|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2014 18:38:16 GMT -5
I think I'm up to scratch on this one...but do you think it's a good idea to release subsequent issues 7 days apart? I think Batman Eternal will be a 60-edition blitz 'til sometime in 2015 or so...  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2014 19:20:50 GMT -5
Most (not all, but most) readers pick up their books once a week and read them all that day. So, it sells well matches the buying/reading pattern of a chunk of current comics readers, just as most TV viewers can keep up with weekly episodes. Those that choose to binge read or binge watch certainly can, but the format is tailored for those who like to keep up and have their weekly fix, while those who don't can read it in any interval/manner they choose. Those who want to wait, can certainly trade wait as well, as it is virtually guaranteed they will be collected at some point as well.
All the DC weeklies are scheduled to end around the same time (March-ish?) no matter when they started, where most likely the will lead into some linewide event and new weeklies to follow. DC has been experimenting with weekly books since the Tringle era, it was three/four different titles, but each chapter of the story came out a week apart. Same with most of the Bat-titles through the 90's. It's 20+ years into the experiment and they show no signs of backing off, so it's likely a format that is here to stay in one form or another.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by kurrgomaul on Aug 10, 2014 20:09:42 GMT -5
No...I usually wait until the volumes come out. I can't make it to the comic shop on a consistent schedule.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Aug 10, 2014 22:14:29 GMT -5
I get my comics Monthly, so I've been generally trade waiting on stuff that comes out weekly... that's a big investment without seeing anything.. I'd have had to have ordered the 1st 12 issues of the weekly before the 1st one came out to get them from DCBS. I'll pick up the omnibus that will surely follow soon after the end if it's good  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2014 23:06:57 GMT -5
I get a shipment about once every three month, and I only consistently read one monthly. My shipments are usually 8-12 comics.
Not only can I not keep up with a weekly comic, I wouldn't want to. I think a month is too short a time frame for anything good to be put out. A week? No way.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Aug 11, 2014 11:28:29 GMT -5
When I was working with Valiant/Acclaim, they decided to put their books on a biweekly schedule, based on the fact that customers who bought the books did so the week they came out or the week after. But I think they discovered that although they bought the book within two weeks, that didn't necessarily translate to wanting a new issue every two weeks.
And it was a real treadmill to put them out, even with two artists alternating on the books.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulie on Aug 11, 2014 11:40:44 GMT -5
I can keep up with weekly comics but I choose not to.
I no longer read any current DC and Marvel. Reading 1/6 or 1/5 of a story once a week really just stopped doing it for me.
The only books I currently have pulled for me are the Dark Horse Conans, Fables and Fairest, Dynamite's Shadow series and that's it. Even with those I wait until I have 4 or 5 issues before I go to read them.
Interestingly, Dark Horse is currently adapting the 'Snout in the Dark' in Conan the Avenger. It is heading into its 5th issue and looks like it will wrap up in issue #6. Roy Thomas adapted it 35 years ago and did it in 2 issues.
Why would I make any effort whatsoever to keep up weekly or even monthly?
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Aug 11, 2014 11:50:23 GMT -5
For me, it's not so much keeping up with a weekly title vs. having a single title amount to essentially 4-5 titles in dollars. I'd rather spend the same amount of money on additional titles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 12:55:53 GMT -5
For me, it's not so much keeping up with a weekly title vs. having a single title amount to essentially 4-5 titles in dollars. I'd rather spend the same amount of money on additional titles. If 4 titles are telling a single story over 4 weeks (a la No Man's Land, Triangle era Superman, the many Spider-title cross-overs of the 9os like Maximum Carnage, etc.), is there any difference from that to one title giving 4 installments of a single story over a month? It's still essentially 1 story you have to buy 4 issues to read isn't it? -M |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Aug 11, 2014 13:03:10 GMT -5
Yes I can. I've enjoyed most of the weeklys put out by DC in the Didio era.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Aug 11, 2014 13:42:57 GMT -5
For me, it's not so much keeping up with a weekly title vs. having a single title amount to essentially 4-5 titles in dollars. I'd rather spend the same amount of money on additional titles. If 4 titles are telling a single story over 4 weeks (a la No Man's Land, Triangle era Superman, the many Spider-title cross-overs of the 9os like Maximum Carnage, etc.), is there any difference from that to one title giving 4 installments of a single story over a month? It's still essentially 1 story you have to buy 4 issues to read isn't it? -M Yes, but I also dislike crossovers over multiple titles. I don't like having to buy another title that I don't normally get pulled just to complete the story. And for the title I do get pulled, I don't like that, more often than not, the regular ongoing story is getting interrupted for the crossover. With the weekly books, it's more of a budget and pull list thing. I have so many dollars a month I'm going to spend on comics. I'm already used to the model of reading monthly installments of a serialized story. So in any given month, I'd rather spend that money to read as many different titles as I can, rather than commit to a weekly shipping book that effectively takes up 4 or 5 spots on my pull list. It's all about maximizing my pull list. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 14:09:01 GMT -5
I actually prefer the weekly title to the way they did weekly storytelling in the Triangle era, interconnected Batbook era, interconnected Spidey-book era, etc., because it is easier for me to ignore one (or three)weekly title(s) coming out 4 times a week and less likely the weekly book will interfere with books I read. It allows those who want the weekly fix to get it, but (hopefully) leaves the regular monthly books I read alone.
I am not picking up the weeklies, no desire to, but all I am saying is all the people complaining about the "new" way of doing stories haven't been paying attention for 20 years, as the format isn't new, it's been a part of the comics landscape since the 1990s, but people sometimes fail to see it through the rose colored glasses they are wearing and remember only the things they liked about the bygone era of comics. Current comics are taking a lot of their cues in terms of formatting and salesmanship from that bygone era. X-Men, Avengers, Spider-Man, Batman, etc. all double shipped through parts of the year in the late 80s and 90s, it's not new to Marvel, weekly books have been around for 20+ years like I said, etc. etc. A lot of the sins people point to for current comics were born in the classic comics era, but people tend to forget a lot of that like what the companies are doing now is is somehow worse than then when they are doing the same things (maybe with a new coat of paint, but the same things).
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by paulie on Aug 11, 2014 15:39:19 GMT -5
I actually prefer the weekly title to the way they did weekly storytelling in the Triangle era, interconnected Batbook era, interconnected Spidey-book era, etc., because it is easier for me to ignore one (or three)weekly title(s) coming out 4 times a week and less likely the weekly book will interfere with books I read. It allows those who want the weekly fix to get it, but (hopefully) leaves the regular monthly books I read alone. I am not picking up the weeklies, no desire to, but all I am saying is all the people complaining about the "new" way of doing stories haven't been paying attention for 20 years, as the format isn't new, it's been a part of the comics landscape since the 1990s, but people sometimes fail to see it through the rose colored glasses they are wearing and remember only the things they liked about the bygone era of comics. Current comics are taking a lot of their cues in terms of formatting and salesmanship from that bygone era. X-Men, Avengers, Spider-Man, Batman, etc. all double shipped through parts of the year in the late 80s and 90s, it's not new to Marvel, weekly books have been around for 20+ years like I said, etc. etc. A lot of the sins people point to for current comics were born in the classic comics era, but people tend to forget a lot of that like what the companies are doing now is is somehow worse than then when they are doing the same things (maybe with a new coat of paint, but the same things). -M I stopped reading around 1992. The weeklies were too difficult to keep up with and I didn't have a car. But you're right... I have a lot of nostalgia for the way things were Pre-1986. |
|
|
|
Post by zryson on Aug 11, 2014 15:48:00 GMT -5
If I was interested enough in weekly comics I could keep up with them. The problem these days is that much of what the current companies are publishing isnt really worth purchasing at the prices they charge.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Cheat on Aug 11, 2014 15:57:14 GMT -5
Having been brought up on 2000AD and the Beano/Dandy, weekly comics just seem normal. Monthly publishing has always been the weird one for me, still feels odd even after nearly 20 years of buying US mags.
|
|
