|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Aug 9, 2014 14:52:22 GMT -5
A thought just occurred to me. And I think it's a thought that might have some interest in anyone willing to read. It was kind of spawned by the "Dumbest thing you read in comics" but mostly from Hoosier X's comment on The Long Halloween.
What if comics were written as anthologies? What if every character had a Legends of the Dark Knight series? Or what if all comic characters were written as anthologies?
Take any character from whatever publisher and think there's a series starring them that is written in acrs with no attachments to the previous, much like most of LOTDK. That making the story, 2 or 3 or 4 issues, stand on the merits of the character itself, the writer and the artist, without the quagmire of continuity?
The reason I say that Hoosier X's comment sparked this thought is, while I've not read the series, the prejudice (and that's not a stab at you Hoosier X) of Batman not being able to solve these issues fast, is based on continuity and the stigma that he is the world's greatest detective. With continuity bogging down the ability to write a story the writer would have to preface the story with it being in an early time of Batman's career when he was a greenhorn, to satiate the reader.
But what if character's stories were told just for the sake of telling a story? No other reason. Frack all the previous history and just write stories about the characters to entertain. Even if it's as ridiculous as Batman and Joker have an geriatric fight in the old folks home and then the next story is Bruce loosing his virginity. Just tell a story to tell it.
Would that appeal to you, if it were an absolute? Or even a majority with some comics still written in continuity form the past 50 years of the character's history?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2014 15:36:35 GMT -5
With the exception of the 3-4 part arcs, this was pretty much the Golden Age in a nutshell. Just tell stories about the characters, continuity wasn't really a concern. However, for most modern hardcore comic fans, continuity IS THE selling point of comics and such an approach would alienate the majority of your current readership. That would be fine if you were recapturing a larger readership in return, but you won't. On a personal level, such an approach could be appealing, but form a business standpoint for the current retailers and readers, it wouldn't work. Stories that aren't "important" to the character to the shared universe's history don't sell among the super-hero crowd, and these stories would be labelled unimportant. Batman Black and White form DC tried that approach last year. Adventures of Superman, Legends of the Dark Knight, and Sensation comics try that now. They sell a fraction of what the main in continuity book does that feature those characters. Marvel's "animated" Spider-Man and Avengers books sell smaller fractions of the main books because readers ignore them. They are unimportant, books are expensive, and I have to save my money for the important stuff. Take away the important stuff (in that mode of thinking) and you take away the reason they spend their money.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Aug 9, 2014 15:41:33 GMT -5
Which is ironic, as with the sliding timescale nothing actually matters anyway. I think 2000AD is a good model for how it can be done: people buy it for Judge Dredd, every Dredd story matters (it takes place in real time more or less), but there is space for plenty of other stuff. So we get Strontium Dog, Slaine, etc.
But I think the real problem with anthologies is noise. With so many characters competing for attention from other magazines, people really only buy for the single character who can rise above the clamour. In this case, Dredd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Aug 9, 2014 15:43:11 GMT -5
Well, shoot. What you describe is pretty close to the way it was done for the first 25 years of the medium's existence, and it's never been as successful since. The hard-continuity, shared-universe model is largely a product of the Silver Age and you could argue convincingly that it's done more harm than good.
I love the idea of anthologies (and also non-superhero genres, but that's another thread). Good stories are good stories.
Edited to add: While I was busy hunting and pecking, MRP said it better than I. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Aug 9, 2014 17:14:12 GMT -5
Which is ironic, as with the sliding timescale nothing actually matters anyway. I think 2000AD is a good model for how it can be done: people buy it for Judge Dredd, every Dredd story matters (it takes place in real time more or less), but there is space for plenty of other stuff. So we get Strontium Dog, Slaine, etc. But I think the real problem with anthologies is noise. With so many characters competing for attention from other magazines, people really only buy for the single character who can rise above the clamour. In this case, Dredd. I've not read 2000AD. The most Dredd I've read is the crossovers with Batman. But I don't find it surprising that a non-American comic is the one that is the example of non continuity that have made a success. Not being an American is this usual for most stories told from British/English origin? As far as the commercial success of anthologies I understand it's not a option with publishers. While a different subject, gaming as I like it is far different than the 50% hardcore gamers that are dropping 80% of gaming revenue being the deciders in what is continued to be produced. I don't expect changes. Even in entertainment my faith in majority to change out of their ruts is long gone. As far as what you said, in regards to someone rising above the static, I have and still do have that problem with comics as they are. Maybe more so. What got me to read the DnA GotG? The characters. Until I researched DnA's resume, I didn't realize how much of what they wrote I had read. I didn't even pay attention to names of writers and artists in comics till the internet. I read them for either the character or the art. But surprisingly out of all the titles I have read in my time, LOTDK seems to be my favorite and most complete of Batman. Because I can pick up any issue and read it and the two or three that follow to get a good story, and BAM I'm done. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2014 17:57:22 GMT -5
It's a novelty thing for well established characters, like Batman Black And White was (which I enjoyed)
Otherwise, anthologies serve the stories primarily, while continuity builds the character. You can certainly use popular characters in anthology form, but quite often that character could have been any other beside the one that appeared in the tale. The reception boils down to which model of storytelling is the readers preference rather than what the possibilities are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2014 18:37:00 GMT -5
The easy solution is to create a character that fits the story instead of trying to shoehorn the story into the character, or trying to shoehorn the character into the comic.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Aug 9, 2014 19:01:12 GMT -5
Archie Comics manages to be a success without any real continuity.
However, my preferred style of story for superheroes (my preferred genre) is the model of the 80s and early 90s - short story arcs, generally no more than 4 issues, which tied together to form a broader continuity.
I dislike the modern tendency for 12 issues storylines, every one of which promises to shake up the staus quo forever (which ultimately just means that there isn't a status quo any more). If you're not enjoying a storyline (Court of Owls and City of Crime leap immediately to mind) you know it's going to be months before it ends and you might get something you like again.
|
|
|
|
Post by benday-dot on Aug 9, 2014 19:38:28 GMT -5
The impetus of Image Comics these days is, besides enshrining the principle of creator ownership, the idea that storytelling, as opposed to marketing for licensing or franchising, is the prime directive. Creators get to to tell stories with beginnings, middles and presumably ends. Everything matters in this model... continuity drives the story to conclusion and the story is all the more meaningful and powerful for it.
It could be that as these comics get more successful the opportunity to farm out the story to other medium like television, as with The Walking Dead, this model might become undermined. Just like you cannot really kill off Wolverine, so you might not be able to finish the story of The Walking Dead in the way it naturally should be. But other series like Fatale, now properly concluded, show that every issue matters in a non-rebootable world.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,376
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 9, 2014 19:45:14 GMT -5
I prefer a middle-ground like Matt Wagner's Grendel, where there's a strict and implicit continuity to adhere to, and yet different creative teams are invited to go wild with their take on the character so long as they can make the pieces fit. That takes true talent, requiring the team to neither be derivative of what came before nor simply ignore previous efforts as if they didn't count.
In essence, I think that's also what made Legends of the Dark Knight work.
Otherwise, I agree with mrp that you're basically in the Golden Age again, where every story is entirely disposable and will never be remembered by future writers, so why should they be remembered by the fans?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2014 19:53:40 GMT -5
The impetus of Image Comics these days is, besides enshrining the principle of creator ownership, the idea that storytelling, as opposed to marketing for licensing or franchising, is the prime directive. Creators get to to tell stories with beginnings, middles and presumably ends. Everything matters in this model... continuity drives the story to conclusion and the story is all the more meaningful and powerful for it. It could be that as these comics get more successful the opportunity to farm out the story to other medium like television, as with The Walking Dead, this model might become undermined. Just like you cannot really kill off Wolverine, so you might not be able to finish the story of The Walking Dead in the way it naturally should be. But other series like Fatale, now properly concluded, show that every issue matters in a non-rebootable world. The possibility of ending a series is really up to the creator as well. There are some who are happy ending the series early, within a couple dozen issues. And it will tell a complete story. Others don't want to let go, and they will leave a work unfinished, outliving it's welcome. Some are a bit in between, ongoing until either they run out of ideas or get tired of doing it, in which case they have a conclusion already bottled away waiting to be illustrated and published. And then there's the ones with a planned beginning, middle, and end after a long stretch, like Cerebus. Some will be good, some won't. But I think a real double edged sword is the current trend of first issues at Image always being a smash hit. This will make Image loosen their reins a bit, give a few more voices an audience. Then again, the very standard of quality they had a reputation for could be diminished, and that could be something difficult to rebuild if they get too greedy and sign on with too many new series. There's also the possibility of any one of their creator owned franchises to be sold off, and once it's sold off it will never die. I think fewer creators consider that a possibility anymore though. If the work is truly good it could remain in print indefinitely. The long term value of keeping ownership could outweigh any payday, and with the popularity of reprint collections and creator owned publishers nowadays they likely won't have to consider self publishing in the foreseeable future. Any number of publishers would be willing to keep it on bookshelves for a slice of the pie. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456 
|
Post by ironchimp on Aug 9, 2014 19:58:01 GMT -5
Which is ironic, as with the sliding timescale nothing actually matters anyway. I think 2000AD is a good model for how it can be done: people buy it for Judge Dredd, every Dredd story matters (it takes place in real time more or less), but there is space for plenty of other stuff. So we get Strontium Dog, Slaine, etc. But I think the real problem with anthologies is noise. With so many characters competing for attention from other magazines, people really only buy for the single character who can rise above the clamour. In this case, Dredd. yeah i agree with this. Dredd gets you in, and you stay for the rest. The only problem with 2000ad at least when i was reading it - you'd decide to start reading and it would be part 13 of 36 of one story, part 23 of 24 with another, and part 3 of 12 with another. it could take literally months on end until you were fully synced up with all the stories. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2014 20:27:01 GMT -5
That's just one example of an anthology though. Anthologies don't seem to do well these days, but there was a time when they did. Heavy Metal didn't have one star. EC comics didn't.
If we're talking anthology style superhero comics from the big two, I thought that would be a good idea as well. But not so much as in a Wonder Woman comic with a bunch of people contributing Wonder Woman stories, more of a DC Comics anthology with an A-List team on Wonder Woman, an A-List team on Superman, an A-List team on Batman, and so on. So it's basically like a three for one. That way people likely won't be buying just for one story either, it's all A-List talent and A-List heroes, most fans will like them all.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 9, 2014 22:48:22 GMT -5
With the exception of the 3-4 part arcs, this was pretty much the Golden Age in a nutshell. Just tell stories about the characters, continuity wasn't really a concern. However, for most modern hardcore comic fans, continuity IS THE selling point of comics and such an approach would alienate the majority of your current readership. That would be fine if you were recapturing a larger readership in return, but you won't. On a personal level, such an approach could be appealing, but form a business standpoint for the current retailers and readers, it wouldn't work. Stories that aren't "important" to the character to the shared universe's history don't sell among the super-hero crowd, and these stories would be labelled unimportant. Batman Black and White form DC tried that approach last year. Adventures of Superman, Legends of the Dark Knight, and Sensation comics try that now. They sell a fraction of what the main in continuity book does that feature those characters. Marvel's "animated" Spider-Man and Avengers books sell smaller fractions of the main books because readers ignore them. They are unimportant, books are expensive, and I have to save my money for the important stuff. Take away the important stuff (in that mode of thinking) and you take away the reason they spend their money. -M I recently ran into the kind of sensibility over at another forum while discussing the new DC book Futures End which is set five years in the future of the DCU and involves Terry Mcguinnes (from Batman Beyond) traveling back in time to stop something bad from happening. One of the posters stated that he thought the book was a waste of time and would never read it or any of the tie-ins not because it was a badly told or illustrated story but because it took place in a future that wasn't "real" so it didn't really matter what happened. It just boggled my mind, I just can't imagine being such a slave to continuity that is nearly entirely imaginary. I mean, especially now in the new 52 there are so few things from the past either didn't happen exactly the same way or have been retconned completely that this kind of mentality seems like a joke. None of it really "matters" writers can pick or choose nearly any elements that they want to change or forget in the current ongoings, so how is that any different than a fictional future that will never really happen because the books always stay in the "now"? I pointed out that the only things a book should be measured against are its own technical merits and more importantly how fun it is, not how much it "matters" to continuity...but somehow I was the one who "just didn't get it". So long story short, yes I'd love an anthology book as long as the stories were entertaining. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2014 22:54:49 GMT -5
Yeah I run into it all the time at the shop, and it bothers me too. I really despise the "I have to get that because it's important, bu my budget is tight, so I am going to drop a book I actually enjoy more to get it..." decisions I see made all the time.
-M
|
|
