|
Post by dlw66 on May 18, 2006 9:27:54 GMT -5
Not a lot of writers use this technique anymore, do they? If you think of John Byrne in his prime, he always had 4-5 plot threads building at once. Is the more linear form of storytelling an evolution in the comics medium, or as some of us have suspected, merely driven by the trade paperback-friendly story arc?
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 18, 2006 11:04:27 GMT -5
Merely driven by the tpb friendly story arcs Ever since Busiek run in the Avengers I haven't seen much foreshadowing or subplots starting at the same time, and I definitely think it's for the sake of the tps, so readers can buy them and be happy with the book they have (and also so that writers can be changed often without leaving dangling plot elements). I hope things will go back though. Even for a tpb it would be good to have some hints about the following stories, to keep people interested.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on May 18, 2006 15:30:03 GMT -5
Arguably, New Avengers has been little but foreshadowing. One of my favorite foreshadowing techniques folds in another “passé” technique, the caption. You know the sort: “As the Avengers depart, one of Jarvis’ teacups hums and jitters, as if in warning...but that warning will have to wait for another day.” (silly made-up example)
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 18, 2006 15:35:18 GMT -5
Actually New Avengers has been nothing but droped plot lines, that are dealt with in other comics. The Raft, dealt with mostly in a Spidey limited, the deaths of the Avengers from disassembled, dealt with mostly in the Hercules Limited. Sentry, dealt with in his own limited. Spider-Woman, will most likely be dealt with in her new on-going series. So really the only thing that has been dealt that started in this series was the Yelena the Black Widow. Other then that it has just been once flash in the pan after another.
Now Simonson's Thor run had some serious foreshadowing with the surtur saga, great stuff there.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 19, 2006 13:26:03 GMT -5
Fabian Nicienza uses it a lot in Thunderbolts. A very good book with building subplots that actually go somewhere and move the story forward.
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 19, 2006 13:28:37 GMT -5
Fabian Nicienza uses it a lot in Thunderbolts. A very good book with building subplots that actually go somewhere and move the story forward. I agree with that, Fabian is good at forshadowing, also Brubaker's Cap series has had a lot of foreshadowing in it.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 19, 2006 13:42:00 GMT -5
Fabian Nicienza uses it a lot in Thunderbolts. A very good book with building subplots that actually go somewhere and move the story forward. I agree with that, Fabian is good at forshadowing, also Brubaker's Cap series has had a lot of foreshadowing in it. Yeah, Brubaker is slowly becoming my favorite writer at Marvel. At first I tought another crime writer trying to write superhero comics wouldn´t be any good but his CA and DD have been some of the best stuff Marvel put out in years.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 23, 2006 12:14:09 GMT -5
Because of my very limited comics buying these days, I'm not too familiar with Niceiza's recent work, or Brubaker at all.
In another thread, George Perez in an interview stated that he felt that stories that could be "done in one" should be. While I agree with that, I would not like a steady diet of such. Is your life filled with just one adversity at a time, or do you usually have several things on your plate at the same time? I feel authors need to write as if the book is an evolution, not a series of static, non-related incidents.
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 23, 2006 14:01:25 GMT -5
Because of my very limited comics buying these days, I'm not too familiar with Niceiza's recent work, or Brubaker at all. In another thread, George Perez in an interview stated that he felt that stories that could be "done in one" should be. While I agree with that, I would not like a steady diet of such. Is your life filled with just one adversity at a time, or do you usually have several things on your plate at the same time? I feel authors need to write as if the book is an evolution, not a series of static, non-related incidents. Both Brubaker and Niceiza have ongoing stories, that have plots that have been running for vastly more then 6 issue, the forshadow things that happen 5 issues later or more. That is good writing. There arcs can technically be fit into trades, but you would lose the indepth stuff if you just picked up a trade that had issue 1 through 6 of Cap. By the way Brubaker is the new writer for Cap, and has been writing him since the reboot. I think my problem with some of the so-called big writers in Marvel right now, is they write to put things into trades. New Avengers has the raft, then Sentry, then you will have a combined trade including Ronin and the Spiderwoman stuff. Nothing builds well off of itself, it feels like you could just have had a bunch of limited series instead.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 24, 2006 8:16:43 GMT -5
Because of my very limited comics buying these days, I'm not too familiar with Niceiza's recent work, or Brubaker at all. In another thread, George Perez in an interview stated that he felt that stories that could be "done in one" should be. While I agree with that, I would not like a steady diet of such. Is your life filled with just one adversity at a time, or do you usually have several things on your plate at the same time? I feel authors need to write as if the book is an evolution, not a series of static, non-related incidents. I think a combination of the two would be the best thing. Sometimes the heroes could find themselves fighting multiple problems at once ("when it rains, it pours"), other times they would have a quiter day with just one mission, and some other times that simple mission would turn into something more complicated.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 24, 2006 9:25:13 GMT -5
Because of my very limited comics buying these days, I'm not too familiar with Niceiza's recent work, or Brubaker at all. In another thread, George Perez in an interview stated that he felt that stories that could be "done in one" should be. While I agree with that, I would not like a steady diet of such. Is your life filled with just one adversity at a time, or do you usually have several things on your plate at the same time? I feel authors need to write as if the book is an evolution, not a series of static, non-related incidents. I think a combination of the two would be the best thing. Sometimes the heroes could find themselves fighting multiple problems at once ("when it rains, it pours"), other times they would have a quiter day with just one mission, and some other times that simple mission would turn into something more complicated. That fits more or less in the two examples given (Brubaker´s CA and Nicienza´s T-bolts). For the Avengers Englehart´s, Stern´s and Busiek´s runs were also so.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 25, 2006 8:40:24 GMT -5
I think so, I had Stern and Busiek runs in mind when I was writing that post
|
|