|
Event book in the past were mostly the all-star games of comics. Lots of characters without much individual voice and often very little consequence afterwards or lead-up. While you did have Crisis on Infinite Earths, you also had both Secret Wars and all the Infinity series. None of those "mattered", which I guess was a turn off to people. So we got events like Infinite Crisis and Zero Hour, which matter but are equally dumb. At least in my experience, people tend to like event books on the level that they are attached to the lead-ins. I like House of M thru Siege because I was reading and liking the Avengers stuff at the time, which is where all the action and most of the consequences happened. I loved Final Crisis because I thought the lead in stuff (basically all of Morrison's DC stuff) was excellent. You also see less hate for events that don't step on the toes of semi-related books, hence why even people who didn't like Final Crisis don't hate it like people do Infinite Crisis or Blackest Night.
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 18:10 |
|
|
Selachian posted:From what I recall, the biggest problem with Millennium is that it was sold as an incredible, world-shaking story on the order of Crisis ... and all we really got from it was the New Guardians, who were terrible from soup to nuts. Follow the normal event rule-- only bother with the books involved in the lead-in or written by the event author. You might miss some good comics, but they still won't be at all related to the main story.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Is there any answer I could give that wouldn't cause you to list several minor arcs that don't 100% fit my definition? It might help people get where you're coming from. Honestly, both Bendis and Hickman have done very different runs from the standard Avengers fare. I see it as a good thing, in that the Avengers were not that popular or well-selling. It's like Justice League Detroit (i.e. usually 1-2 headliners and then a bunch of c-list characters), and I say that as a life-long Avengers fan. The fact that a lot of the stories involved the rather tangled continuity of the backbench Avengers didn't exactly help things. If the issue is that the characters aren't being heroic exemplars, that's sort of the way Marvel (and DC in its typically more flawed way) have been going for awhile. Super heroic characters don't play to the core audience-- take that as you will, but if it's done well, the Watchmenification of comics is a good thing. It just often becomes a mess because authors don't get that Moore's point was an extension of Stan Lee's original "superheroes as real people" idea.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Kalli posted:That tickles my memory a bit, but early 90's, wasn't there a similar event with Marvel annuals? Where each one introduced a new character and I think the x-men one was the X-cutioner who was using one of I think Reaper's Scythes and a bunch of other random villain weapons. Did any of those characters survive or anything? Just like Bloodlines, I think there might have been a character or two to come out, but nothing lasting. I get why there was a push to add new characters (even back then the addition of new lasting characters was almost dead) but forcing it just meant lots of crap was released that killed any chance for the few good ideas to stick around.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 20:44
|
|