|
Post by defiant1 on Jan 10, 2014 20:19:49 GMT -5
better Damn phone, I cannot make corrections on it once the post gets about 10 rows long. Its maddening. Anyway we could run comics better instead of watching leaders make 7 figures and run the damn thing into the ground. What other business is there where you lose 90% of your customers over a 20 year period and you get to keep your job and keep running it the same way? A creative mind and a business mind are two opposing principles. One wants complete freedom. The other wants rigid control. Balancing the two is delicate task hence all of the criticism Jim Shooter receives. Jim leans towards creative, but he understands the reality of business. He learned both sides of the fence. Most creative minds don't and they can't balance the two. That's what we have now. df1
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Jan 10, 2014 20:21:56 GMT -5
I honestly think its because the golden carrot they chase after is movies and licsensing deals but it comes at the cost of making bad comics trying to be seen as movie vehicles. They have reverse engineered the process thinking those deals first when really all the movies and licensing came from comics that were well done comics first and foremost and the rewards came later for a job well done on the comics. Modern comics are no better than fan fiction. Someone just started doing it and the professionals got sent home. df1
|
|
|
Post by G on Jan 20, 2014 22:53:22 GMT -5
My point is that it all started with fake teaser covers and those covers actually plotting out a heroes continuity. You can plot an entire series with individual covers. I think that's how DC produced comics in the 60's. I think the editor said "I want an giant ape hanging from the top of the daily planet" and told the writer to go write a story about it. I really believe that. df1 Finally I'm on a PC where I can properly quote and reply.... I am sure I have read passages that stated DC did exactly that. A good cover art piece would cross their desk with an idea on it and they would task their writers to create a story out of it. It is certainly one way a comic cover goes with the story. And it works. The cover was a concept and they made a story around it. The other more common way is the traditional way we came up on comics where a story was generated and the artist was tasked with creating a cover that matched the story. This was probably my favorite way of seeing a cover done and it seems to be a lost art these. But it's not to say the previous way mentioned here wasn't effective as well... ....The problem with today is the cover has NOTHING to do with the comic. It uses NEITHER method of applying itself to the story. It is neither a cool cover that makes the writers write a story around it nor is it a cover that is made after the contents of the story is known by the artist. No, often today the cover is made well in advance of the comic and is a pose, staredown, fan out or action shot that gives no insight to the interior story at all. And they can literally take a cover shot like they have and slap any of a dozen poster shots that was generic and premade well in advance (such as variants) and slap it on ANY issue they want as long as the characters on the cover match the characters in the book. This is what I think is wrong with comics today. I'm given one of these generic cover shots as an advertising piece. I'm told this is an epic event and I'm told mega creators are working on it. But the cover has no meaning at all other than to be someone's idea of a cool poster shot for their collection or inspiration should they be an inspiring artist and lots of times they copy the same style of no insight and now we are creating a 2nd generation of these type of cover artists that say nothing about why we should buy it. The above scenario is presented to me over and over on my Facebook and often it has an accompanied statement saying something like "How excited are you to see this happen?" I couldn't be any less excited. I don't know about you but when I look at old comics, I always loved the pages of advertisements that were advertising other new release comics and there were cover shots of books coming out. With just a glance of the covers I could see which ones I thought I would want to get. All it took was the cover itself. Now I get a generic cover, an interview with the artist and writer explaining all the changes they made. Maybe a picture of a variant cover (or 2), a 4 page preview of the interior art, a quip about what is going to happen such as "What impact do you think the death of The Watcher will have on the Marvel Universe" and I can read endless comments by other comic enthusiasts such as myself and see what they have to say. And I'm not 1/100th as interested as I would in the 1970's and 1980's just seeing an advertisement page of what comic was coming out either this month or next month and that's all I seen was a cover shot. Its info overload. I think reverse engineering works better for me. The less I know about it....the more I """MIGHT""" be interested. The more I find out beforehand, the less I want it.
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Jan 20, 2014 23:15:00 GMT -5
My point is that it all started with fake teaser covers and those covers actually plotting out a heroes continuity. You can plot an entire series with individual covers. I think that's how DC produced comics in the 60's. I think the editor said "I want an giant ape hanging from the top of the daily planet" and told the writer to go write a story about it. I really believe that. df1 Finally I'm on a PC where I can properly quote and reply.... I am sure I have read passages that stated DC did exactly that. A good cover art piece would cross their desk with an idea on it and they would task their writers to create a story out of it. It is certainly one way a comic cover goes with the story. And it works. The cover was a concept and they made a story around it. The other more common way is the traditional way we came up on comics where a story was generated and the artist was tasked with creating a cover that matched the story. This was probably my favorite way of seeing a cover done and it seems to be a lost art these. But it's not to say the previous way mentioned here wasn't effective as well... ....The problem with today is the cover has NOTHING to do with the comic. It uses NEITHER method of applying itself to the story. It is neither a cool cover that makes the writers write a story around it nor is it a cover that is made after the contents of the story is known by the artist. No, often today the cover is made well in advance of the comic and is a pose, staredown, fan out or action shot that gives no insight to the interior story at all. And they can literally take a cover shot like they have and slap any of a dozen poster shots that was generic and premade well in advance (such as variants) and slap it on ANY issue they want as long as the characters on the cover match the characters in the book. This is what I think is wrong with comics today. I'm given one of these generic cover shots as an advertising piece. I'm told this is an epic event and I'm told mega creators are working on it. But the cover has no meaning at all other than to be someone's idea of a cool poster shot for their collection or inspiration should they be an inspiring artist and lots of times they copy the same style of no insight and now we are creating a 2nd generation of these type of cover artists that say nothing about why we should buy it. The above scenario is presented to me over and over on my Facebook and often it has an accompanied statement saying something like "How excited are you to see this happen?" I couldn't be any less excited. I don't know about you but when I look at old comics, I always loved the pages of advertisements that were advertising other new release comics and there were cover shots of books coming out. With just a glance of the covers I could see which ones I thought I would want to get. All it took was the cover itself. Now I get a generic cover, an interview with the artist and writer explaining all the changes they made. Maybe a picture of a variant cover (or 2), a 4 page preview of the interior art, a quip about what is going to happen such as "What impact do you think the death of The Watcher will have on the Marvel Universe" and I can read endless comments by other comic enthusiasts such as myself and see what they have to say. And I'm not 1/100th as interested as I would in the 1970's and 1980's just seeing an advertisement page of what comic was coming out either this month or next month and that's all I seen was a cover shot. Its info overload. I think reverse engineering works better for me. The less I know about it....the more I """MIGHT""" be interested. The more I find out beforehand, the less I want it. Definitely. Publishers give me no reason to even want to pick up a comic. When I pick one up, NOTHING is happening. Characters are standing around. Crap that could be shown in one page is dragged across 6 pages. I repeatedly run into people who say "you can't have an opinion on a comic unless you read it". I want to reply, "Look Moron! I saw enough to know I don't like it." The horse race has started and the horses haven't stepped out of the gate. Don't get me started on the art and the coloring. I want to look at people and say "Do you truly have no taste at all?" df1
|
|
AC
Standout Worker
Posts: 105
I Am Offline!
Likes: 1
|
Post by AC on Jan 27, 2014 21:39:49 GMT -5
The Internet was certainly ruining my appreciation of comics, that's for sure. There's simply TOO MUCH backstage information available now. I love talking about comics, and follow some blogs that review some of the older stuff. Finding out things about comics is part of the fun of the hobby.
I do think that the "Big 3" news sites need to curb a bit of the behind the scenes stuff... maybe slow down on interviews. Interviews that amount to one question about the comic, and several paragraphs of "taint tickling", that is. I don't need to know Kieron Gillen's thoughts on anything. I don't care what Matt Fraction's wife thinks of a movie she recently saw. Tom Brevoort's hat-gimmick doesn't make me laugh.
Comics is small... getting smaller by the day. We're a niche hobby, utilizing niche technology and niche storytelling. Instead of focusing on accentuating the many positives of the field, we're almost pushing the comics to the side so we can glorify the people who are responsible for the state of it.
Ordering my comics online has brought me a great deal of satisfaction... first, everything's like 40% cheaper than at the shops... second, a happy accident... my books take about a week to deliver. I won't get Wednesday's books until NEXT Tuesday. Now, if I don't want to be spoiled, I stay off the comic news sites. I've found this has increased my appreciation of the books I read, as I have much less familiarity/contempt for the writers/editors behind them.
As for the print vs. digital discussion... I don't see myself jumping from print anytime soon. When comics are no longer available in print form at all (not even in tpb form), I'll drop out. Of that, I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Jan 28, 2014 18:43:57 GMT -5
The Internet was certainly ruining my appreciation of comics, that's for sure. There's simply TOO MUCH backstage information available now. I love talking about comics, and follow some blogs that review some of the older stuff. Finding out things about comics is part of the fun of the hobby. I do think that the "Big 3" news sites need to curb a bit of the behind the scenes stuff... maybe slow down on interviews. Interviews that amount to one question about the comic, and several paragraphs of "taint tickling", that is. I don't need to know Kieron Gillen's thoughts on anything. I don't care what Matt Fraction's wife thinks of a movie she recently saw. Tom Brevoort's hat-gimmick doesn't make me laugh. Comics is small... getting smaller by the day. We're a niche hobby, utilizing niche technology and niche storytelling. Instead of focusing on accentuating the many positives of the field, we're almost pushing the comics to the side so we can glorify the people who are responsible for the state of it.Ordering my comics online has brought me a great deal of satisfaction... first, everything's like 40% cheaper than at the shops... second, a happy accident... my books take about a week to deliver. I won't get Wednesday's books until NEXT Tuesday. Now, if I don't want to be spoiled, I stay off the comic news sites. I've found this has increased my appreciation of the books I read, as I have much less familiarity/contempt for the writers/editors behind them. As for the print vs. digital discussion... I don't see myself jumping from print anytime soon. When comics are no longer available in print form at all (not even in tpb form), I'll drop out. Of that, I'm sure. We are focusing more on creators than the characters. I think "almost" went away years ago. The industry learned things in the first 40 years of publishing. The knowledge has all been lost now. Once a creator get a published series by the major publishers under his belt, he's considered a pro whether he knows anything about making sales grow or not. df1
|
|
|
Post by G on Jan 28, 2014 20:47:47 GMT -5
The differemce from now and then is I seem to recall back in the day a respect for the company they worked for, the characters they worked on, the system, the deadlines. Why else was there a book called How to draw comics the Marvel way? Why are there stories of legend where artist would be up all night to meet deadlines or a backup fill in issue would go to print. Stories of editors throwing work in the trash can and saying do it again.
Now the creators do it their way. Books never get finished like Image United. Creators brag on Twitter that the editors work for me. Characters get changed on a creator's whim while the company looks the other way and says go ahead.
Whats missing is the respect which includes respecting the buyers. The stars ruined it by disrepecting everything that used to demand respect about comics.
|
|
AC
Standout Worker
Posts: 105
I Am Offline!
Likes: 1
|
Post by AC on Jan 29, 2014 19:34:32 GMT -5
Now the creators do it their way. Books never get finished like Image United. Creators brag on Twitter that the editors work for me. Characters get changed on a creator's whim while the company looks the other way and says go ahead. Whats missing is the respect which includes respecting the buyers. The stars ruined it by disrepecting everything that used to demand respect about comics. This feels like one of those "if you give a monkey a gun..." quandaries. If editors and publishers let the creators always have their way, and get away with late and lackluster stories... we can't really blame the creators anymore. They know that there used to be a line in the sand that they (or past generations of creators) couldn't cross... that line simply doesn't exist anymore. If Bendis wants a black Nick Fury... then dammit, we're going to find a way to have a black guy lose an eye! If Greg Land wants to trace pornography... then dammit, he can! If Ed Brubaker wants to resurrect Bucky... then Bucky he shall have! It's getting harder and harder to be mad at the creators, when the publishers and editors are facilitating (and rewarding) their behavior.
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Jan 30, 2014 19:07:17 GMT -5
Now the creators do it their way. Books never get finished like Image United. Creators brag on Twitter that the editors work for me. Characters get changed on a creator's whim while the company looks the other way and says go ahead. Whats missing is the respect which includes respecting the buyers. The stars ruined it by disrepecting everything that used to demand respect about comics. This feels like one of those "if you give a monkey a gun..." quandaries. If editors and publishers let the creators always have their way, and get away with late and lackluster stories... we can't really blame the creators anymore. They know that there used to be a line in the sand that they (or past generations of creators) couldn't cross... that line simply doesn't exist anymore. If Bendis wants a black Nick Fury... then dammit, we're going to find a way to have a black guy lose an eye! If Greg Land wants to trace pornography... then dammit, he can! If Ed Brubaker wants to resurrect Bucky... then Bucky he shall have! It's getting harder and harder to be mad at the creators, when the publishers and editors are facilitating (and rewarding) their behavior. I agree entirely that the publishers are to blame. The editors... or lack of editing is part of that also. Quesada started as a trainee at Valiant in 1989 or 1990. Within 4 years he was considered a star artist, but who gave him the fundamentals of storytelling and did he have time to learn them? I honestly don't feel that the publishers have people qualified for the positions they are performing. df1
|
|
AC
Standout Worker
Posts: 105
I Am Offline!
Likes: 1
|
Post by AC on Jan 30, 2014 23:30:22 GMT -5
I agree entirely that the publishers are to blame. The editors... or lack of editing is part of that also. Quesada started as a trainee at Valiant in 1989 or 1990. Within 4 years he was considered a star artist, but who gave him the fundamentals of storytelling and did he have time to learn them? I honestly don't feel that the publishers have people qualified for the positions they are performing. df1 It feels as though, lately at least... the editors and "powers that be" aren't really brought up in comics. The assistants/associate editors seem to be more interested in social media than actually reading/guiding/fact-checking the books they're responsible for. I don't need cutesy "tweets" from editors blowing sunshine up a creator's ass, with no regard whether or not the story they submitted fits. They're, wittingly or not, creating these "monsters" (for lack of a more appropriate term). It would be nice to have a Jim Shooter or Mark Gruenwald around... a continuity cop (or two... or three)... someone with respect for the characters, and the past... Today it's more "We're in charge... and this is what we're going to do, whether you like it or not. DEAL WITH IT." Usually with much more sass and snark, though. The qualification quandary speaks even further toward negative effects the Internet has had on the industry... it seems like, at least a sub sect of the industry is pandering toward 'net fans. "Quirky" art, that has no business being in superhero comics suddenly is... to look "indie" or have some sort of "cred". This way editors can seem as though they have their fingers on the pulse of fandom. Style over substance.
|
|