Comic Book Resources

Wow how badly researched was that article. Had many of the cliche's that infuriate me when the mainstream media rattle off the "oohhh aren't comics doing well. Looookkk they make films of them now. Aren't they clever. How quiant."

Hidden in there were some interesting points and of course most of the readers, not us geeks (personally I prefere nerd never really understood the difference) will find it pretty interest and couldn't careless about my misgivings. Since the article isn't aimed at me I should of course just get over it. But hey I'm a nerd and I care!

Must nip over to Millarworld and see how the man of the hour is liking being call

"creations of oddball loners like Millar scribbling at drafting tables "

Eh, it wasn't that bad....Of course, keep in mind that Time is owned by Warner Bros while reading it...

Yeah, no mention of Marvel's ambitious and risky plan to essentially create a Marvel Universe on film, with actors crossing over films to reprise their roles. And no mention of how every DC property not named Batman or Superman seems to be stuck in development hell (but I suppose that would have been a bit off topic )

I also chuckled at the description of Millar as a "consultant" on Marvel books like Iron Man. It seems like a very outside-the-industry take on the kind of corporate work-for-hire model that Marvel and DC have employed for the majority of their entire existences.

Weren't "Blade" and "Men In Black" movies based on comics that came out the very next year after "Batman and Robin" supposedly killed the trend?

Savages Batman & Robin pretty effectively, though. It's a fair-handed piece, if predictably "oh, wait, this is what comics are up to now? Really?" in its tone, much like that Rolling Stone review of Dark Knight (I think it hit the web yesterday) that marveled that comic characters could actually have something to say about the human condition.

I'd argue that GNs are a good source for studio material because they've already been "road-tested", as it were, to a reasonably sophisticated audience in something approaching film form (or at least storyboard form)... but then, Wanted wasn't unanimously acclaimed in the same manner as Watchmen or even the source material for much of Dark Knight's storyline (Year One and the Loeb / Sale stuff). Of course, they've apparently jettisoned much of the desconstructionist aspects of the story and I doubt the movie will end with the lead character telling the audience to kiss his ass (... gotta protect those sequel possibilities...), so it wasn't so much a road test as bringing the idea of Harry Potter with Assassins to a place where it was financially viable.

Yeah, joking aside, it was pretty even-handed. The tone mentioned is telling though; it seems that despite the widespread appeal and success of comic book movies, many articles in "major" publications discussing them seem to have this "wow, comic books are so old-fashioned; they're still around? And they're not all "Bam-Pow-Zap" anymore" air about them.

I don't know, somehow it makes me think of Greg Burgas's column last week about the lack of a serious comics press .

Also, all discussion of "accurate" adaptation aside, a "Harry Potter with Assassins" movies sounds like it could be pretty damn awesome...

Given all this focus on road testing the comic product before deciding whether it's filmworthy, I haven't figured out why Kick-Ass is in movie production after a good first issue and meiochre ho-hum issues 2 & 3. It doesn't break any special ground and just seems to focus on brutality (which probably answers my question). But clearly the movie plans for Kick-Ass were in place long before the book was declared successful or not.

Describing comic creators as "oddball loners" is a bit sneary, even if it is true a fair amount of the time.

That article just makes me worry about the over-saturation of comics movies. To me, I see a parallel between the over-saturation of manga in bookstores (and the subsequent collapse of Tokyopop) and this comics-to-movies trend. How much of the comics biz these days is contingent upon the Hollywood dollars? This "trend", like all trends, won't last forever...

They tried to resist, Papabaron. Really, they did.

But the beast was in them!

Wait... Frank Miller needs a bodyguards?

Is it because fans want his autograph on their Dark Knights? ...or to kill him for his AS(s)Bats!?!??

The problem is the mainstream media's continuing patronising tone has a real impact on people trying to move the medium forward. I'm a librarian and its articles such as these that make forming a decent collection management policy on creating a 'sequential art' collection so difficult. For example the term graphic novel is banded around willy nilly in this type of article, in this case:

"Graphic novels--long comic books for grownups--have always had mostly cult appeal."

The article then goes onto to discuss a series of stories that first appeared as comicbooks, the very thing they have tried to distance their article from. Now I guess this is because the target audience of the article (I would imagine, I apologise for making assumptions here) has a better understanding of graphic novels as a term as that’s what they see in mainstream retail outlets. This does not move the medium on. This is a patronising pat on the head and the promise of a later bedtime next birthday.

By now the discussion should have moved on. After all this is the exact same sort of thing that appeared 20 years ago when people where going “ohhh how cute look at ‘Maus’ and ‘Watchmen’. Comics are trying to be like grown ups”. This lazy recycled journalism results in real issues for the medium.

Back in the real world (well as real world as libraries get!) you try to present idea’s for developing collections of all forms of ‘sequential art’ and it hits the barrier of understanding generated by articles such as this and similar one’s found in the UK professional library journals from time to time. Typically the response is “Yeah we do need to develop the ‘graphic novel section’ over there between the teen fiction and sci-fiction books, they seem to be becoming very popular.”. Fear gripping people everytime a new batch of the funny books comes in in case there is any of that s.e.x. stuff in the books that the kids like.

Instead the discussion should be do Graphic Novels, trades and collections join the rest of the hardcopy fiction collection (were its ok to talk about s.e.x., or as they're a different media have their own section like DVDs and CDs, were some kind of banding system can be used, just like in films to 'protect ' people? Is this need for labels and age banding necessary etc etc. Likewise do the comic books go with the magazines, journals or newspapers, or again do they form their own collection, if we’re doing that for the longer forms of the medium?

So yeah while its ok to get all wide eyed and excited by articles about comics in mainstream media for a while, and be glad of the attention there is a point where we need to stand up and be counted and say:

“Enough is enough you’ve been doing this patronising nonsense for too long and its about time you started getting things right. Sequential art has many forms, covers many of the needs of readers and is a separate art form. Rather than describe a man like Mark Millar in inaccurate terms that to me stink of poor journalism, such as “oddball loners like Millar scribbling at drafting tables” its about time you saw him as ‘Self-publicizing, motivated, talented, progressive writer of mainstream comic book fiction Millar’.”

Anyway sorry rant over, but I just feel we need to be more assertive about the medium we love.

Well because my last post was a little negative I was chuffed to stumble across this article from a UK national newspaper:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-how-a-daring-new-generation-of-graphic-novelists-view-the-art-of-war-852259.html

While there is still a little of the 'Comics are growing up, they have changed really' contrast it to the article that started this thread in terms of dealing with comics as a serious medium.

I personally think it is this type of article that we should be saluting, one thats moving the perspection of the medium forward (though of course it does still feel the need to hark back to 'Maus' but hey you can't have it all!)

Deja Vu.

Since the release of Tim Burton's Batman, Time Magazine has trotted out a variation of this article at least five times.

I have really got to cancel my subscription.

I don’t know, somehow it makes me think of Greg Burgas’s column last week about the lack of a serious comics press .

In fairness, this kind of mistake is a step up from the one made by folks who think it's just one guy doing all of this writing. But there are two Gregs, and that piece was by me, not Mr. Burgas.

Ah! No! I can't believe I did that!

I'm sorry Greg (Hatcher)-I knew that, really, I did. I've been reading both your columns for years, and whenever someone made that mistake, I thought to myself "come on, how hard is it to tell the two Gregs apart?" And then I go and do it. So apparently it's harder than I thought. Egg on the face isn't nearly as tasty as egg on a plate...

Yeesh. My apologies.

Oh, and Colin, thank you for saying the word that was on the tip of my tongue (that I couldn't quit place): patronizing.

I am getting very tired of these kinds of articles always talking about comics and their creators in such patronizing tones. I don't need comics to be "grown-up" or "taken seriously" by everyone, but it would be nice if the "mainstream" media at least accepted that yes, comic books still exist, in all kinds of varied forms and styles, and that yes, people make a living doing it, and they don't do it just because they can't do anything "better."