I saw this brought up on another comics board. They were discussing an older series, and one poster was dismissing it, as it had only had a handful of issues published, around 15 or so.

Another poster then posted that it was a long-term run, as the book was bi-monthly, so had lasted for almost 3 years.

Which matters more? The number of issues, or the publishing schedule/realtime?

The quality, I should hope. There are series that have been published for years without many (or any!) decent runs. There are minis and one-shots that have really mattered in Comicland culture.

I think it varies. It depends on so many factors - the Defenders were never as big a deal at the time as, say, the Avengers or Spider-Man were, but it is fondly remembered all these years later. Then there's stuff like the Spidey clone saga that everyone claims they hated - and yet, all these years later, it's still clearly remembered even when a dozen other (possibly more deserving) storylines have been long forgotten.

As Linda poiinted out, there's stuff that's been around (seemingly) forever that just kind of exists. Then you'll get a Watchmen or something that lasts for twelve issues, but has people talking about it for decades afterwards.

issues.

I take issue with this!

As much as I love the Fantastic Four, it has to be said that a large number of issues have been highly unmemorable over the years. For every enjoyable Byrne run, there's about four Rich Buckler-type runs, if you see what I mean.

I'm going to say "quality over qauntity". If there were forty years worth of issues of...I dunno....Night Nurse, would that make it better than only five years worth of issues of [insert title of comic you really like here]?

If something non limited series has only a handful of issues, than it's likely to be inconsequential or forgotten.

(This is different than a limited series in my mind that is successful and constantly reprinted).

Sadly, despite how amazing it is, NFL Superpro only lasted about 8 issues.

Epic fail.

But think of something like Howard the Duck - okay, it's often remembered due to the awful movie, but although the comic wasn't around very long, it had a real impact at the time, and wound up being made into a (bad) movie.


I guess it's because I'm always drawn to obscure "cult" stuff that I feel this way. I'd rather read something really amazing that's finite than read endless re-treads of the same stories. This is why I cannot get into the Ultimates stuff. It's like seeing a tribute band - it's okay, and you kind of enjoy it, but you know it's not as good as the genuine article. To me, the big two are just endlessly trying to relive their past glories. If they'd just do what they used to do - throw caution to the wind and have people visualising lynxes and meeting themselves and so on - and have some fun, they'd be less...dull than they are now.

Well, hey, I still love Darkhawk and Sleepwalker and they lasted not too long

and only half of what they lasted was any good

For some reason I thought this thread would have a different question. Specifically (THREAD HIJACK!):

When you re-read your back-issues that maybe include specials and miniseries and things that are set in an earlier era (like something from 2000 set in the 60s), do you insert those things into where they take place in the character's chronology, or do you re-read in publication order?

Discuss.

I put more value in time over issues.

A quarterly comic that has a four year run VS a monthly that has a 16 issue run... The quarterly was popular enough to stay alive for four years, the monthly didn't make it to a year and a half. I'd consider the quarterly the more successful of the two.

but the expectations might be less on a quarterly.

Once a year for 12 yrs isnt all that impressive

Or to put it another way, the quarterly probably did a better job of fulfilling its expectations. A monthly series that's supposed to be open-ended but only lasts 16 months is a flop. A quarterly is probably a product of a self-publisher or small outfit who will have beaten the odds if they get more than three or four issues published.

"Master Race" is among EC's most famous stories and it's an 8-page short. So, it's not about the length of the run, but how you use it.

This is a superhero forum Steven.

So if we just decide what the best story/series of all time was, then that answers the question.

the q. was about series, not stories.

and about whether long term run is measured in issues or years.

There is a difference between a limited series or single story doing well and an ongoing series doing well. If you're discussing ongoing series, the usual goal is to keep the book printing and selling. If a series is published bi-monthly and goes on for two years, it would be more successful than a monthly that only lasted a year. Prices being even, the bi-monthly held the readers interest for a longer period of time. Financially similar success, but the bi-monthly had a longer exposure.

Thicke of the Night aired more episodes than Arrested Development... but Arrested Development wasn't cancelled after one season. Just by staying on the air, it's seen as a bigger success than series that aired a ton of episodes but were never renewed.