Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014

    Default What's the better approach to events?

    Over the last couple of years, I've been reading about a dozen Marvel titles from 1961 forward (the number fluctuates a bit as titles cancel or launch). I'm in 1989 at this point, and it looks like this is when Marvel started using its various titles' Annual issues as the platform for continuity-wide events.

    More recently, Marvel seems to have gone with an approach of launching short-term titles as the platform for events, that may or may not also reach into the on-going monthlies. (i.e. the recent Hydra event).

    Which approach do you prefer?

  2. #2
    Extraordinary Member Zero Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014


    I like the annuals crossovers better. It didn't interfere with the whatever story was going on in the main book and it is was over pretty fast since annuals usually only came out in the summer. They could do it full on with all the annuals telling one story or split it up into smaller crossovers which I like. The main thing for me is events should not be over 4 or 5 months long. One of the main factors that drove me off Marvel books under the Bendis regime was the 9 to 12 month long events that were 50% filler.

  3. #3
    Astonishing Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018


    Prefer the 80s to 90s approach, warts and all.

    Under Quesada, event storylines like House of M and Civil War existed to rewire and rewrite the MU in a specific way. That wasn't how it used to be.

    Event storylines in Cebulski's regime are on a more modest level. At least so far.

    Hickman is the only guy who does event stories right. So anything he does, I am game.

  4. #4
    Incredible Member Adset's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014


    Always dug the Annuals approach myself — a fun story without interrupting the main books. I get why companies don’t do this anymore, but as a fan I prefer it.

    If an event is going to bleed into the main books, I prefer a weekly 4-issue mini-series and tie-ins all released in the same month — DC did this a lot in the 90s. Final Night, DC 1 Million, Day of Judgement, etc.

  5. #5
    Fantastic Member PlatinumThorns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018


    I got into comics in something like 2012 so I don't have any experience with any other type of event releases, but I would love it if more of them were like Hickman's HoX/PoX with just the main title (or I guess technically 2) with extra large books, telling just the one story. But I wouldn't a series of one-shots or annuals along side.

  6. #6
    Astonishing Member Gaastra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014


    I like the annuals crossovers better. It didn't interfere with the whatever story was going on in the main book
    Same. Liked them better in the annuals also or in self contained limited series away from the main series.

  7. #7
    Kinky Lil' Canine Snoop Dogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018


    That annual crossover format sucks.

    -Should not run for more than 4 months.
    -Should have a premise that immediately validates their size.
    -Tie-ins should include titles that logically must tie-in, titles that are in because writers want in, and Spider-Man.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Banner
    I like Charles Xavier, nice guy. But we are in a moment where billionaires control not only our economy but our political life. #Professor$

  8. #8
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016


    I hate when events hijack series, so anything to keep events from doing that is fine by me.
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts