Launching a series from out of a crossover is not the way to go
I found a discussion on Chuck Dixon's board that spoke about something I hadn't really thought of before: how DC's been using crossovers like Zero Hour as a launching pad for series that ultimately didn't do well. As the first poster asks:
Obviously, that's something that's got to change, because introducing new characters and series through a company-wide crossover can ultimately lead to contrived results that simply don't wash. And one of the worst crossovers, from which some of the characters who may have appeared in ZH first showed up, was 1993's Bloodlines, which seemed to exist only for the sake of senseless bloodshed, courtesy of aliens who could do things we've already seen done in movies like Aliens, Predator, and Terminator. I recall reading at least two of the annuals this took place in - the Flash and Detective Comics annuals, and they were some of the most disgusting, blood-spattered "stories" I'd ever experienced. Thank goodness I never read the New Titans annual from then. The newly introduced protagonists who appeared there, such as Anima, Argus, Gunfire and Hitman, faded from view almost entirely within two years.
Bloodlines is also a textbook example of how comics lost their minds in pointless bloodshed during the 1990s. Stories like that are something we don't need either these days.
Here's my question...do comic companies 'push' ongoing series too quickly instead of doing a couple mini-series before launching an ongoing?As replied to in this thread:
I think at least DC does. Look at the data from as far back as 10 years ago. Coming out of Zero Hour they tried to launch new on-goings without any kind of build-up beyond a scant mention in the mini. And save Starman all of them failed. Then they tried it again with series like Chase, Xero, Major Bummer, Young Heroes in Love, etc. and the same thing happened. The only "start from cold on-going" that took hold from that time period was Resurrection Man, and even that didn't last all that long. Now they've started doing it again with series like Manhunter and Bloodhound.And so, we may have here an explanation as to what DC's mistakes are, that they're launching series from off of overrated x-overs, rather than to promote them in a way similar to how BoP was through a couple specials and minis (I own the 4-part Manhunt mini from 1996. Got it for a great price 3 years ago). And of course, as Identity/Infinite Crisis showed, they were also doing these things at the expense of older characters without even giving them a respectable send-off.
You'd think DC would've learned from the success of the formula that Birds of Prey employed and applied that to all concepts. I'd think you'd be able to tell by the second or third one-shot if the concept was going to be commercially viable. I think at the very minimum there should be a mini-series done before jumping into the on-going.
Obviously, that's something that's got to change, because introducing new characters and series through a company-wide crossover can ultimately lead to contrived results that simply don't wash. And one of the worst crossovers, from which some of the characters who may have appeared in ZH first showed up, was 1993's Bloodlines, which seemed to exist only for the sake of senseless bloodshed, courtesy of aliens who could do things we've already seen done in movies like Aliens, Predator, and Terminator. I recall reading at least two of the annuals this took place in - the Flash and Detective Comics annuals, and they were some of the most disgusting, blood-spattered "stories" I'd ever experienced. Thank goodness I never read the New Titans annual from then. The newly introduced protagonists who appeared there, such as Anima, Argus, Gunfire and Hitman, faded from view almost entirely within two years.
Bloodlines is also a textbook example of how comics lost their minds in pointless bloodshed during the 1990s. Stories like that are something we don't need either these days.
