|
|
Post by tonebone on Nov 11, 2024 10:46:12 GMT -5
How is #57 any more logical and easier to follow than the October 1968 issue (example taken form Avengers)? Gold Key comics had no issue # on the covers for a large chunk of the 60s and 70s, yest they still sold and people could still figure out which was the next issue. here's consecutive issues of 2 different Gold Key series, not an issue # in sight on the covers, but readers still bought then and figured it out.     There's nothing inherently superior about consecutive numbering as opposed to Vol. and # as opposed to just cover dates. They all work just fine to differentiate issues, and all make sense and are logical. It's all personal preference if one is preferred over the over and not everyone has the same personal preference. It just seems some think their personal preference should be the default choice for everyone and are upset it's not. And none of them have one iota of impact on the content of the issues between the cover or the ability of the reader to enjoy said content. -M Gold Key comics were either anthoology series (Twillight Zone, Boris Karloff, etc.) or series with one-and-done stories, with little or no continuity. No story arcs, no cliffhangers, etc. It didn't matter what order you read them in. (There may have been exceptions... Magnus Robot Fighter might have had continuity, don't know.) |
|
|
|
Post by MRPs_Missives on Nov 11, 2024 14:19:30 GMT -5
How is #57 any more logical and easier to follow than the October 1968 issue (example taken form Avengers)? Gold Key comics had no issue # on the covers for a large chunk of the 60s and 70s, yest they still sold and people could still figure out which was the next issue. here's consecutive issues of 2 different Gold Key series, not an issue # in sight on the covers, but readers still bought then and figured it out. There's nothing inherently superior about consecutive numbering as opposed to Vol. and # as opposed to just cover dates. They all work just fine to differentiate issues, and all make sense and are logical. It's all personal preference if one is preferred over the over and not everyone has the same personal preference. It just seems some think their personal preference should be the default choice for everyone and are upset it's not. And none of them have one iota of impact on the content of the issues between the cover or the ability of the reader to enjoy said content. -M Gold Key comics were either anthoology series (Twillight Zone, Boris Karloff, etc.) or series with one-and-done stories, with little or no continuity. No story arcs, no cliffhangers, etc. It didn't matter what order you read them in. (There may have been exceptions... Magnus Robot Fighter might have had continuity, don't know.) the same was true of most super-hero titles for their first 15-20 years of existence. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Marv-El on Nov 11, 2024 19:26:12 GMT -5
I get where you're coming from. I agree that Marvel should make it easier to navigate with their app. The info is a few clicks away, though. It would have been a nightmare back in the day in a comic store with no internet. It's not an entirely new phenomenon either. I remember being somewhat confused by the reading order of New Titans and Legion of Super-Heroes from the 80s when they started the Baxter titles. IIRC, the stories in Tales of the Teen Titans were six months behind New Titans, then they caught up and it become a reprint series. Legion of Super-Heroes was rebooted so many times it's hard to keep track of it all. I generally find it easier to search by the year the new volume started rather than the volume number itself. I agree with this. Searching by publishing year is slightly easier. But at the same time, I wish Marvel would simply give it a rest, let a title run for awhile before re-starting it. I'm kinda surprised that with Wells ending his current run on ASM that Marvel is continuing with the title instead of re-starting over with the next creative team (which they may still do but hey I'll take small victories where ever I can find them). On a more recent note about legacy numbering, came across this factoid on the DC web news. Green Lantern is currently up to legacy number #593 I believe. When asked how DC arrived at that number, it seems that internally DC counts the period where the his title was split between GL/GA to count towards GL's numbering and not Green Arrow's numbering. So it's all very subjective anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Nov 12, 2024 10:16:59 GMT -5
I get where you're coming from. I agree that Marvel should make it easier to navigate with their app. The info is a few clicks away, though. It would have been a nightmare back in the day in a comic store with no internet. It's not an entirely new phenomenon either. I remember being somewhat confused by the reading order of New Titans and Legion of Super-Heroes from the 80s when they started the Baxter titles. IIRC, the stories in Tales of the Teen Titans were six months behind New Titans, then they caught up and it become a reprint series. Legion of Super-Heroes was rebooted so many times it's hard to keep track of it all. I generally find it easier to search by the year the new volume started rather than the volume number itself. I agree with this. Searching by publishing year is slightly easier. But at the same time, I wish Marvel would simply give it a rest, let a title run for awhile before re-starting it. I'm kinda surprised that with Wells ending his current run on ASM that Marvel is continuing with the title instead of re-starting over with the next creative team (which they may still do but hey I'll take small victories where ever I can find them). On a more recent note about legacy numbering, came across this factoid on the DC web news. Green Lantern is currently up to legacy number #593 I believe. When asked how DC arrived at that number, it seems that internally DC counts the period where the his title was split between GL/GA to count towards GL's numbering and not Green Arrow's numbering. So it's all very subjective anyway. Allow me to translate" We will count whatever issues we need to in order to get as close as possible to a number where we can have a special "anniversary" issue to boost sales." |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 12, 2024 10:29:56 GMT -5
On a more recent note about legacy numbering, came across this factoid on the DC web news. Green Lantern is currently up to legacy number #593 I believe. When asked how DC arrived at that number, it seems that internally DC counts the period where the his title was split between GL/GA to count towards GL's numbering and not Green Arrow's numbering. So it's all very subjective anyway. If you are referring to Green Lantern #76-89 from the 1960s series, the indicia never changed to add Green Arrow. The title officially remained unchanged |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Nov 12, 2024 10:33:36 GMT -5
I don’t want things to be a click away. I don’t want to be researching volume numbers. I want simplicity. It’s the principle, not the amount of time it takes to get my iPhone out (why should I have to do so?).
I will just reiterate my point:
How easy is that? My notepad has the last-read Case Files as 24, which reprints 2000 AD #959-983. When I next have some spare cash, I know I’ll be buying Vol. 25.
I don’t like to mention my job online (I don’t ever want to bore anyone or sound like I’m bragging), but having to study my city’s taxi knowledge test, which took a while and cost a lot, is all the research and studying I ever want to do. And I stress, I’m not on about fun research (e.g. reading up on a historical event). But I have ZERO desire to do any homework to work out which comic or volume to read because Marvel wants to eat its cake and then still have it too; quite honestly, I think it’s absurd to see legacy numbering and new numbering on a comic.
In an ideal world (my own, self-absorbed world), everyone would get a free Range Rover and this silliness with numbers would stop. I’d like to know that if the last Aquaman volume I read was Vol. 34, then Vol. 35 will be coming out soon and will reprint issues #205-210, then that’s easy for me to keep track of (as I said, I keep a notebook); but I am NOT interested - and it’s been a while since I read an Aquaman book - in working out which volume I need (is it New 52 or Rebirth?), has the comic had a number one, did the title revert to legacy numbering, etc. Too much research, zero inclination.
That’s just me. Not telling others to agree or do the same. The fact that smartphones and search engines exist is neither here nor there. I don’t want to do it. It’s not about fun or joy (numbers on comics in and of themselves aren’t joyful). It’s simply about practicality and - no fun or joy here - a bit of a sense of history. I’m not going to throw parties because a newspaper reaches its 1,000th edition, but it is nice to have a sense of history.
|
|
