Comics--The Rewind Decade
Ken_from_Chicago
Every year, every month, every week, sometimes it seems like every day,
you have legions of long-time fans whining and complaining about the
same ole plots, plots ripping off previous plots or worst of all, plots
that DON'T match already written plots. Hey, it's not like someone is
twisting the arms to their backs, putting a knife to their throats and
a gun to their heads forcing them to buy comics, and yet they feel
because they plunked down their $3 they are somehow entitled and able
to one of the larger publishing companies how to do their jobs.
It creates a public relations nightmare when you go to comic book
conventions to preview your wares and you have legions and myriads of
fans who bombard you with complaints, tirades and rants. Sure, everyone
knows the market turns over for the most part every five years, but
there's still of a enough of the long-timers hanging in complaining and
complaining and complaining--and its mostly about the writing.
But there's a simple solution:
GET RID OF THE WRITERS.
EVERY DECADE SIMPLY REPRINT THE SAME COMICS.
Since the market turns over every 5-7 years or so, take advantage.
WIZARD OF OZ, ALICE IN WONDERLAND, LORD OF THE RINGS, and on and on and
on, they've been reprinted over and over and over again. JRR Tolkien,
Isaac Asimov, Elvis Presley, Tupak Shakur, et. al. are dead yet their
works still sell.
You have trade paperbacks, "essential" tpbs, "masterworks" tpbs,
"visionary" tpbs, collections of issues by theme, topic or character,
as well as the straight storyline.
Besides, isn't that ALREADY happening? You have Golden Age, Silver Age,
pre-Crisis, post-Crisis, post-Zero Hour, post-Hypertime, Age of
Apocalypse, Heroes Reborn, Amalgam, Tangent, Elseworlds, What If,
Ultimate line, Marvel Adventures line, Tsunami line, India line, House
of M, all are ways of retelling the same stories, so why not just cop
to upfront? Save on time, energy and money.
Moreover you can not only re-release the comics, you can RE-DRAW them.
Prose stories are routinely re-released with new, updated
illustrations, why not comics? Adaptation of comics to tv and movies
routinely update the settings chronologically. Superman origins have
routinely been updated from the 40s, 50s, 70s, 80s, 90s to the 2000s in
SMALLVILLE.
Moreover with good EDITING you can smooth out some of the kinks,
stories that conflict or contradict with each other, as well as some of
the dialogue idioms preculiar to a particular time period (e.g, "neat",
"keen", "fresh", "dope", "groovy", "hep", "da bomb", "cool", "hot",
"hip", "way out", "smokin'", "frigid", "dreamy", etc.).
After all, editing is the way of the future, editing and adapting, for
movies, tv shows, animation, pc games, video games, role playing games,
card role playing games, etc. The comics part is shrinking as is. After
all, the kid in the comic book shop is a rarity and the kid in the
comic shop who has not been dragged there by their parents is an
endangered species.
Plus, you know which titles already sell. You could simply focus on
them. The ones that don't sell, leave them out, or reprint them once
every other decade, just enough to maintain the trademark and
copyright.
If nervous, you hedge bets by commissioning the occassional mini-series
by newbies or veterans featuring new characters (ala Marvel Comics'
GRAVITY and NEW WARRIROS or DC Comics' IMPULSE and YOUNG JUSTICE). If
they do well enough they could be bumped up from mini-series to a
10-year series, to be reprinted every decade. If they perform poorly,
well, you can always collect and reprint the mini-series.
Lastly, you already have DC Comics reprinting European comics and
Marvel's various "brands" of TPBs (the aforementioned, "Essentional",
"Masterworks", "Visionary") and the upcoming "Absolute" format which is
to comics what a digitally-remastered dvd is to film, bigger, bolder,
sharper, clearer. So again, it's not really my idea or a new idea.
Sincerely,
-- Ken from Chicago (who never ever complains about the editorial or
commercial decisions made by TPTB at the Big Two comic publishers.
Nope. Not. One. Bit.)
P.S. "Now if could just get rid of the actors and directors, maybe
we;ve got something here."--'Griffin Mill', Tim Robbins, THE PLAYER.
Warchild
"Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118398034....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Weren't we doing that already? Some people are never satisfied.
jay
wrote:
> But there's a simple solution:
>
> GET RID OF THE WRITERS.
>
> EVERY DECADE SIMPLY REPRINT THE
> SAME COMICS.
LOL! Best post ever!
Ken_from_Chicago
The scarier part is that I couldn't think of a counterargument--from
the publisher's POV.
The scariest part is that NETWORK was a dark satire--and ended up being
prophecy.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken_from_Chicago
portion of the writing staff, and simply reprint trades--or redrawn
TPBs. A bonus would be they could focus on reprinted the GOOD stories
(or at least the better-selling ones).
Bonus would instead of variant-cover TPBs but variant-drawn issues.
-- Ken from Chicago
jay
wrote:
The sad part is that, all kidding aside, a large percentage
of fandom gives every indication that this is exactly the
approach they'd like to see taken. Fandom, or, at least,
vocal fandom is in a damn sorry state these days.
Nathan P. Mahney
news:9rtka11g4emsor5o5...@4ax.com...
There's a tempting thought in the possibility of not having to buy new
comics anymore, and focussing on the old stuff... But nah. New stories are
good, and Marvel are still profitable. I can't see how it would make sense
for them to stop producing new material. As for old stories redone with new
art? No way in hell would I get those!
--
- Nathan P. Mahney -
Writing:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/index.html
The Whole Story Comic Reviews:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/ReviewIndex.html
Gamebook Scenic Solutions:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/SSIndex.html
Ken_from_Chicago
Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> "jay" <jrid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9rtka11g4emsor5o5...@4ax.com...
> > On 10 Jun 2005 19:52:38 -0700, "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The scary part is that I was only HALF-kidding.
> > >
> > > The scarier part is that I couldn't think of a
> > > counterargument--from the publisher's POV.
> > >
> > > The scariest part is that NETWORK was a dark
> > > satire--and ended up being prophecy.
> >
> > The sad part is that, all kidding aside, a large percentage
> > of fandom gives every indication that this is exactly the
> > approach they'd like to see taken. Fandom, or, at least,
> > vocal fandom is in a damn sorry state these days.
>
> There's a tempting thought in the possibility of not having to buy new
> comics anymore, and focussing on the old stuff... But nah. New stories are
> good, and Marvel are still profitable. I can't see how it would make sense
> for them to stop producing new material. As for old stories redone with new
> art? No way in hell would I get those!
SOME new stories are good. Some are crap.
Moreover often even some of the good stories about long-term characters
come at the expense of conflicting with previous good stories. How
often are good writers brought in who write well but the editing
doesn't catch conflicts to previous stories or TPTB override any
objections or concerns raised by editors? How often new stories
essentially the retreads of the old?
> --
> - Nathan P. Mahney -
>
> Writing:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/index.html
> The Whole Story Comic Reviews:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/ReviewIndex.html
> Gamebook Scenic Solutions:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/SSIndex.html
-- Ken from Chicago
Nathan P. Mahney
>
>
> Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> > "jay" <jrid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9rtka11g4emsor5o5...@4ax.com...
> > > On 10 Jun 2005 19:52:38 -0700, "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The scary part is that I was only HALF-kidding.
> > > >
> > > > The scarier part is that I couldn't think of a
> > > > counterargument--from the publisher's POV.
> > > >
> > > > The scariest part is that NETWORK was a dark
> > > > satire--and ended up being prophecy.
> > >
> > > The sad part is that, all kidding aside, a large percentage
> > > of fandom gives every indication that this is exactly the
> > > approach they'd like to see taken. Fandom, or, at least,
> > > vocal fandom is in a damn sorry state these days.
> >
> > There's a tempting thought in the possibility of not having to buy new
> > comics anymore, and focussing on the old stuff... But nah. New stories
are
> > good, and Marvel are still profitable. I can't see how it would make
sense
> > for them to stop producing new material. As for old stories redone with
new
> > art? No way in hell would I get those!
>
> SOME new stories are good. Some are crap.
As I said new stories are good. Doesn't mean that they're all good stories,
just means that it's a good thing that new stories are being produced.
> Moreover often even some of the good stories about long-term characters
> come at the expense of conflicting with previous good stories. How
> often are good writers brought in who write well but the editing
> doesn't catch conflicts to previous stories or TPTB override any
> objections or concerns raised by editors? How often new stories
> essentially the retreads of the old?
I'm a continuity nut, but honestly, I'll take good stories that conflict
with continuity over garbage that slots in perfectly. The same with
retreads - if it's a good story, it's good. Personally I don't think Marvel
going to all reprints would be a sound move at all - all of their best stuff
already exists as reprints anyway. It seems that their reprint department
is making money. It also seems their publishing department is doing okay,
which also gives more material for the reprint department. The current
model works well enough to keep Marvel afloat while they explore other
avenues of viability.
jay
wrote:
>>>> The scary part is that I was only HALF-kidding.
>>>>
>>>> The scarier part is that I couldn't think of a
>>>> counterargument--from the publisher's POV.
>>>>
>>>> The scariest part is that NETWORK was a dark
>>>> satire--and ended up being prophecy.
>>>
>>> The sad part is that, all kidding aside, a large
>>> percentage of fandom gives every indication that
>>> this is exactly the approach they'd like to see
>>> taken. Fandom, or, at least, vocal fandom is in a
>>> damn sorry state these days.
>>
>> There's a tempting thought in the possibility of not
>> having to buy new comics anymore, and focussing
>> on the old stuff... But nah. New stories are good,
>> and Marvel are still profitable. I can't see how it
>> would make sense for them to stop producing new
>> material. As for old stories redone with new art?
>> No way in hell would I get those!
>
> SOME new stories are good. Some are crap.
...just as some old stories were good and others crap.
If you look at things on a balance sheet, Marvel has
been producing more comics of higher quality in the
last few years than they have at any other time since
the early 1980s (which were sort of a mini-Golden
Age).
Ken_from_Chicago
Why are new stories for new stories' sake good?
> > Moreover often even some of the good stories about long-term characters
> > come at the expense of conflicting with previous good stories. How
> > often are good writers brought in who write well but the editing
> > doesn't catch conflicts to previous stories or TPTB override any
> > objections or concerns raised by editors? How often new stories
> > essentially the retreads of the old?
>
> I'm a continuity nut, but honestly, I'll take good stories that conflict
> with continuity over garbage that slots in perfectly. The same with
> retreads - if it's a good story, it's good. Personally I don't think Marvel
> going to all reprints would be a sound move at all - all of their best stuff
> already exists as reprints anyway. It seems that their reprint department
> is making money. It also seems their publishing department is doing okay,
> which also gives more material for the reprint department. The current
> model works well enough to keep Marvel afloat while they explore other
> avenues of viability.
If it significantly conflicts with previous stories, why not use a
different character?
IF it is a retread, why publish it--other than bilking the customer?
It's better to simply re-release the older story as a TPB and save the
cost of paying writers, illustrators, editors, et. al., and for the
reader who decide if they already have the story or if they want TPB?
Or the older story could be re-drawn and re-released with a more
contemporary look or a deliberately older look or simply a better look
using more skilled illustrator.
> --
> - Nathan P. Mahney -
>
> Writing:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/index.html
> The Whole Story Comic Reviews:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/ReviewIndex.html
> Gamebook Scenic Solutions:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/SSIndex.html
-- Ken from Chicago
Nathan P. Mahney
You answered this one yourself - because while some are bad, some are also
good. Without new stories, there are no good new stories. And honestly, I
want more from life than reading the same old crap over again.
> > > Moreover often even some of the good stories about long-term
characters
> > > come at the expense of conflicting with previous good stories. How
> > > often are good writers brought in who write well but the editing
> > > doesn't catch conflicts to previous stories or TPTB override any
> > > objections or concerns raised by editors? How often new stories
> > > essentially the retreads of the old?
> >
> > I'm a continuity nut, but honestly, I'll take good stories that conflict
> > with continuity over garbage that slots in perfectly. The same with
> > retreads - if it's a good story, it's good. Personally I don't think
Marvel
> > going to all reprints would be a sound move at all - all of their best
stuff
> > already exists as reprints anyway. It seems that their reprint
department
> > is making money. It also seems their publishing department is doing
okay,
> > which also gives more material for the reprint department. The current
> > model works well enough to keep Marvel afloat while they explore other
> > avenues of viability.
>
> If it significantly conflicts with previous stories, why not use a
> different character?
Because it's a good story for that character? You can't tell a Superman
story using Batman. The best you could do is use a Superman stand-in. And
if you're going to do that, why not just use the real deal?
> IF it is a retread, why publish it--other than bilking the customer?
Straight out retreads are pointless, I agree, but if enough elements are
changed they can be an entertaining prospect. And entertaining is all a
superhero comic needs to be, really.
> It's better to simply re-release the older story as a TPB and save the
> cost of paying writers, illustrators, editors, et. al., and for the
> reader who decide if they already have the story or if they want TPB?
More cost effective, sure, but who here wants to read the stuff they've
already spent money on and read before? I'm sure there are many who would
regard redoing the art on old issues of Fantastic Four as blasphemy of the
highest order.
Ken_from_Chicago
But you can do new stories with new characters instead of trying to
shoe horn the same ole characters into different molds.
How many of the new Superman stories are GOOD stories that DON'T
conflict with previous continuity? How often is Superman, Batman or any
other long-running character twisted to fit the mold of some new story?
BREACH was originally intended to be a relaunch for CAPTAIN ATOM but
after much consultation, the writers and editors realized it would be
better to make this an original character, thus freeing up the writer
to customize the character instead of having to fit some pre-existing
long-running mold.
> > IF it is a retread, why publish it--other than bilking the customer?
>
> Straight out retreads are pointless, I agree, but if enough elements are
> changed they can be an entertaining prospect. And entertaining is all a
> superhero comic needs to be, really.
>
> > It's better to simply re-release the older story as a TPB and save the
> > cost of paying writers, illustrators, editors, et. al., and for the
> > reader who decide if they already have the story or if they want TPB?
>
> More cost effective, sure, but who here wants to read the stuff they've
> already spent money on and read before? I'm sure there are many who would
> regard redoing the art on old issues of Fantastic Four as blasphemy of the
> highest order.
Yet retconning the characters is not? Yet that's done all the time.
Plus Tolkien is re-illustrated many times over and that's not
blasphemy. There have been many revisions of Shakespeare, including
setting in different times, (Mel Gibson's HAMLET set in the Middle
Ages, Kenneth Branaugh's HAMLET set in turn of the 20th century Russia,
Ethan Hawke's HAMLET in the 1990s laundromat, etc.).
> --
> - Nathan P. Mahney -
>
> Writing:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/index.html
> The Whole Story Comic Reviews:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/ReviewIndex.html
> Gamebook Scenic Solutions:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/SSIndex.html
-- Ken from Chicago
Nathan P. Mahney
So why, if you want new stories with new characters, are you suggesting that
Marvel do nothing but reprint or re-illustrate old stories?
Sure, these things happen. With any long-running character, there are going
to be stories that don't fit the concept well. There are also stories that
do fit the concept, where the characters aren't twisted. I'll take the crap
if it means we get the diamonds. Personally I wish there were less
Spider-Man stories a year, or less X-Men stories, just to increase the
percentage of good to bad, but Marvel do have to follow the money.
> BREACH was originally intended to be a relaunch for CAPTAIN ATOM but
> after much consultation, the writers and editors realized it would be
> better to make this an original character, thus freeing up the writer
> to customize the character instead of having to fit some pre-existing
> long-running mold.
If it resulted in a better story, then that's a good thing. I haven't read
it, though, so I don't know.
> > > IF it is a retread, why publish it--other than bilking the customer?
> >
> > Straight out retreads are pointless, I agree, but if enough elements are
> > changed they can be an entertaining prospect. And entertaining is all a
> > superhero comic needs to be, really.
> >
> > > It's better to simply re-release the older story as a TPB and save the
> > > cost of paying writers, illustrators, editors, et. al., and for the
> > > reader who decide if they already have the story or if they want TPB?
> >
> > More cost effective, sure, but who here wants to read the stuff they've
> > already spent money on and read before? I'm sure there are many who
would
> > regard redoing the art on old issues of Fantastic Four as blasphemy of
the
> > highest order.
>
> Yet retconning the characters is not? Yet that's done all the time.
And I dislike it, while at the same time realising the necessity of updating
the characters for modern times. Personally I'd prefer them to reboot every
so often, but I can see why the retcons exist. I can't really see the point
of getting, say, Bryan Hitch to redo the pencils for Fantastic Four #1. Why
not let him develop new ideas, new stories, new characters? He's too
talented to waste on a retelling of old stuff. And now that Marvel are a
licensing company, they're better served by getting him, and its other
artists, to develop more potential licenses.
> Plus Tolkien is re-illustrated many times over and that's not
> blasphemy.
Tolkien's illustrations aren't integral to his work, though, apart from the
maps - and I've never seen those altered.
Ken_from_Chicago
Ah, I mentioned in the OP that publishers of long-running characters
could "hedge their bets" by also releasing mini-series of new
characters, and if those prove sufficiently popular, then those
mini-series could be bumped up to a 10-year run status.
But as time proceeds the odds increase that a new story will either be
bad or conflict with pre-existing continuity.
The most obvious conflict is AGE. Publishers don't want to age their
characters so despite being published for 40-plus years the idea that
Peter Parker could have 20-something-year-old offspring was seen as
impossible given Marvel's unofficial "7-year rule", that contemporary
Marvel universe is no more than seven years old.
I'm not arguing against it Hitch doing new work. Then again, many an
illustrator might consider it an HONOR to re-illustrate the classics,
either as an homage or with their own distinctive style.
> > Plus Tolkien is re-illustrated many times over and that's not
> > blasphemy.
>
> Tolkien's illustrations aren't integral to his work, though, apart from the
> maps - and I've never seen those altered.
Comic books can't be good without the illustrations? the stories are
that weak? the writers are that bad?
I would argue against that sentiment. How about you?
> --
> - Nathan P. Mahney -
>
> Writing:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/index.html
> The Whole Story Comic Reviews:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/ReviewIndex.html
> Gamebook Scenic Solutions:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/SSIndex.html
-- Ken from Chicago
Nathan P. Mahney
OK, you're arguments just gained a whole lot more sanity now that I realise
that. Sorry I didn't read your original post a bit more closely!
Well, I agree that the continuity conflict is inevitable, but I don't agree
with the increased odds of bad stories just because of a character's age.
> The most obvious conflict is AGE. Publishers don't want to age their
> characters so despite being published for 40-plus years the idea that
> Peter Parker could have 20-something-year-old offspring was seen as
> impossible given Marvel's unofficial "7-year rule", that contemporary
> Marvel universe is no more than seven years old.
I don't see a huge problem with Marvel's current system when it comes to
aging characters. It doesn't entirely make sense, but I don't think it
harms stories on a short term basis. There are undoubtedly better ways to
handle these things, but all of these methods entail risks that I don't
think Marvel would be willing to employ.
Hitch was just an example I used, mostly to illustrate what I'd prefer -
artists working on new stuff, not tied up re-doing old. For every old story
an artist redoes, that's a new story that artist won't have time to produce.
Especially now that newer artists aren't taking on the workloads that they
once did.
> > > Plus Tolkien is re-illustrated many times over and that's not
> > > blasphemy.
> >
> > Tolkien's illustrations aren't integral to his work, though, apart from
the
> > maps - and I've never seen those altered.
>
> Comic books can't be good without the illustrations? the stories are
> that weak? the writers are that bad?
Comic books can't be comic books without the illustrations. Do you sit and
read film scripts for fun? Because that's what they'd be without the art.
I have nothing but the highest respect for comic writers as writers, and
there are quite a number that I'd like to see try their hands as novellists,
or in some other medium. But the artist is just as important, and you need
the words and the pictures to make a comic book.
Ken_from_Chicago
Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1118748779.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> > > "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1118707135.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
<snip>
> > > > But you can do new stories with new characters instead of trying to
> > > > shoe horn the same ole characters into different molds.
> > >
> > > So why, if you want new stories with new characters, are you suggesting
> that
> > > Marvel do nothing but reprint or re-illustrate old stories?
> >
> > Ah, I mentioned in the OP that publishers of long-running characters
> > could "hedge their bets" by also releasing mini-series of new
> > characters, and if those prove sufficiently popular, then those
> > mini-series could be bumped up to a 10-year run status.
>
> OK, you're arguments just gained a whole lot more sanity now that I realise
> that. Sorry I didn't read your original post a bit more closely!
It's okay. It wouldn't be the first time I've posted an "insane"
message (I see you all nodding in the background there!).
<snip>
> > But as time proceeds the odds increase that a new story will either be
> > bad or conflict with pre-existing continuity.
>
> Well, I agree that the continuity conflict is inevitable, but I don't agree
> with the increased odds of bad stories just because of a character's age.
Compared to no new stories, which have a zero percent chance of bad
stories, then new stories do have an increased risk of bad stories.
<snip>
-- Ken from Chicago (who has his cake and eats it too)
Ken_from_Chicago
Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1118748779.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> > > "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1118707135.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
<snip>
[Part 2]
> > The most obvious conflict is AGE. Publishers don't want to age their
> > characters so despite being published for 40-plus years the idea that
> > Peter Parker could have 20-something-year-old offspring was seen as
> > impossible given Marvel's unofficial "7-year rule", that contemporary
> > Marvel universe is no more than seven years old.
>
> I don't see a huge problem with Marvel's current system when it comes to
> aging characters. It doesn't entirely make sense, but I don't think it
> harms stories on a short term basis. There are undoubtedly better ways to
> handle these things, but all of these methods entail risks that I don't
> think Marvel would be willing to employ.
Precisely. It hurts the story on a long-term basis--and long-term fans,
the most loyal of customers, because over time you want the characters
to grow and mature and learn.
In short, stories should BUILD on what's gone before.
Many of the debates about continuity miss, IMHO, what continuity SHOULD
be:
A BALANCE between avoiding repetition (which many publishers like
because they want profit and growth to repeat) and avoiding
inconsistant changes (which many writers and illustrators like so they
can put their stamp on the characters).
IOW, BUILD on what's gone before. Continuity is NOT about never
changing, but never making UNEXPLAINED changes--or weakly-explained
changes (e.g., the ex of a superhero suddenly going nuts killing
spouses of heroes to get her man back, without explanation or even any
foreshadowed build-up of her insanity).
However since many publishers want repeat of profits and many writers
and illustrators don't want to be locked down by pre-existing
continuity, then I would argue, STOP doing new stories of long-running
characters and simply reprint them, re-illustrate them. If that's not
enough revenue, then also do mini-series of NEW characters--and if any
of them are particularly profitable, promote them to 10-year-run status
(enough for about 20 TPBs), about the time publishers would want to end
a series just to do a reboot anyway.
<snip>
> > I'm not arguing against it Hitch doing new work. Then again, many an
> > illustrator might consider it an HONOR to re-illustrate the classics,
> > either as an homage or with their own distinctive style.
>
> Hitch was just an example I used, mostly to illustrate what I'd prefer -
> artists working on new stuff, not tied up re-doing old. For every old story
> an artist redoes, that's a new story that artist won't have time to produce.
> Especially now that newer artists aren't taking on the workloads that they
> once did.
I imagine many illustrators would love getting the nod to re-illustrate
some of the classics, like restoration artists working on some of
Michael d'Angelo's masterpieces, or actors doing a classic play or
movie.
Plus since it would be on reprints, you'd have foreknowledge how long a
particular story would last, both publisher and illustrator, and the
illustrator would have some inkling of the kind of work effort and
commitment would be needed to be scheduled.
> > > > Plus Tolkien is re-illustrated many times over and that's not
> > > > blasphemy.
> > >
> > > Tolkien's illustrations aren't integral to his work, though, apart from
> the
> > > maps - and I've never seen those altered.
> >
> > Comic books can't be good without the illustrations? the stories are
> > that weak? the writers are that bad?
>
> Comic books can't be comic books without the illustrations. Do you sit and
> read film scripts for fun? Because that's what they'd be without the art.
1) The word you seek is "novelizations". Peter David's SPIDER-MAN 2,
HULK, SPIDER-MAN, BATMAN FOREVER, THE ROCKETEER, are all films without
the moving pictures. Are you saying I and others should not have bought
them or his novelization, FANTASTIC FOUR?
2) Sales of actual transcripts also do a brisk business, of movie
scripts, television scripts and even stage scripts. Even a feller from
jolly ole England way back in the Middle Ages, by the name of Billy
Shakespeare managed to produce a ... few ... scripts, including stage
directions, that people have been reading for centuries. I know I was
made to read some in school.
<snip>
> --
> - Nathan P. Mahney -
>
> Writing:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/index.html
> The Whole Story Comic Reviews:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/ReviewIndex.html
> Gamebook Scenic Solutions:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/SSIndex.html
Ken_from_Chicago
Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1118748779.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> > > "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1118707135.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
<snip>
[Part 3]
> I have nothing but the highest respect for comic writers as writers, and
> there are quite a number that I'd like to see try their hands as novellists,
> or in some other medium. But the artist is just as important, and you need
> the words and the pictures to make a comic book.
John Cassaday, Bryan Hitch, Stuart Immomen, Gary Frank, George Perez,
Alex Ross, Brent Anderson, Jim Aparo, Pat Broderick, John Byrne's and
Keith Giffen's work in the 1980s, the Baldwin family of illustrators,
the Kuberts, Jim Lee, Jae Lee's recent work (as opposed to work in the
early 90s when everything looked like he just poured black ink on the
page), even going back to Curt Swan and Jack Kirby, but the first
illustrator who's work I noted and really liked was Carmine Infantino.
Yeah, the Flash (Barry Allen) of the Silver Age was and remains my
favorite childhood superhero and Infantino drew many of THE FLASH
comics I loved in the 70s and 80s, I noticed he work in other comics.
You may have noticed that where you say "artist" that I say
"illustrator", and have done so in messages referring to comic books
(or sometimes I might say "penciller" or "inker" or "colorer" or even
"letterer", altho each term with increasingly less frequency). The
reason is that part of the many things I think are wrong with the comic
book industry IMNQSHO >=^> is the "writer" / "artist" dichotomy. Not
just the use of the phrase "artist" but in opposition to "writer".
Newsflash to many in industry and in the marketplace: WRITING is ART
also. It's a literary art and writers ARE artists, literary artists
that is. Moreover, the pencillers, inkers, colorers and yes, the
letterers too are visual artists, but more importantly they are suppose
to be not merely visual artists but ILLUSTRATORS. At least they should
be.
There's a reason the works of art are called comic BOOKS or graphic
NOVELS--as opposed to comic portfolios or comic galleries. The visuals
are meant to *illustrate* the STORIES. The series of pictures are not
supposed to be variations on a theme (which is a valid artform of its
own and can be seen in many an art gallery or museum), but help to tell
a story.
Since it's too late to make a long story short, I'll just finish up,
the point of the above is to say while I like the work of many
illustrators, are they as important as the writers to comic books?
No. Not even close.
I can read a story without the pictures.
I can't read a story without the writing (which is more than word
balloons, "silent" comic books are written also).
That's demonstrated by the fact that I buy and read books without
pictures but do not buy posters, paintings or prints without stories.
> --
> - Nathan P. Mahney -
>
> Writing:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/index.html
> The Whole Story Comic Reviews:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/ReviewIndex.html
> Gamebook Scenic Solutions:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/SSIndex.html
Now there is one caveat. Brace yourself because many might feel a dirty
sneaky trick, and I totally cop that one can make a strong case for
that no matter what I say. Some my view it as a cheat, a way partially
out to stave off backlash, but no it's not intended that way--that's
merely side benefit:
Good illustrators are also partially writing.
They are setting a scene, the costume, the time of day, the players and
support characters and extras involved, and can even foreshadow stories
developments (e.g., Nightwing flipping a Nightwing tracer disk onto the
body of someone in the middle of the infamous "Titans' Hunt").
Meanwhile bad illustrators may be merely artists but they are
definitely not holding up their end of illustrating the story. Horrible
illustrators actually make it HARDER to understand the story, acting as
obstacles to understanding. Classic example is Rob Liefeld, and sad
really. While many remember his infamous "work" on "Heroes Reborn"
CAPTAIN AMERICA (the one where he changed the "A" on the forehead to an
eagle's head) where there were characters with no backgrounds or
changing backgrounds or characters sized poorly in foreground and
background or in proportion to each other, I know I remember. I was
shocked seeing a reprint of an early HAWK & DOVE by Liefeld where
characters were in proper proportion, with backgrounds and costumes
didn't change from page to page or panel to panel. Altho I tend to
credit a lot of that to EDITING of the *quality* of the work--as
opposed to merely the punctuality of it (as alluded to by Liefeld in
the 90s, then co-founder of Image Comics, in an interview with Patrick
"Pat" Daniel O'Neill in the pages of WIZARD where no matter how many
ways O'Neill posed the question, Liefeld would never acknowledge the
editor's job as being anything other than getting the pictures in on
time).
Nathan P. Mahney
And also a zero percent chance of good stories. Personally, I prefer to
take the risk.
Nathan P. Mahney
>
>
> Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> > "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1118748779.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> > > > "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1118707135.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > >
>
> <snip>
>
> [Part 2]
>
> > > The most obvious conflict is AGE. Publishers don't want to age their
> > > characters so despite being published for 40-plus years the idea that
> > > Peter Parker could have 20-something-year-old offspring was seen as
> > > impossible given Marvel's unofficial "7-year rule", that contemporary
> > > Marvel universe is no more than seven years old.
> >
> > I don't see a huge problem with Marvel's current system when it comes to
> > aging characters. It doesn't entirely make sense, but I don't think it
> > harms stories on a short term basis. There are undoubtedly better ways
to
> > handle these things, but all of these methods entail risks that I don't
> > think Marvel would be willing to employ.
>
> Precisely. It hurts the story on a long-term basis--and long-term fans,
> the most loyal of customers, because over time you want the
> characters to grow and mature and learn.
But in the short term, stories can work regardless of what old stories they
contradict. Something that you hate because it doesn't square with issue
#139 of Daredevil might be brilliant to someone who's never read #139 of
Daredevil. The time has come to ask - should new stories even still be
reliant on stuff published 40 years ago?
> In short, stories should BUILD on what's gone before.
They should, but I don't think the Marvel Universe was ever supposed to
stretch on for as long as it has. Your solution here seems to be to mostly
forget the future and mine the past, and to abandon the popular franchise
characters. I'd rather see those characters updated and rebooted, alongside
fresh new concepts.
No it isn't. You asked if comic books can't be good without the
illustrations. I'm arguing that they can't be - how can something be a good
comic book when it's no longer a comic book? That doesn't mean the story
might not be good in another medium, though.
Peter David's SPIDER-MAN 2,
> HULK, SPIDER-MAN, BATMAN FOREVER, THE ROCKETEER, are all films without
> the moving pictures. Are you saying I and others should not have bought
> them or his novelization, FANTASTIC FOUR?
Of course not. I'm all for novelizations - they can provide greater depth
to the movie's story (and in the case of the HULK adaptation, actually
explain what the hell was going on at the end.) But they're not comics.
The art form is as viable as any other, and both the writer and the
illustrater share equal importance in that.
> 2) Sales of actual transcripts also do a brisk business, of movie
> scripts, television scripts and even stage scripts. Even a feller from
> jolly ole England way back in the Middle Ages, by the name of Billy
> Shakespeare managed to produce a ... few ... scripts, including stage
> directions, that people have been reading for centuries. I know I was
> made to read some in school.
Touche! Good point there about Willie.
Nathan P. Mahney
I use artist and penciller pretty much as often as each other. Trust me
when I say that I don't have any hang ups about writers being considered
artists - I am a writer.
> There's a reason the works of art are called comic BOOKS or graphic
> NOVELS--as opposed to comic portfolios or comic galleries. The visuals
> are meant to *illustrate* the STORIES. The series of pictures are not
> supposed to be variations on a theme (which is a valid artform of its
> own and can be seen in many an art gallery or museum), but help to tell
> a story.
>
> Since it's too late to make a long story short, I'll just finish up,
> the point of the above is to say while I like the work of many
> illustrators, are they as important as the writers to comic books?
>
> No. Not even close.
But comic books are an inherently visual medium. I can't understand an
argument that wants to deny the penciller's importance in that. You said it
yourself down below - a good artist enhances the story, and a bad one
obscures it. The writer and the penciller are both storytellers, and in my
opinion they're of equal importance. Look at recent issues of Uncanny X-Men
as an example. Claremont and Davis together are producing some good stuff.
The fill-ins without Davis, though, are decidedly sub-par. Davis brings
storytelling skills to the board that enhance Claremont's work.
> I can read a story without the pictures.
Sure. But you can't read a comic without them.
Ken_from_Chicago
Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1118922691....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> > > "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1118748779.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> > > > > "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1118707135.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > >
<snip>
> > > > But as time proceeds the odds increase that a new story will either be
> > > > bad or conflict with pre-existing continuity.
> > >
> > > Well, I agree that the continuity conflict is inevitable, but I don't
> agree
> > > with the increased odds of bad stories just because of a character's
> age.
> >
> > Compared to no new stories, which have a zero percent chance of bad
> > stories, then new stories do have an increased risk of bad stories.
>
> And also a zero percent chance of good stories. Personally, I prefer to
> take the risk.
Yet the world has survived well without sequels to HAMLET, KING LEAR,
BEOWULF, THE ODYSSEY, THE ILLIAD (well, okay, THE ODYSSEY), SUPERMAN
II, HIGHLANDER, BATMAN, STAR WARS: RETURN OF THE JEDI, STAR TREK VI:
THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY, CINDERELLA, BAMBI, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, THE
LITTLEST MERMAID, CATS, RENT, FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF, ANIMAL HOUSE,
THE BLUES BROTHERS, THE DEMOLISHED MAN, THE STARS MY DESTINATION, I
HAVE NO MOUTH YET I MUST SCREAM, WATCHMEN, etc.
> --
> - Nathan P. Mahney -
>
> Writing:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/index.html
> The Whole Story Comic Reviews:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/ReviewIndex.html
> Gamebook Scenic Solutions:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/SSIndex.html
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken_from_Chicago
Then why use 40-year-old characters in new stories if you do not want
to use 40-year-old characters?
> > In short, stories should BUILD on what's gone before.
>
> They should, but I don't think the Marvel Universe was ever supposed to
> stretch on for as long as it has. Your solution here seems to be to mostly
> forget the future and mine the past, and to abandon the popular franchise
> characters. I'd rather see those characters updated and rebooted, alongside
> fresh new concepts.
Then why use 40-year-old characters in new stories if you do not want
to use 40-year-old characters?
<snip>
To go the heart of your point about comic books can't be comic books
without illustrations or illustrations being integral to the
work--unlike illustrations not being integral to Tolkien's work:
If Shakespeare can be re-written then Kirby can be re-drawn.
> --
> - Nathan P. Mahney -
>
> Writing:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/index.html
> The Whole Story Comic Reviews:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/ReviewIndex.html
> Gamebook Scenic Solutions:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/SSIndex.html
-- Ken from Chicago
scott34494
Nathan P. Mahney
Aliens, Terminator 2, Godfather Part 2, Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man 2,
X-Men 2, Evil Dead 2, Mad Max 2, Dawn of the Dead... Not to mention all of
the movies you've listed above that are actually great sequels themselves.
I honestly have no idea what you're point is anymore.
(Kudos on your denial of the Highlander sequels, though - you've at least
got some taste!)
(Also, you've got Batman on the list. It might not technically be a sequel,
but Batman Begins rocks. I had to say it.)
Nathan P. Mahney
>
>
> Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> > "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1118923034....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> > > > "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1118748779.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> > > > > > "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1118707135.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<SNIP>
> > But in the short term, stories can work regardless of what old stories
they
> > contradict. Something that you hate because it doesn't square with
issue
> > #139 of Daredevil might be brilliant to someone who's never read #139 of
> > Daredevil. The time has come to ask - should new stories even still be
> > reliant on stuff published 40 years ago?
>
> Then why use 40-year-old characters in new stories if you do not want
> to use 40-year-old characters?
Because conceptually, the characters are still relevant, they still
resonate. Marvel and DC are still producing good material with their 40+
year-old stable of characters - why should they stop now? It is getting to
the point where the weight of years is starting to work against them,
though. Some of their characters work better when divested of their
continuity, as Ultimate Spider-Man suggests.
<SNIP>
> To go the heart of your point about comic books can't be comic books
> without illustrations or illustrations being integral to the
> work--unlike illustrations not being integral to Tolkien's work:
>
> If Shakespeare can be re-written then Kirby can be re-drawn.
Think on this though - when Shakespeare is rewritten, the fundamentals
remain intact. The plot is still there, and it's still recognisably
Shakespeare's work that's being retold or built upon. Could the same be
said if an old issue of Fantastic Four was redrawn by a modern artist?
Nathan P. Mahney
news:42b2e218$0$3223$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...> news:1118998642....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> > > "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1118923034....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> > > > > "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1118748779.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> > > > > > > "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:1118707135.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > > But in the short term, stories can work regardless of what old stories
> they
> > > contradict. Something that you hate because it doesn't square with
> issue
> > > #139 of Daredevil might be brilliant to someone who's never read #139
of
> > > Daredevil. The time has come to ask - should new stories even still
be
> > > reliant on stuff published 40 years ago?
> >
> > Then why use 40-year-old characters in new stories if you do not want
> > to use 40-year-old characters?
>
> resonate. Marvel and DC are still producing good material with their 40+
> year-old stable of characters - why should they stop now? It is getting
to
> the point where the weight of years is starting to work against them,
> though. Some of their characters work better when divested of their
> continuity, as Ultimate Spider-Man suggests.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > without illustrations or illustrations being integral to the
> > work--unlike illustrations not being integral to Tolkien's work:
> >
> > If Shakespeare can be re-written then Kirby can be re-drawn.
>
> remain intact. The plot is still there, and it's still recognisably
> Shakespeare's work that's being retold or built upon. Could the same > be
> said if an old issue of Fantastic Four was redrawn by a modern artist?
Just to clarify the last sentence, it should read:
Would an old issue of Fantastic Four, if redrawn by a modern artist, still
be recognisable as something based on Kirby's pencils?
scott34494
Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
>
> Think on this though - when Shakespeare is rewritten, the fundamentals
> remain intact. The plot is still there, and it's still recognisably
> Shakespeare's work that's being retold or built upon.
Only if you're familiar with Shakespear's work to begin with, which
many people happen to be. If you're not familiar with Shakespear's
work, you won't recognise it if rewritten, now will you?
Of course someone familiar with a Jack Kirby comic would recognise a
redrawing of a Jack Kirby comic. I'm not sure I get the logic behind
your question. Anyway, Jack Kirby was co-writer on almost everything
he ever did. So the dichotomy you're trying to make is false.
Astrobiochemist
I remember reading an article on the DC archives were redrawing the
Kirby art when they couldn't find the original art. Now, Kirby did
co-write for the comics he worked on but Kriby did have his own style.
Good art is good art but Kirby's art is part of the original story. If
someone is redrawing the original story but not using Kirby's art, an
important aspect of the comic is changing as comics are a visual medium.
YKW '05
someone claiming to be "Nathan P. Mahney" <nma...@hotmail.com> spooned
up the following and ladled it out into rec.arts.comics.dc.universe's
bowl:
Marvel Age FF tested that thesis.
The tests were negative. (So negative they found Blastaar in 'em...)
--
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
|| E-mail: ykw2005 ||"The mystery of government is not how Washington||
|| -at-gmail-dot-com ||works but how to make it stop." -- P.J. O'Rourke||
|| ----------- || ------------------------------------ ||
||Replace "-at-" with|| Keeping Usenet Trouble-Free ||
|| "@" to respond. || Since 1998 ||
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
Ken_from_Chicago
popular issues or even re-draw them and save money on writers.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken_from_Chicago
<snip>
> > Yet the world has survived well without sequels to HAMLET, KING LEAR,
> > BEOWULF, THE ODYSSEY, THE ILLIAD (well, okay, THE ODYSSEY), SUPERMAN
> > II, HIGHLANDER, BATMAN, STAR WARS: RETURN OF THE JEDI, STAR TREK VI:
> > THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY, CINDERELLA, BAMBI, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, THE
> > LITTLEST MERMAID, CATS, RENT, FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF, ANIMAL HOUSE,
> > THE BLUES BROTHERS, THE DEMOLISHED MAN, THE STARS MY DESTINATION, I
> > HAVE NO MOUTH YET I MUST SCREAM, WATCHMEN, etc.
>
> Aliens, Terminator 2, Godfather Part 2, Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man 2,
> X-Men 2, Evil Dead 2, Mad Max 2, Dawn of the Dead... Not to mention all of
> the movies you've listed above that are actually great sequels themselves.
> I honestly have no idea what you're point is anymore.
>
> (Kudos on your denial of the Highlander sequels, though - you've at least
> got some taste!)
There are great stories that the world has survived well without there
being sequels to said stories--no matter how much we may have wanted
those sequels.
Sometimes letting go is best of all.
Sometimes even when a good sequel is made, TPTB don't leave well enough
alone and go too far (e.g., SUPERMAN III, ROCKY IV, GODFATHER 3, ALIEN
3, BATMAN RETURNS, etc.).
> (Also, you've got Batman on the list. It might not technically be a sequel,
> but Batman Begins rocks. I had to say it.)
BATMAN BEGINS is a prequel.
Then again so was STAR WARS: EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE.
> --
> - Nathan P. Mahney -
>
> Writing:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/index.html
> The Whole Story Comic Reviews:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/ReviewIndex.html
> Gamebook Scenic Solutions:
> http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/SSIndex.html
-- Ken from Chicago (who wanted a sequel to WATERWORLD to redeem the
movie and see more of the wicked kewl catamaran rebuilt)
Ken_from_Chicago
Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1118998642....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> > > "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1118923034....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<SNIP>
> > > But in the short term, stories can work regardless of what old stories
> they
> > > contradict. Something that you hate because it doesn't square with
> issue
> > > #139 of Daredevil might be brilliant to someone who's never read #139 of
> > > Daredevil. The time has come to ask - should new stories even still be
> > > reliant on stuff published 40 years ago?
> >
> > Then why use 40-year-old characters in new stories if you do not want
> > to use 40-year-old characters?
>
> Because conceptually, the characters are still relevant, they still
> resonate. Marvel and DC are still producing good material with their 40+
> year-old stable of characters - why should they stop now? It is getting to
> the point where the weight of years is starting to work against them,
> though. Some of their characters work better when divested of their
> continuity, as Ultimate Spider-Man suggests.
Or you pass the torch:
--Jay Garrick to Barry Allen to Wally West to Bart Allen,
--Alan Scott to Hal Jordan to Kyle Rayner,
--Oliver Queen to Connor Queen,
--Dinah Drake Lance to Dinah Laurel Lance,
--Peter Parker to May Parker to Miguel O'Hara.
> <SNIP>
>
> > To go the heart of your point about comic books can't be comic books
> > without illustrations or illustrations being integral to the
> > work--unlike illustrations not being integral to Tolkien's work:
> >
> > If Shakespeare can be re-written then Kirby can be re-drawn.
>
> Think on this though - when Shakespeare is rewritten, the fundamentals
> remain intact. The plot is still there, and it's still recognisably
> Shakespeare's work that's being retold or built upon. Could the same be
> said if an old issue of Fantastic Four was redrawn by a modern artist?
And re-illustrating a book doesn't change the story.
--Re-drawing old issues of Superman so Krypton is not a planet of
headband-wearing Jetsons-wannabes in flying "bubble" cars but more akin
to the way Byrne drew a more artic Krypton, inspired by SUPERMAN: THE
MOVIE doesn't have to change the plot, the fundamentals of loving
parents sending lone son to survival planetary cataclysm to a world
with a different star where he will develops ... abilities ... far
beyond those of the local natives.
--Re-drawing the Fantastic Four's ship as more modern, more like the
space shuttle or more like the Apollo rockets, drawing the Earth and
near-Earth orbit more like satellite photos of Earth wouldn't have to
change the plot.
> --
> - Nathan P. Mahney -
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken_from_Chicago
a comic drawn by Kirby merely to mimic Kirby then that would be a waste
of time, effort and money when they could have simply reprinted the
comic.
-- Ken from Chicago
Nathan P. Mahney
news:d91i6i$9cr$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> >> > But in the short term, stories can work regardless of what old
stories they
> >> > contradict. Something that you hate because it doesn't square with
issue
> >> > #139 of Daredevil might be brilliant to someone who's never read #139
of
> >> > Daredevil. The time has come to ask - should new stories even still
be
> >> > reliant on stuff published 40 years ago?
>
>
> I've never seen anyone point to a conflict with a 40 year old story as a
> serious continuity problem unless the story was very important (such as >
an
> origin story) or unless it conflicted with a heck of a lot more than one
> story, but might have not always done so explicitly.
I was exaggerating, but yeah, I've never seen anyone really get fired up
over such continuity minutiae. I have seen complaints though, minor as they
are. I still think that there's something slightly unnatural about
characters' lives being stretched out over such a long period. I love
continuity, and a part of me would hate to lose the MU, but I honestly
believe it's reaching the point where it would be easier for Marvel to throw
out the whole shebang and start over.
Nathan P. Mahney
news:1119030367.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's not, because the initial argument was this: "Why can you rewrite
Shakespeare but not redraw Kirby?" So we're not discussing Kirby's plotting
here.
As for his work eing recognisable if redrawn, well... Works based on
Shakespeare are still recognisable as such because they still use his basic
plot elements. If an artist redrew Kirby, would it be recognisable as
Kirby? How? Aping his layout perhaps? But why bother doing that? It just
leaves you with soulless trash like the semi-recent Psycho remake.
Nathan P. Mahney
It changes the pencils, though. And for some, that's just as important.
--
- Nathan P. Mahney -
Writing:
Nathan P. Mahney
Which is why I think it's seemingly less acceptable to re-draw Kirby than to
rewrite Shakespeare. You lose the fundamental Kirby-ness of the piece.
Nathan P. Mahney
> Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> > "Ken_from_Chicago" <kwic...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1118968596....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
sequel,
> > but Batman Begins rocks. I had to say it.)
>
> BATMAN BEGINS is a prequel.
Well, I did use a disclaimer. Technically, I wouldn't even call it a
prequel. It seems to be divorcing itself pretty firmly from the Tim Burton
films and their sequels.
David Johnston
<nma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > To go the heart of your point about comic books can't be comic books
>> > > without illustrations or illustrations being integral to the
>> > > work--unlike illustrations not being integral to Tolkien's work:
>> > >
>> > > If Shakespeare can be re-written then Kirby can be re-drawn.
>> >
>> > Think on this though - when Shakespeare is rewritten, the fundamentals
>> > remain intact. The plot is still there, and it's still recognisably
>> > Shakespeare's work that's being retold or built upon. Could the same be
>> > said if an old issue of Fantastic Four was redrawn by a modern artist?
>>
>> And re-illustrating a book doesn't change the story.
>
>It changes the pencils, though. And for some, that's just as important.
>
Some people would say that Shakespeare's psuedo-Marlowevian poetic
style is similarly important, but it is the first thing to go when
he's rewritten.
Chris Schumacher
news:1119059131.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Sometimes even when a good sequel is made, TPTB don't leave well enough
> alone and go too far (e.g., SUPERMAN III, ROCKY IV, GODFATHER 3, ALIEN
> 3, BATMAN RETURNS, etc.).
>
You ever read Sam Hamm's original script for Batman 2? Probably about as good
as Spider-Man 2 and Superman 2:ABC version.
Sadly, it can never be made. Even if they want to make it with the new
franchise, the movie trailer for Begins seems to suggest that Bruce's dad was
a Bad Man.
-==Kensu==-
scott34494
Err, no, seen the movie, and Bruce's dad was a good man. What did the
trailer make it look like, and are you sure you don't have him confused
in the trailer with Ras Al Gual?
Chris Schumacher
news:1119308627.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Err, no, seen the movie, and Bruce's dad was a good man. What did the
> trailer make it look like, and are you sure you don't have him confused
> in the trailer with Ras Al Gual?
It was the ten minute trailer they showed after the Smallville finale. There
was a scene where young Bruce was crying, and Alfred told him that it wasn't
his fault his parents died. And he said something to the effect of "Yeah, it
was his fault", I think suggesting it was his father.
-==Kensu==-
~consul
> "scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>Err, no, seen the movie, and Bruce's dad was a good man. What did the
>>trailer make it look like, and are you sure you don't have him confused
>>in the trailer with Ras Al Gual?
> It was the ten minute trailer they showed after the Smallville finale. There
> was a scene where young Bruce was crying, and Alfred told him that it wasn't
> his fault his parents died. And he said something to the effect of "Yeah, it
> was his fault", I think suggesting it was his father.
I haven't seen the movie, but from what I remmeber from the Smallville bit, I
thought KidBruce wanted to leave early, so they did, thus starting the chain of
events.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the
end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
neil
> was his fault", I think suggesting it was his father.
no, he meant joe chill - hence, the anger he harboured for 10+ years
and his desire to kill chill.
-neil
Ken_from_Chicago
then I spose they might be as miffed about changing Kirby's drawings as
many Shakespeare fans about rewriting Shakespeare.
Admittedly I'm biased. I read--let me repeat that, I *READ*--comic
books more so for the stories, so I guess I see it differently who view
comics more for the visuals or are more even-handed in what they look
for in a comic book. And they have a perfect right to do so--no matter
how wrong they may be. >=^>
-- Ken from Chicago
Nathan P. Mahney
Totally agreed. I used to be a writing first kind of guy. Back when I read
Transformers and G.I. Joe I paid no attention to the art whatsoever. I
pretty much remained attached to the writing through the 90s, but I've found
myself swinging towards a viewpoint that balances the importance of writing
and art. There's stuff like We3 where the project just wouldn't work
without the art being brilliant, regardless of how good the writing is.