2000 AD Online Forum

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 13 December, 2015, 08:27:25 AM
the biggest mistake of (Grant Morrison) in 2000ad was by trying to redefine 2000ad for a 90s audience was that he forgot that the 2000ad was actually getting it pretty much spot on and so by rallying against it he was rallying against something that worked. He also missed that 2000ad wasn't looking for its next generation of audience, rather unlike a lot of comics wonderfully growing up alongside the audience it'd always had.

Colin's comments on another thread reminded me of the line pursued by Pat Mills in the Future Shock DVD.

Rebellion's decision to appeal to a core audience stabilised reader numbers, but if (in 1990) you explained to Robert Maxwell that the solution to 2000ad's circulation problems was to jettison 90% of its readers he wouldn't have been impressed.

The general thrust of the 90s was similar to the 80s approach - strips that were a bit like the kind of films and telly the mass audience were into. Mercy Heights was Babylon 5, Sin/Dex was Pulp Fiction, Vector 13 was X-Files, Sancho Panzer is Our Friends In The North, etc.

I'm not arguing those strips were any good*, just that imagining the 100,000 readers who bought 2000ad every week in the 80s might give the comic a second look if it featured stuff they liked (including Viz and Loaded) wasn't such an insane idea.


* saying they should run good strips instead of shite ones doen't seem like much of an insight

The re-branding 1993 till I left in 1995 and presumably until Rebellion took over, pissed away presumably ten's of thousands of readers like me. 2000AD for the last 3 years I stuck with it, was (with a few exceptions) unreadable, week in; week out. A truly dreadful period. Z

Quote from: ZenArcade on 16 December, 2015, 06:17:57 PM
The re-branding 1993 till I left in 1995 and presumably until Rebellion took over, pissed away presumably ten's of thousands of readers like me. 2000AD for the last 3 years I stuck with it, was (with a few exceptions) unreadable, week in; week out. A truly dreadful period. Z

I bailed in 1993 (Book of the Dead part 2, to be precise), but  I'd echo every word of that (although with the obvious caveat, which I'm sure Zen shares, that there were always grains of gold mixed in - just not remotely enough to outshine the gong it was buried in). What always amazes me when I consider my wilderness years is that I kept actively trying to get back on board - I'd see and buy landmark progs like 1000 or particularly good covers like 920, or the perennial return of Slaine, hang on for a few progs, and then drop it again because there was nothing I was enjoying - and even where there was, the rest would annoy me too much for it to be worth it. 

Reading the Damage Report in the Prog it seems that Rebellion's ''give the old guys what they want'' seems to be generating squillions of pounds.
I'm sure Murdoch would have understood that (and possibly raided the 2000ad pension potty at the same time).
Following the trend of 'match and dispatch' had lead to the death of just about every other weekly comic and fashionista Deadline-type comic too.
It would have been fine if the copy the latest film had been done well, but it was mostly turgid overstretched stories with muddy brown colouring due to the new colour processes.
So IMO yes they got it wrong and almost killed their golden goose.

Quote from: Butch on 16 December, 2015, 05:40:54 PM
Sancho Panzer is Our Friends In The North, etc.

Can't believe I missed that, its so bloody obvious now its said.

I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again David Bishop, dark days or not, certainly left the Prog in better shape when he left it than when he took over. There was lots of bumpy water on the way but by the time Nikolai Dante started he had finally got three solid strips (Dante, Wagner on Dredd and Sinister Dexter (long may she continue) appearing regularly, from which he could build and make the mistakes, the oh so many mistakes. A bit of luck maybe, but it was luck used well and capitalised upon... eventually!

Yeah, negative feelings about the content aside, the work of Bishop and later Diggle in keeping the Prog alive at all, and laying foundations for its second flowering, should never be forgotten.

and give him his due, he had to use up all the guff bought and paid for before his time, and anything else found down the back o the filing cabinet, before he could spend on the good stuff that started around then, or so I read/heard er someplace  :-[

2000AD readership cratered under Burton/MacKenzie, due to the twin factors of the comic being shit and the new management imposing a change of distributor. Everything after that was a rearguard action against cancellation, leading up to the Rebellion buy-out. David Bishop, and the rarely-mentioned John Tomlinson before him, rolled up their sleeves and shifted the massive piles of fully-painted, mud-coloured art illustrating Millar and Fleischer scripts. The Mills version of 2000AD history has the Rebellion buy-out as the start of the comic's salvation, but that happened on the same day that Andy Diggle became editor.

(I may or may not have a long blog post on this subject in preparation...)

Cheers

Jim

Quote from: Proudhuff on 16 December, 2015, 07:38:33 PM
and give him his due, he had to use up all the guff bought and paid for before his time, and anything else found down the back o the filing cabinet, before he could spend on the good stuff that started around then, or so I read/heard er someplace  :-[

Thrill Power Overload, Page 184

Quote'I spent the last two weeks of 1995 assessing what was in the drawer.  I was shocked to discover material dating back five years.  [ ]  I was still faced with plenty of strips that other people had commissioned and then buried at the back of the plans chest.'  Fleetly policy meant all commissioned work had to be published, regardless  of quality.

For me this was the return from the wilderness as it were.  Stories like The Pit had made me look afresh at the prog.  For me the anthology style always meant that there were (and are) strips that I enjoyed more than others.  That said, the last prog slog saw those years sped through at quite a pace.  Big Dave was the only strip at the time that really stood out as 'what the f*** is this doing in tooth?', particularly the world cup strip.

Quote from: Tordelback on 16 December, 2015, 06:42:51 PM
I bailed in 1993 (Book of the Dead part 2, to be precise), but  I'd echo every word of that (although with the obvious caveat, which I'm sure Zen shares, that there were always grains of gold mixed in - just not remotely enough to outshine the gong it was buried in).

As someone who never stopped, there really was always something good (just as any particular "Golden Age" always featured some shite).

QuoteWhat always amazes me when I consider my wilderness years is that I kept actively trying to get back on board - I'd see and buy landmark progs like 1000 or particularly good covers like 920, or the perennial return of Slaine, hang on for a few progs, and then drop it again because there was nothing I was enjoying

Kudos on the effort, I think if I had given up during those years when I was skint and bouncing around and the quality was poor, I would probably never have come back.

The movie seems to have been a catalyst for many to return. I bought 1808 and never looked back. Z

Quote from: Proudhuff on 16 December, 2015, 06:53:56 PM
Following the trend of 'match and dispatch' had lead to the death of just about every other weekly comic and fashionista Deadline-type comic too.

It would have been fine if the copy the latest film had been done well

Yeah like I say, I'm sure we all agree it would have been better if the strips were good, but that's not really the argument Mills proposes and I'm sure they weren't deliberately trying to publish rotten comics.

The point you make concerning the collapse of the UK comic industry seems relevant - they could have run Day Of Chaos in the 90s and still haemorrhaged readers*, because kids stopped buying comics and the existing (teenage) readers needed money for beer and ecstasy.

The idea that Tharg could have held onto some more of those 100,000 readers by running strips that echoed other 90s pop culture they enjoyed doesn't seem too far fetched to me**, but Mills sees this all as a foolish diversion from bringing back strips about soldiers and dinosaurs.


* and talented creators   ** I like Big Dave, so my finger's not on the pulse

Quote from: ZenArcade on 16 December, 2015, 08:26:23 PM
The movie seems to have been a catalyst for many to return. I bought 1808 and never looked back. Z

It bounced back long, long before that. And when you said the movie the first thing that came to mind was the 95 Dredd movie, funnily enough.

Without sales numbers and whatnot, I don't really know how we're gauging stuff like that in recent years. I pretty much just know what has been said in the ThrillPower Overload, interviews, etc. Does anybody know what the subscriber numbers are? Or number of digital sales?

As for criticizing the 90s stuff, felt like a lot of it was going for a kind of Alan Grant "Lobo" vibe, a lot of irreverent weird comedy stuff, with intentionally ugly looking stuff. Not that I don't love Lobo. But there was plenty of great stuff as well, anything Wagner, and I love SinDex personally.

Quote from: PsychoGoatee on 16 December, 2015, 08:35:55 PM
Without sales numbers and whatnot, I don't really know how we're gauging stuff like that in recent years.

15,000 p/w as of Aug 2013 (http://www.theguardian.com/books/video/2013/aug/09/judge-dredd-edinburgh-celebration-2000ad-video)*, compared to a peak of over 100,000 in the eighties (Thrillpower Overload).


* if you compare those numbers to the sales of monthly US comics, that meant 2000ad generated as much revenue as a top ten Marvel or DC book (http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2013/2013-08.html)

Quote from: Butch on 16 December, 2015, 08:46:47 PM

Quote from: PsychoGoatee on 16 December, 2015, 08:35:55 PM
Without sales numbers and whatnot, I don't really know how we're gauging stuff like that in recent years.

15,000 p/w as of Aug 2013 (http://www.theguardian.com/books/video/2013/aug/09/judge-dredd-edinburgh-celebration-2000ad-video)*, compared to a peak of over 100,000 in the eighties (Thrillpower Overload).


* if you compare those numbers to the sales of monthly US comics, that meant 2000ad generated as much revenue as a top ten Marvel or DC book (http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2013/2013-08.html)

Thanks for the info there. Still, that's not bad, it's more than most comics outside of Marvel and DC sell in the US for example. One of my favs, Invincible (Robert Kirkman) sells around 12000 in the US, and some of my favs sell as little as 4000. Plus those are monthly instead of weekly. Just some random comparisons.

I wonder how well 2000AD does digitally. I'd guess pretty solid sales there. It seems the printed periodical in general is just significantly down compared to the 80s.

I never quit reading 2000 AD, but there was a long period where I didn't care. It was more like a habit. The problem, as I saw it then, is the comic simply stopped being dependable. Prior to about Prog 700, there were pretty much always two or three quality strips running, and Dredd was almost always a hit. By the time you hit 2000 AD's nadir, you have a bunch of creators who are either too young to fully appreciate what they're doing or so arrogant that they not only want to jettison 2000 AD's history, but consider everything that came before a waste of time and space.

Additionally, quality control for a long time was lacking. Strips were tricky to parse; scripts were boring or throwaway; art was muddy and lacked polish. I think had it not been for John Smith, the occasional decent Ennis Dredd, and Luke Kirby (McKenzie's one positive strip-based contribution), I'd never have made it to the Tomlinson/Bishop/Diggle days. (The Meg I did actually ditch, only picking it up with vol. 4's radical and impressive redesign.)

I do agree with others here that tapping into the zeitgeist wasn't so much the problem. It's just how they did it and the lack of quality control that was to blame. Additionally, it doesn't help that ladism was on high for a chunk of the 1990s, which few publishers will consider a high point in content output.

Interesting that 15,000 and a correlation with the 60,000 FCBD issue. Z

90s editorial is too broad a brush to sum up the different styles the prog exhibited during that decade. [Much as I enjoyed the Future Shock doc, it blurs those ten years into a single entity which isn't accurate, IMHO.]

There's the Burt & Mackenzie years, up to 1994
Then Tomlinson & MacManus run, 1994-1995
Then me & Steve for a spell, 1996-1997
Then me & Diggle from 97ish to Prog 2000 [and beyond].

Each of the editorial teams that took over during the 90s inherited material, to a greater or lesser extent. John & Steve didn't get to commission much of their own, but the comic's course was changing under them - Sin/Dex being a prime example, plus The Pit - a longrunner and a classic.

I was lucky enough to find Nikolai Dante in the works when I arrived, albeit 15 months from readiness and somewhat different from the version that appeared in March 97.

Andy had a huge impact as my assistant, and then...

Well, then it was 00 editorial!

Quote from: DarkDaysBish-OP on 16 December, 2015, 09:29:17 PM
90s editorial is too broad a brush to sum up the different styles the prog exhibited during that decade.

There's the Burt & Mackenzie years, up to 1994
Then Tomlinson & MacManus run, 1994-1995
Then me & Steve for a spell, 1996-1997
Then me & Diggle from 97ish to Prog 2000 [and beyond]

The Mills argument straddles those periods. Like I say, I don't agree that featuring material similar to the pop culture 90s teenagers were consuming was any more responsible for losing readers than running strips influenced by Star Wars and Mad Max was responsible for gaining pre-teen readers in the 80s:

QuoteBURTON/MCKENZIE: there was the NME period, where NME regularly reviewed comics, and 2000 AD in particular. NME applauded 2000 AD's 'cooler' and more 'hip' stories. They encouraged the editors to move the comic far too close to Deadline magazine. They encouraged the psychedelic elements and discouraged the storytelling on which 2000 AD was built, and which our mainstream readers loved.

TOMLINSON/BISHOP: This preceded the attempts to make 2000 AD another Vertigo or Loaded. Anything other than make 2000 AD like...2000 AD. The various editors were convinced that falling sales were due to it needing a radical new face-lift. We had to wait for Matt Smith – the current editor – to come along and restore the comic's fortunes by doing the bleeding obvious

http://www.millsverse.com/home/4585194099/tags/Sean%20Hogan

I'm just going to point out again that the problem with the Mills 'Dark Days' narrative is that it ignores the fact that 2000AD's circulation collapse happened under Burton/McKenzie, and that one can't point to the Rebellion buy-out as the turning point in the title's fortunes and ignore the fact that it coincided with Andy Diggle's ascension to the right hand of Tharg.

Cheers

Jim

I never stopped reading, both Meg and Tooth. There was always something to keep me coming back, even though there was stories that I did not read at all, stuff like Babe Race, Mean Arena, Dry run etc.
There was a lot of mish mash on stories, e.g. terrible stories with FANTASTIC art, like the Frankenstein Division and the Egyptian one.

Part of the problem too in the nineties was that a large part of the eighties creative team were gone, Moore, Wagner, Bolland, McMahon, Gibson, Kennedy, Grant, Dillon, Milligan and many more had got work elsewhere, Ron Smith and Massimo had fallen out of popularity, it was left to an ever increasing amount of inexperienced  creators to fill an every increasing page count.

In the mid nineties published by the '2000ad Group' within Egmont (or whatever they called it at the time)  there was;

2000ad
Meg
Lawman of the future
Best of and Complete Dredds, with new covers
Poster progs
Daily Star
Sci Fi Specials, Megazine Specials, Winter Specials plus specials collected editions. 

The Batman Dredds came out in this time too.

And add in the line of collected graphic novels, News of the World film adaptations, DC Dredd(I know that it would not have much impact editorially, but still would have to be checked, negotiated etc)

The sheer amount of colour 2000ad material that was produced in the nineties by relatively inexperienced creators is incredible.

Another thing that has to be taken into account is the Maxwell takeover. While this did lead to better paper and more colour, it also led to the loss of a huge amount of behind the scenes artist who worked on logos, cover designs etc, and would have been used as a back up editorial, essentially a cut to the staff available to 2000AD.

Its a tricky period, a low point maybe, but there were highs too, its easy to blame the Editors completely for the problems, but IMO its a much bigger picture. The buck does stop with the ED, but when looking back the bigger picture needs to be taken into account.

The turnaround started for me to a degree when Sin/Dex started, and took off when Dante started. Still a lot to moan about, but there was a stable line up of decent  storylines that steadied the ship.

PHOOEY!!!  PHOOEY I SAY!!!

Simon Bisley, Glenn Fabry, Colin MacNeil, Dermot Power, S.B. Davis, Robert Bliss, Greg Staples, Kev Walker!  There's probably more but my memory ain't what it used to be.

The Meg gave us Shimura, Missionary Man (Frank Quitely for goodness sake!) Mick McMahon went gloriously bonkers and Trevor Hairsine made his debut!

Sean Phillips!  There I just remembered another one!  Devlin Waugh!

Flippin' revisionist nonsense!  The 90's were awesome!

BAH!

Quote from: Dandontdare on 16 December, 2015, 08:20:37 PM
As someone who never stopped, there really was always something good (just as any particular "Golden Age" always featured some shite).

It'll have to wait until my prog slog gets to that period (currently stalled at Prog 19/Summer Supercomic due to NaNoWriMo getting in the way), but I'm pretty sure I won't find anything I hate from around 200 - 500...

p.s. congrats on your name being pulled out of the knitted Judge helmet!

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 16 December, 2015, 09:00:29 PM
I never quit reading 2000 AD, but there was a long period where I didn't care. It was more like a habit. The problem, as I saw it then, is the comic simply stopped being dependable. Prior to about Prog 700, there were pretty much always two or three quality strips running, and Dredd was almost always a hit. By the time you hit 2000 AD's nadir, you have a bunch of creators who are either too young to fully appreciate what they're doing or so arrogant that they not only want to jettison 2000 AD's history, but consider everything that came before a waste of time and space.

That's pretty much my take on it - thanks for putting it into words!  I kept up with 2000AD and JDM, possibly have a few stories I've still not yet read from the 1990s.  It was so much of a habit I didn't really notice when it started getting good again, it just crept up!  Though a number of home moves meant that my progs were either a hundred miles away or packed in boxes I couldn't get to, so the re-reading of stories I'd have done in my early Squaxx years was impossible.

My own personal thesis is that 2000ad's readership tanked when its main characters archetype changed. In the golden era it was a comic of adult characters read by kids who identified with them as heroes. Dark twisted anti-heroes but still adult hero types. By the 700s the readership had aged to university age but the stories were increasingly purile and featuring younger characters they were meant to identify with or incorporate 'diversity' (Bradley, Luke Kirby, Jonni Kiss, Finn, Zippy Couriers) and nobody really had any affinity for them. The impact of Deadline and a wish to move from white/blue/male central lead. I know plenty of people like Luke Kirby but for me it was 'I'm not interested in a kid'. Every 20-something character was likewise uninteresting as they too often were obvious ciphers for the writers view of his own coolness, which never was cool. Deadline could do it as it was more individualistic and less action orientated, 2000ad couldn't. Sin Dex could be great (the Simon Davis epics are terribly underrated) but it could also be complete purile tosh if the artists approach was a certain way (something that still affects it although it has been in good hands of late). In effect between writers, unpolished artists and the pursuit of deadline hipness it became juvenile when it's audience was growing up. There was little affinity between audience and characters.

It's revival came with more mature characters returning to the mainstay (savage, Kipling, a somber Slaine, stickleback, Gene the Hackman, lobster Random, Defoe, Dirty Frank, bloodied-Dante) as its once loyal reader returned and found it was once again in sync with what they wanted... Grumpy old bastards kicking ass. If 2000ad was pushing the characters from the dark years it would be dead. It's now a mix of old ass kickers, well written female characters (that old men tend to like to read as there is the female form illustrated but also a sense that a character their daughter could identify with is being respected) and the golden age core. SinDex is probably the only surviving dark years tale... For a variety of reasons from DanAbnett still writing for the prog to its role as 'fill-in' material at times. Plus puns. Puns are always good. Aside from female characters (helium, Brass Sun), when was the last new strip to feature a young central character? Marauder? Nobody give a toss about Maurauder despite a strong creative team. it was a character that wasn't right for the audience. Probably would have made a great marvel comic.

There are other things, of course, digital colouring getting better, artists getting better, Wagner back on Dredd.. But really a comic has to speak to its readership and in the dark years it really failed to. It was led astray by Deadline, diversity and gaucheness. It's readership grew up but the prog took years to figure it out. Or maybe you can look at the same thing in the other direction..the problem was always us.. We just had to get to our 30s to be vaguely unified in what we wanted.

Not sure I see how Amy Nixon, Atalia Jaegir or Anna Kohl (to name the principals of three of the best new strips of the past decade) fit into your scheme there, BPP, but the Survival Geeks are definitely young and mostly male. However I agree entirely the Grumpy Old Man is the archetype that gels best with today's readership - even when it's twisted slightly into Gene-dog, Shakara, or Zombo. It does seem sort-of inevitable, though.

Pat's thesis is interesting in this light (all his best recent characters are GOMs - even Slaine has perked up considerably since he became a geezer, and McGuirk outshone Dallas in Flesh).

Bish-Op's clarifications are very useful. As I thought, it's under Bishop and Diggle that the comic and I came back together, even if it's Smith's unnaturally steady hand that has kept me here, I would add that it was also the beginning of the comic's presence on the internet that drew me back in, in particular the ready presence of editors like Diggle, creators like John Smith and gauche arrivistes like Spurrier and Frazer ,on a.c.2000AD and later here. iwonder how much of the comic's stability is due to a gathering-in of the strays through the internet?

Quote from: Tordelback on 17 December, 2015, 10:48:44 AM
Not sure I see how Amy Nixon, Atalia Jaegir or Anna Kohl (to name the principals of three of the best new strips of the past decade) fit into your scheme there, BPP, but the Survival Geeks are definitely young and mostly male. However I agree entirely the Grumpy Old Man is the archetype that gels best with today's readership - even when it's twisted slightly into Gene-dog, Shakara, or Zombo. It does seem sort-of inevitable, though.

Pat's thesis is interesting in this light (all his best recent characters are GOMs - even Slaine has perked up considerably since he became a geezer, and McGuirk outshone Dallas in Flesh).

Quote

It's now a mix of old ass kickers, well written female characters (that old men tend to like to read as there is the female form illustrated but also a sense that a character their daughter could identify with is being respected) and the golden age core

Which has always been the case re female characters. We all like Halo Jones and Tryanny Rex, Babe Race not so much. Survival Geeks is an odd strip by modern 2000ads standards. I very much enjoy it even I I'm assuming I dont get half the genre jokes in it. It's cultural referenced nature is probably what appeals to readers, as well as the great art. But yes certainly an outlier and I feel that is how I relate to it too.

Quote from: James Dilworth on 17 December, 2015, 12:49:38 AMFlippin' revisionist nonsense!  The 90's were awesome!

Go back and read all of the strips, rather than just the good stuff. The Case Files are a really good case in point. Once you hit that period of Dredd, it's such a slog. The writing's generally poor, but so is much of the storytelling, with sub-Bisley clones mudding the place up.

That there were exceptions—a handful of artists; almost anything by John Smith; a couple of decent Meg series—doesn't mean the majority of the comics during the dark days was mediocre at best.

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 17 December, 2015, 11:46:53 AM
That there were exceptions—a handful of artists; almost anything by John Smith; a couple of decent Meg series—doesn't mean the majority of the comics during the dark days was mediocre at best.

The Meg was much stronger than 2000AD for while, mostly during the Burton/McKenzie period when Wagner wasn't writing for the weekly, funnily enough.

Cheers

Jim

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 16 December, 2015, 11:03:48 PM
I'm just going to point out again that the problem with the Mills 'Dark Days' narrative is that it ignores the fact that 2000AD's circulation collapse happened under Burton/McKenzie, and that one can't point to the Rebellion buy-out as the turning point in the title's fortunes and ignore the fact that it coincided with Andy Diggle's ascension to the right hand of Tharg.

Cheers

Jim

This ^^^

and you can see why the current (lovely) Tharg is popular with Mrs Mill's laddie by the page count he gets, while, IMHO, his writing was correctly challenged in the Bishop/Diggle years.

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 17 December, 2015, 11:46:53 AMGo back and read all of the strips

No.

I'm gonna sit here with my arms folded and reminisce about The Word.

But you could be reading Junker, Babe Race 2000, Dry Run and Wireheads!

A nineties thread.... touchy subject for me as my slower-than-slow slog finished with prog 1000  a few days ago (really 962 but I bought 1000 'cos it was there). An ordeal, many hours I won't get back. The last 3 or 4 years of which I bought through loyalty but didn't even read.

The nonsense was punctuated by some Smith, but I'm not a fan of his pretentious writing so tough going!

Struggling to think of highlights. Power's art and Mills (also) on Slaine were enjoyable romps.

Was the Meg faring better in the early nineties? Right now I've a mind to hit the early progs (yet to re-read) and remind myself what all the fuss is about  :)  The Meg can wait...

Quote from: James Dilworth on 17 December, 2015, 01:35:31 PM
I'm gonna sit here with my arms folded and reminisce about The Word.

What, that episode?

Mills' key point here - that it was the type or theme of stories (and not just the quality) that was the disastrous decision - is difficult to support. One of the things that truly pissed me off in the 90s was the old reliable stories: unreadable zero-dimensional Dredd for weeks on end; a Rogue Trooper that was incoherent and interminable; Slaine that had strayed so far from his antediluvian barbarian roots and turned into a mouthpiece for PseudoHistorical Thesis No. 23; Flesh that was a garish rambling mouthpiece for PseudoEnvironmental Thesis No. 62.  And snut me, Sam C**ting Slade. These were Old Skool Thrills by anyone's definition, just fecked up so royally as to make them repellent.

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 17 December, 2015, 02:02:14 PM
But you could be reading Junker, Babe Race 2000, Dry Run and Wireheads!

You forgot Space Girls.

Hey ease off Junker! Z :(

Quote from: Tordelback on 17 December, 2015, 04:00:45 PM
Mills' key point here - that it was the type or theme of stories (and not just the quality) that was the disastrous decision - is difficult to support. One of the things that truly pissed me off in the 90s was the old reliable stories:

unreadable zero-dimensional Dredd for weeks on end; a Rogue Trooper that was incoherent and interminable; Slaine that had strayed so far from his antediluvian barbarian roots and turned into a mouthpiece for PseudoHistorical Thesis No. 23; Flesh that was a garish rambling mouthpiece for PseudoEnvironmental Thesis No. 62.  And snut me, Sam C**ting Slade.

These were Old Skool Thrills by anyone's definition, just fecked up so royally as to make them repellent.

TordelBack's Sam C Slade joke made me wet myself and he's engaged with the topic the thread was intended to discuss.

The thesis of the Future Shock documentary* is that the 90s were all Space Girls and BLAIR-1, then Rebellion took over, made everything the same as it was in the 80s, and it's all been plain sailing since.

TordelBack's list demonstrates that much of the 90s strips that supposedly had readers leaving in droves were the same strips (and the same types and themes) Rebellion turned to when they first took over.

The truth is the comic lost a similar proportion of its readers during the *TERRIBLE* Burton/McKenzie era (100k-50k (https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/alt.comics.2000ad/th0gcr5iapM)) as it did during the so-so Tomlinson/Bishop/Diggle runs (50k-25k (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comics.2000ad/gY4Dfc6d3i8%5B176-200%5D)) and Matt Smith regency (25k-15k (http://www.theguardian.com/books/video/2013/aug/09/judge-dredd-edinburgh-celebration-2000ad-video)).

Given those facts, it's difficult to support the theory that the comic lost readers because it ran a certain type of story, since it continued to lose readers when running previously successful strips in the 90s and when it ran better quality versions of those same strips in the 21st century.


*Pat Mills's thesis. If Thrillpower Overload is the History Of 2000ad from the perspective of David Bishop, then Future Shock is the Pat Mills History Of 2000ad- he has the first and last word (and most of the words inbetween)

Quote from: BPP on 17 December, 2015, 05:18:05 AM
My own personal thesis is that 2000ad's readership tanked when its main characters archetype changed. In the golden era it was a comic of adult characters read by kids who identified with them as heroes. Dark twisted anti-heroes but still adult hero types. By the 700s the readership had aged to university age but ....

I can't help thinking that your thesis also has another dimension.  When you think of the demographic of the readership in particular, there may be a different reason why both readership and the Tooth's fortunes have revived in recent years.  A large proportion of the readership grew up reading in the early days.  The early years still read as if it was largely aimed at children, particularly Dredd.  You can see a maturing in the story telling into the eighties with a few exceptions. 

By the nineties that core audience had aged into their twenties, hence the strategy of competing with the likes of Viz and Loaded.  Watchmen, Dark Knight and Vertigo were giving comics a kudos that they had previously lacked but the priorities of the twenty something audience were changing as well with a drifting away from comics in general.  I seem to recall the early nineties as a time when on the one hand comics had a greater level of respect than previously but that was being undermined by some of the marketing practices of a lot of comics companies.  This was a time of multiple covers, lenticular, chrome, ... whatever. 

The Rebellion takeover coincided with another change in priorities for that drifted audience and the rise in nostalgia marketing.  Rebellion, as has been mentioned previously, looked to the back catalogue of quality strips and mixed that in with new strips in a similar vein.  You have the return of the VC's, Slaine back to it's former style and the resurrection of Johnny Alpha.  I would agree that the most successful new creations of the last few years have appealed to the sensibilities that were present in the best of the early years' strips.

So we now have a middle aged readership, with a leavening of new blood to give it a longevity that would otherwise be lacking.  The long history of many of the characters also gives Rebellion a dual market for the back catalogue, graphic novel releases that at one and the same time appeal to the seasoned readership through higher quality but more expensive releases against lower cost versions for those looking to gain an understanding of past glories.

Quote from: Tordelback on 17 December, 2015, 04:00:45 PM
Mills' key point here - that it was the type or theme of stories (and not just the quality) that was the disastrous decision - is difficult to support. One of the things that truly pissed me off in the 90s was the old reliable stories: unreadable zero-dimensional Dredd for weeks on end; a Rogue Trooper that was incoherent and interminable; Slaine that had strayed so far from his antediluvian barbarian roots and turned into a mouthpiece for PseudoHistorical Thesis No. 23; Flesh that was a garish rambling mouthpiece for PseudoEnvironmental Thesis No. 62.  And snut me, Sam C**ting Slade. These were Old Skool Thrills by anyone's definition, just fecked up so royally as to make them repellent.

This. So very, very this.

Have all the Dragon Tales you want, Tharg, I thought, but keep the Dredd good and everything's fine.

The Dredd wasn't good, though. It featured mutant teddy bears and spitting contests (which a good Wagner Dredd might have thrown in as an aside, but not as the main theme of the fecking story).

If it hadn't been for some amazing John Smith stories (Firekind, Revere and Killing Time in particular) and Zenith 4, I might have jacked it in completely.

For me, the different atmosphere of the Summer Offensive, trashy and kitsch as it was, was a welcome break from the mediocrity, though such a throwaway approach couldn't really have lasted much longer than it did.

When Wagner came back all was fine.  Even Sláine got better then (well, I liked the Robin of Sherwood one, anyway).

Quote
Given those facts, it's difficult to support the theory that the comic lost readers because it ran a certain type of story, since it continued to lose readers when running previously successful strips in the 90s and when it ran better quality versions of those same strips in the 21st century.

I don't think its difficult at all. First of all no argument is absolute, these are all degrees. Ennis-Millar Dredd alienated a lot of readers, new unappealing central characters  alienated a lot of readers, 3rd wave artists learning their trade alienated a lot of readers. Its cumulative. But bad stories are bad stories be that for art or script reasons. Trash, Medvac, were simply a dull dog. It would be whether it ran then or now. 2000AD had a readership and then lost it.  Sure they kept trying stories with the 'key' characters but they didn't work - that was down to the talent around them, but it stories that appeared alongside, the sort that should have been providing new key characters.. they simply wheren't there and I'd say much of that was due to it misunderstanding it's audience and creating stories that had little appeal.  Id say these are the things that loyal readers began to get a disjunct with and eventually after probably buying the comic for  a decade they got to the high 700s / 800s and walked off.

Nowadays the comic seems to have a much surer hand on what appeals to its readers. And its not an update of Zippy Couriers or Hewligan's Haircut.

(BTW - even accepting your figures - Smith has been here 13 years - 10k loss according to you. Burton Mackenzie was 7 years and 50k loss according to you. That's not a similar attrition rate in the slightest).

For me it was the loss of key writers - John Wagner was mainly absent, Pat Mills' work with Tony Skinner was not a patch on his solo stuff, Alan Moore was gone, Peter Milligan was gone. The new writers were young and inexperienced and/or didn't care.

I used to read the stories and wonder why they were not as good - they generally looked great, but the stories were just going through the motions. I later learned that the older artists who used to work on it were masters in storytelling, something that a lot of the pretty painted artists were not. Maybe a lot of that came from editorial, they set the tone, they guided the writers and artists.

Quote from: BPP on 17 December, 2015, 07:43:01 PM
even accepting your figures - Smith has been here 13 years - 10k loss according to you. Burton Mackenzie was 7 years and 50k loss according to you. That's not a similar attrition rate in the slightest

I didn't say anything about annual losses, BPP. I said they'd lost a similar proportion of readers*.

Even by your attrition rate criteria, the 7 years of Tomlinson/Bishop/Diggle resulted in a similar proportional loss (50%) as the same interval of Burton McKenzie. The pattern is long term loss, regardless of type and theme of strip.

Matt Smith is to be congratulated for either slowing or reversing that pattern by 2013, but the reader favourites of that era were by Ewing, Spurrier and Williams - and 80s faves like Stront, Bad Company & ABC Warriors are not uncontroversial.


* as an aside, my understanding is that readership dropped below the 15k figure quoted by The Guardian in 2013.

Ah, 90's 2000AD. I wasn't their, have read very little from the period that isn't either Dredd or ABC's, and can't bring myself too either.

Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 17 December, 2015, 07:31:51 PMmutant teddy bears

Ha!  I remember chuckling along to that one at the back of history class.  Tharg ruined my education!

Quote from: Skullmo on 17 December, 2015, 08:25:34 PM
For me it was the loss of key writers - John Wagner was mainly absent

The Pit was in late 95 for example, and there was plenty of Wagner in 2000AD before that in the 90s too. It was only a few years out of the decade that had that particular issue.

But like others have said, lumping the whole decade into one critique does oversimplify it. We'd also be including Necropolis for example.

Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 17 December, 2015, 07:31:51 PM

For me, the different atmosphere of the Summer Offensive, trashy and kitsch as it was, was a welcome break from the mediocrity,

/\/\/\ This.

What seemed apparent to Stevie at the time was that the  Summer Offensive took as a starting point a whole swag  of archetypal  2000ad tropes & gave them a zeitgeisty, 1993 update.

Insofar that

Big Dave was M.A.C.H. One but with Bill Savage in the place of John Probe.

Maniac 5 was the obligatory Future War strip (telepresence was bleeding edge tech at that stage, mostly the stuff of serious articles in Analog Science Fiction & performance arts pieces by the likes of Stellarc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stelarc). Millar managed to hitch  onto that particular bandwagon a good four years before Joe Haldeman published Forever Peace). 

Really & Truly was The Curs'd Earth (cross-country road trip couriering  drugs).

Slaughterbow was the obligatory Future Sport strip via Flesh.

The only genuine disappointment in the whole exercise was the handing of Dredd to a vastly indifferent Grant Morrison instead of John Smith. But if it came to light at some time further down the track that GMozz actually whipped up the whole twelve episodes  the morning that Carlos was sharpening his pencil  due to the mighty Smithboy still being in the process of glaciating the opening panel description of his epic then particular squaxx  will not be surprised in the slightest.

Again the difficulty with the good strips in the early to mid 90's was the paucity. You could go for weeks on end in the 800's and 900's and find nothing readable. The prog before and the prog now always has at least two strips which are readable if not excellent. Z

Quote from: PsychoGoatee on 18 December, 2015, 03:27:48 AM

Quote from: Skullmo on 17 December, 2015, 08:25:34 PM
For me it was the loss of key writers - John Wagner was mainly absent

The Pit was in late 95 for example, and there was plenty of Wagner in 2000AD before that in the 90s too. It was only a few years out of the decade that had that particular issue.

But like others have said, lumping the whole decade into one critique does oversimplify it. We'd also be including Necropolis for example.

I don't think that affects my statement. Seeing as for the preceding years he had been the writer on 50+ of 2000ad - not just dredd.

None of the above would have happened if the original creative talents hadn't been lost to American comics. I blame Kevin O'Neill for introducing the credit cards :)

Serious response - there were simply too many comics trying to draw upon too small a pool of talent in the nineties. Toxic had stolen some key talent with the lure of creator-owned strips (though this failed), Deadline took away another bunch (and failed). If these comics hadn't existed (and Crisis and Revolver and Blast! etc) then working for TMO may have looked much more attractive. It's here that the problems started and nineties editorial were being paid to respond to this situation rather than find a new way forwards. That they found a new way forwards is a testament to the talent of all involved. I look at the Megazines that consisted of 1 original Dredd strip and the remainder unrelated reprint and I am amazed that it's still running today!

Quote from: Skullmo on 18 December, 2015, 07:51:30 AM

Quote from: PsychoGoatee on 18 December, 2015, 03:27:48 AM

Quote from: Skullmo on 17 December, 2015, 08:25:34 PM
For me it was the loss of key writers - John Wagner was mainly absent

The Pit was in late 95 for example, and there was plenty of Wagner in 2000AD before that in the 90s too. It was only a few years out of the decade that had that particular issue.

But like others have said, lumping the whole decade into one critique does oversimplify it. We'd also be including Necropolis for example.

I don't think that affects my statement. Seeing as for the preceding years he had been the writer on 50+ of 2000ad - not just dredd.

Well, not to nitpick, but saying he was mainly absent just isn't accurate. Or including him in "loss of writers" for the decade. And there's always Al's Baby, etc. There is a lot of 90s Wagner material, and sure, Dredd counts.

Quote from: PsychoGoatee on 18 December, 2015, 06:20:22 PM

Quote from: Skullmo on 18 December, 2015, 07:51:30 AM

Quote from: PsychoGoatee on 18 December, 2015, 03:27:48 AM

Quote from: Skullmo on 17 December, 2015, 08:25:34 PM
For me it was the loss of key writers - John Wagner was mainly absent

The Pit was in late 95 for example, and there was plenty of Wagner in 2000AD before that in the 90s too. It was only a few years out of the decade that had that particular issue.

But like others have said, lumping the whole decade into one critique does oversimplify it. We'd also be including Necropolis for example.

I don't think that affects my statement. Seeing as for the preceding years he had been the writer on 50+ of 2000ad - not just dredd.

Well, not to nitpick, but saying he was mainly absent just isn't accurate. Or including him in "loss of writers" for the decade. And there's always Al's Baby, etc. There is a lot of 90s Wagner material, and sure, Dredd counts.

OK - have a look at the number of pages he wrote in the 80s and then the 90s and give me a total. UNtil then I'll just keep believing.

From my memories of reading back in the early-mid 90s it really did feel like there was a lot less Wagner around the prog. It went from progs where there'd be Wagner on Dredd, Strontium Dog and at least one other thrill to just the occasional Dredd (and Button Man).

Though for me another big sign of the decline was that Pat Mills stopped working as a solo writer (aside from Slaine, which I could always take or leave). I've read various versions of his writing process with his co-writers (usually that they were doing research for him) and occasionally it seemed to work out ok - Accident Man for mine - but for the most part Mills & someone else usually equalled substandard Mills. As Mills was (and still is) a big part of what I read 2000AD for, that was at least as big a factor as anything in else me wandering off for a few years.

Mills & Alan MacKenzie, who arrived at the Command Module as Deputy Editor circa Prog  515, fell out pretty early in the piece.

On his blog (http://www.thestoryworks.com/publishing/comics/2000ad/default.htm) Mackenzie writes:

Quote

I hadn't been at 2000AD but a couple of weeks when I happened to field a phone call from Pat Mills - the creator and original editor of 2000AD, as well as the writer of some of the comics most successful strips. Though I could never understand the appeal of his later work, he was still treated pretty much as a demi-god by the editorial team at the time.
As it turned out, Pat wasn't happy. He hadn't received an expected cheque from the accounts department - this was to be an ongoing problem with Fleetway in all its guises - and decided to take it out on me. I listened patiently through a gale of obscenities that would have made a navvie blush until Mills had blown himself out.
I gave no indication that I'd even heard this tirade. I quietly told Mills that I pass his message along, and hung up.
That incident was to colour my opinion of Mills for my entire tour of duty on 2000AD. After that, I could never warm to the man or to his work.

Quite interesting stuff, which would certainly go a long way toward explaining Mills's recollection of the subsequent decade .

I worship at the temple of The Gaffer Revealed, but anytime I hear him flaying Dark Days 2000AD with his wonderful words, I can't help but think: "But your stuff was almost  the worst bit!".

Quote from: glassstanley on 18 December, 2015, 12:43:22 PM
Serious response - there were simply too many comics trying to draw upon too small a pool of talent in the nineties. Toxic had stolen some key talent with the lure of creator-owned strips (though this failed), Deadline took away another bunch (and failed). If these comics hadn't existed (and Crisis and Revolver and Blast! etc) then working for TMO may have looked much more attractive. It's here that the problems started and nineties editorial were being paid to respond to this situation rather than find a new way forwards. That they found a new way forwards is a testament to the talent of all involved. I look at the Megazines that consisted of 1 original Dredd strip and the remainder unrelated reprint and I am amazed that it's still running today!

There's a lot of wisdom in this. Talent was flying all over the place with options and dreams of fortune not just in America but in the UK too. There's a lot less around and Matt Smith has the great advantage of being (by and large) the only gig in town. So while talent leaks to the US still replacing it from the UKs talent pool isn't as difficult and I'd imagine modern communication means working with talent from elsewhere is much easier.

Matt real talent seems to to be keeping the talent here happier. He has a core of creators that even as they play across the pond always seem to want to come back. Some of that could well that the money ain't all that in the US (as I understand from my limited reading of other peoples limited understanding), certainly its nothing like as good as it used to be in the crazy days of the early 90s when some of the stories you hear of the money flying around are staggering. The bulk of it though appears (again limited reading etc etc) to be Matt understanding what the comic wants and needs, then getting that the creators do too and having a relativley soft touch in letting them get on with doing it. Much as I'm in the pro Bishop side of things (when the arguement moves there, its drifted to elsewhere here I admit) some of the stories of how he tried to address creators do make you shudder and by his own admission could have been handled better. Very possibly to do with the pressure of the time and the mistakes that births.

QuoteI worship at the temple of The Gaffer Revealed, but anytime I hear him flaying Dark Days 2000AD with his wonderful words, I can't help but think: "But your stuff was almost  the worst bit!".

Yeah very much this ... though I wouldn't say the worst but some of his worst stuff for sure. Pat Mills is an incredible talent and so very very wonderful to listen to BUT he does seem to lack the ability (again limited reading, not knowing the man etc etc) to reflect on situations and develop his opinion of events and people. It always seems to me once the Magnificent Mr Mills has an impression of people and situations he bloody well sticks to it and nowt will shake him from his path. Time does not diminish his ire, nor deflect his opinion. Almost certainly a good thing as it makes him a single minded unique writing talent, on the other hand however an agressive and bias historian... he's paid to be a writer and so the other bit is just a sideshow for us to debate!

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 19 December, 2015, 07:25:44 AM

Quote from: Tordelback on 19 December, 2015, 06:39:34 AM
I worship at the temple of The Gaffer Revealed, but anytime I hear him flaying Dark Days 2000AD with his wonderful words, I can't help but think: "But your stuff was almost the worst bit!".

Pat Mills is an incredible talent and so very very wonderful to listen to BUT he does seem to lack the ability ... to reflect on situations and develop his opinion of events and people ... (That) makes him a single minded, unique writing talent, (but an) aggressive and biased historian ...

Which is where I was hoping this thread would get to eventually. I share TB and Colin's affection for Mills, but his excoriation of 90s editorial (and particularly Diggle) is a case of him projecting his problems onto others.

Mills lost his way in the 90s. Mills forgot what it was about his early stuff that appealed to readers. Listening to him scourge 90s Tharg is painful for me, because it's really Mills beating up on himself.

When I describe Future Shock's narrative of early vigour gone awry, then (partially) regained, as The Pat Mills History of 2000ad, what I mean is it's the story of Pat Mills.

As a writer it's probably pretty insulting if an editor rewrites your stuff. That's bound to colour opinion of their professional nature

Quote from: Skullmo on 19 December, 2015, 11:49:01 AM
As a writer it's probably pretty insulting if an editor rewrites your stuff. That's bound to colour opinion of their professional nature

Unless that editor is Pat Mills, obviously.

Cheers

Jim

I remember when, during my early days on this board, there was a bit of pro-Diggle and anti-Mills feeling about. 

It was around the early 2000s - the prog was getting good again, see, but Pat Mills stuff had become a bit stale (The last book of Nemesis, though incredibly illustrated by Flint and O'Neill, just seemed like a random collection of scenes from earlier books, and Sláine seemed to have completely lost direction).

It seemed at the time like Pat was past his sell-by date and was lashing out at a youthful rising star.
In hindsight, it turns out that Mills was far from a spent force (though quite how much of his poorer stuff was due to Diggle's rewriting, it's impossible to know - I like to think that Ukko's creator wouldn't have him talking about 'getting the barbie on'). 

Quote from: Skullmo on 19 December, 2015, 11:49:01 AM
As a writer it's probably pretty insulting if an editor rewrites your stuff. That's bound to colour opinion of their professional nature

And how many scripts did Mr Mills rewrite during his editorial stint.
Mr Diggle did no more than Mr Mills but as you see by reading any intro to any graphic novel written by Mr Mills editorial didn't get his writing and worse we the reader didn't understand his writing.
Whilst his contribution to the creation of 2000AD can never be forgotten his opinion of the reader of the comic has never in my opinion seemed that great.

QuoteWell, not to nitpick, but saying [Wagner] was mainly absent just isn't accurate. Or including him in "loss of writers" for the decade. And there's always Al's Baby, etc. There is a lot of 90s Wagner material, and sure, Dredd counts.

Wagner was almost entirely writing for the Megazine in those days. He was virtually absent from 2000 AD.

Quote[Mills's] opinion of the reader of the comic has never in my opinion seemed that great.

He sometimes comes across that way in print. But I met him at a signing once and he was very friendly, polite and respectful to all the fans present (even to me when I asked him lots of dumb questions at the end). So given that he's not exactly shy about saying what he really thinks, I think he might hold the readers in higher regard than you suspect.

Quote from: W. R. Logan on 19 December, 2015, 01:52:34 PM
Whilst his contribution to the creation of 2000AD can never be forgotten his opinion of the reader of the comic has never in my opinion seemed that great

I probably have a higher opinion of Mills and his recent work than you, so I view what you describe not as contempt but as a consequence of Mills's odd double consciousness concerning class.

As Future Shock demonstrates, The Pat Mills History Of 2000ad is that of the working classes sticking two fingers up to the establishment ... despite being made by mostly middle class creators and editors* .

I don't have an axe to grind about Mills not working down 'pit, but I think having to imagine himself into some weird headspace where he's appealing to some Platonic ideal of the working classes sometimes has odd results.


* O'Neill and McMahon being the obvious exceptions

Quote from: Richard on 19 December, 2015, 02:08:21 PM

QuoteWell, not to nitpick, but saying [Wagner] was mainly absent just isn't accurate. Or including him in "loss of writers" for the decade. And there's always Al's Baby, etc. There is a lot of 90s Wagner material, and sure, Dredd counts.

Wagner was almost entirely writing for the Megazine in those days. He was virtually absent from 2000 AD.

Not true. See that's my point there, we're talking about the entire decade of the 90s. That would include Necropolis in 2000AD, The Pit in 2000AD, and many many other Dredd stories. The dark ages of no Wagner in 2000AD there were only a few years.

Still not as ubiquitous as in the 80s, but there was a lot of Wagner writing in 2000AD (mostly via Dredd) in the 90s. Enough that having all of it collected and trying to carry it, it would be quite heavy.  :D

And say you love 1990, 1997, 1998, and 1999 of 2000AD. That's almost half the decade. Just saying.

I suspect most people are using the 1990s as shorthand for the dark era, during which Wagner was conspicuous in his absence from 2000 AD, and where arguably his best work at the time was in fact created for an entirely different comic.

I don't know - how many did he rewrite?

Any time I've talked to Pat about the past, including the dark ages, his point has always been that the readers supported him and not the editors so I've no idea where this contempt for readers thing has come from.

Quote from: BPP on 19 December, 2015, 08:44:14 PM
Any time I've talked to Pat about the past, including the dark ages, his point has always been that the readers supported him and not the editors so I've no idea where this contempt for readers thing has come from.

And how was Pat canvassing this support from the readers? Sounds suspiciously like 'the lurkers support me by email', TBH.

Cheers

Jim

The pat mills haters thread - I'm out.

Quote from: Skullmo on 19 December, 2015, 09:34:08 PM
The pat mills haters thread - I'm out.

The Mills 'Dark Days' narrative on 2000AD's history is difficult to square against a number of verifiable facts. It's not 'hating' to point that out. There's a chunk of Pat's output that could unquestionably have done with a firmer editorial hand (ahem... Secret Commonwealth) and it's not 'hating' to point that out. The 'Future Shock' documentary has had the effect of cementing the 'Dark Days' narrative as if it was fact, and it's not 'hating' to challenge that.

Cheers

Jim

Surely discussing weather a persons body of work is objectively bad isn't "hating".

Quote from: Hawkmonger on 19 December, 2015, 10:08:47 PM
Surely discussing weather a persons body of work is objectively bad isn't "hating"

Sorry, Hawkmonger, but that's really not what's under discussion here.

As stated above, I love Pat Mills. The quality of his "body of work" isn't really in question, just a period which coincides spookily with the exact moment the comic he fashioned in his own image entered a decade long slump too. The History of 2000ad is the history of Pat Mills.

The purpose of this thread is to question the validity of the version of 2000ad history presented in the Future Shock documentary. Plus maybe the equally stubborn myth that a comic written by guys born in the forties and drawn by hippies was 'punk':


(http://i.imgur.com/VF5kppS.jpg?1)

Just to be absolutely clear, I count myself as a devoted a vocal fan of Pat Mills - he IS 2000AD as far as I'm concerned. What we're discussing here is his perspective on the comic's history.

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 19 December, 2015, 09:50:32 PM
there's a chunk of Pat's output that could unquestionably have done with a firmer editorial hand (ahem... Secret Commonwealth)

Mills' intro to the Slaine:Lord of Beasts collection devotes half a page to specific editorial interference on Secret Commonwealth (the lowpoint for Slaine IMO, at a time when much of the rest of the comic was thriving under Diggle) in terms of content, structure, pacing, language and even enforced adherence to the 'rules of drama', so perhaps this is one where editorial input really was the issue...

Quote from: BPP on 19 December, 2015, 08:44:14 PM
Any time I've talked to Pat about the past, including the dark ages, his point has always been that the readers supported him and not the editors so I've no idea where this contempt for readers thing has come from.

When I'm back in the UK I'll dig out one of Pats intros to a GN that I think highlights my point.

Quote
The History of 2000ad is the history of Pat Mills.

I'd strongly disagree, Pat created and gave life to 2000AD but in less than a year after its birth left it.
The history of 2000AD is far more than one person.

Quote from: W. R. Logan on 20 December, 2015, 01:33:42 AM

Quote from: Butch on 19 December, 2015, 11:05:33 PM

Quote from: Butch on 19 December, 2015, 11:08:56 AM
Which is where I was hoping this thread would get to eventually. I share TB and Colin's affection for Mills, but his excoriation of 90s editorial (and particularly Diggle) is a case of him projecting his problems onto others.


Mills lost his way in the 90s. Mills forgot what it was about his early stuff that appealed to readers. Listening to him scourge 90s Tharg is painful for me, because it's really Mills beating up on himself.

When I describe Future Shock's narrative of early vigour gone awry, then (partially) regained, as The Pat Mills History of 2000ad, what I mean is it's the story of Pat Mills.

I love Pat Mills. The quality of his "body of work" isn't really in question, just a period which coincides spookily with the exact moment the comic he fashioned in his own image entered a decade long slump too. The History of 2000ad is the history of Pat Mills.

I'd strongly disagree, Pat created and gave life to 2000AD but in less than a year after its birth left it.
The history of 2000AD is far more than one person.

The meaning and scope of my metaphor is clear from the context in which it is used.

Quote from: Skullmo on 19 December, 2015, 09:34:08 PM
The pat mills haters thread - I'm out.

Oh no this is turning into a reasonably reflecting (with our limited understanding) the role of an individual in a larger story of the history of something we love that took a dip and reflecting that onto a section of that individual's work in a balanced manner hating thread - I'm out....

... oh hold on that would be unreasonable wouldn't it...

Yeah, just to be clear, i'm not a fan of Pat Mill's. I joke about how heavy handed his resent slew of title's has been and this current run of ABC's got off to a terrible start.

But damnit, he wrote Nemesis the Warlock. The Black Hole. Large parts of The Cursed Earth. I really like Defoe, and outside of the prog he wrote one of my all time favorite works of fiction, Charley's War.

Ol' Pat is fine by me.

He did write some teethgrinding stuff in the 90's: Finn being a particular dislike. However the tktality of his work is awe inspiring. The 90's ennui was, I feel, resultant from many more factors than Pat Mills dip in form. Z

I think it's worth noting that although a lot of long-term reader's may have left during the Nineties(because of allegedly Bad stories) quite a few new readers joined at that time also. I'm guessing those that joined were enticed by the stories and artwork that other's (who left) didn't like*

Cheers

*Personal taste, and all that Jazz

Quote from: ZenArcade on 20 December, 2015, 10:10:42 AMHe did write some teethgrinding stuff in the 90's: Finn being a particular dislike. However the tktality of his work is awe inspiring. The 90's ennui was, I feel, resultant from many more factors than Pat Mills dip in form. Z

Have to disagree. I personally like 'Finn' and could quite happily never see 'Slaine' in the Prog again.

Cheers

I acknowledge your disagreement and accept it within the context of forum harmony. Z :D

Quote from: Tordelback on 20 December, 2015, 12:26:54 AM
Mills' intro to the Slaine:Lord of Beasts collection devotes half a page to specific editorial interference on Secret Commonwealth (the lowpoint for Slaine IMO, at a time when much of the rest of the comic was thriving under Diggle) in terms of content, structure, pacing, language and even enforced adherence to the 'rules of drama', so perhaps this is one where editorial input really was the issue...

This rather gets us to the nub of the problem. I picked Secret Commonwealth simply as the series most immediately available in my memory as a terrible Mills strip, but I think it's fair to say there was a sizeable section of the readership who felt Pat's heart wasn't in it for an extended period culminating (more or less) in the mess that was the Secret Commonwealth — there's a fairly notorious ABC Warriors script where they don't leave their hotel room for the first two episodes that certainly wasn't the fault of meddling editors.

So... I'm sure where Pat sees destructive interference in Secret Commonwealth, Andy and/or David might (perhaps justifiably) claim necessary remedial changes.

And here, really, is the chicken-and-eggy crux of it. Was Pat's heart not in it because of constant editorial intereference and a feeling that the editorial team was hostile towards him, or did the editorial team feel the need to make changes and reject proposals because Pat's heart clearly wasn't in it? It's obvious, when you think about it, that both of those assessments could be true, depending from which side of the fence you're viewing it.

It's worth nothing that the recipients of Pat's ire often remember the offending incidents very differently to Pat himself. By way of example: both Nemesis Book X and the follow-up Deadlock series were widely lauded as a return to form for Mills. Pat claims that despite the popularity of Deadlock, Andy 'refused' to commission any further series. Andy, by contrast, recalls rejecting Pat's first proposal for a Deadlock sequel and then simply never receiving a follow-up pitch.

Cheers

Jim

Quote from: NapalmKev on 20 December, 2015, 10:15:21 AM
although a lot of long-term reader's may have left during the Nineties (because of allegedly Bad stories) quite a few new readers joined at that time also.

I take your point, but 2000ad has lost readers regardless of what kind of stories it was printing*.

Most people don't read comics as adults, and turning up at college in a Rogue Trooper t-shirt doesn't make you a hit with the ladies. That was always the case, but in the late eighties the supply of new kid readers dried up.

Not just for 2000ad, but for any comic - the kids who started reading comics opted for licensed properties like Transformers or TMNT, a trend which continues to this day. What happened to 2000ad happened to every original UK title (and US comics too (http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales.html)).



*1987-1994: Burton/McKenzie (100k readers, down to 50k readers (https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/alt.comics.2000ad/th0gcr5iapM))
  1994-2001: Tomlinson/Bishop/Diggle  (50k readers, down to 25k readers (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comics.2000ad/gY4Dfc6d3i8%5B176-200%5D))
  2001-2013: Matt Smith (25k readers, down to 15k readers (http://www.theguardian.com/books/video/2013/aug/09/judge-dredd-edinburgh-celebration-2000ad-video))

As a reader, it immediately felt like Pat was targeting the wrong person/people when claiming Bishop and (particularly) Diggle were the nadir.  As a reader, you saw the comic improve, and both (again, particularly Diggle) were convinced that the key to recovery was to return to the comics roots - Pat's own belief.

However, it is fair to say that there appears to have been a more antagonistic "personal" relationship during those years on both sides which has coloured Pat's opinion.  So I can see why Pat feels (for example) that Andy had no right to reject, challenge or change things, or that at some point he was doing this only  to assert his authority as editor - hence what seemed a very paranoid Pat "banning" fanzines from using his characters for a while. Whether his beliefs had any basis in fact is hard to judge - I know that I witnessed editorial (and creative) droids throw subtle and sometimes less subtle digs at Pat at fan events like DreddCon... though again, chicken and egg - was it Mill's (well documented as fiery) behaviour that was the architect of such ill feeling, where other editorial had just kept their heads down? Pat is such a gent in interviews and signings, and very passionate about what he created - he is very protective and likely worn very thin by the crap the comic had to go through over the years - I can understand that he might have a short fuse about anything he detected as more interference? 

My take is that Bishop and Diggle cared enough to try and challenge what was going on, and this led to some misunderstandings and clashes that sadly became bitter and personal rather than professional and potentially constructive.  Matt clearly knows how to handle Pat - on the evidence of his recent material, I would say he is getting good results, though it's crying shame that at the heart of it,  Diggle and Mills seemed to be not far off the same page as to what needed to be done

Quote from: Tordelback on 20 December, 2015, 12:26:54 AM
Mills' intro to the Slaine:Lord of Beasts collection devotes half a page to specific editorial interference on Secret Commonwealth (the lowpoint for Slaine IMO, at a time when much of the rest of the comic was thriving under Diggle) in terms of content, structure, pacing, language and even enforced adherence to the 'rules of drama', so perhaps this is one where editorial input really was the issue...

So here's where I throw another spanner into the already spanner packed works that are the chances of the board ever getting to consensus on this. See while I know a lot of people think Andy Diggle is the bees knees, and while I defo see a lot of good he did I have some real issues with his time as editor (as I've whittered on about at length) and while it was in some ways a step in the right direction, it was only that, a step and the real change didn't come until Matt Smith was a couple of years into his rein and seemed to have developed his own 'style' (whether that's true of course I haven't a clue, just how it appears to me.)

My big issue with Mr Diggle is his mandate of short stories - or a shot glass of thrill power. He seemed to limit stories to 8 parts, maybe 10 at a push (by and large I'm sure some smarty pants will now pop to Barney and role out a load of exceptions!). Often I found this strangled potentially fantastic stories and compressed things too far.

The thing that bugged me about this in particular is his statement (no don't ask me to back this up but in my head I'm right DEFO) that this was taking things back to 2000ads origins. Yet if you think about this time many, many stories from Prog 1 onwards were allowed to run at great lenght and weren't shackled by an imposed edict.

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 20 December, 2015, 11:27:19 AM
My big issue with Mr Diggle is his mandate of short stories - or a shot glass of thrill power. He seemed to limit stories to 8 parts, maybe 10 at a push (by and large I'm sure some smarty pants will now pop to Barney and role out a load of exceptions!). Often I found this strangled potentially fantastic stories and compressed things too far.

Two things have become conflated here: Andy's "shot glass of rocket fuel" memo was a general statement of intent that has been assumed to be the reason that Storming Heaven and Love Like Blood, particularly, were held to shorter page counts when they would clearly have benefitted from a couple of extra episodes.

In fact, there was a plan in the works at senior management level to do a deal with a European book publisher which mandated a very specific page count. The deal, obviously, never panned out but there was a period where the editorial team were directed to hold series to a particular number of episodes/pages in order to make repackaging for this deal possible.

Cheers

Jim

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 20 December, 2015, 11:27:19 AM

My big issue with Mr Diggle is his mandate of short stories - or a shot glass of thrill power. He seemed to limit stories to 8 parts, maybe 10 at a push (by and large I'm sure some smarty pants will now pop to Barney and role out a load of exceptions!). Often I found this strangled potentially fantastic stories and compressed things too far.

The thing that bugged me about this in particular is his statement (no don't ask me to back this up but in my head I'm right DEFO) that this was taking things back to 2000ads origins. Yet if you think about this time many, many stories from Prog 1 onwards were allowed to run at great lenght and weren't shackled by an imposed edict.

I agree with this - a lot of stories with great potential appeared, then were cut short - wasnt this something to do with a plan to reprint stories in 44-48 page length reprints somewhere?  Wonky memory recalls something of that ilk.  As an example that springs to mind, Storming Heaven had a great premise (60s counterculture heroes and villains superpowered up) - but it was all done at such a pace as to waste/overlook a lot of potential. 

It's possible the comic had some terrible never ending stuff mucking up the early 90s (New Harlem Heroes etc), but teh problem was the quality - if the quality had been there, then the length wouldnt ahve been a problem!

Jim beat me to it, with better recall!

Look Mr so called Campbell could you keep your pesky facts away from my gut reaction based on my limited knowledge of events. It doesn't half get in the way of my long held prejudices.

I didn't know that either, thanks Jim.

My very personal thoughts on the later Bishop/Diggle era. When I finally made it back to weekly purchase (about 1141, I think - driven by hunger for Cam art, anyway), I felt welcome - I felt like there was always going to be something for me in every issue, and there always was. Perversely though, two of the strips I enjoyed most were two I'd hated while I was driftng away: Dante and Sinister Dexter, so it's hard to say what had changed. 

Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 20 December, 2015, 11:38:25 AM
Look Mr so called Campbell could you keep your pesky facts away from my gut reaction based on my limited knowledge of events. It doesn't half get in the way of my long held prejudices.

TBH, I made the exact same assumption, but had the opportunity to discuss the matter with Andy relatively recently and he mentioned the proposed book deal as the reason for inflexible maximum page counts.

Cheers!

Jim

Is this not also indicative that the early 90s editorial didnt have quite the same pressures on them from Management edicts?  Early 90s goes awry through a proliferation of titles at the same time as a major talent leak has left you scrabbling for anyone competent to fill those pages.  On top of that, the rudder goes a bit lax and directionless while "It's only a fucking comic" attitude prevails.  But editorially, Pat isnt going to detect any problems personally.  When the impact of said early 90s actions is panic management, Bishop and Diggle have to try and juggle a hostile management imposing their whims (Loaded ads etc) along with just getting along and editing the thing.  Pat's hostility to things like the Fleetway film and TVdeal for example,wouldnt have led to a very conducive atmosphere....

I stuck with 2000ad and the Megazine through the 90's. My teenage years and 2000ad's line up pretty much exactly. I seem to remember at the time it felt like the comic had lost it's way, it lost focus, but there was still a tremendous amount that I enjoyed and admired. The problem for me was that remarkably bad (and to the best of my knowledge unpopular) creators like Fleisher, Millar, and arguably over time Mills, were given so many pages to fill over such a protracted period of time. I didn't know, understand or care about the editorial or management reasoning for commissioning or printing a whole pile of sub standard thrills I just knew I was paying for them. which cheesed me off, but not enough to stop.

Quote from: Butch on 20 December, 2015, 11:03:17 AM

Quote from: NapalmKev on 20 December, 2015, 10:15:21 AM
although a lot of long-term reader's may have left during the Nineties (because of allegedly Bad stories) quite a few new readers joined at that time also.

I take your point, but 2000ad has lost readers regardless of what kind of stories it was printing*.

Most people don't read comics as adults, and turning up at college in a Rogue Trooper t-shirt doesn't make you a hit with the ladies. That was always the case, but in the late eighties the supply of new kid readers dried up.

Not just for 2000ad, but for any comic - the kids who started reading comics opted for licensed properties like Transformers or TMNT, a trend which continues to this day. What happened to 2000ad happened to every original UK title (and US comics too (http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales.html)).



*1987-1994: Burton/McKenzie (100k readers, down to 50k readers (https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/alt.comics.2000ad/th0gcr5iapM))
  1994-2001: Tomlinson/Bishop/Diggle  (50k readers, down to 25k readers (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comics.2000ad/gY4Dfc6d3i8%5B176-200%5D))
  2001-2013: Matt Smith (25k readers, down to 15k readers (http://www.theguardian.com/books/video/2013/aug/09/judge-dredd-edinburgh-celebration-2000ad-video))

IIRC correctly - and I can't claim a perfect memory of such things, unlike some individuals - the Burton/McKenzie era ended in November 1994, by which point the final prog of the year was already at repro. [The reason I remember this is Alan McKenzie was one of 6 or 7 people made redundant on the day Jonathan Ross came to interview me on camera for Virgin Atlantic's inflight news magazine show about the forthcoming Stallone Dredd movie. Ross was questioning me and I was being all positive about the as-yet-unseen film while over Ross's shoulder I could see Alan filling his cardboard box.]

Anyway, Steve MacManus joined John Tomlinson on 2K that day [Burt had already left to run Sonic], so their time spell was basically 1995. New management swapped John and I round on December 18, 1995 so he took over the Meg and JD:LOTF while I joined Steve on 2K as Prog 978 was going to repro. [979 was the first cover I commissioned, from memory.]

I did some calculations when I arrived at 2K and realised the comic had lost an average of 7-8000 sales per year in the preceding 8 years, dropping from about 100,000 to under 50,000 per week. From 1996 to the end of 1999 we dropped an average of 3000 sales per year. It was still gutting to know that about 60 readers a week were abandoning the Galaxy's greatest comic, but that period definitely felt like the 'whoop! whoop! pull up, pull up!' bit of a James Bond film, as we wrestled with the controls, trying to stop the prog crashing.

Across that period from 87-99 there were far more factors in play than editorial choices. A distribution company change in the Burt & Alan period cost the comic thousands of sales almost overnight - totally beyond their control, nothing to do with editorial quality.

The cover price was aggressively drive up to increase/maintain profitability. Prog 520 in 1987 was only 28p. When Egmont took over at end of 1991 the price was 50p. By Prog 979 [my first cover commission] it was £1.

The comics around 2000AD aimed at much the same audience pretty much all vanished, making it much harder to maintain a dedicated shelf space for the title in shops.

Major retail chains started demanding payment for shelving titles in preferred spots in shops, which was affordable for 2K. I remember being told a favourable shelf position in a popular retail chain [it's name rhymes with Biffs] cost £3000 by the second half of the 90s. The same chain would also charge you for one of their compliance officers to go round and check shops had actually fulfilled the deal. Amazingly, they told us only 25% of shops actually racked titles according to directives from head office. Would you spend £3000 to have only a quarter of shops in one chain favourable shelf your title for one week?

The reasons readers give up on a title are many. Editorial quality is hugely significant, of course it is. But also their own financial situation, their living situation, their family situation can all have an impact.

Could the comic have been better in the Burt&McK era, or when I was editor? Yes, of course. The comic can always be better. You can get all the best creators you can afford, they can all do stellar work, you can assemble an amazing run of 12 issues with every story a gem and every page of art a classic.

And then you have to fill the comic on week 13. And all your best artists are burnt out or late or busy or have gone to work for the US [the 80s] or computer games [the 90s] or movies [the 00s] or someone else. And your writers are having an off week or a family crisis or whatever.

And you still have to fill the comic on week 13.

When any comic is great, the creators get the praise and rightly so.
When any comic is sucky, the editors get the blame and rightly so.

Hmm, I've been typing this reply so long I forgot the point I started with...

Anyway, the numbers quoted above for dropping sales by Butch are not totally accurate by my memory.
But I could be wrong. I've been wrong in the past [Sex Prog, anyone? Space Girls? I could go on...].

As someone once said, "It's a measure of how confident and successful they both are that they don't have a problem admitting mistakes and stepping up to the mark."

Funnily enough, there are certain people who never seem to admit mistakes. Maybe they never make any...

Slightly different point, it was mentioned that one of the reasons for the decline was that newer American publishers were offering better creator rights and royalties, im not sure what the policy is at 2000ad even now...there was a recent podcast that the current owner said the owners of 2000ad were only keeping it going to keep associated licenses, have the rights/royalties changed? if so when and did it have an effect on a revival?

Quote from: Paul Moore on 20 December, 2015, 02:48:25 PM
there was a recent podcast that the current owner said the owners of 2000ad were only keeping it going to keep associated licenses

Really? Who said that?

Cheers

Jim

Sounds like bollocks to me. It's pretty clear the Kingsleys are totally into 2000 AD and are keeping it around so there's more 2000 AD. I can't imagine licensing is especially lucrative and it's not like there's a new 2000 AD videogame every other month. Perhaps that's not the case, but the impression I always got was that Rebellion found itself in the enviable position of being able to afford to buy something they really wanted to own, and then making the very best possible go of what they ended up with. (And let's face it, who could have imagined back then — hell, even during the days of the DC trades deal — that we'd have such a wide selection of great stuff to tempt your wallet with?)

The success with which Rebellion have managed 2000AD has been extraordinary. Two quality comics, an extensive and diverse stable of reprints, digital availability, plus a couple of decent games and a damn fine movie - surely none of us expected a fraction of that as we approached the first Prog 2000...

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 20 December, 2015, 03:43:44 PM

Quote from: Paul Moore on 20 December, 2015, 02:48:25 PM
there was a recent podcast that the current owner said the owners of 2000ad were only keeping it going to keep associated licenses

Really? Who said that?

Cheers

Jim

Sorry i meant the previous owners who Rebellion bought it from a Danish company?

Quote from: Paul Moore on 20 December, 2015, 04:30:38 PM
Sorry i meant the previous owners who Rebellion bought it from a Danish company?

No apologies necessary! Yes... Egmont only got 2000AD as part of a group acquisition and had NO idea what to do with it. There was always a strong suspicion that they would have been quite happy to let the weekly slide into cancellation territory and then turn it into a reprint title, monetising the back catalogue they'd already paid for.

Cheers!

Jim

Quote from: DarkDaysBish-OP on 20 December, 2015, 02:03:48 PM

Quote from: Butch on 20 December, 2015, 11:03:17 AM
2000ad has lost readers regardless of what kind of stories it was printing*.

*1987-1994: Burton/McKenzie (100k readers, down to 50k readers (https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/alt.comics.2000ad/th0gcr5iapM))
  1994-2001: Tomlinson/Bishop/Diggle  (50k readers, down to 25k readers (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comics.2000ad/gY4Dfc6d3i8%5B176-200%5D))
  2001-2013: Matt Smith (25k readers, down to 15k readers (http://www.theguardian.com/books/video/2013/aug/09/judge-dredd-edinburgh-celebration-2000ad-video))

... the Burton/McKenzie era ended in November 1994 ...

I did some calculations when I arrived at 2K and realised the comic had lost an average of 7-8000 sales per year in the preceding 8 years, dropping from about 100,000 to under 50,000 per week. From 1996 to the end of 1999 we dropped an average of 3000 sales per year ...

... A distribution company change in the Burt & Alan period cost the comic thousands of sales almost overnight - totally beyond their control, nothing to do with editorial quality ...

... the numbers quoted above for dropping sales by Butch are not totally accurate by my memory. But I could be wrong. I've been wrong in the past [Sex Prog, anyone? Space Girls? I could go on...]

ARF! Thank you, David, for giving such an informed and exhaustive account of the woes that befell 2000ad in the nineties.

I started this thread with the intention of putting on record my scepticism regarding the narrative Pat Mills promotes in Future Shock - of a comic in perfect working order, which is vandalised, then restored by putting everything back as it was.

As such, I quoted sales figures for different editorial eras only to refute the thesis that editorial decisions were the sole reason for 2000ad's difficulties. However, the 25,000 sales p/a figure I quoted is taken from a post on the old 2000ad newsgroup by Andy Diggle in June of 2000:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comics.2000ad/gY4Dfc6d3i8%5B1-25%5D[/quote]


... and Alan McKenzie points out that the change of distribution from IPC to Comag, which you mention, resulted in an overnight (and permanent) drop in sales of 20,000 per week (85k-65k).

That means the average annual loss of readers (for which editorial could conceivably be blamed) actually increased from 3.7k under 8 years of Burton/McKenzie/Tomlinson (your preferred measure) to 5k p/a over the 5 years of Bishop:

QuoteWhen I left, it was selling about 55,000.

Now ... according to Andy, 25K.

It's a real tragedy, but I don't think there's anything that could have been
done, at least editorially, to stop the decline.

I think some bad business decisions were made along the way. Going litho was
good. Letterpress printing at 98,000 was probably uneconomical. Putting a
glossy cover on was probably necessary. But on the minus side were the price
rises that incurred. Upping the colour to colour throughout, with its
attendent price hike was probably bad. That was a management decision that
Richard (Burton) and I both thought unnecessary. All through my tenure I was
always opposed to price rises. Price rises mean lost readers. And you never
get them back. Period.

In 1987 2000 was, what, 28p? Conventional wisdom says that the price of
stuff doubles every ten years with inflation. So to maintain its price due
to inflation only (which all most customers care about) 2000AD would need to
be about 65p today.

Then in my latter days, Prog 900-ish, maybe earlier, a management decision
was taken to move from IPC distribution to Comag. This was announced, fait
accompli, at a management meeting. Richard and I were flabberghasted. We'd
both worked at Marvel UK. Who were distributed by Comag. Comag had been a
disaster for Marvel. Yet no one at Fleetway thought to ask opinions of any
of the staff. It never occurred to them, in their arrogance, that any of
their editors might have had some knowledge of their new business partners.

Richard and I both smelt disaster in the wind. Three months later, were were
reviewing the sales figures. In the 3 or 4 weeks around the Comag takeover,
the sales of 2000 AD "plummeted" (the Marketed Managers actual word) from
about 85K to 65K. 20,000 wiped off the sales almost overnight.

I won't bore you with the mechanical difference between IPC and Comag which
led to this nosedive. But whichever way you cut it, it's clear that Comag
was a disaster for 2000AD just as they had been for Marvel UK.

But you need to factor in the sad truth that other things compete for the
attention of the 14-15 year old male core audience for 2000. Notably
Playstations and the Internet.

An aside: One of the great IPC/Fleetway editors Sid Bicknell explained to me
one day - You have to take up space on the newsagents shelves. If you
publish 40 comics, like Fleetway did in the old days, these support each
other. You have cross-over advertising, with your house ads, not just in the
other comics but in the mags as well. But the main thing is you take up
shelf space. This means that for every mag you get in a newsagent, it means
that Marvel UK or DC Thompson, or Titan or whoever, doesn't get one. Take up
enough space and you shut out other mags. Sid reckoned that accountants
never realised that. They'd cancel a mag when it hit breakeven, but never
factored in the other benefits of running a break-even paper

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comics.2000ad/gY4Dfc6d3i8%5B1-25%5D

Really good thread and leaves me hungry for one about the noughties,

Given that the 'dark days' were more of an industry wide phenomenon and largely seemed to coincidence with comics 'growing up' and the games industry really taking off I think it's fair to say the editorial disruption and perceived drop in quality are more of a correlation than causal.

90's 2000ad wasn't actually that bad, sure it had duff strips and minority interest strips but 2000ad always had that. The Megazine suffered more when it had it's lowest new strip page count because it could be entire runs of issues (meaning entire months at a time) between stories you were interested in.

The real issue seems to have been the change in demographic (comics for adults was and remains a minority medium) and the old demographic moving on to new things. 2000ad may have grown up with it's audience but it was only ever going to be a small section of it's readers who would take their childhood pursuits into adulthood as either casual readers or completist collectors. 2000ad wasn't wrong to go after the fan market, if it had stayed a news agent kids comic it would have folded years ago, but assuming it could have kept up historical sales is ridiculous.

Quote from: Paul Moore on 20 December, 2015, 02:48:25 PM
Slightly different point, it was mentioned that one of the reasons for the decline was that newer American publishers were offering better creator rights and royalties, im not sure what the policy is at 2000ad even now...  have the rights/royalties changed? if so when and did it have an effect on a revival?

John Wagner forced a change in royalty payments in the early nineties, but Tharg still owns every strip.

In the Future Shock documentary, Ian Edginton remarks that the knowledge he will have to surrender all rights is a factor in whether he offers a strip to 2000ad or another publisher, and David Bishop says established writers won't create new strips (50 min 20s).

But surely the number of publications (certainly in GB) where any writer can be published and thus reach a wide audience has diminished hugely since the 1990's. Is the power not now massively in the hands of the publisher? Z

Quote from: Butch on 21 December, 2015, 11:10:41 AM

Quote from: Paul Moore on 20 December, 2015, 02:48:25 PM
Slightly different point, it was mentioned that one of the reasons for the decline was that newer American publishers were offering better creator rights and royalties, im not sure what the policy is at 2000ad even now...  have the rights/royalties changed? if so when and did it have an effect on a revival?

John Wagner forced a change in royalty payments in the early nineties, but Tharg still owns every strip.

In the Future Shock documentary, Ian Edginton remarks that the knowledge he will have to surrender all rights is a factor in whether he offers a strip to 2000ad or another publisher, and David Bishop says established writers won't create new strips (50 min 20s).

Wow i thought that would be for the established characters these days (or stories set in established worlds), no real rights just royalties? i can see why writers might hold back their best ideas

Quote from: Steven Denton on 21 December, 2015, 09:39:17 AM90's 2000ad wasn't actually that bad, sure it had duff strips and minority interest strips but 2000ad always had that.

I think, as noted, this is the case but the 1990s saw the generally reliable strips also slip into mediocrity. During the 200s–600s, say, Sláine, Strontium Dog, Dredd and several others were mostly very good. The Prog could take a hit when something didn't really click. But when the major strips end up being duff too, what's left?

QuoteThe Megazine suffered more when it had it's lowest new strip page count because it could be entire runs of issues (meaning entire months at a time) between stories you were interested in.

The Meg's a strange one. When Preacher reprints started, that was a very odd decision, as was Necropolis. They're far too long, and as a reader you can just say: I'm out. The shift with vol. 4 was much smarter: still a lot of reprint, but strips that would only hang around for a matter of a few months.

Quote from: ZenArcade on 21 December, 2015, 12:38:47 PMBut surely the number of publications (certainly in GB) where any writer can be published and thus reach a wide audience has diminished hugely since the 1990's. Is the power not now massively in the hands of the publisher?

I think it always was. And if you want to be involved in anything in publishing, you have to compromise significantly and, increasingly, work very quickly.

Quote from: Paul Moore on 21 December, 2015, 02:09:37 PMWow i thought that would be for the established characters these days (or stories set in established worlds), no real rights just royalties? i can see why writers might hold back their best ideas

In context, it should be noted this is entirely ordinary in many creative fields where a publisher becomes involved. I retain few or no rights to the majority of what I've written over the past 15 years or so.

What a fascinating thread, sad to be late to the party!

I sort of feel that the argument has been pretty much sewn up - Mills's assertion that editorially mandated ideas made 2000AD bad in the 90s is just not true - or at least, not entirely true. They may have been to blame for him not trying his best to write great stories in that decade.

I'd like to add a couple of comments. Much as I struggled with Mills's Slaine work in the 90s as I read it in the weekly Prog, I really enjoyed reading them in one big go in the reprints. I guess this is a LOT to do with the improvement in printing technology, as I recall Slaine being by far the worst offender for brown-mudness (along with poor Nick Percival's 'Goodnight Kiss' epic) - even Bisley's Horned God suffered a lot. It's also a lot to do with Mills himself apparently thinking more along European album lines and less along weekly episode lines. Compare Book 1 of Nemesis the Warlock, which has a lot of stand alone episodes strung together, with, say, Slaine's 'Demon Killer'. Basically, I found most weekly epsiodes of 90s Slaine and later Finn pretty much incomprehensible. Read i a chunk, and they're really rather good - even the Secret Commonwealth has some fun ideas, just poorly executed.

The other big thing is that my memory of reading comics in the 90s, primarily 2000AD, the Meg and various Marvel comics, is that the art in 2000AD was always the best, and that Tharg always seemed able to find exciting new artists who worked in a wide variety of styles. There were a bunch I hated / thought weren't very good, but it was still exciting to get that shock of the new. And a lot of the ones I didn't like at first were, miraculously, given room to develop into some of the best going (e.g., for me, Simon Davis, Carl Critchlow). Good artists can make a bad story way more palatable - I'm thinking of Kev Hopgood on Dry Run, Dillon/Walker on Harlem Heroes and so on.

I imagine it's nervewracking losing your top creators to other comics, but it's energising, too.

Statisticians may be interested to note that John Wagner has provided far fewer stories for 2000AD in the noughties than he did in the 90s.

The longest stretch without a Wagner story in the Prog was the opening of Judgement Day in Prog 786 (which he co-wrote don't forget) to 'The Time Machine' in Prog 889.
In other words, two years worth of Progs - but, if you were reading the Megazine, you'd get a single or double or even triple-hit of Wagner each month/fortnight during the same period.

Quote from: AlexF on 22 December, 2015, 02:24:25 PM
The longest stretch without a Wagner story in the Prog was the opening of Judgement Day in Prog 786 (which he co-wrote don't forget)

I think 'co-wrote' is a stretch. ISTR John's contribution to Judgement Day was more or less "why don't you do something with zombies, Garth...?"

Cheers

Jim

And in fact, I'd got my Progs muddled up anway, as the definitely-Wagner-Penned final epsiode of Button Man was in Prog 791!

Pat Mills is a legendary writer and everything but I generally take his history lessons with a grain of salt.

Does he hate on poor old Valiant and Lion again in the documentary?

One thing that I noticed during the pre-publicity is that Mills made a big deal about the 2000AD film company (I may be mis-remembering this as part of a podcast pre-publicity!) The suggestion is that something improper took place that saw money taken away from the comic/creators. Yet the way it pans out in the documentary seems to indicate it's not that big a deal. Am I missing something here, or is Mills' account over-dramatized.

Quote from: glassstanley on 22 December, 2015, 05:26:06 PM
One thing that I noticed during the pre-publicity is that Mills made a big deal about the 2000AD film company (I may be mis-remembering this as part of a podcast pre-publicity!) The suggestion is that something improper took place that saw money taken away from the comic/creators. Yet the way it pans out in the documentary seems to indicate it's not that big a deal. Am I missing something here, or is Mills' account over-dramatized.

i just watched it again today they definitely mentioned the creators were deliberately kept in the dark and that their only deal was to sell the rights to strontium dog for £1, so a complete failure but pretty irrelevant in the end, Pat was pretty triumphant that he had dealt directly with Hollywood(?) and managed to at least get a few grand

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 22 December, 2015, 02:38:19 PM

Quote from: AlexF on 22 December, 2015, 02:24:25 PM
The longest stretch without a Wagner story in the Prog was the opening of Judgement Day in Prog 786 (which he co-wrote don't forget)

I think 'co-wrote' is a stretch. ISTR John's contribution to Judgement Day was more or less "why don't you do something with zombies, Garth...?"

Cheers

Jim

One not-so-mega not-so-epic later: 'Oh.  That's why not.'

Mind you; Garth has somehow managed to make the zombie-apocalypse meme fresh again with his excellent Crossed.  He's a great writer; but it took him time to get there.

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 22 December, 2015, 02:38:19 PM

Quote from: AlexF on 22 December, 2015, 02:24:25 PM
The longest stretch without a Wagner story in the Prog was the opening of Judgement Day in Prog 786 (which he co-wrote don't forget)

I think 'co-wrote' is a stretch. ISTR John's contribution to Judgement Day was more or less "why don't you do something with zombies, Garth...?"

Cheers

Jim

Jim that's exactly how John describes his contribution to Judgement Day.

Quote from: Butch on 20 December, 2015, 11:03:17 AM
2000ad has lost readers regardless of what kind of stories it was printing*.

Most people don't read comics as adults; that was always the case, but in the late eighties the supply of new kid readers dried up.

Not just for 2000ad, but for any comic. What happened to 2000ad happened to every original UK title (and US comics too (http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales.html)).


*1987-1994: Burton/McKenzie (100k readers, down to 50k readers (https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/alt.comics.2000ad/th0gcr5iapM))
  1994-2001: Tomlinson/Bishop/Diggle  (50k readers, down to 25k readers (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comics.2000ad/gY4Dfc6d3i8%5B176-200%5D))
  2001-2013: Matt Smith (25k readers, down to 15k readers (http://www.theguardian.com/books/video/2013/aug/09/judge-dredd-edinburgh-celebration-2000ad-video))

Discussion elsewhere reminded me of editor Matt Smith's contribution to another thread regarding sales. This seems like as good a place as any to place a reminder of the challenges every newsstand title has faced in recent times:

Quote from: Cyber-Matt on 16 March, 2016, 01:52:14 PM
Irrespective of swearing/nudity/violence, I think some of you are overestimating the robustness of the newsstand in 2016. In the teen magazine sector alone (2000 AD comes under the teen comics category, in which it's the no 1 seller, thank you very much) the last year has seen the closure of Girl Pop, Bliss, Batman the Brave, Zoom, Sleepy Hollow, and DC Super Friends, amongst others. The circulation on Titan's Adventure Time has dropped by a third since it launched a year ago.

Total magazine sales across the board have dropped, year on year. The market isn't what it was three decades ago.

Quote from: Leigh S on 20 December, 2015, 12:21:56 PM
Is this not also indicative that the early 90s editorial didnt have quite the same pressures on them from Management edicts?  Early 90s goes awry through a proliferation of titles at the same time as a major talent leak has left you scrabbling for anyone competent to fill those pages.  On top of that, the rudder goes a bit lax and directionless while "It's only a fucking comic" attitude prevails.  But editorially, Pat isnt going to detect any problems personally.  When the impact of said early 90s actions is panic management, Bishop and Diggle have to try and juggle a hostile management imposing their whims (Loaded ads etc) along with just getting along and editing the thing.  Pat's hostility to things like the Fleetway film and TVdeal for example,wouldnt have led to a very conducive atmosphere....

There's a lot in here, at least looking back at my own gradual detachment from 2000ad at the time.

First, to be even-handed, I think you can describe Pat Mill's '90s output as patchy. I loved Finn at the time, but a reread shows that only the first book holds up. The Warriors were good, but too preachy. Slaine was too preachy and completely lacking in direction. Dinosty was awful.

But, for me, I think that much of that patchiness would have been tolerable (as it is now), if there was other good stuff in the prog. Mills stories always feel like an *important part of the prog*, whether that's because of his personal history or the history of the characters he created. When they let you down, and there's nothing else to bring you back up, you're going to lose faith in the product.

In the '90s one of the biggest problems, the reason there wasn't something to bring you back up, was that there were too many stories spread around too many titles. I think you could conceivably argue that the best of '90s stories on 2000ad-related titles was as good as much of the rest of its output. Maybe not the best of the best, but still damn good. But those good stories were spread between the Meg, 2000ad and Crisis.

In the '80s many progs features 2 Dreddverse stories, but in the '90s the Meg took much of the best stuff there. There were also many Meg titles that were crowbarred into the Dreddverse, which needn't have been (Al's Baby, even Devlin Waugh) Crisis at the very least robbed 2000ad of the wonders of New Statesmen.

New Statesmen ran in the late '80s, IIRC.  And Crisis as a whole (and Revolver) was largely done as far as decent original content went by the end of 1990.  So I don't think it can be blamed for too much of 2000ADs troubles in the 90's. The point about the Megazine (and indeed Lawman of the Future) stands.

Quote from: Tordelback on 25 April, 2016, 09:10:01 PM
New Statesmen ran in the late '80s, IIRC.  And Crisis as a whole (and Revolver) was largely done as far as decent original content went by the end of 1990.  So I don't think it can be blamed for too much of 2000ADs troubles in the 90's. The point about the Megazine (and indeed Lawman of the Future) stands.

Yes, that sounds about right. '80s/'90s boundary is always tough to remember.

I started reading 2000 ad in the 90s but was a kid so my memories aren't reliable. I remember being disturbed when reading the regular issues e.g. Canon Fodder and being a massive X Files fan at the time I enjoyed Vector 13. Nikolai Dante was also a welcome addition (re-read the early strips and they still hold up), so my memories are positive but what it would be like to read again I don't know. I enjoyed Classic 2000 AD most of all, I actually re-read a few, Mean Machine is ok, the inclusion of Bradley at the end was laborious to read although the artwork was brilliant. Durham Red was good, and currently Rogue Trooper is the best. Actually Shamballa and Missionary Man are also great reads. I can't say the 90s were all that bad, the artwork was certainly interesting.

Quote from: Frank on 23 April, 2016, 10:12:27 AM

Quote from: Butch on 20 December, 2015, 11:03:17 AM
Most people don't read comics as adults; that was always the case, but in the late eighties the supply of new kid readers dried up. What happened to 2000ad happened to every original UK title (and US comics too (http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales.html)).

*1987-1994: Burton/McKenzie (100k readers, down to 50k readers (https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/alt.comics.2000ad/th0gcr5iapM))
  1994-2001: Tomlinson/Bishop/Diggle  (50k readers, down to 25k readers (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comics.2000ad/gY4Dfc6d3i8%5B176-200%5D))
  2001-2013: Matt Smith (25k readers, down to 15k readers (http://www.theguardian.com/books/video/2013/aug/09/judge-dredd-edinburgh-celebration-2000ad-video))

Quote from: Cyber-Matt on 16 March, 2016, 01:52:14 PM
Irrespective of swearing/nudity/violence, I think some of you are overestimating the robustness of the newsstand in 2016 ... Total magazine sales across the board have dropped, year on year.

According to John 'Crying' Freeman, 2017 was no better. All those wishing Tharg would take a serious crack at the kiddie market can get an idea of what that entails below*. Lego Dredd would be great, obviously:

http://downthetubes.net/?p=39706


* Licensed toy based strips and more puzzle/feature content than story pages. Everyone who has assiduously held on to their space spinners and 2000ad pencils would have to set aside the spare room to house their collection of Westinghouse water pistols and tubs of The Mess luminous goo.