|
Post by james on Mar 15, 2022 9:26:45 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. ;-) I wonder if that is the difference. When I was reading Spectacular is was the first 100 issues so 1976- 1984. In that time frame it was the more action book. I do seem to remember that later issues (1990-on) focused more on his life, but i never read those issues consistently.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2022 10:13:22 GMT -5
It could be that, James.
At times in my life, discussions I’ve had are confusing. I mean, Panini (the successor to Marvel UK) reprinted Spidey’s “The Clone Saga”, possibly around 1996/97, but by that time, Americans would have been deep into those stories (didn’t it start in 1994?). And when I was a kid, a company called London Editions Magazines published a title called BATMAN MONTHLY. This was around 1988. But it was reprinting THE UNTOLD LEGEND OF THE BATMAN and 70s Batman strips. So any conversations I had were “outdated”.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,051
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 16, 2022 5:31:23 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. ;-) I wonder if that is the difference. When I was reading Spectacular is was the first 100 issues so 1976- 1984. In that time frame it was the more action book. I do seem to remember that later issues (1990-on) focused more on his life, but i never read those issues consistently. During that period, Spectacular was definitely supposed to focus more on Peter's civilian life -- hence the title Peter Parker: The Spectacular Spider-Man -- while ASM was the flagship title, where the most important stuff happened and where the focus was more action-oriented. Of course, in practice both books had lots of super-fights, but that was the stated aim of PP:TSSM.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 16, 2022 10:02:07 GMT -5
Was there ever a "cross-over", if you could call it that, between the two Spider-Man series, Amazing and Spectacular? Or any similar situation with other characters that had two or more books going, for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by Marv-El on Mar 16, 2022 13:11:29 GMT -5
Starting in '96, Legion of Superheroes and Legionnaires began using a yearly Legion symbol reading order system as story lines, more often than not, crossed over between the two titles. It worked along similar lines as the Superman Triangle numbering which was appreciative.
As for OP, if a major character supports multiple titles then I would prefer if each of those titles focused on a different aspect of that character. Others have mentioned choice/quality of the creators involved in choosing any one title to read which is understandable but I also take into consideration which aspect I enjoy the most about this character in determining what solo title I may want to read.
For example, Batman. I much prefer Batman as a noir detective than a gallivanting superhero with the JLA so any of his titles that proclaim to focus on that aspect of him I will read first and foremost. When I got back into DC around 2000, this happened to the Bat titles in the aftermath of No Man's Land. Greg Ruck took over as writer on Detective Comics #742 with the title's implied focus on Batman being more of a detective so an easy choice for me to check it out (which, if I remember, his run was rather interesting).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2022 16:00:45 GMT -5
my favorite is the Askajian - Yarna D'al' Gargan
she's so much fun in Return of the Jedi!
[Emily Litella] What? WHAT? "multiple TITLES?" ohhhhhh. . . well, that's very different! [/Emily Litella]
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Mar 16, 2022 17:25:50 GMT -5
Was there ever a "cross-over", if you could call it that, between the two Spider-Man series, Amazing and Spectacular? Or any similar situation with other characters that had two or more books going, for that matter. I mentioned some examples upthread. During Secret Wars II, there was a story about the Beyonder turning a building into gold that crossed over between Amazing and Web. There was another story about the Puma trying to kill the Beyonder that went from Amazing to Spectacular and back. At the end of the Ned Leeds/Hobgoblin storyline that played out mostly in Amazing, a couple issues of Web were involved at the end. After Kraven's Last Hunt ran through all three titles for two months, the next month featured the Mad Dog Ward story going through all three titles. Those are easy to remember, because I've read them recently; I can't really recall specific earlier examples. Even though the Hobgoblin story played out mostly in Amazing, there was an earlier Hobgoblin appearance in Spectacular, but that wasn't a crossover per se. Of course, with more "event" storylines, crossovers became more common. Inferno ran through the three titles, and the Cosmic Spider-Man storyline during Acts of Vengeance ran through them as well. I believe someone mentioned the two-part stories in Batman and Detective when Newton and Colan were drawing the two titles. I think the Killer Croc story bounced between both titles as well. "What Ever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" was a two-parter in both Superman and Action Comics. Some Superman stories started in one title and ended in another during the Byrne era.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Mar 16, 2022 17:43:11 GMT -5
I wonder if that is the difference. When I was reading Spectacular is was the first 100 issues so 1976- 1984. In that time frame it was the more action book. I do seem to remember that later issues (1990-on) focused more on his life, but i never read those issues consistently. During that period, Spectacular was definitely supposed to focus more on Peter's civilian life -- hence the title Peter Parker: The Spectacular Spider-Man -- while ASM was the flagship title, where the most important stuff happened and where the focus was more action-oriented. Of course, in practice both books had lots of super-fights, but that was the stated aim of PP:TSSM. I think that part about the most important stuff happening in the flagship title partially explains why variously big developments in Peter's personal life would happen in Amazing. But it also seems like editors and writers were inconsistent is sticking to the planned scope of each title. Like Web of Spider-Man was supposed to feature Peter traveling to different locales for assignments for a magazine Jameson also published, but it's ability to keep to that identity varied over time.
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Mar 18, 2022 23:18:51 GMT -5
Chose "independent approaches". Ideally, though, there wouldn't be multiple ongoing titles at all.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2022 13:15:52 GMT -5
This may sound arbitrary, but whatever the market can support, whatever the Big Two can get away with selling, I don’t feel (because less is more) that a hero needs more than 3 books. A bean-counter or accountant would argue the opposite - and not without some merit if the money is coming in - but on a creative and enjoyment level, three should be the maximum, at least for me.
I understand it’s about £££s and $$$s, though. Someone once stated that some heroes don’t get to have multiple titles. He used Doctor Strange as an example. But my reply was something like, “If Marvel could get away with putting out 4 Doctor Strange books a month, they would.”
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Mar 19, 2022 15:37:46 GMT -5
Chose "independent approaches". Ideally, though, there wouldn't be multiple ongoing titles at all. A couple of people have answered that prefer just one title. I'd be interested to hear what those folks like about that. Is it because you think the oversaturation leads to subpar stories? Is it the continuity issue of one character doing too much? Is it that multiple titles crowds out market space/shelf space/editorial attention to try out titles for other characters? Something else?
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Mar 19, 2022 15:46:35 GMT -5
Chose "independent approaches". Ideally, though, there wouldn't be multiple ongoing titles at all. A couple of people have answered that prefer just one title. I'd be interested to hear what those folks like about that. Is it because you think the oversaturation leads to subpar stories? Is it the continuity issue of one character doing too much? Is it that multiple titles crowds out market space/shelf space/editorial attention to try out titles for other characters? Something else? Little of all of the above for me. Plus I'm an avowed anti-consumerist.
|
|