META: Split opinions?
Jerry L Franke
wanted to get people's impressions now that we've had a few months to get
used to the new system.
So what do you think? Has it made reading easier, more difficult? Is it
very hard for you to figure out where to post now, compared to before the
creation of the dc, marvel, and other-media groups?
--
Jerry L. Franke fra...@cs.indiana.edu
Computer Science Dept. Indiana University
formerly from Florida State University http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~franke
zombie
(Jerry L Franke) wrote:
>So what do you think? Has it made reading easier, more difficult?
More difficult. Everything is broken up...except for the threads that are
crossposted across all rac...and those generally aren't on topic for any
of the groups.
zombie
--
# Lois & Clark -----: http://www.webcom.com/~lnc/index.html ------ #
# The Mutant Page --: http://www.santarosa.edu/~sthoemke/x.html -- #
# Comics (Very Cool): http://www.digimark.net/wraith/comix.html -- #
# zom...@netcom.com # ZOMBIE on GEnie # zom...@redeye.ebay.sun.com #
Jim Smith
On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Katharine Weizel wrote:
> In article <49ik36$p...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
> Jerry L Franke <fra...@ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> >
> >So what do you think? Has it made reading easier, more difficult? Is it
> >very hard for you to figure out where to post now, compared to before the
> >creation of the dc, marvel, and other-media groups?
>
> Well, the .xbooks transition went fairly smoothly, but the .other-media
> transition hasn't been as easy for us. a LOT of people complain that
> they don't get the group, or just don't feel like posting there.
I don't know if rac.o-m is really all that great an idea. I _never_ see
any comic movie casting calls there, even though the group was created to
contain them.
All rac.o-m has done is give X-Movie fans _two_ places to post--it's just
that only one group welcomes them.
It's pretty much human nature, I think, to post soemthing about a
character appearing outside of comics in the group where that character's
comics fall. When Jack Grimes wants to talk about Superman toys, he goes
to racdu, not raco-m. When someone wants to talk about Marvel Action
Universe, it's not improbable he/she will post it to racmu.
Compared to many other rac* groups, o-m gets far less posts per day. If
it were disbanded, and other-media topics delegated to the respective
groups, would there be _that_ much of a mess on the other groups? Xbooks
will get posts like "Mel Gibson as Wolverine" even if there were a
rac.gibson-as-wolverine, for cryin' out loud.
Jim "Planning on starting racg-a-w, actually..." Smith
Katharine Weizel
>wanted to get people's impressions now that we've had a few months to get
>used to the new system.
>
>very hard for you to figure out where to post now, compared to before the
>creation of the dc, marvel, and other-media groups?
Well, the .xbooks transition went fairly smoothly, but the .other-media
transition hasn't been as easy for us. a LOT of people complain that
they don't get the group, or just don't feel like posting there. IT's
like, (to quote someone from rac.mx) "What if they held a newsgroup and
noone came?" They feel like a ghetto or something.
Personally, I like the other splits though. It's easy to read through
Vertigo just to get my Sandman fix, to the .xbooks to get my xbook fix,
and so on. Other than other-media, the "where to post" lines IMHO are
pretty clear. Then again, I'm not reading Milestone. :)
kate.
refugee from rac.mx
| Kate the Short - (ka...@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu) - at the U of Chicago |
| Patron Saint of rec.arts.comics.marvel.xbooks, and Really Short Person |
| I have a web page! (at http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/keweizel) |
| Keeper of the RAC.MX Read Before Posting and Where Can I Find It? FAQs |
Francis A Uy
>I started thinking about the reorganization we had a few months ago,
I like it. rac.misc is blissfully Marvel-free (and Lobo too).
I'm a bit sad about not discussing Sandman (I just don't have
the time to read another group), but I can live with it.
I think the Marvel zombies are probably happy about it too,
now that we're off their backs for the most part. They can
enjoy their corporate garbage in peace. ;-)
I agree that other-media is the most difficult one to sell,
but I really Really REALLY hate casting calls.
And I would strongly oppose an Image split that took Bone,
Astro City, etc, out of rac.misc
-F
.
Jacob W Michaels
: In article <49ik36$p...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
: >I started thinking about the reorganization we had a few months ago, and
: >wanted to get people's impressions now that we've had a few months to get
: >used to the new system.
: >So what do you think? Has it made reading easier, more difficult? Is it
: >very hard for you to figure out where to post now, compared to before the
: >creation of the dc, marvel, and other-media groups?
: Well, the .xbooks transition went fairly smoothly, but the .other-media
: transition hasn't been as easy for us. a LOT of people complain that
: they don't get the group, or just don't feel like posting there. IT's
: like, (to quote someone from rac.mx) "What if they held a newsgroup and
: noone came?" They feel like a ghetto or something.
I agree with Kate pretty much. RACMU improved after a slow start with a
bunch of who'd win threads.
And while it's not a pleasant subject I think there needs to be an Image
group. There's obviously very little discussion of the books, with the
exception of KBAC and WildCATS on RACM, and it realy is because people
are intimidated here I think. Alt.comics.image just doesn't have the
propagation needed to make it effective.
Jacob
Douglas Limmer
>So what do you think? Has [the split] made reading easier, more difficult?
It is more difficult for me to read rac.misc now than it was before. There's
too much Rob/Raza/Smith Bros. noise.
>Is it
>very hard for you to figure out where to post now, compared to before the
>creation of the dc, marvel, and other-media groups?
Well, it isn't too hard for me, though I must admit I occasionally forget to
double check that my follow-up was still on topic for the group.
Although, if the wildest of rumors be true, there may not be much of a need
for a rac.mu newsgroup anymore. And that was the _last_ one I expected to
become obsolete.
Doug L.
--
Douglas Limmer -- mailto: lim...@math.orst.edu
Don Brinker
: And while it's not a pleasant subject I think there needs to be an Image
: group. There's obviously very little discussion of the books, with the
: exception of KBAC and WildCATS on RACM, and it realy is because people
: are intimidated here I think. Alt.comics.image just doesn't have the
: propagation needed to make it effective.
See, there's a slight problem here. It's very, VERY unlikely that a group
will be created when it's backed by a "Field of Dreams" argument (if you
build it, they will come). Unless there's a displayable amount of traffic
on a topic, it's very hard to get the vote through on a group.
Also keep in mind that last time there was muttering about an image group,
there was some support for a rac.image.universe group, to be consistent
and since the core books (Spawn, Savage Dragon, etc) are so different from the
fringe (Astro City, Bone, Groo, etc) in style.
Personally, I'd suggest to try to get some discussion started on Image here
if you want an Image newsgroup. If you think the intimidation factor's too
high, try a mailing list (if one doesn't exist already)
Just my $.02
- Don
Lazlo Nibble
> So what do you think? Has it made reading easier, more difficult?
Far easier. My killfile for rec.arts.comics.misc has dropped from about 250
permanent topic-based entries to a dozen or so thread-based ones -- it's
wonderful.
--
::: Lazlo (la...@swcp.com; http://www.swcp.com/lazlo)
Patrick Williams
> I started thinking about the reorganization we had a few months ago, and
> wanted to get people's impressions now that we've had a few months to get
> used to the new system.
>
> So what do you think? Has it made reading easier, more difficult? Is it
> very hard for you to figure out where to post now, compared to before the
> creation of the dc, marvel, and other-media groups?
I like it. Things are much more managable. I don't have to hit the
'd' button thirty times to get to an article I want to read, and if I
don't log in for a few days I don't have five hundred or so articles
waiting for me to wade through.
NEtRENCHERPRIME
seem to work pretty well. Not enough people visit or reply on "other
media", it seems to me the traffic is to low to justify this group.
Other than that, the splits work pretty well.
NEtRENCHERPRIME
--
***** NEtRENCHERPRIME: Kevin Olson http://www.mcn.net/~netrencher/ *****
**** THE SHADOW STRIKES FROM HIS INNER SANCTUM WEB-SITE ****
*** http://www.webmarketing.com/spider/shadow/shdwhp.html ***
**** "WHERE IS THE CHOICE WHEN MY FREEDOM'S DESCRIBED BY MY FEAR?" ****
***** WORLD OF SKIN: FROM THE ALBUM, "TEN SONGS FOR ANOTHER WORLD" *****
Katie Schwarz
>
>It is more difficult for me to read rac.misc now than it was before. There's
>too much Rob/Raza/Smith Bros. noise.
But you can escape from Robraza in the DC, Marvel, Vertigo and alternative
groups. They haven't been infested. If rac.misc hadn't split, you wouldn't
have any robraza-free comics group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Schwarz ka...@physics.berkeley.edu
fredrick b. chary
Jim Smith <jasm...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On 1 Dec 1995, NEtRENCHERPRIME wrote:
>
>> I find the "other media" split disappointing, while all the other splits
>> seem to work pretty well. Not enough people visit or reply on "other
>> media", it seems to me the traffic is to low to justify this group.
>> Other than that, the splits work pretty well.
>> NEtRENCHERPRIME
>
>upcoming Bat-, Spider-, X-, and other cartoons, but little else. The
>group, according to legend, was created to get casting calls for the X-Movie
>out of xbooks. To this _day_, I have seen _lots_ of casting calls in
>xbooks, and zilch in o-m. It just isn't working.
>
>Compare o-m to most of the other groups. rac.misc, racdu, racmx and
>racmu have hundreds of posts right now. o-m has almost a hundred if its
>lucky.
Other media was split because people were sick to death of the topics,
not because there was any particular need for it.
>As far as I'm concerned, o-m should be disbanded and the topic moved to
>the appropriate group (Super-toys to dcu, X-toon to xbooks, Bone statues
>to misc). These things get discussed there anyhow.
>
>Jim "OK, who's with me!" Smith
Jim, out of idle curiosity, how do you propose to disband the grouops?
Mike, who wants to see tale's reaction to this RFD :)
.
Jim Smith
On 30 Nov 1995, Douglas Limmer wrote:
> fra...@ucs.indiana.edu (Jerry L Franke) writes:
>
> >So what do you think? Has [the split] made reading easier, more difficult?
>
> It is more difficult for me to read rac.misc now than it was before. There's
> too much Rob/Raza/Smith Bros. noise.
OK, now that someone brought this up on a different thread, I shall
address it.
I stopped posting responses to Rob and Raza's flames. Days ago. I only
post responses to other people's responses, and then only if they bring
up something else (for example, Mike Chary's joking reference to the YOU
B*ST*RD JIM! "comic book", which no sane person could stay away from).
I asked Mike to stop posting is responses a while ago. He decided to go
along with it.
That's two, count 'em, two "Smith Bros." (I really should have Doug's
head for coining that term; besides--there's a third). If Rob and Raza
accuse me of involvment in the Alexander Hamilton assassination because
I've never eaten Quisp Cereal, you won't see _my_ response on
rec.arts.comics.misc. Whoever decides to stick up for me and posts a
response, however, is not my responsibility.
I've answered about half a dozen people with complaints of this nature.
I should have just posted a general announcement, but I couldn't--because
the complainers were responding to Rob McLean/Raza Mughal threads, and
that would violate my own rule. But now that Doug has cleared an avenue
for me, I will say this once more: STOP COMPLAINING TO ME--I'M NOT DOING IT.
Jim Smith
Jim Smith
On 1 Dec 1995, NEtRENCHERPRIME wrote:
> I find the "other media" split disappointing, while all the other splits
> seem to work pretty well. Not enough people visit or reply on "other
> media", it seems to me the traffic is to low to justify this group.
> Other than that, the splits work pretty well.
> NEtRENCHERPRIME
other-media seems almost completely useless. A few schedules of the
upcoming Bat-, Spider-, X-, and other cartoons, but little else. The
group, according to legend, was created to get casting calls for the X-Movie
out of xbooks. To this _day_, I have seen _lots_ of casting calls in
xbooks, and zilch in o-m. It just isn't working.
Compare o-m to most of the other groups. rac.misc, racdu, racmx and
racmu have hundreds of posts right now. o-m has almost a hundred if its
lucky.
As far as I'm concerned, o-m should be disbanded and the topic moved to
Raza Mughal
> I stopped posting responses to Rob and Raza's flames. Days ago. I only
> post responses to other people's responses, and then only if they bring
> up something else (for example, Mike Chary's joking reference to the YOU
> B*ST*RD JIM! "comic book", which no sane person could stay away from).
> I asked Mike to stop posting is responses a while ago. He decided to go
> along with it.
Alright Jim, lets see how long you can go with out following up to a
thread from either me or Rob? I dont think you have it in you to keep
away. The same goes for you Mike.
fredrick b. chary
Jim Smith <jasm...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On 1 Dec 1995, fredrick b. chary wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.Sola.3.91.95120...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>> Jim Smith <jasm...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> I find the "other media" split disappointing, while all the other splits
>> >> seem to work pretty well. Not enough people visit or reply on "other
>> >> media", it seems to me the traffic is to low to justify this group.
>> >> Other than that, the splits work pretty well.
>> >> NEtRENCHERPRIME
>> >
>> >other-media seems almost completely useless. A few schedules of the
>> >upcoming Bat-, Spider-, X-, and other cartoons, but little else. The
>> >group, according to legend, was created to get casting calls for the X-Movie
>> >out of xbooks. To this _day_, I have seen _lots_ of casting calls in
>> >xbooks, and zilch in o-m. It just isn't working.
>>
>> not because there was any particular need for it.
>
>the handful of Spawn posts on rac.misc every month, I certainly wouldn't
>go proposing a newsgroup just to get rid of it. That's what killfiles
>are for.
Oh, is that how it works, thanks. Jim, the above is the same reason we
now have xbooks and lsh groups :)
>In this case, it's painfully easy. Killfile "movie", "action figure",
>and "TAS" and you've gotten rid of about 90% of raco-m's paltry traffic.
>
Wanna bet? Take a look at the threads on other media :)
>> >As far as I'm concerned, o-m should be disbanded and the topic moved to
>> >the appropriate group (Super-toys to dcu, X-toon to xbooks, Bone statues
>> >to misc). These things get discussed there anyhow.
>> >
>> Jim, out of idle curiosity, how do you propose to disband the grouops?
>
>Hey, Mr. Been Here Since the Net was Two Computers And a Lot of Tape,
>that's your department, not mine...<g>
No, no, tyg's the one whose id number would be in double digits if
they were given in order of entry. I'm just a peon.
>Jim "JUst bringing up some points" Smith
Well, you see Jim, I abstained on that group, so I don't want to
expend the effort. You're welcome to try. You don't like the group,
you try to get rid of it :) That's what I'd have to do :)
I'm not trying to be mean here. But it doesn't take that much effort
to do this. The information how isn't hard to find.
Mike, using Fred's account.
Jim Smith
On 1 Dec 1995, fredrick b. chary wrote:
> In article <Pine.Sola.3.91.95120...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> Jim Smith <jasm...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >On 1 Dec 1995, NEtRENCHERPRIME wrote:
> >
> >> I find the "other media" split disappointing, while all the other splits
> >> seem to work pretty well. Not enough people visit or reply on "other
> >> media", it seems to me the traffic is to low to justify this group.
> >> Other than that, the splits work pretty well.
> >> NEtRENCHERPRIME
> >
> >other-media seems almost completely useless. A few schedules of the
> >upcoming Bat-, Spider-, X-, and other cartoons, but little else. The
> >group, according to legend, was created to get casting calls for the X-Movie
> >out of xbooks. To this _day_, I have seen _lots_ of casting calls in
> >xbooks, and zilch in o-m. It just isn't working.
>
> Other media was split because people were sick to death of the topics,
> not because there was any particular need for it.
That doesn't seem like a real good reason to me. If I got sick of, say,
the handful of Spawn posts on rac.misc every month, I certainly wouldn't
go proposing a newsgroup just to get rid of it. That's what killfiles
are for.
In this case, it's painfully easy. Killfile "movie", "action figure",
and "TAS" and you've gotten rid of about 90% of raco-m's paltry traffic.
> >As far as I'm concerned, o-m should be disbanded and the topic moved to
> >the appropriate group (Super-toys to dcu, X-toon to xbooks, Bone statues
> >to misc). These things get discussed there anyhow.
> >
> Jim, out of idle curiosity, how do you propose to disband the grouops?
Hey, Mr. Been Here Since the Net was Two Computers And a Lot of Tape,
that's your department, not mine...<g>
Jim "JUst bringing up some points" Smith
Francis A Uy
>other-media seems almost completely useless. A few schedules of the
>upcoming Bat-, Spider-, X-, and other cartoons, but little else. The
>group, according to legend, was created to get casting calls for the X-Movie
>out of xbooks. To this _day_, I have seen _lots_ of casting calls in
That's entirely up to the readers of racx. If they don't want the
posts there, they should raise a stink (like Elmo & I do) and ride
on people's backs until they go to the right place.
Nuke casting calls whenever you see them, and behold, they're gone.
-F
.
NEtRENCHERPRIME
where useful information may more readily be found. For instance, if I'm
looking for a Cerebus action figure, (I'm not, but this is an example),
chances are that I would have much more luck on misc or on alternative,
but other.media is where the post is supposed to go, where it will sit
for three days unanswered and then disappear. If other.media was visited
more often by more people, then that would be one thing. As it is, it is
probably posted on so little that it hardly warrants being it's own group
in the first place, and the information that can be gained by posting
there or reading the posts is minimal, because more knowledgable people
with the answers are posting elsewhere. I'm not saying that the group
should be gotten rid of, however, I do believe that other media posts
ought to be allowed on other groups, where knowledgable usenetters are in
more abundant supply.
Alan Sepinwall
Don Brinker <dbri...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Jacob W Michaels (JWMI...@deimos.oit.umass.edu) wrote:
>: And while it's not a pleasant subject I think there needs to be an Image
>: group. There's obviously very little discussion of the books, with the
>: exception of KBAC and WildCATS on RACM, and it realy is because people
>: are intimidated here I think. Alt.comics.image just doesn't have the
>: propagation needed to make it effective.
>
>See, there's a slight problem here. It's very, VERY unlikely that a group
>will be created when it's backed by a "Field of Dreams" argument (if you
>build it, they will come). Unless there's a displayable amount of traffic
>on a topic, it's very hard to get the vote through on a group.
>
build it, they will come. To mix media for a second, I recall last year
pushing for seperate alt.tv.* newsgroups for Friends, ER, and Homicide,
despite the fact that all three didn't get much traffic on rec.arts.tv
Well, all three got created, and two of the three (ER and Friends) have a
huge amount of traffic (albeit lousy signal-to-noise ratio), and the
third (Homicide) gets its fair share of traffic as well (and much more
interesting stuff). And all three of these are alt.* groups, which are
poorly distributed (as I imagine alt.comics.image is).
Saying that the lack of Image-related posts to racm is the reason not to
create a rec.arts.comics.image group isn't quite fair; just like most
people feel intimidated by rec.arts.tv and won't post about their
favorite show there (but will post about it on the alt.tv.* groups), I
imagine a lot of people are intimidated by all the anti-Image sentiments
expressed on this group. And, unless we know the propagation numbers on
alt.comics.image, it's really not fair to use that as a yardstick, either.
Alan Sepinwall * e-mail: sepi...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
Personal homepage: http://force.stwing.upenn.edu:8001/~sepinwal/
NYPD Blue page: http://force.stwing.upenn.edu:8001/~sepinwal/nypd.html
RANDOM QUOTE:
"Who are you?"
"I'm the Anti-Christ. You get me in a vendetta kind of mood,
you will tell the angels in heaven that you had never seen
evil so singularly personified as you did in the face of the
man who killed you."
-Dennis Hopper & Christopher Walken, "True Romance"
Carl Fink
sepi...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Alan Sepinwall) wrote:
>
>I imagine a lot of people are intimidated by all the anti-Image sentiments
>expressed on this group.
I've deleted all the rest of Alan's message, because this question has
been bugging me: what anti-Image sentiments?
I'm quite serious -- does anyone out there hate Image qua Image? I
mean, lots of people dislike Todd or Name Withheld or Keown as
individuals, but does anyone hate *Image*? I haven't seen that.
In fact, I think every regular poster to RAC* has said at least one
nice thing about at least one Image book. I have complimented KBAC
and Groo, for instance, although I've disliked most of the other
stuff.
What about it? Is there reall a lot of "anti-Image sentiment" here?
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com madsci...@genie.com
Assistant Sysop, GEnie's First and Fourth Science Fiction RoundTables
The SFRT page has moved AGAIN, to http://www.sfrt.com/sfrt1
John Holbrook
>
>In article <4aa0te$i...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>sepi...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Alan Sepinwall) wrote:
>>
>>I imagine a lot of people are intimidated by all the anti-Image
sentiments
>>expressed on this group.
>
>I've deleted all the rest of Alan's message, because this question has
>been bugging me: what anti-Image sentiments?
>
>I'm quite serious -- does anyone out there hate Image qua Image? I
>mean, lots of people dislike Todd or Name Withheld or Keown as
>individuals, but does anyone hate *Image*? I haven't seen that.
>
>In fact, I think every regular poster to RAC* has said at least one
>nice thing about at least one Image book. I have complimented KBAC
>and Groo, for instance, although I've disliked most of the other
>stuff.
>
>What about it? Is there reall a lot of "anti-Image sentiment" here?
Carl,
Generally the only ones who don't like to admit that there _is_ an
anti-Image sentiment, are those who feel most strongly against Image
and the component creators. I dunno why this is, but it was true when
I was on GEnie, and it is still true today.
Granted the sentiment isn't as pervasive as it used to be, and it
isn't _nearly_ as much of a black mark against you to admit that you
are actually an Image fan, but it is still there. In fact, in nearly
any instance I can recall having a problem with other online fans, it
has been closely tied to the prevailing anti-Image sentiment.
John
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ John B. Holbrook,II +
+ Recruitment Specialist +
+ j...@ix.netcom.com +
+ +
+ "Monica? Um, you're scaring me. I mean, you're like, you're like +
+ all chaotic and twirly, you know? - I mean, and not in a good +
+ way." - Phoebe from FRIENDS +
+ +
+ Look for THE PROPHET'S WISDOM posted bimonthly in rec.arts.comics.info+
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nick Eden
>I've never quite understood why there's such a huge opposition to if you
>build it, they will come. To mix media for a second, I recall last year
>pushing for seperate alt.tv.* newsgroups for Friends, ER, and Homicide,
>despite the fact that all three didn't get much traffic on rec.arts.tv
The assumption is, that for rec groups at least, there has to be some
kind of control, some level of demand before they are set up. Not
entirely sure whay this is. My best guess is that since system admins
have to conciously start taking new groups (on a lot of systems at
least) they won't if they are suddenly bombarded with a whole shower
of time wasting groups.
>Well, all three got created, and two of the three (ER and Friends) have a
>huge amount of traffic (albeit lousy signal-to-noise ratio), and the
>third (Homicide) gets its fair share of traffic as well (and much more
>interesting stuff). And all three of these are alt.* groups, which are
>poorly distributed (as I imagine alt.comics.image is).
>
>Saying that the lack of Image-related posts to racm is the reason not to
>create a rec.arts.comics.image group isn't quite fair; just like most
>people feel intimidated by rec.arts.tv and won't post about their
>favorite show there (but will post about it on the alt.tv.* groups), I
>imagine a lot of people are intimidated by all the anti-Image sentiments
>expressed on this group. And, unless we know the propagation numbers on
>alt.comics.image, it's really not fair to use that as a yardstick, either.
We need some kind of Yardstick though. Now if we were to create
rac.image.universe we would have to assume that the dozen or so posts
every time there's a new issue of WildCATS would sustain it. And the
half dozen other image posts a week about Spawn. Not justified. (Bone
and KBAC, which get a lot of posts right now aren't image universe of
course).
Of course if you can swing it then can I borrow your campaign to get
rec.arts.comics.desert-peach set up. I realise that there's virtually
no traffic on it, but like you say: build it and they might come.
Arif Haque
: What about it? Is there reall a lot of "anti-Image sentiment" here?
: --
: Carl Fink ca...@panix.com madsci...@genie.com
: Assistant Sysop, GEnie's First and Fourth Science Fiction RoundTables
: The SFRT page has moved AGAIN, to http://www.sfrt.com/sfrt1
I think I hear enough " . . . even for an Image book" and "I can't believe
I bought an Image . . ." comments to justify that there is some anti-Image
sentiment around here.
--Arif (stopped lurking for a post)
Augie De Blieck Jr.
: In article <4aa0te$i...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
: sepi...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Alan Sepinwall) wrote:
: >
: >I imagine a lot of people are intimidated by all the anti-Image sentiments
: >expressed on this group.
: I've deleted all the rest of Alan's message, because this question has
: been bugging me: what anti-Image sentiments?
: I'm quite serious -- does anyone out there hate Image qua Image? I
: mean, lots of people dislike Todd or Name Withheld or Keown as
: individuals, but does anyone hate *Image*? I haven't seen that.
Given that Image is nothing more than the banner umbrella under which all
these creators work, I have a hard time seeing what the difference is
between bashing all the creators individually or the banner name in general.
: In fact, I think every regular poster to RAC* has said at least one
: nice thing about at least one Image book. I have complimented KBAC
: and Groo, for instance, although I've disliked most of the other
: stuff.
And here you have it - most people don't count Groo or KBAC as an Image
book - they are just books brought in from the outside (see Bone, as
well) to give Image credibility, in the opinion of many around here.
Image is to many merely the Image founding fathers.
(And what happened to the last issue of Groo, anyhow? When will we see it?)
We've got a few basic problems with Image discussions around here:
* The average fan of Image is unfortunately young and without 'net access.
* Those that do have 'net access have limited mental capacities past posts
such as "Spawn Rules - everyone else sucks" or "PAD sucks", neither of
which help intelligent discussion, nor are true, BTW IMHO.
* There's the general hostile environment to Image around here. How many
times have we seen any attempt at getting a discussion about Image around
here squished with multiple posts along the line of "Liefeld sucks."
(Hell, we could be talking about Dragon and someone will invaraiably post
this.)
You want a good example? I'll take one from recent times. The rumors
began to fly about Image taking over selected Marvel titles. And right
away people bemoaned the fact that the Marvel titles were as good as dead
now that Image was taking it over. Image would ruin it. And this is
before Extreme or WildStorm was named. That's the kind of blanket
condemnation you get of Image around here.
-Augie
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Augie De Blieck Jr. Media relations, VR.5 Virtual Storm
adeb...@internexus.net
adeb...@drew.edu
Abhay Khosla
> In article <4aa0te$i...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
> sepi...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Alan Sepinwall) wrote:
> >I imagine a lot of people are intimidated by all the anti-Image sentiments
> >expressed on this group.
>
> I've deleted all the rest of Alan's message, because this question has
> been bugging me: what anti-Image sentiments?
Its there. There's no thread saying "We Hate IMage, Hooray, Hoorah" but
its not exactly hidden either. Image is like the group people compare
things to negatively. Statements like "if I wanted crap I'd read Image"
or "Big Breasts are for Image COmics not this thing" or things like
that. When DC did their horrible Underworld crossover, people didn't say
"They made their villains crappy." They said "They Imagefied the
villains." Which they didn't of course, they made them crappy.
> In fact, I think every regular poster to RAC* has said at least one
> nice thing about at least one Image book. I have complimented KBAC
> and Groo, for instance, although I've disliked most of the other
> stuff.
"Wow, I can't believe Image publishes KBAC and Groo and Bone."
-Abhay
akh...@Umich.edu
Pat Spacek
: >I imagine a lot of people are intimidated by all the anti-Image sentiments
: >expressed on this group.
: mean, lots of people dislike Todd or Name Withheld or Keown as
: individuals, but does anyone hate *Image*? I haven't seen that.
: nice thing about at least one Image book. I have complimented KBAC
: and Groo, for instance, although I've disliked most of the other
: stuff.
I think that saying "I hate Image" is shorthand for "I hate the
brainlessnes of a lot of Image stuff, and what it's doing to the
industry". Yes, it's unfair to lump KBAC or other non-"Image style" work
together with the rest of the hack shit, but it's also easier.
After all, if it becomes necessary to say "Image isn't ALL bad -- just
look at Groo or KBAC," as many people (myself included) are doing here,
then the problem really IS with Image, and not with individual idiots like
Liefeld, et al. The exception proving the rule, and all that...
--
==============================================================================
| Pat Spacek psp...@waterloo.net http://www.waterloo.net/~pspacek |
| Visit The Parking Lot is Full Comic Page at http://www.waterloo.net/~plif |
==============================================================================
Rik Spruitenburg
>In article <4aa0te$i...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>sepi...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Alan Sepinwall) wrote:
>>
>>I imagine a lot of people are intimidated by all the anti-Image sentiments
>>expressed on this group.
>I've deleted all the rest of Alan's message, because this question has
>been bugging me: what anti-Image sentiments?
>I'm quite serious -- does anyone out there hate Image qua Image? I
>mean, lots of people dislike Todd or Name Withheld or Keown as
>individuals, but does anyone hate *Image*? I haven't seen that.
>In fact, I think every regular poster to RAC* has said at least one
>nice thing about at least one Image book. I have complimented KBAC
>and Groo, for instance, although I've disliked most of the other
>stuff.
>What about it? Is there reall a lot of "anti-Image sentiment" here?
Most people feel Image is Todd/Rob/Jim/Jim/Marc/Erik and
sometimes Walt. Many of us have a problem with some of these
guys, and therefore, with Image. Few of us have a beef with
Kurt Busiek or Jim Smith or Sergio Aragones (that should be
spelled right, I just looked it up).
I may have a problem with Marvel, but not Mark Waid or
Peter David. (Or Kurt Busiek again)
The number one complaint is that those six guys are overrated.
I'm sure this years Squiddes (squiddyes? How am I supposed
to look up words if they're made-up?) wil not list all six as the
top six Artists and I question how many will be nominated for
writers at all
The second complaint is that they are not writers
The third complaint is they are Jerks.
Ok, Jim Lee isn't. That's 1/6
(next section, where I talk about the six and how I feel)
Todd is strange. His factination with detail has many positive
points. Yet, Spawn looks like Spider-man with chains and
cape. I don't feel his is maturing as an artist, I feel he is
coasting.
Jim Valentino is the only one who has sold out. I was a big
fan of his work before Marvel, and looked forward to his project.
Makes Spawn look good. Rips off Wild Dog (a DC Mini) and
Punisher and adds AIDS to make it spin.
Jim Lee is a good good girl artist, and can do fun stuff.
(but J Scott Campbell's Gen 13 is better. When is he
returning to Gen 13?)
Erik is a crude punk with a chip on his shoulder. (But his
"Death of Dragon" IS better than Superman 75.
Marc's work is forgetable. I read it, and can't remeber
any of it.
(Drum Roll)
Rob Liefeld has MANY, Many flaws.
But he loves comics. He wants to work in comics. He wants
to publish comics. Often, his love of comics shines through.
I'd vote him "least likely to retire".
Ok, I've said my piece.
R I K
Ron Ruffin Dippold
was first getting started, then you would have seen some /really/ nasty
postings. This was back when Image was the original group...
Then there was The Maxx... then Groo... then Bone... then KBAC... Things
have gotten much more qualified now, though 'Image' is still often seen to
be the original group and is still treated with disdain. As in, '... even
though it's an Image book...', which has been what's been done with the Maxx
since day 1.
--
Pound for pound, lame puns are your best entertainment value! -- Gogo Dodo
Nick Eden
>ni...@pheasnt.demon.co.uk (Nick Eden) writes:
>
>>> Saying that the lack of Image-related posts to racm is the reason not
>>> to create a rec.arts.comics.image group isn't quite fair...
>>
>> We need some kind of Yardstick though.
>
>The yardstick is the number of votes in favor of the group. If that isn't
>proving to be an effective yardstick, then the powers-that-be need to
>increase the number of votes needed to create a group.
Entirly true. You are quoting me very selectively though. The question
I was meaning to wonder about was not 'Should we create minority
interest groups?' but 'For what reason should we ever say that someone
shouldn't be able to have a group if he wants one?'
Suppose that a dozen people here thought that it would be really cool
to have a Beanworld news group. Clearly there's very little traffic
about Beanworld (probably more on alternative I know) so I wouldn't be
at all suprised if the proposal was rejected. But why would this be?
Possibles:
a) If we have a zillion groups in the comics hierachy then something
very bad will happen.
b) Lots of people think it too much of a fart to discuss things in a
zillion different places, even if those places are appropriate to the
comics. They want a big central group where everything is discussed,
which makes their lives easier.
c) People actively want to stop others going off into huddles, even if
they don't give a damn about the discussion.
Now c) is what gives rise to Jugoslavia, Northern Ireland and gay
bashing. It's obviously wrong, and I suspect that few of us engage in
this sort of thinking. If people genuinely want to go into their own
corner, then why shouldn't they?
b) seems petty. It might be that it's more of a fart on a unix system
than on my PC, but that's not normally the way of things, and it would
be no bother to me.
a) logically seems plausable. But no-one says what the very bad thing
is? If people were to say 'gaving a zillion newsgroups would be a very
bad thing because then the dimensional interface would be destroyed
and Lord Waterlackus would come and ravage the Earth once more,' then
it might make a little more sense.
But they don't.
Nick Eden
>* There's the general hostile environment to Image around here. How many
> times have we seen any attempt at getting a discussion about Image around
> here squished with multiple posts along the line of "Liefeld sucks."
> (Hell, we could be talking about Dragon and someone will invaraiably post
> this.)
But it is true. I saw him. I was at this convention, drinking coke out
of a can through a staw and he was definately sucking. Now questions
about it.
(Actually that's completely untrue. A cheap laugh if you like)
> You want a good example? I'll take one from recent times. The rumors
> began to fly about Image taking over selected Marvel titles. And right
> away people bemoaned the fact that the Marvel titles were as good as dead
> now that Image was taking it over. Image would ruin it. And this is
> before Extreme or WildStorm was named. That's the kind of blanket
> condemnation you get of Image around here.
Is this THAT unreasonable though. I get the impression that between
them Extreme and Wildstorm make up a good 2/3s of the Image output.
Hence they make up default Image.
Lazlo Nibble
> The question I was meaning to wonder about was not 'Should we create
> minority interest groups?' but 'For what reason should we ever say that
> someone shouldn't be able to have a group if he wants one?'
>
> Suppose that a dozen people here thought that it would be really cool to
> have a Beanworld news group. Clearly there's very little traffic about
> Beanworld (probably more on alternative I know) so I wouldn't be at all
> suprised if the proposal was rejected. But why would this be?
Because you need more than a dozen people to vote for a group if you want
to get it created?
zombie
(Nick Eden) wrote:
>Entirly true. You are quoting me very selectively though. The question
>I was meaning to wonder about was not 'Should we create minority
>interest groups?' but 'For what reason should we ever say that someone
>shouldn't be able to have a group if he wants one?'
>
>Suppose that a dozen people here thought that it would be really cool
>to have a Beanworld news group. Clearly there's very little traffic
>about Beanworld (probably more on alternative I know) so I wouldn't be
>at all suprised if the proposal was rejected. But why would this be?
Anyone can create any group he likes. That is what the alt.* heirarchy is
for. Please feel free to create alt.comics.beanworld. In fact, there
already is an alt.comics.image (is that where this thread started?).
zombie
--
# Lois & Clark -----: http://www.webcom.com/~lnc/index.html ------ #
# The Mutant Page --: http://www.santarosa.edu/~sthoemke/x.html -- #
# Comics (Very Cool): http://www.digimark.net/wraith/comix.html -- #
# zom...@netcom.com # ZOMBIE on GEnie # zom...@redeye.ebay.sun.com #
Stuart Winer
Dippold) writes:
>
>There's a definite anti-image feeling. You should have been here when
it
>was first getting started, then you would have seen some /really/
nasty
>postings. This was back when Image was the original group...
>
>Then there was The Maxx... then Groo... then Bone... then KBAC...
Things
>have gotten much more qualified now, though 'Image' is still often
seen to
>be the original group and is still treated with disdain. As in, '...
even
>though it's an Image book...', which has been what's been done with
the Maxx
>since day 1.
>
olds. Taken on it's own terms,it's great, but most adults find that it
lacks subtly, complexity, etc.
It's garish, hyper-violent, and it's connection to reality is weaker
than many other comics. Not that reality is especially important. But
in all, the real -depth- which makes some other comics, like Sandman,
or Alan Moore's stuff work, isn't there.
Also, it's like 10 pages/comic book. Always feeling I'm being screwed
at the register.
Jacq Merrick
>In article <4agn3e$f...@news.internetmci.com>,
>rik...@mail.turbonet.com (Rik Spruitenburg) wrote:
>> Todd is strange. His factination with detail has many positive
>> points. Yet, Spawn looks like Spider-man with chains and
>> cape. I don't feel his is maturing as an artist, I feel he is
>> coasting.
>anything for the public eye in what, a year now? 8 months?
>
Actually, it's not baseless because he was drawing the boook before that
and the description still applies. I stopped collecting Spawn roughly
a year ago for that very reason (well, that and the fact that I got
extremely tired of the plodding plotlines... IMHO)
>> Jim Lee is a good good girl artist, and can do fun stuff.
>> (but J Scott Campbell's Gen 13 is better. When is he
>> returning to Gen 13?)
>Campbell is returning the issue after next. Jim Lee is a competent creator,
>although he's let his work slide consideribly. He's a nice guy too.
No arguments here...
>> Erik is a crude punk with a chip on his shoulder. (But his
>> "Death of Dragon" IS better than Superman 75.
>Pft. Erik is a crude punk only in the way that if he'd been 20 years older
>when he said the stuff he did most people would revere him. He's Peter
>David 20 years ago is all. Peter David is a crude punk, just an old one.
>Erik Larsen is a crude punk. As a creator and writer, his book is fresh,
>well-written, and has a pretty decent story going.
No opinion really. Savage Dragon has always been sort of blah to me...
And I used to enjoy his art until I saw his version of "WildC.A.T.S.
(as opposed to the fabulous story/art of Jim Lee's "Savage Dragon")
during the Image crossover month.
>> Marc's work is forgetable. I read it, and can't remeber
>> any of it.
>Sorry. His stuff's okay. The art is fabulous, the story needs work though,
>although the premise shows promise. I like it.
Fabulous art? eh, art is a truly subjective thing. I do like his art
but adressing the point, the so-so story is qhat makes it forgettable.
>> Rob Liefeld has MANY, Many flaws.
>> But he loves comics. He wants to work in comics. He wants
>> to publish comics. Often, his love of comics shines through.
>> I'd vote him "least likely to retire".
>I think that's a good idea. I think, after time, he'll get better. His early
>Youngblood was pretty good (no, really it was). Everything he's masterminding
>now is tending to suck though.
Also I agree.
In the long run I don't hate Image. But I do think that the creators
should settle down and understand the importance of the writer (just
as Marvel needs to depower the imporatnce of the editor). And stop making
women with breasts larger than their torsos.
-- jacQ
/====================================================================\
| Jacq Merrick | "You don't find love. Love is not out |
| Lockheed Martin Astro Space | there somewhere, hiding or lost. Love |
| work: 609-490-7286 | is a choice and it is everywhere." |
| fax : 609-490-7166 | - Tom Youngholm |
Susannah Mandel
reasons, they're just this: the "women."
The very same soft-core porn that makes Image books so popular
among that 12-year-old audience (and the many, many, mostly male, adults
who also buy the books -- come on, folks, be realistic) is naturally
enough what makes me hate it. Image books feel to me a lot like those
pornography movie which take the conceit of, say, a Shakespearean play
- "A Midsummer Night's Dream," maybe, or "Hamlet" -- and design the
placement of the screwing scenes around that basic 'plot' -- women in
long skirts with their breasts exposed, people delivering monologues as
someone gives them a blowjob -- that general sensibility. Some people
find this very erotic, I guess.
That is essentially what Image comic books are doing, as I see
it. Mind you, I'm aware that a major difference is that the cheesecake
stays barely within PG-13 boundaries -- there are no hard-core sex
scenes in Gen13; I acknowledge this quite freely. On the other hand,
there also isn't any plot. There isn't any plot in other Image
super-hero comics, either. What there is is lots of the kinda sex
pictures that male kids like -- many, many women -- indistinguishable
save for hair color and costume -- in tiny little erotic costumes, with
their sexual atttributes enormously exaggerated, and the rest of the
detail in the artwork left to slide in order to frame those sexual
images.
(What I'm saying is that Image is all T&A. HUGE _tits_ _and_
_ass_. Fantasy pictures of grown women who look like inflatable dolls,
exerting their super-powers, rubbing their butts and breasts into the
eye-line of the reader, and always getting charmingly disconcerted and
dominated by a bad-ass man.... or a good man.)
"Bad-girl" comics? "Good-girl" comics? Who came up with these
eupehemisms? They're SEX comics for kids who can't yet legally buy
Playboy. They're T&A comics. They're sex fantasies aimed at an audience
which has barely any idea what women, or sex, is actually like, or about
its importance and richness to and in human life.
But the worst thing about Image comics -- and this is where my
mention of the porn movies actually becomes relevant -- is that they're
not *honest* sex comics. (I mean, jeez -- at least when you've got
something like "Lady Death in Lingerie," you know where the comic
stands.) Image comics use the 'metaphor' of super-hero comic books;
this is a framework for lots of T&A display, cleavage shots, and
what-have-you. This is _silly._ This is STUPID. This is an
exploitation -- not only of women, OK, which would bother me enough, but
of super-hero comics as a whole. It takes jack-off material for kids
and wraps it up in euphemism, pretending that it really is a 'super-hero
comic book,' until -- when it becomes influential enough -- people
unfortunately start thinking that T&A and plotlessness is actually
what comics books _are_.
And _THIS_ is Why I Hate Image. I hate it, OK? The writing is
shoddy, the artwork is describable only from a porno-book standpoint,
the characterization is entirely non-existent, and the books are stupid
and jerk-y regarding women, and stupid and dishonest regarding any kind
of standards or history for 'super-hero' comics as a genre. The comic
books alienate girls and provoke active hostility in me. (Just read that
Amazon Avengelyne Special thing, OK? -- that's the kind of thing that
makes me hate Image.)
*Rant mode relegated to background. Deep breath.*
I'm a comic-book consumer. Like many female readers, I prefer
intellectual and story-telling comics (Sandman, the Books of Magic,
Sandman Mystery Theatre, Cerebus), fantasy books (Elfquest),
"slice-o'-life" books (Love & Rockets), unusual, historical and
more 'literary' stuff (Watchmen, V for Vendetta, Chiaroscuro), and,
well, a few weird-ass matters of personal taste (Oz Squad, Doom Patrol ;).
I also love super-hero comics. But I get my fix of those by either
reading 50-cent-box comics from the 60s-through-80s (and I subscribed to
the late-80s Justice League; I really dug that comic) or through the few
good super-hero comics left on the market -- most of which, in my
opinion, are put out by Milestone. (Static and Blood Syndicate are the
only two books left, with people in costumes, which I like.)
And, ironically enough, Milestone is having to cancel titles --
and it looks like it may be going under -- due to lack of sales. I
_assure_ you the quality isn't the problem here.
OK: Look, when people inside or outside the fan community complain
that comics are stupid, well, they're right. The best-selling comci
books on the market are _extremely_ stupid. (Lady Death's Lingerie
Special? Vampirella? Gen13? Shi? _Vamps_? Come on, folks, these books
aren't flying off the shelves due to their rich, intriguing
characterization, their engrossing and well-thought-out background
worlds, their innovative and dramatically beautiful art, their wacky
senses of humor, their _originality._. Nnnnnnnooooo. This is a question
of "Who Has the Biggest Tits -- and the Pointiest Nipples?" Let us acknowledge
this part of things, OK? ;)
Now, as we all know, there _are_ comic books with intriguing
characterization and beautiful art and continuity and character
development and/or wacky senses of humor. But they're not in the Top
Twenty; you have to go to the indie sections to find most of them.
What defines super-hero comics, if not the comics that the
readers buy? What defines the way the world sees comics, if not the
comics it sees prominently displayed, and the comics it sees its kids
reading?
I hate Image. Image is T&A. T&A dominates sales. T&A pretends
to be super-hero comics. Lots of people buy and read T&A (because it's
_fun_) and assume that this is what super-hero comics are. The world's
image of super-hero comics alters to become what the comics arer that
people read. Very few people read _non_T&A superhero comics (_you_ tell
me why Milestone is going under. No, the other reason.)
Super-hero comics ARE stupid. That's by definition.
I hate Image.
*Rant mode really off now. ;) *
cheers,
--;-;--@ susannah };&)
ignore 'em. gonna go read GirlHero. ;)
========================================================================
The Devil, having nothing else to do,
Went off to tempt My Lady Poltagrue.
My Lady, tempted by a private whim,
To his extreme annoyance, tempted him.
-- Hilaire Belloc: 'On Lady Poltagrue, a Public Peril.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Susannah R Mandel * sma...@fas.harvard.edu * (617) 493-2187
************************************************************************
"My God!" ejaculated Phelps.
Joseph T Arendt
***
In article <4ashvj$a...@tel.den.mmc.com>,
Jacq Merrick <jmer...@astro.ge.com> wrote:
[Comments about various Image writers and artists deleted.]
>In the long run I don't hate Image. But I do think that the creators
>should settle down and understand the importance of the writer (just
>as Marvel needs to depower the imporatnce of the editor). And stop making
>women with breasts larger than their torsos.
I don't hate or love Image. I do think Image, as a company, is
making some good moves right now. For example, for anybody who invests,
some diversification is recommended, so if a particular stock plummets,
you don't lose your shirt. Image is putting out _Bone_ and _Battlestar
Galactica_ now. I think that diversification from straight superheroics
is wise.
I think of Image like a publishing house. I don't hate Doubleday,
McGraw-Hill, or other book publishers, even if I don't like most of their
books. When they have a book I like, I buy it without fanfare, paying
practically no attention to who published it.
I don't read other Image titles, but I regularly picked up the
four issues of _Battlestar Galactica_. I enjoyed the story and the
art. It had a nice mix of nostalgia and new material for me. I don't
particularly care or want to know what is going on in _WildC.A.T.s_,
_Deathblow_, or whatever else because I don't read those.
I also buy _Astro City_. Now that is a comic book with art I
like and with good stories too!
I also picked up the first ten issues of _Shaman's Tears_. As
usual, I liked Mike Grell's art, but got bored with his writing. I
stopped at 8, but then found issue 9 and 10 in a cheap bin.
If Grell puts out a story arc that interests me more, maybe I'll pick
up the title again. I don't much care if it is published by Image or anybody
else. The current storyline bored me, so I stopped buying. I liked
the previous storlyline with Jon Sable co-starring, so bought that...
even paying cover price.
Joe
cro2@io.org (C.)
> > began to fly about Image taking over selected Marvel titles. And right
> > away people bemoaned the fact that the Marvel titles were as good as dead
> > now that Image was taking it over. Image would ruin it. And this is
> > before Extreme or WildStorm was named. That's the kind of blanket
> > condemnation you get of Image around here.
>
> Is this THAT unreasonable though. I get the impression that between
> them Extreme and Wildstorm make up a good 2/3s of the Image output.
> Hence they make up default Image.
Whatever, aside from the fact that you're wrong, and they don't make up 2/3
of the output, his point was that the general impression was that the
titles were going to suck because Image had them, not because Extreme
and Wildstorm were Image. Blanket condemnation, thank you.
C.
cro2@io.org (C.)
> to have a Beanworld news group. Clearly there's very little traffic
> about Beanworld (probably more on alternative I know) so I wouldn't be
> at all suprised if the proposal was rejected. But why would this be?
Hi there. I think the big problem with your argument is you're planning
on creating a newsgroup for 1 (one) title. This doesn't exist anywhere in
the RAC heirarchy. The push to create a newsgroup with just over 50 or 60
titles a month coming out, who even this week would have about oh, say,
a minimum of 100 or so posts _just_ from the marvel/image deal. Your argument
falls to pieces, I'm sorry.
> Possibles:
> a) If we have a zillion groups in the comics hierachy then something
> very bad will happen.
Granted. If we have rac.misc which is getting about 200 messages a day on
my end, well, that's a little hard to read too.
> b) Lots of people think it too much of a fart to discuss things in a
> zillion different places, even if those places are appropriate to the
> comics. They want a big central group where everything is discussed,
> which makes their lives easier.
Bull. Almost every split vote in the past year or so has been favourable.
Everyone is voting to split. It creates delightful groups like "rac.o-m"
> c) People actively want to stop others going off into huddles, even if
> they don't give a damn about the discussion.
Who are these people you're talking about?
> Now c) is what gives rise to Jugoslavia, Northern Ireland and gay
> bashing. It's obviously wrong, and I suspect that few of us engage in
> this sort of thinking. If people genuinely want to go into their own
> corner, then why shouldn't they?
Gay bashing? Northern Ireland? You're really reaching for arguments here.
It's pretty darned pathetic.
I'm sorry, but your post, except for that first paragraph, made absoloutly
no sense.
C.
cro2@io.org (C.)
>
> What about it? Is there reall a lot of "anti-Image sentiment" here?
What group are you READING? Go take a look at about 1000 "what do you mean
that Image is going to get the marvel titles? Now they'll all suck" messages.
Geeeeeez....
C.
cro2@io.org (C.)
> points. Yet, Spawn looks like Spider-man with chains and
> cape. I don't feel his is maturing as an artist, I feel he is
> coasting.
Wow, what a great baseless opinion considering Todd hasn't really drawn
anything for the public eye in what, a year now? 8 months?
> Jim Valentino is the only one who has sold out. I was a big
> fan of his work before Marvel, and looked forward to his project.
> Makes Spawn look good. Rips off Wild Dog (a DC Mini) and
> Punisher and adds AIDS to make it spin.
Can't disagree. Was really looking forward to seeing Chance Wolf work
on it, however, he never did.
> Jim Lee is a good good girl artist, and can do fun stuff.
> (but J Scott Campbell's Gen 13 is better. When is he
> returning to Gen 13?)
Campbell is returning the issue after next. Jim Lee is a competent creator,
although he's let his work slide consideribly. He's a nice guy too.
> Erik is a crude punk with a chip on his shoulder. (But his
> "Death of Dragon" IS better than Superman 75.
Pft. Erik is a crude punk only in the way that if he'd been 20 years older
when he said the stuff he did most people would revere him. He's Peter
David 20 years ago is all. Peter David is a crude punk, just an old one.
Erik Larsen is a crude punk. As a creator and writer, his book is fresh,
well-written, and has a pretty decent story going.
> Marc's work is forgetable. I read it, and can't remeber
> any of it.
Sorry. His stuff's okay. The art is fabulous, the story needs work though,
although the premise shows promise. I like it.
> (Drum Roll)
> Rob Liefeld has MANY, Many flaws.
> But he loves comics. He wants to work in comics. He wants
> to publish comics. Often, his love of comics shines through.
> I'd vote him "least likely to retire".
I think that's a good idea. I think, after time, he'll get better. His early
Youngblood was pretty good (no, really it was). Everything he's masterminding
now is tending to suck though.
> Ok, I've said my piece.
thanks!
Ennead
: the RAC heirarchy. The push to create a newsgroup with just over 50 or
: 60 titles a month coming out, who even this week would have about oh,
Assuming that an image group would be focused on "the Image Universe,"
your count is wrong; even with an Image universe group in existance,
industry talk like the marvel/image deal would still be discussed in racm.
Also, KBAC and other non-core-universe titles would still be discussed in
racm. Without those two topics, I doubt there's even fifty Image posts a
week on racm, let alone a hundred.
And I think that there would be too many people opposed to making a
"everything Image" group, including industry discussion and
non-core-universe posts, for such a group to pass a vote.
Yours,
--Ampersand (ne' Ennead)
Folks interested in seeing samples of my daily strip and other cartoon
work should check out my WWW page:
Nick Eden
>ni...@pheasnt.demon.co.uk (Nick Eden) writes:
>
>> The question I was meaning to wonder about was not 'Should we create
>> minority interest groups?' but 'For what reason should we ever say that
>> someone shouldn't be able to have a group if he wants one?'
>>
>> Suppose that a dozen people here thought that it would be really cool to
>> have a Beanworld news group. Clearly there's very little traffic about
>> Beanworld (probably more on alternative I know) so I wouldn't be at all
>> suprised if the proposal was rejected. But why would this be?
>
>Because you need more than a dozen people to vote for a group if you want
>to get it created?
Why?
If the dozen people get their way who suffers and if no-one suffers
why not do it. Preferably not counting net-copping as suffering. These
people are self appointed so there doesn't seem an objective
difference between net cops deciding to give people hassle and razarob
doing the same - except that one's aim is constructive and the other
destructive of course.
Please note that I'm not saying the the conventions we have are bad,
I'd just rather like to know why we have them.
Carl Fink
>
>What group are you READING? Go take a look at about 1000 "what do you mean
>that Image is going to get the marvel titles? Now they'll all suck" messages.
>Geeeeeez....
I started a couple of those threads, oh third letter of the alphabet.
Those were "We hate Liefeld and Lee" comments. Image includes people
other than Lee/Liefeld/Name Witheld/McFarlane, at least among its
creators.
fredrick b. chary
>>Because you need more than a dozen people to vote for a group if you want
>>to get it created?
>
>Why?
Because it costs time and money to create and maintain a newsgroup.
>If the dozen people get their way who suffers and if no-one suffers
>why not do it. Preferably not counting net-copping as suffering. These
>people are self appointed so there doesn't seem an objective
>difference between net cops deciding to give people hassle and razarob
>doing the same - except that one's aim is constructive and the other
>destructive of course.
>
>Please note that I'm not saying the the conventions we have are bad,
>I'd just rather like to know why we have them.
Well, luckily enough, there's a newsgroup which contains nothing but
explanations of this kind. It's called "news.announce.newusers" I am
sure you'll find it most illuminating in this regard. Don't be fooled
by the name. It's not a matter of how long you've been on usenet, but
how much of an interest you've taken in it.
Mike.
Jacob W Michaels
) Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
) : >I imagine a lot of people are intimidated by all the anti-Image sentiments
) : >expressed on this group.
) : I'm quite serious -- does anyone out there hate Image qua Image? I
) : In fact, I think every regular poster to RAC* has said at least one
) : nice thing about at least one Image book. I have complimented KBAC
) : and Groo, for instance, although I've disliked most of the other
) : stuff.
) : What about it? Is there reall a lot of "anti-Image sentiment" here?
) I think that saying "I hate Image" is shorthand for "I hate the
) brainlessnes of a lot of Image stuff, and what it's doing to the
) industry". Yes, it's unfair to lump KBAC or other non-"Image style" work
) together with the rest of the hack shit, but it's also easier.
) After all, if it becomes necessary to say "Image isn't ALL bad -- just
) look at Groo or KBAC," as many people (myself included) are doing here,
) then the problem really IS with Image, and not with individual idiots like
) Liefeld, et al. The exception proving the rule, and all that...
Image is definitely poo-poo'ed here, to say the least. As someone else,
pointed out people are so quick to say oh I like KBAC, Groo, etc even
though they're Image doesn't really mean they like Image.
I can agree with what Johanna (I think, it might have been Susannah actually)
wrote about how most of it is T&A. THat's why I haven't read Extreme
who I think is the most obvious offender (See Glory.) I also decided
Extreme lacked a fair amount of story-telling ability, at least, in
early issues. I do think that this isn't true for other studios,
notably WildStorm. I'll grant you Gen13 follows this role (Hell, when
the characters are complaining about losing their clothing all the time
you know there is a problem.) but take Wetworks for example. I think
the female characters in the book are portrayed pretty well and no one
in the title wears anything but gold symbiote. It's also well-written.
However it seems the people here have been unable to over-look the
initial lateness, T&A, and lack of writing at Image, as well as the
dislike for certain creators, and now just tarnish any of the main
Image books with those attributes.
Honestly, I don't mind that much if people don't like Image. We're all
free to choose our titles. I like a lot of titles people here don't and
don't read titles other people like a lot. What does irritate me is I
feel I can't discuss the books I want to here. With all the anti-Image
sentiments posting a review of something other than the accepted books
(Moore' WildCATS, KBAC, Bone) is setting yourself up for abuse and ridicule.
Do people truly believe that with Spawn's sales there aren't at least
two readers who would like to discuss it over usenet? But there's not
traffic here. I really do believe that's because people are intimidated.
I know I don't bother to post reviews for any of the Image books I read
though I'm willing ot post reviews of lesser read books on RACMU. It's
just much more friendly over there.
It's why I think there should be a newsgroup for Image even if there is
some disparity between each studios' universe. RACM will always harbor
so much anti-Image sentiment so as to make discussion impossibly unless
the book is considered abnormal for the company.
Jacob Oh boy, more snow!
David J. Snyder
Susannah Mandel <sma...@course2.harvard.edu> wrote:
a long rant about Image and T&A and stuff
You realise all Image comics aren't like you described, don't
you? Astro City isn't, Groo wasn't, Bone isn't, Maxx isn't.
You are kind of heavy with the generalizations there.
Djs
--
Dogg, upon speculation that he speaks like Scooby Doo:
"Roo Ruck"
-Blood Syndicate #33
Nick Eden
>In article <8188077...@pheasnt.demon.co.uk>,
>ni...@pheasnt.demon.co.uk (Nick Eden) wrote:
>>
>> Suppose that a dozen people here thought that it would be really cool
>> to have a Beanworld news group. Clearly there's very little traffic
>> about Beanworld (probably more on alternative I know) so I wouldn't be
>> at all suprised if the proposal was rejected. But why would this be?
>
>Hi there. I think the big problem with your argument is you're planning
>on creating a newsgroup for 1 (one) title. This doesn't exist anywhere in
>the RAC heirarchy. The push to create a newsgroup with just over 50 or 60
>titles a month coming out, who even this week would have about oh, say,
>a minimum of 100 or so posts _just_ from the marvel/image deal. Your argument
>falls to pieces, I'm sorry.
No-one's yet come up with a GOOD reason why we shouldn't have a
zillion groups each dedicated to one book, each getting two or three
posts a day. And if there isn't a GOOD reason I'm speculating about
the less than perfect reasons that MIGHT be out there.
>> Possibles:
>> a) If we have a zillion groups in the comics hierachy then something
>> very bad will happen.
>
>Granted. If we have rac.misc which is getting about 200 messages a day on
>my end, well, that's a little hard to read too.
So what is the Very Bad Thing then?
>> b) Lots of people think it too much of a fart to discuss things in a
>> zillion different places, even if those places are appropriate to the
>> comics. They want a big central group where everything is discussed,
>> which makes their lives easier.
>
>Bull. Almost every split vote in the past year or so has been favourable.
>Everyone is voting to split. It creates delightful groups like "rac.o-m"
>
>> c) People actively want to stop others going off into huddles, even if
>> they don't give a damn about the discussion.
>
>Who are these people you're talking about?
I certainly couldn't name names, but I think I remember some people
saying things like 'I really don't give a damn about Marvel these
days, but I don't think we should create a group.' They usually got
shouted down pretty fast. Of course there might have only been the one
person.
>> Now c) is what gives rise to Jugoslavia, Northern Ireland and gay
>> bashing. It's obviously wrong, and I suspect that few of us engage in
>> this sort of thinking. If people genuinely want to go into their own
>> corner, then why shouldn't they?
>
>Gay bashing? Northern Ireland? You're really reaching for arguments here.
>It's pretty darned pathetic.
Forcing someone to do something in a way that they don't want to do
it, or in a place they don't want to do it.
Abhay Khosla
> No opinion really. Savage Dragon has always been sort of blah to me...
> And I used to enjoy his art until I saw his version of "WildC.A.T.S.
> (as opposed to the fabulous story/art of Jim Lee's "Savage Dragon")
> during the Image crossover month.
Uhm, the X_Month as a whole was a poor and unreadable slew of comics.
Jim Lee was no exception. Besides putting one character into a hospital
and possibly throwing off Larsen's plans, he did a boring story with
John-Woo-aspirations that barely had the Dragon in it. Larsen did
low-quality work too, but his style doesn't fit well in the HOmage
books as much as on the Dragon.
-Abhay
akh...@umich.edu
Jacq Merrick
>On 15 Dec 1995, Jacq Merrick wrote:
>
>> No opinion really. Savage Dragon has always been sort of blah to me...
>> And I used to enjoy his art until I saw his version of "WildC.A.T.S.
>> (as opposed to the fabulous story/art of Jim Lee's "Savage Dragon")
>> during the Image crossover month.
>
>Uhm, the X_Month as a whole was a poor and unreadable slew of comics.
>Jim Lee was no exception. Besides putting one character into a hospital
>and possibly throwing off Larsen's plans, he did a boring story with
>John-Woo-aspirations that barely had the Dragon in it. Larsen did
>low-quality work too, but his style doesn't fit well in the HOmage
>books as much as on the Dragon.
.. but here I don't. I thought it was a pretty good story, almost similar
to the readable MTU issues of old. And not being an avid reader of Dragon
I guess the fact that he wasn't the star appealed to me. Whereas to art
so threw me off in the Stormwatch issue that I couldn't pay attention to
the story.
Susannah Mandel
: You realise all Image comics aren't like you described, don't
: you? Astro City isn't, Groo wasn't, Bone isn't, Maxx isn't.
: You are kind of heavy with the generalizations there.
I said _super-hero_ comics, as you would have realised if you'd read my
rant carefully enough. Of the four (fairly good, IMO) comics you
mention as exceptions, Astro City is the only one that could fall within
that category even by a stretch.
I had Bone in mind when I started writing that message; it made
me think about _what_, specifically, I hate in most Image books -- aside
from the name alone, which has come to stand for the kind of comix I've
described. But it's as stupid to hate the Image name and everything
behind it as it is to, say, despise everything associated with AOL; a
tempting, but knee-jerk, overgeneralization. That's why I formulated my
problem with the books, and the problem turned out to be localized to
the 'super-hero' T&A books Image puts out (which is, as you'll be aware,
the vast majority of its output). What I hate about Image is its
super-hero sexploitation comics; and since Image makes that its main
stock-in-trade, I feel quite justified in generalizing to "I hate Image."
And I do, too. Ya got it?
cheers,
--;-;--@ susannah };&)
"Crrrk... rrrip... AIIIIIIEEEEEEEE!!!"
"Oh, no! Boobs-Bigger-Than-Her-Waist Girl has cracked in half!"
"A_gain_? Well, see if you can save the boobs; we can paste 'em on
Asian Fetish Girl or something."
Arif Haque
: (What I'm saying is that Image is all T&A. HUGE _tits_ _and_
: _ass_. Fantasy pictures of grown women who look like inflatable dolls,
: exerting their super-powers, rubbing their butts and breasts into the
: eye-line of the reader, and always getting charmingly disconcerted and
: dominated by a bad-ass man.... or a good man.)
: "Bad-girl" comics? "Good-girl" comics? Who came up with these
: eupehemisms? They're SEX comics for kids who can't yet legally buy
: Playboy. They're T&A comics. They're sex fantasies aimed at an audience
: which has barely any idea what women, or sex, is actually like, or about
: its importance and richness to and in human life.
I have to disagree with you. Image can't be generalized in this manner.
Certainly, many Image books are as you describe, but there are also many
exceptions.
Most will quote books like ASTRO CITY and BONE, but then some people don't
truly consider these books to be Image, regardless of the "I" logo on the
top left.
Here are a few Image books that spring to mind that are undeniably Image:
CYBERFORCE ORIGINS SPECIAL: IMPACT, MISERY, GRIFTER, Moore WILDC.A.T.S,
THE NEW SHADOWHAWK, and an entire cast of others. I think that if you
read some of these comics, you would not be able to generalize Image as
you do, and you would not hate Image as much.
Of course, you'd still hate the individual creators who create the Image
comics that ARE all T and A. But you would have an understanding that
Image offers more than that.
--Arif (who stopped lurking for a post)
ye...@kenyon.edu
> * Those that do have 'net access have limited mental capacities past posts
> such as "Spawn Rules - everyone else sucks" or "PAD sucks", neither of
> which help intelligent discussion, nor are true, BTW IMHO.
>
> * There's the general hostile environment to Image around here. How many
> times have we seen any attempt at getting a discussion about Image around
> here squished with multiple posts along the line of "Liefeld sucks."
> (Hell, we could be talking about Dragon and someone will invaraiably post
> this.)
Does this mean the supposedly more mature readers are just as limited
in mental capacity as the young kids? Not all mind you, there are many mature
readers who truly are, but there seems to be alot of supposedly "mature"
readers who post stuff like this and base their arguments on whatever they
believe. I mean, at least the kid has an excuse, he's a kid, but when a 18+
year old does it, it just shows you who they truly are: a 13-year old kid in
disguise.
Nelson
Johanna Draper
Jacob W Michaels <JWMI...@deimos.oit.umass.edu> wrote:
>I can agree with what Johanna (I think, it might have been Susannah actually)
It was Susannah, although I agree with her.
>wrote about how most of it is T&A. THat's why I haven't read Extreme
>who I think is the most obvious offender (See Glory.)
You mean the studio that thought "Babewatch" was something the industry
desperately needed? :)
>What does irritate me is I feel I can't discuss the books I want to
>here. With all the anti-Image sentiments posting a review of something
>other than the accepted books (Moore' WildCATS, KBAC, Bone) is setting
>yourself up for abuse and ridicule.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm sure there are people around who don't
feel comfortable letting others express differing opinions, but I hope you
don't let them keep you quiet.
Johanna
cro2@io.org (C.)
> >Wow, what a great baseless opinion considering Todd hasn't really drawn
> >anything for the public eye in what, a year now? 8 months?
> >
> and the description still applies. I stopped collecting Spawn roughly
> a year ago for that very reason (well, that and the fact that I got
> extremely tired of the plodding plotlines... IMHO)
I dunno. It's very hard to say "he _is_ not maturing as an artist" if he
isn't presently doing any work... Previous work, saying "he _wasn't_
maturing fast enough for me" is a bit better.
> No opinion really. Savage Dragon has always been sort of blah to me...
> And I used to enjoy his art until I saw his version of "WildC.A.T.S.
> (as opposed to the fabulous story/art of Jim Lee's "Savage Dragon")
> during the Image crossover month.
That's really subjective. I didn't hate it as much as everyone else, however
I can see how some people might. It isn't what anyone is used to. At all.
> Fabulous art? eh, art is a truly subjective thing. I do like his art
> but adressing the point, the so-so story is qhat makes it forgettable.
The story is... slow. Confusing, odd. But the art is really great.
> >I think that's a good idea. I think, after time, he'll get better. His early
> >Youngblood was pretty good (no, really it was). Everything he's masterminding
> >now is tending to suck though.
> Also I agree.
Cool. What a nice change of pace.
> In the long run I don't hate Image. But I do think that the creators
> should settle down and understand the importance of the writer (just
> as Marvel needs to depower the imporatnce of the editor). And stop making
> women with breasts larger than their torsos.
They're trying, honestly they are. They just take longer. ALan Moore is even
doing Wildcats... which is really great btw...
cro2@io. + I took her to a Supermarket, I don't know why but I had to
orgor"C. | start somewhere, so I started... there. I said pretend like
"ashe'sb | you've got no money, she just laughed and said "you're so
eenknown + funny" I said "yeah, well I don't see anyone else smiling."
Edgardo Rozenbom
: isn't presently doing any work... Previous work, saying "he _wasn't_
: maturing fast enough for me" is a bit better.
: > No opinion really. Savage Dragon has always been sort of blah to me...
Todd McFarland: hasn't done anything in the public eye for a while.
Valentino: Shadowhawk is a joke.
Kweon: Does ANYBODY remember this guy?
Lee:.... Wildcats..... Lee started WILDCATS??? REALLY???
Liefeld:...... (same as Lee, expect replace Youngblood with Wildcats)
Silvestri: He can't keep his hands on one book, although he is around
much more than other.
Erik Larsen.... THE ONLY CREATOR/WRITER/FOUNDER AT IMAGE THAT GIVES A SHIT
ABOUT HIS BOOKS.
If I sound bitter it's because I am. Erik Larsen should be
working for a respectable company. I don't hate Image, I just have zero
respect for those guys. At least Marvels titles come out once every
month, and I hate Marvel. SD would be better off in DC. My point is that
the writers have no respect for their fans or they would support their
projects just a little more often than they do. Period.
If you're an Image bigshot reading this. Go ahead, I dare you to reply.
=--------Ed
KellyImage
produce comic books. I am totally mystified by this. Everyone is
entitled to their taste, but hatred is something usually reserved for
those who deliberately harm us.
Just curious.
Kelly Van Landingham
Image Comics
714/634-4644 / 714/634-4645 (fax)
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: I have a question for you. Why do you "hate" the companies which
: produce comic books. I am totally mystified by this. Everyone is
: entitled to their taste, but hatred is something usually reserved for
: those who deliberately harm us.
Good question, Kelly. I think it's easier, first of all, to sit behind a
keyboard and screen and type "This book/creator/company SUCKS!" without
having to expand upon or qualify your opinion - it's a real no-brainer.
Trouble is, it contributes nothing to a substantive discussion.
Personally, I don't *hate* any one company. I hate a lot of things
certain companies do, but I hate a lot of things *most* corporations do.
I'm disappointed at most Marvel Machinations of late, from the Heroes
World deal right on up to the outsourcing-to-Lee-and-Liefeld deal; on the
other hand, I applaud both of the Big Two for putting their competitive
differences aside long enough to do some joint projects which please a
great many of their fans.
I admire Image greatly for what they've been able to do for freelancers,
but I don't as a rule like their books. I buy and read one from time to
time, and it doesn't do much for me. I feel Image books are, by and
large, aimed at a certain age group, and *definitely* at a specific
gender. I also tend to prefer writing to art, and feel Image's "house
style" tends to *detract* from stories rather than add to them.
But *hatred*? Life's too short to sustain such unproductive emotions
for very long, at least for me.
- Elayne
--
E-Mail me, the "Firehead Head," for more info about the official ()~~
Firesign Theatre newsletter, Four-Alarm FIRESIGNal, available via ##
snail mail or free online! "And across her all, we flung one ##
Shining Steel Rail..." _##_
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: If you think Image was a worthwhile company for the first two years of it's
: existence, I'd be delighted to hear why?
Because of the way they were shaking the industry up. They marketed
themselves very successfully and made other companies sit up in their
complacency and take notice. I do consider this a worthwhile thing.
Michael A. Chary
> I have a question for you. Why do you "hate" the companies which
> produce comic books. I am totally mystified by this. Everyone is
> entitled to their taste, but hatred is something usually reserved for
> those who deliberately harm us.
From the time Image was founded until around a year ago they were, imo,
harming the industry by supporting the efforts of people who were not
producing what I considered to be professional quality work: Jim Lee and
Rob Liefeld. Since Rob is no longer drawing, and neither is Jim Lee, as
far as I know, I am no longer harboring animosity toward them as such,
though I still feel Image is helping to promote an inferior product in some
ways. Currently they have supported enough squality stuff that I am no
longer complaining as I once did.
--
When there's no one there, it's Norg.
"The BBC's trailer department keeps calling the O J Simpson case "the trial
of the century." Sure, OJ's a big name, but I still think the title belongs,
narrowly, to Nuremberg." - Jack Hughes, "The Independent on Sunday."
Michael A. Chary
> KellyImage (kelly...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : I have a question for you. Why do you "hate" the companies which
> : produce comic books. I am totally mystified by this. Everyone is
> : entitled to their taste, but hatred is something usually reserved for
> : those who deliberately harm us.
>
> keyboard and screen and type "This book/creator/company SUCKS!" without
> having to expand upon or qualify your opinion - it's a real no-brainer.
> Trouble is, it contributes nothing to a substantive discussion.
If you think Image was a worthwhile company for the first two years of it's
existence, I'd be delighted to hear why?
--
Michael A. Chary
> Michael A. Chary (bf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
> : existence, I'd be delighted to hear why?
>
> themselves very successfully and made other companies sit up in their
> complacency and take notice. I do consider this a worthwhile thing.
And these other companies responded by encouraging the specualtor market
with gimmick covers, bad girl t&a art, and a total reliance on style over
substance. As a result the industry has nosedived to a new low. I
consider this a bad thing.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: > Michael A. Chary (bf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: >
: > : If you think Image was a worthwhile company for the first two years of it's
: > : existence, I'd be delighted to hear why?
: >
: > Because of the way they were shaking the industry up. They marketed
: > themselves very successfully and made other companies sit up in their
: > complacency and take notice. I do consider this a worthwhile thing.
: And these other companies responded by encouraging the specualtor market
: with gimmick covers, bad girl t&a art, and a total reliance on style over
: substance. As a result the industry has nosedived to a new low. I
: consider this a bad thing.
Yes, I consider the industry's response to Image's debut a Bad Thing as
well. They *should* have responded by respecting (and compensating)
their creators better, and by going for (and retaining) market
segments not targeted by Image - not by imitating Image's house style.
Mark Evanier
A. Chary) writes:
>
>From the time Image was founded until around a year ago they were,
>imo, harming the industry by supporting the efforts of people who were
>not producing what I considered to be professional quality work: Jim
>Lee and Rob Liefeld.
ME: Image didn't support their work. Readers did...readers who bought
large quantities of comics by those two men.
And you know what? They supported that work when Marvel published
those creators. And if DC or Dark Horse or Valiant or any other
company could have gotten Rob and Jim for the last two years, they
wouldn't have hesitated to publish them, either...and readers would
probably have flocked to those books.
How is a company "harming the industry" by publishing comics that
people want to buy?
I think Jim and Rob are very talented guys. Even if I didn't, the
worst crime they'd be guilty of in my book would be that they did some
comics that I didn't like. If this ever becomes a capital offense,
we'll be executing two-thirds of today's creators.
And I'd still respect the way that their formation of Image had kicked
the door open for so many other creators, broken down some silly brand
loyalties and brought the industry into the 21st century on many
levels. I don't think the business has properly utilized the heat they
generated...but that's hardly their fault.
tom vincent
: I have a question for you. Why do you "hate" the companies which
: produce comic books. I am totally mystified by this. Everyone is
: entitled to their taste, but hatred is something usually reserved for
: those who deliberately harm us.
Kelly, I have been pretty unabashed in my critisisms of Image, but I
wouldn't go so far as to say that I "hate" Image. Perelman, on the other
hand, is an entirely different story. ;)
Actually, when Image was first formed, I was one of those in the cheering
section. Having freelanced for Marvel for some years, I was fully aware of
the shoddy treatment of creators and intellectual properties that Marvel had
(has) a reputation for. I was impressed with the care given to the
production of the books. Anyone who kept Steve Oliff and Olyoptics in the
public's eye was doing the world a favor, as far as I was concerned.
In thirty years of being involved in comics, the last 11 or so as a
freelancer, I had never before seen such a resivoir of good will within the
comic buying public on reserve for any group of creators, let alone a
company. This, I thought, was a really good thing.
My first job in comics was working for the "original" Comico, back when they
were doing such books as MAGE, THE ELEMENTALS, GRENDEL, and yes, even the
ROBOTECH stuff. I knew what it was like to be a part of an upstart company,
and the thrill of worling your ass off to take the comic world by storm and
be a part of some history making, and I saw the success of Image as being
good for the industry as a whole.
Having said all that, I would like to mention that I am very close with the
retailers in my area (Albany, NY). I speak with them constantly, and try to
go to their Monday night "retailers dinner meeting" at a local restaraunt.
Image *still* doesn't have a clue just *how much* economic damage was done
to retailers by Image's practice of soliciting books that never came out,
having months and months go by between issues, having second string clones
doing the work on the books...
These guys (the retailers) had their businesses damaged as a direct result
of irresponsible business practices on the part of Image. Every Image book
they ordered was a book by someone else that they couldn't order. They had
their money already accounted for with their Image order. On the face of
it, that's what the free market is all about, isn't it? We choose one thing
over another, there are winners and there are losers in the marketplace.
Then, the books never shipped.
Every Image book that didn't ship was another book that retailers couldn't
sell that week. The retailers dealt with Image in good faith by supporting
them and ordering their books. Image, on the other hand, violated that
trust. Of all of the various "studios", it seemed that only McFarlane and
Valentino were making any effort at all to live up to their commitment to
the marketplace.
These retailers are people- real live human beings, with bills to pay, kids
to feed, futures to think about. Some of these guys had their life savings
invested in their stores.
Image, by acting irresponsibly, put all that at risk.
Tlak about biting the hand that feeds you.
There's also the issue of work for hire. Image made all kinds of noise
about being in support of creators' rights, and then promptly had
freelancers work under WFH.
But that's another story, another rant, for another time.....
Good luck to you all. With any luck, there will still be stores around next
year to sell the books you produce.
---Tom Vincent
<--Jerky!-->
the damage that Image did to retailers. Its been mentioned before, but I
think you described it very well.
On the creative end of things, Im not sure what to make of Lee and
Liefeld taking on Cap, FF, and the Avengers. I have some faith that Jim
Lee will do right by the Fantastic Four, but I have absolutely no faith
in Liefeld to be faithful to Cap's character. Cap is probably the one
Marvel Universe character with the most moral character (Spidey comes
close), and here Harass hands him over to a guy who's creations haven't
shown a bit of morals (Youngblood, Bloodpool, Bloodstrike, Bluddwulf, you
get the idea). Just look at his idiotic Babewatch crossover.
Jerky!
P.S> Albany, NY. huh? I just graduated from SUNY over there. If memory
serves me correctly, It never got above 30 degrees today, while I'm
currently enjoying a balmy 42 degrees here in Brooklyn :)
Mark Justice
little like hating McDonald's because you're overweight.If cover
enhancements, etc, didn't produce sales, companies wouldn't use them. If
you're distressed that other fans are supporting product you consider to be
crap, fine. Blame the fans. I have no love for any company, but blaming the
company for being a success (or staying in business, which qualifies for
success these days, I suppose) is ridiculous.
For the record, I sampled Image in the early days and came away very
disappointed. Lately, though, I've been enjoying Astro City, The New
Shadowhawk and W.I.L.D.Cats. That's one more title than I follow from Marvel
(Hulk and UTOS-M).
Mark Justice
Bill May
>I have a question for you. Why do you "hate" the companies which
>produce comic books. I am totally mystified by this. Everyone is
>entitled to their taste, but hatred is something usually reserved for
>those who deliberately harm us.
Kelly,
Not knowing how long you've been on the net, it is probably easiest
to ignore such tripe. There are a lot of people on the net who
feel that degrading something is a lot easier than coming up with
constructive criticism. The anonymity of this media allows people
to post things that they wouldn't dare say to someone's face.
Thus you see abuse piled on companies, creators and the like, and
degrading posts on comics that have not even been published. It's
a wonder that any comics professionals hang out here. It really
requires a thick skin and the willing to take a lot of abuse.
I don't see this changing anytime soon; with internet access become
more "mainstream," I can only see it getting worse.
There are a lot of good discussions that go on here, you just can't
take any personal attacks seriously.
Personally, 2 of my favorite titles are produced by Image (Astro
City and Bone). As long as Image continues to give such titles
a home, I'll continue to buy from them. I really do not like any
of the Imageverse books; therefore, I don't read any or comment on
any that I have read.
wbm
Winter Elmo
> Michael A. Chary (bf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> : Elayne Wechsler-Chaput (fire...@panix.com) writes:
> : > Michael A. Chary (bf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> : > : If you think Image was a worthwhile company for the first two years of it's
> : > : existence, I'd be delighted to hear why?
> : >
> : > Because of the way they were shaking the industry up. They marketed
> : > themselves very successfully and made other companies sit up in their
> : > complacency and take notice. I do consider this a worthwhile thing.
So what you're saying is that Image is to be admired because they promoted
themselves successfully? This is admirable?
> : And these other companies responded by encouraging the specualtor market
> : with gimmick covers, bad girl t&a art, and a total reliance on style over
> : substance. As a result the industry has nosedived to a new low. I
> : consider this a bad thing.
>
> Yes, I consider the industry's response to Image's debut a Bad Thing as
> well.
Let us recall that Image is hardly innocent of vamping the speculators,
hawking vaporware, promoting artistic exploitation of the stylized female
form, and relying on style over substance, at least in the majority of the
line's output.
> They *should* have responded by respecting (and compensating)
> their creators better, and by going for (and retaining) market
> segments not targeted by Image - not by imitating Image's house style.
When has this not been true?
Let me rearrange the question a bit: How has Image and its influence changed
comics?
If you talk to pros, almost uniformly you will hear praise for Image's
freeing [seven] creators from the shackles of the big-time companies [other
than Image]. This strikes me, given Image's rapid descension to the same
work-for-hire arrangments as DC and Marvel, as a peculiar manifestation of
little more than a cult of personality.
If you talk to new comics fans--trick question! Approximately 3/4ths of
Image's audience has left comics entirely in the last two years.
If you talk to reactionary old comics fans like, oh, 98% of
rec.arts.comics, you will almost uniformly hear criticism of Image,
on the familiar grounds of work-for-hire and pandering to speculators.
--
"It's like a new pair of underwear. You know, at first it's constrictive, but
after a while it becomes a part of you."--Garth, Wayne's World
elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnal.fnal.gov)
Winter Elmo
> If cover
> enhancements, etc, didn't produce sales, companies wouldn't use them.
Yeah, those cover enhancement sure bring in the loyal readers, don't they?
Guess that explains why sales are down by a factor of four or thereabouts
in the last three years.
--
"All dwarfs are by nature dutiful, serious, literate, obedient and
thoughtful people whose only minor failing is a tendency, after one drink,
to rush at enemies screaming "Arrrrrrgh!" and axing their legs off at the
knee."--Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnal.fnal.gov)
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: So what you're saying is that Image is to be admired because they promoted
: themselves successfully? This is admirable?
Yes and no. I mean, promotion per se is never one of my favorite things,
but they set out to do certain things when they started the company, and
(except for their horrid late shipments) I think they succeeded. And I
think they got the word out about that success (especially vis a vis
their treatment of creative talent) very well, and made the industry think.
: Let us recall that Image is hardly innocent of vamping the speculators,
: hawking vaporware, promoting artistic exploitation of the stylized female
: form, and relying on style over substance, at least in the majority of the
: line's output.
Absolutely, I never said they didn't do any of the above. The "sins" you
list are among the reasons I don't buy "Image Universe" books. However,
none of this takes away from the impact they've had vis a vis creators.
: Let me rearrange the question a bit: How has Image and its influence changed
: comics?
If nothing else, a new player has been introduced to the game once
"ruled" by the Big Two. And the whole Marvel/Heroes World thing hasn't
been the blow to a lot of stores that they thought it would, in part
because Image has taken up a lot of that slack.
: If you talk to pros, almost uniformly you will hear praise for Image's
: freeing [seven] creators from the shackles of the big-time companies [other
: than Image]. This strikes me, given Image's rapid descension to the same
: work-for-hire arrangments as DC and Marvel, as a peculiar manifestation of
: little more than a cult of personality.
I don't know. I couldn't blithely ignore "almost uniform" praise,
especially from the people who actually create the entertainment.
: If you talk to new comics fans--trick question! Approximately 3/4ths of
: Image's audience has left comics entirely in the last two years.
High turnover. Very similar to Marvel in the '80s.
: If you talk to reactionary old comics fans like, oh, 98% of
: rec.arts.comics, you will almost uniformly hear criticism of Image,
: on the familiar grounds of work-for-hire and pandering to speculators.
Heck, Elmo, reactionary old comics fans like 98% of rac* bitch about
*everything*. <g>
- Elayne
--
This review is copyright 1995 Elayne Wechsler-Chaput, currently shivering
in an ill-heated room despite layers of clothing and fearing a distinct
lack of coherence in this week's postings due to brain freeze and the
possible first symptoms of pneumonia... =sniffle= habby dew year....
Michael A. Chary
Mark Evanier (eva...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> In <DKBos...@freenet.carleton.ca> bf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
> A. Chary) writes:
>>
>>From the time Image was founded until around a year ago they were,
>>imo, harming the industry by supporting the efforts of people who were
>>not producing what I considered to be professional quality work: Jim
>>Lee and Rob Liefeld.
>
> ME: Image didn't support their work. Readers did...readers who bought
> large quantities of comics by those two men.
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average
voter."
The readers gave the money to Image. Image published the work. If not
for Image the work wouldn't have seen print. Dave Kingman was a terrifc
balplayer. He was also a jerk. I didn't give any money to people who hired
him to play baseball. If I could have not payed taxes to support the Reagan
administration, I would have not done so. I am not going to support a
company which produces substandard work, whther it be New Kids on the Block
or Rob Liefeld. I am not an elitist. I recognize people's rights to enjoy
diverse things. But I also recognize objective artistic standards, and
those artists weren't meeting them.
> And you know what? They supported that work when Marvel published
> those creators.
Liefeld and Lee weren't geniuses, but they were at least trying at Marvel.
Their work, especially Liefeld's deteriorated markedly at Image. At Marvel,
501 would attempt background occasionally. At Image they both gave up on
storytelling and anatomy in favor of whatever theyfelt like.
> And if DC or Dark Horse or Valiant or any other
> company could have gotten Rob and Jim for the last two years, they
> wouldn't have hesitated to publish them, either...and readers would
> probably have flocked to those books.
And this is the difference. I don't see comics as a business. I see comics
as an art form, not a product. If DC and Marvel and Image and every creator
of every comic book from Action Girl to Gen13 to Tale from the Bog dropped
dead tomorrow. There would still be comics, because there's a market for
them and people want to buy them. That doesn't mean comics are essentially
a business. omics are still essentially an artform. Just because people are
willing to buy 501's stuff, doesn't mean he's any good, it just means that
there are people willing to hand money over to a talented invidual who
isn't doing his best work anymore.
> How is a company "harming the industry" by publishing comics that
> people want to buy?
By being short sighted and rewarding minimal effort.
> I think Jim and Rob are very talented guys. Even if I didn't, the
I do too.
> worst crime they'd be guilty of in my book would be that they did some
> comics that I didn't like. If this ever becomes a capital offense,
> we'll be executing two-thirds of today's creators.
Mark, did I say it was a capital offense? No, I said I didn't like it.
And I hated Image for promoting it. And since we are merely discussing our
feelings on the matter, my feeling is that Image was engaged in a harmful
practice by continuing to segregate comics to a particular market
(adolescent boys) instead of expanding beyond that market.
> And I'd still respect the way that their formation of Image had kicked
> the door open for so many other creators, broken down some silly brand
> loyalties and brought the industry into the 21st century on many
> levels. I don't think the business has properly utilized the heat they
> generated...but that's hardly their fault.
This has tempered my feelings over the years as Image has continued to
support new and varied creators.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://bronze.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for
sure that just ain't so." - Yogi Berra
"Ipsa scientia potestas est." - Roger Bacon
Robert Bain
: I have a question for you. Why do you "hate" the companies which
: produce comic books. I am totally mystified by this. Everyone is
: entitled to their taste, but hatred is something usually reserved for
: those who deliberately harm us.
At the moment I hate Image because they hired Larry Marder, which kept
him from being able to work on _Tales Of The Beanworld_ full-time, and
now Image is _FINALLY_ putting out Beanworld!....
...5 pages of it in an anthology, the rest of which is totally
uninteresting to me. (I'm being polite. I won't call it 'typical Image
crap' because I haven't read it, as I refuse to pay more than $0.25/page
for any comic, even Beanworld.) Put Beanworld either in its own title,
or in a collected GN.
--And I wanna know what happened to Heyoka in the Influence, dammmit!
--
---"...It's people like that who make you realize how little you've
--- accomplished. For instance, when Mozart was my age, he had
--- been dead for two years." -- Tom Lehrer
---Arb...@soho.ios.com
Crash
(KellyImage) wrote:
> I have a question for you. Why do you "hate" the companies which
> produce comic books. I am totally mystified by this. Everyone is
> entitled to their taste, but hatred is something usually reserved for
> those who deliberately harm us.
>
> Just curious.
> Kelly Van Landingham
> Image Comics
> 714/634-4644 / 714/634-4645 (fax)
I don't care about companies, I'll follow particular creators no matter
who writes their checks.
--
Chris Bailey
"Men always call their superiors mad."
Doctor Doom
Kevin J. Maroney
>And I'd still respect the way that their formation of Image had kicked
>the door open for so many other creators, broken down some silly brand
>loyalties and brought the industry into the 21st century on many
>levels. I don't think the business has properly utilized the heat they
>generated...but that's hardly their fault.
And remember, Image didn't _cause_ the collapse of the direct market;
they just precipitated it.
Seriously. The comics industry was a speculator bubble waiting to
burst; DEATHMATE merely hastened that bursting.
--
Kevin Maroney | Crossover Technologies | ke...@crossover.com
If they keep you asking the wrong questions, they don't have
to worry about the answers. --Thomas Pynchon
Mark Justice
>If you talk to new comics fans--trick question! Approximately 3/4ths of
>Image's audience has left comics entirely in the last two years.
>
>rec.arts.comics, you will almost uniformly hear criticism of Image,
>on the familiar grounds of work-for-hire and pandering to speculators.
And will you share with the rest of us this exhaustive and meticulous
research project, along with the questions used, which yielded the numbers
which you present?
Mark Justice, Don't Love Image, But Love Imaginary Statistics Even Less
John Holbrook
writes:
>fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) writes:
>> Michael A. Chary (bf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>> : Elayne Wechsler-Chaput (fire...@panix.com) writes:
>> : > Michael A. Chary (bf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>> : > : If you think Image was a worthwhile company for the first two years
of it's
>> : > : existence, I'd be delighted to hear why?
>> : >
>> : > Because of the way they were shaking the industry up. They marketed
>> : > themselves very successfully and made other companies sit up in their
>> : > complacency and take notice. I do consider this a worthwhile thing.
>
>So what you're saying is that Image is to be admired because they promoted
>themselves successfully? This is admirable?
>
>> : And these other companies responded by encouraging the specualtor
market
>> : with gimmick covers, bad girl t&a art, and a total reliance on style
over
>> : substance. As a result the industry has nosedived to a new low. I
>> : consider this a bad thing.
>>
>> Yes, I consider the industry's response to Image's debut a Bad Thing as
>> well.
>
>> They *should* have responded by respecting (and compensating)
>> their creators better, and by going for (and retaining) market
>> segments not targeted by Image - not by imitating Image's house style.
>
>When has this not been true?
>
>Let me rearrange the question a bit: How has Image and its influence
changed
>comics?
>
>If you talk to pros, almost uniformly you will hear praise for Image's
>freeing [seven] creators from the shackles of the big-time companies [other
>than Image]. This strikes me, given Image's rapid descension to the same
>work-for-hire arrangments as DC and Marvel, as a peculiar manifestation of
>little more than a cult of personality.
It's funny. I regard most of RACM's regulars (Elmo included) as very
astute, knowledgeble individuals. It never ceases to amaze me how even they
can allow their personal biases to smear and obscure reality.
IMAGE W-F-H DOES NOT EQUAL MARVEL W-F-H!!! How can you begin to compare
the two?? Heck, you can hardly lump IMAGE W-F-H into one category since
each studio has its own policies on the subject. One fact remains - Ask ANY
pro who has had to opportunity to do W-F-H at both IMAGE and MARVEL, and I'm
betting you'll uniformly find that IMAGE is far prefered. Not only
because they are more lucrative contracts, but also because of the
creative control afforded in IMAGE W-F-H, and the greater opportunities
to move on to do your own creator owned stuff. Hell, many IMAGE W-F-H
talent own the characters that they create in the books they work on.
>
>If you talk to new comics fans--trick question! Approximately 3/4ths
of
>Image's audience has left comics entirely in the last two years.
>
>If you talk to reactionary old comics fans like, oh, 98% of
>rec.arts.comics, you will almost uniformly hear criticism of Image,
>on the familiar grounds of work-for-hire and pandering to speculators.
...Which is silly since ANY major publisher you can name is guilty
of the same speculator driven marketing tactics, to one degree or
another, and since no one from IMAGE ever said they wouldn't use W-F-H,
and when they do use it, they are the most equitable, employee-friendly
arangements in the business.
John
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ John B. Holbrook,II +
+ Recruitment Specialist +
+ j...@ix.netcom.com +
+ +
+ "Monica? Um, you're scaring me. I mean, you're like, you're like +
+ all chaotic and twirly, you know? - I mean, and not in a good +
+ way." - Phoebe from FRIENDS +
+ +
+ Look for THE PROPHET'S WISDOM posted bimonthly in rec.arts.comics.info+
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ennead
: I have a question for you. Why do you "hate" the companies which
: produce comic books. I am totally mystified by this. Everyone is
: entitled to their taste, but hatred is something usually reserved for
: those who deliberately harm us.
: Just curious.
Well, it has been argued that Image's first two years, in which it fueled
the fires of mindless speculation as high as it could, and then shipped
most of the hot books so late that the trend was over and stores were
stuck with piles of unsellable Image comics, put many stores out of
business, and was a major contributing factor to making the industry the
@#$%!hole it is today.
Given that, I don't know if people should "hate" Image, but I can
certainly understand being angry about the whole thing. Sure, the stores
that went out of business speculated unwisely - but still, Image made a
commitment to have books out, accepted money for it, and then renenged on
its responsibility. And everyone BUT Image got screwed.
Some on this thread have argued that Image is just as bad as Marvel/DC as
far as work-for-hire. I disagree: no matter who draws Wildcats, Jim Lee
owns it and will profit from it. And if Lee doesn't like how Joe Creator
renders Wildcats, Lee can fire Joe Creator. OTOH, when someone draws
Spiderman, co-creator Dikto doesn't make a cent off it, and has no control
over it. Ron Pearlman, who couldn't create a decent comic if you held his
testicles in a vice and ordered him to, does profit from Spiderman and
(if he wanted to) could control it.
That's the difference between Image and every other work-for-hire
company, and it's an important one. Go Image go!, I say. If we gotta
have crappy superhero comics, better Image than anyone else.
Also, although this is probably unfair, I kinda blaim Image for the lack
of Beanworld lately. <g>
Yours,
--Ampersand
"How can we lose when we're so sincere?" --Charlie Brown
read my comics at http://www.teleport.com/~ennead/ampersand
fredrick b. chary
>over it. Ron Pearlman, who couldn't create a decent comic if you held his
>testicles in a vice and ordered him to, does profit from Spiderman and
>(if he wanted to) could control it.
Hmm, I don't know. I have seen the man interviewed. He speaks in
complete sentences. He might be able to write better than the people
on the regular Spiderman titles now (though not UTOS). In fact, I
disagree. I suggest we put your theory to the test. Where can I get a
vise? :):):)
Mike, using Fred's account.
Mark Evanier
Chary) writes:
>
>I am not going to support a company which produces substandard work,
>whther it be New Kids on the Block or Rob Liefeld. I am not an
>elitist. I recognize people's rights to enjoy diverse things.
ME: So then why hate the company that offers those diverse things? Do
you hate the record label that put out the New Kids albums? If so,
what is accomplished by hating it? Just don't buy it.
>But I also recognize objective artistic standards, and
>those artists weren't meeting them.
ME: ...in your opinion.
>Liefeld and Lee weren't geniuses, but they were at least trying at
>Marvel. Their work, especially Liefeld's deteriorated markedly at
>Image.
ME: Again...in your opinion.
>And this is the difference. I don't see comics as a business. I see
>comics as an art form, not a product.
ME: I see it as an art form, too. But Image, as an entity, exists to
market product, the way any publisher exists to market product.
Writers and artists are creative entities...a company is a business
entity.
I happen to greatly like the way Image is set up to allow creators to
create. That doesn't mean that I like everything those creators do. I
think that the formation and success of Image has done a lot to
liberate creators...and the benefits of that may not even come in
comics that bear the Image logo.
>> How is a company "harming the industry" by publishing comics that
>> people want to buy?
>
>By being short sighted and rewarding minimal effort.
ME: Again, you're missing my point. Even assuming that the effort was
minimal -- and I don't believe it was -- it wasn't the company that
rewarded it. It was all those people who bought the comics. If no one
had bought them, Rob and Jim would have lost money, not made it.
>And since we are merely discussing our feelings on the matter, my
>feeling is that Image was engaged in a harmful practice by continuing
>to segregate comics to a particular market (adolescent boys) instead
>of expanding beyond that market.
ME: My main quarrel with this statement is the singling-out of Image as
if they were a sole culprit.
Mark Evanier
Elmo) writes:
>
>If you talk to pros, almost uniformly you will hear praise for Image's
>freeing [seven] creators from the shackles of the big-time companies
>[other than Image]. This strikes me, given Image's rapid descension
>to the same work-for-hire arrangments as DC and Marvel, as a peculiar
>manifestation of little more than a cult of personality.
ME: I have not seen Image having the same work-for-hire arrangements as
DC and Marvel. And I've seen contracts from all three houses.
JBHOL
tom vincent <to...@global1.net> wrote:
>John Holbrook (j...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: IMAGE W-F-H DOES NOT EQUAL MARVEL W-F-H!!! How can you begin to compare
>: the two??
>
>Sorry, John, but you are flat out WRONG. Work for hire is work for hire.
Your statement is true, only in the most superficial of senses
(i.e. work for hire is the same everywhere because you have one person
paying another to work on a comic). Obviously you are not a comic
creator, or you would understand the MAJOR differences in how IMAGE W-F-H
is set up vs. others like MARVEL and DC.
>
>Your starement is akin to saying that different suns shine on New York and
>California because they're in different places.
???? What a bizarre comparison. I see no validity whatsoever to this
statement.
>We can start up a whole new thread on whether Image WFH is different from
>Marvel's, and you and I can debate this at length, if you'd like, but be
>forewarned: you will be eaten alive, and it won't be pretty. ;)
>
Tom, if you mean that you plan on turning an interesting debate
into some sort of flame-fest, I'm not interested. In any event, it
really doesn't matter what YOU or I think of W-F-H - it is purely an
accademic question for us. It is the people who have to work under those
arrangements whoose opinions matter. Case in point:
Date: 30 DEC 1995 05:29:59 GMT
From: Mark Evanier <eva...@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.misc
Subject: Re: Commitment.... was Re: Image: hated?
In <1995Dec2...@fnalv.fnal.gov> mor...@fnalv.fnal.gov (Winter
Elmo) writes:
>
>If you talk to pros, almost uniformly you will hear praise for Image's
>freeing [seven] creators from the shackles of the big-time companies
>[other than Image]. This strikes me, given Image's rapid descension
>to the same work-for-hire arrangments as DC and Marvel, as a peculiar
>manifestation of little more than a cult of personality.
ME: I have not seen Image having the same work-for-hire arrangements as
DC and Marvel. And I've seen contracts from all three houses.
CLEARLY there is a difference in the W-F-H arrangements of the
various major comic companies. To believe otherwise is to be, quoting
one Tom Vincent "Flat-out wrong."
I believe they are serving crow down at your local eatery - I
suggest you get an extra helping today.
John
--
.sig is currently under construction
Michael A. Chary
DCO Martha (dcom...@aol.com) writes:
>
> Gee, and here I thought Walker was looking at ancient anthropological
> texts and myths. Instead, she was taken in by a bunch of culturally
> isolated Shriners at a convention.
Well, yeah, but it might have helped if she had *also* looked at some of
the current scholarship. I mean, it's okay to be an iconoclast, but not
*every* icon is bad.
> Really, I don't see that your speculation addresses my point, which is
> that it might not be easy for a sexually active woman in a primitive
> culture to identify the father of her child. There is enough time between
> conception and the beginning of signs of pregnancy for the two acts to
> seem unrelated.
It's not that easy now, necessarily, but realize that some people look like
they're parents. And it's not all *that* hard to nail down suspects :)
Actually, that would be an interesting thing to address in a comic book. Is
Franklin *really* Reed's kid?
I mean Damage and Ray and Wolverine and Billy and Mary Batson back int he
fawcett days all have had to search for their dads and/or other relatives.
Father's seem to lose track more than moms. Is this an example of comics
objectifying men?
(And he makes a valiant effort to drag the thread back on topic :))
> I mean, I KNOW who the father of my son is, and I'm not sure I can tell
> you exactly when I conceived. Oh, but I'm just a mother, so what would I
> know.
Hmm, I'm sure that's a straightline (owing much to Mordru's abortive
attempt to team with Gracie Allen, I might add) but I'll be damned if I can
think of something to hang on it. How about:
Well, you prolly know Beatles' songs?
>>If it is a cultural construct and not a biological one, it is a cultural
> construct that has the remarkable feature of being present to some extent
> in every culture, from the least materially advanced gatherer-hunters to
> the inhabitants of complex urban civilizations. <
>
> I know it exists in patriarchal cultures. Show me where it exists in a
> matriarchal culture.
>
Depending on how you mean matriarchal, lot's of American Indian tribes have
a similar system.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: tom vincent <to...@global1.net> wrote:
: >Sorry, John, but you are flat out WRONG. Work for hire is work for hire.
: Your statement is true, only in the most superficial of senses
: (i.e. work for hire is the same everywhere because you have one person
: paying another to work on a comic). Obviously you are not a comic
: creator, or you would understand the MAJOR differences in how IMAGE W-F-H
: is set up vs. others like MARVEL and DC.
Actually, John, Tom *is* a comic creator. He has extensive experience
with work-for-hire situations.
Mark Evanier
writes:
>Sorry, John, but you are flat out WRONG. Work for hire is work for
>New York and California because they're in different places.
ME: I believe, Tom, the thrust of the issue has been subtly shifted
here. The phrase in the discussion was "Image's work-for-hire
arrangements." Yes, work-for-hire as a legal concept does not change
but the arrangements -- the specific wording of the contract and how it
is applied -- does vary. I have done projects in which, while I
conceded work-for-hire status, I also received other contractual
guarantees that gave me almost every legal protection that I would have
received on a project where I held the copyright. (Charles Schulz has
a work-for-hire contract with United Media Syndicate on PEANUTS. I
assure you he is not in the same legal position as someone who draws a
strip for DC.)
JBHOL
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>JBHOL (Jb...@mariner.cris.com) wrote:
>: tom vincent <to...@global1.net> wrote:
>
>: (i.e. work for hire is the same everywhere because you have one person
>: paying another to work on a comic). Obviously you are not a comic
>: creator, or you would understand the MAJOR differences in how IMAGE W-F-H
>: is set up vs. others like MARVEL and DC.
>
>Actually, John, Tom *is* a comic creator. He has extensive experience
>with work-for-hire situations.
A)Shame on him for not identifying himself a bit more clearly as a comics
professional, _if_ indeed he is the same Tom Vincent to which you
refer...The tone of his post sounded a bit juvenille to be coming from a
a mature comic professional.
B)That minor point aside does not change the fact that he is mistken.
All Work for Hire is not the same.
tom vincent
: Cap is probably the one
: close), and here Harass hands him over to a guy who's creations haven't
: shown a bit of morals (Youngblood, Bloodpool, Bloodstrike, Bluddwulf, you
: get the idea). Just look at his idiotic Babewatch crossover.
I don't know that you can really blame that one on Bob.
: P.S> Albany, NY. huh? I just graduated from SUNY over there. If memory
: serves me correctly, It never got above 30 degrees today, while I'm
: currently enjoying a balmy 42 degrees here in Brooklyn :)
Heh.
Yup, you've been here all right.
---Tom
tom vincent
: IMAGE W-F-H DOES NOT EQUAL MARVEL W-F-H!!! How can you begin to compare
: the two??
Sorry, John, but you are flat out WRONG. Work for hire is work for hire.
Your starement is akin to saying that different suns shine on New York and
California because they're in different places.
Under WFH, the CREATOR of a work is legally no longer the AUTHOR of a work.
That's the LAW. Doesn't matter what anyone's "employee policies" are. The
law of the land reigns supreme.
Under WFH, the legal author of the work (that is, the copyright owner) can
and does change a creator's work at will and without permission. Most
countries outlaw that practice in thieir copyright laws, but not here in the
good ol' US ofA. Our leaders pander to money, not morality.
We can start up a whole new thread on whether Image WFH is different from
Marvel's, and you and I can debate this at length, if you'd like, but be
forewarned: you will be eaten alive, and it won't be pretty. ;)
--- Tom Vincent
Michael A. Chary
Mark Evanier (eva...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> In <4c1tjh$3...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu> ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A.
> Chary) writes:
>>
>>I am not going to support a company which produces substandard work,
>>whther it be New Kids on the Block or Rob Liefeld. I am not an
>>elitist. I recognize people's rights to enjoy diverse things.
>
> ME: So then why hate the company that offers those diverse things? Do
I said "diverse things" not "substandard things." I maintain that the
comics Image was producing at that time wouldn't have sold at all if they
hadn't had "Lee" and "Liefeld" written on them.
> you hate the record label that put out the New Kids albums? If so,
> what is accomplished by hating it? Just don't buy it.
I didn't say anything was accomplished. But not buying it isn't good
enough. I do what I did at the time. I railed against Image at every
opportunity. I can't *make* people not buy it, but I can certainly try to
persuade them not to.
>>But I also recognize objective artistic standards, and
>>those artists weren't meeting them.
>
> ME: ...in your opinion.
In whose opinion is not drawing backgrounds, not paying any attention to
anatomy, not having even the vaguest notion of how to set panel flow, and
drawing sexist costumes on the women characters good art?
My opinion might be mine alone, but I have some reasons for it. And my
opinion is those reasons are demonstrable.
>>Liefeld and Lee weren't geniuses, but they were at least trying at
>>Marvel. Their work, especially Liefeld's deteriorated markedly at
>>Image.
>
> ME: Again...in your opinion.
Okay, so you think they got better or worse? What's your opinion? Do you
think stopping even the attempt at brackgrounds or storytelling in
Liefeld's art was a *good* thing?
>>And this is the difference. I don't see comics as a business. I see
>>comics as an art form, not a product.
>
> ME: I see it as an art form, too. But Image, as an entity, exists to
> market product, the way any publisher exists to market product.
> Writers and artists are creative entities...a company is a business
> entity.
Right, so I get to hate the business that tries to undermine art. Image was
doing that by promoting substandard work to hormonal 13 yearolds.
> I happen to greatly like the way Image is set up to allow creators to
> create.
I do too. As I said, my position toward Image is currently neutral. I like
their position on creator rights.
>That doesn't mean that I like everything those creators do. I
Well, two or three years ago, there wasn't a whole hell of a lot to like.
> think that the formation and success of Image has done a lot to
> liberate creators...and the benefits of that may not even come in
> comics that bear the Image logo.
Now. Three years ago, though, they drove a stake through the heart of the
artform.
Well, maybe a *small* stake. I certainly feel they precipitated the current
bust climate by segregating the idustry back toward 13 year old boys.
>>> How is a company "harming the industry" by publishing comics that
>>> people want to buy?
>>
>>By being short sighted and rewarding minimal effort.
>
> ME: Again, you're missing my point. Even assuming that the effort was
> minimal -- and I don't believe it was -- it wasn't the company that
> rewarded it. It was all those people who bought the comics. If no one
> had bought them, Rob and Jim would have lost money, not made it.
No, you're missing my point. I don't care if people bought the comics or
not. They were still published by Image. They were bought by kids who had
been sold on 501 before he evwen got the idea for Image. Kids who had no
idea how to distinguish his previous work from the stuff he was doing
later. This is like saying it's not Nestle's fault that all those third
world mothers believe their advertisments and gave their babies formula
instead of breast feeding them. People will buy any pap marked Nestle or
Liefeld you put in front of them. Corporations, therefore, need to be
careful what they write those words on.
Now the stakes are lower in comics, because no babies are dying, but in
this little milieu, I got to hate Image too. :)
Btw, I certainly hope for his sake the Liefeld wasn't trying his best on
the first several issues of Youngblood, because then his skills had
deteriorated markedly from his work on Hawk and Dove or even X-force.
>>And since we are merely discussing our feelings on the matter, my
>>feeling is that Image was engaged in a harmful practice by continuing
>>to segregate comics to a particular market (adolescent boys) instead
>>of expanding beyond that market.
>
> ME: My main quarrel with this statement is the singling-out of Image as
> if they were a sole culprit.
Did I say I didn't hate other companies? I think Marvel should be
villified. I am neutral toward DC, though I harbor certain good will toward
them for Paradox and Vertigo. I think part of this is my political agenda.
I am perfectly willing to despise corporations because I believe corporate
behavior as it is practiced today is anti-social.
For the record, I am *happy* you got to work at Image because it indicates
at least some commitment to quality work.
Cutthroat Elmo
> I happen to greatly like the way Image is set up to allow creators to
> think that the formation and success of Image has done a lot to
> liberate creators.
How? How any more than, say, Cerebus did almost two decades ago? Or
the undergrounds three decades ago?
>...and the benefits of that may not even come in
> comics that bear the Image logo.
Who has benefited from Image other than the creators and the handful of
people who've joined the Image line? I believe John Byrne could have
gotten Next Men printed without Image or Frank Miller done Sin City.
How is Simonson publishing Starslammers through Bravura any different than
McCloud publishing Zot! through Eclipse? How does Quesada's publication of
Ash benefit any more from Image than from Cerebus?
I'm not saying you're wrong, Mark. I just genuinely don't understand. I'm
not a pro, I don't move in pro circles, but I hear praise for Image's
existence like yours from pro after pro and it confuses me because I don't
get what's so special about Image. Is it just the money?--Not greed, but
people realizing that they can make a go of self-publishing or via a
non-Big Two publisher?
--
"A sheep is homeomorphic to a torus. Apply a mapping such that the interior
and the exterior of the sheep are exchanged. The result is called a haggis."
--Trevor Kirby
elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnal.fnal.gov)
Winter Elmo
> Btw, I certainly hope for his sake the Liefeld wasn't trying his best on
> the first several issues of Youngblood, because then his skills had
> deteriorated markedly from his work on Hawk and Dove or even X-force.
Well, it's worth pointing out that for Hawk and Dove, he had an exceptional
inker (Karl Kesel) and an editor riding herd on his storytelling; the
latter is something that rapidly disappears once superstar status is
achieved.
--
"Monsieur Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book [_Mecanique
Celeste_] on the system of the universe and have never mentioned its creator?"
"I had no need of that hypothesis."--Napoleon Bonaparte and Laplace
elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnal.fnal.gov)
Michael A. Chary
> ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A. Chary) writes:
>> Btw, I certainly hope for his sake the Liefeld wasn't trying his best on
>> the first several issues of Youngblood, because then his skills had
>> deteriorated markedly from his work on Hawk and Dove or even X-force.
>
> inker (Karl Kesel) and an editor riding herd on his storytelling; the
> latter is something that rapidly disappears once superstar status is
> achieved.
Not meaningful for my purposes. It doesn't matter *why* it wasn't his best
work. Only that it wasn't acceptable and Image shoved it out anyway. I
don't care that he owned part of the company, McFly or someone should have
gone to him and said "Rob, this isn't good enough, it just *isn't*" And
because they didn't care enough to do that, I hold them partly to blame. I
am not saying that my hatred need be shared, but that's why I hated Image
for the first couple years they were around. Everyone needs a hobby :)
--
When there's no one there, it's Norg.
"The BBC's trailer department keeps calling the O J Simpson case "the trial
of the century." Sure, OJ's a big name, but I still think the title belongs,
narrowly, to Nuremberg." - Jack Hughes, "The Independent on Sunday."
Michael A. Chary
JBHOL (Jb...@viking.cris.com) writes:
> Elayne Wechsler-Chaput <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>>JBHOL (Jb...@mariner.cris.com) wrote:
>>: tom vincent <to...@global1.net> wrote:
>>: >Sorry, John, but you are flat out WRONG. Work for hire is work for hire.
>>
>>: Your statement is true, only in the most superficial of senses
>>: (i.e. work for hire is the same everywhere because you have one person
>>: paying another to work on a comic). Obviously you are not a comic
>>: creator, or you would understand the MAJOR differences in how IMAGE W-F-H
>>: is set up vs. others like MARVEL and DC.
>>
>>Actually, John, Tom *is* a comic creator. He has extensive experience
>>with work-for-hire situations.
>
> A)Shame on him for not identifying himself a bit more clearly as a comics
> professional, _if_ indeed he is the same Tom Vincent to which you
> refer...The tone of his post sounded a bit juvenille to be coming from a
> a mature comic professional.
Oh, criminy, John, it's not his responsibility to tell you he's a comics
pro so you don't make a fool of yourself impugning his basis for judgement.
You're not a pro either, so it obviously doesn't matter for the purposes of
the discussion. Who cares if he's a pro or not. You are the one who brought
it up. I mean, he has just as much right to argue here and make a fool of
himself as anyone else. (Not that I think he is, but I mean, if he so
chose, he's certainly entitled.)
> B)That minor point aside does not change the fact that he is mistken.
> All Work for Hire is not the same.
I think Mark's right. You two are talking about different things.
Mark Evanier
Chary) writes:
>
>I said "diverse things" not "substandard things." I maintain that the
>comics Image was producing at that time wouldn't have sold at all if
>they hadn't had "Lee" and "Liefeld" written on them.
ME: I think this is a circuitous argument. Obviously, when someone
makes a reputation as they have, a certain number of folks are going to
flock to the product. The direct market, long before Jim or Rob were a
part of it, was structured on advance ordering, which is based largely
on the names of the creators involved.
One of the things I admire about Image is that these guys put their
money where their mouths were, so to speak. Jim or Rob could easily
have gotten almost any publisher in the business to give them deals
whereby they would have been guaranteed huge sums up-front for
producing any kind of comics they wanted...including the books you so
do dislike. Instead, they took that part of the financial risk on
themselves. Would you have been any happier if the exact same books
had come out with the DC or Marvel logos on them?
>I didn't say anything was accomplished. But not buying it isn't good
>enough. I do what I did at the time. I railed against Image at every
>opportunity. I can't *make* people not buy it, but I can certainly try
>to persuade them not to.
ME: What difference does it make to you if people buy comics you don't
like? Those sales kept a lot of comic book shops open so that smaller
press publishers still had a marketplace in which to sell their wares.
>In whose opinion is not drawing backgrounds, not paying any attention
>to anatomy, not having even the vaguest notion of how to set panel
>flow, and drawing sexist costumes on the women characters good art?
ME: Drawing backgrounds has nothing to do with good art. Jules Feiffer
never drew a background in his life.
I think Jim and Rob absolutely do pay attention to anatomy. They
simply choose to depict it in a way you don't like.
Panel flow? Again, very subjective. A lot of people have enjoyed a
lot of stories by those gents. The panel flow couldn't have been that
bad.
Sexist costumes? Before I'll fault them for that, you'll have to name
a couple folks who've started doing super-heroes in the last twenty
years who haven't put sexist costumes on women.
Again, these are all your opinions and you're certainly entitled to
them. I just don't think they translate into absolutes the way you do.
>Okay, so you think they got better or worse? What's your opinion? Do
>you think stopping even the attempt at brackgrounds or storytelling in
>Liefeld's art was a *good* thing?
ME: Again, you seem obsessed with backgrounds. When I worked with Alex
Toth, I used to see him tear up a finished page and redo it to try and
minimize the backgrounds. I used to see Jack Kirby erase a finished
background to make a foreground scene stronger. Look at the over-all
work, not at the individual elements.
I think Rob and Jim have both changed and grown as artists in the last
few years. Perhaps, along the way, they have left a few things
behind...everyone does. But I think the passion and energy in their
recent work is admirable. I am a big fan of seeing artists find
themselves and evolve and try new things, even if they may stumble a
bit along the way.
>No, you're missing my point. I don't care if people bought the comics
>or not. They were still published by Image. They were bought by kids
>who had been sold on 501 before he evwen got the idea for Image. Kids
>who had no idea how to distinguish his previous work from the stuff he
>was doing later. This is like saying it's not Nestle's fault that all
>those third world mothers believe their advertisments and gave their
>babies formula instead of breast feeding them. People will buy any pap
>marked Nestle or Liefeld you put in front of them. Corporations,
>therefore, need to be careful what they write those words on.
ME: So if someone becomes popular in comics, they have to be very
careful not to ever publish anything that Michael Chary doesn't think
is good? (I'm sorry...that's pretty much what your argument boils down
to for me.)
Mark Evanier
Elmo) writes:
>
>How? How any more than, say, Cerebus did almost two decades ago? Or
>the undergrounds three decades ago?
ME: The precedent of CEREBUS, while important, was all about
self-publishing. Most creators out there are not prepared, either in
terms of business acumen, promotional energy or personal lifestyle, to
set up the kind of cottage industry that Dave Sim has with CEREBUS.
And I don't see that CEREBUS, while carving out an important niche for
itself, ever threatened DC or Marvel or the mainstream comic industry.
Neither did undergrounds.
What Image accomplished was to give creators strength in an existing
arena and to break down a certain amount of brand name loyalty.
Neither Sim nor undergrounds directly impacted that.
>Who has benefited from Image other than the creators and the handful
>of people who've joined the Image line? I believe John Byrne could
>have gotten Next Men printed without Image or Frank Miller done Sin
>City. How is Simonson publishing Starslammers through Bravura any
>different than McCloud publishing Zot! through Eclipse? How does
>Quesada's publication of Ash benefit any more from Image than from
>Cerebus?
ME: I think every creator anywhere who has made a better deal for
themselves since Image came out has benefitted from Image. Deals have
improved all over...and stores' and readers' willingness to purchase
non-DC/Marvel books has improved.
The difference between ZOT and STARSLAMMERS is essentially one of more
direct competition. DC and Marvel didn't really want McCloud or his
book...or, if they had, they would have marketed it as an alternative.
With STARSLAMMERS, there's been at least an attempt to be
front-and-center in the marketplace...and I'd wager that Simonson got a
much better deal on his book than Scott did on ZOT.
I do not wish to suggest that Image was the only factor involved in any
of the improvements in the comic industry...merely that they were a
positive force. I think it may be many years before we are able to be
more specific about how positive.
Kurt Busiek
>
>Who has benefited from Image other than the creators and the handful of
>people who've joined the Image line?
Plenty of people. The minute a publisher thought, "Geez, those Image
boys are raking in the sales, and they could steal all my top talent,"
and started treating the talent better, those creators benefitted
whether they went to Image or not.
Once brand loyalty is not as strong as it used to be, publishers have to
rely less on brand loyalty and more on other things, including creators.
When creators become more valuable, and there's competition for their
services, the creators benefit.
I believe that Valiant cracked brand loyalty open and Image shattered
it, and that's been a very good development for creators who never
worked for either.
kurt
Abhay Khosla
> eva...@ix.netcom.com(Mark Evanier ) writes:
> > I happen to greatly like the way Image is set up to allow creators to
> > create. That doesn't mean that I like everything those creators do. I
> > think that the formation and success of Image has done a lot to
> > liberate creators.
>
> How? How any more than, say, Cerebus did almost two decades ago? Or
> the undergrounds three decades ago?
Cerebus and the undergrounds aren't exactly superhero comics at which
point I've always gaqthered its hard to fight the Big Two. They have the
characters and the zombies and anyone fighting that is at a
disadvantage.
One argument said that they shouldn't have goene independant if all they
wanted to do is superhero comics. But really- its kind of a bullshit
argument. Why not? On moral grounds? If there's no good reason not to,
it kind of comes down to a personal decision.
> >...and the benefits of that may not even come in
> > comics that bear the Image logo.
> Who has benefited from Image other than the creators and the handful of
> people who've joined the Image line? I believe John Byrne could have
Jeff Smith has stated in the Comics Journal of all places that he
benefited from Image. That Bone wouldn't have survived if Image hadn't
sucked some of the zombies albiet briefly outside...
> gotten Next Men printed without Image or Frank Miller done Sin City.
> How is Simonson publishing Starslammers through Bravura any different than
> McCloud publishing Zot! through Eclipse? How does Quesada's publication of
> Ash benefit any more from Image than from Cerebus?
Queseda wouldn't have risked it if it weren't for Image. And it is a
risk. That guy was on an X-book for chrissakes.
The only truly bad thing Image ever did was all the late books. A few
late books is okay, but so many that never got resolicited, so many- I
think retailers might have gotten a bit hurt and we're all worse off when
that happens....(I blame Bad Girls in different places...)
-Abhay
akh...@umich.edu
Abhay Khosla
> Mark Evanier (eva...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> > In <4c1tjh$3...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu> ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A.
> > Chary) writes:
> > ME: So then why hate the company that offers those diverse things? Do
> I said "diverse things" not "substandard things." I maintain that the
> comics Image was producing at that time wouldn't have sold at all if they
> hadn't had "Lee" and "Liefeld" written on them.
Well, doing them. Would Next Men have sold without John Byrne? Would
Death the High Cost of Living sold without Neal Gaiman? I'm guessing
you're not arguing against creator-power- I myself buy mainyl by who's
working on a book, not characters anymore(I like so few these days...).
As to substandard- its a value judgement. Because for their target
audience, those books were what was wanted, unfortunately. I personally
think they could have given the guns and the art and the acion and given
MORE, given a bit of imagination or committment, but for a 13 year old
kid, it wasn't substandard. Anyone older than 13- they weren't making
comics for you. I don't think thats a good thing- a good superhero
comic shouldn't be *so* specific in age
The reason I *almost* altogether gave up Image(Need my Savage
Dragon...well before they started the really good stuff) was when it was
clear the creators weren't really creating anything with a personal
committment to it. When they were just creating properties. Then again,
Rob liefeld sunk what...800 thousand dollars orf his own money preparing
a Youngblood cartoon short or something?
> >>But I also recognize objective artistic standards, and
> >>those artists weren't meeting them.
> > ME: ...in your opinion.
> In whose opinion is not drawing backgrounds, not paying any attention to
> anatomy, not having even the vaguest notion of how to set panel flow, and
> drawing sexist costumes on the women characters good art?
Whoever bought it in droves. The stuff can be cool to look at. Anatomy
and storytelling are only 2/3 of what you need for good comic art. You
need power and excitement too. And Image artists had that in spades,
moreso than the rest unfortunately. An older guy, a Buscema has all
three, but...
> instead of breast feeding them. People will buy any pap marked Nestle or
> Liefeld you put in front of them. Corporations, therefore, need to be
> careful what they write those words on.
I guess I understand your argument, though as a Savage Dragon fan(albiet
a disgrunteld one thanks to the dark T&A period), I feel I should
mention that book which was the upside of IMage early on- a creator
unleashed on something he loved and wouldn't have felt comfortable doing
at Marvel. Thats something I like about comics- the proximity of the
creator. Of course, bring up Larsen and you open a nasty can of worms...
-Abhay
akh...@umich.edu
Michael A. Chary
Mark Evanier (eva...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> In <4c433g$7...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu> ma...@po.CWRU.Edu (Michael A.
> Chary) writes:
>>
>>I said "diverse things" not "substandard things." I maintain that the
>>comics Image was producing at that time wouldn't have sold at all if
>>they hadn't had "Lee" and "Liefeld" written on them.
>
> makes a reputation as they have, a certain number of folks are going to
> flock to the product. The direct market, long before Jim or Rob were a
> part of it, was structured on advance ordering, which is based largely
> on the names of the creators involved.
Not circuitous at all. Liefeld and Lee put their names on a project, and
then didn't do work up to their old standards. Their only basis for selling
was their name. The fact that the work sold wasn't due to the quality as
you seemed to imply earlier, but rather to the mere fact of the creators.
> One of the things I admire about Image is that these guys put their
> money where their mouths were, so to speak. Jim or Rob could easily
> have gotten almost any publisher in the business to give them deals
> whereby they would have been guaranteed huge sums up-front for
> producing any kind of comics they wanted...including the books you so
> do dislike. Instead, they took that part of the financial risk on
> themselves. Would you have been any happier if the exact same books
> had come out with the DC or Marvel logos on them?
No, because a) I don't cut those companies any slack either, and b)I hated
that work, it wasn't any good, I wouldn't care who put it out.
They were admirable for going off on their own. They were not admirable for
going off on their own and not doing acceptable work.
>>I didn't say anything was accomplished. But not buying it isn't good
>>enough. I do what I did at the time. I railed against Image at every
>>opportunity. I can't *make* people not buy it, but I can certainly try
>>to persuade them not to.
>
> ME: What difference does it make to you if people buy comics you don't
> like?
Because if people buy bad comics, companies -- who values sales more than
anything -- will imitate them and we'll get Lady Detah and Warrior Nun
Areala and disenfranchise and alienate a whole bunch of potential readers
and send the comics industry spiralling into the toilet.
At the time Image was founded, just about the best comic around, to my
mind, was Aquaman. It got cancelled and the current version wouldn't even
look a little out of place in the Image stable of two years ago.
>Those sales kept a lot of comic book shops open so that smaller
> press publishers still had a marketplace in which to sell their wares.
Images scheduling problems also made life miserable for a lot of stores.
>>In whose opinion is not drawing backgrounds, not paying any attention
>>to anatomy, not having even the vaguest notion of how to set panel
>>flow, and drawing sexist costumes on the women characters good art?
>
> ME: Drawing backgrounds has nothing to do with good art. Jules Feiffer
> never drew a background in his life.
So what? Backgrounds are usually an integral part of serial art. Not
drawing them is one thing. Not being *able* to draw them is quite another.
Feiffer is Feiffer. He has proven himself and found what works for him.
> I think Jim and Rob absolutely do pay attention to anatomy. They
> simply choose to depict it in a way you don't like.
Well, we are talking about why *I* hated Image, after all.
> Panel flow? Again, very subjective. A lot of people have enjoyed a
> lot of stories by those gents. The panel flow couldn't have been that
> bad.
Yes, it could. A lot of people voted for Reagan twice. That didn't make him
a good president.
Additionally, I saw people buying multiple copies of Youngblood as
speculation. Did they *read* all those books?
As to the subjectivity. Yes, my hatred for Image to years ago boiled down
to my subjective emotional state. I had *reasons*( for that, but that
doesn't mean it wasn't subjective.
> Sexist costumes? Before I'll fault them for that, you'll have to name
> a couple folks who've started doing super-heroes in the last twenty
> years who haven't put sexist costumes on women.
Jery Ordway, Colleen Doran, Bill Sinkeiwicz, Steve Rude, Steve Lieber,
Kevin Maguire (borderline), Tony Harris, hmmm, well, I'll leave it there.
> Again, these are all your opinions and you're certainly entitled to
> them. I just don't think they translate into absolutes the way you do.
Did I say that everyone had to hate Image? I do claim these are demostrable
criteria. Whther they are objectively *bad* I don't know, but they're
amongst my candidates for objectively bad.
>>Okay, so you think they got better or worse? What's your opinion? Do
>>you think stopping even the attempt at brackgrounds or storytelling in
>>Liefeld's art was a *good* thing?
>
> ME: Again, you seem obsessed with backgrounds. When I worked with Alex
> Toth, I used to see him tear up a finished page and redo it to try and
> minimize the backgrounds. I used to see Jack Kirby erase a finished
> background to make a foreground scene stronger. Look at the over-all
> work, not at the individual elements.
I do look at the overall work. Show me a Liefeld background in the first
six issues of Youngblood? I have seen Kirby and Toth's work, They do use
backgorund on occasion. George Herriman came to me in a dream the other day
and we started talking about backgrounds. He says, "Well, golly, Mike, I
don't think they are all *that* important, I used to change mine all the
time. Gave the work a sort of fantasy feel." And then I showed him
Youngblood, and he said, "But at least I *drew* them."
Mark, if I am going to tell you what I dislike about the work beyond "It
sucks." I have to break it down a little.
> I think Rob and Jim have both changed and grown as artists in the last
> few years. Perhaps, along the way, they have left a few things
> behind...everyone does. But I think the passion and energy in their
> recent work is admirable. I am a big fan of seeing artists find
> themselves and evolve and try new things, even if they may stumble a
> bit along the way.
I haven't seen Rob draw anything in a while.
>>babies formula instead of breast feeding them. People will buy any pap
>>marked Nestle or Liefeld you put in front of them. Corporations,
>>therefore, need to be careful what they write those words on.
>
> ME: So if someone becomes popular in comics, they have to be very
> careful not to ever publish anything that Michael Chary doesn't think
> is good? (I'm sorry...that's pretty much what your argument boils down
> to for me.)
No, if somone doesn't want me to hate them, they better not market
substandard work. Remember? We are talking about why I hated Image for the
first two years of their existence? On that playing field, my opinion is
sort of important, yes?