|
Post by majestic on Mar 14, 2022 16:04:08 GMT -5
I prefer heroes to have only 2 solo titles. For example Batman should only have stories in Batman and Detective. Brave and Bold is different since it was a team up title. And titles starring his "family" like Robin and Batgirl are ok. Again this is only my personal preference.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 14, 2022 16:23:30 GMT -5
I had initially answered this, but then, upon further review, I unanswered it. Because, I find that I don't have an answer because I don't care. It's been a number of years since I "followed" any heroes. And the reason is that the character is only as good as the creators working on the comic. If the book is garbage it doesn't matter if it's "tiered" or "interconnected" or any other permutation. And I have no interest in reading bad stories just because they have a certain character in them.
So, I guess to the extent I have an answer, I want them to be completely disconnected because I'm not going to pick up crappy comic B because it's connected to good comic A.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Mar 14, 2022 17:21:37 GMT -5
…but after a time, all of the "Last seen in..." blurbs and attempts to justify Spider-Man's numerous appearances in the same time frame proved an impossible, often unbelievable task, as he would need to be in costume and/or as his civilian side around the clock in order for the character to have that many adventures. I have thought about this. With Spidey and others. Spidey had 3 books a month during the MTU era, right? With WEB OF SPIDER-MAN appearing around the same time (hope I have my dates right). Web of Spider-Man replaced MTU (with the same creative team for the first few issues), just like Batman and the Outsiders replaced The Brave and the Bold.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Mar 14, 2022 17:47:55 GMT -5
Personally, I think the linking, extended stories were massively overdone and the evolution to write titles with trade collections in mind led to a devolution in the storytelling. Stories were padded to fit the length of a trade, timeframes stretched out beyond plot. If you can't write a story that can fit into a single issue, as well as 6 issues, you aren't much of a writer; or, at least, not for monthly storytelling. Not every story calls for an epic. I'd rather have 2 or 3 parters to 6, 8 or 12-part epics, unless the story really calls for it and few really do. Totally agree! If a character ‘must’ have 3 or more books, then I’d like each to have their own distinct identity. Back in the day, and codystarbuck has already commented on this, SUPERMAN was one thing, ADVENTURES was another, ACTION COMICS was yet another thing. There were definitely different flavours, ADVENTURES seemed more grounded with semi-believable plots, ACTION and SUPERMAN not so much. When I was a kid during the post-Crisis period, I read a little bit of Adventures but I was more focused on Superman and Action. I think the grounded nature of that series (almost like a street level Spider-Man series) wasn't as excited to me as a little kid. And because Byrne and wrote the other two titles they felt more tied together. As I noted in the original post, I grew up following Spectacular Spider-Man more than the other series, and I got used to the visual style of Sal Buscema. It's sort of a contrast to what I wrote about the Superman titles, because I think Spectacular was more grounded than Amazing at that point. With the Bat titles, I was much more interested in Batman than Detective, because Jim Aparo was drawing Batman. His renditions of Batman, Alfred, Commissioner Gordon, etc. just seemed like they were supposed to look like.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 14, 2022 20:28:22 GMT -5
I always read Amazing and Spectacular with specific things in mind. I always thought Amazing to be more about Peter and his relationships while Spectacular was always about the supervillains and the fights. This is why in my early comic reading I was all about Spectacular but as I got older I liked the more complex relationship aspect of Amazing. Did anyone else see this as the main difference between the two titles.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 14, 2022 20:32:24 GMT -5
I loved it when the Superman Family of books had the "numbered Triangles" on the cover. . that told you exactly what order to read them in. the "Main" stories tended not to flow from title to title (with some exceptions, such as the lead up to Death of Superman), so for the most part, the storylines were contained within the main book it started in. However repurcussions did show up in the other books, and background/subplots flowed thru all titles. you weren't forced to pick up a title you weren't really reading.. but if you were, you could get all the nuance that followed in the subplots/b-plots. I read most of the Superman family at the time, so I didn't mind that Action, Superman, Adventures of, Superboy, Supergirl, and occasionally another book dropped in to the "triangle reading order" Did they introduce that with the beginning of the Death storyline?
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Mar 14, 2022 20:51:47 GMT -5
I had initially answered this, but then, upon further review, I unanswered it. Because, I find that I don't have an answer because I don't care. It's been a number of years since I "followed" any heroes. And the reason is that the character is only as good as the creators working on the comic. If the book is garbage it doesn't matter if it's "tiered" or "interconnected" or any other permutation. And I have no interest in reading bad stories just because they have a certain character in them. So, I guess to the extent I have an answer, I want them to be completely disconnected because I'm not going to pick up crappy comic B because it's connected to good comic A. It's interesting to see the different responses. I'm really more interested in detailed answers, with the poll being sort of the ice breaker/conversation starter, but I was sort of trying to capture scenarios that appeal more to selectivity than completism with the first poll choice, and a bit with the second choice. When I think of a flagship/top tier title for a character I was thinking of a title with the best creative team and/or the title where the pivotal events for the character tend to happen. Of course, sometimes readers disagree with editors assessment of which is better. On the other hand, each series having a different take can work out a lot of different ways. There are times when the independent focuses of different titles all seem to me worth reading, and others where I might have drastically different opinions of the different takes.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Mar 14, 2022 21:01:19 GMT -5
I don’t really have a consistent answer. I prefer not having to collect more than one title, so I’d rather each title have a loose chronology.
Or do I?
One of my favorite Batman runs is the 1980s, when the storylines started in Batman, continued in Detective, and went back to Batman, twice a month. It was awesome!
However, in modern times, I can’t imagine comics being well-written enough that i would want to regularly follow more than one title just to get the story.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 14, 2022 21:01:40 GMT -5
while I did enjoy the Superman 'Triangle' era, honestly it was rare that it mattered, the titles didn't connect that much. I think it's best when the titles have a purpose.. where they exist together in that they don't contradict each other, but tell different stories.. like one being more action oriented, and one focusing on the supporting cast, or one being a team up, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2022 3:43:01 GMT -5
I always read Amazing and Spectacular with specific things in mind. I always thought Amazing to be more about Peter and his relationships while Spectacular was always about the supervillains and the fights. This is why in my early comic reading I was all about Spectacular but as I got older I liked the more complex relationship aspect of Amazing. Did anyone else see this as the main difference between the two titles. It’s interesting that you posted that because I thought the opposite: AMAZING for the supervillains and fights, SPECTACULAR for Peter and his relationships. Not saying my perception is necessarily correct.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 15, 2022 3:54:41 GMT -5
I had initially answered this, but then, upon further review, I unanswered it. Because, I find that I don't have an answer because I don't care. It's been a number of years since I "followed" any heroes. And the reason is that the character is only as good as the creators working on the comic. If the book is garbage it doesn't matter if it's "tiered" or "interconnected" or any other permutation. And I have no interest in reading bad stories just because they have a certain character in them. So, I guess to the extent I have an answer, I want them to be completely disconnected because I'm not going to pick up crappy comic B because it's connected to good comic A.
Yeah, when I try to think of the problem the question poses, I inevitably find myself thinking of the creators as much as or more that the character: because when I think of a "favourite character", it's actually a certain creator's version of that character I'm thinking of - though some characters have had more than one creator-version I place amongst my favourites. So there could be ten Doctor Strange titles, for example - and I might dislike every single one of them.
Though I suppose the odds of both good and bad (in terms of one's subjective view of a character) increase the more titles there are: that infinite room of typing monkeys will eventually write not only the works of Shakespeare but some brand new classic Doctor Strange stories! So from that POV the more the merrier.
OTOH, at any given moment, they all tend to imitate one another, especially when one company owns the property - so I don't think adding ten Eternals titles right now would much increase the odds of a good one coming up: they'd most likely follow the lead of the Gillen disaster.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 15, 2022 5:10:29 GMT -5
…but after a time, all of the "Last seen in..." blurbs and attempts to justify Spider-Man's numerous appearances in the same time frame proved an impossible, often unbelievable task, as he would need to be in costume and/or as his civilian side around the clock in order for the character to have that many adventures. I have thought about this. With Spidey and others. Spidey had 3 books a month during the MTU era, right? With WEB OF SPIDER-MAN appearing around the same time (hope I have my dates right). Presuming each adventure in each monthly book took 2 days, then 3 times 2 is 6. So that would have given him 6 days in a month to just have adventures, taking many other days off that month. Not being factious, just thinking out loud. Because I had similar thoughts about Punisher and Wolverine in the 90s. With Wolvie, he did seem to be working around the clock. Every few years after 1972 there was another Spider-Man title, whether in "continuity" ( Marvel Team-Up, then 1976's Spectacular Spider-Man) or not (1974's Spidey Super-Stories). Web of Spider-Man made its debut in 1985. So even if one disregards Spidey Super-Stories (and they should, as it was merely a spin-off of the characters and situations from The Electric Company educational series), by 1985, the character not only had three of his own books, but made guest appearances in other titles. When would he have time for the Peter Parker side (that was explored from time to time, but never really addressed the sheer number of Spider-Man adventures occurring across several titles). I used to collect the first few years of Web, but after a time, this central issue of the character's time management sold as one linked continuity just did not work.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2022 5:49:25 GMT -5
Fair points. As I said, I felt the same about Wolverine and Punisher.
I do have similar thoughts about the decades of continuity. I know time moves at a different rate in comics, so 30-40 years in our time might equate to 10-12 years in Marvel Time. But then that, and I am a pedantic person saying this, means they are cramming a lot into life. A lot.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 15, 2022 6:52:56 GMT -5
I always read Amazing and Spectacular with specific things in mind. I always thought Amazing to be more about Peter and his relationships while Spectacular was always about the supervillains and the fights. This is why in my early comic reading I was all about Spectacular but as I got older I liked the more complex relationship aspect of Amazing. Did anyone else see this as the main difference between the two titles. It’s interesting that you posted that because I thought the opposite: AMAZING for the supervillains and fights, SPECTACULAR for Peter and his relationships. Not saying my perception is necessarily correct. Interesting. I guess when I think back on Amazing I remember Aunt May getting married to Doc Ock, Peter getting his first apartment and meeting Glory Grant, the JJJ. Peter relationship etc. when I think of Spectacular I remember Spideys fight with Carrion, Tombstone, Tarantula etc. but nothing specific about Peter.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2022 7:37:38 GMT -5
That is interesting. Makes me think about how people see things differently, e.g. one guy I knew swore that I resembled another person, but when I see this person, I see no resemblance.
My reading of SPECTACULAR was 1992-95, but reprints in the UK, so they’d have been reprinting 1989-1992 U.S. issues.
Incidentally, I was disappointed that WEB OF SPIDER-MAN wasn’t about his webs. I was hoping we’d get to see a book where his webs took centre-stage. ;-)
|
|