|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Apr 7, 2017 9:57:49 GMT -5
I must be reading the other half, then. I have no idea what "half" of Image he's referring Image comics offers true diversity-that is, it publishes just about every genre in fiction imaginable. Unlike Marvel with the same old and tired super heroes I'm not saying that all of Image is like that, probably 60% and most of it is Mark Millar's output |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Apr 7, 2017 10:01:37 GMT -5
I have no idea what "half" of Image he's referring Image comics offers true diversity-that is, it publishes just about every genre in fiction imaginable. Unlike Marvel with the same old and tired super heroes I'm not saying that all of Image is like that, probably 60% and most of it is Mark Millar's output Oh, now it's 60%, up from 50% Well, anyone can make up numbers based on their perceptions. I think your number is 97% wrong Edit:I just took a look at Image's solicitations for March 2017. They have over 50 titles coming out. Only one is written by Mark Miller |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Apr 7, 2017 10:37:22 GMT -5
I'm not saying that all of Image is like that, probably 60% and most of it is Mark Millar's output Oh, now it's 60%, up from 50% Well, anyone can make up numbers based on their perceptions. I think your number is 97% wrong Edit:I just took a look at Image's solicitations for March 2017. They have over 50 titles coming out. Only one is written by Mark Miller Okay, maybe I did phrase that poorly and I apologize. It's more like people see how big Kick-Ass, Kingsman, and the Walking Dead are and they want to "have their cake and eat it too" but that's a very naive and slightly detrimental outlook to have. Not every comic is going to be the next Walking Dead It feels like in comics now like it's safer to just try and use a comic as a jumping off point than just going all in and giving it your all, does that make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Apr 7, 2017 10:54:29 GMT -5
Oh, now it's 60%, up from 50% Well, anyone can make up numbers based on their perceptions. I think your number is 97% wrong Edit:I just took a look at Image's solicitations for March 2017. They have over 50 titles coming out. Only one is written by Mark Miller Okay, maybe I did phrase that poorly and I apologize. It's more like people see how big Kick-Ass, Kingsman, and the Walking Dead are and they want to "have their cake and eat it too" but that's a very naive and slightly detrimental outlook to have. Not every comic is going to be the next Walking Dead It feels like in comics now like it's safer to just try and use a comic as a jumping off point than just going all in and giving it your all, does that make sense? No your opinion does not make sense to me unless you have the power to see into author and writer's motivations. Do you have a problem with the concept of creator-owned material? Or a problem that creator-owned material can be successful and lead to filmed adaptations? Do you have the same problem with author's of prose books that get adapted to the big screen? Wouldn't creator-owned material lead to the creator "giving it his all" since it belongs to him? Honestly, how much of Image do you actually read to come up with this blanket assumption? |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Apr 7, 2017 11:04:37 GMT -5
Okay, maybe I did phrase that poorly and I apologize. It's more like people see how big Kick-Ass, Kingsman, and the Walking Dead are and they want to "have their cake and eat it too" but that's a very naive and slightly detrimental outlook to have. Not every comic is going to be the next Walking Dead It feels like in comics now like it's safer to just try and use a comic as a jumping off point than just going all in and giving it your all, does that make sense? No your opinion does not make sense to me unless you have the power to see into author and writer's motivations. Do you have a problem with the concept of creator-owned material? Or a problem that creator-owned material can be successful and lead to filmed adaptations? Do you have the same problem with author's of prose books that get adapted to the big screen? Wouldn't creator-owned material lead to the creator "giving it his all" since it belongs to him? Honestly, how much of Image do you actually read to come up with this blanket assumption? Yeah, it probably is a blanket assumption. I don't read a lot of Image comics because I'm under the impression that most of the comics seem to be on the teenage girl "weird & kooky" (Brian Vaughn's Saga & Papergirls) kick, and while that's good that there's more variety out there for the more causal reader to relate to, it's not necessarily my cup of tea Marvel's also guilty of that with Squirrel Girl, Patsy Walker: Hellcat, and Howard The Duck (the latter of which, while well-intended, seemed to entirely miss the point of why Howard was so popular and beloved to begin with), and DC's Young Animal seems to be making that their imprint's mantra |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 7, 2017 11:05:03 GMT -5
Oh, now it's 60%, up from 50% Well, anyone can make up numbers based on their perceptions. I think your number is 97% wrong Edit:I just took a look at Image's solicitations for March 2017. They have over 50 titles coming out. Only one is written by Mark Miller Okay, maybe I did phrase that poorly and I apologize. It's more like people see how big Kick-Ass, Kingsman, and the Walking Dead are and they want to "have their cake and eat it too" but that's a very naive and slightly detrimental outlook to have. Not every comic is going to be the next Walking Dead It feels like in comics now like it's safer to just try and use a comic as a jumping off point than just going all in and giving it your all, does that make sense? Nope...not much sense. Why shouldn't they want to reap the benefits of their work. Why should they put effort into creating and building a character to see a multi-billion dollar corporation make money off of it. Fat lot of good it did Wolfman to create Blade, etc., etc. It's possible that some creators may be as naive as you think they are, but anyone who has a lick of sense or has been around for a while knows that they are unlikely to catch lightning in a bottle like The Walking Dead did. But why shouldn't they try? I have zero idea why you would think that it's "detrimental." I also don't understand why you assume they aren't "giving it their all." It seems they would have every incentive to "give it their all" because it's their baby and they are going to reap any benefits of the book themselves instead of passing it off to Disney or Time-Warner. If anything, the incentive is to do the bare minimum to keep working if you're doing work-for-hire. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 7, 2017 11:19:30 GMT -5
No your opinion does not make sense to me unless you have the power to see into author and writer's motivations. Do you have a problem with the concept of creator-owned material? Or a problem that creator-owned material can be successful and lead to filmed adaptations? Do you have the same problem with author's of prose books that get adapted to the big screen? Wouldn't creator-owned material lead to the creator "giving it his all" since it belongs to him? Honestly, how much of Image do you actually read to come up with this blanket assumption? Yeah, it probably is a blanket assumption. I don't read a lot of Image comics because I'm under the impression that most of the comics seem to be on the teenage girl "weird & kooky" (Brian Vaughn's Saga & Papergirls) kick, and while that's good that there's more variety out there for the more causal reader to relate to, it's not necessarily my cup of tea Marvel's also guilty of that with Squirrel Girl, Patsy Walker: Hellcat, and Howard The Duck (the latter of which, while well-intended, seemed to entirely miss the point of why Howard was so popular and beloved to begin with), and DC's Young Animal seems to be making that their imprint's mantra Your assumptions are wrong. And why is it that someone who reads things that are different than you read a "casual reader." You say that Marvel is "guilty" as if it's somehow wrong that you can name three comics that don't personally appeal to you. I'm actually trying to think of any Image books that would meet the "teenage girls" "weird and kooky" criteria and I'm not coming up with many. Papergirls, I guess, though it's a really good book. Definitely not Saga. Rat Queens...kind of. Street Angel...maybe...I haven't read it. That's all I'm coming up with. I'm not trying to pile on you. But you're making a lot of blanket statements from a position that doesn't appear to be very knowledgeable. |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Apr 7, 2017 11:37:42 GMT -5
I'm not trying to pile on you. But you're making a lot of blanket statements from a position that doesn't appear to be very knowledgeable. Slam, that's pretty much the story of my life and that's why I like debating with you all so that I can actually get rid of some of these very petty notions |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 7, 2017 11:47:00 GMT -5
I'm not trying to pile on you. But you're making a lot of blanket statements from a position that doesn't appear to be very knowledgeable. Slam, that's pretty much the story of my life and that's why I like debating with you all so that I can actually get rid of some of these very petty notions It's all good. I'm not trying to shill for Image. Well...I'm not getting paid too. But I'd guess that 70+% of what I read comes from them. Because I want diversity in what I read. And by that I mean I want different stories. Noir. Science Fiction. Fantasy. Weirdness. I've read hundreds (maybe thousands) of stories about Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker, etc. It's very very rare anyone has anything new and interesting to say. I'm not anti-Superhero. That's what got me into comics. But I want something new and different. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Apr 7, 2017 12:34:19 GMT -5
I'm not trying to pile on you. But you're making a lot of blanket statements from a position that doesn't appear to be very knowledgeable. Slam, that's pretty much the story of my life and that's why I like debating with you all so that I can actually get rid of some of these very petty notions I'd say you owe it to yourself to try out some of their titles. Hopefully you have a library that you might avail yourself for free to some of their offerings. They have plenty of folks who used to work for Marvel now doing work there if that would make it easier for you. |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Apr 7, 2017 12:34:25 GMT -5
Slam, that's pretty much the story of my life and that's why I like debating with you all so that I can actually get rid of some of these very petty notions It's all good. I'm not trying to shill for Image. Well...I'm not getting paid too. But I'd guess that 70+% of what I read comes from them. Because I want diversity in what I read. And by that I mean I want different stories. Noir. Science Fiction. Fantasy. Weirdness. I've read hundreds (maybe thousands) of stories about Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker, etc. It's very very rare anyone has anything new and interesting to say. I'm not anti-Superhero. That's what got me into comics. But I want something new and different. And that's fair, a lot of what I read are older indie and european comics like Thorgal and Requiem: Vampire Knight or just ones like Howard The Duck that feel like they were indie books that just happened to be published by one of the big two |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Apr 7, 2017 12:35:31 GMT -5
Slam, that's pretty much the story of my life and that's why I like debating with you all so that I can actually get rid of some of these very petty notions I'd say you owe it to yourself to try out some of their titles. Hopefully you have a library that you might avail yourself for free to some of their offerings. They have plenty of folks who used to work for Marvel now doing work there if that would make it easier for you. I did just that recently with Godland. The world could always do with more Kirby Cosmic I've also read a good bit of Remender's stuff, Alex+Ada, and The Wicked+The Divine. The latter half of Tokyo Ghost really kind of left a bad taste in my mouth because of how amazing the first five issues were |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Apr 7, 2017 14:13:53 GMT -5
Extremity and Moonshine are both very good.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Apr 7, 2017 15:18:19 GMT -5
No your opinion does not make sense to me unless you have the power to see into author and writer's motivations. Do you have a problem with the concept of creator-owned material? Or a problem that creator-owned material can be successful and lead to filmed adaptations? Do you have the same problem with author's of prose books that get adapted to the big screen? Wouldn't creator-owned material lead to the creator "giving it his all" since it belongs to him? Honestly, how much of Image do you actually read to come up with this blanket assumption? Yeah, it probably is a blanket assumption. I don't read a lot of Image comics because I'm under the impression that most of the comics seem to be on the teenage girl "weird & kooky" (Brian Vaughn's Saga & Papergirls) kick, and while that's good that there's more variety out there for the more causal reader to relate to, it's not necessarily my cup of tea Marvel's also guilty of that with Squirrel Girl, Patsy Walker: Hellcat, and Howard The Duck (the latter of which, while well-intended, seemed to entirely miss the point of why Howard was so popular and beloved to begin with), and DC's Young Animal seems to be making that their imprint's mantra Saga is frickin' fantastic. I've borrowed the first 4 TPB from my local library, and I'm always bugging the woman who handles the comics section about when she's going to get the rest of them (it doesn't hurt that she frequents the same LCS that I do and I can see her there when she is picking up things for both herself and the library). You seriously owe it to yourself to give it a shot. Yes, it is good that there is more variety out there, and, no, it's not all going to be your cup of tea. I borrowed and read the entire first Kamala Khan Ms. Marvel series, and while I was glad I didn't spend my money on it, it was a decent enough read, but I did buy the recent Mockingbird series, which definitely had a female-slanted vibe, and I enjoyed the heck out of it. Buy and read the things you like, let others do the same, and maybe the industry can continue to survive in some form or fashion. |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Apr 7, 2017 16:38:32 GMT -5
Yes, it is good that there is more variety out there, and, no, it's not all going to be your cup of tea. I borrowed and read the entire first Kamala Khan Ms. Marvel series, and while I was glad I didn't spend my money on it, it was a decent enough read, but I did buy the recent Mockingbird series, which definitely had a female-slanted vibe, and I enjoyed the heck out of it. Buy and read the things you like, let others do the same, and maybe the industry can continue to survive in some form or fashion. I kind of felt the opposite with Kamala versus Mockingbird. Haven't read all of Ms. Marvel, but I found it very endearing and cute and with Mockingbird, well, you're not going to win over any new fans with stuff like this   |
|
