When did Wolverine really become popular?? 2 2

[the blob]

You keep mentioning Storm cover appearances, as if that somehow disproves Wolverine's popularity. You say Storm is on 71% of covers and Wolverine is on 49% between GS 1 and UXM #200, even though almost everyone would agree that X-Men #133 marked the beginning of his superstar turn and the Wolvie mini-series brought him to 2-time CBG award-winning superstardom.

 

I took a deeper dive into the numbers and looked at their relative appearances during a more relevant period, between UXM #133 and UXM #212 (May 1980-Dec 1986, firmly the mid-'80s) plus all the annuals during this period:

 

Wolverine cover appearances: 42

Storm cover appearances: 37

 

Oh, but that's not really being fair to Wolverine, is it, because, remember, everything was in continuity during this time and he was M.I.A. during his two mini-series (that's why there are large stretches like UXM #168-172 and UXM #184-192) where he doesn't appear on any of the covers (KP & W was published at the same time as UXM #187-192).

 

Making that statistical adjustment (there's more to analysis that just counting):

 

Wolverine cover appearances: 51 (he wasn't on the cover of KP&W #1, though that's really just nitpicking considering that he had his own book and Storm didn't)

Storm cover appearances 37

 

As for other appearances during this time, I suspect that would add another few points Wolverine's way, considering he was on the cover of DD #196, 2 Contest of Champions covers, Alpha Flight #13, Dazzler #38, Power Pack #19, etc. while Storm's non-UXM appearances usually had Wolverine on the cover as well (like Secret Wars).

 

Face it - from the relevant period in question, Wolverine was by far the most popular X-Man. Sorry, but your "best argument" simply doesn't hold water.

 

of course, maybe marvel wanted to PUSH storm as a venue to make more sales to gals and african americans and try to expand their markets?

 

you would be shocked at how many 40something year old african american women i know who are secret comic collectors...(ok, it is not a huge number...but it is 5-10 and that's a lot more than the # of white women i know who collect...) storm being the character that brought them into the fold.

 

and it even worked for the younger generation --- purely anecdotal, but when i sell comics at yard sales in my very diverse neighborhood would you like to guess which comics i am asked for by black and hispanic girls who otherwise have no interest in comics? the storm covers sell really well (for 50 cents!).

[1Cool]

I agree with pretty much everyone that X-Men 133 was the start of him being ubba popular. I remember seeing that cover and thinking "that guy is the bees knees!" well maybe not those exact those words but he got huge respect from me in that set of books. The Brood series also stands out for me in thinking he was the best X-Men.

[JazzMan]

Hulk 181 came out around October 1974. Giant Size X-Men 1 came out around May 1975. I came to know about him shortly after X-Men 94. He was a popular character already by the end of 1975 in my neck of the woods.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I believe Wolverine wasn't popular till 82' with the mini-series.

He got more popular in the 90's with the X-Men re-launch & the 90's animated series.

But it wouldn't be till 2000 with the X-Men movie that Wolverine (mainly Hugh Jackman's performance) that he skyrocketed to popularity with mainstream audiences.

 

they did the mini because he was so popular at that point it was a sure-fire hit

 

there was a LOT of anticipation for that, i remember how my little group of comic reading cadres was so excited.

 

although i'm not sure if at that point he was THE most popular marvel character given Spiderman. x-men eventually surpasses ASM in sales, but remember, spidey also has two other spidey titles (spectacular and team-up). with that said, it was a bit of a down time for spidey with the endless hobgoblin stories and what not and the terrible art on some of his titles..marvel took spidey sales for granted at that point.

 

true, x-men has new mutants as a spin-off and later x-factor

 

They didn't do the mini because it was a "surefire hit." They did the mini because DC was having success with minis, and it took a little bit for Marvel to catch on. Remember: Marvel's first mini was only three months prior, Contest of Champions. It was fairly successful. But the format was NEW, and no one knew what to expect....which is why the next two minis were Wolverine (and again...this was far more because of Miller, who was at the absolute peak of popularity, than it was about Wolvie <---please note the language. It doesn't say "Miller, and Wolvie didn't matter at all.")....

 

....and HERCULES.

 

Is anyone credibly going to make the claim that Hercules was one of Marvel's "superstars"....?

 

So, no, they were testing the format out. Those whose minis did really well got regular series (West Coast Avengers, Cloak & Dagger, Punisher) and there were several minis that featured characters that didn't merit anything else, but had stories creators wanted to tell, and couldn't in the regular series: Nightcrawler, Beast, Magik (which was actually titled "Storm & Illyana: Magik", so yes, Storm did, in fact, get her own mini-series), Falcon, Vision & Scarlet Witch (who, interestingly, had a 4 issue mini, and then 12 issue maxi.)

 

Context is critical, and in the early 80's, the mini-series was a vehicle for all sorts of things, not just because they think they have a "surefire hit"...in several cases, it was the opposite.

 

And while you folks won't believe this, the most popular X-Man of 1983, much like Kitty Pryde in 81, was Rogue.

 

Rogue, Rogue, Rogue, everybody's talking about Rogue....

[VintageComics]

Hulk 181 came out around October 1974. Giant Size X-Men 1 came out around May 1975. I came to know about him shortly after X-Men 94. He was a popular character already by the end of 1975 in my neck of the woods.

 

You people in the NW are always strange.

 

[delekkerste]

They didn't do the mini because it was a "surefire hit." They did the mini because DC was having success with minis, and it took a little bit for Marvel to catch on. Remember: Marvel's first mini was only three months prior, Contest of Champions. It was fairly successful. But the format was NEW, and no one knew what to expect....which is why the next two minis were Wolverine (and again...this was far more because of Miller, who was at the absolute peak of popularity, than it was about Wolvie <---please note the language. It doesn't say "Miller, and Wolvie didn't matter at all.")....

 

....and HERCULES.

 

Is anyone credibly going to make the claim that Hercules was one of Marvel's "superstars"....?

 

So, no, they were testing the format out. Those whose minis did really well got regular series (West Coast Avengers, Cloak & Dagger, Punisher) and there were several minis that featured characters that didn't merit anything else, but had stories creators wanted to tell, and couldn't in the regular series: Nightcrawler, Beast, Magik (which was actually titled "Storm & Illyana: Magik", so yes, Storm did, in fact, get her own mini-series), Falcon, Vision & Scarlet Witch (who, interestingly, had a 4 issue mini, and then 12 issue maxi.)

 

Context is critical, and in the early 80's, the mini-series was a vehicle for all sorts of things, not just because they think they have a "surefire hit"...in several cases, it was the opposite.

 

And while you folks won't believe this, the most popular X-Man of 1983, much like Kitty Pryde in 81) was Rogue.

 

Rogue, Rogue, Rogue, everybody's talking about Rogue....

 

As if the Wolverine mini-series wouldn't have been a smash hit if someone else had drawn it! It's not like Miller wrote it - Claremont did. Miller had to be talked into doing the project. And, it's well known among OA connoisseurs that Miller did only very rough layouts for the book - while that certainly did much to get the most out of Claremont's excellent scripts, the great look of the book owes much to Rubinstein's inks. Fast forwarding a bit, even though the Milgrom art totally sucked, I'm sure KP & W still sold a ton of copies because of Wolverine's popularity.

 

Of course Hercules wasn't one of Marvel's superstars. Which is why he didn't sell as much as Wolverine did. His was a test run, while Wolverine's was a surefire hit. I don't know why you keep trying to make everything fit into one category - your deductive process seems to go like "some people's memories are unreliable, these are some people here, thus their memories must be unreliable." Just because Herc got a mini-series doesn't do anything to diminish the breakout impact of the Wolverine mini-series.

 

And, what kind of evidence do you have that Rogue was the most popular X-Man of 1983? This claim is totally unbelievable - she only really featured in 4 issues (UXM #171-173 and 175) that year, and she played second-fiddle in one of the best Wolverine stories ever in #172-173. Best Supporting Actress, sure, but not Best Actor. Also, weren't you like 1 or 2 years old in 1983 (based on what you said before) and not even born in 1981 (when Kitty was allegedly the most popular X-Man)? I really would like to know how these claims can be at all supported - I'll trust my potentially unreliable memories over your no memories any day.

 

[VintageComics]

And, what kind of evidence do you have that Rogue was the most popular X-Man of 1983? This claim is totally unbelievable - she only really featured in 4 issues (UXM #171-173 and 175) that year, and she played second-fiddle in one of the best Wolverine stories ever in #172-173.

 

Rogue was popular acc. to my memory but not most popular.

 

 

[the blob]

I believe Wolverine wasn't popular till 82' with the mini-series.

He got more popular in the 90's with the X-Men re-launch & the 90's animated series.

But it wouldn't be till 2000 with the X-Men movie that Wolverine (mainly Hugh Jackman's performance) that he skyrocketed to popularity with mainstream audiences.

 

they did the mini because he was so popular at that point it was a sure-fire hit

 

there was a LOT of anticipation for that, i remember how my little group of comic reading cadres was so excited.

 

although i'm not sure if at that point he was THE most popular marvel character given Spiderman. x-men eventually surpasses ASM in sales, but remember, spidey also has two other spidey titles (spectacular and team-up). with that said, it was a bit of a down time for spidey with the endless hobgoblin stories and what not and the terrible art on some of his titles..marvel took spidey sales for granted at that point.

 

true, x-men has new mutants as a spin-off and later x-factor

 

They didn't do the mini because it was a "surefire hit." They did the mini because DC was having success with minis, and it took a little bit for Marvel to catch on. Remember: Marvel's first mini was only three months prior, Contest of Champions. It was fairly successful. But the format was NEW, and no one knew what to expect....which is why the next two minis were Wolverine (and again...this was far more because of Miller, who was at the absolute peak of popularity, than it was about Wolvie <---please note the language. It doesn't say "Miller, and Wolvie didn't matter at all.")....

 

....and HERCULES.

 

Is anyone credibly going to make the claim that Hercules was one of Marvel's "superstars"....?

 

So, no, they were testing the format out. Those whose minis did really well got regular series (West Coast Avengers, Cloak & Dagger, Punisher) and there were several minis that featured characters that didn't merit anything else, but had stories creators wanted to tell, and couldn't in the regular series: Nightcrawler, Beast, Magik (which was actually titled "Storm & Illyana: Magik", so yes, Storm did, in fact, get her own mini-series), Falcon, Vision & Scarlet Witch (who, interestingly, had a 4 issue mini, and then 12 issue maxi.)

 

Context is critical, and in the early 80's, the mini-series was a vehicle for all sorts of things, not just because they think they have a "surefire hit"...in several cases, it was the opposite.

 

And while you folks won't believe this, the most popular X-Man of 1983, much like Kitty Pryde in 81, was Rogue.

 

Rogue, Rogue, Rogue, everybody's talking about Rogue....

 

RMA, are you pushing the notion that Wolverine was not a big star in the Marvel universe by the time the mini came out and Marvel did not think that it would sell a ton of copies? Yes, I agree, Frank Miller helped it sell even more (in particular, helped it sell those extra speculation copies as the Wolverine fan base was probably more interested in reading than making a buck on it), and, sure, minis were pretty new then and that was exciting (yes, I bought the Hercules mini, the falcon mini...I lost my excitement a couple of issues into the Vision/scarlet Witch mini though), but if Dave Cockrum had done the mini it would have still sold a boatload...just likely not as many folks salting away a spare 20 copies to sell later thinking they had then next DD 158. There was eager anticipation among my 9-11 year old cohort...heck even my old brother's 14-16 year old cohort...for that mini, and not just because of Frank Miller.

 

What I can't figure out is after the mini did so well why Marvel didn't do its usual try to make a quick buck and pump out a Wolvie regular series right away. From here I've read about internal political fighting at Marvel about some not liking what a violent anti-hero the character is and what not, something i was obviously not privy to as a kiddie. Seriously, the utterly horrible titles that got a series in 1983-1984 are shocking.

[RockMyAmadeus]

(snip)

 

I would really honestly appreciate it if you would stop trying to engage me. You've been condescending, aggressive, confrontational, and dismissive. You've misstated things I've said, you've misread things I've said, and you've never provided any hard data, outside of a single house ad, to support your position, yet you've consistently used very aggressive language to show not only that you think I'm wrong, but that it's obvious to everyone how wrong I am but me.

 

I'm not going to discuss this topic with you, and I'm not going to insult you by telling you how wrong you are (which you refuse to acknowledge is only a matter of opinion.)

 

Please...I'm just not interested in discussing this with you. Please just stop.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I believe Wolverine wasn't popular till 82' with the mini-series.

He got more popular in the 90's with the X-Men re-launch & the 90's animated series.

But it wouldn't be till 2000 with the X-Men movie that Wolverine (mainly Hugh Jackman's performance) that he skyrocketed to popularity with mainstream audiences.

 

they did the mini because he was so popular at that point it was a sure-fire hit

 

there was a LOT of anticipation for that, i remember how my little group of comic reading cadres was so excited.

 

although i'm not sure if at that point he was THE most popular marvel character given Spiderman. x-men eventually surpasses ASM in sales, but remember, spidey also has two other spidey titles (spectacular and team-up). with that said, it was a bit of a down time for spidey with the endless hobgoblin stories and what not and the terrible art on some of his titles..marvel took spidey sales for granted at that point.

 

true, x-men has new mutants as a spin-off and later x-factor

 

They didn't do the mini because it was a "surefire hit." They did the mini because DC was having success with minis, and it took a little bit for Marvel to catch on. Remember: Marvel's first mini was only three months prior, Contest of Champions. It was fairly successful. But the format was NEW, and no one knew what to expect....which is why the next two minis were Wolverine (and again...this was far more because of Miller, who was at the absolute peak of popularity, than it was about Wolvie <---please note the language. It doesn't say "Miller, and Wolvie didn't matter at all.")....

 

....and HERCULES.

 

Is anyone credibly going to make the claim that Hercules was one of Marvel's "superstars"....?

 

So, no, they were testing the format out. Those whose minis did really well got regular series (West Coast Avengers, Cloak & Dagger, Punisher) and there were several minis that featured characters that didn't merit anything else, but had stories creators wanted to tell, and couldn't in the regular series: Nightcrawler, Beast, Magik (which was actually titled "Storm & Illyana: Magik", so yes, Storm did, in fact, get her own mini-series), Falcon, Vision & Scarlet Witch (who, interestingly, had a 4 issue mini, and then 12 issue maxi.)

 

Context is critical, and in the early 80's, the mini-series was a vehicle for all sorts of things, not just because they think they have a "surefire hit"...in several cases, it was the opposite.

 

And while you folks won't believe this, the most popular X-Man of 1983, much like Kitty Pryde in 81, was Rogue.

 

Rogue, Rogue, Rogue, everybody's talking about Rogue....

 

RMA, are you pushing the notion that Wolverine was not a big star in the Marvel universe by the time the mini came out and Marvel did not think that it would sell a ton of copies?

 

No. Read both threads.

 

What I can't figure out is after the mini did so well why Marvel didn't do its usual try to make a quick buck and pump out a Wolvie regular series right away.

 

That's the million dollar question, isn't it....?

 

[the blob]

Also, weren't you like 1 or 2 years old in 1983 (based on what you said before) and not even born in 1981 (when Kitty was allegedly the most popular X-Man)? I really would like to know how these claims can be at all supported - I'll trust my potentially unreliable memories over your no memories any day.

----

 

Once again I think there is a difference between what Marvel might have been trying to push as a new break-out star (in particular to appeal to millions of american girls who did read comics (mainly archies at that point though) and what your typical 8-16 year old male comic book reader was into...as in 1980-1983 that actually constituted a big chunk of the readership out there...we thought Rogue was pretty cool (and yes, i say "we" because i know what every other 10-11 year old was thinking goshdarnit!), but I assure you, Kitty Pryde was not the most popular x-person even if she was close to our age!

[Logan510]

And, what kind of evidence do you have that Rogue was the most popular X-Man of 1983? This claim is totally unbelievable - she only really featured in 4 issues (UXM #171-173 and 175) that year, and she played second-fiddle in one of the best Wolverine stories ever in #172-173.

 

Rogue was popular acc. to my memory but not most popular.

 

 

That's how I remember it as well.

[mackenzie999]

I read the new X-men off the stands and Wolverine seemed to break out pretty early on, for sure with Byrne but maybe also with the Cockrum issues? I forget, it's been decades since I've read those but I do recall he was pretty much the first breakout character of the group.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Remember, Blob, that Marvel (and all other publishers) didn't look at the market the way collectors did. Marvel made $0 on the value of back issues. Marvel made its money on new issues, and new issues only. Reprints, especially in the late 70's/early 80's, were limited to "classic" Marvel of the early to mid 60's (aside: this is something that Stan Lee and company actually got right...FF #1, Fantasy #15, Jim #83, these books were reprinted within 2-3 years after the initial books came out, assuring that people who were interested could get the backstory without having to look very hard...and this was true throughout the 60's.)

 

So, the back issue market may have been buying multiple copies of, say, DD #158 (and they were) and X-Men #94 (and they were), but Marvel didn't care, and may not even have mostly been aware. Yes, Marvel eventually got around to reprinting X-Men...but only GS #1...in 1983. It would be 1986, a full 11 years later, before they got around to reprinting the entire series in order (same with Hulk #180-181, by the way.)

 

What is the point of all of this? Publishers rarely looked back, and they certainly didn't look to see what the back issue market was doing to figure out what they should create next. The value of Hulk #181, and X-Men #94, and all the rest was *essentially* meaningless. They cared about last month's sales data. Is the book meeting our internal sales goals, yes/no? If not, why? If so, how can we sell more?

 

In that respect, letters of comment actually influenced editors and creators much, much more than the back issue market, but again, LOC were limited to the most recent issues...certainly not books that were several years old.

[delekkerste]

(snip)

 

I would really honestly appreciate it if you would stop trying to engage me. You've been condescending, aggressive, confrontational, and dismissive. You've misstated things I've said, and you've never provided any hard data, outside of a single house ad, to support your position, yet you've consistently used very aggressive language to show not only that you think I'm wrong, but that it's obvious to everyone how wrong I am but me.

 

I'm not going to discuss this topic with you, and I'm not going to insult you by telling you how wrong you are (which you refuse to acknowledge is only a matter of opinion.)

 

Please...I'm just not interested in discussing this with you. Please just stop.

 

 

Give me a break. No hard data? Thanks for conveniently ignoring the data I provided that completely discredited your cover appearance argument (Wolverine, in actuality, blew away Storm in total cover appearances from X-Men #133 through the mid-'80s, i.e., the relevant period under consideration), for highlighting the CBG poll data that you yourself unearthed, for providing numerous pieces of circumstantial evidence like the crossover appearances, Fastner & Larson plate, house ad, etc. Not to mention the fact that you keep dismissing everyone's recollections as unreliable while your "analysis" never seems to actually prove what you're trying, in your tortured logic, to make it do. You also have a penchant for making totally unsubstantiated claims like "Rogue was the most popular X-Man in 1983" which certainly aren't backed up by either first-hand memories or any facts.

 

If I've appeared to be aggressive and confrontational, it's only because you have been dismissive and arrogant in your own right, as if somehow your totally ludicrous, made-up ideas are superior to all the evidence, recollections and opinions to the contrary that have been presented. And, when you're called out on it, you either try to ignore, deflect or try to take the fake moral high ground by claiming to be above it all. Surely it must be readily apparent to all that you're just not willing to ever admit that you're wrong, no matter how indefensible a position you're trying to defend.

[delekkerste]

Once again I think there is a difference between what Marvel might have been trying to push as a new break-out star (in particular to appeal to millions of american girls who did read comics (mainly archies at that point though) and what your typical 8-16 year old male comic book reader was into...as in 1980-1983 that actually constituted a big chunk of the readership out there...we thought Rogue was pretty cool (and yes, i say "we" because i know what every other 10-11 year old was thinking goshdarnit!), but I assure you, Kitty Pryde was not the most popular x-person even if she was close to our age!

 

 

Yes, Kitty and Rogue were popular. But, to say that they were more popular than Cyclops and Storm, let alone Wolverine, is just a patently untrue assertion. Sure, Claremont gave them big roles when they came on board, to win over the readership and establish the characters as part of the team (a very logical move on his part). But, to suggest that this somehow made them the most popular characters in the title at the time is just a total non sequitur. It seems like all but one person here can see that.

[Rip]

Mark me down for another with X-Men 133 and the Mini series.

 

Maybe one could argue the last panel in 132 would be that pivotal moment where Wolverine's was destined for much greater fame.

 

It seems clear in this thread that the chips are stacked highly against RMA.

 

Kitty, Rogue, good grief!!

 

Delekkerste is right on the money here.

And I think I'm noticing a pattern as well

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Also, weren't you like 1 or 2 years old in 1983 (based on what you said before) and not even born in 1981 (when Kitty was allegedly the most popular X-Man)? I really would like to know how these claims can be at all supported - I'll trust my potentially unreliable memories over your no memories any day.

----

 

Once again I think there is a difference between what Marvel might have been trying to push as a new break-out star (in particular to appeal to millions of american girls who did read comics (mainly archies at that point though) and what your typical 8-16 year old male comic book reader was into...as in 1980-1983 that actually constituted a big chunk of the readership out there...we thought Rogue was pretty cool (and yes, i say "we" because i know what every other 10-11 year old was thinking goshdarnit!), but I assure you, Kitty Pryde was not the most popular x-person even if she was close to our age!

 

To clear up one of the misstatements : I was born in 1972, not 1981 or 82. What has happened is that the conversation has not been followed closely at all, comments made by others have been confused and ascribed to me.

 

I'll leave that to others to consider what that says about someone when they can't even keep the details of the conversation from the last few days straight, and how that relates to their 30+ year old memories.

 

 

Regardless, when a person was born...as I have said before...has absolutely zero to do with what they can know. No one here was alive during the US Civil War, and yet, there are people who know more about it today, far, far more, than many of the people who were alive during it.

 

It's simple scholarship and research. Whether or not someone was "alive" during the time period is functionally meaningless. Were they paying attention? Were they documenting anything as it happened? Were they consciously downplaying their bias? Were they even aware of the events unfolding around them? Did they interview others who were also there, at or near the time of the events?

 

It is insulting, at best, to those who have taken the time and effort to do the meticulous research, to suggest that they don't know any better than people "who were actually there." It is a statement has no place in a serious discussion of any topic.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Mark me down for another with X-Men 133 and the Mini series.

 

Maybe one could argue the last panel in 132 would be that pivotal moment where Wolverine's was destined for much greater fame.

 

It seems clear in this thread that the chips are stacked highly against RMA.

 

Kitty, Rogue, good grief!!

 

Delekkerste is right on the money here.

And I think I'm noticing a pattern as well

 

 

 

Let's keep the discussion non-personal, eh?

[RockMyAmadeus]

(snip)

 

I would really honestly appreciate it if you would stop trying to engage me. You've been condescending, aggressive, confrontational, and dismissive. You've misstated things I've said, and you've never provided any hard data, outside of a single house ad, to support your position, yet you've consistently used very aggressive language to show not only that you think I'm wrong, but that it's obvious to everyone how wrong I am but me.

 

I'm not going to discuss this topic with you, and I'm not going to insult you by telling you how wrong you are (which you refuse to acknowledge is only a matter of opinion.)

 

Please...I'm just not interested in discussing this with you. Please just stop.

 

 

Give me a break. No hard data? Thanks for conveniently ignoring the data I provided that completely discredited your cover appearance argument (Wolverine, in actuality, blew away Storm in total cover appearances from X-Men #133 through the mid-'80s, i.e., the relevant period under consideration), for highlighting the CBG poll data that you yourself unearthed, for providing numerous pieces of circumstantial evidence like the crossover appearances, Fastner & Larson plate, house ad, etc. Not to mention the fact that you keep dismissing everyone's recollections as unreliable while your "analysis" never seems to actually prove what you're trying, in your tortured logic, to make it do. You also have a penchant for making totally unsubstantiated claims like "Rogue was the most popular X-Man in 1983" which certainly aren't backed up by either first-hand memories or any facts.

 

If I've appeared to be aggressive and confrontational, it's only because you have been dismissive and arrogant in your own right, as if somehow your totally ludicrous, made-up ideas are superior to all the evidence, recollections and opinions to the contrary that have been presented. And, when you're called out on it, you either try to ignore, deflect or try to take the fake moral high ground by claiming to be above it all. Surely it must be readily apparent to all that you're just not willing to ever admit that you're wrong, no matter how indefensible a position you're trying to defend.

 

Please stop.

 

Thank you.