www.ComicBookPage.com

I'm really pumped about Thor returning to its original numbering scheme.

But more importantly, I'm a huge fan of the "Flagship" title concept overall.

IMO, there's something to be said for having titles like ASM, Action, Detective, FF and Uncanny to always be there (hopefully) like famous mountains over yonder.

The aforementioned return of Thor to that mainstay status seems to me to confirm that the practice of rebooting longstanding titles is a mistake; a flagship title should never need a reboot to #1, IMO.

In fact, it has been flagship titles like ASM that I've always tried to keep up with when tough times have made it impossible to keep up with the plethora of ancillary titles that come and go.

Anyway, I'm hopeful that this is a sign that perhaps the Avengers will return as a Flagship Title sometime in the near future.

But perhaps I'm just a melancholy old man who likes to rant too much

Your thoughts?

-Foe

Foe wrote: Your thoughts?

Renumbering a title provides a short term bump in sales with no real long term benefit. Do that a couple of times and it not only gets confusing but it send the message to the readers that none of what they are reading matters because it will just get rebooted later, that the series they are reading and invested in isn't the "real" series.

Flipping back to the old numbering doesn't solve this problem. It simply compounds it. It places too much importance on the numbering of the issue than the contents. I mean, shouldn't we be talking about what is happening in Thor and not what issue number will be on the cover?

johnmayo wrote:

Foe wrote: Your thoughts?

Renumbering a title provides a short term bump in sales with no real long term benefit. Do that a couple of times and it not only gets confusing but it send the message to the readers that none of what they are reading matters because it will just get rebooted later, that the series they are reading and invested in isn't the "real" series.

Flipping back to the old numbering doesn't solve this problem. It simply compounds it. It places too much importance on the numbering of the issue than the contents. I mean, shouldn't we be talking about what is happening in Thor and not what issue number will be on the cover?

I can't argue with the first part of your comment; I agree with you wholeheartedly, in fact.

The second part not so much...

I see flipping back as more of an admittance that it was a mistake to reboot and that what was established before the 'boot was indeed the real series. Thus I'd like to think of flipping it as folding back in the material published during and after the restart(s).

And I agree that we should be talking about what's happening in Thor, not what the number is on the cover. Talking about Thor shouldn't ever have had to involve mentioning which volume of Thor it is that we're discussing.

Having said that, while flipping back doesn't necessarily completely solve that last problem--the damage is done--at least were talking about the real Thor again.

Foe wrote:

johnmayo wrote:

Foe wrote: Your thoughts?

Renumbering a title provides a short term bump in sales with no real long term benefit. Do that a couple of times and it not only gets confusing but it send the message to the readers that none of what they are reading matters because it will just get rebooted later, that the series they are reading and invested in isn't the "real" series.

Flipping back to the old numbering doesn't solve this problem. It simply compounds it. It places too much importance on the numbering of the issue than the contents. I mean, shouldn't we be talking about what is happening in Thor and not what issue number will be on the cover?

I can't argue with the first part of your comment; I agree with you wholeheartedly, in fact.

The second part not so much...

I see flipping back as more of an admittance that it was a mistake to reboot and that what was established before the 'boot was indeed the real series. Thus I'd like to think of flipping it as folding back in the material published during and after the restart(s).

And I agree that we should be talking about what's happening in Thor, not what the number is on the cover. Talking about Thor shouldn't ever have had to involve mentioning which volume of Thor it is that we're discussing.

Having said that, while flipping back doesn't necessarily completely solve that last problem--the damage is done--at least were talking about the real Thor again.

The flipping back just adds to the confusion. Are we one volume 1 or 4 of Fantastic Four? Do we really need to be on volume 5 of Captain America?

A case could be made that reverting the numbering implies that the other volumes of a title some how don't count but that we are back to things that do.

The initial renumbering created a bad situation which has gotten worse with each subsequent renumbering. Flipping the numbering back is a much lesser offense than the renumberings but still add to the confusion and cynicism.

And, for what it is worth, I liked Thunderstrike...

Foe wrote: Having said that, while flipping back doesn't necessarily completely solve that last problem--the damage is done--at least were talking about the real Thor again.

Or at least we will be if he ever goes back to his real costume

By the way, I do like the practice of going back to original numbering on "flagship" titles (kind of making up for past sins).

However, I fear that it will only last until the publishers decide they need another sales boost and start the numbering over at #1 again

JLAFan wrote:By the way, I do like the practice of going back to original numbering on "flagship" titles (kind of making up for past sins).

However, I fear that it will only last until the publishers decide they need another sales boost and start the numbering over at #1 again

I completely agree with you second point.

I'm not opposed to the reverting to the previous number scheme, I just find it needlessly confusing and therefore a bad thing. I do find reverting to the previous scheme much better than the dual numbering that a few titles has gone through. That was completely insane.

I am certain that sooner or later just about every title that has reverting back to the original numbering will restart at #1. Just give it time.

johnmayo wrote:I'm not opposed to the reverting to the previous number scheme, I just find it needlessly confusing and therefore a bad thing. I do find reverting to the previous scheme much better than the dual numbering that a few titles has gone through. That was completely insane.

I think the dual numbering has only been used as a precursor for a switch. i.e. a few months before Amazing Spiderman switched, they went dual, then old numbering only. I do notice, however, that the recent Aamzing Spiderman Annual was numbered 35 AND 1.

I am certain that sooner or later just about every title that has reverting back to the original numbering will restart at #1. Just give it time.

I'm waiting for the first restart to #1, reversion to original, restart to #1 again, revert back a second time! lol

As a general rule, I like the reversion though, even with the confusion b/c I missed the original runs. I LIKE buying issue 512 of a series, and knowing I have issues dating back to number 1.

When did reversions start? The first such instance I can recall was with Nexus - and that was only in the indicia, not the fornt cover. (although, it's possible ASM predated that).

BTW, I thought I'd read that the Thor 600 reversion was temporary - for that issue only. Did anyone else hear this/the contrary?

e
L nny

JLAFan wrote: Or at least we will be if he ever goes back to his real costume

By the way, I do like the practice of going back to original numbering on "flagship" titles (kind of making up for past sins).

However, I fear that it will only last until the publishers decide they need another sales boost and start the numbering over at #1 again

I agree completely I know that renumbering a series gives it a sales boast but I really wish they would stop this practice. For me I like the idea that a title has been around for a long time. It is a comfort because it tells me it is more than likely be around for a lot longer. When I see a low number on a book I worry that it will ends up being cancelled around issue 12