Do you prefer creative teams with long runs (5 years or longer) or short runs (1 issue to one story arc)?
Printable View
Do you prefer creative teams with long runs (5 years or longer) or short runs (1 issue to one story arc)?
I usually answer both on these type of questions. However, the longer run is preferable (to me, anyway) on series where there is no defined end point. There are 12 issue minis which are extraordinary and I love them greatly. But when on a run of an ongoing, 12 issues is usually not enough time to get something going unless that was the plan all along.
I hate to give out a sort of non-answer, but it really depends entirely on the creators and the direction. I do find it difficult to get invested in the stories and characters when the runs are so short, and the incoming creative team doesn't build upon anything that came before. It seems like the characters are spinning their wheels, not getting anywhere, and many cases, failing to develop crucial things they need, like supporting cast members that readers care about. On the other hand, if I don't like the direction then a long run can be a nightmare. For example, I wasn't into any of that emotional stuff Geoff Johns was doing in Green Lantern, but to my dismay, it connected with other people and that direction went on and on and on. There's also Tom King's Batman...
Totally depends on the writer. Some are great for a single story, and then kind of meander around aimlessly for whatever remains of their writing tenure, others have a constant stream of stuff past being name-dropped, stuff current happening, and interesting smells coming from the kitchen, foreshadowing stuff they are planning ahead. Paul Levitz, back in the 80s, seemed to have that sort of knack, on the Legion of Super-Heroes run, and it was mind-boggling how much his work interwove past, present and foreshadowed future story elements. He's certainly not the only writer to go there. Byrne, Wolfman, Busiek and others have managed multi-year arcs on a single book without fizzling out. Other writers seem to have one good (or even great!) story arc in them, and after that, ideally should be moved on to their next great idea, rather than hang around stinking up this particular book with zero inspiration.
With established franchises (Batman Spider-Man etc) I prefer short runs. With characters that need more development I prefer longer runs. Established franchises are what they are and most creative teams usually only have a couple interesting arcs in them before they start trying to reinvent the core conceit of the character, usually to bad effect. More obscure characters on the other hand, allow for more opportunities for radical transformation because the “paint” is still dry on them. Alan Moore’s Swamp Thing is a prime example of this.
If it's something I like: at least five years.
Long run if you actually have a plan and can do it, but for the love of X'hal, just do short stories if your strength is short stories.
I corrected the question for this thread. It is about creative teams on books. Reread the question and comment.
Well, depending on my enjoyment. I'm okay with Gleason doing long runs, not so much everyone else. I can't judge quality, so I judge by how long they last before they do anything stupid or annoying, and the result varies between teams.
Gleason's Robin, not long enough.
Snyder's Batman, too long
King's Batman, definitely too long
My favorite runs are long, so there's the answer.
Except when they'e bad, they take forever.
No longer than 24 issues anything longer it gets boring or writers end up losing the plot.
It should be tight and highly focused.
Longer. My biggest exemple would be Perez & Wolfman's New Teen Titans and Geoff Johns's Green Lantern. They created stuff that seem natural today but did it because they got the time to establish everything they could. To me, those are the runs you need in DC to have a good future and characters that reinvent themselves without getting boring.
Of course, short runs can be fantastic and I absolutely want of them but it can get frustrating when a writer is in, tries to do stuff and leaves with the feeling he basically did nothing and could've done so much more like the last Rucka's Wonder Woman run
[QUOTE=Heavunion;4607598]Longer. My biggest exemple would be Perez & Wolfman's New Teen Titans and Geoff Johns's Green Lantern. They created stuff that seem natural today but did it because they got the time to establish everything they could. To me, those are the runs you need in DC to have a good future and characters that reinvent themselves without getting boring.
Of course, short runs can be fantastic and I absolutely want of them but it can get frustrating when a writer is in, tries to do stuff and leaves with the feeling he basically did nothing and could've done so much more like the last Rucka's Wonder Woman run[/QUOTE]
Yes.
Jeff Lemire run on Superboy was "final nail in coffin" for me in regard to following current DC series. Interesting well written set-up...stopped completely in tracks because of yet another meaningless company wide re-launch.
Nowadays I wail until a writer I like is on a character I like for a long run, then buy after run finished.
Of course, I like good comic stories of any length, but for me the gold standard is a long run from same creative team.
[QUOTE=Heavunion;4607598]Longer. My biggest exemple would be Perez & Wolfman's New Teen Titans and Geoff Johns's Green Lantern. They created stuff that seem natural today but did it because they got the time to establish everything they could. To me, those are the runs you need in DC to have a good future and characters that reinvent themselves without getting boring.
Of course, short runs can be fantastic and I absolutely want of them but it can get frustrating when a writer is in, tries to do stuff and leaves with the feeling he basically did nothing and could've done so much more like the last Rucka's Wonder Woman run[/QUOTE]
I agree.
The main reason stuff like Levitz Legion, Wolfman Titans or Claremont X-Men are still considered iconic runs is because the writers had a sense of security and room to set up plot points and weave complex threads.
And this is likely a reason for Walking Dead's success, as well.
[URL="https://variety.com/2018/gaming/features/robert-kirkman-interview-the-walking-dead-anniversary-15-years-1202980789/"]15 years later...[/URL]
[QUOTE]That’s another important part of how Kirkman works, he said he is always planning three or four major story arcs ahead of where the comic’s story currently is.
“When you see the prison around issue 50, I already have the hunters planned and I’m sowing seeds to do that,” he said.[/QUOTE]
That's not something every writer has a privilege of doing. Today, most writers just get one or two arcs done before they get replaced by someone else.
At DC, it seems that only the inner circle members, like Snyder, King or Bendis are allowed to long-plan stories. While everyone is just 'for the moment', leading to their works feeling inconsequential.