|
Post by jason on Sept 29, 2021 23:51:14 GMT -5
Which do you prefer? While with stand-alone stories you get a complete story in each issue, serialized stories do allow for cliffhangers and the opportunity for characters to grow and change. Personally, I think the best compromise are stand-alone stories but with an overreaching arc that eventually pays off, so that the reader still can enjoy the single issue while knowing something even better is on the horizon.
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Sept 30, 2021 1:19:48 GMT -5
Same as you. Standalone with overreaching arc.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,051
|
Post by Confessor on Sept 30, 2021 3:58:41 GMT -5
I like both equally. I'm much more interested in whether said comics tell a good story, than I am in which format the story follows. There have been great multi-part arcs and great done-in-one issues, just like there are bad multi-parts and bad one-shots. Personally, I don't see that the length intrinsically makes much difference to the overall quality of a comic story.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,707
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 30, 2021 9:39:27 GMT -5
I think a run is best executed when it tells individual stories within a larger serialized story arc. Have large threats looming in the background and character arcs developing robustly while delivering a done-in-one script that satisfies the reader, but also leaves them deeply interested in where this title has been and where it's going next. Modern comics seem to have largely lost sight of that approach, even though it's what made so many of the greats (Ditko's Spidey, Kirby/Lee's Fantastic Four, Claremont's X-Men, Wolfman/Perez Titans, Miller's Daredevil, Sakai's Usagi Yojimbo, Sim's Cerebus, Triangle Era Superman, Shooter's Legion, so much of The Avengers, etc) what they were. Modern day multi-issue story arcs are usually written to become self-contained trade paperbacks, and we lose so much with that approach, just as we do with self-contained stories that never build to anything in the long term and become inconsequential a month later.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Sept 30, 2021 10:56:36 GMT -5
There's no perfect format, as suiting the needs of a character has never been a "one or the other" situation. Robbins/Novick's Batman and certainly Lee/Romita's Spider-Man had a number of stories that were more isolated than connected to something operating in the background.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2021 10:57:19 GMT -5
I think a run is best executed when it tells individual stories within a larger serialized story arc. Have large threats looming in the background and character arcs developing robustly while delivering a done-in-one script that satisfies the reader, but also leaves them deeply interested in where this title has been and where it's going next. Modern comics seem to have largely lost sight of that approach, even though it's what made so many of the greats (Ditko's Spidey, Kirby/Lee's Fantastic Four, Claremont's X-Men, Wolfman/Perez Titans, Miller's Daredevil, Sakai's Usagi Yojimbo, Sim's Cerebus, Triangle Era Superman, Shooter's Legion, so much of The Avengers, etc) what they were. Modern day multi-issue story arcs are usually written to become self-contained trade paperbacks, and we lose so much with that approach, just as we do with self-contained stories that never build to anything in the long term and become inconsequential a month later. My issue with most serialized comics form the big in the most recent eras is that they are not focused on telling a story about a character or a group of characters, which is what made some of the runs you mention work, instead they are telling stories about a shred universe in which this title/character is only a part of, so even if you follow the book/title, you aren't getting a complete story. Books like Usagi, Cerebus, and a lot of the serialized indies that are popular and long running now like Saga for example, are telling a single self-contained story in serialized format, so the reader knows at the end of the day, they will get the entire story. But that's not what the Big 2 are doing. They are telling stories about the Marvel Universe (or the DC universe) that happen to feature Spider-Man (or Superman), they are not telling Spider-Man stories (0r Batman stories). Serialized shared universes can work, but only if the stories remain about the characters with the shared universe as a background feature, not when it is stories about the shared universe with the characters as incidental to that story, especially not when it is spread out over multiple titles and events. It can work when the universe if focused (Thieves World comes to mind in prose fiction, Mignola's Hellboy Universe in comics), but only if there is a singular vision overseeing the entire thing and it is contained within a single book or series where the characters appear exclusively. Modern comics sell the brand (Batman) and the shared universe (DCU, MU, MCU, etc.), they don't sell a book about Batman (or Spider-Man, or the FF, or...) where Batman stories are the point and the goal, they sell books where Batman (or Spider-Man, or FF or...) are incidental characters in a shared universe where the universe is what matters not the characters, and that ultimately leaves stories (whether self-contained or serialized) unsatisfying for readers. It's spawned the "I only read books that matter" mentality that drives a lot of customer purchasing habits instead of evaluating a book on the quality of the craft and storytelling and the stories told. It's one of the shifts in comics that has resulted from catering to the hardcore fanbase. Shared universes were an add-on, not a core feature of super-hero comics. It could add depth for the hardcore reader but could be ignored by the casual reader who just wanted a Batman story or just looking for a good story to be entertained by. But when the shared universe becomes the point of the story it takes that option away and leaves something only the hardcore fan can enjoy. It is no longer a perk, or a feature, it is an obstacle to reaching readers and creating customers, so you have to keep finding ways to get the hardcore customers to keep buying more and more (more titles featuring the same brands within the shared universe, more #1s reboots, relaunches, and more variant covers, more events, etc. etc. Couple that with a market shift away form periodicals and especially away from serialized periodicals on a monthly schedule, and you have created an inescapable entropy arc for big 2 super-hero comics and a niche market with no growth potential or ability to reach new audiences. It doesn't matter if its serialized or stand-alone if it is part of an ever-expanding and unfinished bloated shared universe that a reader can never experience a truly complete reading experience in. That's only going to appeal to hardcore fans of the shared universe, not to readers in general. -M
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Sept 30, 2021 11:13:56 GMT -5
As a youngster, in the days before comic shops, I preferred stand-alone. You couldn't depend on finding the next part of a serialized story, so why buy a comic that leaves you hanging?
It depends on the story. As said, you can have stand-alone stories that fit within a larger storyline, if you balance it right. However, length needs to fit story needs, not vice-versa. This is the problem I have with a lot of recent era comics (well, last 20 years, really) in that they often stretch it out to fit the length of a trade book, without having enough plot to sustain. So we end up with a ton of filler and stretched out panels that do nothing to move the story along or develop the characters. Peter Jackson is guilty of this in the movies. Lord of the Rings needed 3 films and the extensions of the film, on dvd, for the most part, filled out story. However, the ending was redundant, with one piled on another. It wasn't literature and it didn't fit the medium. Hobbit was ridiculous. It only needed one film; two at most (and that is stretching things, even then.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Sept 30, 2021 11:35:17 GMT -5
It doesn't matter if its serialized or stand-alone if it is part of an ever-expanding and unfinished bloated shared universe that a reader can never experience a truly complete reading experience in. That's only going to appeal to hardcore fans of the shared universe, not to readers in general. -M Couldn't agree more--the message that "you have to read it all" to "get it" drives away casual readers who might be able to get more interested if they can have an enjoyable experience.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Sept 30, 2021 13:06:32 GMT -5
I prefer both.
Kidding.
But, seriously, a series that does both really well is Astro City. Every story is really part of a huge over-arching world, but sometimes told as multi-issue arcs, and sometimes as standalone stories. But it all fits together. Busiek sort of seamlessly goes from one to the other. Really well done.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 30, 2021 13:34:56 GMT -5
As many others, as long as it's good, I have no preference.
As a young reader, however, it was different: not only did I prefer multi-issue stories, but I also preferred to arrive in the middle of things! (I learned the expression "in media res" from a Spider-man comic, as it happens).
I think I enjoyed having to imagine how things had gotten to the point they were.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Sept 30, 2021 13:51:51 GMT -5
Yes, they're both better. It just depends on what they're trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by commond on Sept 30, 2021 16:27:49 GMT -5
I prefer serialized stories. I like a good cliffhanger at the end of an issue, and believe that most stories work better as a two-parter. I'm also a big fan of serialized manga with its lengthy story arcs. Stand alone stories remind me too much of filler issues.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Sept 30, 2021 16:35:37 GMT -5
Same as you. Standalone with overreaching arc. I loved how SANDMAN MYSTERY THEATRE consisted almost entirely of self-contained 4-part stories, with subtle ongoing character development. It reminded me of DOCTOR WHO during Tom Baker's era.
I think multi-part stories are okay, but, I think each multi-parter should have an ENDING, and there should be BREAKS between stories.
This is the one thing that annoys me about THE FLASH tv series... it's one thing to do season-long murder mysteries. But to ALSO have season-ending cliffhangers just rubs me very much the wrong way.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,707
|
Post by shaxper on Sept 30, 2021 16:52:38 GMT -5
It doesn't matter if its serialized or stand-alone if it is part of an ever-expanding and unfinished bloated shared universe that a reader can never experience a truly complete reading experience in. That's only going to appeal to hardcore fans of the shared universe, not to readers in general. -M But that's just the point. In each of the examples I quoted, if you weren't there for what came before, you could still easily follow the immediate story. Background continuity becomes a nice nod to the loyal reader, as well as an invitation to the casual reader to check out what came before and after, but it was never required reading. As for what the industry is or is not these days, I could care less. The question was what we prefer, not what we expect a major publisher to implement. Comics have moved away from what I loved most about them, and I've made my peace with that.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 30, 2021 18:47:33 GMT -5
I really enjoy reading the Bronze Age Superman stories. Most of them were done in one.
|
|