|
|
Post by woodside on Jul 14, 2009 8:47:43 GMT -5
An interesting Joe Quesada quote from CBR this morning:
" . . . this particular storyline is the final large, line-wide-style crossover for at least the next year or so as we’re going back to smaller inter-family style stories that will allow our creators the luxury to tell more self-contained stories or stories with at least fewer moving parts. As I've mentioned right here on CBR in previous columns, for the next year we're going to be doing less of these line-wide crossovers in favor of "in-family" events within books. So it was just going to be this one last bang for a bit . . ."
I really like the idea of "in-family events" - with crossovers focusing on particular corners of the MU.
That being said, I'm looking forward to the next "final" crossover, as the Marvel Universe itself has been more interesting since "Disassembled" than in a long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 14, 2009 12:26:49 GMT -5
Just a word of caution, part creatively and part economically:
Maximum Carnage, the second Clone Saga, and over at DC The Death of Superman and Knightfall were "in-family" events. Look at a) how drawn out the two Spider-examples were and b) for both companies how much the collector who wants to read the entire story still has to shell out.
I'm not overall saying that what Quesada said above is a bad thing, but I am not looking at it as a major concession. They'll still make a buck doing crossovers -- but perhaps the crossing-over will be more intentional and less periphery as it has been in the company-wide events.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jul 14, 2009 16:13:42 GMT -5
Maximum Carnage, the second Clone Saga, and over at DC The Death of Superman and Knightfall were "in-family" events. Look at a) how drawn out the two Spider-examples were and b) for both companies how much the collector who wants to read the entire story still has to shell out. Sorry Doug. It doesn't compare. Those were all events that occured 10-15 years ago under completely different editorial teams. And for all those events that you listed, I'd like to point Endangered Species, Messiah Complex, and Planet Hulk (all of which were recent events) that have all been rather good and worth the money. |
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jul 14, 2009 19:45:41 GMT -5
Marvel has careened from one big event to the next without pause since at least Avengers Dissassembled. That's 5 years.
During that time Joe Quesada and Marvel mouthpiece Tom Brevoort in particular have lied repeatedly and unabashedly. If either one told me "at 12 noon on a clear day, the sky is blue," I would verify before I believed it.
And frankly, the current crowd at Marvel has burned its bridges with me to the point that their departure will be a precondition for my return as a customer. Period. Until then, my entertainment dollar goes to someone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodside on Jul 14, 2009 20:10:09 GMT -5
Well . . . I think it's time for another hiatus. See ya.
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 14, 2009 22:09:18 GMT -5
Well . . . I think it's time for another hiatus. See ya. Whatever -- do what you have to do. No one did anything other than state their opinion of a longstanding trend that's been abused at Marvel, DC, Image, Valiant, you name it. You yourself have complained about personal finances from time-to-time. My point was that Marvel or certainly DC will still try to run "family title" stories as 4x-a-month hooks into the collectors' wallets. Conceivably there will be even more stories like this. |
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jul 14, 2009 22:43:02 GMT -5
Well . . . I think it's time for another hiatus. See ya. Whatever -- do what you have to do. No one did anything other than state their opinion of a longstanding trend that's been abused at Marvel, DC, Image, Valiant, you name it. You yourself have complained about personal finances from time-to-time. My point was that Marvel or certainly DC will still try to run "family title" stories as 4x-a-month hooks into the collectors' wallets. Conceivably there will be even more stories like this. It's unfortunate and sadly I think it's a generation gap more than a dislike of Marvel that some of us older fans have such a problem with this "statement" by Joe Q. We've seen the difference between what we're told and what will necessarily happen and don't take statements at face value, because things will happen during the course of a production year that change an EIC's POV ( I refer to Joe Quesada's complete about face on the whole "dead is dead" thing as an example). Another problem is if one poster says Planet Hulk, Endangered Species et al were great and you disagree it becomes the root of the argument instead of a simple difference of opinion. The saddest part of it all is I just want to read good comics that have a dramatic arc, a rise and a fall. These current books where everything stays at this continuous crisis level but then the action is decompressed are just not all that much fun for me as a reader. |
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jul 15, 2009 7:46:04 GMT -5
Whatever -- do what you have to do. No one did anything other than state their opinion of a longstanding trend that's been abused at Marvel, DC, Image, Valiant, you name it. You yourself have complained about personal finances from time-to-time. My point was that Marvel or certainly DC will still try to run "family title" stories as 4x-a-month hooks into the collectors' wallets. Conceivably there will be even more stories like this. It's unfortunate and sadly I think it's a generation gap more than a dislike of Marvel that some of us older fans have such a problem with this "statement" by Joe Q. We've seen the difference between what we're told and what will necessarily happen and don't take statements at face value, because things will happen during the course of a production year that change an EIC's POV ( I refer to Joe Quesada's complete about face on the whole "dead is dead" thing as an example). Another problem is if one poster says Planet Hulk, Endangered Species et al were great and you disagree it becomes the root of the argument instead of a simple difference of opinion. The saddest part of it all is I just want to read good comics that have a dramatic arc, a rise and a fall. These current books where everything stays at this continuous crisis level but then the action is decompressed are just not all that much fun for me as a reader. Since I don't follow the industry/trade press at all, I wasn't aware of Joe Q's current or previous false promises, HOWEVER one must concede that that kind of thing has always been an almost endearing character flaw in Marvel's Editorial & Publishing philosophy for, like, 40 years or so. There's always been such a ridiculous culture of self-promotion and boosterism in this company, that any pronouncement is taken with a smirk and a rolling of the eyes. Stan was the original master, of course, because he was just a natural enthusiastic shill for the work he and they were doing. But, lordy, how many times- I mean, SCORES of times!- have we been told that such-and-such new character, or event, or title, or genre' was going to "herald in this, the Next Phase of the Marvel Age of Comics!"-? First "Monster Craze", anyone? (Or the second?); EPIC comics?; New Universe? M-2? Howard the Duck? Nova (original version)? Speedball? Larson/Leifeld/McFarland? STAR comics? Pledges to stick to one-issue stories? Pledges to only do continuing sagas? Ultimate Universe? (Did I hear someone say it's being rebooted?) Nah-- I think these guys are institutionally mercurial, and will say whatever they think they should say, or what they think potential customers wantthem to say--- and then continue to chase the market's most apparently-profitable trends. It's almost a tribute to that first publisher that Stan worked for (Goldman? Was that the name? MARVEL VAULT kind of sums up that whole policy of that time very neatly). What's worrisome is that breaking AWAY from that publisher's policies and dictates are what created Marvel Comics. This particular 5-year-or-so bog Marvel (and DC? Is that right?) has been stuck in may be an astonishingly extreme case, but if it doesn't ultimately prove fatal, then the pendulum will doubtlessly swing back to center sooner or later. I mean, none of this is "the next big thing!" anymore. It's just one, long, unending Big Thing that has lost its lustre. I betcha that latest sales dip is the harbinger of an inevitable shift. HB |
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Jul 15, 2009 12:19:50 GMT -5
You know what I want? I want Jim Shooter back.
Joe Quesada says that Marvel needs to increase the price of books to cover costs. Instead, how about putting out books on schedule? If a month goes by that a title isn't published, Marvel loses that revenue forever. Under Quesada, deadlines are not enforced, and the creators know it and abuse it.
Whatever his faults, Jim Shooter he was not afraid to crack the whip and demand adherance to production schedules. You either did it or you didn't work for Marvel long.
Shooter was also willing to protect the characters against creator whims -- something that I do not believe Joe Quesada does. JQ's Marvel is creator-driven, and it seems that creators have carte blanche no matter how stupid the idea. Jim Shooter was willing to say "no" even if it meant telling a creator to pack it up. Shooter may not have been right every time, but I think he was right much more often than not.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Jul 15, 2009 12:44:36 GMT -5
Redstate--you are so right. Every Marvel artist I have ever spoken to says Quesada is the best boss you could ask for. When I hear that, I hate to say it, but the first thing that pops in my head is that probably means he lets them do whatever they want. I know from direct experience that managing artists is a thankless job--many are prima donnas with very little work ethic, and they tend to like to gang up on management. So basically the only way to keep your job is to lay low and not make any waves. Even the smallest confrontation can get you fired.
I have watched several artists in the games field do absolutely NOTHING for months and get away with it. I've seen whole projects get canned because nobody's doing any work and management is just too spineless to say anything. Consequently so many of our jobs are being outsourced because trust me, the Chinese have no problem enforcing the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jul 15, 2009 17:50:13 GMT -5
It's almost a tribute to that first publisher that Stan worked for (Goldman? Was that the name? MARVEL VAULT kind of sums up that whole policy of that time very neatly). What's worrisome is that breaking AWAY from that publisher's policies and dictates are what created Marvel Comics. You're thinking of Martin Goodman. And he's the guy who also said no one would buy a book about a hero named Spider-Man... They're just chasing the dollar signs and it's hard to blame them. During this 'bog' Marvel has managed to outsell DC significantly (for 2008 Marvel had a market share of 46%, while DC had 31%) and it's due in large part to the events. Civil War really was the beginning of Marvel's supremacy in sales. While I for one am completely sick of events, there's no denying that they have been profitable for both companies. Until that changes, I expect to just see more; maybe they won't call them events but they'll be there. |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 15, 2009 20:57:28 GMT -5
I have watched several artists in the games field do absolutely NOTHING for months and get away with it. I've seen whole projects get canned because nobody's doing any work and management is just too spineless to say anything. Consequently so many of our jobs are being outsourced because trust me, the Chinese have no problem enforcing the rules. Bob -- While I wouldn't know much about the Chinese enforcing/not enforcing their workplace rules, I would certainly argue that the reason American jobs are offshored is not because of the diligence (or lack thereof) of the American worker, but in large part due to the difference what a Chinese laborer is paid as compared to an American union worker. It's dollars, friend -- profit maximization. In order for those jobs to stay in the States, the American workers would have to take a huge pay cut, or produce at a rate that is simply not humanly possible. And good points, Tana and others. As many have said in this thread, count me among those who feel that there just isn't a solid economic reason for the comics publishers to backtrack from their current marketing strategies. Trade paperbacks sell, crossovers sell, and story specific auxiliaries (ie action figures, posters, etc.) sell. And unfortunately, those of us who would like to hearken back to our glory days are perhaps grossly outnumbered in the companies' sales demographics. |
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jul 16, 2009 5:07:28 GMT -5
I have watched several artists in the games field do absolutely NOTHING for months and get away with it. I've seen whole projects get canned because nobody's doing any work and management is just too spineless to say anything. Consequently so many of our jobs are being outsourced because trust me, the Chinese have no problem enforcing the rules. Bob -- While I wouldn't know much about the Chinese enforcing/not enforcing their workplace rules, I would certainly argue that the reason American jobs are offshored is not because of the diligence (or lack thereof) of the American worker, but in large part due to the difference what a Chinese laborer is paid as compared to an American union worker. It's dollars, friend -- profit maximization. In order for those jobs to stay in the States, the American workers would have to take a huge pay cut, or produce at a rate that is simply not humanly possible. And good points, Tana and others. As many have said in this thread, count me among those who feel that there just isn't a solid economic reason for the comics publishers to backtrack from their current marketing strategies. Trade paperbacks sell, crossovers sell, and story specific auxiliaries (ie action figures, posters, etc.) sell. And unfortunately, those of us who would like to hearken back to our glory days are perhaps grossly outnumbered in the companies' sales demographics. I don't think your & Bob's points are mutually exclusive, here, Doug. While it's not inherent, my experience is that there is a HUGE degree of professional self-indulgence that an undisciplined artistic personality will sometimes allow itself to surrender to. And in a professional environment, this is directly responsible for unnecessary expenses or loss of revenue.
My guess is that the ratio is still solidly in favor of dependable, trustworthy artists, etc-- but it wouldn't take too many bad apples to make upper management cast an interested eye to the already-attractive overseas labor option. . .
HB
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 16, 2009 6:55:26 GMT -5
Perhaps I misunderstood Bob. I read his comment about outsourcing American jobs as general -- if it was specific to the graphic arts, then I can't comment on that (although I would like to hear more). I'll stand by my response, which was to the basic characteristics of the why's of offshoring by American capitalists.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Jul 16, 2009 9:32:26 GMT -5
Dl--it's both! It has to do, at the end of the day, with how much it costs to create a certain number of game assets. There is so much sloth and waste on our end--a CEO will look at the books and see that in, say, a one year period, American artists got half the game assets done for 200k. Then they look at the Chinese crew, who finished the entire asset list in 9 months, costing 100k. I have seen this kind of thing happen many times. On the other hand there are real problems with dealing with foreign nations--mostly the language barrier and time difference. It is really hard to get changes made when the company you are dealing with is asleep during our work-day!
In my 13 years of doing video games--I will tell you it is a FACT that the main reason most games either flop, or never come out in the first place, is because of the inability of management to decide, and stick with, the vision of what a game is going to be. Let me give you a stellar example from 2007. Here in Austin, a very large, very well known company, started working on an MMO (massive multi-player Online game) in 2001, and it didn't get released until late 2007. I came to this company in late 2006, and worked on another project, and when I got there, all the artists were laughing at the original concept sketches for the other team's MMO. Apparently the MMO was originally going to be a fantasy oriented, kind of sword-and-sorcery looking game. Well three or four years into the making of this MMO, everyone decided that the fantasy look sucked, and they completely changed everything to a more sci-fi look and had to just dump years of assets--which really means millions of dollars. I sat there thinking, okay all these idiots are laughing at the unicorns and elves from the original concept sketches--but who in the hell okayed them in the first place? How do three or four years go by and then you just throw the whole game out? The time to decide on the look of a game is before you start making it.
Everyone thought the whole mess was funny--and I'm thinking these people have no concept of money. None. So the MMO team switched to the sci-fi look, and the game came out after 7 years and one figure I heard was $70 mill, and the game completely failed. Nobody bought it. People didn't even know it came out. We all--even those of us who were on other projects-lost our jobs because of the failure of that game.
The worst part is that after the MMO failed, upper management basically blamed it on the fact that people didn't want to play a sci-fi MMO!!!! But the real reason it failed was that while everybody was harping on what the game should look like, nobody was paying attention to the fact that the GAME WASN'T FUN. It didn't draw you in, or make you want to keep playing it. I have talked to dozens of people who played it and they all said the same thing--it wasn't fun.
So of course management, who couldn't agree on a direction, blamed the team and the only "team members" who came out of it looking good were the outsource team in China. Why? Because they cost less and had nothing to do with design or direction--they were just handed sketches and had to build them in 3D. Now, these managerial geniuses have come to the conclusion that the only way to make a game inexpensively is to go almost exclusively with outsourcing--leaving out their role entirely.
DL--I am painfully well aware that the Chinese can live like kings in their country on a quarter of what we make, and they are. But remember it was OUR politicians who started this whole Global Economy/out-sourcing scheme. It started with an idea by Bush Sr (New World Order) and Clinton got most of the trade agreements pushed through on the premise that these agreements would actually help the US grow economically--without mentioning the fact that our jobs would leave in droves. Bush Sr and McCain and all those guys were all for it. These people don't give a d**n about us.
Now our economy is collapsing because, frankly, the good paying jobs are gone while our cost of living is still rising. We have become a service-oriented economy, in other words, low-paying, menial jobs. California has a 20% unemployment rate today, and that is disastrous.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jul 16, 2009 10:24:05 GMT -5
You know what I want? I want Jim Shooter back... I second the motion! |
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jul 16, 2009 10:39:14 GMT -5
What's worrisome is that breaking AWAY from that publisher's policies and dictates are what created Marvel Comics. I think we have publisher Martin Goodman's trend-following tendencies to thank for Marvel comics in the 1960s. He's the one who jumped on the superhero trend, as epitomized by the famous story in which he's golfing with a DC executive (many sources name Jack Liebowtiz but that's refuted in some places)...anyway, the DC exec was ecstatic about the success of the JLA comic and DC's influx of new (post-1956) superheroes (alomg with oldies Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Arrow, and some others who had never "left"). Hearing this, Goodman promptly ordered his ed-in-chief --Stan Lee--to create a superhero team book because "Superheroes are coming back." (And I'm sure many of us here are also aware of another well-known story, of how Stan was going to quit--by 1961 he'd already spent 20 years in comics, after all--but was talked out of it by his wife Joan. She urged him to take this one last assignment--to create a superhero team--in effect she said well, why not do it your way this time? After all,you've got nothing to lose, you say you're going to quit anyway...) Anyway, Goodman's order to create a superhero team was what led to Stan and Jack to create the Fantastic Four. This was a departure from the monster/romance/sci fi/western/teen humor/Mille the Model comics Stan and the handful of freelance artists (Kirby, Ditko, Heck, Ayers) had been churning out for Goodman since 1957 or '58. So, Martin Goodman followed his usual business practice of jumping on a trend as he had done all his business life (at least when it came to his comics business) and he was--IMO--the one who started the ball rolling. (Other factors played into Marvel's development, too, such as the very restrictive distribution deal Goodman had entered into in 1957, which reduced his output from 60+ comics to 16-20 bimonthly titles. But that's a post for another time...  ). BTW, HB, Martin Goodman was married to a woman who had a young cousin. Goodman's wife's young cousin's name? Stanley Lieber. A number of Goodman's relatives or relatives-in-law worked at Goodman's businesses. And according to some souces Goodman didn't even know Stan had applied for a job at Timely Comics (as it was then called) until he ran into Stan there. Some sources indicate that Stan's uncle (who was Goodman's brother-in-law and who also worked at Timely) was the one who told Stan there was an opening in Timely's comic division, so Stan interviewed with Timely's then-editor Joe Simon; Simon and Kirby were looking for an assistant (read: gofer). (Goodman fired Simon and Kirby a year or so later when he found out they were also working for DC; and Goodman gave much of the editorial work to the energetic, enthusiastic Stan. The rest is history.) OK--back to our regularly scheduled programming. I admit I don't buy many of today's books on a regular basis or follow sales figures, so I am finding everyone's posts here very enlightening and interesting! |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 16, 2009 12:14:39 GMT -5
Bob --
Thanks for the details -- I appreciate you taking the time to write all of that! You are giving HB a run for his money in the "long post" category! And, I think you and I were in basic agreement anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Jul 16, 2009 13:11:54 GMT -5
Sharky's are longer than mine, young man
|
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jul 16, 2009 13:28:44 GMT -5
What's worrisome is that breaking AWAY from that publisher's policies and dictates are what created Marvel Comics. I think we have publisher Martin Goodman's trend-following tendencies to thank for Marvel comics in the 1960s. He's the one who jumped on the superhero trend, as epitomized by the famous story in which he's golfing with a DC executive (many sources name Jack Liebowtiz but that's refuted in some places)...anyway, the DC exec was ecstatic about the success of the JLA comic and DC's influx of new (post-1956) superheroes (alomg with oldies Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Arrow, and some others who had never "left"). Hearing this, Goodman promptly ordered his ed-in-chief --Stan Lee--to create a superhero team book because "Superheroes are coming back." I tell ya, Shark ol' sport, you could write and narrate a PBS documentary on this subject. (American Masters, perhaps? Great Performances?) This is great stuff-- and you put it together very engagingly. And you make a sound point: I guess Goodman's normal mode of operations did indeed provide that opportunity for Marvel to be born, as it were. I do recall reading somewhere (MARVEL VAULT again?) that one of his staunchest maxims, though, was "never be the first one to try something new". And that's where Stan clearly pulled a fast one, by introducing, yes, a superhero book-- but a wildly unconventional one. Would Goodman have been enthused about FF #1 ("Where's the COSTUMES?? How come they ARGUE???")? Was he paying attention? One has to wonder about the editorial exchange upon Stan's presentation of the product. . . HB |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Jul 16, 2009 13:44:53 GMT -5
Sharky's are longer than mine, young man That's awful nice of you to call my "young"! While on an anniversary overnight to Chicago last weekend, my wife and I took a walk along one of the lakefront beaches. I swear I could have been everyone's dad... |
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Jul 16, 2009 13:49:43 GMT -5
I feel your pain DL. My face is so dry and leathery it looks like a saddle bag with eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottharris on Jul 16, 2009 15:33:17 GMT -5
It's interesting how many major events, not just in the field of comics, take place due to luck and some small twist of fate. Goodman hears on a golf course that heroes are doing well and he orders Stan to do a superhero comic. But from what I've heard, the even more lucky bit as far as we're all concerned is that Stan wasn't going to do it -- until his wife talked him into it.
In fact, the story I've heard is that Stan had decided to quit comics entirely. He was now over 40 years old, the comics industry was in shambles and he was doing the same formula romance, western and horror comics month after month after month. It was a dead end with no creative outlet, so he decided to quit and start his life and career over in a new field. So when Goodman asked him to do a superhero book, it probably wasn't going to happen because instead Stan was going to resign. But at this point, his wife convinced him to stay on a little longer and give the new book a try. She said, "if you're going to quit anyway, why not do a comic the way you want to do it before you leave?"
And so the Fantastic Four and Marvel Comics were created -- because Stan's wife talked him into doing it and suggested he do it his own way.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottharris on Jul 16, 2009 16:54:08 GMT -5
I should also say I agree with Woodside on this one. Not the taking a break part, but people might be being a little pessimistic here. We've been complaining about company wide crossovers for a long time here as stifling character development in titles forced to have crossovers. Now that they've announced a temporary hiatus of huge events, I don't see how this can be anything but positive.
Sure, this doesn't mean that big storylines within individual titles or groups will be good, but if they suck, at least they won't drag the whole MU down with them. Stuff like Maximum Carnage might have been bad, but at least it was confined to Spiderman instead of being forced into Avengers and Captain America. How much do we wish that something like Inferno had been confined to the X-titles?
And there have been some good stories that have come out of this sort of thing, like, er... Operation Galactic Storm? Okay, it wasn't great but it was decent. The main thing is, though, that writers who don't want to get involved can now write their own characters and stories the way they want, either good or bad, without being stuck with some giant company wide nonsense that messes everything up (like, for instance, Secret Wars II intruded on an otherwise great Roger Stern run in Avengers; the epilogue in 266 is cool but check out how Beyonder's appearance totally ruined the end of the long Skrull/Nebula storyline around 261). Now the writers and titles can sink or swim on their own, and I'm hoping this will result in some good old fashioned character development.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jul 17, 2009 11:44:54 GMT -5
... I do recall reading somewhere (MARVEL VAULT again?) that one of his staunchest maxims, though, was "never be the first one to try something new". And that's where Stan clearly pulled a fast one, by introducing, yes, a superhero book-- but a wildly unconventional one. Would Goodman have been enthused about FF #1 ("Where's the COSTUMES?? How come they ARGUE???")? Was he paying attention? One has to wonder about the editorial exchange upon Stan's presentation of the product. . . My understanding is that over the years Stan had proved himself to be a very competent editor/overseer of the day to day operations. He was someone who would make sure production deadlines were met; he had a good rapport with the talent; he could and did pitch in with the writing; he could edit a bunch of comics on the fly, etc. So eventually Goodman entrusted the daily creative/editorial operations to him, with Goodman handling the financial/business side (though apparently Goodman continued to oversee covers practically until 1972 when he stopped being Marvel's publisher). Anyway, by 1961 Goodman certainly knew that all he had to do was tell Stan what genre of comic to put out and Stan would meet the deadline and deliver the product. Naturally Goodman wanted a book that would sell...but I don't think he was particuarly concerned with the book's details (the costumes or lack thereof, the arguments). I don't think that Stan had to, or was even trying to, pull the wool over Goodman's eyes. As for the FF being "wildly unconventional": yes, it contained elements that were not normally seen in superhero comics. But it really wasn't anything Stan hadn't done before (just not in superhero comics ;D). The Vault is that book that has a copy of Stan's FF #1's synopsis, isn't it? (I know it's around somewhere but I haven't seen my Vault since I moved a few months ago). Anyway, IIRC Stan's synopsis contains details that didn't make it into the first FF issue, such as Sue being unable to turn visible--she has to wear a full face mask and clothing to be seen...Reed's stretching weakens him and caused him great pain...Johnny flames on only when he's agitated or excited. So in addition to Ben, the other three aren't having an easy time either. You know, when I read this synopsis a while back the first thing that struck me was was these predicaments sounded an awful lot like the monster/fantasy stories Goodman was publishing at the time (and do I have to tell you who wrote many of those stories?). In other words, the synopsis of FF #1 seems like an extension of what Stan was writing anyway. (In fact, I wonder if the FF synopsis was cobbled together from unused stories that were lying around?) Then there was Stan's teen humor and Millie the Model/Patsy Walker background. The dialogue for these genres was "contemporary" and humorous. Then there was Stan the romance comic writer; he loved to put his female protagonists through the romantic wringer; lots of love triangles; unrequited (for a while) yearnings; the characters had tons of interior monologues and were given to self-reflection. So to me, it's almost as if the FF was a continuation (and melange) of what Stan had been writing in the years following the demise of Timely/Atlas' superhero comics and the years preceding the FF's debut in 1961. Stan grafted these other genres' elements onto the FF (and he continued when he added Hank Pym/Ant-Man...the Hulk...Spidey...Thor...). |
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jul 17, 2009 11:47:52 GMT -5
Part 2 And why was the quality of Stan's post-1961 oeuvre so different from what what he had done for Goodman's company in the preceding two decades? In addition to his editing duties, Stan had always been an able writer who could be counted on to turn work in fast...and he had to, since in its heydey Goodman's comics business published in the neighborhood of 80+ monthly titles. So, quantity trumped quality. In 1957 Goodman--he who managed the business/financial end of things--entered into a very restrictive deal with the distributor Independent News Company, which was (unfortunately for Goodman) owned by DC's parent company. (There were many factors leading to this arrangement--another post, another time. ) Anyway, this deal limited Goodman to publishing 8 monthly titles (or 16 bimonthly)--down from the 80 or so titles Goodman's company had published. (The 8 per month limitation seems to have increased to 10-11 per month within a couple of years.) But here's the kicker: with only 8-11 titles in any given month, Stan now had the time to oversee everything--closely. He no longer was in charge of 80+ comics, with deadlines "due yesterday." Now he could put his voice on all the comics, plus spend time on the letters, the snappy dialogue, do some marketing, etc. (It didn't hurt that his chief artists Kirby and Ditko needed minimal supervision and could be counted on to do a lot of plotting on their own). So, with the relatively small output and a couple of artists who could be trusted to work on their own, Stan really had the time to pay close attention to each and every one of his comics. Was a cooker-cutter, poor quality approach avoided in part because of this? I think that's likely, don't you? |
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jul 17, 2009 11:54:47 GMT -5
I feel your pain DL. My face is so dry and leathery it looks like a saddle bag with eyes.  Bob! This is a pretty good sunscreen--not too greasy.  |
|
|
|
Post by bobc on Jul 17, 2009 13:28:29 GMT -5
Actually I'm almost impossibly good-looking for my age.
At least my five dogs think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jul 17, 2009 15:28:57 GMT -5
Part 2 And why was the quality of Stan's post-1961 oeuvre so different from what what he had done for Goodman's company in the preceding two decades? In addition to his editing duties, Stan had always been an able writer who could be counted on to turn work in fast...and he had to, since in its heydey Goodman's comics business published in the neighborhood of 80+ monthly titles. So, quantity trumped quality. In 1957 Goodman--he who managed the business/financial end of things--entered into a very restrictive deal with the distributor Independent News Company, which was (unfortunately for Goodman) owned by DC's parent company. (There were many factors leading to this arrangement--another post, another time. ) Anyway, this deal limited Goodman to publishing 8 monthly titles (or 16 bimonthly)--down from the 80 or so titles Goodman's company had published. (The 8 per month limitation seems to have increased to 10-11 per month within a couple of years.) But here's the kicker: with only 8-11 titles in any given month, Stan now had the time to oversee everything--closely. He no longer was in charge of 80+ comics, with deadlines "due yesterday." Now he could put his voice on all the comics, plus spend time on the letters, the snappy dialogue, do some marketing, etc. (It didn't hurt that his chief artists Kirby and Ditko needed minimal supervision and could be counted on to do a lot of plotting on their own). So, with the relatively small output and a couple of artists who could be trusted to work on their own, Stan really had the time to pay close attention to each and every one of his comics. Was a cooker-cutter, poor quality approach avoided in part because of this? I think that's likely, don't you? Wow, I remember reading much of what your talking about, and not putting the big picture together the way you have. I think I'm going to just officially adopt your take on all of these historical elements, and live a contented life. Very clear, very well-supported, always consistent with the known circumstances. Great vision of the sequential nature of events-- really, if you're not actually a historian (like, for your real-world personna), then the field of History has been done a disservice. HB |
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jul 21, 2009 13:16:56 GMT -5
Thanks, HB.  |
|
).
