|
|
|
|
|
genius picture gallery Latest contest |
|
By: Clark Liles
So this week, while purchasing my comics, I threw a little something extra in the pile for myself: A Silver Surfer Minimate. Technically he came with Spider-Man 2099, but I could go my entire life without Spider-Man 2099 anything, and continue to ponder the marketing decision to make a Minimate of that character. But I wanted the Silver Surfer and that's just the way things go. My wife has him poised on top of one of the computer speakers, surfing out into...something. See, I'm one hell of a writer aren't I?
Meanwhile, while visiting the Image message boards, a topic got me thinking about Marvel Comics and some of their revamping from the past couple of years. Specifically, the X-Men, who I think officially have changed their uniforms more often the the Wasp. One of the things that always bothered me is the tendency to try and force established characters into a niche which was not theirs originally: The X-Men from spandex-wearing, mutant superheroes to leather-clad, mutant anti-heroes; Nomad from spandex wearing, disc throwing sidekick to leather-clad, shotgun toting anti-hero...see a pattern?
Ok, before I go on, let me point out a couple of things. One, I do not hate change; it's forced, unnatural, pointless change that bothers me, and two, the Silver Surfer Minimate is returning to the story soon, just be patient.
So I started wondering, "If Marvel feels that it needs leather-clad anti-heroes, death dealing vigilantes, or whatever...why contort pre-existing characters to fit the mold rather than create completely new characters?"
W ell, the Silver Surfer may have given me a clue. I mean look at him...created in 1966, he's a character who gets from one point to another riding a surf board! The Beach Boys released their first hit, "Surfin'" in 1961, and the country was in the midst of a surfing craze...it made since to stick an alien on a surf board, and a sure fire hit. And sure enough, he's still a popular character with his own series.
But the Silver Surfer is the exception to the rule. Look at other characters that tried to cash in on "current" crazes: Rocket Racer with his rocket powered skateboard, Dazzler with her disco and roller skates, Night Thrasher with his skateboard about 20 years after Rocket Racer. Catering characters to the whims of the public interest just will not work.
So, what's the point? Can new characters be popular? Absolutely! Firestorm's been a fan favorite since the 70s. I hear his new series is being well received, but that's kind of fallen under the shroud of pointless revamping. I'm not sure why Marvel's Nova, Speedball, Darkhawk, and Sleepwalker weren't better received and why they aren't still around...but there's nothing that says a character created today won't be as much of a hit as one created 40 to 60 years ago. But you have to have a good character, not "hip" tools and a flashy costume. Substance over appearance. But that's risky because there are no focus groups who can help you predict how a character of substance will be received.
But then, risk put Marvel on top...didn't it.
By: Clark Liles
The thing about comic geeks is that we complain a lot. This writer's done this, that writer's done that, boy that was a let down, what!? Wolverine again? etcetera etcetera. It's always something with us. For instance, me? I can't believe they can't go even a half year before announcing a series starring Jean Grey...but that's not what I'm here to talk about today. Nope, today I want us to break away from our typical complains, and focus on praise. I want to talk about who are doing it right, and who deserve praise.
An easy choice is Brian Michael Bendis. He may be the most talked about comic writer in the business at the moment. His Ultimate Spider-Man is consistently one of the best reads on the market. He's written the best Daredevil since Frank Miller. The Avenger's Disassembled event seems to be receiving a lot of criticism, but I don't understand why; it's exciting, tragic, and gripping. Yeah, so some of the characters who have died aren't A-List characters, but some are within the Avengers titles. And Powers is a big hit. I'll admit I'm not that "into" it, but I pick it up from time to time when things look interesting, and I'm usually not disappointed. He's got a knack for dialogue that most writers would kill for, and it's so entertaining that you don't realize it's taken 6 issues (or however many) before Peter Parker puts on a Spider-Man costume.
Another easy pick, for me at least, is Geoff Johns. I've said it before, there are two types of comic fans...those who just want a good story, and those who value continuity over all else. Well Johns gives you the best of both worlds. He's very knowledgeable about character history and treats that history with respect. Take his recent use of The Turtle in Flash...many writers would use The Turtle as a joke, but Johns was able to show that even goofy characters can be badass is handled correctly. But don't worry...his stories are exciting and he doesn't bog them down with that history. He shows us how continuity should be used. JSA has some of the oldest characters in comic book history, but the characters haven't been revamped so that they seem like completely different characters...they've aged and still been updated. It's a tricky tightrope he balances on, but he shows us it's not impossible.
What surprises me the most is that there are people who still don't know Robert Kirkman. He's a work horse. He's writing Invincible and Walking Dead at Image, as well as Savage Dragon: Godwar and Superpatriot: War on Terror, we just saw his Marvel Knights 2099 one-shots, and he's working on a new Marvel Team-Up, Jubilee, and Captain America. I'm sure there are other projects in various stages of developments and negotiations because this guy is hot. What makes Kirkman special? Not just that he can apparently handle so many projects at once, but that he can write a great story. Some comics seem like everything has to be so complicated. There's always got to be a startling revelation every issue and it makes the book seem hectic. Kirkman's writing seems to just keep things simple. And he can switch from funny to dramatic better than anyone I can think of. His writing is fun, pure and simple, even when it's sad and tragic.
M y next shout out will, most likely, be met with scorn, but I'm sorry...Chris Claremont is still a master story-teller of the first order. He's got under his belt the longest and best run of X-Men stories under his belt, having worked on the X-Men for, like, seventeen years in a row, and he's come back to them. Where Kirkman is a master of the straightforward tale, Claremont is a master of telling stories which have various subplots, and foreshadowings of future plots. His stories are complicated and tricky if you don't pay attention, but they are wonderful to follow. And he's able to excellently characterize his...characters. It's very subtle. It's not Nightcrawler thinking to himself, "I want to look more human so I am going to stop crouching and start standing upright." It's Nightcrawler leaning against a countertop while drinking coffee mirroring Wolverine right beside him. There are subtleties to his tales that when you start to see, you grow to appreciate.
There are a lot of "up-and-comers" that deserve praise. Many of them are at Image Comics, like Paul Grist, writer of Jack Staff, whose unique style of storytelling is exciting and fun and Jason Rand, writer of small gods (no, it's not a typo...they're supposed to be lower cased), who simply has a gripping way of telling a story. At Dark Horse you can find Eric Powell, the creator of The Goon, one of the funniest books I've read in a long time.
I know...I've left some out. I don't have enough space to mention everyone. Besides, I want to know who you think I left out. So tell me who's on your comic writer's Dream Team.
By: Clark Liles
This week, I walked into my comic shop, browsed what had come out in case something was new that wouldn't be in my pull folder, and there were a couple of people in line ahead of me. He was talking to the guy at the register about Avengers #502. He made a comment about the Avenger who died in the issue, and said something along the lines of "Let's just think of the lamest way to kill someone off, and go with that." Clearly, this patron was not pleased with this issue.
That got me to wondering what happened! I had read on one of my messageboards that other people weren't happy with something about Avengers #502, and I had to find out. I mean, did they kill Demolition Man and everyone's mad that Marvel's trying to play up the death of a D-Class hero? Did Yellowjacket get sprayed with a can of Raid? What was so horrible? Then...I read it...
What the hell am I missing that my gag reflex isn't triggering while everyone else's is sending projectile vomit over the internet? Have fans gotten so picky and jaded that nothing pleases them anymore? No wonder writers and artists complain about fans. A popular hero went out in a heroic fashion completely suited to his personality...where is that lame?
Which brings me to another silly complaint I read online. Someone complained, or made fun of, Charles Xavier saying that Magneto is his soul mate in Excalibur #5; the joke being that soon they'll be doing the horizontal mambo. Well, when I read that this week I came upon the quote in question:
"Magneto is closer to me than my own brother. We're like bookends of the same soul."
I 'm sorry, but I don't see how that's saying that they are soul mates, but more that their souls are so similar and yet so different, and connected: Opposites who must work together, because if they work against each other all the books will scattered on the floor.
Have we become so critical that an innocent, thoughtful comment is cheesy and gay? Have we become so quick to judge that a heroic death appears lame? Can comics survive in such a harsh environment? That's something to consider. Maybe we just need to lighten up.
By: Clark Liles
In Comic Shop News #898 I read that John Byrne was going to be writing a series for DC Comics called Blood of the Demon. In the article, John Byrne said that he was returning the Demon to his Jock Kirby roots. He made a comment about how new people come along and write a character and change things, but most likely, the original creator got it right. I'd quote him directly except that I've apparently lost that comic shop news, ie, I threw it out because I forgot I was going to use it.
Anyway, I was surprised by this comment. Does John Byrne have the secret to good comic writing? I mean, how simple is that...the original creator probably got it right.
Well first, does this statement change anything about how comic writers work today? Absolutely! Do you realize that since the 6 month gap and the following "X-Men Revolution" event almost every writer who's taken on the X-Men has somehow revamped them. New costumes, new rosters, new MO's? In Marvel time, those merry mutants are changing their wardrobes every other month. DC's Firestorm is the latest victim of the drive that many writers have nowadays. They try and find ways to change a character or a concept to make it "fresh and new" and make names for themselves. What about just telling a good story? When I read that a new writer's first priority is to "update" the character for today's audience I cringe because something unnecessary is going to happen. But really, today's audience is the same as the audience 30 years ago; We just want a good story.
What does that mean for continuity? Well, this is where things get tricky. Let's look at Byrne's Doom Patrol. Byrne was apparently given the go-ahead to ignore Paul Kupperberg's continuation of the Doom Patrol in his 1987 series, which eventually had the notable contributions of Grant Morrison as writer, as well as John Arcudi's 2001 series. Now, I don't agree with ignoring these writers' work. Not only is it disrespectful to these writers, even if they did get the characters "wrong", but it creates continuity problems. Some are minor like Karma, from the 80's Doom Patrol, being a member, all-be-it ever so briefly, of the Suicide Squad, to major problems like; If the Doom Patrol didn't exist until recently, what does that do to Beast Boy's origins with the Doom Patrol and story arcs in the New Teen Titans series dealing with Mento? I have heard nothing suggesting that there are plans to straighten out these issues. I don't think Etrigan the Demon will suffer as much because he doesn't have an 87 issue series and a later 16 issue series that will get mucked up.
I think John Byrne has the right idea. If the only thing you can do to write a character is to change him, then maybe you shouldn't write him. If writers just respected what others did before, then continuity errors would be less frequent, and maybe it would allow these ideas which are implemented in making existing characters "fresh and new" to be used on new characters who can capture and freshen our imaginations.
By: Clark Liles
In this weeks Comic Shop News #898 I read the following:
"Phoenix is most definitely returning to the Marvel Universe--and in fact, the dead-again heroine will be featured in a new limited series by Grek Pak & Greg Land that will mark Jean Grey's latest return to the Marvelverse.
I'm sorry. Come again? Jean Grey is returning to life yet again? Why? A lot of ludicrous things happen in comics: A new Firestorm is created when there's a perfectly good and popular Firestorm out there to be used; everything ever written about the Doom Patrol is wiped out for a new series about the team; Emma Frost can join the X-Men and date Cyclops and apparently I'm the only one who has issues with it...but this takes the cake.
You ask me, "Why? Why do you call this the ultimate example of comic book stupidity?" Because it completely undermines any sense of credibility that a writer has when writing for Marvel. Imagine this: You're writing for Marvel on an X title. You're doing a well received job on a storyline which everyone says is some kind of homage to the original Phoenix saga and Claremont's classic run in general. You decide to end your homage with Jean Grey dying. Yeah, it's been done before, but since dead means dead, you're going to kill Jean Grey for good, as well as Magneto. Then very quickly, a couple of months after you've left Marvel having concluded your Magnum Opus of an X-Men story, Magneto is alive and Jean Grey is slated to return. Well ... anyone else feel castrated?
I
don't see how Quesada and the other Marvel editors can think this type of
stuff is ok. Everything Grant Morrison did during his time on New X-Men
has been eliminated except for Emma's and Scott's relationship; and with
Jean returning how long will that last? I didn't like Morrison's run, but
even he deserves enough respect to not have everything he wrote declared
null and void. I'm like most comic fans and have delusions of sitting down,
writing a comic script, and one day having a chance to write for Marvel, DC,
or Image, but with Marvel's tendencies to allow the next writer on a title
to rewrite what I worked on...I don't think I'd work for them.
Yes, I hate Jean Grey's return because it's this very thing which Marvel's so-called "Dead Means Dead" rule is supposed to prohibit, but even more importantly it's this type of decision which removes all respect for a writer and what he writes. After all, the next guy's most likely going to just white-out what the previous guy wrote.
|
In Defense of the Fanboy Part 2 By: Clark Liles
Last time, I wrote in defense of the fanboy: a much maligned comic book fan who desires a good story within the confines of continuity. This time, however, I come in defense of another type of fanboy: the Indy Lover. Many lovers of the Independent or Alternative comic will cringe at being called fanboys, but while they often disagree on many comic related topics, they very often agree on principle, even if they don’t see it. To aid in understanding, I will refer to the fans of small press comics as Indy-Boys. When you walk up to the cash register of your comic shop, do you have comics that most other patrons do not? Do you have to buy many of your comics online because your comic shop just doesn’t carry the titles you want? Do most of your titles not have superheroes? Or if they have superheroes are they comics which break the mold of the typical superhero comic with extremely dark or violent heroes, comedic story-telling, and/or alternate modes of story-telling? Are most of your comics black-and-white? You may be an Indy-Boy. Where Fanboys love their favorite characters and teams, the Indy-Boy is looking, primarily, for a good story. Sometimes they can be dedicated to a character or title, but since Indy comics are usually short lived, there’s not a chance to get too attached. What attracts the Indy-Boy to Indy comics is the lack of limitations. Many Indy comics have one writer/artist team; sometimes the writer and artist are the same person. This gives the comic two advantages: 1) With one writer and artist there is an almost complete lack of continuity errors and sudden, drastic changes in appearance or personality which plague many mainstream comics, and 2) There is no outside editorial control. This combination allows the writers to really do anything with their characters that they want. This provides the reader with the prospect of anything occurring. In an Indy comic literally anything can happen. Compare that to mainstream titles like Spider-Man, (where Aunt May is still alive and kicking), or Superman, (where, even though in Identity Crisis the loves of the DC universe are being killed off, we know Lois Lane will not be a victim), and you can see the appeal. But think of what could be done if Doctor Ock killed Aunt May, Bruce Wayne found himself broke, or the original five X-Men were no longer a part of the team? Think of what wonderful stories would come out if the Big Two started to write like they had nothing to lose, started to write like they did back in the Golden Age when they didn’t know that comics were going to be so popular (and be around for 60 plus years) So, combine the powerful characters and their vast continuities from the mainstream comics, with the unlimited possibilities of the small press Indy comics…and the comic book Renaissance would be under way.
By: Clark Liles Have you ever been accused of being the reason for the downfall of the comic medium despite the fact that you're in the comic shop every week? Have you ever been told that you and your kind are the cause for the mediocre plots and stagnant character development found in comics every week? Do you like *gasp* superhero comics? If the answers are yes, then I hate to tell you...you may be a fanboy or fangirl. It seems that comic fans have divided into two groups. While in Jonothan Swift's Gulliver's Travels we see the satire of the Big-Endians and Little-Endians of Lilliput, in a comic shop you can find the real life conflict of Fanboys and Indys; Continuitists and Storyists. The difference is that a Fanboy is a fan of a character or group of characters and buys their titles through bad writers and artists complaining only when a writer makes an error in continuity. The Indys are only interested in a good story and damn continuity, damn the past, and damn convention...if it's a good story, then it should be ok. That would be all well and good, and we could have endless debate on the virtues of both position except...except some writers have gotten into the game of complaining about and talking down to the Fanboy filling the Indys with validation that they have chosen the best way to eat a hard-boiled egg. Here's the thing that gets forgotten when the beating sticks are pulled out and the Fanboy bashing begins...Fanboys are the most loyal comic readers you can find. They don't jump from title to title simply because of a writer change or an artist change. Your drug is this comic character and we're addicted to him so unless you change the composition of the character, by leaving out ingredients of continuity, we're an easy sell. Wouldn't you feel better saying that you have the most popular characters rather than the most popular talent...because as we've been seeing, talent can leave...the the X-Men and Batman aren't switching companies. Now I admit that that doesn't eliminate the problem of Fanboys not liking change and stifling creativity, but that's a false statement. As a Fanboy, I can honestly say that nothing would make me happier than if I could pick up an X-Men comic without any of the original 5 or Wolverine. I want change, but I don't want those stupid superficial changes that make the characters look like they suffer from chemical imbalances. Sudden unexplained changes in costume (specifically leather y'all), powers, personality...I'm sorry, but only insane people change as many times as Aquaman has over the years, and the X-Men are one large bipolar support group. Despite the common belief, Fanboys don't want continuity above a good story...they want, we want, a good story within continuity. Geoff Johns is our hero because he has shown that you can take characters who have existed for 60 years and make them interesting again without ignoring continuity. Not just ignoring continuity, but embracing it. If a writer's only contribution is to change a costume and an updated, hip, badass attitude...well, the story's still crap, but crap with a more appealing aroma I suppose. And don't get me started on the monthlies versus graphic novel debate which gets tied into this...I'll save that for another day. The bottom line is that a Fanboy who can tell you specific issues where certain heroes and villains have fought before wants the same old story over and over again less than most comic readers because we've already read it, and can show it to you right now. A good story isn't one told in chrome with cusswords...it's something new...and you can wear the same costume and have the same powers and attitude and still experience something new...but only the best writers can handle that type of story, like Johns, and Robert Kirkman, whose Invincible can easily be mistaken for just another Superboy knockoff or Ultimate Spider-Man, but you quickly learn is really an original, gripping story.
Evil Genius: The End By: Clark Liles That's right my evil cohorts, Evil Genius is signing off after these many years of...well...evil. I remember a few years ago, one of you fatal faithful fans asked me if I would ever take Evil genius Comics off of the internet, that's what we used to call the predecessor to this E-Scape. I responded that as long as there were comics to review, villains to honor, and fans to read, write, and draw...Evil Genius Comics would be here. Unfortunately that day that I never thought would never actually happen has happened. As I warned, the Brian Bendis, Grant Morrison, Frank Miller collaboration, Ultimate Spider-Bat: The Dark Phoenix Returns, destroyed the comic industry. The 24 issue maxiseries retelling the origin of the first hit character out of the merging of DC and Marvel in DM Comics, was the gaudy, bloody, chaotic mess...and the fans just disappeared. But, it wasn't just a retelling was it...it was 24 issues of the 24 hours leading up to Bruce Barker's donning of the famed cape and cowl...2 pages of a teenage Bruce brushing his teeth...a whole issue of the bus drive to OsJoke Industries where his class had a field trip...sure, we loved seeing Bruce's classmate Logan skewer Flash for picking on Bruce...but it took 3 pages for the claws to even touch Flash...2 and a half pages of the mutant vampire bat with spider abilities to bite Bruce, revealing the Arachno-Chiroptera's secondary mutation for transferring its abilities to others and allow for gallons of blood to spew forth from its victim. BUT 24 ISSUES FOR WHAT ORIGINALLY TOOK 8! Yes, Spider-Bat's abandonment of the colorful cape and cowl in favor of a leather jacket with a winged spider on the back was realistic...but it wasn't interesting because Spider-Bat was no longer a hero...he was Bruce Barker, rebel with powers...and we saw the costume on the very last splash-paneled page of the last issue...but by then there were only 2 people buying...myself and Kevin Smith. Anyway, it wasn't even the drawn out retelling of the story of nerdy rich kid Bruce Barker gaining the combined powers of a spider and a bat, then traveling the world over learning the many styles of fighting from the French savate to the Australian art of boomerangs, which we saw with the Spy-Batarangs which took photos for Bruce to sell to P. Perry Perrison of the Planet Bugle, to go on and win the championship of the world Bloodsport competition, where, upon winning, he was denied the championship Van Damme Cup because he had 6 arms, he allowed a thief, whom we later learned was Norman Osjoke, father of Logan Osjoke, to escape with the priceless Cup and then later kill Bruce's parents in an alley after a showing of The Godfather: The Musical starring James Gandolfini. We all love that story for its realistic drama and character driven chain of events. What really lead to the collapse of the comicbook industry was the fact that, by then, there was no competition...small press ended...Dark Horse held on for awhile with its Beastmaster comic book, Hellman: Agent of BPRD, and The Goon, but eventually folded...and Robert Kirkman, sole employee of Kirk-Image Comics just couldn't print enough Invincible Dead Brit's and Science Dog's to compete. So everything rode on the DMC. Detective Marvel Comics started off pretty good. I mean, really, as the only serious comic publisher...how could you lose. In order to assure that, they even assaulted manga comics by starting a manga-esque line of romance, sport, and everyday life comics, as well as action comics stressing bloody sword fights and underaged girls falling out of their tattered rags. This line, unlike traditional comics, consisted of 200 page graphic novels sold almost exclusively to book stores. DMC profits skyrocketed with the added sales to teenage girls...but things started to to sour. An initial hit of Dutchess AI written by Britney Spears quickly turned sour when the second volume came out and no one bought it. Teen boys stopped buying them realizing they weren't as visually stimulating as the telly shows or the E-Scape games, and there was no more pornography in them than a National geographic, and masses of people began to see written words as archaic. DCM panicked and began revamping their entire line of monthly comicbooks hoping to rejuvenate the medium. Many strategies were tried, but the ultimate surefire no lose idea came with Ultimate Spider-Bat: The Dark Phoenix Returns. Using the best talents known for their ability to spread out a story to realistic time so that the realistic dialogue seems to be spoken directly to you by a real person, and the introduction of a realistic leather wearing superhero with fantastic powers, and a dark pessimistic vision of the future, along with surrealistic talking animals reminiscent of Disney films...which are almost forgotten...wrap all that in 13 holo-foil variant covers which combine into one wall mural assuming you get all variant covers of all 24 issues of this epitome of sequential art...Most comic collectors had given up the ghost after 7 issues...they just couldn't afford it...unfortunately, so many people had begun buying comics after the expansion of the comic sales medium out of the comic shop and back into bookstores and grocery stores, that comics had become a common reading material...so when things turned sour...the American economy suffered, and thus the global economy suffered. So now, the comicbook is dead. Spider-Bat died while putting on the leather costume since that was more realistic, and really...with two people buying the final issue...it didn't really matter. The comicbook will go down as a footnote in the history of television and movie superheroes. And who can you blame for the fall of comicbooks...well, who gets blamed for comicbooks cannibalizing itself, repeating the same successes other titles had, rather than trying new ideas? Who's to blame for the lack of development and stagnation of comics? Well, if you ask the guys in charge...the fans who shelled out tons of money, who they insisted felt that change was bad. We always knew that change happened...we could handle Cyclops or even Wolverine not being an X-Man. We could handle the Justice League without Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. Spider-Man wouldn't end because there was no Aunt May. Were the fans afraid of change? Or were the comic companies and writers afraid?
By: Clark Liles One very exciting comic event started this past week. Brian Michael Bendis shows us what he's got planned for the Avengers starting off with Avengers #500, the first of the Avengers Disassembled event. Of course, at the San Diego Comic Con, Bendis and Quesada talked about the upcoming event. I, of course, didn't save the link which shared what they had to say about the upcoming event, so I can not give direct quotes...but I remember the gist of it. Bendis told everyone that he was not playing around. There were going to be real consequences from his assault on the Avengers and real deaths...none of that "But we didn't see the body crap." Avengers were going to die and stay dead. Quesada, of course, confirmed that heroes were going to die and stay that way under Marvel's "Dead Means Dead" rule...except... Wait a cotton pickin' minute there Joe! Does dead mean dead at Marvel? Or doesn't it? You're waffling more than a politician who's stuck his dipstick in the wrong engine! In, what I call "Standard Quesada Fashion", Quesada pulled the rug out from under Bendis quickly saying that all deaths were final in the Avengers Disassembled event except one, where someone has already provided a way to bring this dead character back and it makes sense. Now, correct me if I'm wrong here guys, but if someone comes back from the dead, whether it makes sense, or it's nonsensical in nature, doesn't that mean that dead does not, in fact, mean dead? If laws were set up such that if you had a good enough reason or excuse to break the laws you could get away with it...well let me tell you, we'd live in chaos...but I guess, at least, it would make sense. Now, to tell you the truth, I'm not a fan of Quesada's "Dead Means Dead" rule. The last thing any editor should do is limit creativity, and saying that a character who is dead must stay dead is a limiting situation. But if someone tells me that from now on dead means dead, or that from now on we're going to cut back on the number of X-titles...you know, I may be an evil genius, but apparently I'm also gullible because I'm going to believe you and expect you to fulfill your end of the agreement. Despite everything that Quesada, or Bendis, or anyone else may try and say...at Marvel, dead means the same thing it always has meant...very little. As long as characters can be killed off for no more reason than to clear out some of the fodder as has been seen in recent X series, and the deaths have no affect on other characters...just a foot note in a fan page...well, death means nothing. Sure, sometimes a death is handled well and we can feel the sadness from the event...Colossus, Sue Dibney, Troia...but usually death is just a tool to get rid of unwanted characters or to try and give a title a feeling of seriousness...and if death is fleeting, well...the seriousness is removed. Should dead mean dead? No. Should Quesada say dead means dead? No. I agree with Joe Q. in that dead should mean dead unless a writer has a very good reason for bringing that character back and it makes sense. Here's a suggestion Joe...change the rule from "Dead Means Dead" to "Marvel Means Quality Writing". You do that, then the deaths and continuity and everything else will take care of itself.
An Evil Genius Plot to Save the Comic Industry By: Clark Liles What is every comic fan's and comic publisher's major concern? No, not the popularity of nonspandex wearing characters, or the overwhelming support for DC to bring back Captain Carrot and his Amazing Zoo Crew, or that comic writers and artists might start having hair, which would greatly diminish the quality of comic books. No, the major concern of anyone remotely interested in comics is how long can the comic book industry last? I mean, it's a major concern right? Everywhere I turn I hear, read, or telepathically retrieve a statement that sales are down! The era of the Baby Boomers is no longer booming the comic industry! So the question everyone asks is, how can we save the comic book from extinction? First order of business in any moment of crisis...protection of numero uno, and laying blame. First, am I going to survive the extinction of the comic book? Well, it would certainly be traumatic, and I'd probably spend several nights pouring myself Jack and Coke using my handy dandy Flaming Carrot shot glass, or my soon to be arriving Goon shot glass, but I think I have a good enough size stockpile to survive. I could probably go 8-10 years averaging 1 comic book read a day without rereading anything, and throw in the trade paperbacks and I'm set. Second, am I to blame for the fall of the comic book? Well, I buy 15-20 new comic books a week, on average. I'm raising 3 future comic geeks...I almost think I alone will save the comic book from extinction...but barring credit for it's continued existence, I certainly can't be blamed. So, I'm safe and blameless. Next, we need a plan. We've all heard the usual ideas for saving the comic book: Broaden the comic book market out of the limited comic shop domain; convert to more marketable, more profitable graphic novels (which, I'd like to add, is not the same thing as a monthly comic book); expand further into the realm of adult interest, or go the opposite direction and regain the interest of children so that they can grow up and be comic geeks like we've become. But alas, there is one grave flaw in all of these theories...comic books are not considered cool. That's right guys, comic books are not considered cool. Hey, I'm sorry to break it to you, but do you see the cool kids reading comics? The high school quarterback? The head cheerleader? The rich preppy sitting in his Volvo reading Superman? The so bad he's cool leather jacket wearing, motorcycle driving badboy reading Batman in detention? No. We're called "comic geeks" for a reason...the average person figures there's something very, very wrong with us. So, to save comics we have to make them cool. "How do we do that?" you ask. Do we change spandex to leather, put DD breasted heroines wearing string on the covers, and make the comics read like a Quentin Tarantino film with gratuitous cussing and blood letting? No! Coolness comes when the majority thinks it's cool...so we make the comic geek not the exception, but the rule...not the minority but the majority. "How do we do that?" you ask? Damn, you ask a lot of questions. Ok, to recap comics aren't cool because comic fans are in the minority, thus causing the concern that the comic book will be like the coelacanth...you know, the fish everyone thought was extinct but some fisherman accidentally caught one day and...ok, anyway. We need more comic fans. Well, I've found that being married and having children creates comic fans out of thin air...or, well...thin wife...but none the less, fat wife, skinny wife, red wife or blue wife, it seems that wives are the catalyst for creating new comic geeks. I know, my children may not become comic geeks, but my son can correctly identify Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, the Hulk, and Mysterio and the Vulture and the Rhino (we've been watching the 67 Spider-Man's, but we'll get around to letters, numbers, and colors after he can correctly identify every member, past and present, of the X-Men)...my youngest daughter has a Hulk chew toy...my oldest daughter has wrinkled more comics than I really want to think about. So we need all comic geeks with wives and having little comic geek babies. But... Yep, there's a "but"...but since comic geeks are not considered cool, it's hard to find women who are willing to marry a comic geek and raise little geeks. I got lucky, and her drunk, and now she can't back out...but how can we get comic geeks procreating? Well, here's the plan...artificial insemination. Oh, don't give me that look...did you not see the title..."An Evil Genius Plot to Save the Comic Industry"...Evil Genius...EVIL!...so, we establish the Comic Greek Preservation Association, we create fertility clinics and sperm banks which utilize comic geek "wank grease", and impregnate unsuspecting women. Get high profile sperm from the likes of Bendis, Claremont, Morrison, Johns, Kirkman, Larsen for the high ticket value customers...AND SOON WE'LL HAVE A WHOLE GENERATION OF COMIC GEEKS! And those without comic geek genetics fueling their interests will just follow along like sheep, or be chastised as sports geeks, or clothing geeks, or what have you. It will be the renaissance of the comic book...and soon...WE'LL CONQUER THE WORLD! Well, I've got to run. My wife reminded me I need to take my medications before the voices start up again, and I start thinking I'm Beppo the Supermonkey. But I've got it all planned, with contingencies for those baby geeks who need external stimuli to bring out the inner geek, but I better go...OOH OOH AHH AHH AHH!
Want a more serious plan for saving the comic book? Check out: http://www.fanzing.com/mag/fanzing20/specrept.shtml
By: Clark Liles The internet chat rooms are a buzz with scandal these days. Fans are reacting in horror, disgust, and outrage surrounding news of an upcoming project. It seems the much maligned Rob Liefield, cofounder of Image Comics, is getting back into comics with the release of several Youngblood series. But that's not the worst part. The creator of Cable and Deadpool is not just bringing the government sponsored superteam back, but he's dragging one of the hottest writers of the day into his doomed resurgence with him...Robert Kirkman! That's right, My Lucky Labrats, Robert Kirkman, uber-writer of Invincible and The Walking Dead, as well as a slew of miniseries coming out soon, is going to be writing Youngblood: Imperial, a 12 issues series with retired former Youngblood leader, Shaft, coming out of retirement to police an economically distraught Earth. Upon hearing this news, fans across the internet did not exclaim, "Yes! More Kirkman to read!" They bellowed "WHY!?! Why would you, King Kirkman, ally yourself with Loathsome Liefield?" and as far as I've noticed, Kirkman has admirably not responded to these insulting questions. But it's not an insulting question you say? That question alone suggests that the questioner does not trust Kirkman's judgement, reasoning, and writing ability. And some of the posited theories are ludicrous, especially the "He's in it for the money" theory, which reduces the esteemed Kirkman from literary artist to money grubbing sell-out. In defense of Kirkman's and Liefield's Youngblood series, I give you the top 3 reasons you should rein in your preconceived judgements: 1. Liefield's Youngblood, which spearheaded Image Comics into public popularity, was not so harshly criticized when it initially came out. It's easy to look back and see the weaknesses in Liefield's artistic and writing abilities, but at the time, his art was unique and eye catching and fans loved it. We all bought Youngblood. 2. There is no such thing as an inherently weak character. True, Liefield was unable to flesh out his many comic characters such that they were individuals and not just cookie-cutter characters (Youngblood, Bloodstrike, and Brigade all were pretty much identical under Liefield's pen), but that doesn't mean there's not potential there for a good writer to build on. In fact, the high quality talent associated with the three Youngblood projects suggests that I'm not the only one to think this way. You're not going to get Kirkman, Kurt Busiek (Youngblood: Genesis), and Mark Millar (Youngblood: Bloodsport), on a series with no potential. 3. Trust the writer. I've not heard anyone say that Kirkman is a poor writer. Trust in his ability to bring these characters to life and give us an exciting story. Am I saying every Kirkman fan should buy this book? No. You have to decide that for yourself. But if your only reason for not buying it is because "Youngblood and Liefield suck!" well, who can argue with that reasoning?
Youngblood: Bloodsport, Youngblood: Genesis, and Youngblood: Imperial will be published by Arcade Comics
While surfing the internet, occasionally I wipe out on a message board or site where some comic fan or review complains about something comic related, and I become amused. I saw such a comment down the line recently about prolific comic book writer, Chuck Austen. It went something like this: "Wat the hell is Austen gettin all these writing jobs for. He sux! I hate his writng. He's an absolute hack! I'll buy Invaders and give it a chance, but why the fuck does Marvel keep letting him write!" Well, this type of comment is often made about certain writers and artists. We comic fans rant and scream, yelling "WHY!?!" to the comic gods, "why do these travesties against the comic book occur?" Then, after fuming on the message boards and in comics reviews, we go and we buy that which we complained about. Almost every comic fan has purchased a comic that he just knew he wasn't going to like. That's where we have a problem. Let's have a brief Economics lesson. Marvel Comics, DC Comics, Image Comics, Dark Horse Comics, and all the other ones are in the comic business to make money...to make your money. So all the fan hate-mail we write about seeing Wolverine in every title each week, or Chuck Austen's continued occupation as a comic book writer, or the fact that death means nothing in the comic world, will mean nothing. Do the writers, artists, and editors like fan mail? I'm sure they do...but are they going to say "Oh, Engleburt Forbush is tired of seeing 2 dozen X-Men related titles in the comic shop a week, maybe we should cut out some of these titles." As long as we pay money for it, our complaints are hollow. So, can we fans change who writes, draws, and what gets published in the comic book industry? Certainly. The consumer has the power. That's where we make the mistake. We think, "ah, what's the use...they're going to print whatever they want, right?" WRONG! The Consumer has the power.
During the 1940s and 1950s, the comic industry scrambled to make sure it had consumers and that they were happy with the product. They jumped amongst the superhero, western, crime detective, war, and funny animal genres trying to give the public, the comic fans, the consumers, what they wanted. But sales are high enough for the industry today to, mostly, maintain a steady course. But we can't stop buying Uncanny X-Men because we have a long run already. We can't not buy Invaders #0 because if it's the next hot title we'll have missed out and other collectors will make us look foolish for not buying it. We don't want to walk into a comic shop and see a title that we could have bought for $2.99 is now being sold for $20.00. They're getting our money whether we're happy about it or not. What incentives do the comic companies have to keep Chuck Austen from writing comics? Who's to blame? We are. Why Chuck Austen? Because we're collectors, and we'll buy it anyway.
Is GI Joe a real American hero? by Clark Liles In the July 4th, 2004 edition of my newspaper, The State, I came across an article titled "Fans want G.I. Joe to be toy icon". Being a G.I. Joe fan from my childhood, I read with interest how attendants to the G.I. Joe Collectors' Convention in Lake Buena Vista, Florida began chanting "Yo, Joe!" and then "Why No Joe?" due to his absence within the National Toy Hall of Fame in Rochester, New York. That got me wondering...will the "Real American Hero" make it into the Hall of Fame? First, we have to figure out what it takes for a toy to get inducted into the National Toy Hall of Fame. According to the article, "Christopher Bensch, who oversees the nomination process...notes that a toy much reach icon status to be worthy of induction." So, who knows what it takes for a toy to reach "icon status"? According to the National Toy Hall of Fame website (http://www.strongmuseum.org/NTHoF/NTHoF.html): "An honored item must be a specific toy or game, such as “Barbie” or “teddy bear,” rather than a generic type, such as “doll” or “stuffed animal.” It must also have been made in significant number and engaged multiple generations. The toy must have educational value and it must have been safe for its intended users." So...does G.I. Joe meet the criteria? It certainly is a specific toy rather than a generic type. Has G.I. Joe been made in significant number and engaged multiple generations? Depends on what "significant number" means. G.I. Joe first appeared for the Toy Fair in 1964. The original G.I. Joe was 12" tall and lasted until 1976. G.I. Joe returned in 1982 much smaller, but was a hit spawning cartoons, TV Movies, and a successful Marvel comic. This is the G.I. Joe I remember. G.I Joe continues and you can find both 12" Joes and 4" today. In my opinion, 40 years a significant number of generations. Was G.I. Joe educational and safe for its intended users? Well, here we hit a significant snag. After all, we get really subjective here. In today's politically correct, overly sensitive society, a toy which advocates the Army, and through it war, would not be considered educational. But maybe it was, and still is...When it originally debuted, G.I. Joe consisted of toys supporting the four branches of the military; Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. It even introduced a G.I. Nurse, though it was unsuccessful. In the 70s, G.I. Joe waned and Hasbro launched G.I. Joe as a member of the Adventure Team, no longer combating human opponents but nature, flying around the world thwarting global scale catastrophes and battling fearsome beasts like tigers and gorillas. When G.I. Joe returned in the 80s, it was reduced in size, and children were now introduced to specific jobs in the military as the differentiated Joes, now totally unique from one another, and with special jobs. As the line went on, G.I Joe changed with the times addressing a more sensitive age with Eco-Force, the rise in drug sales within the US with the Drug Elimination Force, and the exploration of space with Star Brigade. None were very successful, but the Joes were trying. By late 80s and early 90s, G.I. Joe was flagging despite a few attempts to keep the line alive. In 1996 Hasbro brought back the 12" figures with The Classic Collection and eventually started introducing figures based on real historical people like Buzz Aldrin. Now you can even find recreations of the popular 4" characters like Snake-Eyes, Scarlett, and Roadblock. GI Joe's evolution to address the concerns, or perceived concerns, and interests of each generation is certainly educational. It continued to educate children about the world, and about the US armed services since it began and adjusted to the threats of the day. But can a war toy be appreciated in a society which values uneducational "educational" toys and frowns on the "promotion" of war and violence? Has the world turned too politically correct for G.I. Joe to survive? Well, that depends...would a toy which promotes the greedy accumulation of wealth make it into the National Toy Hall of Fame? Would a toy which promoted the concept that the female sex is the weaker sex? With Monopoly and Barbie in the National Toy Hall of Fame, those answers are yes. Surely that means we can get G.I. Joe in there. But with anti-war sentiment prevalent, how long will G.I. Joe, the toy representative of real American heroes, have to wait until it gets its day in the sun?
Some information for this article was obtained at http://www.bigredtoybox.com/articles/joeindex.shtml
|
Editorials