|
Post by FISSION MAILED on Jun 26, 2006 14:07:10 GMT -5
Miller's Sin city:family values came out originally as a graphic novel, which wasn't too much of a disapointment in sales(1997), and I think Vertigo are starting to bring books out straight, like that Brian Vaugn hardcover, don't know what its called but theres others lined up, clocking up to 180 pages and above. And every bookshop alwys has graphic novels in them, no periodicals. The shift seems ineveitable, but I'm ignorant to the sales figures for graphic novels...
|
|
|
Post by jayvee on Jun 26, 2006 17:53:27 GMT -5
Sales of events like Civil War and Identity Crisis would argue the Titanic deck chair thing.
In fact, from what I understand, comic sales have been steadily increasing in the last couple of years.
|
|
|
Post by nolan on Jun 26, 2006 19:28:32 GMT -5
Dl, I totally disagree.
I think Lee/Kirby is horribly dated. Well the writing end of it is. I'd like to see someone take the art from that and just add some new words, you mgith have a readable comic there.
|
|
|
Post by DLFerguson on Jun 26, 2006 21:11:20 GMT -5
Well, it would be a pretty boring ol' world if we all agreed on the same thing all the time, now wouldn't it? ;D
As for Lee/Kirby being dated, I can understand how they would seem dated to readers who didn't grow up reading them but for me, the storytelling, concepts and sheer fun of those early Marvel comics still have an entertainment value and power that reawakens the 12 year old in me.
The Marvel Comics of the 60's/70's remain for me entertainment strictly for entertainment's sake. No grim moral fable or radical new approach to graphic storytelling. Just good old fashioned superhero stories. Which I can appreciate on that level. Just as I think that anyone who likes a good story can appreciate any Lee/Kirby story for what it is and not what it isn't.
I can appreciate the growth of the industry as far as finding new and mature ways to tell stories in the comic book medium and I enjoy them. But let's not forget where the foundations of the comic book are or fail to acknowledge them. To do so would be to do a disservice to those who laid those foundations and for those of us who hope to build new monuments of entertaining story and art on those foundations.
|
|
|
Post by nolan on Jun 26, 2006 21:46:22 GMT -5
I dont think its conceptually dated.
But I think dialogue wise, its terribly dated. I mean Stan Lee's dialogue is like as bad as George Lucas.
In terms of looking at the foundations, I agree that its important. But a lot of things that are seen as seminal works in terms fo influence are more important in terms of influence then what they'd do for a modern reader.
I've been reading the first volume of Walt and Skeezix from Drawn adn Quarterly. Honestly, I think that I'm not alone among modern readers in thinking that its heinously slow. And the occasional racist caricature doesn't help either.
And I've been reading Little Nemo. Great visuals but the cvharacters have no real depth at all. And the racist stereotype thing is alive and well there also.
|
|
|
Post by jayvee on Jun 26, 2006 23:06:27 GMT -5
Women's Lib would have a riot if they read the early portrayals of Sue Storm, where she was little more than a plot device for sympathy when she got kidnapped or some idiotically mechanical mommy-bot. Reed Richards, for being as supposedly as smart as he was, sure made a lot of dumb ass mistakes. Deus Ex Machina was too common. And I'm about to commit blasphemy on a comics board, but I think Jack Kirby and John Buscema suck as artists, too.
The old books were young male fantasy wish fulfillment--nothing more, nothing less and, as maturity levels in children fall to younger and younger ages, the kind of "pure superhero stories" from the Lee/Ditko era are becoming less satisfying. They're out there seeking more coherent, more realistic character psychology and that's why we've seen a rise in "epic-level" cartoons with ongoing storylines--the anime craze--because kids are looking for something with more substance than cheesy villains like DOCTOR DOOM! or THE MOLE MAN!
I don't know what I meant to say, really, except that nostalgia isn't all it's cracked up to be.
|
|
|
Post by nolan on Jun 26, 2006 23:31:28 GMT -5
Nostalgia is a revision of the past to make it seem better then it was.
Seriously, those old books were so politically incorrect and loaded with subtext.
Honestly, a lot of older comics are more important for being influential. But if you just read things for the sole reason that they were important years ago then nothing ever really gets made.
|
|
|
Post by DLFerguson on Jun 27, 2006 0:07:10 GMT -5
But does that mean we can't read past works in their cultural perspective and appreciate them for what they were at the time and acknowledge them as a cultural reference of the 60's or 70's or whenever and look at them from that standpoint?
The fact that they were stereotypical of women and minorities doesn't bother me in the least because for I one have no use for Political Correctness.
And I don't think that "pure superhero stories" ever go out of style because no matter what sort of psychological/emotional/spirtual drag that is layered onto it, it still comes down to men and women in costumes wallopping the piss outta each other.
|
|
|
Post by nolan on Jun 27, 2006 1:52:26 GMT -5
But does that mean we can't read past works in their cultural perspective and appreciate them for what they were at the time and acknowledge them as a cultural reference of the 60's or 70's or whenever and look at them from that standpoint? The fact that they were stereotypical of women and minorities doesn't bother me in the least because for I one have no use for Political Correctness. And I don't think that "pure superhero stories" ever go out of style because no matter what sort of psychological/emotional/spirtual drag that is layered onto it, it still comes down to men and women in costumes wallopping the piss outta each other. It's impossible to read any literary work outside the context it was created in and really expect to understand it. Thats pretty much the reason why there aren't a lot of Formalist critics around anymore. In terms of stuff from the Silver Age, the early stuff was very obviously a paralell to what was going on in the Cold War. A lot of the monsters were products of science (often nuclear). And the desire for heroes that are so moral they're almost comical (mostly a pre-Stan Lee thing, he at least brought some complications to this but a lot of the Silver Age DC characters read like things Patrick Warburton would voice now) stem from the ideas of a black and white worldview, something that was necessary for the military-industrial complex to keep a conflcit like this up (again, part of the reason why it's so dated). But, at the same, with the idea that humanity could be wiped out any day, there's a weird escapism to it too. Um...in terms fo the advent of teenage heroes, they came about the same time that the baby boomers were becoming teenagers and young adults. They wanted heroes they could relate to. And thats also the reason why the socially relevant comics of the late 60s and 70s were popular (and, honestly, the O Neill/Adams GL/GA book is like ridiculously heavy handed by modern standards). If you wanted to take a look atthe books as pedagogical tools, im sure that could be done too. But I guess that the reason its so dated is that the world now is so multicultural and so polarized. Oddly, American society is getting more diverse while the ideologies are becoming more militant, extreme and xenophobic. Which is basically a recipe for bad things to happen. I'm not sure i agree with you about the superhero genre being about people "walloping the piss" out of each other. The whole idea of a superhero, if you want to tie it in to socially constructed ideals of heroism, is that a figure that is seen as heroic represents the ideals of a given society. Forget all that Campbell shit about things being in common. The thing that they have in common isn't about their journey, its about the fact that their tales reinforce things that are seen as useful or positive within a given social context. Look at how chivalry became MORE important the more useless it was in actual battles. Look at the Superman of the early books. He represented the ideals of New Deal Socialism. And I think Superman's politics were always a bit socialist, the Jesus parallel came along to avoid all of that. I'd say that his politics now would be the centre-left Scandanavian socialism. I mean with most other ideologies you either get an entirely apolitical character with no motivation to act or you get a really dangerous villian. Actually, I'd read a lot of the early superheroes as extensions of New Deal Socialism. I'll write more about this later.
|
|
|
Post by jayvee on Jun 27, 2006 16:40:36 GMT -5
Please do.
And I agree that superhero comics are a lot more than tights and fight scenes--they always have been. I made that point before in a roundabout way when I mentioned wish-fulfilment. They gave innocent children outlets for expression and the earlier ones often had some far out moral attached.
I can appreciate what they started (and hate how they embraced serialization), but only in the same way that I can admire a cave painting... Because, really, cave paintings are still cave paintings when you compare them to Pixar animation. Modern comics are so much more advanced than their decades-prior ancestors: Better art, better grasp of the storytelling medium, better distribution, wider audience, etceteras and etceteras and so forth.
Basically, when faced with a Ferrari or a Model T, I know what I'm going to be driving.
Just because it's old doesn't make it good. It makes it a step.
|
|
|
Post by davidaccampo on Jun 27, 2006 23:35:54 GMT -5
whew, OK, I wasn't around the last couple days cuz I've been putting the finishing touches on the first comics script I've written in years. And damn, I'm pretty happy with it.
But anyway, I want to bring this slightly back on topic:
Regardless of the dating of the dialogue or the concepts in the Lee/Kirby stuff, the storytelling LANGUAGE is, to me, more flexiable and mature today.
Yes, the Lee/Kirby stuff can be seen as a product of its time and appreciated as such. But Lee and Kirby basically accomplished a certain kind of storytelling, and in a large part made that THE storytelling for super-hero comics for a long time.
What modern writers have done is examined film, literature AND comics, and they're expanding the tool box. Cinematic and decompressed storytelling is, to me, the logical evolution of the comic book. These things started off as slapped together strips, and the storytelling developed over time.
Whether or not they work best in super-hero comics is another debate, but the storytelling tools now at a writer's disposal allow for these stories to take on more nuance and atmosphere...it allows for quieter moments like a silent montage in an art film...these are things you wouldn't really see when Lee and Kirby were spinning a yarn.
Now whether or not you want your super-hero comics to play like an art film is another question...but having those tools is a plus in my book.
|
|
|
Post by nolan on Jun 27, 2006 23:47:37 GMT -5
Please do. And I agree that superhero comics are a lot more than tights and fight scenes--they always have been. I made that point before in a roundabout way when I mentioned wish-fulfilment. They gave innocent children outlets for expression and the earlier ones often had some far out moral attached. I can appreciate what they started (and hate how they embraced serialization), but only in the same way that I can admire a cave painting... Because, really, cave paintings are still cave paintings when you compare them to Pixar animation. Modern comics are so much more advanced than their decades-prior ancestors: Better art, better grasp of the storytelling medium, better distribution, wider audience, etceteras and etceteras and so forth. Basically, when faced with a Ferrari or a Model T, I know what I'm going to be driving. Just because it's old doesn't make it good. It makes it a step. Give me a nice mid 80s Lotus Esprit. I'm a whore for headlights that flip up. whew, OK, I wasn't around the last couple days cuz I've been putting the finishing touches on the first comics script I've written in years. And damn, I'm pretty happy with it. But anyway, I want to bring this slightly back on topic: Regardless of the dating of the dialogue or the concepts in the Lee/Kirby stuff, the storytelling LANGUAGE is, to me, more flexiable and mature today. Yes, the Lee/Kirby stuff can be seen as a product of its time and appreciated as such. But Lee and Kirby basically accomplished a certain kind of storytelling, and in a large part made that THE storytelling for super-hero comics for a long time. What modern writers have done is examined film, literature AND comics, and they're expanding the tool box. Cinematic and decompressed storytelling is, to me, the logical evolution of the comic book. These things started off as slapped together strips, and the storytelling developed over time. Whether or not they work best in super-hero comics is another debate, but the storytelling tools now at a writer's disposal allow for these stories to take on more nuance and atmosphere...it allows for quieter moments like a silent montage in an art film...these are things you wouldn't really see when Lee and Kirby were spinning a yarn. Now whether or not you want your super-hero comics to play like an art film is another question...but having those tools is a plus in my book. Theres a lot of stuff you wouldn't see in a Lee/Kirby story that is basically expected today.
|
|
|
Post by davidaccampo on Jun 28, 2006 0:36:15 GMT -5
What's funny to me is that the smart writers always try to stay on the trend of where the readership is going.
Grant Morrison, for example, was at the forefront of super-hero comics deconstruction, then reinvented himself as a "reconstructionist" for JLA.
Now, I've noticed a bunch of creators moaning about "how we need some good ol' fashioned COMPRESSED comics," totally catering to the turn against 'writing for the trade.'
So I think we've seen and are going to see more tools for compression be developed -- to mixed effect.
I didn't think that Joe Casey's "pop up" text effect in The Intimates worked. I liked the idea, but I don't think it worked on the printed page the way he had hoped.
I just read Matt Fraction's Cassanova. Now, I loved Fraction's Five Fists of Science. He's a good writer. But Cassanova was totally compressed, and I don't think it worked at all. At least, it didn't for me.
I think we'll see more attempts like this.
Honestly, I think Brian Woods' Demo and Local are excellent uses of decompressed storytelling that still tells a complete short story in each single.
Unfortunately, he's basing that off of more of a literary short story than a super-hero comic.
Ellis' Fell also works well.
|
|
|
Post by jayvee on Jun 28, 2006 8:49:32 GMT -5
The Intimates confused the Hell out of me.
|
|
|
Post by nolan on Jun 28, 2006 15:21:26 GMT -5
David,
Nah, you're a little off.
The smartest comic creators are the ones who create the trends.
The next smartest comic creators try to anticipate what the trends will be.
The next next smartest ones follow them.
The next next next smartest creators don't pay the slightest heed to them and hope that the stuff they did 20 years ago is still good enough.
|
|