Simple question from a simple man...

[MR SigS]

So why did DC wait until 1987 to give Action Comics an annual? Superman and Batman got theirs in the early 60's (that's why I'm posting in this forum).

[nmtg9]

Always wondered that myself!

 

Annuals are a puzzle to me - I can never understand why titles have them one year and not the next.

 

Daredevil was the worst culprit of this

 

#3 - 1972

#4 - 1976

4b(5) - 1989

 

This does not sit well with my OCD uniformity completist approach to comic publishing!

[VintageComics]

I'd bet that some boardies have better answers than I do but I can only think that it had to do with the ability of a company to meet deadlines.

 

Annuals were often reprints of earlier issues plus some additional new material added, and so it was a way of connecting new readers with the past of a given character but because it was an extra publication, it took additional effort outside of the normal 6 or 12 issues a year per title.

 

I can only assume, because of the spontaneous nature of some of them that they got to them when they could.

 

That seems the most logical answer that comes to mind.

 

Anybody else?

 

 

[Jeffro.]

I believe most if not all of the 80s DC annuals were new material. I could very well be wrong on that. I'm going by memory. DC annuals from the 60s were mostly reprints.

 

I've always wondered why DC got out of the annual business in the 70s.

[VintageComics]

I believe most if not all of the 80s DC annuals were new material. I could very well be wrong on that. I'm going by memory. DC annuals from the 60s were mostly reprints.

 

I've always wondered why DC got out of the annual business in the 70s.

 

I was primarily thinking about 1960's and early 1970's Annuals as those were my collecting heyday but I would assume that by the 1980's the issue was not scheduling and publishing. Except of course unless you were waiting on Art Adams.

 

[adamstrange]

So why did DC wait until 1987 to give Action Comics an annual?

Annuals were character oriented so there was no Detective Annual or Action Annual rather they included the best stories from Action/Superman or Batman/Detective.

[MrBedrock]

I've always wondered why DC got out of the annual business in the 70s.

Annuals would have been a disaster for DC in the 70s. Marvel gave every indication that they were going to go with a square bound format for all of their books in late '71. Captain America, Hulk, Spider-Man and other titles had an issue which was square bound for 25 cents. DC took the bait and decided to go that route for their entire line...thus the era of "52 pages for 25 cents". Marvel then dropped back down to 20 cents. The price difference was a killer for DC for a number of years. That experience made them very leery about the prospect of issuing higher priced comics. I think the moderate success of the Marvel Giants of the late 70s probably confirmed their suspicions that price point made for a tough sell in the short term. But eventually that barrier was broken and accepted. Times have sure changed, yet they stay the same.

[Gatsby77]

I remember Daredevil Annual 4 (b). It was a crazy fun storyline called "Lifeform" about a criminal infected with an alien virus the mutated him.

 

Started in Punisher then moved to Daredevil, Hulk, and Silver Surfer. Interesting crossover of characters you wouldn't ordinarily put together.

[AtlasFan]

So why did DC wait until 1987 to give Action Comics an annual? Superman and Batman got theirs in the early 60's (that's why I'm posting in this forum).

 

Since all annuals were reprints in the early SA, I would guess that an Action or Detective Annual would be redundant - all the reprinted stories from those titles would have been mixed into the respective Superman or Batman annuals or 80 Page Giants.

[HouseofComics.Com]

Not sure if I fully agree with this because DC and J. Kahn were gung ho over $1 comics in what, 1977? There were plenty of other giants like the 60-cent JLAs, DC Special Series, etc. Maybe it's because the company had so many other giants that it felt it didn't need the annuals. Certainly as Richard says, the company had lots of sales problems and arguably no new hits until New Teen Titans in 1980 so no rush for annuals.

 

 

I've always wondered why DC got out of the annual business in the 70s.

Annuals would have been a disaster for DC in the 70s. Marvel gave every indication that they were going to go with a square bound format for all of their books in late '71. Captain America, Hulk, Spider-Man and other titles had an issue which was square bound for 25 cents. DC took the bait and decided to go that route for their entire line...thus the era of "52 pages for 25 cents". Marvel then dropped back down to 20 cents. The price difference was a killer for DC for a number of years. That experience made them very leery about the prospect of issuing higher priced comics. I think the moderate success of the Marvel Giants of the late 70s probably confirmed their suspicions that price point made for a tough sell in the short term. But eventually that barrier was broken and accepted. Times have sure changed, yet they stay the same.

[the blob]

Not sure if I fully agree with this because DC and J. Kahn were gung ho over $1 comics in what, 1977? There were plenty of other giants like the 60-cent JLAs, DC Special Series, etc. Maybe it's because the company had so many other giants that it felt it didn't need the annuals. Certainly as Richard says, the company had lots of sales problems and arguably no new hits until New Teen Titans in 1980 so no rush for annuals.

 

 

This seems to make a lot of sense. DC was already pumping out tons of books with extra pages and higher prices. Marvel did so much less frequently outside of annuals.