I'm kind of curious at this though - what do y'all think it'd take for you to get BACK into comics? =)
THIS IS AWESOME....WE ALL AGREE.........FUCK THE NEW COMIC MEDIUM!!!
Well, I am actually thinking about jumping on to a couple of the new DC titles when the relaunch happens. Plus there are some independent titles I might check out as well. My main reason for dropping comics was not being able to afford them while I was back in college. While I know there are some problems with a large majority...I have an obsessive personality, and would likely have still gotten the major X-titles no matter how much they sucked...but I am going to try to avoid Marvel unless I see some sort of improvement from them...unfortunately I am afraid the only way things will improve is if they pull a serious reboot of the whole company...not just a book or two.
Hmm, so perhaps the reboot will get some old comic-book readers back in? Thatd be kinda neat. =)
Also - I'm going to be kind of mentioning this thread on the podcast this week, so if any of you want to squeeze in some voicemails before we record tonight about why you stopped reading comics (or your opinion about current comics, etc), I'd love to play them. 239-244-2899 is the number. If not, no biggie and keep chatting here - just thought I'd offer. =)
I feel I need to clarify my point about editors more.
While I agree that they should not be overly involved in the actual story, they also need to offer some restraint to ensure the "writers" aren't creating situations that could eventually create the messes Marvel and Dc routinely get themselves into.
IMO, the Image debacle put the big 2 into panic mode. They saw all this talent leave and strike out on their own and.... SUCCEED! not because the books were overly good, but because of the popularity of the artists who left. Ergo, I assume they started to associate popularity with quality and/or sales.
And that worked.... for awhile.
However, what they failed to realize is that while we readers bought anything written by a "hot" writer or artist at first, we started wanting quality stories over embossed covers and silver foil. We wanted stories that made sense. We wanted some semblance of logic and continuity to the stories.
The People In Charge though seemed to miss the boat. They felt that any and all popular writers, from any medium, were to be pursued at all costs. And THAT was a slap in the face to the quality writers who kept these idiots afloat for so long for so little money. Y'know, the writers and artists who actuallly could put the product out on time?
So, we got Metzler and his idiocy that was Identity Crisis. We got JMS butchering Wonder Woman and Superman. And we got Bendis butchering the Avengers. And we got Millar writing Civil War in the the real MU, instead of the Ultimate line, where it would have fit. And we got Johns bringing back all his pet characters, only to make them slimy and gritty and covered in blood. Etc.... etc...
And since they wanted these folk SO BAD, they gave them exclusive contracts and FREE REIN! Which is dumb.
Now, don't get me wrong, Johns and Bendis CAN write good stories. Hell, some of Johns' work on JSA and the Flash was downright BRILLIANT! BUT, their being able to do what they want when they wanted? NOT GOOD. Now DC is so messed up, they're saying it needs a reboot to clean it up. Mind, some are saying it's because things were stale....
Then you factor in that Didiot and QuASSada seem to GLORY in the attention they get for their controversial ond oft STUPID ideas and it gets worse. Worst of all is when those two decide to add their "creative input" and force their ideas through.
I see the role of the editor as someone who loosens the reins, but still have a hold on them. They need to make sure the writer has freedom, but that the stories fit, make sense, and won't potentially create problems. And while they can offer suggestions, if it messes up the story or screws up continuity, they need to back off, IE when Quesada made Norman the dad of Gwen's kids or when he mandated the end of the Peter/MJ marriage.
THAT is how I see it.
Last edited by Slither; Tuesday, July 12, 2011 at 03:38 PM.
I'm glad you clarified as I think it has some other great suggestions that I think you're not alone in saying. I think you hit it on the head at the beginning though where you say editors should make sure writers don't f things up that will cause problems down the road. I also am glad you clarified you think they writers should have some leeway in the overall story, as I generally agree with that too. I may not write, but in past jobs I've done some other creative stuff and I couldn't stand getting breathed down my neck for every detail.
The sad thing really is that the industry is having issues because of things like this, but I feel like there are blinders on and tat everyone is just blaming everything outside of content.
I especially love when they try to blame the "shrinking number of old readers" for why they need to try and shake things up for NEW readers. This seems to be a common excuse to try and shake things up in a manner they know will piss off many readers.
But hey, any press is good press, right?
Why do I find that excuse to be bullsh*t? I, for one have often been accused of not wanting change in comics. And that is completely WRONG. I welcome character evolution. I LOVE character development. I WANT to see change in my heroes, sometimes even drastic change..... BUT, it has to make sense. It has to be plausible. And it has to suit the gradual evolution of the character so that the core characteristics that made him/her the hero I love have to remain.
For example, I truly loved how Spider-Man/Peter Parker evovoled in the 80s. He went from the fall guy, the hero who everyone doubted and the police chased, the Charlie Brown of the MU to a respected powerhouse. He fought and either beat or stalemated some heavy hitters like Namor, Juggernaut, Mister Hyde, and Thunderball weilding both his wrecking ball and the Wrecker's crowbar. He wasn't the "Parker luck" joke I was tired of reading about. And then, when Marvel FINALLY brought in some teen heroes to try and take over his "unlucky teen in angst" role, they aloowed him to move further, even getting married.
AWESOME! FINALLY Spider-Man was allowed to evolve. Then, editorial allowed some really shitty stories to happen, notably the Clone Saga, and sales flagged. More shitty stories, more bad sales.
So, along comes Quesada and some lazy writers who blab on and on about how hard a married hero is to write and they point to sales. So, what do they do? DEVOLVE HIM! WHAT?!?!?
The true thing is this, for me:
1) Editorial FAILED to make sure the stoires were good.
2) They allowed lazy writing
3) They FAILED to create and PUSH a suitable replacement for Spidey's niche/mythos in Marvel.
Putting Spidey back to where he was 20 to 30 years ago was NOT the right answer, IMO. But, they point to sales and say "newer" readers love this change, that they were right to disolve the marriage.
I disagree. I figure the sales are either OLDER readers who never wanted to see Spidey evolve and readers who are looking for the niche Spidey fills in the Emo/Unlucky hero that Marvel never had the nerve, drive, and TALENT to find a replacement for.
Old readers are not all the same, Quesada. Just because YOU wanted to see the Spidey you read in the 70s come back doesn't mean all readers did.
Factor in the lack of evolution, the continued striving towards more gore and shock, and the ridiculous cover prices and I think you'll find a truer relation to why older readers are dropping the books.
In other words, it's not the readers who are failling YOU marvel and DC..... it's the other way around.
And relaunches that eventually get reversed are not the solution either.
Editorial needs to do THEIR jobs.
"I see the role of the editor as someone who loosens the reins, but still have a hold on them. They need to make sure the writer has freedom, but that the stories fit, make sense, and won't potentially create problems. And while they can offer suggestions, if it messes up the story or screws up continuity, they need to back off, IE when Quesada made Norman the dad of Gwen's kids or when he mandated the end of the Peter/MJ marriage."
This is exactly right. Editorial needs to do their job...which is to make sure the stories fit the characters and the books...that there are not poorly written stories, and to give enough to the writers while keeping ahold of the reins to make sure they are headed in the right direction. As you point out with Quesada and Didio (and I know many had the same issue with Harras when he was at Marvel), the editors should not be pushing or forcing their ideas on writers....they can suggest ideas...
And stop with the big "EVENTS" throughout multiple books on such a regular basis. Editorial driven events have, at least in the past, been a bane on writers...as they have to interrupt their own storylines and ideas to incorporate these huge events.
Yes, the BIG EVENTS set my teeth on edge too.
Too many, too many that SUCK, Too expensive to keep up with, and, as you say, it gets CRAMMED down the throats of writers who likely had something else going on.
The capper for me was OW@W. Here was a shit event that was only about promoting Superman and jamming his MYTHOS down our throats. Even if you didn't want to read it because, like me, you just didn't care about Superman and were sick to death of him, he showed up in your books or the Probes did. And it was all to have Superman pull off the big feats and be the ultimate saviour.
Worse yet was that the JSA was said to STRUGGLE to beat one or two Probes, only for it to be shown that Superman and Doomsday could waltz through dozens of them.
THE F'N JSA!!!!!
I've hated MEGA EVENTS ever since. And Identity Crisis and Infinite Crisis were so disgustingly horrible, that certainly sealed the deal for me. The ONE Luthor who was shown to be a good guy had to be made evil. The ultimate threat was a charicature of fans who DARE to call out DC on their shitting on older characters and making things to gory. And then Superman of Earth 2 dies at the hands of that idiotic portryal of Superboy Prime?
THAT was Johns' shark jump moment, IMO. And he hasn't been the same since, IMO.
Speaking of Superman, if there is ONE THING that this new relaunch is showing me is that DC just refuses to learn their lesson.
YES Superman was "the First", lathough not really. YES he's great and all. YES he's what all other heroes should strive to be. BUT, he had flagging sales for decades and the ONLY book where he seemed to consistenly have good sales was one where BATMAN shared the title.
So, what do they do in the relaunch? Do they keep the history set up by the JSA books (which sold VERY well and routinely out-sold Superman, IIRC)? NOPE!
SUPERMAN IS/WAS THE FIRST SUPERHERO IN THE RELAUNCH!
W?!?!? T?!?!? F?!?!?!
So, what are they doing to try and prove that this is a good choice in direction? Same thing I mentioned above. Hot writer on one book, Morrisson, hot artist on the other, Perez.
What happens when that fades or they move on and sales plummet AGAIN? Will we suddenly get the JSA back as well as their history of being the first and the mould for all others?
But, then again, Editorial has made it clear that Morrisson and Johns are now leading the direction of the company, as per their titles. Guess they feel they'll let those two run the show. If things work out, kudos to all. If things fail, Editorial lays the blame on them.
morrrison perez sounds good