They could've done it in one issue....

[Alex Dragon]

Well here we are a few years after "decompressed" first became the latest "hot" topic and complaint of many comic fans. At this point I'm wondering if you've gotten used to it, never had a problem with it, or continue to dislike it. How do you feel about it today?

Are there writers you feel handle it better? Who are they? Who do you feel really simply just pads their stories?

Comments?

[Cam63]

Most of 'em do.

[Azrael52]

Grayson. Winnick. But I still like their stories. Granted, they could be shorter. You know we'll call them Arcs rather that Serieses.

[Bob Violence]

I continue to resist. I don't shell out $2-3 to get 1/6th of a story. Bendis' Daredevil does it well, but every one of his 6 issue arcs could easily have been compressed int 3 or 4 issues. Maleev makes it worthwhile, not
JMS's Supreme Power on the other hand, advanced so incrementally I dropped it, despite the great art. I eagerly anticipate #527, when all the major heroes get together and form a team. :rolleyes:
All Star Batman & Robin suffers from being decompressed and published bimonthly. They have to move these things along while anyone still cares.

[Charles RB]

Personally, when I see comments like "they could've done it in one issue", I read it as "I want the story to suck by forcing it to only have one issue, even though it needs more than one issue to work".

[Alex Dragon]

Personally, when I see comments like "they could've done it in one issue", I read it as "I want the story to suck by forcing it to only have one issue, even though it needs more than one issue to work".

I agree with you. I keep hearing some fans continually referring to old comics/writers who told certain stories in one issue as opposed to 6 or 4 or whatever but just because they did a story in one issue doesn't mean it was better.

The most used example is Stan Lee telling Spider-man's orgin in 12 (or however many) pages vs Bendis taking 6 (or however many) issues. For me I enjoyed Bendis' take much better. Things were explained, we were allowed to get to know and feel something for the characters, and overall it was a much more rewarding and enjoyable story. Stan's story was good and served it's purpose but to me because of the speed in which it was told Uncle Ben was little more than a plot device and not really a person and you had to buy into a lot of stuff happening that really didn't make a whole lot of sense. The same could be said of the FANTASTIC FOUR's orgin or any number of orgins told in the spand of a few pages or one issue.

[Converge]

Personally, when I see comments like "they could've done it in one issue", I read it as "I want the story to suck by forcing it to only have one issue, even though it needs more than one issue to work".

Reading House Of M made me want to shoot myself in the face.

It's sad how much story they could pack into one issue in the old days vs. what they try to pass off as "story" in one issue these days.

Read one issue of Watchmen or Crisis on Infinite Earths. Then read one issue of House of M or New Avengers. It's sickening.

edit: it's not question of stuffing a story into one issue. Watchmen and COIE were both 12-issue stories. What it's about is putting more story into each issue instead of padding it. Most single issues of a decompressed story just aren't satisfying reads.

[west3man]

S'all good.

I just get my collected volumes and then go from there. Instead of $3 for 12 issues ($36), I get a discount on the collected volumes, which are often about $24.99. By the time it's all said and done, I'm paying less than $2 for a sturdy, attractive, complete storybook.

As long as the story, inside is good,... s'all good. I usually have a sense of that before I buy.

[west3man]

Reading House Of M made me want to shoot myself in the face.

It's sad how much story they could pack into one issue in the old days vs. what they try to pass off as "story" in one issue these days.

Read one issue of Watchmen or Crisis on Infinite Earths. Then read one issue of House of M or New Avengers. It's sickening.
Shit. You're gonna make me take my whole post back. :o

I have ZERO intention of picking HoM up, if/when it's ever collected. I dunno if anything's actually happening, but it's basic premise and *apparent* execution are lacking, imo. There are other books, I'm sure, that don't have enough happening in a single issue... and I'm probably skipping them, too. Damned if I can think of one, though.


I think INVINCIBLE might've qualified, but I was lucky enough to come on-board with the big ol' hardcover. If I'd followed it from issue to issue, from the beginning, I'd have dropped it... not realizing it'd turn out to be really good, later.

Btw, I haven't read anything other than the initial hardcover, so I dunno what's happened since issue #12. (In case someone wants to respond or p.m. with details about later issues.)

[Alex Dragon]

I continue to resist. I don't shell out $2-3 to get 1/6th of a story. Bendis' Daredevil does it well, but every one of his 6 issue arcs could easily have been compressed int 3 or 4 issues. Maleev makes it worthwhile, not
JMS's Supreme Power on the other hand, advanced so incrementally I dropped it, despite the great art. I eagerly anticipate #527, when all the major heroes get together and form a team. :rolleyes:
All Star Batman & Robin suffers from being decompressed and published bimonthly. They have to move these things along while anyone still cares.

I think too many fans spend too much time worying about story arcs instead of just simply reading and enjoying the comic. I think what hurts Bendis and other writers is when they put story length and titles on the cover like "VENOM: part 1 of 6" many fans just worry about when Venom is going to fight Spidey and lose sight of everything else. It's "What the...we're on part 2 and Venom hasn't even shown up yet...!" Meanwhile, the story's progressing, subplots are being explored and moving forward and great characterization is going on and some fans seem oblivious to it because they know Venom is supposed to show up and they want him now.


Then some fans will claim that stories didn't go on for multiple issues before. Sure they did. The biggest difference was that back then the length and name of the story arc wasn't printed on the cover every time. You just simply picked up the book and read it not knowing what was supposed to happen down the road. You were "in the moment" not reading or treating the story as an arc waiting for specific things to occur.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Yeah, Bendis could use with an editor to gets him to trim down the self-indulgent banter that stopped being clever five years ago and cut to the chase. Granted, his stuff sells, so why should he change? There's clearly an audience out there for it.

[Alex Dragon]

JMS's Supreme Power on the other hand, advanced so incrementally I dropped it, despite the great art. I eagerly anticipate #527, when all the major heroes get together and form a team. :rolleyes:


This part I wanted to address specifically...

Was it really that the story advanced so slowly or you just wanted JMS to get to what you think the book should be about, namely a "team" book? I've heard other posters say how much they enjoy the book but then mention how they're ready for it to become a team book.

I have to wonder if people would feel better about the book if they were just reading it thinking it was about these people with powers and how the world deals with and perceives them instead of knowing it's supposed to end up a certain way with those people forming a team.

[Calamas]

I’m not against the decompressed story in every case. Warren Ellis does it well. Bendes has done it well in the past, though I find a lot of his current work lacking. Geoff Johns had written three-scene stories that I’ve enjoyed very much. In the best issue of Jeff Loeb’s “Hush,” Batman never left a Gotham City alley. In the hands of a Master anything can work.

But what happens when this falls into the hands of the lazy and the incompetent?

I remember years ago Roy Thomas left Marvel for DC at a time when DC published both full length stories and seven-page backups. Asked which he would be writing, he said--which I’ll have to try to quote from memory: “Since it takes the same amount of work to plot both, it doesn’t pay to write backups.”

That’s where we are today. Maybe not so much for the sake of money as convenience, but I'm sure the financial enters into it as well. The lazy and the incompetent, stretching one-issue stories into four. And sometimes six. And with publishers actively seeking to expand the trade market, even the moderately talented are being encouraged to take this route. Yes, the Masters make it work. But there are only so many Masters in any art form.

I have enjoyed decompressed stories. I will again in the future. Yet I absolutely hate “Decompression.”

Are decompressed stories inherently worse than full stories told in a single issue? No. There are incompetent writers, moderately talented writers and Masters in any era. Yet whatever your level of talent, padding your story lessens its effectiveness. As with Roy’s quote above, in the end, for me, it comes down to cause-and-effect. If you’re stretching your less-than-stellar story two to four issues longer than it deserves, you’re cheating me out of so much more than if you had kept your hack-work to a single issue.

[Calamas]

Was it really that the [Supreme Power] story advanced so slowly or you just wanted JMS to get to what you think the book should be about, namely a "team" book? I've heard other posters say how much they enjoy the book but then mention how they're ready for it to become a team book.

I have to wonder if people would feel better about the book if they were just reading it thinking it was about these people with powers and how the world deals with and perceives them instead of knowing it's supposed to end up a certain way with those people forming a team.
Exactly. That’s why they didn’t call it Squadron Supreme. It’s not about a team of super-powered individuals. It’s about a select few who are the only people of their world to possess powers and abilities denied the rest of the planet. It’s about Supreme Power.

[PatrickG]

This thread could have been done in one post. ;)

[Ringslinger76]

I do like it when a book lists how many parts are in an arc. I consider that a "contract" between writer and reader. A writer agrees to wrap his current saga up in 6 parts, 8 parts, 15 parts, and I agree to read it for that many. Some current writers and books start a story with no end in sight and DO pad it for no other reason than they haven't thought of what to do next yet. (*cough* Winnick *cough* Batman *cough*)
That isn't to say that when Winnick or another writer like him gets to the "meat and potatos" of his story that it isn't enjoyable, but there are often entire issues I look back at and think, "that could have been cut and not really affected the story," or "didn't I basically read two issues that accomplished the same thing in terms of this story?"
Film directors still have to edit their three hour epics down from the hundreds of hours of footage and many scenes never make the light of day. Ask a director and he'll tell you that usually there is a reason for that: pacing, impact, and build. All three of those things often suffer because a writer is buying himself/herself time in terms of writing.
Some of you were right before... It comes down to good writers and bad writers.

[Alex Dragon]

I do like it when a book lists how many parts are in an arc. I consider that a "contract" between writer and reader. A writer agrees to wrap his current saga up in 6 parts, 8 parts, 15 parts, and I agree to read it for that many. Some current writers and books start a story with no end in sight and DO pad it for no other reason than they haven't thought of what to do next yet. (*cough* Winnick *cough* Batman *cough*)

I like the idea of them telling you how many parts are in the arc too. It tells new readers where a good jumping on point is and if a creative team is there for a limited run it's nice to know how long they're going to be on the book. But...if I'm a regular reader of that title I don't look at those arc lengths to start worrying about how long before what I expect from the story starts to happen.


That isn't to say that when Winnick or another writer like him gets to the "meat and potatos" of his story that it isn't enjoyable, but there are often entire issues I look back at and think, "that could have been cut and not really affected the story," or "didn't I basically read two issues that accomplished the same thing in terms of this story?"

I'm not saying it's the case with Winnick or anyone else you might be referring to but but I think for a lot of fans when they say "nothing happened this issue..." what they're really saying was "there wasn't a fight this issue..." or "There wasn't any action this issues..." which isn't exactly the same thing. I think overall comics simply aren't written in the same style they were in terms of the action/characterization ratio. I think in the past Superman's battle with Brainiac was much more of the focus of the comic instead of his problems with Perry White. Now his Perry problems get just as much if sometimes not more than his fight with Brainiac.
For me personally I get more enjoyment out of the problems with Perry stuff because I've seen the Brainiac stuff done dozens of times before and it's not like I don't know who's going to win in the end.

Film directors still have to edit their three hour epics down from the hundreds of hours of footage and many scenes never make the light of day. Ask a director and he'll tell you that usually there is a reason for that: pacing, impact, and build. All three of those things often suffer because a writer is buying himself/herself time in terms of writing.
Some of you were right before... It comes down to good writers and bad writers.

If you compare film to comics you have to compare the movies to trades and the comics to tv. For the director of a film the pacing and rythm of a movie is totally different from taking it and making it work for a 4 part tv movie. Some of the stuff he tossed out of the movie to make it flow better would probably be needed to improve the flow if the movie where broken up into 4 parts. It's the same with comics and trades. When read in trade form the story works and the flow and pacing are fine when it's all in one longer package. When read individually you have whole issues that may only be dealing with the set up. Those issues may at the time seem drawn out or unneeded but they have their purpose in the context of the entire arc.

[Corrina]

I just read the House of M aftermath issue.

Seemed pretty complete. Glad I didn't spend money on the miniseries....

[Cei-U!]

I'm one of those people who frequently use the "coulda dunnit in one" line and I believe it's true of a huge amount of contemporary super-hero comics.

I buy super-hero comics (well, used to: decompression is one of many factors that chased me away) because I want to read a fast-moving adventure story, not interminable soap opera generously laden with angst. As Alex noted, action sequences were once the point of these stories. That's changed and I don't see it as an improvement. It's as if somebody decided to write a series of Westerns in which nobody ever fires a gun or rides a horse: it's an interesting break from the routine *once in a while* but self-defeating as a steady diet. Characterization is certainly important but *in an adventure story* it should be revealed through action, through behavior, not through ten pages of dialogue balloons.

The onus shouldn't be put solely on writers, either. Artists who waste precious space on detailed but meaningless backgrounds or pointless close-ups (both of which increase the resale value of the original art) should also shoulder the blame.

To be fair, though, this isn't a new phenomenon. I can remember complaining about rambling storylines at Marvel in the '70s and even about Jack Kirby's gratuitous use of full-page panels in the '60s. It's also safe to say that my favorite super-hero stories are all either single issues, two-parters or limited series like Watchmen where each issue significantly advances the plot.

This is all a matter of personal taste and preference, of course. I'm well aware I'm no longer comics' target audience. I've accepted that and resigned myself to Archives, Masterworks, Essentials and Showcases for my entertainment. Still, taking six issues to reprise Spider-Man's origin isn't storytelling, it's masturbation.

Cei-U!
I summon my two cents' worth!

[Alex Dragon]

I just read the House of M aftermath issue.

Seemed pretty complete. Glad I didn't spend money on the miniseries....

It probably served you well because it gave you all the info you were interested in. I need something like an aftermath issue for the curent Spider-man saga going on right now. I really didn't want to have to follow all those titles done by some artists and writers I have no interest in but I was curious as to what the story was. That's my biggest concern. What's wrong with Peter and what happens afterwards. So far (about 6 issues later) they haven't really explained much. I actually missed 3 issues and I still don't know any more than I did at the beginning. Now I'm sure that the issues I missed might've been entertaining and interesting but all I'm interested in is finding out what's wrong with him and the final results. So to me the issues that don't tell me what I want to know kinda seem like a waste on a certain level. I plan to just skip over most of it and just check in from time to time to get the answers I want. I'm sure there will be some good issues in there that I don't pick up but I know I won't enjoy them as much because I want to specific info told and I'd see any issue that doesn't supply that as a waste of my money and time.

[NickThompson]

EVERY comic could be done in less time, but who cares? What matters is if it is good. Do you like Infinite Crisis? All but about 3 pages of the first issue was "uneeded". One person says the world needs to change, one person hits a wall, cue last page. Would that have been as good? How about if the torture issue was cut from Villains United?


One thing that always gets me is how someone says "Oh, this could be two issues shorter", but never says HOW. Quite often, the scenes that would have to go are the best ones. Like in House of M. Pietro and Quicksilver in #1, the rooftop scene with Peter and Logan, Strange and Wanda, Logan and Magneto......you could have got rid of them, but the end product would suffer because of it.

[NickThompson]

Film directors still have to edit their three hour epics down from the hundreds of hours of footage and many scenes never make the light of day. Ask a director and he'll tell you that usually there is a reason for that: pacing, impact, and build. All three of those things often suffer because a writer is buying himself/herself time in terms of writing.
I think the problem there though is that a movie generally can be 80-180 minutes long. Most comic stories? 22 pages, 44 pages, 66 pages, 88.....any number divisible by 22. If you think an arc coule be two issues shorter, you have to find exactly 44 pages to cut.

[PatrickG]

That's not unlike television however.

[Bob Violence]

This part I wanted to address specifically...

Was it really that the story advanced so slowly or you just wanted JMS to get to what you think the book should be about, namely a "team" book? I've heard other posters say how much they enjoy the book but then mention how they're ready for it to become a team book.

I have to wonder if people would feel better about the book if they were just reading it thinking it was about these people with powers and how the world deals with and perceives them instead of knowing it's supposed to end up a certain way with those people forming a team.
It was the slow advancement of the story. I just didn't think Hyperion's origin was interesting enough to take up all the space it did. I don't mind when books challenge my expectations, as long as it's a good story. All the details of Hyperion's origin were repetitive, and they didn't advance the plot.

The same thing with Orson Scott Card's Ultimate Iron Man origin. I bailed after the first issue and Tony Stark wasn't even born yet. It was kind of interesting, but it didn't have any dramatic momentum. It's stuff that should be revealed in dribs and drabs, when it's relevant to the characters or the plot. It's expository, and I find entire books of it tough to read.

[Dennis]

"i'll wait for the trade."

now it's more like, "i'll wait for the 2nd trade that completes the story of the 1st trade."

or wait for the 2nd hardcover edition.

[stealthwise]

I think if a writer is going to write a six-issue arc, mini-series, whatever, they need to know their audience and make sure that they put in something for everyone in each issue. Have some character and plot development, but temper that with some good ol' fashioned action, without making any of it seemed forced. I hate reading two or three issues that have no real "hook" or anything remotely interesting, only to be followed at the end by maybe one issue of pure action. Bendis seems to do this every once in a while, particularly on Ultimate Spider-Man, and while it may read decently in trade, it's excruciating to sift through every month. The pacing gets hurt badly and the story reads uneven, like a merry-go-round that turns into a roller coaster at the end.

[Beacon]

I do like it when a book lists how many parts are in an arc. I consider that a "contract" between writer and reader. A writer agrees to wrap his current saga up in 6 parts, 8 parts, 15 parts, and I agree to read it for that many.


That’s an interesting point but it doesn’t always work out in fact. Its one thing where you get the old format where complete stories are told in X parts but they all build on each other – I actually think that that’s why Bendis’ DD run is so well received; each arc is fairly self-contained while also contributing to a larger picture – but its another to just randomly label a story as having X parts when the story actually goes on much longer than that.

Take Mark Millar’s MK Spider-Man run for example. First we get a “four part” story that doesn’t resolve itself in the end and only really serves to set up for his later run. Then we get a “four part” story in which absolutely nothing happens. Then everything is wrapped up in a third “four part” story. So much for it being a contract with the readers that a complete story would be told in four issues (rather than twelve which was the reality of the situation).

A similar thing is happening with Bendis and the classic Avengers but here there’s absolutely no end in sight. Dissembled Chaos is a failure as a “complete” story and the three books – the Finale one-shot, the New Avengers ongoing, and the House of M mini – meant to follow up on it haven’t really done anything to advance the story either. Wanda is still a global threat and now Marvel expects fans to spend massive amounts of money on Decimation one-shots that deal with the ramifications of her actions because Bendis couldn’t be bothered to make House of M be anything more than setup.

[Just_A_Rat]

Personally, I get more upset when a series or arc feels decompressed, particularly a "Big Deal" mini. I felt that way a little about House of M. I don't feel it about IC. Doesn't mean it wasn't, merely that to me, it didn't feel that way. If things are well-written, they don't feel decompressed - the House of M dialog often was well written - the interaction between a depressed and almost broken Spider-Man and Wolverine, as well as Cage's protective attitude about him were amazing: Here are two of the baddest dudes in the Marvel Universe, and neither one is about to give him a "suck it up" speech. He's SPIDER-MAN! And for him to be reacting that way means something. I particularly loved Cage's line to Stark when Spidey was smashing the table and it looked like Iron Man might try and stop him. He simply put a hand on Stark's chest and said, "You'll buy another." That was good stuff, and didn't feel like it was stretched out to me. However, the dialogue and melodrama in the first issue did a little, since we were going over and over the same topic, with the same peopel saying the same things. Maybe it was padded, to get to where they wanted the first cliffhanger to hit. Which is fine.

I just wish it hadn't felt that way.

[Alex Dragon]

"i'll wait for the trade."

now it's more like, "i'll wait for the 2nd trade that completes the story of the 1st trade."

or wait for the 2nd hardcover edition.

But you've got to keep in mind that comic stories in general are an ongoing saga. I don't think a good ongoing comic should have stories that end and tie up everything nice and neatly and then the next issue start out totally fresh. This isn't like the old Bugs Bunny cartoons or shorts from years ago when a story ends with the characters lives in a total mess and the next episode everything's fine and back to square one like the last episode never happened.

So to me the story should never really end per se. There should always be subplots and elements of what went before to deal with. That's why I think in some ways it's bad to number the parts to an arc and give them a name. TV would never do that on a soap opera.

[Alex Dragon]

A similar thing is happening with Bendis and the classic Avengers but here there’s absolutely no end in sight. Dissembled Chaos is a failure as a “complete” story and the three books – the Finale one-shot, the New Avengers ongoing, and the House of M mini – meant to follow up on it haven’t really done anything to advance the story either. Wanda is still a global threat and now Marvel expects fans to spend massive amounts of money on Decimation one-shots that deal with the ramifications of her actions because Bendis couldn’t be bothered to make House of M be anything more than setup.

My take on the stuff you mention here is totally different. I think DISASSEMBLED was a complete story in the sense that it did what it was supposed to do. Tear down the Avengers so the writer could get them to the point he needed to make a fresh start. The finale one shot was just a story to lok back on the past and acknowledge what just happened. The NEW AVENGERS have been about setting up and building the new team and handling a crisis or three. HOUSE of M has been dealing with the aftermath of DISASSEMBLED and shedding some light on certain things while giving the Marvel Universe a huge new saga/ramifications to deal with.

To have any of those events just end so quickly and be handled in a couple of issues and everything going back to statis quo would be "comic booky" and ridiculous. Yeah, I suppose you could look at it as Bendis only used HOM as a "setup" but why on earth would you expect him to tackle such a big story that affects so much of the Marvel U. in one mini series? The complaint from fans for years have been when these sort of big event comics are done and promises major changes in the end nothing really changes. Now we've got a big event with huge ramifications happening and some fans want a quick resolution. This is exactly why the companies should do what they think is best and ignore the fans.

[Beacon]

I have no problem with having a few subplots carry over from story to story before eventually being resolved but when there’s a continuous string of stories where the entire plot is the same then it seems to me that their all the same single story.

If someone asks you “what’s Disassembled about?” you answer “Wanda went crazy and warped reality while the Avengers were all oblivious to the change and behaved like idiots”. If the same question is asked about House of M you can give the same answer.

That isn't one story building on another, that's the same story.

[Lester C.]

I think Garth Ennis Punisher is a good example on condensed storytelling done right or wrong depending on the story arc. Here my rule as long as you enjoy the hell out of the story and don’t notice how little the plot has progressed then the writer as done a good job of pulling you in and holding you in a griping story arc that refuses to let you go. On the other hand if you notice the storyline is dragging and are wondering when things will wrap up then the author has failed.

[Alex Dragon]

I have no problem with having a few subplots carry over from story to story before eventually being resolved but when there’s a continuous string of stories where the entire plot is the same then it seems to me that their all the same single story.

If someone asks you “what’s Disassembled about?” you answer “Wanda went crazy and warped reality while the Avengers were all oblivious to the change and behaved like idiots”. If the same question is asked about House of M you can give the same answer.

That isn't one story building on another, that's the same story.

Eh...to each is his/her own I suppose. I just don't see DISASSEMBLED and HOM as the same story in any way shape or form. HOM deals with what happened from DISASSEMBLED. If you went from DISASSEMBLED straight to what's happening in the current Marvel U. none of it would make any sense. HOM was a completely 'nother story that advanced the plot, explained things, showed the ramifications of what Wanda did and set up future stories.