www.ComicBookPage.com

Yep, another great episode. Enjoyed the opinions about AGE OF ULTRON greatly even though, for the first time, I totally disagree with both of you. But having a different opinion is of course what makes the discussion about comics fun.


I had no plan on getting this series, and in fact just borrowed a friends copy, due to the fact that I am not a huge fan of Marvel Bendis ... mainly for the reasons you guys bring up, but while you call issue #1 of AoU decompressed, I found it perfectly paced. When John compares it to just being the first 15 minutes of a movie, isn't that what a 10 part series should feel like? Issue #1's are used to set tone or plot point and I think it succeeded. But yes, opinions may vary.


Pacing and lack of compression aside, what I really wanted to hear you guys talk about was what made the issue so blatantly bad. Well to me anyway.


1) 2) Anyway, like I said, a great episode. Always enjoy them.

Perry wrote:I had no plan on getting this series, and in fact just borrowed a friends copy, due to the fact that I am not a huge fan of Marvel Bendis ... mainly for the reasons you guys bring up, but while you call issue #1 of AoU decompressed, I found it perfectly paced. When John compares it to just being the first 15 minutes of a movie, isn't that what a 10 part series should feel like?

Great question.

Should a first issue feel like the first 15 minutes of a movie? No.

A first issue should be like the pilot episode of a television show. It should set up the premise, tone, style and structure of the series not just tell the first scene of the movie.

Heck, with a classic James Bond film, all we'd have gotten was the opening gambit that opens the movie with a massive cool action sequence that has little to do with the actual plot of the film.

Too little happened in the first issue. Too many questions were raised and no real answered to anything were given.

I'm enjoying the comic but I'm not satisfied with the level of content. Empty calories as it were. Tasty but not filling.

JohnMayo wrote:Should a first issue feel like the first 15 minutes of a movie? No.

A first issue should be like the pilot episode of a television show. It should set up the premise, tone, style and structure of the series not just tell the first scene of the movie.

Heck, with a classic James Bond film, all we'd have gotten was the opening gambit that opens the movie with a massive cool action sequence that has little to do with the actual plot of the film.

Too little happened in the first issue. Too many questions were raised and no real answered to anything were given.

I understand your feelings on the matter, and I agree wholeheartedly ... when it comes to ongoing titles. But for mini-series I have always thought they should be likened to a movie in structure, for unlike an ongoing, we know there is a set time for the ending. Pacing should be allowed to flow in that manner.

And as for your Bond opening gambit reference, we had that in issue 1. I just disagree with you guys that "nothing" happened in this issue. There was a lot that happened. Sure, you can minimize it but to me, it was a great (although poorly written) opening few minutes of this movie.

the1captain wrote:Just listened to the latest show. Great discussion as always. I found your discussion regarding modern books and decompression interesting. It is one of my biggest pet peeves these days. I've found myself recently going back and reading alot of my books from the late 80's/early 90's and I'm so surprised how much I'm enjoying them. Even besides the nostalgia factor. I just feel I'm getting more story for the money. I'm not saying I'm against multi part stories. But I've always felt that stories should only be as long as they need to tell the story. I should rarely feel like I'm just killing time with an issue waiting for parts 5 and 6 where the action will likely take place.

This is one o the reasons I've noticed after almost 25 years of reading I'm fast losing interest in DC and Marvel as a whole. Too long, hyped for the news cycle books that just don't grab me anymore. Valiant, Image, ect are where my interesting is lying nowadays. That's not to say there are no books from DC or Marvel that I like. But for an example of how decompression can kill interest. DC recently announced the storyline "ZERO YEAR" that will take place in Snyder's Batman. Now Batman is my favourite superhero. I've really enjoyed Snyder's run so far. But an 11 part story to tell an origin story of a character we all frankly already know a lot about? Miller did a great job of doing that in just 4 issues. Do we really need 11 issues? And since it takes place in the past that means we will spend almost a year without the most popular Batbook dealing with the fallout of DOTF and what happened in Batman Inc?

While I still love this hobby we all share, with age I have patience I didn't have before. If a book is on the fence for me I have no problem waiting for sales and/or to wait until a story has concluded to see if it's worth my while.

I totally agree with your sentiment. I no longer read any of the "events" from Marvel and DC because in the past I've found them needlessly drawn out and usually subpar in content.

Another factor is cost. The current Age of Ultron event going on at Marvel is a ten issue series with each issue costing $3.99. That's $40 for the complete story not counting any of the AU tie-ins. I can purchase season one of Game of Thrones on Blu-Ray for $50. I'm pretty sure I will get exponentially more entertainment for my buck from the GoT then AoU.

Now, if the Ultron story was 4 issues I would probably buy it. I would anticipate a 4-issue series to be much leaner and tighter and therefore, better, with less of a financial commitment from me.

Perry wrote:it was a great (although poorly written)

I can understand enjoyable but poorly written but I'm a little confused with "great although poorly written." Could you please elaborate on that?

JohnMayo wrote:

Perry wrote:it was a great (although poorly written)

I can understand enjoyable but poorly written but I'm a little confused with "great although poorly written." Could you please elaborate on that?

I'm not trying to speak for Perry. But his phrase makes me think of most summer blockbusters. Lots of fun as long as you don't think about them too much.

the1captain wrote:

JohnMayo wrote:

Perry wrote:it was a great (although poorly written)

I can understand enjoyable but poorly written but I'm a little confused with "great although poorly written." Could you please elaborate on that?

I'm not trying to speak for Perry. But his phrase makes me think of most summer blockbusters. Lots of fun as long as you don't think about them too much.

Which is why I can understand "enjoyable but poorly written" but not "great but poorly written". Bad things can be enjoyable. By definition bad things can't also be great.

That mistake falls on me.
I meant the pacing of the book was great. I found it very well done, while you and Bob (and others) fall on the other side of the fence.
Still, the book was poorly written (much like the comment you just called me out on ) for the reasons I mentioned and a few others I chose not to.

Perry wrote: I understand your feelings on the matter, and I agree wholeheartedly ... when it comes to ongoing titles. But for mini-series I have always thought they should be likened to a movie in structure, for unlike an ongoing, we know there is a set time for the ending. Pacing should be allowed to flow in that manner.

If this is the case, it does nothing to make me want to pay $3.99 per issue. I don;t go & see a movie in 10 minute snippets, I watch the whole thing.

If it is written/paced to be read as a single story, then nobody should be surprised when people "wait for the trade".

Gilgabob wrote: Another factor is cost. The current Age of Ultron event going on at Marvel is a ten issue series with each issue costing $3.99. That's $40 for the complete story not counting any of the AU tie-ins. I can purchase season one of Game of Thrones on Blu-Ray for $50. I'm pretty sure I will get exponentially more entertainment for my buck from the GoT then AoU.

I got the Blu-Ray+DVD+Digital set of Game of Thrones Season 2 for $35.

My wife & I have already watched it & I can guarantee it was an order of magnitude MORE entertainment than will come out of an Age of Ultron HC.

BobBretall wrote:

Perry wrote: I understand your feelings on the matter, and I agree wholeheartedly ... when it comes to ongoing titles. But for mini-series I have always thought they should be likened to a movie in structure, for unlike an ongoing, we know there is a set time for the ending. Pacing should be allowed to flow in that manner.

If this is the case, it does nothing to make me want to pay $3.99 per issue. I don;t go & see a movie in 10 minute snippets, I watch the whole thing.

If it is written/paced to be read as a single story, then nobody should be surprised when people "wait for the trade".

Very true and the same can be said for ANY title. I'm not saying you're wrong, I wouldn't (didn't) buy this and will only buy if I can get a HC for cheap ... real cheap, but that doesn't change how I felt about the pacing and how well I thought it played out.

BobBretall wrote: I got the Blu-Ray+DVD+Digital set of Game of Thrones Season 2 for $35.

My wife & I have already watched it & I can guarantee it was an order of magnitude MORE entertainment than will come out of an Age of Ultron HC.

Well GoT is a great show. Comparing a great TV show to a poorly written comic event is not really a fair comparison.

BobBretall wrote:

Gilgabob wrote: Another factor is cost. The current Age of Ultron event going on at Marvel is a ten issue series with each issue costing $3.99. That's $40 for the complete story not counting any of the AU tie-ins. I can purchase season one of Game of Thrones on Blu-Ray for $50. I'm pretty sure I will get exponentially more entertainment for my buck from the GoT then AoU.

I got the Blu-Ray+DVD+Digital set of Game of Thrones Season 2 for $35.

My wife & I have already watched it & I can guarantee it was an order of magnitude MORE entertainment than will come out of an Age of Ultron HC.

That's a bargain. Did you purchase online? I'm in the market for both seasons.

Gilgabob wrote: That's a bargain. Did you purchase online? I'm in the market for both seasons.

I got it at Target the day it came out.....Target & Best Buy often have really good sales right when something is issued, then the price goes up later on.

Loved listening to the episode as always, thanks guys. While not reading it the discussion on Age of Ultron both on the episode and here on the forum to be very interesting. As comic fans most complaints I hear about decompression tend to focus on the writers, while this seems like the logical place to rest blame I’m not sure it is completely their fault.

With the relaunch of the new G.I. Joe book I have gone back and been rereading the classic G.I. Joe run. What struck me as interesting and is pertinent to this discussion is how much more story there was in those older books. However it came at a cost, mainly in the realm of art. For one thing there were on average a lot more panels per page, and I’m not just talking about splash pages or double page spreads. For instance in the first issue of the Marvel G.I. Joe #1 from 1982 there are 28 pages and a total of 161 panels (individual pictures). Meanwhile as a point of reference the book sitting on the top of my stack is Katana #2 from DC (it just happens to be the book on the top of my stack). Katana #2 has 20 pages and a total of 70 panels. Each of these two books happens to have 1 splash page so that is irrelevant. Takes the splash pages out you are left with 27 pages and 160 panels (G.I. Joe from 1982) and 19 pages and 69 panels (Katana from this week). That means outside of splash pages the issue from 1982 averaged 5.93 panels per page while the issue from this week averages only 3.63 panels per page. That is decrease of 38.8% per page! I realize this is anecdotal and not scientific but I still think it is fairly representative of the current state of comics. Take into account that the average book has also gone from 22 pages to 20 pages that means the book today with no splash pages would have 44.4% less content than an issue from the older era (5.93 X 22 pages vs. 3.63 X 20 pages). So yes in some ways you are really getting half an issue now compared to the older days.

The other thing that is easily noticeable looking at the older books is the number of words on the page. The percentage of art covered by word balloons on each page is also much greater in older books. Also exposition, there use to be a lot more of it. As an example in 1982 G.I. Joe #1 there is a lot of information relayed to the reader either by Hawk in a mission brief or two rather lengthy speeches by Cobra Commander. In a modern book fans would complain at this level of exposition. You would hear fans say things like “show don’t tell” and “there are too many words in that issue”. So in modern books what took a total of three pages with a lot of words in older comics would take multiple pages of flashbacks to relay the same information to the reader today.

My point is that while it is easy to blame writers for decompression I think there are a lot more culprits. Modern artist are more detailed in their backgrounds, something fans seem to want. To do this they need more space, so the panels per page go down. Those modern pages are beautiful, fetching higher prices in the original art market too, something that wasn’t as big a part of an artist pay in older days. Also why take the time to put all that detail into a page if most of it gets covered up by word balloons. Editors have also been trained by fans that they don’t like too many words, so they coach their writers that way. So why it is easy for fans to complain about decompressed stories it is ultimately the fan’s tastes in art and lack of words on the page that has brought us to this current state of decompressed storytelling. As long as fans demand better more detailed art and fewer words on the page I’m not sure what writers can do to tell stories faster.

fudd71 wrote: Modern artist are more detailed in their backgrounds, something fans seem to want. To do this they need more space, so the panels per page go down.

I'd argue this statement is not amongst the culprits. While some artists do detailed work, there are a LOT that put little/no effort into background detail at all.

I'd also argue that artists like George Perez & Art Adams have always managed to put background detail into their art without needing to spread out to 3-4 panels per page.