Random Comics News Story Round-Up

* the comics revolution will only be over and worth it when Steve Duin gets at least the chance to write about comics every day. Duin always puts to work a solid, meat-and-potatoes perspective on comics, and he writes like one of those world-weary but not world-tired regular guys that I can't get enough of -- sort of a Pete Hamill type. I'd love to see what he'd do with access to a regular outlet.

* Paul Pope: DKNY Designer

* Seth Kushner announces plans for a book of portraits, samples of work, and filmed interviews (??) called NYC Graphic Novelists by publishing one of the photos from his session with subject and series Dean Haspiel, who will advise Kushner on the project.

* this article on superhero comics for kids gets fun in the comments thread when people start suggesting that maybe this isn't really a distinction of importance anymore, but it's also nice to know that there are 10 comics out there in the superhero genre aimed at kids. It's ridiculous in the context of comics' once-glorious past when it came to providing quality kids entertainment, of course, but in terms of what we know about the recent past 10 superhero books doesn't sound so bad. I mean, I'd be at a loss to name 10 decent television shows a kid could watch, let alone 10 three-camera sitcoms. It's probably also worth noting that the last few years' worth of weakening the assumption that all comics go up in value should mean there are a lot of natural quarter-box or dollar-box comics that I think in many shops could be re-purposed into a kids section. I've seen shops with active discounted sections do really well with local kids, although I don't have any evidence for supporting this notion other than a series of anecdotes.

* Major Spoilers photo set from MegaCon. Pete Ashton photos from SXSW. They're both... well, they're both photo sets.

* the retailer and writer Chris Butcher has a funny rant up about the sheer number of graphic novels that were published in 2007, especially those that are cynical paper movie deals, cobbled-together publishing trend deals, and dreaming-that-dream lack of talent deals. This should only get worse as more and more people in a damaged economy look for a way into Hollywood and the Big Publishing Houses, many of whom have invested a lot of confidence in people who have no experience making comics of surpassing quality, invest in a wave of graphic novels that exist because they're graphic novels and those supposedly sell now. There's almost no barrier to participation in comics on a significant level. With a few thousand dollars you can make a graphic novel that looks just like some of the best graphic novels produced by the biggest houses, and in terms of scoring an option or participating in the world of comics or providing ballast to a publishing ship with regular avenues into achieving rack space that's frequently all that's necessary.

* Butcher has an equally interesting little essay on the responsibility reviewers/critics share to call bad work bad work, which you have to be willing to do even when you might be crushing someone's desire for people to have a positive reaction to their work. I agree with this one, too. Very few people can make the "writing about bad work is a waste of time" shtick -- and it's almost always a shtick -- work without revealing some sort of secondary motivation to their writing about art that makes them a less dependable or useful writer about art. It may be a desire to participate in an economic benefit of some sort, it may be a social impulse, it may be to simply keep people from hating them; the effect on the writing is almost always a negative one. A good critic isn't in the positive or the negative review but in the distinctions made between positive and negative, why and how they're made, how thrillingly they're applied.

* I'm not the only one paying attention to him. Butcher is profiled here by the National Post.

* OJR looks at attempts by newspapers to replicate the function of their editorial pages online. Since the editorial page is where most editorial page cartoonists work, it's worth a sustained look.

* two more quality reports from the Drew Friedman/Friars Club event: one from Vanity Fair; another from Craig Yoe.

* the Universe of Superheroes store in Athens, Ohio re-opens after a fire. Considering the last time I went to a big city the comic shop I chose to visit didn't open I found out later because the co-owner in charge of the store that day had a sit-down lunch instead of opening the shop on time, this is an impressive thing. I also like the support provided the retailer by other local businesses.

* congratulations to Jeff Smith on placing his Bone with Warner Brothers for development. It has to be a deal Smith likes, or he wouldn't pursue it. The money sounds appropriate, too, considering the property's long-running success.

* if this not-comics news primes you for reading more about comics and the movies, you could also check out this piece on Marvel Studios. It's fun to read people coming around to the fact that Marvel might be able to make a go of this despite the fact the "good characters" have already been made into films. No, there's not likely to be another Spider-Man in the Cloak and Dagger and Luke Cage corner of Marvel's property bag, but 1) a semi-steady diet of Daredevil-sized hits would probably be just fine by anyone and 2) properties like Iron Man no longer have to compete with the first Lord of the Rings movie, Will Smith in his emerging prime, the return of Star Wars, Tom Cruise in his box office flush and Harry Potter in full book-supported bloom. They have to be able to stand up alongside Shia LaBeouf movies, 65-year-old Indiana Jones, Harry Potters 6 and 7 and Tom Cruise in an eyepatch. Given a choice of losing a couple of matinee hours in a strange city between Ant Man and a fourth Mummy movie, I'm going to give Ant Man every chance to entertain me.

Made well and pitched responsibly, Marvel's films certainly seem to me to stand a chance of doing OK. More to the point, I'm not sure where else in terms of licensing soil I'd sink $100 mil a picture right now, except maybe Pixar. Also consider this: If you're Marvel, and you want to profit from more of your movies, you might have to make your money closer to the cinemas because the licensing benefit isn't likely to hit near as hard for Deathlok or Gargoyle even if they're successful films. It's the licensing benefit that's been the boon to Marvel out of things like the Spider-Man trilogy of films under their early deals. You don't need name recognition of your property to make a hit film -- someone actually made money on Ben Affleck dressed in red leather punching the dumb guy from Green Mile in an office water shower. You do need public awareness to trigger the kind of licensed-item buying frenzy by which they profited as non-direct participants. No kid went trick or treating dressed as Ben Urich. As much as we're in the era of sweeping, summary declarations and nerd-seat driving, I really think there's enough of a sensible logic in Marvel's plan that it will largely work or fail according to the merits of its execution.
 
posted 9:30 am PST | Permalink
 

---

 
Daily Blog Archives
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
 
Full Archives