Old vs New

[dimo1]

In light of the recent controversy regarding the NYT spoilers of Batman 50 and its anti-climating ending, I couldn‘t help but wonder once again about the streched out storylines of modern comics. Given that I didn‘t really follow King‘s run on Batman, except for the about the first four issues, I might not be best to judge his run, but I take it as a placeholder for a lot of titles from the big two.
My problem isn‘t exactly the length of story arcs, more their failing of having a profound impact. This is were the past comes in, surely things change, and I usually perceive it as positive, albeit, regarding comics I often feel contrary to this believe. As I‘m currently reading the first two FF omnibus collections it occurred to me once more how much story was packed in just one issue. In just two we had Galactus and the Silver Surfer, before that the Inhumans, plus tons of other action packed tales starring established villians. On top of that, there was constant character development, new heroes and their evil adversaries nearly popped up on a monthly basis.

To conclude, 50 issues and back to the status-quo is something I can‘t fathom and I believe this is hurting the business. Where is the risk and enthusiasm of times long gone? The new heroes, the change once in a while?

Is it just me, being an old chap contemplating about the glorious past, or are there others postulating the same?

[RamblingMan]

I get your point but Jack Kirby (and Stan) were all time greats. They created the framework for the Marvel universe. Jack in everything I have read was bursting with new ideas, new villains etc. Its hard for anyone to measure up against that artisically or in importance.
I like Tom Kings Batman but I have felt that he never quite sticks the landings when it comes to ending arcs and anything going on doesn't seem too important overall. They are just decent little stories.