This is a problem I keep seeing across the board. The Halloween series's original intent was to be a horror anthology series, telling a different story on the anniversary of horror each year, but when Halloween 3 came out and was completely different than the first two, audiences were in an uproar and each movie thereafter went back to Michael Myers, no matter how contrived. To DC's credit, when the New 52 launched, they had several anthology series running - including DC Universe Presents - and even a mini with My Greatest Adventure. Several new launches later, the only anthology title left is All-Star Western, and with even that selling less than 20000 each month, it's just a matter of time. Each time the Twilight Zone launches, it barely lasts a season. Heroes was originally going to be mostly new characters each season, but the network quickly put the kibosh on that. From all this and more, we can see that people in general don't want a series to be an umbrella in its scope and follow multiple narratives that aren't spin-offs from a main line.
What's peculiar is that this wasn't always the case. Virtually each movie in theaters way back had multiple attributes, e.g. a cartoon, part of a serial, and then the main feature. Variety shows were all the rage in the 70s. The original Twilight Zone lasted a good long while, and became a highly relevant part of popular culture. Comics like Tales from the Crypt or Eerie or Creepy sold quite well across the board. Heck, many of the most enduring comics characters debuted in anthology titles! (Superman in Action Comics, Iron Man in Tales of Suspense, Spider-Man in Amazing Fantasy, Wonder Woman in All-Star Comics, etc.)
Bottom line: outside of some video game series and "greatest hits" albums, why can't anthologies compete?
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
We have a glut of entertainment options now, compared to back then, and people have gotten more focused in their viewing as a way to cut through the crap.
Anthologies, in some respects, are only needed as a way for people to find a new thing that they want to follow.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You can trust me, I work for the government
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What's peculiar is that this wasn't always the case. Virtually each movie in theaters way back had multiple attributes, e.g. a cartoon, part of a serial, and then the main feature. Variety shows were all the rage in the 70s. The original Twilight Zone lasted a good long while, and became a highly relevant part of popular culture. Comics like Tales from the Crypt or Eerie or Creepy sold quite well across the board. Heck, many of the most enduring comics characters debuted in anthology titles! (Superman in Action Comics, Iron Man in Tales of Suspense, Spider-Man in Amazing Fantasy, Wonder Woman in All-Star Comics, etc.)
Bottom line: outside of some video game series and "greatest hits" albums, why can't anthologies compete?
About any "subpar" mechanics or cards: Context is king.
If I make a templating or grammar error, let me know.
The franchise MtG most resembles is Battlestar Galactica. Why? Its players exist in, at most, a dozen different models at any given point in time, with perhaps up to 3% variation, 5% if you're lucky.
Anthologies, in some respects, are only needed as a way for people to find a new thing that they want to follow.