InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "You'd be dead than. LIAR!"

espanolbot (espanolbot) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-10-12 23:26:00

Entry tags:

creator: kevin smith, creator: mark millar, medium: videos, title: the ultimates

Two Comics Related Things that Amused me

Mark Millar and Kevin Smith do BBC Newsnight review, Jeanette Winterton hates all comics,
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2009/10/09/mark-millar-and-kevin-smith-do-bbc-newsnight-review/

And an edited together Batman vs. Blade movie trailer,

For legality, here's a supervillain attacking Ultimate Captain America with a lightsaber,

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	angelophile 2009-10-12 11:18 pm UTC (link)
	It was Kevin Smith's dismissive "It's only a comic" that bugged me. It's pretty much the default response to any issue in the comics industry and symptomatic of why things never really change. (Reply to this) (Thread)

stolisomancer
2009-10-12 11:44 pm UTC (link)

I don't think that's actually true. Like the rest of society, change is a gradual process, and viewed as a whole, there's actually been a great deal of progress. As the current generation of readers grow up and become creators themselves, that process will continue.

Yes, there are unbelievable lows in modern comics, and Internet criticism of the medium has a habit of accentuating them because it tends to lead to funnier commentary. In just fifty or sixty years, though, attitudes towards race, gender, sex, and violence have shifted dramatically. Things are better than they used to be... and worse, and more challenging, and less. The market has broadened in both good ways and bad, which offers the opportunity for evolution.

If I had to place my own target on the comics industry, I'd say that the real neophobes in the marketplace are the fans, who bitch up a storm whenever something changes from the way it was twenty years ago, and who punish any attempt at innovation by failing to purchase it. Modern comics are mostly fueled by the nostalgia dollar, and if you want to see real change in the comics industry, stop buying a book because you bought it ten years ago. Try new things. Reward creativity. Go neophilic.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

darkblade
2009-10-13 01:31 am UTC (link)

"If I had to place my own target on the comics industry, I'd say that the real neophobes in the marketplace are the fans, who bitch up a storm whenever something changes from the way it was twenty years ago, and who punish any attempt at innovation by failing to purchase it."

In my personal experience I'd say that is more the editorial punishing writers and artists for trying new things out of fear of alienating the fans as well as more than a few of them being the ones trying to bring back their childhood.

Sure the fans are not entierly blameless nor are all the editors inheritantly bad but the fans are not the ones with creative control over the industry,

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stolisomancer
2009-10-13 02:28 am UTC (link)

Yes, they are. Fans have the ultimate creative control, because they're the ones consuming the material.

At least since the 1970s, fans have consistently rewarded books for being more of the same and punished the ones that dare to be different. Mainstream books that star brand-new characters die quickly, never finding an audience, while mediocre books survive entirely based upon the strength of tie-ins to old franchises.

For DC, look at critically lauded but financially unsuccessful books like Manhunter, Hard Time, Bloodhound, Giffen and Rogers's Blue Beetle, or the entire Vertigo line; for Marvel, there's The Order, Parker's New Exiles, the Tsunami line, the Epic line, and some of the other experimental stuff Quesada greenlighted upon becoming EIC. Good books die off quickly; other books cling to established fanbases and thrive. Comic book fans endlessly reward things for being more of the same, and sooner or later, even the most idealistic mainstream comics professional is going to give them just that.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

psychop_rex
2009-10-13 07:22 am UTC (link)

That's partially true, but I think you may be going a little far in one direction here. Look at the brouhaha that arose when 'Blue Beetle' was cancelled, just as an example. That was a popular book - it didn't have anywhere near the name recognition that a Batman or Superman book would have, but it was steadily growing in popularity, it had a devoted following, and fans howled like mad when it was cancelled. One could argue, of course, that it was, in a sense, a legacy book, and therefore more of the same, but it was doing some new and innovative things, and it starred a character who had never even been seen before that. For that matter, check out 'Agents of Atlas' - that was a miniseries based on obscure characters from back in the '50's, and it's still around, and gaining name-recognition.
I think the problem is, yes, partially with the fans, but more to do with the publishers not giving the comics a long enough period to attract a fanbase. Unless you keep your ear constantly pressed to the grapevine, most people are going to miss out on the launching of many new comics - and even for those who do pay that much attention, a lot of stuff speeds right past them. These things take time - you have to get past first impressions, see what the book is like. Maybe you pick up issue #5, and decide not to continue with the series until you've tracked down the first four issues. Unless something has instant name recognition, a lot of readers are only going to learn about it after the fact, because the people in charge don't WANT to give the readers time to get acquainted. They want money - now. That's all they care about. If a book doesn't make a certain amount of money in a certain amount of time, it gets yanked, whether it's built up a readership or not.
Also, one could argue that while, yes, comic fans do tend to raise a stink when writers change things around, that has something to do with the fact that for some time now, most of those changes have been played for shock value. Look at the constant cavalcade of deaths, turmoil, and general Earth-shattering kabooms we've had in the last few years - I'd complain, too. When you're dealing with a fan who bombards DC with hate mail when they give Green Lantern a new logo, then you're talking about a dyed-in-the-wool fanatic who needs to get out more - when you're deailing with someone who complains because his favorite character has had ten close friends and family members wiped out in the last year, then you're talking about someone with a reasonable grievance.
ALSO also, in my opinion, the whole 'no changes' thing can only last so long, because at the moment, Marvel and DC are pretty much pandering to the long-time fans whose devotion to comics goes back to the Silver Age. Eventually, however, time will take its toll, and they'll have to start focusing more on the younger readers - which arguably they've already started doing with things like the 'Ultimate' and 'All-Star' books. There's nothing wrong with mining the past for inspiration, but eventually that inspiration will dry up, and they'll be forced to look more to the future.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stolisomancer
2009-10-13 07:38 am UTC (link)

Two things:

I think the problem is, yes, partially with the fans, but more to do with the publishers not giving the comics a long enough period to attract a fanbase.

How long a period do they need? One year? Three years? A decade?

Blue Beetle was given three years and still failed to get readers. Manhunter was given three years and a relaunch. Captain Britain and MI-13 got a year and a launch that tied directly into a major company crossover event. The Order spawned directly from Civil War, had a hot artist, and lasted one year. New Exiles only got six months, but it sank like a goddamn rock. Spider-Girl got two different relaunches, three letter-writing campaigns, and two separate stays of execution from the editor-in-chief and still didn't survive. Everyone from fans to critics to pros said these books were good, and it did not translate into the sales needed to survive.

You cannot blame publishers for wise business decisions. Good original books do not last in the comics market unless they are tying into decades-old franchises, and that is one hundred percent on us. Comic fans vocally ask for new, innovative, ground-breaking work, then ignore it when it shows up in favor of buying Spider-Man again.

...at the moment, Marvel and DC are pretty much pandering to the long-time fans whose devotion to comics goes back to the Silver Age.

DC is, sure, with their continuity porn. It's just like the Silver Age except people are getting decapitated on panel.

Marvel couldn't be pandering less to the continuity crowd if it was personally dishing out cockslaps at conventions. Quesada and Bendis give no fuck for continuity and change it any time they feel like it.

People aren't pissed at Marvel because they're too mired in the past; they're pissed at Marvel because every single comic's status quo is in a constant state of flux, even when it involves people going OOC to do it. There isn't a single Marvel franchise where the 616 status quo hasn't dramatically changed at least twice in the last five years, with the possible exception of Fantastic Four. The fans have whiplash.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

psychop_rex
2009-10-13 09:02 am UTC (link)

I'm not blaming them for bad business decisions - I'm simply saying what's good for business isn't necessarily good for the book itself. Well... no duh, if they're cancelling it; bad choice of words. What I mean is that sales logic, necessary though it may be to run a company, does not always translate to the logic of public opinion. From everything I've read, Blue Beetle was on the cusp of making it big when it was cancelled - 'The Brace and the Bold' had just been launched, with Jaime as a central character and marketing possibilities galore. I firmly believe that, had they waited just a liiiittle bit longer, BB would have been a top-selling book - it was already growing in readership.
OK, you have a point about Marvel. Still, like DC, this can't last forever.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stolisomancer
2009-10-14 07:35 pm UTC (link)

Blue Beetle had three years, and still couldn't get sales. At the three-year mark, the company is losing enough cash on the book that that point of argument - "Just a little bit longer and we'll succeed" - isn't going to fly any longer. That says to me that DC held off as long as they could on canceling the book, but just couldn't justify the expense any longer.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	psychop_rex 2009-10-14 10:12 pm UTC (link)
	Perhaps so, but it's still a shame. I mean, thanks to 'The Brave and the Bold', the Jaime Beetle is now arguably more recognizable to the youth of today than Ted Kord. They'd be going 'Ooh, I recognize that guy! He's on 'Brave and the Bold'! Let's check out his comic!' (Reply to this) (Parent)

	mxlm 2009-10-13 11:45 am UTC (link)
	I'm not sure Vertigo is a good example, as they make most of their sales in trades (witness the Crime OGNs, and over on Millarworld Brian Wood has stated that DMZ sells something like 40k in trades). (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	stolisomancer 2009-10-13 04:30 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, that's a good point. Their floppy sales are so low that they had to redefine success to allow it to apply, but I forgot about TPBs in the high spirit of the moment. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	schmevil 2009-10-18 02:02 pm UTC (link)
	Most Vertigo stories just read better in trade, imho. Something about the pacing. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	angelophile 2009-10-13 03:55 pm UTC (link)
	"Fans have the ultimate creative control, because they're the ones consuming the material." That's not the same thing as control. As the readership of Amazing Spider-man will tell you. All those polls stating that the readership wanted Peter to stay married didn't do much good. At the end of the day, buying power is not the same as creative power. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stolisomancer
2009-10-13 04:28 pm UTC (link)

If the sales of Amazing Spider-Man had utterly cratered immediately following OMD, it would've sent a message. Instead, the die-hards bitched a lot but continued to buy it. Polls don't mean a thing; if you want actual change in a mainstream comic book, you have to figure out a way to get those forty thousand die-hard fans to stop, because they'll buy the book every month even if it explodes after it's read.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

angelophile
2009-10-14 04:04 pm UTC (link)

Actually, it's hard to claim any figures show that. What they show is sales to comics stores. The stores decide what to stock and in what numbers, so again it's taken out of the direct hands of the readership. Also, it's impossible to tell with the Amazing sales. Maybe 40,000 readers DID drop the book post-BND. Maybe the book did what it was intended to and attracted new readers to replace them. Not likely, but still...

And the sales thing is flawed, frankly. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that people didn't pick up the Batgirl mini because they disliked the direction DC were taking the character in. What that translates to is poor sales and poor sales demonstrate a lack of audience for that character. But they don't, of course. What they demonstrate is a lack of audience for the character written the way they were, a disinterest in the artist and countless other reasons why people don't pick books up. So the readership avoiding a certain title don't give the clear message you think they're giving.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stolisomancer
2009-10-14 07:32 pm UTC (link)

The Batgirl issue is its own thing, which doesn't fit the scenario as it's portrayed. It is a useful point that many of the characters in mainstream comics have other issues besides a strict lack of audience or lack of quality, but in a discussion of originality in mainstream books, it's not quite germane.

My point more or less stands: there is a sizable audience of mainstream comic book fans who pick up a book every month regardless of its quality, whether it's to enjoy bitching about it without guilt or because they don't want to break up the run or simply because they always have. They reward the company with sales independently of the company's actual commitment to quality in the product.

You can see this cycle perpetuate itself in pretty much all areas of geek culture, really. The comfortable and familiar gets rewarded; the new and potentially groundbreaking gets ignored.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

schmevil
2009-10-18 02:06 pm UTC (link)

My point more or less stands: there is a sizable audience of mainstream comic book fans who pick up a book every month regardless of its quality, whether it's to enjoy bitching about it without guilt or because they don't want to break up the run or simply because they always have. They reward the company with sales independently of the company's actual commitment to quality in the product.

That's all very true.

But I would point out that sales figures in the comics industry are notoriously fuzzy. Frex there are sales charts based entirely on DM, and sales charts for bookstore sales. Not all charts include both. Different books sell in those markets. Then there's trades - some books do nothing in trades, while others sell like gangbusters. It's a lot more complicated than just measure sales of pamphlets in the DM.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	parsimonia 2009-10-13 03:04 am UTC (link)
	Same here. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -