Superman . . . they just don't get it.
Scott Bailey
correct, then the Superman franchise will continue its Triangle Format. And
so my boycotting of this stifling malpractice will also continue. This is a
horrible way to conduct the business of creative writing. I was looking
forward to reading Superman again, but if the Triangle Format remains, I'll
just have to keep waiting. They just don't get it. Do they want to improve
sales or not?
Scott
Enoryt666
>If the Comic Wire by Beau Yarbrough (http://www.comicbookresources.com/) is
>correct, then the Superman franchise will continue its Triangle Format. And
>so my boycotting of this stifling malpractice will also continue. This is a
>horrible way to conduct the business of creative writing. I was looking
>forward to reading Superman again, but if the Triangle Format remains, I'll
>just have to keep waiting
Great. I'll be enjoying the writing of Jeph Loeb and Joe Kelly while you're
stewing in your own misery.
>. They just don't get it.
You must have missed the part where they'll be more loosely connected from now
on. The triangle format doesn't detract from that.
>Do they want to improve
>sales or not?
You mean by you alone giving up your boycott? I doubt they give two shits.
Dan H.
Most people who have a problem with it seem to dislike that it confines
the creative teams of each title to tell the groupthink story arc
instead of their own story.
The article I read talked about interconnected stories and subplots. In
many stories, you must admit, there are pauses while the villain lies
low for a few days, a week, or even more. So, interweave the storylines
so each title can continue it's own storyline, while keeping them all in
chronological order with each other.
If it's that approach, rather than a continuation of Team-Grupthink,
would you still have a problem?
--Uncle Dan
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalks us all our
lives. But, I'd rather believe time is a companion, who goes with us on
our journey, and reminds us to cherish every moment; because they'll
never come again."
--- Cpt. Picard, and, now, me.
Dan McEwen
>
> >
> >If the Comic Wire by Beau Yarbrough (http://www.comicbookresources.com/) is
> >correct, then the Superman franchise will continue its Triangle Format. And
> >so my boycotting of this stifling malpractice will also continue. This is a
> >horrible way to conduct the business of creative writing. I was looking
> >forward to reading Superman again, but if the Triangle Format remains, I'll
> >just have to keep waiting
>
> Great. I'll be enjoying the writing of Jeph Loeb and Joe Kelly while you're
> stewing in your own misery.
I don't know. There were Superman writers that I liked who were so
bogged down with what was going on it everyone else's book, that they
didn't get the chance to show their true abilities. I suspect Joe is
going to encounter the same thing on Superman that he dealt with on
X-Men.
--
Dan
fe...@lsh.org
http://home.att.net/~djmcewen/
http://home.att.net/~djmcewen/depressed.html
Coming soon: http://home.att.net/~djmcewen/epilepsy.html
Scott Bailey
>Great. I'll be enjoying the writing of Jeph Loeb and Joe Kelly while you're
>stewing in your own misery.
You may enjoy their writing, but it most likely won't be their best.
Because when Joe Kelly wants to explore a subplot or a character that he is
really interested in, or take the book in the direction he sees as best, he
can not. He has to begin each issue where (for example) Man of Steel left
off, and he has to end each issue where Berganza (Line Editor) says that it
has to end. Too, there can be no unique mood or flavor for each title--as
they said in the Wizard interview.
>You must have missed the part where they'll be more loosely connected from
now
>on. The triangle format doesn't detract from that.
You are saying that the Triangle Format won't matter. Then why have it? If
it doesn't connect the titles, keep it off the damn cover. In a market
where fans feel forced to buy comics they don't really want by crossovers,
this format is just plain stupid.
The Triangle Format requires you to buy 4 issues to get a full story. What
if you don't like the writer of Man of Steel? What if you don't like the
artist on Action Comics? Tough shit, I guess. No thanks.
Scott
Scott Bailey
>What is your exact criticizm of the triangle system?
1. No creative freedom for the talent. Creator's no longer have the option
to set their own tone, to go their own direction. If their issue is store
#3, then they have to begin their issue where the editor says #2 left off,
and end their issue where the editor says #4 will pick up.
2. It is the worst of the cross-over tactic. Fans are forced to buy 4
issues to get a complete story. Don't like the crew on Action Comics? Too
bad. Buy this issue or your just going to have to wonder why Jimmy Olsen
was last seen hanging from a cliff, but now he's in cahoots with Luthor.
Scott
Scott Bailey
>reported in the Comic Wire. That's what they do *now* in the books, but
every
>indication is that they will be dropping this serialized approach.
Yep, that's what they're doing--
Here is part of the report from THE COMIC WIRE dated Monday, April 26th, 199
at http://www.comicbookresources.com by Beau Yarbrough, titled SUPERMAN'S
NEVER-ENDING BATTLE CONTINUES AFTER ALL:
When DC Comics representative David Vinson announced earlier this month that
the triangular numbering system that links the monthly Superman titles
together - essentially making them all into one single weekly title, with
stories that flow from one title into the next week's title - would be
ending this fall when new creative teams come on board, it appears he may
have been mistaken.
The idea of dropping the system had apparently been floated in the DC
editorial offices, but a DC spokesperson who contacted the Comic Wire late
last week said the idea hadn't survived the recent "Superman summit." The
writers and editorial staff have reportedly come up with subplot ideas and
interconnected stories that merited them maintaining the system.
The report in its entirety can be found at:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/
Bob Roland
"Dan H." wrote:
>
> What is your exact criticizm of the triangle system?
>
> Most people who have a problem with it seem to dislike that it confines
> the creative teams of each title to tell the groupthink story arc
> instead of their own story.
>
> The article I read talked about interconnected stories and subplots. In
> many stories, you must admit, there are pauses while the villain lies
> low for a few days, a week, or even more. So, interweave the storylines
> so each title can continue it's own storyline, while keeping them all in
> chronological order with each other.
>
> If it's that approach, rather than a continuation of Team-Grupthink,
> would you still have a problem?
That's actually part of the problem. Look, back in a day when people
used to actually read comics (don't fool yourself by thinking that the
comic industry isn't very, very sick right now) comics were written with
the philosophy of "imagine every comic you write is being purchased by
someone for the first time". Sure, there was a great deal of "needless"
exposition, but the stories worked.
Interconnected threads and subplots? Bah.
We can even look at it from the perspective of "art". Think of the
recent Superman for all seasons series. It worked because the story was
entirely self contained. The flow of the story would have been ruined
if they had to include a bit on what some villian from another book was
doing.
The comic medium works because of it's timless nature. Good myth is
like that. Since superman is the prime example of the iconic nature of
the comic character, his titles should reflect this the most.
I don't buy the Flash comic since I don't feel like keeping up on it's
most recent developments. I don't buy the Batman titles since I don't
feel like I should have to buy crap to "keep up" with the character. I
will, however, buy a self contained story with those characters since I
like them.
I know that some believe that it helps sales to keep these cliff hangers
running throughout multiple books. The truth is that it only works for
a very limited time. Eventually people become bored with it....and with
no decent alternatives they might leave comics alltogether. (hey, those
half a million people who used to buy an avergae issue of a comic
fifteen years ago had to have gone somewhere)
I thought the Superman team had finally caught on. Sadly, they haven't.
Bob
Jeffery D. Sykes
The triangle continuity format has seen both. Back in 1991-1992, the
Superman titles were linked, but were only serial during the occasional
extended arc. The titles were pretty darn good back then.
Since 1993, the stories were serial even when there wasn't a extended
arc. That is to say that each issue fed into the next week's issue,
usually directly.
It sounds to me like they're going back to the linked approach, which
gives the writers much more creative freedom.
Jeff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sykes | Talking about the Man of Steel? If you can,
sy...@ms.uky.edu | cross-post to rec.arts.sf.superman, where all
| Superman discussion is welcome!
T. Troy McNemar
wrote:
>What is your exact criticizm of the triangle system?
I can't speak for the original poster, but my criticism is that tight
continuity between all 4 books reduces my willingness to buy any of the
titles if I don't like one of the creative teams. Considering that I
haven't liked all of Superman's creative teams in longer than I can
remember, I also haven't been buying the Superman triangle titles on a
regular basis in longer than I can remember.
--
T. Troy McNemar Tro...@primenet.com
"On emit rof srrup dna stap."
-Zatanna and the Pussycats
Favorite Comic of the Week: RANMA 1/2 pt 8 #1
Runner-up: PLANETARY #3
http://www.primenet.com/~troymcn/
The Legion of Super-Gamblers return to Las Vegas on July 22-25
http://www.primenet.com/~sward/saturngirl/lsh/lsg3.htm for details!
Radarcom
continuity between all 4 books reduces my willingness to buy any of the
titles if I don't like one of the creative teams. >>
So don't use the triangle system as guide to the tight continuity. (They've
said there won't be tight continuity in the new stories; just recurring
SUBPLOTS.) Use the triangle system to keep track which Superman book was
RELEASED when if you are wondering if you missed one... or don't use it at all.
T. Troy McNemar
wrote:
If the triangles are truly meaningless then they should be removed. In
this market, why would they want to create the impression that you need to
buy all of the issues to follow the story (be it plot or subplot) if you
don't?
And why should I ignore subplots in determining whether tight continuity
exists between the books? I often find that it's the subplots that can
make or break my enjoyment of a series.
KryptonCN
>this market, why would they want to create the impression that you need
>to
>buy all of the issues to follow the story (be it plot or subplot) if you
>don't?
The linked format of the Superman books began a year or two before the triangle
numbers began to be used. At that time, the books were written in such a manner
that the main stories were contained within individual titles (such as Roger
Stern's "Brainiac Trilogy" happening concurrently with the Eradicator's
building of the Fortress in the _Adventures_ title), but there were secondary
subplots, dealing with the lives of characters such as Cat, Jimmy, Gangbuster,
etc, running throughout the books.
Because not everyone bought their books a week at a time, fans began to ask
what order the titles should be read, and so DC provided the triangle numbers
as a convenience. The so-called triangle format stuck with this approach, as a
method of having progression of subplots and storylines in an orderly manner.
Only in the occasional extended story arc (such as "Panic in the Sky" or "Time
and Time Again") were the books serialized, flowing from one week's issue to
the next, across titles.
This continued up until the Death of Superman. Since that time, the continuity
has changed, moving away from the linked format to a primarily serialized
(think soap operas) format. That is, over the past few years, the use of the
triangles (d)evolved into serial fiction, with each writer simply picking up
where the previous writer left off -- with little, if anything, unique to the
titles. *This* was detrimental to the health of the titles as it was both
creatively stifling and turned away occasional Superman readers.
According to the Comic Wire article, it sounds like they were going to ditch
the triangles all together, but the creative teams came up with ideas that fit
the original linked format the triangles were created for, and so the creators
decided to hang on to the triangles. Of course, it still remains to be seen
whether or not the titles will end up falling back into serialized
story-telling, but it sounds like they do not intend the titles to be serial.
Think of the triangles simply as a reminder for those of us readers who are a
little more anal retentive about their continuity and reading order. :)
Jeff Sykes
(Why does my ISP's news server only shut down when I'm actively participating
in a discussion? :)
KryptonCN
>Because when Joe Kelly wants to explore a subplot or a character that he
>is
>really interested in, or take the book in the direction he sees as best,
>he
>can not. He has to begin each issue where (for example) Man of Steel left
>off, and he has to end each issue where Berganza (Line Editor) says that
>it
>has to end.
Nope, that's not what they're doing -- at least not according to what is
reported in the Comic Wire. That's what they do *now* in the books, but every
indication is that they will be dropping this serialized approach.
Jeff
T. Troy McNemar
wrote:
>The linked format of the Superman books began a year or two before the triangle
>numbers began to be used. At that time, the books were written in such a manner
>that the main stories were contained within individual titles (such as Roger
>Stern's "Brainiac Trilogy" happening concurrently with the Eradicator's
>building of the Fortress in the _Adventures_ title), but there were secondary
>subplots, dealing with the lives of characters such as Cat, Jimmy, Gangbuster,
>etc, running throughout the books.
>
>Because not everyone bought their books a week at a time, fans began to ask
>what order the titles should be read, and so DC provided the triangle numbers
>as a convenience. The so-called triangle format stuck with this approach, as a
>method of having progression of subplots and storylines in an orderly manner.
[Snip!]
>According to the Comic Wire article, it sounds like they were going to ditch
>the triangles all together, but the creative teams came up with ideas that fit
>the original linked format the triangles were created for, and so the creators
>decided to hang on to the triangles.
FTR, the Comic Wire article mentions "subplot ideas and interconnected
stories."
I also think all of the subplots should all be self-contained in one title.
Comic book readers tend to be completists, and it's naturally going to turn
them off to be getting only 1/4th of a subplot. I realize that DC would
rather sell 4 books a month to a potential reader, but they're providing
more incentive to buy zero triangle titles than they are to buy all four.
KryptonCN
>
>Here is part of the report from THE COMIC WIRE dated Monday, April 26th,
>199
>at http://www.comicbookresources.com by Beau Yarbrough, titled SUPERMAN'S
>NEVER-ENDING BATTLE CONTINUES AFTER ALL:
>
Hmm. I must have misread the report this morning.
Still, to continue with the serial storytelling runs contrary to everything
else they've said up until now, as it is essentially impossible to establish
distinguishing styles for the four books under the serial format.
They *had* mentioned all along that there would be one or two interconnected
storylines (no longer than a month) a year, so perhaps that's what they were
referring to in the mention of what came out of the super-summit. At least I
hope so.
They wouldn't have been considering dumping the format in the first place if
they hadn't realized it's shortcomings, so perhaps they did realize that they
could keep the triangles but return to the linked continuity from before
Superman died...
Jeff Sykes
(Yes, I'll be disappointed if they bring in this new talent and then waste it
on serial story-telling.)
If I'm posting via this address, it's because I'm unable to do so
through my ISP. If you wish to contact me privately about anything
I say in this post, please do so at sy...@ms.uky.edu.
KryptonCN
>Comic book readers tend to be completists, and it's naturally going to turn
>them off to be getting only 1/4th of a subplot. I realize that DC would
>rather sell 4 books a month to a potential reader, but they're providing
>more incentive to buy zero triangle titles than they are to buy all four.
*If* they go to having main stories primarily appear within individual titles,
limiting the "crossing" to subplots, it'd be a big improvement over where they
are now. I mean is it really going to be a big deal if you don't happen to buy
the issue where we see three panels of Lucy getting an ultrasound?
Jeff Sykes
Last Son of Krypton
Scott Bailey wrote:
> Here is part of the report from THE COMIC WIRE dated Monday, April 26th, 199
> at http://www.comicbookresources.com by Beau Yarbrough, titled SUPERMAN'S
> NEVER-ENDING BATTLE CONTINUES AFTER ALL:
>
> The idea of dropping the system had apparently been floated in the DC
> editorial offices, but a DC spokesperson who contacted the Comic Wire late
> last week said the idea hadn't survived the recent "Superman summit." The
> writers and editorial staff have reportedly come up with subplot ideas and
> interconnected stories that merited them maintaining the system.
I think you're reading too much into this and going more off the basis of your
ASSUMPTIONS of what will happen more than on the basis of what Comic Wire is
actually reporting.
From the paragraph above, the actual report from DC Comics is that the triangle
numbers will not be discontinued, due to "subplot ideas and interconnected
stories." This doesn't necessarily mean that we'll be dealing with the same
drawn-out, overlong "sagas" such as "Superman Rex." It could just as easily
mean that, say, if Lex Luthor buys a red toupee in SUPERMAN: THE MAN OF STEEL
this week, he'll be wearing that toupee in SUPERMAN next week. It doesn't
necessarily mean that STOS will end with a cliffhanger, and SUPERMAN will pick
up from there. As far as subplots, that could be referring to such plot points
as Lucy Lane's pregnancy running through all the books, but you can understand
the main story perfectly well if you read just one title.
I'm sure there WILL be some crossovers, but that doesn't necessarily mean
they'll be common or that they'll continue for months and months.
For an example of what I'm talking about, look at early Stephen King vs.
current King. From the 70s through the late 80s, there were references and
winks 'n' nods to previous King works in almost all of his books, except those
with obvious "other-world" settings. For example, THE TOMMYKNOCKERS made
references to towns called Derry (the setting of IT), Castle Rock (the settings
of several King works -- THE DEAD ZONE, CUJO, "The Body," the novella which
became the film "Stand by Me," etc.) and Salem's Lot (the setting for, um,
SALEM'S LOT), yet you didn't actually need to read any other King novels to
understand THE TOMMYKNOCKERS perfectly well, nor was it even necessarily true
that the town of Derry in THE TOMMYKNOCKERS was the SAME Derry which was the
setting for IT. Even in his Castle Rock novels, there were REFERENCES to events
in previous novels, even some recurring characters and/or relatives of previous
characters popping up, yet you could read, for instance, CUJO and not need to
read THE DEAD ZONE first, despite repeated references to a cop who became a
serial killer in TDZ or the fact that the sheriff in TDZ died in CUJO.
In the past decade, however, King has decided to start tying EVERYTHING in
together, and reading the latest King novel becomes increasingly difficult.
Worst of all, he's even tying in his fantasy-driven works (THE DARK TOWER
series, THE STAND, THE EYES OF THE DRAGON, etc.) tightly, so that you need to
read his entire body of work (not all of which is WORTH it, even as a fun
airplane-ride brain candy, which covers 90% of King's works) just to understand
his latest novel. As a result, I highly doubt King's following is going to grow
much as time goes on.
The same basic concept applies here -- just because the stories are
interconnected doesn't mean they're TIGHTLY interconnected. It could just mean
that the events of next week's ACTION COMICS will follow the events of this
week's ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN.
Of course, you may be right. All I'm saying is, "Wait and see." Bear in mind
that there's still six months between now and October, and that's PLENTY of
time for further explanations of Comic Wire's reports, or even for DC Comics to
say, "Whoops! Changed our minds. Sorry."
Tony Caroselli
"Louise, she's all right, she's just near/She's delicate and seems like the
mirror/But she just makes it all too concise and too clear/That Johanna's not
here/The ghost of 'lectricity howls in the bones of her face/Where these
visions of Johanna have now taken my place."
-- Bob Dylan
"Visions of Johanna"
Jon Clark
>>You must have missed the part where they'll be more loosely connected from
>now
>>on. The triangle format doesn't detract from that.
>
>You are saying that the Triangle Format won't matter. Then why have it? If
>it doesn't connect the titles, keep it off the damn cover. In a market
>where fans feel forced to buy comics they don't really want by crossovers,
>this format is just plain stupid.
>
And so are the people (myself included) who act like a company is FORCING them
to buy any product. If you don't want to buy Action Comics then don't, chances
are pretty good you will be able to piece together what you missed from the
next week's issue. It might be easier to understand with all parts (then
again after Superman Red/Blue you know that isn't a given), but there haven't
been many issues in the last 6-7 years (since the weekly continuity) which were
crucial to a storyline.
Besides this is RACDCU you can always ask about what you missed (if you can
ignore the trolls who reply).
>
>The Triangle Format requires you to buy 4 issues to get a full story. What
>if you don't like the writer of Man of Steel? What if you don't like the
>artist on Action Comics? Tough shit, I guess.
What if I like the writer on Action Comics but hate the artist on that book?
What if I REALLY want to read Superman/Fantastic Four but don't want to pay $10
for the story?
Same answer in all cases- DC has enough people who will buy the book that they
don't need me. And the Super-sales are apparently good enough that they don't
feel the need to cater to people wanting more independent titles.
Last Son of Krypton
Bob Roland wrote:
> That's actually part of the problem. Look, back in a day when people
> used to actually read comics (don't fool yourself by thinking that the
> comic industry isn't very, very sick right now) comics were written with
> the philosophy of "imagine every comic you write is being purchased by
> someone for the first time". Sure, there was a great deal of "needless"
> exposition, but the stories worked.
>
> Interconnected threads and subplots? Bah.
True, but, as big a fan as I am of Silver Age Superman and Batman and Green
Lantern comics, that old system also had its drawbacks. Character development
is one of the big ones -- many of those characters were stuck in neutral for
a LOOOOOONG time. (Fifty years with almost NO change in Superman and Lois
Lane's relationship? She's STILL trying to prove he's Clark Kent? How many
times does she have to learn she's wrong for her to get the point?)
Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, et. al. are the ones we really have to
credit (or blame, whichever you prefer) for changing all that. Peter Parker
is not still a high school student. Reed and Sue Richards are now married.
That's because of interconnected threads and subplots which Lee, Kirby, et.
al. expanded upon. And it's because of the success of their experiment that
comics changed across the board. Of course, the early Marvel age had an
advantage which current comics don't have -- they were working with a limited
number of titles, all under the direction of a handful of people, and their
universe was relatively new, so there wasn't much they had to keep track of.
As we've seen, once the universes began to age and expand, this became a much
more unstable system to maintain, but that's the drawbacks of THAT system.
Scott Bailey
>It could just as easily
>mean that, say, if Lex Luthor buys a red toupee in SUPERMAN: THE MAN OF
STEEL
>this week, he'll be wearing that toupee in SUPERMAN next week.
Do I really need to see the triangle on the cover to expect this? Don't
most other titles work this way just fine, *without* a triangle on the
cover? I think its pretty obvious that if they need a seperate triangle
number on the cover, then I need each of those issues to follow the story.
If the titles aren't interlocked, then drop the triangle.
>As far as subplots, that could be referring to such plot points
>as Lucy Lane's pregnancy running through all the books, but you can
understand
>the main story perfectly well if you read just one title.
Again, then why would the books need a triangle number?
>Of course, you may be right. All I'm saying is, "Wait and see." Bear in
mind
>that there's still six months between now and October, and that's PLENTY of
>time for further explanations of Comic Wire's reports, or even for DC
Comics to
>say, "Whoops! Changed our minds. Sorry."
Agreed. I am certainly planning my comic collecting around comic news
reports. I will wait and see what actually does happen. However, I see no
need to doubt Yarbrough and the validity of this report.
Scott
Scott Bailey
them
>to buy any product.
No one is holding a gun to my head to buy comics. But if I want a full
Superman story, then yes, I am *forced* to buy four issues.
>If you don't want to buy Action Comics then don't, chances
>are pretty good you will be able to piece together what you missed from the
>next week's issue.
I think this makes my point for me. Should I *really* have to "piece
together" what I missed? Does DC *really* want to say that to its fans?
Piece the story together. How many rules of story-telling does that
violate?
Scott
Scott Bailey
collecting around news reports."
Bob Roland
Last Son of Krypton wrote:
> True, but, as big a fan as I am of Silver Age Superman and Batman and Green
> Lantern comics, that old system also had its drawbacks. Character development
> is one of the big ones -- many of those characters were stuck in neutral for
> a LOOOOOONG time. (Fifty years with almost NO change in Superman and Lois
> Lane's relationship? She's STILL trying to prove he's Clark Kent? How many
> times does she have to learn she's wrong for her to get the point?)
Well, that's kind of the point of iconic characters. :)
I look at it this way. I started reading comics back in the seventies.
I didn't have to learn 50 years of Supermans history. I could read a
story where Lois trys to figure out Supermans secret identity and it
would be fresh for me. (later, of course, I would delight in reading
older superman tales and finding his history)
Hell, I like character development myself. I like the generational
nature of characters...I even (hopes nobody throws anything) like the
new Green Lantern. That being said, some characters belong to the ages,
not us fan boys. Superman is one of 'em. The hard truth is that back
in the silver age, empty of "character development" the comics sold.
Was it silly that he wouldn't learn a darn thing in 50 years? Sure. On
the other hand it's also silly to say that everything that happens
happens in a "ten year" time frame.
That's why "imaginary" stories were good for a writer who wanted to
examine a superman/lois relationship. Slap on the "imaginary" title and
go wild. Than you can tuyrn around and make superman an iconic
character again.
>
> Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, et. al. are the ones we really have to
> credit (or blame, whichever you prefer) for changing all that. Peter Parker
> is not still a high school student. Reed and Sue Richards are now married.
> That's because of interconnected threads and subplots which Lee, Kirby, et.
> al. expanded upon. And it's because of the success of their experiment that
> comics changed across the board. Of course, the early Marvel age had an
> advantage which current comics don't have -- they were working with a limited
> number of titles, all under the direction of a handful of people, and their
> universe was relatively new, so there wasn't much they had to keep track of.
> As we've seen, once the universes began to age and expand, this became a much
> more unstable system to maintain, but that's the drawbacks of THAT system.
Sure, but then we're talking about one book. If I only bought a copy of
Fantastic Four once a month back then, I would be able to follow the
story with no problems whatsoever. Hell, I wouldn't even have to know
who Spider Man was since Reed or the narrator would be nice enough to
fill me in. ("Look Ben! It's that hero Spider-man with the abilities of
a spider!" "I know, Reed. For christs sake you explain that everytime
he pops over. Give me a friggin' break!"). Those comics sure wouldn't
have sold if you had to buy 4 different FF comics plus every other
Marvel comic under the sun.
Sigh....a simpler age.
I actually had faith that the new Superman team had come to it's senses.
(after all, Grant Morrision brought the JLA to life by turning to the
lessons of the Silver age...why not Superman?). Self contained story,
each one examining a different facet of a great character.
Instead we have more subplots, more gimicks, and yet another character
who becomes inaccesable to everyone except the prexisting (and
continually diminishing) fan base.
Bob
KryptonCN
>>mean that, say, if Lex Luthor buys a red toupee in SUPERMAN: THE MAN OF
>STEEL
>>this week, he'll be wearing that toupee in SUPERMAN next week.
>
>Do I really need to see the triangle on the cover to expect this? Don't
>most other titles work this way just fine, *without* a triangle on the
>cover? I think its pretty obvious that if they need a seperate triangle
>number on the cover, then I need each of those issues to follow the story.
>If the titles aren't interlocked, then drop the triangle.
If you are only reading one title, then you obviously won't need the triangles.
However, they could still appear as a convenience to those who do read all four
titles but don't pick up their comics every week. It prevents them from
"spoiling" a subplot by reading the books out of order, and it provides correct
reading order when they do the occasional story arc.
A good example of this is the Legion titles. They've had the same type of
triangle numbering system for a year or so, but for the past few months, the
books have run quite independently of each other. However, there have been
minor mentions within each book of what was happening concurrently in the other
book. If one happens to be reading both books, it might have been slightly
annoying to read them out of "triangle" order and have one of those comments
tell you what happens in the book you haven't yet read.
Jeff
--
T. Troy McNemar
wrote:
>I mean is it really going to be a big deal if you don't happen to buy
>the issue where we see three panels of Lucy getting an ultrasound?
It's a short step from deciding that it's no big deal if I don't follow all
of the subplots to deciding that it's no big deal if I don't read the
titles at all.
jayembee
> You must have missed the part where they'll be more loosely connected
> from now on. The triangle format doesn't detract from that.
It's worth noting that the two LSH books are "triangled", and are
still pretty much independent of each other.
--- jayembee (Jerry.B...@eds.com)
"There's a Malibu Barbie that needs to meet Mr. Guillotine...head on."
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
jayembee
> Again, then why would the books need a triangle number?
The original concept of the triangle number, from what I understand,
was merely to establish an order to when the books took place relative
to each other, and wasn't necessarily to label the books as "chapters"
of a long serial.
As I mentioned in another reply, LEGIONNAIRES and LEGION OF SUPER-
HEROES are triangled, and yet have separate (concurrent) storylines.
Radarcom
It will no longer. It will only number the sequence of Superman books
released.
Radarcom
1. No creative freedom for the talent. Creator's no longer have the option
to set their own tone, to go their own direction. If their issue is store
#3, then they have to begin their issue where the editor says #2 left off,
and end their issue where the editor says #4 will pick up.>>
This pre-dated the triangles on Superman books. The sequential storytelling
has been around since Byrne. The triangles were only added in 1990.
<<2. It is the worst of the cross-over tactic. Fans are forced to buy 4 issues
to get a complete story. Don't like the crew on Action Comics? Too
bad. Buy this issue or your just going to have to wonder why Jimmy Olsen
was last seen hanging from a cliff, but now he's in cahoots with Luthor.
>>
There's no gun to your head. No fan is forced to do anything. Try independent
thought. It works.
Radarcom
No one said they are meaningless. They are a guide that allows you to know
which Superman title came out when. Maybe they should remove the dates and
issue numbers too? They have nothing to do with the stories.
<< In this market, why would they want to create the impression that you need
to
buy all of the issues to follow the story (be it plot or subplot) if you
don't?>>
They don't create that impression. That is your interpretation. Buy what you
like. Do you need to be told that?
<<And why should I ignore subplots in determining whether tight continuity
exists between the books? I often find that it's the subplots that can
make or break my enjoyment of a series.>>
I agree. No one said ignore sub-plots. It seems like you want sub-plots to
connect the books but you don't want to buy the books. Nothing is going to
make you happy.
Radarcom
little more anal retentive about their continuity and reading order. :)
>>
Right. It can be as simple as a guide if you would prefer to read last week's
comic before this week's if you bought both at the same time.
People confuse the more recent subtitled story arcs (and mini-series within
series) with the triangle system, which pre-dates them.
T. Troy McNemar
>> Again, then why would the books need a triangle number?
>
>The original concept of the triangle number, from what I understand,
>was merely to establish an order to when the books took place relative
>to each other, and wasn't necessarily to label the books as "chapters"
>of a long serial.
But now that the triangle numbers have become associated with the latter
meaning, will fans be willing to believe that they're returning to the
former?
I'm concerned by the statement that the interconnecting stories and
subplots justify keeping the triangle numbers. To me, that certainly means
more than merely establishing an order.
>As I mentioned in another reply, LEGIONNAIRES and LEGION OF SUPER-
>HEROES are triangled, and yet have separate (concurrent) storylines.
The Legion titles should drop the "triangle" numbers. They provide little
if any benefit to the books and may actually hinder selling them.
Radarcom
subplots justify keeping the triangle numbers. To me, that certainly means
more than merely establishing an order.>>
You're concerned about a little TRIANGLE!
Radarcom
them off to be getting only 1/4th of a subplot. >>
Maybe the first few years. But soon enough, readers realize whether it be for
reasons financial or enjoyment, to be discriminating. The days of "I must have
every issue in order" went out the window when titles began re-numbering with
#1.
T. Troy McNemar
wrote:
>But soon enough, readers realize whether it be for
>reasons financial or enjoyment, to be discriminating. The days of "I must have
>every issue in order" went out the window when titles began re-numbering with
>#1.
Yes, these days the prevailing attitude is "I don't need any issues." DC
shouldn't be providing any disincentive for picking up the Superman titles.
T. Troy McNemar
wrote:
>It seems like you want sub-plots to
>connect the books but you don't want to buy the books. Nothing is going to
>make you happy.
If each of the Superman titles were worth cover price, I'd be happy. I
don't mind buying a weekly Superman title if all of the titles measure up.
Alternatively, I'd like to be able to buy one regular-continuity Superman
title a month and know that everything that I'm reading about in that title
is going to be resolved in the current issue or future issues of that
title.
Scott Bailey
independent
> thought. It works.
Now, now Radarcom. No need to get personal, is there? Everyone in this
thread has managed to be civil and respectful of eachothers differing
opinions. Please don't lapse into snide little personal attacks. It really
erodes your credibility.
To answer your question (and I've answered this point elsewhere in the
thread) *of course* no one is truly *forcing* me in the literal sense of the
word to read a comic. However, if I want a complete Superman story, I am .
. . required to read 4 issues, some of which I may loathe. And, yes, since
I am not forced to read the books, rather than give in to this tactic, I'm
choosing (there's your independent thought) to not read *any* of them. Too
bad DC has put me in a position to have to make this "all-or-nothing"
decision.
Also, as for your statement that the triangle loosely indicates the order
titles were released, I ask why that matters? If each book is so
independent of the other, who cares what order Action Comics is released in
relation to Man of Steel? All that should matter is the individual titles
numbering. I should need no more indication of sequence other than Superman
#155, #156, #157 . . .
So many other "franchise" books make it just fine with out a triangle . . .
the X-Books, the Batman books, the Spiderman books . . .
Scott
Scott Bailey
> DC shouldn't be providing any disincentive for picking up the Superman
titles.
<snip>
> Alternatively, I'd like to be able to buy one regular-continuity Superman
> title a month and know that everything that I'm reading about in that
title
> is going to be resolved in the current issue or future issues of that
> title.
Yes. Thank you. This is pretty much the bottom line for me.
Scott
Nathan
<msc...@pacifier.spamblock.com> wrote:
>> There's no gun to your head. No fan is forced to do anything. Try
>independent
>> thought. It works.
>
>Now, now Radarcom. No need to get personal, is there? Everyone in this
>thread has managed to be civil and respectful of eachothers differing
>opinions. Please don't lapse into snide little personal attacks. It really
>erodes your credibility.
>
>To answer your question (and I've answered this point elsewhere in the
>thread) *of course* no one is truly *forcing* me in the literal sense of the
>word to read a comic. However, if I want a complete Superman story, I am .
>. . required to read 4 issues, some of which I may loathe. And, yes, since
>I am not forced to read the books, rather than give in to this tactic, I'm
>choosing (there's your independent thought) to not read *any* of them. Too
>bad DC has put me in a position to have to make this "all-or-nothing"
>decision.
Nod, thats the biggest thing. I was planning on picking up the
Super-title that Joe Kelly will be writting once he starts because I
like Kelly's work, and without the triangliing it would be worth it
get the one title. If they are actually keeping the triangle
storytelling Im not going to start getting that title. -1 sale per
month there.
Stephen Michael Menendian
On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Scott Bailey wrote:
> > There's no gun to your head. No fan is forced to do anything. Try
> independent
> > thought. It works.
What it really comes down to is this. Keeping the triangles is
not going to gain any readership. I know of no one who will pick up the
Superman books based on the triangle format. People read under the
triangle format, such as me, will continue to read under it. But without
the triangles, the people who read with the triangles will continue to
read anyway. Yet without the triangles, new people will start to read in
greater numbers than the people who will start up under the new writers
anyway. For example let say that 50,000 people read with the triangle
format, and that if they decide to do away with it 25,000 new readers will
start giving a total of 50,000. But if they keep the triangles let's say
only 10,000 new people will start giving a new total of 60,000. In other
words DC has nothing to lose by doing away with them, but everything to
gain.
Stephen Menendian
Radarcom
independent
> thought. It works.
Now, now Radarcom. No need to get personal, is there? >>
It's not. We don't know each other personally.
<< Everyone in this thread has managed to be civil and respectful of eachothers
differing
opinions. Please don't lapse into snide little personal attacks. It really
erodes your credibility.>>
I'm so sorry I haven't earned your approval.
<<To answer your question (and I've answered this point elsewhere in the
thread) *of course* no one is truly *forcing* me in the literal sense of the
word to read a comic. However, if I want a complete Superman story, I am .
. . required to read 4 issues, some of which I may loathe. And, yes, since
I am not forced to read the books, rather than give in to this tactic, I'm
choosing (there's your independent thought) to not read *any* of them. Too
bad DC has put me in a position to have to make this "all-or-nothing"
decision.>>
That's your blind interpretation. DC hasn't put you in any position. If DC
were trying to force readers to do anything, they would want you to buy EVERY
book they publish. They are merely numbering books that contain the same
character. Even within the same title, buying issue #32 doesn't necessarily
mean you NEED #31 to follow along.
<<Also, as for your statement that the triangle loosely indicates the order
titles were released, I ask why that matters? >>
I've said repeatedly that it is an added help for readers to know the sequence
of publication. If you don't like 'em, ignore them. Many new readers don't
even know there's an ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN and a SUPERMAN title (not to
mention SUPERMAN ADVENTURES or MAN OF STEEL or the TPB, ADVENTURES OF THE MAN
OF STEEL).
<< If each book is so
independent of the other, who cares what order Action Comics is released in
relation to Man of Steel?>>
Readers other than you, obviously. The dates and issue numbers on comics come
in handy for many, as well.
<< All that should matter is the individual titles
numbering. I should need no more indication of sequence other than Superman
#155, #156, #157 . . .>>
But as long as there is some linear sequence of events, it helps. It's the
same guy in four different books. The date on a JLA with the Blue Superman
helps you realize it happened before the events of the current Superman
stories, too. I can't believe how upset you get over a little triangle. Don't
ever buy Superman again...what do we care?
<<So many other "franchise" books make it just fine with out a triangle . . .
the X-Books, the Batman books, the Spiderman books . . .>>
Yes. Evil triangle must be stopped.
Radarcom
Super-title that Joe Kelly will be writting once he starts because I
like Kelly's work, and without the triangliing it would be worth it
get the one title. If they are actually keeping the triangle
storytelling Im not going to start getting that title. -1 sale per
month there. >>
Well, then don't. Don't be surprised they would rather you buy four Superman
books than one... but no one is forcing you to do anything.
Radarcom
gain any readership. >>
Nor did it ever. It's just an assistance. Putting dates on comic books hasn't
help them gain readership, either.
From what I hear, Quesada scribbles in the issue number on Daredevil that the
title would have been if it didn't revert to #1. It's a similar principle....
a guide for new readers to what has come before. You don't HAVE to buy every
issue whether it be four Superman titles or the one monthly Daredevil each
month, but sure they would like you to be AWARE of as many comics you can buy.
Radarcom
>connect the books but you don't want to buy the books. Nothing is going to
>make you happy.
If each of the Superman titles were worth cover price, I'd be happy. I
don't mind buying a weekly Superman title if all of the titles measure up.>>
I totally agree. But this guy shouldn't be surprised that they will use
subplots to entice you into trying the other three titles even if the plots
aren't essential to your favorite title.
<<Alternatively, I'd like to be able to buy one regular-continuity Superman
title a month and know that everything that I'm reading about in that title
is going to be resolved in the current issue or future issues of that
title.>>
That seems to be what they are aiming for.
Radarcom
>reasons financial or enjoyment, to be discriminating. The days of "I must
have
>every issue in order" went out the window when titles began re-numbering with
>#1.
Yes, these days the prevailing attitude is "I don't need any issues." DC
shouldn't be providing any disincentive for picking up the Superman titles.>>
They can't make everyone happy all the time. Some people like the continued
stories, some want them title-exclusive. The fact that they've gotten talent
like Jeph Loeb should show they aren't providing any such "disincentive."
Besides, you know they will inevitably go back to the more successful continued
stories just as they did with BATMAN for Cataclysm after a 1 1/2 hiatus.
Stephen Michael Menendian
On 27 Apr 1999, Radarcom wrote:
> <<What it really comes down to is this. Keeping the triangles is not going to
> gain any readership. >>
>
> Nor did it ever. It's just an assistance. Putting dates on comic books hasn't
> help them gain readership, either.
I was inferring that the triangle meant an interconnection between
all four titles, so you would have to buy all four.
Stephen M
Jeffery D. Sykes
>But now that the triangle numbers have become associated with the latter
>meaning, will fans be willing to believe that they're returning to the
>former?
If they've heard that there are Big Changes (TM) happening, and if DC,
through creator/editor interviews and the like, lets it be known that
readers won't need to buy all four titles to follow the story, then I
don't think fans will be hampered by the appearance of a triangle on
the cover.
>I'm concerned by the statement that the interconnecting stories and
>subplots justify keeping the triangle numbers. To me, that certainly means
>more than merely establishing an order.
The Superman books in 1991 and 1992 did not need the triangle numbers,
but the fact that fans were requesting a way to know the publishing
order justified their use. That was no more than merely establishing an
order, as the format was no different then than it was before the
triangles began to be used.
Jeff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sykes | Talking about the Man of Steel? If you can,
sy...@ms.uky.edu | cross-post to rec.arts.sf.superman, where all
| Superman discussion is welcome!
Jeffery D. Sykes
>This pre-dated the triangles on Superman books. The sequential storytelling
>has been around since Byrne. The triangles were only added in 1990.
Jan 1991 cover date, to be precise. But the serial storytelling was actually
only used for the occasional extended story arc before the death of Superman.
It was only after that the essentially all of the stories became serialized,
with one week's issue leading into the next.
Jeffery D. Sykes
>Also, as for your statement that the triangle loosely indicates the order
>titles were released, I ask why that matters? If each book is so
>independent of the other, who cares what order Action Comics is released in
>relation to Man of Steel? All that should matter is the individual titles
>numbering. I should need no more indication of sequence other than Superman
>#155, #156, #157 . . .
Say Superman has a battle with Brainiac in Action Comics one week, and then
in next week's Man of Steel, Superman thinks, "Gotta visit Jimmy in the
hospital. Hope he's recovering from those injuries he suffered at Brainiac's
hand."
There *are* some readers who would prefer to have read that Action issue
first, so that they can be surprised by the fact that Jimmy gets hurt.
The two stories could be completely independent other than in that one
simple comment, but having the triangle number allows the reader to
prevent the later story from spoiling the first.
Jeffery D. Sykes
>> Alternatively, I'd like to be able to buy one regular-continuity Superman
>> title a month and know that everything that I'm reading about in that
>title
>> is going to be resolved in the current issue or future issues of that
>> title.
>
>Yes. Thank you. This is pretty much the bottom line for me.
And Eddie Berganza (the new group editor) has said that, aside from maybe
a couple of (at most one-month-long) extended story arcs a year, that's what
he's aiming for in the Superman titles.
Jeffery D. Sykes
>Nod, thats the biggest thing. I was planning on picking up the
>Super-title that Joe Kelly will be writting once he starts because I
>like Kelly's work, and without the triangliing it would be worth it
>get the one title. If they are actually keeping the triangle
>storytelling Im not going to start getting that title. -1 sale per
>month there.
They said they were keeping the triangle numbers. They did
not say that they were continuing the serial storytelling. They're two
entirely different things.
Jeffery D. Sykes
> What it really comes down to is this. Keeping the triangles is
>not going to gain any readership. I know of no one who will pick up the
>Superman books based on the triangle format. People read under the
>triangle format, such as me, will continue to read under it. But without
>the triangles, the people who read with the triangles will continue to
>read anyway. Yet without the triangles, new people will start to read in
>greater numbers than the people who will start up under the new writers
>anyway. For example let say that 50,000 people read with the triangle
>format, and that if they decide to do away with it 25,000 new readers will
>start giving a total of 50,000. But if they keep the triangles let's say
>only 10,000 new people will start giving a new total of 60,000. In other
>words DC has nothing to lose by doing away with them, but everything to
>gain.
The argument works both ways. There are current readers buying all four
books only because they need to do so to follow the storyline completely.
By dropping the serial format, they risk having current readers cut back
to buying only one or two of the titles.
I honestly can't imagine that they'd lose more sales than they'd gain,
but it *could* happen.
Jeffery D. Sykes
>Do I really need to see the triangle on the cover to expect this? Don't
>most other titles work this way just fine, *without* a triangle on the
>cover?
How many other characters have four different titles all acting within
the same continuity with even similar subplots drifting between the
books on a regular basis?
>I think its pretty obvious that if they need a seperate triangle
>number on the cover, then I need each of those issues to follow the story.
Why? That wasn't the case in 1991 and 1992, when the triangles first
began to be used.
>>As far as subplots, that could be referring to such plot points
>>as Lucy Lane's pregnancy running through all the books, but you can
>understand
>>the main story perfectly well if you read just one title.
>
>Again, then why would the books need a triangle number?
Suppose Joe buys his books a month at a time and suddenly has
four different issues of Superman comics sitting in front of him.
Joe likes to read even the most minor events in order that they
occur within the continuity, so he'd like to read the issue
where Lucy goes into labor, then the issue where she gives birth,
and then the issue where the child is kidnapped by Brainiac <g>.
The triangle numbers then provide him that service, even though
they can be safely ignored by the majority of readers.
That is, the triangle numbers in that case would be primarily for
those of us who are a bit more anally retentive about reading the
books in the order in which they are published. :)
Jeffery D. Sykes
>For someone who believes that they have to pick up the other three titles
>to understand Loeb's story, there's no incentive for me to pick up Loeb's
>book unless they're also partial to the other three creative teams.
*If* they continue with the serial storytelling, then you are of course
correct. What we're trying to say is that the appearance of a little
triangle on the cover just does not mean that will be the case. Given
everything else that we've heard from DC, the creators, and the new
editor, I don't think there's any real reason for concern based on this
one new statement, which can certainly mean any one of several different
things.
Jeffery D. Sykes
>Previously on rec.arts.comics.dc.universe, rada...@aol.com (Radarcom)
>wrote:
>
>>But this guy shouldn't be surprised that they will use
>>subplots to entice you into trying the other three titles even if the plots
>>aren't essential to your favorite title.
>
>I don't think anyone is surprised. I think what they're saying is that
>they'd rather not buy any of the Superman titles rather than be subjected
>to incomplete plot lines in one or two of them.
Which is certainly reasonable, and I don't think anyone has suggested
otherwise. What we've been saying is that keeping the triangles does
not necessarily mean that there will be incomplete plot lines in the
individual titles any more than you'd have from the occasional
crossover.
Triangles != serial storytelling
Jeffery D. Sykes
>To me, those are big ifs. There are a large number of readers who aren't
>going to be following the news.
Honestly, I don't think there are that many comics readers who don't
follow enough news to know that there is an entirely new team coming
onto the books. That should, in and of itself, get people to see what's
going on -- and then they'll see first hand whether or not the stories
are serial in nature. I doubt they'll even think twice about the triangle
numbers.
Let me be perfectly frank. I think you are assigning a lot more importance
to those triangle numbers appearing on the cover than most comics readers
generally give them.
Jeffery D. Sykes
>The statement is: "The writers and editorial staff have reportedly come up
>with subplot ideas and interconnected stories that merited them maintaining
>the system." Are you suggesting that it can't be taken at face value?
What I'm saying is that "subplot ideas and interconnected stories that
merited them maintaining the system" also perfectly describes the
Superman titles in 1991 and 1992, when the triangles were in constant
use, but before serial storytelling became a regular feature of the books.
Subplots have been running between all of the Superman books since at
least 1987, and nobody had to read all the books back then to follow
the stories.
Interconnected stories does not mean each issue picking up where last
week's issue left off.
Furthermore, I think the article is rather unclear about whether or
not the system they are talking about maintaining is the numbering
system or the serial storytelling. Note that it is the article's
writer who describes the triangle numbering system as serial
storytelling, and not DC's representative. In fact, I'd say the only
thing that can be certainly determined from the article is that
triangle numbers will adorn the books.
Given *everything* else that has come from Berganza and the new
creators, I find it extremely unlikely that they have suddenly
decided to continue the serial storytelling when it was being so
derided by *everyone* before this statement came out.
*If* I'm wrong, then I will immediately join everyone in bashing the
morons at DC, but I don't see anywhere near enough evidence to do
so at present.
Jeffery D. Sykes
>>Let me be perfectly frank. I think you are assigning a lot more importance
>>to those triangle numbers appearing on the cover than most comics readers
>>generally give them.
>
>Actually, I could not care less about the triangles. It's the linked
>continuity that they've come to represent that makes me apprehensive.
I can understand that. If you see the triangle numbers as necessarily
indicating serial storytelling, then you'd naturally be concerned.
I don't think they should be seen that way, but I'll admit that after
the last 6-7 years, it would be easy to do so.
There's a kid who works at the comic book shop that I use. He was in
my office at school today (because someone else in my office tutors
him) and I passed along info from NCRL that Battle Chasers #6 now looks
to have been delayed until the end of May. He started grumbling about
yet another delay on the book, but I pointed out that a six week delay
was much better than the previous six month delay, so things must be
improving. He looked at me and commented, "You're one of those glass-
half-full kinda people, aren't you?"
Yeah, I am. And perhaps that's partly why I'm not really concerned
about the triangle thing at this point.
Last Son of Krypton
"T. Troy McNemar" wrote:
> But now that the triangle numbers have become associated with the latter
> meaning, will fans be willing to believe that they're returning to the
> former?
Actually, there's the question of how many fans who haven't been following
Superman news but might consider picking up Superman will even NOTICE the
triangle numbers. When I started collecting Superman, I had been a comics fan
for some time, but it took me six months to figure out what the triangle
numbers were and why they were there.
> I'm concerned by the statement that the interconnecting stories and
> subplots justify keeping the triangle numbers. To me, that certainly means
> more than merely establishing an order.
Why? Look at it this way: the triangle numbers are like episode guides for a
TV series. You can watch (almost) any episode of "Seinfeld," having never seen
the show before, and be able to pick up right from there. Of course, if you're
a HUGE fan of "Seinfeld," and you want to watch every episode in order, you
can find an episode guide on the Web, figure out the airdates order and figure
out which episodes you have and have not seen.
Same (may) be true for the Superman titles. IF you don't want to read all four
titles you (possibly) won't have to. But, IF you want to read them all, and if
you want to read them all in order, you don't need to check the WATCH THIS
SPACE columns and figure out which date each issue came out in. You just look
at the cover and know instantly.
Tony Caroselli
"Louise, she's all right, she's just near/She's delicate and seems like the
mirror/But she just makes it all too concise and too clear/That Johanna's not
here/The ghost of 'lectricity howls in the bones of her face/Where these
visions of Johanna have now taken my place."
-- Bob Dylan
"Visions of Johanna"
T. Troy McNemar
wrote:
>The fact that they've gotten talent
>like Jeph Loeb should show they aren't providing any such "disincentive."
For someone who believes that they have to pick up the other three titles
to understand Loeb's story, there's no incentive for me to pick up Loeb's
book unless they're also partial to the other three creative teams.
>Besides, you know they will inevitably go back to the more successful continued
>stories just as they did with BATMAN for Cataclysm after a 1 1/2 hiatus.
I think a lot of what's wrong with the comic book industry is a focus on
the short term sales bursts caused by stunts without any attention being
paid to the long term results of the trends.
T. Troy McNemar
wrote:
>But this guy shouldn't be surprised that they will use
>subplots to entice you into trying the other three titles even if the plots
>aren't essential to your favorite title.
I don't think anyone is surprised. I think what they're saying is that
they'd rather not buy any of the Superman titles rather than be subjected
to incomplete plot lines in one or two of them.
--
T. Troy McNemar
Sykes) wrote:
>Tro...@primenet.com (T. Troy McNemar) wrote:
>
>>But now that the triangle numbers have become associated with the latter
>>meaning, will fans be willing to believe that they're returning to the
>>former?
>
>through creator/editor interviews and the like, lets it be known that
>readers won't need to buy all four titles to follow the story, then I
>don't think fans will be hampered by the appearance of a triangle on
>the cover.
To me, those are big ifs. There are a large number of readers who aren't
going to be following the news.
--
T. Troy McNemar
Sykes) wrote:
>Tro...@primenet.com (T. Troy McNemar) wrote:
>>For someone who believes that they have to pick up the other three titles
>>to understand Loeb's story, there's no incentive for me to pick up Loeb's
>>book unless they're also partial to the other three creative teams.
>
>*If* they continue with the serial storytelling, then you are of course
>correct. What we're trying to say is that the appearance of a little
>triangle on the cover just does not mean that will be the case. Given
>everything else that we've heard from DC, the creators, and the new
>editor, I don't think there's any real reason for concern based on this
>one new statement, which can certainly mean any one of several different
>things.
The statement is: "The writers and editorial staff have reportedly come up
with subplot ideas and interconnected stories that merited them maintaining
the system." Are you suggesting that it can't be taken at face value?
--
T. Troy McNemar
Sykes) wrote:
>Let me be perfectly frank. I think you are assigning a lot more importance
>to those triangle numbers appearing on the cover than most comics readers
>generally give them.
Actually, I could not care less about the triangles. It's the linked
continuity that they've come to represent that makes me apprehensive.
--
T. Troy McNemar
<lastson...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Why? Look at it this way: the triangle numbers are like episode guides for a
>TV series. You can watch (almost) any episode of "Seinfeld," having never seen
>the show before, and be able to pick up right from there. Of course, if you're
>a HUGE fan of "Seinfeld," and you want to watch every episode in order, you
>can find an episode guide on the Web, figure out the airdates order and figure
>out which episodes you have and have not seen.
This is a bad analogy because SEINFELD is just one series. To make it
analogous to the triangle numbers, we'd have to watch FRIENDS to discover
that Joey punched Kramer and gave him a black eye; and we'd have to watch
ER to find out that Elaine had been diagnosed with terminal hiccups; and
we'd have to watch FRAISER to find out why George is obsessed with call-in
radio shows. Some people may not be concerned about the origins of these
character bits and pay be able to watch SEINFELD without knowing their
origins, but others would certainly feel differently.
>Same (may) be true for the Superman titles. IF you don't want to read all four
>titles you (possibly) won't have to. But, IF you want to read them all, and if
>you want to read them all in order, you don't need to check the WATCH THIS
>SPACE columns and figure out which date each issue came out in. You just look
>at the cover and know instantly.
Which is fine if all of the issues (or all of the series) are
self-contained. But today's Comics Wire certainly casts some doubt on that
assumption with respect to "subplot ideas and interconnected stories."
Last Son of Krypton
Stephen Michael Menendian wrote:
> What it really comes down to is this. Keeping the triangles is
> not going to gain any readership. I know of no one who will pick up the
> Superman books based on the triangle format.
It sounds like you're asking for a Silver Age-style system of the sequence of
Superman comics. There were two titles, ACTION COMICS and SUPERMAN (not to
mention SUPERMAN FAMILY, JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA, SUPERBOY, etc.), but you
didn't need to read this month's ACTION COMICS to understand ANYTHING in this
month's SUPERMAN.
Is that what you're asking for, Stephen?
Last Son of Krypton
Bob Roland wrote:
> Well, that's kind of the point of iconic characters. :)
>
> I look at it this way. I started reading comics back in the seventies.
> I didn't have to learn 50 years of Supermans history. I could read a
> story where Lois trys to figure out Supermans secret identity and it
> would be fresh for me. (later, of course, I would delight in reading
> older superman tales and finding his history)
Actually, as a folklore major, I think you show a SEVERE lack of understanding of
how iconic characters work.
For example, let's look at Beowulf vs. Robin Hood. Beowulf never changed. The
story of Beowulf was written centuries ago and was the first hero myth written in
the English language. He was influential. He was significant.
Nobody cares about Beowulf any more.
Robin Hood, on the other hand, HAS changed. Certain core elements remain the same
(he's still an archer who lives in the forest and robs from the rich and give to
the poor, yadda yadda yadda), BUT the story of Robin Hood has changed quite a bit.
If you go back and reread the original written Howard Pyle ADVENTURES OF ROBIN
HOOD, then watch the Kevin Costner film from earlier this decade, you'll notice
some MAJOR differences.
As a result, Robin Hood is still vital, several centuries after he was first
invented (perhaps based on a real person). Not only is he influential (I contend
that he, along with King Arthur, for whom you could say the exact same thing as
everything above and below I say of Robin Hood, is one of the two archetypical
heroes in Western literature; literally EVERY hero character since is based on one
of the two or a combination of the two), but he himself is still popular. If you
check, you can find at least one popular Robin Hood film from every decade of this
century since the 1930s -- not to mention books, comic books, cartoons, toys,
breakfast cereals, etc. This is not true IN SPITE of Robin Hood developing; it's
BECAUSE he developed that he still exists.
Even with the myths of this past which the average joe on the street would
actually identify as a "myth," -- e.g., the Greco-Roman mythology -- we have this
illusion, from our modern viewpoint, that Zeus was always like Edith Hamilton or
Bulfinch describes him, but that's simply not true. He developed INTO that Zeus
over several centuries (and even in the millennia since). Remember that those
myths were passed down by word-of-mouth; there was no Bulfinch or Hamilton in 3000
B.C. Greece. (In fact, it's this very wide array of variants on the myths which
explains why Hamilton and Bulfinch don't agree on EVERY point from EVERY story.)
> That being said, some characters belong to the ages,
> not us fan boys. Superman is one of 'em.
If Superman didn't evolve, we wouldn't still have him. Not the fanboys, and not
the ages, either.
> The hard truth is that back
> in the silver age, empty of "character development" the comics sold.
. . . Until Marvel sold BETTER, and DC (and everyone else) started asking
themselves WHY they sold better, and things started to change.
> On
> the other hand it's also silly to say that everything that happens
> happens in a "ten year" time frame.
Agreed. I'm not saying the current system is PERFECT. I'm saying that the old one
wasn't, either.
> If I only bought a copy of
> Fantastic Four once a month back then, I would be able to follow the
> story with no problems whatsoever. Hell, I wouldn't even have to know
> who Spider Man was since Reed or the narrator would be nice enough to
> fill me in. ("Look Ben! It's that hero Spider-man with the abilities of
> a spider!" "I know, Reed. For christs sake you explain that everytime
> he pops over. Give me a friggin' break!"). Those comics sure wouldn't
> have sold if you had to buy 4 different FF comics plus every other
> Marvel comic under the sun.
>
> Sigh....a simpler age.
Agreed. Like I said, this system became harder and harder to maintain once Marvel
began expanding and had several decades of past history to work with.
> Instead we have more subplots, more gimicks, and yet another character
> who becomes inaccesable to everyone except the prexisting (and
> continually diminishing) fan base.
I think you're reading too much into these new developments from DC's offices.
Basically, we're all in this thread assuming A LOT of points from what was really
a very short news brief.
Led Gein
<lastson...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Actually, as a folklore major, I think you show a SEVERE lack of understanding of
>how iconic characters work.
>
>For example, let's look at Beowulf vs. Robin Hood.
Now THIS is a cool "who would win" thread. I'd vote for Beowulf, if
he could get close enough to rip off Loxley's bow arm.
"You think just because a guy reads comics,
he can't start some shit?!?"
--Mallrats
Last Son of Krypton
Led Gein wrote:
> Now THIS is a cool "who would win" thread. I'd vote for Beowulf, if
> he could get close enough to rip off Loxley's bow arm.
No question THERE.
What the REAL issue is, though, is "Who would win if Beowulf sent his bees against
Robin Hood's Merry Men?"
I give it to the bees. Although Little John with a really big flyswatter would kick
some MAJOR @$$ before they took him down.
Kelson Vibber
> On 27 Apr 1999, Radarcom wrote:
>
> > <<What it really comes down to is this. Keeping the triangles is not going to
> > gain any readership. >>
> >
> > Nor did it ever. It's just an assistance. Putting dates on comic books hasn't
> > help them gain readership, either.
>
> I was inferring that the triangle meant an interconnection between
> all four titles, so you would have to buy all four.
As many people have said before, the presence of a triangle does not necessarily
indicate interconnection (someone mentioned LSH/Legionnaires), and interconnection
does not necessarily indicate serialization (see Superman in the early days of
triangles).
As an example of nonserial interconnectedness, look at the DC One Million issues of
Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, Resurrection Man, and one of the Superman titles
(I forget which one). Plots in these four issues are quite connected, and if you
want you can follow from GL through MM, Supes, and Resurrection man. But the only
comic that requires you to read anything else is GL - it ends on a cliffhanger. So
he's falling to Mars at the start of MM. You don't need to see how he got there any
more than you need to see how Captain Cold got to the Central City bank. So
Resurrection Man heads off to Mars at the end of Supes - you only have to read it if
you want to, otherwise, you can follow Superman into DC One Million #4, which tells
you anything important that you would've missed in Resurrection Man. Or if you want
to start with RM - you don't need to know anything from the Superman issue to follow
it. The only backstory needed is in the core DC1M books and maybe the JLA issue.
In the back of each issue is a list of all the DC1M issues, *in order* (with details
on that week). It's not on the cover, but it tells you what order to read the
issues you picked up. If you like reading stories about green people, and you
bought everything at the end of the month (and by some miracle managed to *get* the
first week of DC1M that late), you now know to read Green Lantern before you read
Martian Manhunter.
--
Kelson Vibber
kel...@pobox.com
http://www.pobox.com/~kelson/
Les Miserables - The Flash - Creative Writing
Stephen Michael Menendian
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Kelson Vibber wrote:
> Stephen Michael Menendian wrote:
>
> > On 27 Apr 1999, Radarcom wrote:
> >
> > > <<What it really comes down to is this. Keeping the triangles is not going to
> > > gain any readership. >>
> > >
> > > Nor did it ever. It's just an assistance. Putting dates on comic books hasn't
> > > help them gain readership, either.
> >
> > I was inferring that the triangle meant an interconnection between
> > all four titles, so you would have to buy all four.
>
> As many people have said before, the presence of a triangle does not necessarily
> indicate interconnection (someone mentioned LSH/Legionnaires), and interconnection
> does not necessarily indicate serialization (see Superman in the early days of
> triangles).
But the possibility of *any* continuing plot threads could be a
discouragant in the Superman case.
Stephen Menenedian
Stephen Michael Menendian
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Last Son of Krypton wrote:
> From the Dark, Damp and Noisy World of Tony Caroselli:
>
> Stephen Michael Menendian wrote:
>
> > What it really comes down to is this. Keeping the triangles is
> > not going to gain any readership. I know of no one who will pick up the
> > Superman books based on the triangle format.
>
> It sounds like you're asking for a Silver Age-style system of the sequence of
> Superman comics. There were two titles, ACTION COMICS and SUPERMAN (not to
> mention SUPERMAN FAMILY, JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA, SUPERBOY, etc.), but you
> didn't need to read this month's ACTION COMICS to understand ANYTHING in this
> month's SUPERMAN.
>
> Is that what you're asking for, Stephen?
Precisely, and for this reason: The writers are stuck writing a
specific chapter that was mapped out months ago at the Supersummit. All I
want is writer freedom, so that the most interesting and creative stories
come out like in Millar's Superman Adventures. This is one way to do it.
One way I think might be even better is to higher a different writer each
month to do all four titles. Kind of like what they did the first two
months of NML with Bob Gale and Devin Graysen and they did late last year
with Ron Marz. Either way the writer is given freedom to tell the stories
he or she wants to tell without having to incorparate one iota of someone
else's subplot. But I think I think I'm advocating something more like
the system they did right after the revamp (which I've been reading ever
since). Where they had Action be separate from the other two. Except
for the occasional crossover, like the first one, the legends Darkseid
three parter.
From reading the first arc this year, "Superman Rex," that just
concluded, the only issues that made me laugh or built tension for me were
the Mark Schultz Man of Steel's. This writer is so gifted, I would hate
to see him constrained in any way.
Stephen Menendian
Aaron Mojo
>independent
>> thought. It works.
Mmmm, not always. Bizarro Black Orchid's been running into a tree for darn
close to four years now. She just backs up and does it again, over and over.
-Aaron!
Us do OPPOSITE of all Earthly things! Us HATE beauty! Us LOVE ugliness!
Am BIG CRIME to make anything PERFECT on BIZARRO WORLD!
Radarcom
>like Jeph Loeb should show they aren't providing any such "disincentive."
For someone who believes that they have to pick up the other three titles
to understand Loeb's story, there's no incentive for me to pick up Loeb's
book unless they're also partial to the other three creative teams.>>
Stop believing in something that hasn't happened yet, nor is that what they are
aiming for.
Radarcom
with subplot ideas and interconnected stories that merited them maintaining
the system." Are you suggesting that it can't be taken at face value?
>>
This is obviously causing you a great deal of distress. Perhaps you shouldn't
buy any Superman books. You'll sleep better at night.
Radarcom
merited them maintaining the system" also perfectly describes the
Superman titles in 1991 and 1992, when the triangles were in constant
use, but before serial storytelling became a regular feature of the books.>>
Exactly. That's why the CALENDAR YEAR is in the triangle and not the name of
some story arc.
Radarcom
>subplots to entice you into trying the other three titles even if the plots
>aren't essential to your favorite title.
I don't think anyone is surprised. I think what they're saying is that
they'd rather not buy any of the Superman titles rather than be subjected
to incomplete plot lines in one or two of them.>>
What if, God forbid, you find the other three titles to be great based on
sampling?
Radarcom
not say that they were continuing the serial storytelling. They're two
entirely different things.>>
We've both told him that repeatedly. He doesn't want to listen. He'd rather
get upset about a triangle. Those UPC codes must drive him nuts, too.
Radarcom
only used for the occasional extended story arc before the death of Superman.>>
Right. It goes back to the third month of the Byrne monthlies. SUPERMAN
#3/ADVS #426/ACTION #586 (1986).
T. Troy McNemar
wrote:
>This is obviously causing you a great deal of distress. Perhaps you shouldn't
>buy any Superman books. You'll sleep better at night.
This is one of the lamest attempts at flaming someone that I've ever seen
on rac*. I'm embarrassed to be its target. Would you like to try again?
--
T. Troy McNemar Tro...@primenet.com
"Skioz!"
-Zatanna Doo
Favorite Comic of the Week: DAREDEVIL #6
Runner-up: LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN #3
Brian Nicholson
your back issues, but the books are arranged by title...you're confused
out of your mind.
Radarcom
>buy any Superman books. You'll sleep better at night.
This is one of the lamest attempts at flaming someone that I've ever seen
on rac*. I'm embarrassed to be its target. Would you like to try again?>>
Would you like to speak English instead of deflecting attention to cyber-speak?
You're upset over a triangle. That's not a "flame" or a "whoopy-do" or any
other dorky label you want to put on it. It's an assessment of your many
posts.
Dan H.
subplots interlinked with the prior storyline. And under the triangle.
I am hoping to see more of this in the future. But with better art. :-)
--Dan
"I'd rather believe time is a companion, who goes with us on our
journey, and reminds us to cherish every moment; because they'll never
come again."
--- Cpt. Picard
"The proper function of man is to live, not to exist.
I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them.
I shall use my time"
Jack London (1876 - 1916)
"And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
"Though Lovers be lost, love shall not;
And Death shall have no dominion."
-Dylan Thomas
Enoryt666
>How about his week's AOS 568? A single issue, stand alone tale, with
>subplots interlinked with the prior storyline. And under the triangle.
>
>I am hoping to see more of this in the future. But with better art.
How about better writing? Why they gave Simonson anything after her departure
from MOS boggles the mind. This was awful, especially the dialogue.