible Hulk #102  -  46,965
01/09  Hulk #1               - 134,002
01/10  Incredible Hulk #606  -  44,855
01/11  Incredible Hulks #620 -  30,992
=====
01/12  Incredible v4 #4      -  45,876  (  -1.2%)
02/12  Incredible v4 #5      -  42,760  (  -6.8%)
03/12  Incredible v4 #6      -  40,522  (  -5.2%)
04/12  Incredible v4 #7      -  42,135  (  +4.0%)
05/12  Incredible v4 #.1     -  38,472  (  -8.7%)
05/12  Incredible v4 #8      -  42,076  (  +9.4%)
06/12  Incredible v4 #9      -  40,467  (  -3.8%)
06/12  Incredible v4 #10     -  38,122  (  -5.8%)
07/12  Incredible v4 #11     -  36,743  (  -3.6%)
08/12  Incredible v4 #12     -  36,860  (  +0.3%)
09/12  Incredible v4 #13     -  33,858  (  -8.1%)
09/12  Incredible v4 #14     -  33,887  (  +0.1%)
10/12  Incredible v4 #15     -  36,091  (  +6.5%)
11/12  Indestructible #1     - 118,200  (+227.5%)
12/12  Indestructible #2     -  63,653  ( -46.1%)
01/13  Indestructible #3     -  59,431  (  -6.6%)
                                6 mnth  ( +61.7%)
                                1 year  ( +29.5%)
                                2 year  ( +91.8%)
                                3 year  ( +32.5%)
                                4 year  ( -55.6%)
                                5 year  ( +26.5%)

A similar deal with both these titles. Now into their third months, they’re levelling out at a number that Marvel ought to be very happy with, considering sales over the last couple of years. Both have been higher in the past, but that was when it were the main focus of Marvel’s promotion, while here they’re simply benefiting from the promotion of the line as a whole.

28. DEADPOOL
01/09  Deadpool v3 #6  -  46,549
01/10  ---
01/11  Deadpool v3 #31 -  29,167
=====
01/12  Deadpool v3 #49 -  24,783* (  -2.7%)
01/12  Deadpool v3 #.1 -  24,783* (   --- )
02/12  Deadpool v3 #50 -  40,695  ( +64.2%)
02/12  Deadpool v3 #51 -  27,458  ( -32.5%)
03/12  Deadpool v3 #52 -  27,990  (  +1.9%)
04/12  Deadpool v3 #53 -  29,334  (  +4.8%)
05/12  Deadpool v3 #54 -  29,644  (  +1.1%)
05/12  Deadpool v3 #55 -  29,022  (  -2.1%)
06/12  Deadpool v3 #56 -  29,513  (  +1.7%)
07/12  Deadpool v3 #57 -  29,155  (  -1.2%)
07/12  Deadpool v3 #58 -  28,706  (  -1.5%)
08/12  Deadpool v3 #59 -  28,507  (  -0.7%)
09/12  Deadpool v3 #60 -  28,548  (  +0.1%)
09/12  Deadpool v3 #61 -  28,351  (  -0.7%)
10/12  Deadpool v3 #62 -  28,897  (  +1.9%)
10/12  Deadpool v3 #63 -  29,049  (  +0.5%)
11/12  Deadpool v4 #1  - 123,306  (+324.5%)
11/12  Deadpool v4 #2  -  72,057  ( -41.6%)
12/12  Deadpool v4 #3  -  60,215  ( -16.4%)
01/13  Deadpool v4 #4  -  57,061  (  -5.2%)
                          6 mnth  ( +95.7%)
                          1 year  (+130.2%)
                          2 year  ( +95.6%)
                          3 year  (   --- )
                          4 year  ( +22.6%)

Another book that’s swiftly levelling out, at numbers far above what it was delivering before. And there are reorders – issue #1 adds 4,330, and #2 gets 4,636.

30. CABLE & X-FORCE
12/12  Cable & X-Force #1 - 90,334
12/12  Cable & X-Force #2 - 57,719  (-36.1%)
01/13  Cable & X-Force #3 - 51,761  (-10.3%)

Considering the first issue sales were probably a bit exaggerated, this is settling down reasonably well. If you want to draw comparisons with the previous, unrelated X-FORCE book, then it’s going to come off worse – but as the secondary X-Force title, that’s probably not going to cause too much concern.

31. IRON MAN
01/08  Iron Man v4 #25 -  38,072
01/09  Iron Man v5 #9  -  49,223
01/10  Iron Man v5 #22 -  49,130
01/11  Iron Man #500   -  54,186
=====
01/12  Iron Man #512   -  35,159  (  -0.7%)
02/12  Iron Man #513   -  32,748  (  -6.9%)
03/12  Iron Man #514   -  31,424  (  -4.0%)
04/12  Iron Man #515   -  32,409  (  +3.1%)
05/12  Iron Man #516   -  31,374  (  -3.2%)
05/12  Iron Man #517   -  31,536  (  +0.5%)
06/12  Iron Man #518   -  32,553  (  -3.2%)
06/12  Iron Man #519   -  32,518  (  -0.1%)
07/12  Iron Man #520   -  32,765  (  +0.8%)
07/12  Iron Man #521   -  32,172  (  -1.8%)
08/12  Iron Man #522   -  31,464  (  -2.2%)
08/12  Iron Man #523   -  31,568  (  +0.3%)
09/12  Iron Man #524   -  30,976  (  -1.9%)
09/12  Iron Man #525   -  30,885  (  -0.3%)
10/12  Iron Man #526   -  35,934  ( +16.3%)
10/12  Iron Man #527   -  36,981  (  +2.9%)
11/12  Iron Man v6 #1  - 116,529  (+215.1%)
11/12  Iron Man v6 #2  -  72,902  ( -37.4%)
12/12  Iron Man v6 #3  -  59,041  ( -19.0%)
12/12  Iron Man v6 #4  -  56,708  (  -4.0%)
01/13  Iron Man v6 #5  -  50,899  ( -10.2%)
                          6 mnth  ( +58.2%)
                          1 year  ( +44.8%)
                          2 year  (  -6.1%)
                          3 year  (  +3.6%)
                          4 year  (  +3.4%)
                          5 year  ( +33.7%)

There’s no obvious reason for the drop to have increased again with issue #5. Most likely, this is an example of a common phenomenon with titles that ship two issues a month, where the bigger drops take place between months.

Sales are now back to roughly the level that the previous run was achieving in 2009-10, but those were decent numbers.

34. FANTASTIC FOUR
01/08  Fantastic Four #553  -  48,332
01/09  Fantastic Four #563  -  52,747
01/10  Fantastic Four #575  -  41,284
01/11  Fantastic Four #587  - 144,173
=====
01/12  Fantastic Four #602  -  45,131  ( -11.6%)
02/12  Fantastic Four #603  -  42,419  (  -6.0%)
03/12  Fantastic Four #604  -  42,126  (  -0.7%)
04/12  Fantastic Four #605  -  42,372  (  +0.6%)
05/12  Fantastic Four #.1   -  39,475  (  -6.8%)
05/12  Fantastic Four #606  -  39,914  (  +1.1%)
06/12  Fantastic Four #607  -  40,453  (  +1.4%)
07/12  Fantastic Four #608  -  37,776  (  -6.6%)
08/12  Fantastic Four #609  -  36,496  (  -3.4%)
09/12  Fantastic Four #610  -  35,388  (  -3.0%)
10/12  Fantastic Four #611  -  45,322  ( +28.1%)
11/12  Fantastic Four v5 #1 - 114,532  (+152.7%)
12/12  Fantastic Four v5 #2 -  58,421  ( -49.0%)
01/13  Fantastic Four v5 #3 -  50,555  ( -13.5%)
                               6 mnth  ( +33.8%)
                               1 year  ( +12.0%)
                               2 year  ( -64.9%)
                               3 year  ( +22.5%)
                               4 year  (  -4.2%)
                               5 year  (  +4.6%)

Levelling out. This title too is showing a significant improvement over the last year or so, and for now it’s back in the range it was achieving four or five years ago.

35. THOR: GOD OF THUNDER
01/08  ---
01/09  ---
01/10  Thor #606   -  55,353
01/11  Thor #619   -  42,899
=====
01/12  Thor v4 #10 -  37,577  (  -1.1%)
02/12  Thor v4 #11 -  35,066  (  -6.7%)
03/12  Thor v4 #12 -  33,967  (  -3.1%)
04/12  Thor v4 #.1 -  33,533  (  -1.3%)
04/12  Thor v4 #13 -  34,500  (  +2.9%)
05/12  Thor v4 #14 -  32,550  (  -5.7%)
06/12  Thor v4 #15 -  33,674  (  +3.5%)
06/12  Thor v4 #16 -  31,798  (  -5.6%)
07/12  Thor v4 #17 -  30,879  (  -2.9%)
08/12  Thor v4 #18 -  35,392  ( +14.6%)
09/12  Thor v4 #19 -  30,289  ( -14.4%)
09/12  Thor v4 #20 -  30,172  (  -0.4%)
10/12  Thor v4 #21 -  34,550  ( +14.5%)
10/12  Thor v4 #22 -  35,328  (  +2.3%)
11/12  Thor v5 #1  - 110,443  (+212.6%)
11/12  Thor v5 #2  -  65,533  ( -40.7%)
12/12  Thor v5 #3  -  55,547  ( -15.2%)
01/13  Thor v5 #4  -  50,478  (  -9.1%)
                      6 mnth  ( +63.5%)
                      1 year  ( +34.3%)
                      2 year  ( +17.7%)
                      3 year  (  -8.8%)
                      4 year  (   --- )
                      5 year  (   --- )

And another book finding its level after its recent relaunch. THOR is still getting very good sales by the standards of the last couple of years.

37. A PLUS X
04/12  Versus #1 of 6 - 111,913
05/12  Versus #2 of 6 -  98,819  (-11.7%)
06/12  Versus #3 of 6 -  94,528  ( -4.3%)
07/12  Versus #4 of 6 -  86,526  ( -8.5%)
08/12  Versus #5 of 6 -  78,380  ( -9.4%)
09/12  ---
10/12  Versus #6 of 6 -  75,298  ( -3.9%)
10/12  A+X #1         - 105,420  (+40.0%)
11/12  A+X #2         -  64,606  (-38.7%)
12/12  A+X #3         -  56,700  (-12.2%)
01/13  A+X #4         -  48,091  (-15.2%)
                         6 mnth  (-44.4%)

This one, on the other hand, does not yet seem to be levelling out – but I attribute that mainly to its having inherited from AVENGERS VS X-MEN an unrealistically high level of sales for an anthology title, given the market’s general lack of interest in such books.

40,44. WOLVERINE & THE X-MEN
01/12  Wolverine/X-Men #4  - 59,530  ( +1.9%)
02/12  Wolverine/X-Men #5  - 55,788  ( -6.3%)
02/12  Wolverine/X-Men #6  - 55,341  ( -0.8%)
03/12  Wolverine/X-Men #7  - 54,559  ( -1.4%)
04/12  Wolverine/X-Men #8  - 53,757  ( -1.5%)
04/12  Wolverine/X-Men #9  - 64,984  (+20.9%)
05/12  Wolverine/X-Men #10 - 63,650  ( -2.1%)
05/12  Wolverine/X-Men #11 - 64,936  ( +2.0%)
06/12  Wolverine/X-Men #12 - 64,838  ( -0.2%)
07/12  Wolverine/X-Men #13 - 62,689  ( -3.3%)
07/12  Wolverine/X-Men #14 - 61,029  ( -2.6%)
08/12  Wolverine/X-Men #15 - 58,441  ( -4.2%)
09/12  Wolverine/X-Men #16 - 55,857  ( -4.4%)
09/12  Wolverine/X-Men #17 - 54,768  ( -1.9%)
10/12  Wolverine/X-Men #18 - 52,331  ( -4.4%)
10/12  Wolverine/X-Men #19 - 50,008  ( -4.4%)
11/12  Wolverine/X-Men #20 - 48,432  ( -3.2%)
11/12  Wolverine/X-Men #21 - 48,244  ( -0.4%)
12/12  Wolverine/X-Men #22 - 45,658  ( -5.4%)
01/13  Wolverine/X-Men #23 - 43,963  ( -3.7%)
01/13  Wolverine/X-Men #24 - 44,716  ( +1.7%)
                             6 mnth  (-26.7%)
                             1 year  (-24.9%)

Hovering in the mid-40K range. I’m not altogether sure why sales went back up with issue #24; there’s no obvious reason for it.

41. THUNDERBOLTS
01/08  Thunderbolts #118  - 43,645
01/09  Thunderbolts #128  - 39,219
01/10  Thunderbolts #140  - 28,644
01/11  Thunderbolts #152  - 26,515
=====
01/12  Thunderbolts #168  - 20,585  (  -2.7%)
01/12  Thunderbolts #169  - 20,316  (  -1.3%)
02/12  Thunderbolts #170  - 19,505  (  -4.0%)
03/12  Thunderbolts #171  - 19,073  (  -2.2%)
04/12  Thunderbolts #172  - 19,203  (  +0.7%)
04/12  Thunderbolts #173  - 19,017  (  -1.0%)
05/12  Thunderbolts #174  - 18,792  (  -1.2%)
06/12  ---
07/12  ---
08/12  ---
09/12  ---
10/12  ---
11/12  ---
12/12  Thunderbolts v2 #1 - 83,396
12/12  Thunderbolts v2 #2 - 50,897  ( -39.0%)
01/13  Thunderbolts v2 #3 - 44,272  ( -13.0%)
                            6 mnth  (   --- )
                            1 year  (+115.1%)
                            2 year  ( +67.0%)
                            3 year  ( +54.6%)
                            4 year  ( +12.9%)
                            5 year  (  +1.4%)

And back to the books finding their level after the relaunch. So far, at least, this is the best selling version of the book in years.

45. MORBIUS: THE LIVING VAMPIRE
01/13  Morbius v2 #1 - 43,883

One of the more eccentric relaunches from Marvel Now. 44K puts the book in the territory of PUNISHER and HAWKEYE, which is to say that it’s got an opportunity to find a cult audience.

50. FF
01/12  FF #14   - 42,609  (  -5.3%)
02/12  FF #15   - 40,583  (  -4.8%)
03/12  FF #16   - 37,152  (  -8.5%)
04/12  FF #17   - 37,325  (  +0.5%)
05/12  FF #18   - 34,555  (  -7.4%)
06/12  FF #19   - 34,260  (  -0.9%)
07/12  FF #20   - 31,652  (  -7.6%)
08/12  FF #21   - 30,220  (  -4.5%)
09/12  FF #22   - 29,847  (  -1.2%)
10/12  FF #23   - 30,844  (  +3.3%)
11/12  FF v2 #1 - 80,701  (+161.6%)
12/12  FF v2 #2 - 46,096  ( -42.9%)
01/13  FF v2 #3 - 41,108  ( -10.8%)
                  6 mnth  ( +29.9%)
                  1 year  (  -3.5%)

The pattern of percentage drops is pretty familiar by now, but it’s worth noting that this book is already back to the sales it was delivering a year ago. Mind you, the style of the book always made it more of a niche proposition than the straight sister title of the previous volume.

54. AVENGERS ARENA
12/12  Avengers Arena #1 - 64,626
12/12  Avengers Arena #2 - 43,014  (-33.4%)
01/13  Avengers Arena #3 - 38,461  (-10.6%)

Same pattern for the opening issues of this title, really. This is just what Marvel Now books do.

56,62. X-MEN LEGACY
01/08  X-Men v2 #207      - 104,793
01/09  X-Men Legacy #220  -  59,286
01/10  X-Men Legacy #232  -  49,200
01/11  X-Men Legacy #244  -  40,193
=====
01/12  X-Men Legacy #.1   -  37,160  (  -2.1%)
01/12  X-Men Legacy #261  -  37,577  (  +1.1%)
02/12  X-Men Legacy #262  -  36,461  (  -3.0%)
03/12  X-Men Legacy #263  -  35,999  (  -1.3%)
03/12  X-Men Legacy #264  -  35,953  (  -0.1%)
04/12  X-Men Legacy #265  -  35,712  (  -0.7%)
05/12  X-Men Legacy #266  -  43,199  ( +21.0%)
05/12  X-Men Legacy #267  -  46,279  (  +7.1%)
06/12  X-Men Legacy #268  -  49,163  (  +6.2%)
06/12  X-Men Legacy #269  -  46,923  (  -4.6%)
07/12  X-Men Legacy #270  -  44,914  (  -4.3%)
08/12  X-Men Legacy #271  -  37,206  ( -17.2%)
08/12  X-Men Legacy #272  -  37,120  (  -0.2%)
09/12  X-Men Legacy #273  -  36,020  (  -3.0%)
09/12  X-Men Legacy #274  -  35,168  (  -2.4%)
10/12  X-Men Legacy #275  -  38,726  ( +10.1%)
11/12  X-Men Legacy v2 #1 -  87,081  (+124.9%)
11/12  X-Men Legacy v2 #2 -  58,037  ( -33.4%)
12/12  X-Men Legacy v2 #3 -  45,407  ( -21.8%)
01/13  X-Men Legacy v2 #4 -  37,673  ( -17.0%)
01/13  X-Men Legacy v2 #5 -  34,823  (  -7.6%)
                             6 mnth  ( -22.5%)
                             1 year  (  -6.3%)
                             2 year  ( -13.4%)
                             3 year  ( -29.2%)
                             4 year  ( -41.3%)
                             5 year  ( -66.8%)

A rare Marvel Now! title that’s already dropped below its inherited sales – but bear in mind that this really has nothing to do with the previous volume of X-MEN LEGACY besides the name. The actual content is a solo title featuring the hitherto relatively minor character Legion – not the most commercial premise.

57. HAWKEYE
08/12  Hawkeye v4 #1 - 48,346
09/12  Hawkeye v4 #2 - 33,563  (-30.6%)
10/12  Hawkeye v4 #3 - 35,403  ( +5.5%)
11/12  Hawkeye v4 #4 - 34,208  ( -3.4%)
12/12  Hawkeye v4 #5 - 34,385  ( +0.5%)
12/12  Hawkeye v4 #6 - 33,440  ( -2.7%)
01/13  Hawkeye v4 #7 - 37,000  (+10.6%)

This is the issue which was changed to feature Hurricane Sandy stories, presumably accounting for the sales bump.

58. DEADPOOL: KILLUSTRATED
01/13  Killustrated #1 of 4 - 36,771

Even this is comfortably ahead of the sales on the previous ongoing DEADPOOL title. Marvel are doing far fewer miniseries these days, evidently preferring to up the frequency of ongoing titles instead – and one side effect is that the minis that do get published are less likely to get lost in the shuffle.

60. DAREDEVIL
01/08  Daredevil v2 #104 - 42,773
01/09  Daredevil v2 #115 - 40,214
01/10  Daredevil #504    - 37,135
01/11  Reborn #1 of 4    - 34,310
=====
01/12  Daredevil v3 #8   - 43,494  (+12.0%)
02/12  Daredevil v3 #9   - 37,891  (-12.9%)
03/12  Daredevil v3 #10  - 38,137  ( +0.6%)
04/12  Daredevil v3 #.1  - 38,463  ( +0.9%)
04/12  Daredevil v3 #11  - 46,111  (+19.9%)
05/12  Daredevil v3 #12  - 39,231  (-14.9%)
05/12  Daredevil v3 #13  - 39,056  ( -0.4%)
06/12  Daredevil v3 #14  - 43,865  (+12.3%)
07/12  Daredevil v3 #15  - 38,469  (-12.3%)
08/12  Daredevil v3 #16  - 37,804  ( -1.7%)
08/12  Daredevil v3 #17  - 38,149  ( +0.9%)
09/12  Daredevil v3 #18  - 37,185  ( -2.5%)
10/12  Daredevil v3 #19  - 37,228  ( +0.1%)
11/12  Daredevil v3 #20  - 36,515  ( -1.9%)
12/12  Daredevil v3 #21  - 35,848  ( -1.8%)
01/13  Daredevil v3 #22  - 36,102  ( +0.7%)
                           6 mnth  ( -6.2%)
                           1 year  (-17.0%)
                           2 year  ( +5.2%)
                           3 year  ( -2.8%)
                           4 year  (-10.2%)
                           5 year  (-15.6%)

Sales have been very steady over the last few months. Somewhat randomly, issue #21 picks up reorders of 5,112.

61. ULTIMATE COMICS SPIDER-MAN
01/08  Spider-Man #118   - 58,800
01/09  Spider-Man #130   - 49,637
01/10  Spider-Man v2 #6  - 43,622
01/11  Spider-Man #152   - 33,481
=====
01/12  Spider-Man v3 #6  - 49,840  ( +3.2%)
02/12  Spider-Man v3 #7  - 45,266  ( -9.2%)
03/12  Spider-Man v3 #8  - 46,290  ( +2.3%)
04/12  Spider-Man v3 #9  - 43,724  ( -5.5%)
05/12  Spider-Man v3 #10 - 42,356  ( -3.1%)
06/12  Spider-Man v3 #11 - 42,549  ( +0.5%)
07/12  Spider-Man v3 #12 - 42,050  ( -1.2%)
08/12  Spider-Man v3 #13 - 42,642  ( +1.4%)
09/12  Spider-Man v3 #14 - 40,960  ( -3.9%)
09/12  Spider-Man v3 #15 - 40,435  ( -1.3%)
10/12  Spider-Man v3 #16 - 39,679  ( -1.9%)
10/12  Spider-Man v3 #.1 - 38,321  ( -3.4%)
11/12  Spider-Man v3 #17 - 38,481  ( +0.4%)
12/12  Spider-Man v3 #18 - 36,944  ( -4.0%)
01/13  Spider-Man v3 #19 - 36,017  ( -2.5%)
                           6 mnth  (-14.3%)
                           1 year  (-27.7%)
                           2 year  ( +7.6%)
                           3 year  (-17.4%)
                           4 year  (-27.4%)
                           5 year  (-38.7%)

Gentle month-to-month decline. Took as a while to reach one of those, didn’t it?

66. AVENGERS ASSEMBLE
03/12  Avengers Assemble #1  - 100,883
04/12  Avengers Assemble #2  -  53,024  (-47.4%)
05/12  Avengers Assemble #3  -  43,886  (-17.2%)
06/12  Avengers Assemble #4  -  43,022  ( -2.0%)
07/12  Avengers Assemble #5  -  38,951  ( -9.5%)
08/12  Avengers Assemble #6  -  36,131  ( -7.2%)
09/12  Avengers Assemble #7  -  36,259  ( +0.4%)
10/12  Avengers Assemble #8  -  36,453  ( +0.5%)
11/12  Avengers Assemble #9  -  42,088  (+15.5%)
12/12  Avengers Assemble #10 -  34,035  (-19.1%)
01/13  Avengers Assemble #11 -  31,027  ( -8.8%)
                                6 mnth  (-20.3%)

A similar deal here, once you filter out the spike for the Marvel Now creative team coming on.

71. SECRET AVENGERS
01/11  Secret Avengers #9  - 50,748
=====
01/12  Secret Avengers #21 - 38,082  ( -0.3%)
01/12  Secret Avengers #.1 - 35,320  ( -7.3%)
02/12  Secret Avengers #22 - 39,337  (+11.4%)
02/12  Secret Avengers #23 - 37,140  ( -5.6%)
03/12  Secret Avengers #24 - 38,359  ( +3.3%)
04/12  Secret Avengers #25 - 38,466  ( +0.3%)
04/12  Secret Avengers #26 - 54,854  (+42.6%)
05/12  Secret Avengers #27 - 49,851  ( -9.1%)
06/12  Secret Avengers #28 - 51,572  ( +3.5%)
07/12  Secret Avengers #29 - 41,653  (-19.2%)
08/12  Secret Avengers #30 - 38,243  ( -8.2%)
09/12  Secret Avengers #31 - 35,987  ( -5.9%)
10/12  Secret Avengers #32 - 35,346  ( -1.8%)
10/12  Secret Avengers #33 - 34,260  ( -3.1%)
11/12  Secret Avengers #34 - 32,146  ( -6.2%)
12/12  Secret Avengers #35 - 30,755  ( -4.3%)
01/13  Secret Avengers #36 - 29,330  ( -4.6%)
                             6 mnth  (-29.6%)
                             1 year  (-23.0%)
                             2 year  (-42.2%)

This volume was meant to end in January, but issue #37 ended up slipping. It relaunched in February.

73. AVENGING SPIDER-MAN
01/12  Avenging Spider-Man #3  - 52,371  (-13.7%)
02/12  Avenging Spider-Man #4  - 45,622  (-12.9%)
03/12  Avenging Spider-Man #5  - 40,877  (-10.4%)
04/12  Avenging Spider-Man #6  - 47,430  (+16.0%)
05/12  Avenging Spider-Man #7  - 38,012  (-19.9%)
06/12  Avenging Spider-Man #8  - 39,861  ( +4.9%)
07/12  Avenging Spider-Man #9  - 37,134  ( -6.8%)
08/12  Avenging Spider-Man #10 - 34,537  ( -7.0%)
08/12  Avenging Spider-Man #11 - 33,808  ( -2.1%)
09/12  Avenging Spider-Man #12 - 35,462  ( +4.9%)
10/12  Avenging Spider-Man #13 - 32,908  ( -7.2%)
11/12  Avenging Spider-Man #14 - 30,102  ( -8.5%)
12/12  Avenging Spider-Man #15 - 28,240  ( -6.2%)
12/12  Avenging Spider-Man #.1 - 41,504  (+47.0%)
01/13  Avenging Spider-Man #16 - 29,032  (-30.1%)
                                 6 mnth  (-21.8%)
                                 1 year  (-44.6%)

Surprisingly little spillover from the success of SUPERIOR SPIDER-MAN, perhaps indicating that the interest is in the storyline more than the character, and readers don’t expect this book to advance the storyline. Issue #15.1 – which WAS a significant part of the storyline – picks up a whopping 10,602 reorders.

74. X-MEN
01/11  X-Men v3 #7  - 64,615
=====
01/12  X-Men v3 #23 - 38,719  ( -1.0%)
02/12  X-Men v3 #24 - 36,906  ( -4.7%)
02/12  X-Men v3 #25 - 36,488  ( -1.1%)
03/12  X-Men v3 #26 - 35,833  ( -1.8%)
04/12  X-Men v3 #27 - 36,843  ( +2.8%)
05/12  X-Men v3 #28 - 35,838  ( -2.7%)
05/12  X-Men v3 #29 - 35,483  ( -1.0%)
06/12  X-Men v3 #30 - 37,690  ( +6.2%)
06/12  X-Men v3 #31 - 35,789  ( -5.0%)
07/12  X-Men v3 #32 - 35,091  ( -2.0%)
08/12  X-Men v3 #33 - 33,695  ( -4.0%)
08/12  X-Men v3 #34 - 33,354  ( -1.0%)
09/12  X-Men v3 #35 - 32,049  ( -3.9%)
09/12  X-Men v3 #36 - 31,996  ( -0.2%)
10/12  X-Men v3 #37 - 31,611  ( -1.2%)
11/12  X-Men v3 #38 - 30,289  ( -4.2%)
12/12  X-Men v3 #39 - 29,326  ( -3.2%)
01/13  X-Men v3 #40 - 28,515  ( -2.8%)
                      6 mnth  (-18.7%)
                      1 year  (-26.4%)
                      2 year  (-55.9%)

Relaunches after issue #41.

75. DAREDEVIL: END OF DAYS
10/12  End of Days #1 of 8 - 40,911
11/12  End of Days #2 of 8 - 32,072  (-21.6%)
12/12  End of Days #3 of 8 - 29,273  ( -8.7%)
01/13  End of Days #4 of 8 - 27,770  ( -5.1%)

Still doing very well for an out-of-continuity miniseries.

79. SCARLET SPIDER
01/12  Scarlet Spider #1  - 53,410
02/12  Scarlet Spider #2  - 33,794  (-36.7%)
03/12  Scarlet Spider #3  - 32,616  ( -3.5%)
04/12  Scarlet Spider #4  - 33,097  ( +1.5%)
05/12  Scarlet Spider #5  - 30,932  ( -6.5%)
06/12  Scarlet Spider #6  - 30,722  ( -0.7%)
07/12  Scarlet Spider #7  - 29,140  ( -5.1%)
08/12  Scarlet Spider #8  - 27,690  ( -5.0%)
09/12  Scarlet Spider #9  - 27,140  ( -2.0%)
10/12  Scarlet Spider #10 - 31,786  (+17.1%)
11/12  Scarlet Spider #11 - 32,287  ( +1.6%)
12/12  Scarlet Spider #12 - 26,652  (-17.5%)
12/12  Scarlet Spider #.1 - 25,771  ( -3.3%)
01/13  Scarlet Spider #13 - 25,919  ( +0.6%)
                            6 mnth  (-11.1%)
                            1 year  (-51.5%)

The slight increase is probably more a reflection of the fact that the previous issue was a Point One, and those usually do slightly below par.

80. ULTIMATES
01/08  Ultimates v3 #2  - 105,070
01/09  ---
01/10  ---
01/11  ---
=====
01/12  Ultimates v5 #6  -  34,865  ( -4.2%)
02/12  Ultimates v5 #7  -  33,863  ( -2.9%)
03/12  Ultimates v5 #8  -  32,222  ( -4.8%)
04/12  Ultimates v5 #9  -  31,336  ( -2.7%)
05/12  Ultimates v5 #10 -  31,257  ( -0.3%)
05/12  Ultimates v5 #11 -  31,344  ( +0.3%)
06/12  Ultimates v5 #12 -  30,845  ( -1.6%)
07/12  Ultimates v5 #13 -  32,380  ( +5.0%)
08/12  Ultimates v5 #14 -  30,311  ( -6.4%)
09/12  Ultimates v5 #15 -  30,382  ( +0.2%)
09/12  Ultimates v5 #16 -  30,533  ( +0.5%)
10/12  Ultimates v5 #17 -  29,382  ( -3.8%)
11/12  Ultimates v5 #18 -  29,072  ( -1.1%)
12/12  Ultimates v5 #.1 -  27,659  ( -4.9%)
12/12  Ultimates v5 #19 -  26,971  ( -2.5%)
01/13  Ultimates v5 #20 -  25,613  ( -5.0%)
                           6 mnth  (-20.9%)
                           1 year  (-26.5%)
                           2 year  (  --- )
                           3 year  (  --- )
                           4 year  (  --- )
                           5 year  (-75/6%)

More slow decline.

81. ASTONISHING X-MEN
01/08  Astonishing X-Men #24 - 107,631
01/09  Astonishing X-Men #28 -  72,610
01/10  ---
01/11  ---
=====
01/12  Astonishing X-Men #46 -  31,134  ( -0.8%)
02/12  Astonishing X-Men #47 -  30,490  ( -2.1%)
03/12  Astonishing X-Men #48 -  34,182  (+12.1%)
04/12  Astonishing X-Men #49 -  31,291  ( -8.5%)
05/12  Astonishing X-Men #50 -  61,866  (+97.7%)
06/12  Astonishing X-Men #51 -  82,654  (+33.6%)
07/12  Astonishing X-Men #52 -  35,766  (-56.7%)
08/12  Astonishing X-Men #53 -  32,268  ( -9.8%)
09/12  Astonishing X-Men #54 -  30,225  ( -6.3%)
10/12  Astonishing X-Men #55 -  29,060  ( -3.9%)
11/12  Astonishing X-Men #56 -  27,583  ( -5.1%)
12/12  Astonishing X-Men #57 -  26,263  ( -4.8%)
01/13  Astonishing X-Men #58 -  25,159  ( -4.2%)
                                6 mnth  (-29.7%)
                                1 year  (-19.2%)
                                2 year  (  --- )
                                3 year  (  --- )
                                4 year  (-65.4%)
                                5 year  (-76.6%)

A similar story here, though the X-Termination crossover is around the corner. (Quite how much ASTONISHING can expect to gain from a crossover with two cancelled titles is another matter.)

82,83. VENOM
01/12  Venom v2 #12 - 28,728  ( +0.2%)
02/12  Venom v2 #13 - 33,174  (+15.5%)
02/12  Venom v2 #.1 - 27,520  (-17.0%)
02/12  Venom v2 #.2 - 27,155  ( -1.3%)
02/12  Venom v2 #.3 - 26,969  ( -0.7%)
02/12  Venom v2 #.4 - 27,135  ( +0.6%)
03/12  Venom v2 #14 - 28,926  ( +6.6%)
04/12  Venom v2 #15 - 28,858  ( -0.2%)
04/12  Venom v2 #16 - 28,440  ( -1.4%)
05/12  Venom v2 #17 - 30,157  ( +6.0%)
05/12  Venom v2 #18 - 28,309  ( -6.1%)
06/12  Venom v2 #19 - 28,702  ( +1.4%)
07/12  Venom v2 #20 - 26,941  ( -6.1%)
07/12  Venom v2 #21 - 26,534  ( -1.5%)
08/12  Venom v2 #22 - 26,734  ( +0.8%)
08/12  Venom v2 #23 - 26,854  ( +0.4%)
09/12  Venom v2 #24 - 30,080  (+12.0%)
09/12  Venom v2 #25 - 25,242  (-16.1%)
10/12  Venom v2 #26 - 31,711  (+25.6%)
11/12  Venom v2 #27 - 31,118  ( -1.9%)
11/12  Venom v2 #.1 - 25,727  (-17.3%)
12/12  Venom v2 #28 - 25,573  ( -0.6%)
01/13  Venom v2 #29 - 24,644  ( -3.6%)
01/13  Venom v2 #30 - 24,551  ( -0.4%)
                      6 mnth  ( -7.5%)
                      1 year  (-14.5%)

Settling back into its very slow decline.

84. WOLVERINE MAX
10/12  Wolverine: Max #1 - 37,509
11/12  Wolverine: Max #2 - 27,217  (-27.4%)
12/12  ---
01/13  Wolverine: Max #3 - 24,058  (-11.6%)

Really not bad numbers for an out-of-continuity Max title that hasn’t received a huge amount of promotion.

85,90. PUNISHER WAR ZONE
01/08  Journal v2 #15      - 35,815
01/09  Punisher v7 #1      - 43,876
01/10  Punisher v7 #13     - 23,734
01/11  In the Blood #3     - 15,298
=====
01/12  Punisher v8 #7      - 22,908  ( -4.4%)
02/12  Punisher v8 #8      - 22,488  ( -1.8%)
03/12  Punisher v8 #9      - 22,318  ( -0.8%)
04/12  Punisher v8 #10     - 32,412  (+45.2%)
05/12  Punisher v8 #11     - 23,303  (-28.1%)
06/12  Punisher v8 #12     - 23,329  ( +0.1%)
07/12  Punisher v8 #13     - 23,075  ( -1.1%)
08/12  Punisher v8 #14     - 22,046  ( -4.5%)
09/12  Punisher v8 #15     - 21,829  ( -1.0%)
09/12  Punisher v8 #16     - 21,565  ( -1.2%)
10/12  War Zone v3 #1 of 5 - 27,010  (+25.2%)
11/12  ---
12/12  War Zone v3 #2 of 5 - 25,471  ( -5.7%)
01/13  War Zone v3 #3 of 5 - 23,863  ( -6.3%)
01/13  War Zone v3 #4 of 5 - 22,993  ( -3.6%)
                             6 mnth  ( -0.4%)
                             1 year  ( +0.4%)
                             2 year  (+50.3%)
                             3 year  ( -3.1%)
                             4 year  (-47.6%)
                             5 year  (-35.8%)

The book effectively wraps up when the mini finishes in February. As of yet, no new PUNISHER book has been announced, though the character has been moved over to THUNDERBOLTS.

87. ULTIMATE COMICS X-MEN
01/08  X-Men #90    - 49,634
01/09  ---
01/10  ---
01/11  ---
=====
01/12  X-Men v2 #6  - 33,975  ( -3.4%)
02/12  X-Men v2 #7  - 32,353  ( -4.8%)
02/12  X-Men v2 #8  - 30,822  ( -4.7%)
03/12  X-Men v2 #9  - 30,080  ( -2.4%)
04/12  X-Men v2 #10 - 29,743  ( -1.1%)
05/12  X-Men v2 #11 - 28,711  ( -3.5%)
05/12  X-Men v2 #12 - 28,839  ( +0.4%)
06/12  X-Men v2 #13 - 29,159  ( +1.1%)
07/12  X-Men v2 #14 - 29,879  ( +2.5%)
08/12  X-Men v2 #15 - 27,847  ( -6.8%)
09/12  X-Men v2 #16 - 27,066  ( -2.8%)
10/12  X-Men v2 #17 - 26,503  ( -2.1%)
10/12  X-Men v2 #18 - 26,322  ( -0.7%)
11/12  X-Men v2 #.1 - 25,425  ( -3.4%)
11/12  X-Men v2 #19 - 25,419  ( -0.0%)
12/12  X-Men v2 #20 - 24,789  ( -2.5%)
01/13  X-Men v2 #21 - 23,479  ( -5.3%)
                      6 mnth  (-21.4%)
                      1 year  (-30.9%)
                      2 year  (  --- )
                      3 year  (  --- )
                      4 year  (  --- )
                      5 year  (-52.7%)

An unusually steep drop this month. The general trend on this book is fairly standard, but it might be starting to gather pace.

91. WINTER SOLDIER
02/12  Winter Soldier #1  - 50,932
02/12  Winter Soldier #2  - 41,164  (-19.2%)
03/12  Winter Soldier #3  - 34,923  (-15.2%)
04/12  Winter Soldier #4  - 33,519  ( -4.0%)
05/12  Winter Soldier #5  - 30,646  ( -8.6%)
06/12  Winter Soldier #6  - 30,386  ( -0.8%)
06/12  Winter Soldier #7  - 28,984  ( -4.6%)
07/12  Winter Soldier #8  - 27,317  ( -5.8%)
08/12  Winter Soldier #9  - 26,255  ( -3.9%)
09/12  Winter Soldier #10 - 25,811  ( -1.7%)
09/12  Winter Soldier #11 - 25,310  ( -1.9%)
10/12  Winter Soldier #12 - 24,807  ( -2.0%)
11/12  ---
12/12  Winter Soldier #13 - 23,951  ( -3.5%)
01/13  Winter Soldier #14 - 22,873  ( -4.5%)
                            6 mnth  (-16.3%)

The drops on this title have been increasing for four months now, which can’t be a good sign.

93. X-FACTOR
01/08  X-Factor v3 #27 - 81,350
01/09  X-Factor v3 #39 - 32,796
01/10  X-Factor #201   - 29,732
01/11  X-Factor #213   - 25,403
=====
01/12  X-Factor #230   - 25,707  ( +8.6%)
02/12  X-Factor #231   - 24,362  ( -5.2%)
02/12  X-Factor #232   - 24,173  ( -0.8%)
03/12  X-Factor #233   - 23,840  ( -1.4%)
04/12  X-Factor #234   - 23,821  ( -0.1%)
05/12  X-Factor #235   - 24,051  ( +1.0%)
05/12  X-Factor #236   - 24,031  ( -0.1%)
06/12  X-Factor #237   - 24,854  ( +3.4%)
06/12  X-Factor #238   - 23,607  ( -5.0%)
07/12  X-Factor #239   - 23,506  ( -0.4%)
07/12  X-Factor #240   - 23,223  ( -1.2%)
08/12  X-Factor #241   - 22,943  ( -1.2%)
08/12  X-Factor #242   - 22,782  ( -0.7%)
09/12  X-Factor #243   - 22,118  ( -2.9%)
09/12  X-Factor #244   - 22,193  ( +0.3%)
10/12  X-Factor #245   - 22,364  ( +0.8%)
11/12  X-Factor #246   - 22,165  ( -0.9%)
11/12  X-Factor #247   - 22,005  ( -0.7%)
12/12  X-Factor #248   - 21,664  ( -1.5%)
12/12  X-Factor #249   - 21,211  ( -2.1%)
01/13  X-Factor #250   - 22,521  ( +6.2%)
                         6 mnth  ( -3.0%)
                         1 year  (-12.4%)
                         2 year  (-11.3%)
                         3 year  (-24.3%)
                         4 year  (-31.3%)
                         5 year  (-72.3%)

Not much of a boost for the anniversary issue, but X-FACTOR has a very loyal audience nonetheless. It may not have big sales, but at least it has reliable ones.

94. GAMBIT
08/12  Gambit v5 #1 - 40,418 
08/12  Gambit v5 #2 - 32,336  (-20.0%)
09/12  Gambit v5 #3 - 28,530  (-11.8%)
10/12  Gambit v5 #4 - 27,828  ( -2.5%)
11/12  Gambit v5 #5 - 26,723  ( -4.0%)
11/12  Gambit v5 #6 - 25,522  ( -4.5%)
12/12  Gambit v5 #7 - 23,978  ( -6.0%)
01/13  Gambit v5 #8 - 22,396  ( -6.6%)

Consistent drops like that can’t be good at this sales level.

95. JOURNEY INTO MYSTERY
01/12  J/into Mystery #633 - 23,869  ( -1.2%)
02/12  J/into Mystery #634 - 22,323  ( -6.5%)
03/12  J/into Mystery #635 - 21,617  ( -3.2%)
04/12  J/into Mystery #636 - 21,148  ( -2.2%)
05/12  J/into Mystery #637 - 24,378  (+15.3%)
05/12  J/into Mystery #638 - 23,766  ( -2.5%)
06/12  J/into Mystery #639 - 21,914  ( -7.8%)
06/12  J/into Mystery #640 - 20,714  ( -5.5%)
07/12  J/into Mystery #641 - 19,850  ( -4.2%)
08/12  J/into Mystery #642 - 22,336  (+12.5%)
09/12  J/into Mystery #643 - 21,109  ( -5.5%)
09/12  J/into Mystery #644 - 20,588  ( -2.5%)
10/12  J/into Mystery #645 - 20,705  ( +0.6%)
11/12  J/into Mystery #646 - 22,898  (+10.6%)
12/12  J/into Mystery #647 - 22,514  ( -1.7%)
01/13  J/into Mystery #648 - 20,887  ( -7.2%)
                             6 mnth  ( -5.2%)
                             1 year  (-12.5%)

Third month for the Sif series, and it’s not looking too healthy – but thus far, Marvel are sticking with it. The decision not to launch this book with a fresh #1 must have cost it dear.

98. FIRST X-MEN
08/12  First X-Men #1 of 5 - 55,152
09/12  First X-Men #2 of 5 - 31,415  (-43.0%)
10/12  First X-Men #3 of 5 - 25,434  (-19.0%)
11/12  First X-Men #4 of 5 - 21,930  (-13.8%)
12/12  ---
01/13  First X-Men #5 of 5 - 20,111  ( -8.3%)

Not spectacular numbers, but probably better than a continuity-implant story would have done in the days when Marvel had more minis on the shelves.

101. SECRET SERVICE [Icon]
04/12  Secret Service #1 of 7 - 39,505
05/12  Secret Service #2 of 7 - 28,265  (-28.5%)
06/12  ---
07/12  Secret Service #3 of 7 - 22,993  (-18.7%)
08/12  ---
09/12  ---
10/12  Secret Service #4 of 7 - 21,751  ( -5.4%)
11/12  ---
12/12  ---
01/13  Secret Service #5 of 7 - 19,365  (-11.0%)

This one hasn’t held up as well as some of Mark Millar’s titles, and the inordinate delays can’t have helped. Still, the numbers are respectable by the standards of creator-owned titles.

102,104. DARK AVENGERS
06/12  Dark Avengers #175 - 39,532  (+110.4%)
06/12  Dark Avengers #176 - 34,614  ( -12.4%)
07/12  Dark Avengers #177 - 30,643  ( -11.5%)
07/12  Dark Avengers #178 - 28,572  (  -6.8%)
08/12  Dark Avengers #179 - 25,835  (  -9.6%)
09/12  Dark Avengers #180 - 23,761  (  -8.0%)
09/12  Dark Avengers #181 - 23,044  (  -3.0%)
10/12  Dark Avengers #182 - 21,936  (  -4.8%)
11/12  Dark Avengers #183 - 21,109  (  -3.8%)
12/12  Dark Avengers #184 - 20,584  (  -2.5%)
01/13  Dark Avengers #185 - 19,229  (  -6.6%)
01/13  Dark Avengers #186 - 18,937  (  -1.5%)
                            6 mnth  ( -38.2%)

Cancelled with issue #190.

103. CAPTAIN MARVEL
01/08  Ms Marvel v2 #23     - 24,260
01/09  Ms Marvel v2 #35     - 26,824
01/10  Ms Marvel v2 #49     - 21,177
=====
07/12  Captain Marvel v6 #1 - 41,582
08/12  Captain Marvel v6 #2 - 28,434  (-31.6%)
08/12  Captain Marvel v6 #3 - 27,649  ( -2.8%)
09/12  Captain Marvel v6 #4 - 24,799  (-10.3%)
10/12  Captain Marvel v6 #5 - 28,619  (+15.4%)
10/12  Captain Marvel v6 #6 - 23,103  (-19.3%)
11/12  Captain Marvel v6 #7 - 21,744  ( -5.9%)
12/12  Captain Marvel v6 #8 - 19,970  ( -8.2%)
01/13  Captain Marvel v6 #9 - 19,151  ( -4.1%)
                              6 mnth  (-53.9%)
                              1 year  (  --- )
                              2 year  (  --- )
                              3 year  ( -9.6%)
                              4 year  (-28.6%)
                              5 year  (-21.1%)

DARK AVENGERS shipped two issues in January, and only one of them outsold CAPTAIN MARVEL – so technically, this title is not yet in the uncomfortable position of being outsold by a cancelled book. Mind you, it’s close. But Marvel are sticking with the book at the moment; they’ve announced a crossover with AVENGERS ASSEMBLE for May to July.

105. RED SHE-HULK
01/08  Hulk #1          - 134,002
01/09  ---
01/10  Hulk #19         -  54,266
01/11  ---
=====
01/12  Hulk #47         -  22,720  ( -1.1%)
02/12  Hulk #48         -  21,751  ( -4.3%)
03/12  Hulk #49         -  21,510  ( -1.1%)
04/12  Hulk #50         -  34,437  (+60.1%)
05/12  Hulk #51         -  22,085  (-35.9%)
05/12  Hulk #52         -  21,882  ( -0.9%)
06/12  Hulk #53         -  22,386  ( +2.3%)
06/12  Hulk #54         -  22,070  ( -1.4%)
07/12  Hulk #55         -  22,141  ( +0.3%)
08/12  Hulk #56         -  21,558  ( -2.6%)
08/12  Hulk #57         -  21,553  ( -0.0%)
09/12  ---
10/12  Red She-Hulk #58 -  31,136  (+44.5%)
11/12  Red She-Hulk #59 -  20,668  (-33.6%)
12/12  Red She-Hulk #60 -  20,798  ( +0.6%)
01/13  Red She-Hulk #61 -  18,815  ( -9.5%)
                           6 mnth  (-15.0%)
                           1 year  (-17.2%)
                           2 year  (  --- )
                           3 year  (-65.3%)
                           4 year  (  --- )
                           5 year  (-86.0%)

This doesn’t look at all healthy.

106. MARVEL UNIVERSE VS AVENGERS
10/12  MU v Avengers #1 of 4 - 27,650
11/12  MU v Avengers #2 of 4 - 21,949  (-20.6%)
12/12  MU v Avengers #3 of 4 - 19,355  (-11.8%)
01/13  MU v Avengers #4 of 4 - 18,681  ( -3.5%)

Not bad for an out-of-continuity book.

107. AGE OF APOCALYPSE
03/12  Age of Apocalypse #1  - 56,426
04/12  Age of Apocalypse #2  - 39,263  (-30.4%)
05/12  Age of Apocalypse #3  - 32,085  (-18.3%)
06/12  Age of Apocalypse #4  - 30,469  ( -5.0%)
07/12  Age of Apocalypse #5  - 27,223  (-10.7%)
08/12  Age of Apocalypse #6  - 25,393  ( -6.7%)
09/12  Age of Apocalypse #7  - 23,618  ( -7.0%)
10/12  Age of Apocalypse #8  - 22,293  ( -5.6%)
11/12  Age of Apocalypse #9  - 20,630  ( -7.5%)
12/12  Age of Apocalypse #10 - 19,337  ( -6.3%)
01/13  Age of Apocalypse #11 - 18,555  ( -4.0%)
                               6 mnth  (-31.8%)

Axed with issue #14.

110,118,124,127,131. PUNISHER: NIGHTMARE
01/13  Nightmare #1 of 5 - 17,932
01/13  Nightmare #2 of 5 - 16,649  (-7.2%)
01/13  Nightmare #3 of 5 - 16,295  (-2.1%)
01/13  Nightmare #4 of 5 - 15,930  (-2.9%)
01/13  Nightmare #5 of 5 - 15,381  (-3.4%)

A weekly miniseries, not doing too badly considering that the parent title is only a little way above 20K.

116. ULTIMATE COMICS IRON MAN
10/12  Iron Man v3 #1 of 4 - 27,744
11/12  Iron Man v3 #2 of 4 - 20,969  (-24.4%)
12/12  Iron Man v3 #3 of 4 - 18,992  ( -9.4%)
01/13  Iron Man v3 #4 of 4 - 16,967  (-10.7%)

This really hasn’t held up at all well. The Ultimate imprint may not be strong enough to sustain minis at this point.

129. X-TREME X-MEN
07/12  X-Treme X-Men v2 #1 - 36,802
08/12  X-Treme X-Men v2 #2 - 25,689  (-30.2%)
09/12  X-Treme X-Men v2 #3 - 24,490  ( -4.7%)
09/12  X-Treme X-Men v2 #4 - 22,584  ( -7.8%)
10/12  X-Treme X-Men v2 #5 - 19,841  (-12.1%)
11/12  X-Treme X-Men v2 #6 - 17,947  ( -9.5%)
11/12  X-Treme X-Men v2 #7 - 17,602  ( -1.9%)
12/12  X-Treme X-Men #7.1  - 16,682  ( -5.2%)
12/12  X-Treme X-Men v2 #8 - 16,536  ( -0.9%)
01/13  X-Treme X-Men v2 #9 - 15,529  ( -6.1%)
                             6 mnth  (-57.8%)

Axed with issue #13.

140. FURY MAX
05/12  Fury Max #1 - 20,620
05/12  Fury Max #2 - 19,021  ( -7.8%)
06/12  Fury Max #3 - 17,152  ( -9.8%)
07/12  Fury Max #4 - 16,329  ( -4.8%)
08/12  Fury Max #5 - 15,646  ( -4.2%)
09/12  Fury Max #6 - 14,646  ( -6.4%)
10/12  ---
11/12  ---
12/12  Fury Max #7 - 14,345  ( -2.1%)
01/13  Fury Max #8 - 13,703  ( -4.5%)
                     6 mnth  (-16.1%)

Axed with issue #13.

149. DARK TOWER: SHEEMIE'S TALE
01/08  ---
01/09  Treachery #5       - 50,683
01/10  ---
01/11  Little Sisters #2  - 18,589
=====
01/12  Way Station #2     - 14,827  ( -3.5%)
02/12  #3 of 5            - 14,302  ( -3.5%)
03/12  #4 of 5            - 13,987  ( -2.2%)
04/12  #5 of 5            - 13,823  ( -1.2%)
05/12  ---
06/12  Man in Black #1    - 14,672  ( +6.1%)
07/12  #2 of 5            - 13,831  ( -5.7%)
08/12  #3 of 5            - 13,677  ( -1.1%)
09/12  #4 of 5            - 13,240  ( -3.2%)
10/12  #5 of 5            - 13,310  ( +0.5%)
11/12  ---
12/12  ---
01/13  Sheemie's #1 of 2  - 12,985  ( -2.4%)
                            6 mnth  ( -6.1%)
                            1 year  (-12.4%)
                            2 year  (-30.1%)
                            3 year  (  --- )
                            4 year  (-74.4%)
                            5 year  (  --- )

With the adaptation finished, the book moves on to new stories set in the Dark Tower universe. This one was originally announced to come out back in November 2010, but got bumped from the schedule for some reason.

190. ALPHA
01/13  Alpha #0.1 - 8,534

A reprint of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #692.

And from here, we’re firmly into the books that aren’t really aimed at the direct market.

196. MARVEL'S IRON MAN 3 PRELUDE
01/13  Prelude #1 of 2 - 7,951

214. ROAD TO OZ
01/09  #2 of 8 - 17,608
01/10  #3 of 8 - 14,216
01/11  #3 of 8 -  9,386
=====
01/12  ---
02/12  #5 of 8 -  7,503  ( -2.5%)
03/12  ---
04/12  ---
05/12  #6 of 8 -  7,475  ( -0.4%)
05/12  #7 of 8 -  7,391  ( -1.1%)
06/12  #8 of 8 -  7,258  ( -1.8%)
07/12  ---
08/12  ---
09/12  #1 of 8 - 12,620  (+73.9%)
10/12  #2 of 6 -  7,930  (-37.2%)
11/12  #3 of 6 -  7,619  ( -3.9%)
12/12  ---
01/13  #4 of 6 -  7,314  ( -4.0%)
                 6 mnth  (  --- )
                 1 year  (  --- )
                 2 year  (-22.1%)
                 3 year  (-48.6%)
                 4 year  (-58.5%)

246. CASTLE: A CALM BEFORE THE STORM
12/12  Castle #1 of 5 - 7,174
01/13  Castle #2 of 5 - 5,911  (-17.6%)

270. MARVEL UNIVERSE ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN
04/12  MUU Spider-Man #1  - 10,886
05/12  MUU Spider-Man #2  -  7,581  (-30.4%)
06/12  MUU Spider-Man #3  -  6,756  (-10.9%)
07/12  MUU Spider-Man #4  -  6,447  ( -4.6%)
08/12  MUU Spider-Man #5  -  6,310  ( -2.1%)
09/12  MUU Spider-Man #6  -  5,873  ( -6.9%)
10/12  MUU Spider-Man #7  -  5,768  ( -1.8%)
11/12  MUU Spider-Man #8  -  5,588  ( -3.1%)
12/12  MUU Spider-Man #9  -  5,235  ( -6.3%)
01/13  MUU Spider-Man #10 -  5,077  ( -3.0%)
                            6 mnth  (-21.3%)

271. THOR ADAPTATION
01/13  Thor #1 of 2 - 5,068

276. MARVEL UNIVERSE AVENGERS
04/12  MU Avengers #1  - 12,874
05/12  MU Avengers #2  -  6,733  (-47.7%)
06/12  MU Avengers #3  -  6,345  ( -5.8%)
07/12  MU Avengers #4  -  6,421  ( +1.2%)
08/12  MU Avengers #5  -  6,134  ( -4.5%)
09/12  MU Avengers #6  -  5,906  ( -3.7%)
10/12  MU Avengers #7  -  5,630  ( -4.7%)
11/12  MU Avengers #8  -  5,389  ( -4.3%)
12/12  MU Avengers #9  -  5,207  ( -3.4%)
01/13  MU Avengers #10 -  4,951  ( -4.9%)
                         6 mnth  (-22.9%)

6 month comparisons
===================

+ 95.7% - Deadpool
+ 90.8% - Superior Spider-Man
+ 85.9% - Uncanny X-Force
+ 64.2% - Captain America
+ 63.5% - Thor
+ 61.7% - Hulk
+ 58.2% - Iron Man
+ 33.8% - Fantastic Four
+ 31.5% - Avengers
+ 29.9% - FF
+ 26.6% - New Avengers
-  0.4% - Punisher
-  3.0% - X-Factor
-  5.2% - Journey into Mystery
-  6.1% - Dark Tower
-  6.2% - Daredevil
-  7.5% - Venom
- 11.1% - Scarlet Spider
- 14.3% - Ultimate Comics Spider-Man
- 15.0% - Red She-Hulk
- 16.1% - Fury Max
- 16.3% - Winter Soldier
- 18.7% - X-Men
- 20.3% - Avengers Assemble
- 20.9% - Ultimates
- 21.3% - Marvel Universe Ultimate Spider-Man
- 21.4% - Ultimate Comics X-Men
- 21.8% - Avenging Spider-Man
- 22.5% - X-Men Legacy
- 22.9% - Marvel Universe Avengers
- 26.7% - Wolverine and the X-Men
- 29.3% - Secret Avengers
- 29.7% - Astonishing X-Men
- 31.8% - Age of Apocalypse
- 38.2% - Dark Avengers
- 44.4% - A + X
- 53.9% - Captain Marvel
- 57.8% - X-Treme X-Men

1 year comparisons
==================

+130.2% - Deadpool
+115.1% - Thunderbolts
+ 96.8% - Superior Spider-Man
+ 71.0% - Uncanny X-Force
+ 51.6% - Avengers
+ 50.1% - New Avengers
+ 44.8% - Iron Man
+ 34.3% - Thor
+ 29.5% - Hulk
+ 27.4% - Captain America
+ 12.0% - Fantastic Four
+  0.4% - Punisher
-  3.5% - FF
-  6.3% - X-Men Legacy
- 12.4% - X-Factor
- 12.4% - Dark Tower
- 12.5% - Journey into Mystery
- 14.5% - Venom
- 17.0% - Daredevil
- 17.2% - Red She-Hulk / Hulk
- 19.2% - Astonishing X-Men
- 23.0% - Secret Avengers
- 24.9% - Wolverine and the X-Men
- 26.4% - X-Men
- 26.5% - Ultimates
- 27.7% - Ultimate Comics Spider-Man
- 30.9% - Ultimate Comics X-Men
- 44.6% - Avenging Spider-Man
- 51.5% - Scarlet Spider

2 year comparisons
==================

+ 98.3% - Superior Spider-Man
+ 95.6% - Deadpool
+ 91.8% - Hulk
+ 67.7% - Uncanny X-Force
+ 67.0% - Thunderbolts
+ 50.3% - Punisher
+ 42.1% - Captain America
+ 29.9% - New Avengers
+ 28.1% - Avengers
+ 17.7% - Thor
+  7.6% - Ultimate Comics Spider-Man
+  5.2% - Daredevil
-  6.1% - Iron Man
- 11.3% - X-Factor
- 13.4% - X-Men Legacy
- 22.1% - Oz
- 30.1% - Dark Tower
- 42.2% - Secret Avengers
- 55.9% - X-Men
- 64.9% - Fantastic Four

3 year comparisons
==================

+ 98.0% - Superior Spider-Man
+ 69.5% - Uncanny X-Force
+ 54.6% - Thunderbolts
+ 32.5% - Hulk
+ 22.5% - Fantastic Four
+  3.6% - Iron Man
+  1.6% - New Avengers
-  2.8% - Daredevil
-  3.1% - Punisher
-  8.8% - Thor
-  9.6% - Captain Marvel / Ms Marvel
- 17.4% - Ultimate Comics Spider-Man
- 24.3% - X-Factor
- 29.2% - X-Men Legacy
- 29.5% - Captain America
- 48.6% - Oz
- 65.3% - Red She-Hulk / Hulk

4 year comparisons
==================

+ 87.8% - Superior Spider-Man
+ 66.3% - Uncanny X-Force
+ 22.6% - Deadpool
+ 12.9% - Thunderbolts
+  3.4% - Iron Man
-  4.2% - Fantastic Four
- 10.2% - Daredevil
- 11.8% - New Avengers
- 18.2% - Captain America
- 27.4% - Ultimate Comics Spider-Man
- 28.6% - Captain Marvel / Ms Marvel
- 31.3% - X-Factor
- 41.3% - X-Men Legacy
- 47.6% - Punisher
- 55.6% - Hulk
- 58.5% - Oz
- 65.4% - Astonishing X-Men
- 74.4% - Dark Tower

5 year comparisons
==================

+ 63.0% - Young Avengers
+ 33.7% - Iron Man
+ 26.5% - Hulk
+ 14.9% - Superior Spider-Man
+  4.6% - Fantastic Four
+  1.4% - Thunderbolts
- 15.6% - Daredevil
- 21.1% - Captain Marvel / Ms Marvel
- 35.8% - Punisher
- 38.7% - Ultimate Comics Spider-Man
- 52.7% - Ultimate Comics X-Men
- 53.1% - Captain America
- 66.8% - X-Men Legacy
- 72.3% - X-Factor
- 75.6% - Ultimates
- 76.6% - Astonishing X-Men
- 86.0% - Red She-Hulk / Hulk

Tweet

Comixology’s reeling servers have forced the end of the Marvel 1st promotions announced at SXSW where Marvel was making 700 of its first and landmark issues available for free from Comixology.

Comixology’s head David Steinberger offered this statement on the Comixology blog:

To our customers:

It’s been a whirlwind weekend, and we’re fresh from SXSW where Marvel Comics launched their Marvel #1 promotion featuring over 700 free comics distributed via our platform.

We expected a high degree of excitement for the Marvel initiative – and had believed ourselves prepared – but unfortunately we became overwhelmed by the immense response. We’re still struggling to keep our systems up.

The result is that you aren’t getting your comics when and where you want.

We don’t like letting you down. Our teams are working around the clock to resolve these issues so that you can have the experience you’ve come to expect.

To that end, we’re pausing the Marvel Comics #1 promotion for the time being. For those of you that want to take advantage of the offer – you will get your comics! Until we are able to reinstate this program in our systems, please click here and fill out this simple form, so you can be informed as soon as there is an update.

We’ll be communicating with you as often as we can and deeply appreciate the outpouring of support we’ve seen from our customers while we right the ship.

David Steinberger
CEO and co-founder
comiXology

The move seemed inevitable givent he crush. The support twitter feed is trying its best to keep up, but a lot of people want Marvel comics, it seems. Marvel’s Agent M was playing Kid to Comixology’s Captain Mifune in the attempts to defend Zion Gate Comixology’s servers.

Meanwhile, Agent M, aka Ryan Panagos offered this:

I can’t say anything official yet, but we’re definitely looking to make sure everyone gets to enjoy #Marvel1 this week. More info soon.

— Ryan Penagos (@AgentM) March 11, 2013

Which sounded cool except based on what’s happening, even a longer period of availability might not result in greater access.

Our own efforts to pick up some free reading were stymied by…forgetting our Comixology password. No chance for resetting it under this strain.

While the promotion was definitely a success in terms of visibility for Marvel, it also stymied every other publisher who relies on Comixology — no one else’s digital books are going out either. And even retailer’s digital storefronts have been shut down.

@agentm Nice! Can you confirm if the #Marvel1 books are also on the retailer storefronts? Can’t access my store. digital.comicsconspiracy.biz

— Ryan Higgins (@RyanHigginsRyan) March 11, 2013

Tweet

Spider-Man is hands down one of the most popular characters ever to leap from the pages of Marvel Comics, and is even a strong contender for one of the most popular comic characters produced by any comics publisher. He’s also displayed a particular trademark flexibility in successfully taking to the silver screen and flourishing through merchandizing. It may come as a surprise that it’s taken this long for a collection of scholarly essays on Spider-Man to make it onto the shelves, but it’s here at last with WEB-SPINNING HEROICS: Critical Essays on the History and Meaning of Spider-Man, edited by Robert Moses Peaslee and Robert G. Weiner, both pillars of the scholarly community when it comes to getting books and essays about comics into print, and colleagues at Texas Tech University. The field of comics scholarship is taking off at colleges and universities world-wide, introducing courses and even degrees in comics studies, prompting a need for texts about comics and models for approaching comics scholarship with attention to detailed analysis, historical context, and solid research methods.

[Dr. Robert Moses Peaslee and Robert G. Weiner. Photo taken by Isaac Villalobos, used courtesy of The Daily Toreador]

Peaslee and Weiner have quite an impressive track record in laying out that foundation for the future appreciation and celebration of comics while engaging with comics in an approachable way that can speak to the savvy fan and the graduate student alike. Their most recent project gives the Web-Slinger the attention he deserves while pondering some of the questions that have made him so fascinating for over 50 years. The essay collection WEB-SPINNING HEROICS contains contributions from over 20 scholars, ranging from both established writers to newer enthusiasts and explores topics such as Spidey’s cultural and historical context, issues of gender in Spider-Man comics, and in-depth studies of particular Spidey texts from comics to films, many of them “under-examined” by readers and scholars alike. The collection contains an impressive array of perspectives and suggests the diversity of interest out there today about Spider-Man’s ever-evolving role in the history of comics. Editors Rob Peaslee and Rob Weiner took the time to answer some questions for The Beat about their experiences putting the book together, and also on their own fascination with Spider-Man’s legacy.

Hannah Means-Shannon: What made you want to put together a Spider-Man based collection of comics scholarship? What’s your own personal history with Spider-Man comics and Spidey in pop culture?

Robert Moses Peaslee: It was really just a great opportunity for us to work together for the first time. We’d been looking for an excuse to collaborate on an edited volume, and a character like Spidey presented a perfect focus for our respective foci in comics and films. Rob’s background in comic scholarship is well known, and I’d done some analysis over superhero film characters – and Spidey in particular – previously.

Robert G. Weiner: I agree with Rob Peaslee here. It was a terrific excuse to work on something together. I’d previously done an edited volume on Captain America and with the new Spider-Man movie reboot, doing a scholarly book on the character seemed like an appropriate thing to do. I’d read a bunch of Spider-Man graphic novels while working on my Marvel Graphic Novels Annotated Guide so I was very familiar with the character and the surrounding mythos. I realized how compelling Spider-Man is as a character.

HM-S: Obviously, there was plenty of interest in participating in the collection, with over 20 essays in the book. Did the level of interest surprise you?

RP: Personally, no…I think the academy being what it is, you can do put out a call for an edited volume on the Performativity of Pancake Eating and get a fair amount of interest. And Spidey is of much greater interest in than pancakes…or almost any other pop culture icon for that matter.  I’d say he’s top-10 globally in terms of most recognizable fictional characters.

RW: No, the level of interest was not surprising!  I consider Spider-Man to be one of the big three of the most recognizable sequential art characters in the world (those being Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man). The one thing I was disappointed with was that we didn’t get much in the way of extended Spidey family Universe analysis (Spider-Woman, Spider-Girl, Cosmic Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2099, Scarlett Spider etc.).  By the way, I consider Tom DeFalco’s writing on Spider-Girl to be some of the best comics writing period. That series was great.

We do have some well-known contributors working in the field of sequential art scholarship, media studies, film, education, journalism, business, and history among others.

HM-S: Does Spider-Man, or other mainstream, long-running superheroes get enough attention in comics scholarship? What do you see as still needed when addressing super-heroes in comics scholarship?

RP: From my perspective, the big black hole in sequential art study is engagement with the audience…what meaning is derived from these forms, characters, and narratives? How do readers/viewers/gamers incorporate them into their sense of self, worldview, etc.? Spider-Man, as a character ostensibly “more like us” than his superhero colleagues, would seem especially pertinent in this regard.

RW: I agree with Rob Peaslee here. One of the important questions to answer is how have the comic companies producing superhero “products” engaged with their audience historically? While there are good works out there on comic culture, there is still so much related to fandom that could be studied and understood from all kinds of angles.  Comic conventions are a goldmine for scholars wanting to see how superheroes have impacted our ethos. What causes someone to dress up like Spidey, Batman, Green Lantern, the Flash or villains like, Poison Ivy, Bane, Doc Ock, Green Goblin, Venom? Is it more than just fun? There is something that fans identify with in the character that it becomes personal.

HM-S: The book has a foreword by Tom DeFalco. What was his reaction when you initially approached him about putting together the collection?

RW: Actually, one of our contributors was corresponding with J.M. DeMatteis, and somehow Tom De Falco found out through J.M. about the project. He contacted me initially. We are so grateful he contributed and gave his blessing to the project. I consider him one of the best (along with J.M. of course) in the long line of Spidey scribes. He was a delight to work with. It is always nice to have someone who has actually written or drawn the character get involved with an academic tome like ours.

HM-S: I have seen WEB-SPINNING HEROICS on the shelf in comic book shops. Do you think casual comic fans are likely to pick it up? Would it be accessible for all levels of readership?

RP: Most of it, yeah. There are a few essays that deal with some pretty formidable theory, but that’s as it should be. Spider-Man and his universe tap into some areas that we believe require some substantially sophisticated thinking to truly unpack. But we built the book to have something for the fans, the creators, the historians, and the scholars. Hopefully, that comes through.

RW: Yes I think there is enough there that all types of readers could get something from the volume. As Rob Peaslee says, there are a few weighty pieces in the volume, but there is also material anyone into Spidey could enjoy.

HM-S: Why do you think Spider-Man comics have endured so long in the popular imagination and in print?

RP: I think it’s the radical reliability of Peter Parker. Spider-Man is the disguise that enables him to be the Peter he feels he needs to be in order to live authentically.

RW: I agree with Rob Peaslee here. Peter Parker really was a different kind of superhero and the character resonated with the comic reading public in 1962-63. Peter/Spider-Man has never really waned since then. Despite having this “wonderful” power, Peter has lots personal problems and angst (and continues to do so). The supporting characters are all interesting and the villains are fascinating. Whether in red/blue, black, or even white, the Spidey costume is just plain cool.

HM-S:  Why do you think Spider-Man has translated so well to the silver screen? What do you think film versions bring to Spider-Man mythology?

RP: Clearly, superhero texts are tailor-made for film. There’s the hero’s journey story-structure that fits so well in the dominant American cinematic mode of three-acts and climax. There’s the potential for fantastical or sci-fi-driven storylines that both maximize Hollywood’s potential for creating CGI and satisfy the audience’s desire for escape and spectacle. But what’s made Spider-Man and Batman successful on screen to a much greater degree than their peers, I think, is their flaws, which lead to much more compelling character arcs. People think they’re going for the explosions and the web-slinging, but what ultimately brings them value is a compelling inner story.

RW: I think the technology has gotten up to speed to make a believable Spider-Man movie. One only has to compare the 1970s live action Spider-Man television series with the films to see the difference. One of the things that the Spider-Man films have done right is the seamless way they combine CGI with live action. When Spidey is bouncing around New York it looks good and not “cheesy.” (Grant Morrison said it was “dreamlike”). One of the big problems with the Hulk films is that the audience is always aware it is watching a big green CGI creature and it looks that way. The Avengers did the best version of the character so far As Rob Peaslee mentions above, the “inner story” is what is compelling about Spider-Man. The relationships he has with the supporting characters combined with the villains.

HM-S: Rob Weiner, what motivated you to write about the romance between Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Mary Jane for the collection? Why did this relationship catch your attention particularly?

RW: Well I’ve always been fascinated by the concept of romance in superhero comics. For example, a lot of readers don’t realize that even Professor X once considered Jean Grey a “love” interest when she first joined the X-Men (along with the other X-guys). In particular, those early Marvel stories usually written by Stan Lee always had this anxiety concerning romance. Matt Murdock and Foggy always pining for Karen, Peter Parker getting turned down on dates, Sub-Mariner always chasing Sue Storm, Captain America always keeping his distance, Wasp/Janet always flirting with all the other heroes in her attempts to get Hank/Ant-Man’s attention.

Spider-Man presents an interesting case. I had original thought of the concept for the 2010 Film & History conference which had romance as its theme. One of the reasons the Spider-Man movies are so successful is that at their core the films are romances rather than action films. The opening narration in the first film sets this up as Parker discusses his love for Mary Jane. I thought it would be interesting to compare and contrast the three films with three important events in their relationship from the comics from different eras. I found it amusing that Parker was always trying to avoid meeting Mary Jane in those early comics (which was a great plot device). In both the comics and films Mary Jane is a strong woman who demands respect, equality, and Peter’s loyalty. Even though in all of the films she gets taken by the villain and Spidey has to rescue her, she knows the risks of being Spider-Man’s partner and accepts it. She makes the choice despite the danger.  I also thought it would be interesting to explore from the comics the marriage and subsequent erasing of their relationship. Peter Parker/Spider-Man doesn’t often get a “break” when it comes to romance, but there have been a few moments of happiness and joy.

HM-S: Rob Peaslee, what do you think that psychoanalysis can bring to an understanding of Spider-Man comics or Peter Parker/Spider-Man particularly? Why did you choose this topic to explore in the collection?

RP: This article was actually a reprint of a piece I published in a journal several years ago, and Rob Weiner convinced me that it had a place here. I think psychoanalysis is a rich theoretical framework not only for approaching Spidey, but for understanding the structure, content, and reception of the superhero text more generally. It’s not the only way to look at the superhero, obviously, but when we consider Freud’s ideas about the id, wish-fulfillment, degradation, etc., it’s hard not to see these notions on display in nearly every superhero story.

[A psychologically transforming moment in AMAZING FANTASY #15]

HM-S:  What other heroes or topics could benefit from further study and discussion these days?

RP: Funny you should ask, Hannah! We’re working on another collection about a prominent character from the comics universe, but as that is under review right now and we don’t want to steal our own thunder just yet, we’ll have to leave you to speculate.

RW: Oh I think the field is STILL wide open. There is so much history and many heroes and villains that deserve the academic treatment.  As I’ve argued before, I see comics as a form a social history. They are documents of the time in the same way movies and novels are. I’d love to see more analysis of the darker heroes like Spawn, Punisher, The Demon, Ghost Rider, Blazing Skull, Creeper, Deadman, Man Thing, Sub-Mariner, Moon Knight, Deathlok, and the Phantom Stranger not to mention those wacky superhero stories from the 1950s. I know there has been scholarship on these characters but there is always room for more.  So much comics scholarship focuses on the last 30 years, but as someone trained as a historian, I like to know what do the earlier  (Golden Age) comics say about our world past and present?

HM-S: What got you into comics scholarship and writing about comics?

RP: I came in the back door, as it were, from the movie theater. I’ve only recently begun reading comics…in fact, I’ve probably read more scholarship about comics than I’ve read actual comics. Rob Weiner has been a significant mentor in this regard.

RW: Comics have always been a part of my life off and on since I was a little. I started to write and study comics while I was working as a public librarian over 15 years ago. I started obtaining graphic novels for the library collection and began reading them. I wrote an article about collecting graphic novels for the Texas Library Journal and then it just took off from there. However, I always thought there was something “deeper” in sequential art storytelling. When I first read WATCHMEN in 1990, I remember thinking this could be used in a philosophy or political science class. I spent six years reading and writing for the Marvel Graphic Novels Annotated Guide, which was my trial by fire.

HM-S: Are there any upcoming projects you’re working on that you all would like to spread the word about?

RP: The piece we’re working on fills a void in the scholarship so large and obvious, that until we’re under contract, we don’t want to say too much. Somebody else might slap their forehead and beat us to it. Stay tuned…

RW: Ditto above! I do have a volume that I co-edited with my librarian colleague Carrye Syma on the educational power of sequential art (Comics and Education) forthcoming from McFarland.

HM-S: Flipping through WEB-SPINNING HEROICS, I have to confess, opened my eyes to how many great topics are worth discussing in-depth when it comes to Spider-Man, and also made me think of new directions for exploring Spider-Man as a cultural phenomenon. That’s certainly the role of good scholarship, providing springboards for the imagination of readers, so thanks for the tireless work, Rob Peaslee and Rob Weiner, in putting the collection together. Looking forward to all your mysterious projects yet to come documenting the role and significance of comics!

Hannah Means-Shannon writes and blogs about comics for TRIP CITY and Sequart.org and is currently working on books about Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore for Sequart. She is @hannahmenzies on Twitter and hannahmenziesblog on WordPress.

Tweet

Marvel made the media rounds at SXSW yesterday and most of the announcements were for things off in the future.  SXSW is fast becoming Marvel’s mainstream outreach equivalent of SDCC.  That’s right.  SXSW isn’t really about the Direct Market comics fan.  It’s about getting Marvel’s name and their *digital* offerings in the mind set of the world’s tech community.

Who’s covering it?  Mashable.  Tech Crunch.  CNet.  Gizmodo.  Venture Beat.

Those aren’t comic sites and, for the most part, they have a larger readership.  The “venture” in Venture Beat is venture capital.  Marvel isn’t looking to get funding, they’re looking to market their digital comics to people in the tech industry.  It should be a decent demographic match.  Techies tend to have read comics at some point in their life and a pretty healthy portion of them have tablets, which are the consumption device of choice for digital comics.

This is Marvel’s best chance of the year to get inserted into that space.  As a result, we get some immediate products and some things far off in the future (so they have an excuse to talk about something to the press).

The immediate announcements:

The long overdue iOS editions of the rebranded “Marvel Unlimited.”  I’m looking at the App Store ratings for that right now.  191 ratings in and it’s averaging 2.5 stars.  A lot of 1 star ratings and angry reviews.  Crashes.  The library feature isn’t working for everyone.  Problems logging in.  The usual missing issues problem.

Marvel Unlimited is a good idea that just hasn’t been managed very well to date.  To look at the App store reviews, the app may have been rushed out for SXSW and probably needs some updates to fix it.  We all know the comic selection has some odd gaps.  This is all fixable, but it’s going to take some time.  It’s not Netflix yet.  They need to be a little more upfront about things like the update schedule, too.  We’ll see if this all gets fixed or it continues to lie in the background.  At this point, I’d say it’s a whole lot more useful to the new fan or someone who’s been lapsed for several years (and has verified what he wants to catch up on is online right now).

Then you’re got the Comixology-powered “700 free #1 issues” promotion.  You may have had a little trouble getting on Comixology on Sunday?  That means the promotion was successful in phase 1.  We’ll see how many people it drives to start picking up digital copies on a regular basis.  (Well, actually we won’t see.  That data’s kept pretty quiet.)  We’ll also see if there’s a print trickle down.  Normally the print trickle down comes in the form of graphic novel sales.  (We’ll also see if anyone protests all the Orson Scott Card comics in that promotion.)

But those two announcement are immediate.

Then you’ve got Blair Butler hosting a web show for Marvel.  No launch date on that, but they’re at least far enough along to have shot a promo trailer.  Butler is a good pickup for Marvel.  She’s got legitimate geek cred between her time with G4 and her comic over at Image.  I get the impression this is going to be an attempt to link the movie promotion with the comics promotion and try and pull in some of the old G4 audience.  Makes sense.

Then you’ve got the _July_ launch of the Infinity digital comics.  Well… it’s an excuse to get in front of the media and talk about the app and the free #1s.  DC’s been doing weekly digital comics for awhile now.  It’s no shock Marvel’s finally getting around to it.  The rest of the names involved will be interesting.  Will there be star power behind it, aside from co-writers?

Finally, you’ve got the “Project Gamma” thing.  This is what got most of the tech press attention.  Marvel’s _eventually_ going to have sound tracks for some of the digital comics.  Is it a reaction to some of the motion comics revival we’re seeing, with places like MadeFire having sound effects and music?  Possibly.  And yes, done right, music and sound effects can add to the comic.  Particularly with something in the Infinity/motion comics wheelhouse.  It all depends on how well it’s done.  No schedule was released for when this will actually get implemented.  But, it got everything else a lot of coverage.

Will the tech press come back when the Infinity comics and Project Gamma comics go live?  Not in the force they did for SXSW, one of tech’s equivalents to SDCC.  But Marvel got their attention.

If none of this really grabbed you, you might not have been the audience they were going for.

Tweet

As a new character joins the cast of Cullen Bunn and Will Sliney’s Fearless Defenders, so she joins team members Valkyrie and Misty Knight in our growing group shot of the team! Today sees the release of Fearless Defenders #2, which sees Dani Moonstar enter the scene. The leader of the New Mutants for years and years now, Moonstar is a Native American character who was depowered during the M-Day storyline – but that didn’t stop her from her duties as team leader.

Now stepping into Fearless Defenders, I asked artist Will Sliney a few questions about the character, and her design in the book. Will’s been profiling all the characters as they appear, and you can find his previous looks into Valkyrie and Misty Knight here. But as we’ve been going on, Will’s been adding each member into a group image of the team, which establishes his ability to draw expressive and individual female faces for his cast. Read on! And gawp!

Steve: We’ve spoken previously on your interest in the mythology and cultural identity of Valkyrie. With Dani Moonstar, do you feel that same interest? As a Native American character, she is again a character with a vast cultural background all her own.

Will: Yeah, it’s nice to see the cultural diversity in Fearless Defenders already coming to the forefront. Anything new can be a big interest to me too. Obviously I know much more about Norse mythology having grown up on this side of the Atlantic, but its important to learn about the backgrounds of each new member. I have had fun researching for her.

Steve: As a Cheyenne, she again has quite specific facial features such as a flatter, longer nose, and quite pronounced cheekbones. How do you approach the character, in terms of look and features?

Will: I usually create a model sheet for each character. You can hopefully see the different facial features already in the group shots that have been building here at The Beat each month. You pretty much have hit the nail on the head for Dani. These features will have been laid out before in the many artists who have drawn her. I really liked David LaFuente’s recent take.

Moonstar joins Misty Knight and Valkyrie in Will’s group shot of the Fearless Defenders cast

Steve: While the other two characters are hand-to-hand fighters, Moonstar tends to use ranged weapons like the bow and arrow. Has this come into play in the action sequences, or do you prefer to have her in the middle of the fighting alongside the other cast members? How do you plan fight sequences?

Will: Dani’s opening scene shows that she can mix it up in hand to hand combat even when she is out of arrows. Bow or no bow. I think being de-powered, Dani is on a mission to prove herself as a fighter, so she is not afraid to go in fists first.

Steve: She’s also well known for having spent time as a valkyrie herself, with several stints in Asgard. How do you think the character fits in alongside Valkyrie, both visually and in personality?

Will: Its obviously an important part of the story. Dani does look different from Valkyrie when she is in her full Valkyior form. (I always have difficulty spelling that word.) and that is reflected in Dani’s personality too. I’m not too sure yet how highly Valkyrie respects Dani at the start. We will have to wait and see…

Tweet

After 18 months on JOURNEY INTO MYSTERY, Kieron Gillen has given an extensive interview with Q Magazine’s Colin Smith on his UK based blog TOO BUSY THINKING ABOUT MY COMICS and tweeted:

The first part of my enormous interview with @Colin_TBTAMC is up. Probably my most candid interview ever.

He also added:

(This part includes my plans for the last 2 years and where they went wrong, literary patricide, and my burning hate of Elves)

Gillen specifically focuses on the writer’s experience working on comics in these ongoing interviews, and particularly on trying to establish strong storytelling on a title that proved, as time went on, that it was far from any “minor league” expectations from readers. He’s hard-hitting about his own mistakes, for instance, and as hypothetical advice to his former self, says:

When the more self-aware strand of wannabe writers are looking at the industry they pick apart people’s careers and decide which bits worked and which bits are mistakes. You try your best to use the former and avoid the latter. The problem with the “mistakes” is that i) you realise what caused a chunk of those mis-steps, and they were in fact the only sane response to an insane world and ii) you end up making a shitload of new mistakes all of your own, which the next generation will try to learn from. I’m aware that I’m well on the way to being a cautionary tale now. C’est La Vie.

He answers big questions, like “why Loki” and considers whether his master-plans really panned out:

I sort of had a master-plan for my last two years of work, which like all plans didn’t survive first contact with the enemy (i.e. Reality).

In terms of my career, I was aware that I hadn’t had to do even a medium-length run on a book that showed what I was capable of. Finding a place slightly out of the way in the modern mainstream, and cultivating it in my own image. Basically, I wanted to do something that fit into my creative history the way that Animal Man or Secret Warriors fitted into Morrison’s and Hickman’s.  Knowing the marketplace, I was thinking conservatively in terms of length. If it took off, 20-30 issues would be feasible. Having the experience of dancing around the current Marvel comics universe, I was always thinking about making it being able to robustly survive and even subvert whatever crossover it found itself in contact with. Which, when 75% of the story ended up being crossovers, was thinking time well spent.

Probably the most entertaining aspect of the first part of the interview is Gillen geeking-out on whether he sees himself as a “fantasy writer” and how fantasy literature has played a role in his personal history:

(Don’t start me on Elves. My perennial bugbear. Elves are basically “What If Aryans were right about there being a master race”. Fucking Elves.)

In short: I resisted defining myself as a fantasy writer because fantasy tends to be iffy. I became fine with it when I realised how core it was to how I processed and commented upon the world. And, of course, the tradition of anti-trad-Fantasy Fantasy writers is always looking for recruits. Hell, the problematic nature of the genre makes it almost too easy. In any other genre would I got away with THE MANCHESTER GODS ARE ACTUALLY THE GOOD GUYS as a reveal? But in a genre that demonises technological progress and hails the status quo of inherited power, you just put someone in a black hat and a bit of soot and everyone presumes they’re another working-class/foreigner-surrogate to be stomped on by the pretty blonde people.

I find myself laughing at how much bile I end up spewing when you get me on this topic. Magic Swords +3 Against Scarabs Are Serious Business.

This is heady stuff, and only a first installment of this rambling deconstruction of comics taking readers on a Gillen-guided tour. Coming up soon is Gillen’s discussion of the Kid Loki character on JOURNEY INTO MYSTERY. The fact that Gillen has taken the time to really reveal his mindset and the issues he’s recently grappled with in such a conversational way is a gold-mine for fans, with more to come.

Hannah Means-Shannon writes and blogs about comics for TRIP CITY and Sequart.org and is currently working on books about Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore for Sequart. She is @hannahmenzies on Twitter and hannahmenziesblog on WordPress.

Tweet

Hawkeye by Fraction and Aja continues to be the most stylish and offbeat superhero comic on the stands. In this issue, enter the women: Black Widow, Mockingbird, Spider-Woman and Kate Bishop try to figure out who’s trying to kill Clint Barton.

Can the Girlfriend, the Work-Wife, the Ex-Wife and the protégé find out who’s behind Hawkeye’s headache before it too late? There’s only one way to find out – preorder Hawkeye #9 now, bro.