Leave a comment or two and start discussing these issues that affect the four color worlds we live in.
________________________________________
Ever since Marvel and DC started using incorporated universe back in the 1960s there have been people who fall into one camp or the other. Some people would salivate at the mouth getting ready for a battle between the X-Men and the Avengers while a different set of people would rather see a team-up of Batman and Superman. While it's fairly obvious I fall into the former category, both are valid preferences.
(Of course the less said of those freaks who want to read about some guy spawned from Hell or some boy genius or other the better.)
While these alliance ran deep back when, since the internet has allowed everyone to communicate the feeling of propriety has grown ten fold. The companies have become avatars for people themselves and an insult against the company is an insult against some poster on the internet. At what point does this go too far and actually hurt the industry?
Most freelancers don't have a problem with either company, even if they sign exclusives with one. They work for the art or the paycheck (or both) and that's that. They have friends at all the companies and I'm sure they have people they don't care for at each company too. So why then do fans take it more personally than those who work for the company? Is it simply brand loyalty? Is it the lack of anything else to care about? Have they simply not grown up?
And what is the impact on the industry as a whole? Tom Brevoort talks about his recent experience dealing with this interoffice hostility and gives us a glimpse that it may be more of the full-time staffers of at least one company. (Important note: It is not everyone at said company and not that company alone, merely the example provided.) Is it better to have such an antagonistic industry if it drives sales? Is it conducive to creators' rights to have such animosity among the major studios? Will the industry stagnate if they are too buddy-buddy?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Let us all know your feelings on the matter by commenting below and let's get down and dirty on the subject.
Marvel's current brouhaha, Secret Invasion is running full throttle as the shapeshifting Skrulls have inserted themselves among the denizens of the Marvel Universe. The question now is who is a Skrull and who can you trust?
As stolen by those cads at Wikipedia, let's look at who's been revealed as Skrull infiltrators already:
* Elektra - revealed in New Avengers #31. Killed by Echo. New Avengers #40 revealed that her name was Siri and was one of the longest infiltrators, sent to examine the defenses of Earth.
* Black Bolt - revealed in New Avengers: Illuminati #5. Killed by Namor. In New Avengers #40 it was revealed that this Skrull was the first of the new version of Super Skrulls created, and was the only survivor of the Skrull home world's destruction by Galactus.
* Revolutionary (of the Liberteens) - revealed in Avengers: The Initiative Annual #1.
* Cobalt Man - revealed in Captain Marvel #3. Killed by Captain Marvel.
* Cyclone - revealed in Captain Marvel #4. Killed by Captain Marvel. Skrull identity not public due to destruction of remains.
* Captain Marvel - revealed in Captain Marvel #5. A mistake in the Skrull Khn'nr's conditioning led to Khn'nr's personality being erased and Captain Marvel's remaining, which has caused him to rebel against his species.
* Valentina Allegra de Fontaine - revealed in Secret Invasion Prologue.[30] Two Skrulls have posed as her; the first one was killed by Nick Fury, while the second one posed as her in the Savage Land and then assumed the form of Dum Dum Dugan.
* Dum Dum Dugan - revealed in Secret Invasion Prologue. Has presumably died during a suicide bombing at the S.W.O.R.D. Space Headquarters
* Edwin Jarvis - revealed in Secret Invasion #1.
* Henry Pym - revealed in Secret Invasion #1.
* Invisible Woman - replaced by and revealed as Lyja in Secret Invasion: Fantastic Four #1.
* Spider-Woman - revealed in New Avengers #40; confirmed in Secret Invasion #3.
A pretty scary list, really. And there are others that have been hinted at but not confirmed (in books such as Incredible Hercules). The Skrulls have gained access to some pretty high profile and security sensitive positions. They've ripped teams apart, broken up marriages.
With only three issues of the Secret Invasion book having been released so far and a crapload of tie-ins hitting today, who else do you think is a Skrull? Who's been acting out of sorts lately? Who is in a position to do the most damage?
Leave a comment or two and start discussing these issues that affect the four color worlds we live in.
________________________________________
As anyone who even reads this humble blog is passing can tell you, I am not what you would call a DC aficionado. I respect their history, dig some Wildstorm stuff, buy the Vertigo collections regularly, but I just can't get into their main line. I was raised a Marvel Zombie and for the moment thus I stay,
However, anyone who reads the comics blogosphere really couldn't get away from the problems DC is having. Between completely incongruous books being released and having to be explained (namely Grant Morrison's excuses for Final Crisis #1) and creators being somewhat vocal about their abrupt dismissal (Chuck Dixon), this week was really just a microcosm of problems being spoken about for some time.Even Warren ELlis offered an unprompted "State of the DC Union." Dan Didio has been a lightening rod for controversy in the industry second only to Bill Jemas.
As someone on the outside, most of what I hear is the negative. most successes are out trumpted by the failures, regardless of the the size of the success. So the question on the table this week is this:
Just what do you think the future of DC is right now?
Will Dan Didio be fired? Can they bring themselves out of hole they've dug? For that matter, is it really a hole or is it the media making it more of an issue than anything else?
The blogosphere has been abuzz this week about a few things, but chief among them is once again Grant Morrison, this time in repeat to his comments regarding Final Crisis #1 and its relationship to Countdown and Death of the New Gods. The conversation started here, but it's been touched upon here, here and here, among other places.
In today's world of the superstar writer and artist, is Morrison allowed to simply ignore the year's worth of stories and two series (one of which was quite literally a Countdown to Final Crisis) that played a role in his current book? Is it acceptable for creators to take so long to make a bok so as to require that much lead time? Is it too much to ask that when someone dies in one book they don't turn up as if nothing happened a few scant months later?
At what point does continuity because a beast on your back? Writers like Kurt Busiek and Ed Brubaker have shown that it's more than possible to use continuity yet not be a slave to it (Bru's Captain America is a superb example of this). At what point do we as fans become unreasonable in the demand for continuity?
Leave a comment or two and start discussing these issues that affect the four color worlds we live in.
________________________________________
How important are bookstores to comic books today?
I'm not talking your direct market shops, I'm referring to Barnes & Noble, Border, Amazon.com and the like. We always hear that certain stay alive in the direct market because they sell well in the bookstores (the DC Kids and Marvel Adventures lines are prime examples). Bookstores are also the reasoning for the rise in hardcover editions.
And yet, whenever I go into my local Barnes & Noble or independent bookstore, I still don't see anyone in the graphic novels section. There are many more shelve filled with them now than there used to be, but at best they'll be a young child sitting with some random volume of Bleach. I don't see these high brow consumers that we're told shop in bookstores but not in actual comic shops.
Am I alone in this? Is my store just a fluke? Or is the whole bookstore line an excuse to print more and different versions of reprinted material? It's a fair assumption to think that those who buy TPBs would also buy a hardcover, not to mention those fans who buy every version.
So do bookstores act as a bridge to comics? Are they selling to the same audience just in a different location? Are they selling at all?
BAM! ... You know the internet is running out of ideas to talk about when a blog focuses on the weapon a character holds in the trailer for a movie that isn't even out yet.
_____
Have a great holiday weekend everyone from all of us here at Pink Kryptonite!
We all know that Hollywood is currently having a torrid love affair with comic book movies. Some are are high-profile blockbusters (Iron Man, The Dark Knight) while others are under the radar and often not known to be comic book films (A History of Violence, Road to Perdition). Aside from the fact that most e enjoy a work of art crossing mediums, of what value do these interpretations have?
Do they actively increase sales in the monthly superhero pamphlets or the bookstore graphic novels? Sales records don't seem to bear this out. Do they raise the estimation of the craft? Most comic book movie are mindless action vehicles or the movie-going public is unaware they're based on a comic, so I don't think that's a major faction.
So my question to you all this week is this:
Are comic book/graphic novel adaptations good for the industry or are they just a way to make money in a different venue and don't affect the books positively or negatively?
We all know that there are several gay characters among the Big Two. When discussing homosexuals in comics, the same characters are trotted out ad infinitum: Northstar, Batwoman, Midnighter & Apollo, Ultimate Colussus, Renee Montoya and a few others. There are other gay characters as well, but they're either relegated to the third string (whether they were there before the outing or not) or the storyline where their homosexuality is discussed is more or less removed from the canon.
We all remember the debacle Marvel had on their hands with the Rawhide Kid a few years ago. His stint with being gay didn't even last to the end of the selfsame limited series! At this point the Marvel MAX series about the Kid's being gay has become more of a joke than anything. Even at the time, there was more discussion about why Marvel made this 50 year old character gay than people who actually bought the book.
Obviously, Rawhide Kid's sexuality was a publicity stunt. It didn't work then, but that doesn't stop companies from trying again. I think most people would agree that DC tried a similar tactic with Batwoman. it was certainly nowhere near as egregious as Marvel's attempt years previous, it was a media ploy nonetheless. The fact that good stories have come from it is a step in the right direction, but her sexuality was a reason for DC to get in the papers and little else.
Should a character's sexuality be a focal point of an ad campaign? Should it be the focal point of a book? If it doesn't take center stage, will it invariably fall to the wayside and simply be a footnote in that character's Wikipedia article?
There are characters who have had it done right. The New X-Men's Anole is gay and deals with it from time to time, but it is hardly referenced every time he is on panel. Mystique has preyed on both men and women and reveled in it, using sex as more of a end to her means than anything (though she did seem to have a relationship with the precog Destiny as they were raising a young Rogue). Even John Constantine of Hellblazer has admitted to a "a boy friend or two."
I realize I've only mentioned characters from and DC and this time it's a good thing. Smaller publishers tend to have no problem in centering homosexual characters in their books and spotlighting their lifestyles without making it propaganda. Strangers in Paradise is a perfect example of this, allowing homosexual characters to exist without propping up that soapbox.
So the question this week is this:
Do Marvel and DC do enough to promote legitimate homosexual characters and relationships? Should they be used as publicity stunts until there is wider acceptance? Or does a character's sexuality, be it straight, gay or otherwise, not factor into this in the first place?
Few people in our little circle don't know who Chris Claremont is, but just in case ...
Claremont was the writer of the X-Men and helped to craft their meteoric rise from canceled to industry flagship to Hollywood trend-setter. ALongside artists John Byrne and Terry Austin, the X-Men became a household name in comics and Claremont stayed with the team that made him famous for sixteen years. He remains the record holder for the longest consecutive run on an American comic book.
The problem is that once Claremont left his uncanny muses, his audience has become quite decisive about his output. He's written some novels for the Star Wars and Willow franchises, as well as some work for both DC and Image. Claremont returned to Marvel for two separate stints back on Uncanny X-Men and several spin off books. Most recently he's been writing eXiles and has yet another satellite x-book coming up with a New Mutants-type book called geneXt.
His books tend to sell enough to be profitable, but most reviews of his work now end up with, "His fans will love it and if you're not one yet, don't bother." Critics cite recurring themes becoming redundant after so many uses and complain about the same plot tropes. eXiles seems to be a perfect book for him since it deals with X-Men history - most of which he created anyway.
But is Chris Claremont still the writing juggernaut he once was? Has he lost that spark that gave Marve's mutants their longevity? If so, what can he do to get back to what he did best? Or should he just leave all things X behind and shake things up?
Boy Meets Hero by Chayne Avery and Russell Garcia
