Comics UK

Lew Stringer wrote: Thunder and Jet were pretty much behind the times, (seemed to me to be lite versions of Valiant and Lion), - which may be why they only lasted 22 weeks.

Actually, I think Chris Lowder or somebody has admitted that, as Digifiend surmises, both Thunder and Jet were deliberately created to be combined with Lion and Buster after a short run in order to give both those titles a much-needed sales boost. This makes it rather less surprising that a majority of Thunder strips survived the merger since these were all intended for Lion from the very beginning and were created by the same editorial office. Oddly enough, when Lion finally merged into Valiant - supposedly due to falling sales - Lowder discovered that it was actually outselling its stablemate by several thousands. Apparently, IPC supremo Jack Le Grand had intervened personally to save the title he created himself.

As for Countdown, I bought every issue and generally found the artwork by Burns, Haylock, Lindfield, Harley, etc. of a high standard - yet in spite of that I was always vaguely disappointed with the title and considered it to be a rather second-rate version of TV21 in its heyday. What's more I seem to remember that was the ultimate verdict of its editor Dennis Hooper, who'd also worked as an art editor on its illustrious predecessor.

- Phil Rushton

philcom55 wrote: Actually, I think Chris Lowder or somebody has admitted that, as Digifiend surmises, both Thunder and Jet were deliberately created to be combined with Lion and Buster after a short run in order to give both those titles a much-needed sales boost. Phil Rushton

I've read it on here a number of times over the years about Thunder & Jet being deliberately created to merge that's the first I've read Chris Lowder admitting it.

I just thought they've had small runs and didn't sell very well time to merge.
Did it increase Lion & Thunder sales?

I feel cheated if I had known I would never have bought them

philcom55 wrote: Oddly enough, when Lion finally merged into Valiant - supposedly due to falling sales - Lowder discovered that it was actually outselling its stablemate by several thousands. Apparently, IPC supremo Jack Le Grand had intervened personally to save the title he created himself.

Aha, not so - the ABC comic sales figures for 1974 were published on this very forum last year:

LION 1974: 144,908
VALIANT 1974: 189,502

Valiant was leading. Tiger was outselling Lion too at that point (though not selling as much as Valiant).

I think we need this kind of verification or it's all just rumour. I'm a bit suspicious of the idea that comics would be created solely with the intention of merging very quickly myself - there's no telling that they would boost sales, because they had no idea if the new comics would be at all successful. The IPC way to boost sales was usually to merge comics with a proven good seller.

For me, the best comics of 1971 would be Valiant (at a peak that year, I think - lots of great strips) and Whizzer and Chips (four weekly adventure stories, and a good selection of fun strips with lots of different artistic styles; a really buzzing comic.)

Some very good comics did have short runs. Shiver and Shake was an excellent IPC fun weekly but didn't last long. The market could probably only support a certain number of titles.

steelclaw wrote: I've read it on here a number of times over the years about Thunder & Jet being deliberately created to merge that's the first I've read Chris Lowder admitting it.

philcom55 just said: "Actually, I *think* Chris Lowder *or somebody* has admitted ... " so it's not that we know Chris Lowder has definitely admitted it. It might just be a fan myth like Lion outselling Valiant.

Has Chris Lowder ever done any interviews about this period? If so, can we have a link?

"Watch Out For The White Eyes" which began-I think- in late Jan 1972 i n "L & T" was a really good thriller! The final "Spellbinder" story circa Dec 72 to Oct 73 where someone called "Goddard" goes back and back in time changing the world to alternative realities was awesome! The effects cumulated to the very break up of creation before the story ended happily!

The background information about Lion & Thunder appears in 'Uncaged: The Story of Lion, 1952-74' by Steve Holland and Ray Moore which is contained in Steve's Complete Lion Index. Whatever the original intention may have been, though, I daresay that if Thunder's sales had gone through the roof they'd have been prepared to keep it going as a separate title.

Incidentally, in my opinion the one strip that proved to be Lion's crowning glory during its final years (even more than Thunder's Adam Eterno ) was the criminally underrated 'Spellbinder', which featured some of Frank Pepper's and Geoff Campion's best-ever work - as well as the great Reg Bunn's final bow!

- Phil R.

(Ooops - just seen Alan's post! I agree that the epic alternate timeline story was the absolute highpoint of a truly memorable series in which writer and artist pulled out all the stops! )

phoenix4ever wrote:

steelclaw wrote:I thought 'Thunder' and 'Jet' were the strongest comics

Lew Stringer wrote:Thunder and Jet were particularly weak comics

Seconds out............Round 1.

Round 2
It's a Knockout, 'Thunder' & J'et' win.

...But which version of Knockout is that?

- Phil R.

Raven wrote:the ABC comic sales figures for 1974 were published on this very forum last year:
LION 1974: 144,908
VALIANT 1974: 189,502
Valiant was leading. Tiger was outselling Lion too at that point

Bearing in mind that the two titles merged in the first half of that year those figures sound a bit problematic. If Valiant's figures are an average for the whole year (or even the first six months) they could well include the 'boost' resulting from that merger. Does anybody know exactly how they break down?

On the other hand Lowder's claim about the relative circulations was supposedly based upon a single week when the Lion office received Valiant's figures by mistake so it's not conclusive. It'd be entirely understandable if there was a certain element of wishful thinking resulting from interdepartmental rivalry.

- Phil Rushton

philcom55 wrote:...But which version of Knockout is that?

- Phil R.

Series 2 'Knockout'.
With everyones favourite strip 'Barry & Bong'(Not) But it was one of mine.

philcom55 wrote:

Raven wrote:the ABC comic sales figures for 1974 were published on this very forum last year:
LION 1974: 144,908
VALIANT 1974: 189,502
Valiant was leading. Tiger was outselling Lion too at that point

Bearing in mind that the two titles merged in the first half of that year those figures sound a bit problematic.

- Phil Rushton

Back then, IPC considered any comic selling less than 200,000 to be in trouble so it's not surprising they merged the two titles that year.

Lew

steelclaw wrote:Lion & Thunder was practically Thunder.

So do you think 'Thunder' & 'Jet' were launched specifically to merge with Lion & Buster? If so a lot of comics had small runs were these as well?

I've heard from people who worked at IPC at the time that this was the case, but I'm not completely convinced it's gospel. I think it's more likely that IPC churned out so many comics because they knew that if they failed they could easily be merged into other comics, thus giving the parent comic a boost.

When a new comic worked (eg: Whoopee!) they could keep it going and still make a profit. Either way it was a win-win situation for IPC.

Marvel UK did exactly the same thing in the 1970s.

Lew

I think i read somewhere that sometimes IPC did perform "hatch, match and dispatch" operations to create comics specifically for mergers. The example given, wherever i read it, was of 2000AD, Starlord and Tornado. I think there's quite a few people around who actually consider Starlord to have been the superior comic, but it still ended up being merged. Tornado is less well remembered (apart from by Sexton Blake fans!) and i don't think it even lasted for 30 issues before it was merged.

philcom55 wrote:

Raven wrote:the ABC comic sales figures for 1974 were published on this very forum last year:
LION 1974: 144,908
VALIANT 1974: 189,502
Valiant was leading. Tiger was outselling Lion too at that point

Bearing in mind that the two titles merged in the first half of that year those figures sound a bit problematic. If Valiant's figures are an average for the whole year (or even the first six months) they could well include the 'boost' resulting from that merger.

The sales given for the year before were:

1973 LION (& Thunder): 180,950
1973 VALIANT 251,993

so Valiant still rools.

I think you're right that there's always the possibility of wishful thinking from interdepartmental rivalry in these kind of anecdotes - also that people can have flawed memories - so it's probably wise to be a bit suspicious of such claims.

Blimey! Given that rate of decline it's a wonder there were any readers left at all by the time Valiant finally merged with Battle!

- Phil Rushton