New Avengers Canceled

[scottharris]

According to IGN, the Siege crossover will result in some major and unexpected changes at Marvel -- namely, they are canceling all four Avengers titles.

Yep.

New avengers, Dark Avengers, Mighty Avengers and Avengers; the Initiative are all apparently being canceled. Considering Avengers is Marvel's biggest franchise these days, what does this mean?

Well, my guess is that this is paving the way for a relaunch of old fashioned Avengers itself. With Cap back (or... whatever... I haven't had a chance to read the mess Marvel is making of that mini-series), iron Man being rehabilitated and (I'm guessing here ) Osborn removed, I think they'll be returning to a more old school, heroes are heroes style at marvel and to mark this, they will be bringing back Avengers with the Big Three in charge.

I'm going to also guess this will still be written by Bendis, but who knows.

Thoughts?

comics.ign.com/articles/106/1061476p1.html

[woodside]

Here's another article: robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/01/marvels-avengers-franchise-to-end-in-the-wake-of-siege/

I'm betting this is the end of Bendis' run on Avengers. I'm really excited about the return of the Heroic Age, as the uber storyline that Marvel has been running since Avengers # 500 has been awesome.

When all is said and done, I plan on going back to Disassembled and re-reading EVERYTHING.

If you guys thought the Civil War Read Order marathon was insane, just wait . . .

[goldenfist]

I don't expect Marvel to bring back the same roster they've been
using for years.

[woodside]

Jan 16, 2010 22:17:37 GMT -5 goldenfist said:

I don't expect Marvel to bring back the same roster they've been using for years.

I'm interested about this, actually. I'm betting we'll see the return of a more "iconic" line-up of Avengers under a big name writer -- and I'm betting it won't be Bendis.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I want Bendis to take his little gang of Avengers (Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Sentry, etc) and put them in a new Defenders book or something.

The up-coming Heroic Age might just usher in what I dream of every time I read Cap: Ed Brubaker on Avengers.

[goldenfist]

What I meant by the same roster I mean the same big seven
that Marvel has used for years.

Remember when Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, and Hawkeye joined
the Avengers while Thor, Iron Man, Giant Man, and the Wasp
left.

I wouldn't expect the Hulk to come back he's someone who doesn
't get along with alot of people and he's still mad at Iron Man.

[kidcage]

Well, I'll be trying to reserve judgement until I hear more about this (first I've really heard that all four Avengers titles are getting the axe), but I think I'll be more than happy for Bendis' work to be done. I agree a more classic Avengers' line up would be nice, but I feel several characters I enjoy/grown to enjoy won't be on the team.

Ah well, here's to waiting.

[freedomfighter]

Jan 17, 2010 22:05:04 GMT -5 woodside said:

Jan 16, 2010 22:17:37 GMT -5 goldenfist said:

I don't expect Marvel to bring back the same roster they've been using for years.

I'm interested about this, actually. I'm betting we'll see the return of a more "iconic" line-up of Avengers under a big name writer -- and I'm betting it won't be Bendis.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I want Bendis to take his little gang of Avengers (Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Sentry, etc) and put them in a new Defenders book or something.

The up-coming Heroic Age might just usher in what I dream of every time I read Cap: Ed Brubaker on Avengers.

He's gotten a lot of awards for his work and I guess I've liked some of his crime stuff, but I'm not a fan of Brubaker on hero comics.
He wrote Captain America by pretty much making Bucky his focus and didn't he write Daredevil with Iron Fist in the costume?
All he's shown me on Cap is that he knows how to take a sidekick and retcon him into an assassin and then gritty up the legacy of Captain America, while making Steve Rogers superfluous in his own book.
And the "time bullet" story in Cap Reborn may have been as bad as anything Bendis every came up with.
(I'm not the only one. This blog made me laugh...)
mightygodking.com/index.php/2009/12/30/worst-comics-ideas-of-2009/
I read the issue of New Avengers guest starring Hank Pym and Bendis actually followed what Slott has done with the character and I didn't hate it, just found it uninspiring. I think Bendis and Bru are both somewhat dull decompressionists, so for me it would be a lateral move to have Brubaker on the book.

[comaboy]

What if all Marvel is doing is really clearing the decks in anticipation of the Avengers movie? Laying the foundation for a title which will be in place and operating by the time the movie hits?

[humanbelly]

Jan 22, 2010 11:50:52 GMT -5 comaboy said:

What if all Marvel is doing is really clearing the decks in anticipation of the Avengers movie? Laying the foundation for a title which will be in place and operating by the time the movie hits?

That's a thought. Trying to get the comic line a little more in synch w/ the movie line? That way marketing benefits them both? Makes business sense, sure. If I didn't so hate the status quo, I'd probably be offended by this possibility.
Hmm. Could Disney's hand be somehow evident, here? A bit of a "soft" corporate mandate from the new bosses to take the Marvel Universe back in a direction that they were probably more familiar with? I know it's a crazy notion, but I feel like Disney could not have possibly been clued in to the up-to-the-moment state of the MU. comic book line. Or, like, even the past five years or so. Could the deal have been based entirely on the movie opportunities and sort of a vague memory of what Marvel Comics were like? Oh, surely not. . .

HB

[freedomfighter]

Jan 22, 2010 12:40:03 GMT -5 humanbelly said:

Jan 22, 2010 11:50:52 GMT -5 comaboy said:

What if all Marvel is doing is really clearing the decks in anticipation of the Avengers movie? Laying the foundation for a title which will be in place and operating by the time the movie hits?

That's a thought. Trying to get the comic line a little more in synch w/ the movie line? That way marketing benefits them both? Makes business sense, sure. If I didn't so hate the status quo, I'd probably be offended by this possibility.
Hmm. Could Disney's hand be somehow evident, here? A bit of a "soft" corporate mandate from the new bosses to take the Marvel Universe back in a direction that they were probably more familiar with? I know it's a crazy notion, but I feel like Disney could not have possibly been clued in to the up-to-the-moment state of the MU. comic book line. Or, like, even the past five years or so. Could the deal have been based entirely on the movie opportunities and sort of a vague memory of what Marvel Comics were like? Oh, surely not. . .

HB

I doubt it. If they want to do an Avengers movie comic, they'll just do one. Marvel has already opened up the door to alternate versions with the Ultimates and they don't mind having several different Avengers teams.
If all the Avengers titles were still selling well it would make no sense to cancel a bunch of moneymakers for a single book tied into a movie as I've yet to see interest in a comic spur from a film release.
I always see tons of New Avengers, Dark Avengers, etc. in my LCS going several issues back. The print runs may be high, but I wonder if comic shops are getting stuck with all those issues.
I think Marvel simply realizes comics sell cyclically and bringing back the originals in a new number one will make money for several years.

[humanbelly]

Jan 22, 2010 18:22:03 GMT -5 freedomfighter said:

[quote author


I doubt it. If they want to do an Avengers movie comic, they'll just do one. Marvel has already opened up the door to alternate versions with the Ultimates and they don't mind having several different Avengers teams.
If all the Avengers titles were still selling well it would make no sense to cancel a bunch of moneymakers for a single book tied into a movie as I've yet to see interest in a comic spur from a film release.
I always see tons of New Avengers, Dark Avengers, etc. in my LCS going several issues back. The print runs may be high, but I wonder if comic shops are getting stuck with all those issues.
I think Marvel simply realizes comics sell cyclically and bringing back the originals in a new number one will make money for several years.

Boy, wasn't it just a few short months ago on these boards that there was a discussion about the fact that New Avengers was the top-selling comic in the industry? Is it possible that there's been such a dramatic drop-off in sales? (I'm sure the economy isn't helping matters)

Is there a website or link somewhere that gives accurate monthly sales counts for each title in the industry? I have a sense some folks are able to use it as a reference. . .

HB

[starfoxxx]

Wow, who knew my personal Bendis-boycott would affect the comics world so deeply?

[freedomfighter]

Jan 22, 2010 21:26:02 GMT -5 humanbelly said:

Jan 22, 2010 18:22:03 GMT -5 freedomfighter said:

[quote author


I doubt it. If they want to do an Avengers movie comic, they'll just do one. Marvel has already opened up the door to alternate versions with the Ultimates and they don't mind having several different Avengers teams.
If all the Avengers titles were still selling well it would make no sense to cancel a bunch of moneymakers for a single book tied into a movie as I've yet to see interest in a comic spur from a film release.
I always see tons of New Avengers, Dark Avengers, etc. in my LCS going several issues back. The print runs may be high, but I wonder if comic shops are getting stuck with all those issues.
I think Marvel simply realizes comics sell cyclically and bringing back the originals in a new number one will make money for several years.

Boy, wasn't it just a few short months ago on these boards that there was a discussion about the fact that New Avengers was the top-selling comic in the industry? Is it possible that there's been such a dramatic drop-off in sales? (I'm sure the economy isn't helping matters)

Is there a website or link somewhere that gives accurate monthly sales counts for each title in the industry? I have a sense some folks are able to use it as a reference. . .

HB

There are sources. Diamond usually lists the top selling titles.
www.diamondcomics.com/public/default.asp?t=1&m=1&c=3&s=5&ai=90648
Problem is I believe numbers are based on how many copies are shipped and not sold.
For example, the local comic shop may order 100 issues of New Avengers but only sell 50. Then they may order 40 issues of Incredible Hercules and sell all of them.
So realistically they only sold ten more copies of New Avengers but they ordered twice as many.
I don't think comic shops get to do returns anymore and so they're left with those fifty copies.
of course whenever Marvel does a new event, the New Avengers are usually tied into it, thus they can't reduce the order because then if it sells well, the comic shop is left holding the bag because people want the tie in issues to the event, so new Avengers does sell well often enough to warrant continually ordering high numbers.
But I think it's an artificial sales inflation and the same sales tactic that Marvel used to do with X-Men.
Funny how they flipped that switch, right? They used to say it was the X-Men were just a better seller and more tied into the audience, yet we've seen if you put the same sort of emphasis on Avengers titles you get the same results.
This is just proof to me that if you put yourself solidly behind a title with marketing and effort it sells well.

[humanbelly]

Jan 23, 2010 15:05:10 GMT -5 freedomfighter said:

Jan 22, 2010 21:26:02 GMT -5 humanbelly said:

There are sources. Diamond usually lists the top selling titles.
www.diamondcomics.com/public/default.asp?t=1&m=1&c=3&s=5&ai=90648
Problem is I believe numbers are based on how many copies are shipped and not sold.
For example, the local comic shop may order 100 issues of New Avengers but only sell 50. Then they may order 40 issues of Incredible Hercules and sell all of them.
So realistically they only sold ten more copies of New Avengers but they ordered twice as many.
I don't think comic shops get to do returns anymore and so they're left with those fifty copies.
of course whenever Marvel does a new event, the New Avengers are usually tied into it, thus they can't reduce the order because then if it sells well, the comic shop is left holding the bag because people want the tie in issues to the event, so new Avengers does sell well often enough to warrant continually ordering high numbers.
But I think it's an artificial sales inflation and the same sales tactic that Marvel used to do with X-Men.
Funny how they flipped that switch, right? They used to say it was the X-Men were just a better seller and more tied into the audience, yet we've seen if you put the same sort of emphasis on Avengers titles you get the same results.
This is just proof to me that if you put yourself solidly behind a title with marketing and effort it sells well.

Thanks, FF. And you did anticipate a couple of questions I was going to have. Which end of the transaction sales figures were being drawn from was a specific one. You know, even though it was also confusing & hard to read, that old annual Declaration of Distribution rectangle-thingy we used to see was quite full of enlightening info once you figured out how to look at the numbers and what they represented. As always, I could be mis-remembering, but wasn't there a time where selling 75K to 100k copies of a title a month was the low-ish expected norm? And that if a title dropped below that, it was seriously considered for cancellation? Granted, it was all advertising-driven, then, so reliance on high circulation made much more sense.
I think there was a point in the late 70's or early 80's where Iron Man had dropped below 50K, and I had a buddy who was loudly sounding the death knell for that book. I also remember 'WAAAAY back when Daredevil kept getting bounced to bi-monthly status until he could get his numbers up. (Boy, remember when bi-monthly books were common? Like, the first 15 or so issues of the New X-Men? What with decompression, no title could survive that storytelling pace, at this point.)

HB

[freedomfighter]

Jan 23, 2010 16:29:59 GMT -5 humanbelly said:

Jan 23, 2010 15:05:10 GMT -5 freedomfighter said:

Jan 22, 2010 21:26:02 GMT -5 humanbelly said:

There are sources. Diamond usually lists the top selling titles.
www.diamondcomics.com/public/default.asp?t=1&m=1&c=3&s=5&ai=90648
Problem is I believe numbers are based on how many copies are shipped and not sold.
For example, the local comic shop may order 100 issues of New Avengers but only sell 50. Then they may order 40 issues of Incredible Hercules and sell all of them.
So realistically they only sold ten more copies of New Avengers but they ordered twice as many.
I don't think comic shops get to do returns anymore and so they're left with those fifty copies.
of course whenever Marvel does a new event, the New Avengers are usually tied into it, thus they can't reduce the order because then if it sells well, the comic shop is left holding the bag because people want the tie in issues to the event, so new Avengers does sell well often enough to warrant continually ordering high numbers.
But I think it's an artificial sales inflation and the same sales tactic that Marvel used to do with X-Men.
Funny how they flipped that switch, right? They used to say it was the X-Men were just a better seller and more tied into the audience, yet we've seen if you put the same sort of emphasis on Avengers titles you get the same results.
This is just proof to me that if you put yourself solidly behind a title with marketing and effort it sells well.

Thanks, FF. And you did anticipate a couple of questions I was going to have. Which end of the transaction sales figures were being drawn from was a specific one. You know, even though it was also confusing & hard to read, that old annual Declaration of Distribution rectangle-thingy we used to see was quite full of enlightening info once you figured out how to look at the numbers and what they represented. As always, I could be mis-remembering, but wasn't there a time where selling 75K to 100k copies of a title a month was the low-ish expected norm? And that if a title dropped below that, it was seriously considered for cancellation? Granted, it was all advertising-driven, then, so reliance on high circulation made much more sense.
I think there was a point in the late 70's or early 80's where Iron Man had dropped below 50K, and I had a buddy who was loudly sounding the death knell for that book. I also remember 'WAAAAY back when Daredevil kept getting bounced to bi-monthly status until he could get his numbers up. (Boy, remember when bi-monthly books were common? Like, the first 15 or so issues of the New X-Men? What with decompression, no title could survive that storytelling pace, at this point.)

HB

Oh yeah, I think the sell thru point was much higher, but that was the case with most magazines. And I believe newsstands, candy stores, etc. could send back what didn't sell. That's why covers were usually so bombastic. Each issue had to move!
So yeah I can imagine many books of the day needed to sell at least sixty thousand to be considered successful.
People used to read more. I walked by the local Starbucks the other day and everyone had their head buried in some electronic device. like twenty five people. Even people sitting together. Print is simply not much of a diversion for people any more.
I hold little hope for the continuation of print publications.