Fantastic Four: TWGCM >> View Post
Post By
America's Captain 

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,515
In Reply To
Iron Maiden 

Member Since: Sun Nov 02, 2003
Posts: 4,841
Subj: Re: Fantastic 3: Moongirl and Devil Dino
Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 at 05:12:38 pm EDT (Viewed 155 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Fantastic 3: Moongirl and Devil Dino
Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 at 03:45:49 pm EDT (Viewed 135 times)

    I think the Star Wars line has taken a lot of their better artists. I have noticed that DC seems to keep a better roster of artists lately though. I think some of it may be due to Axel Alonso. I seem to recall he has a preference for "indy" style artists. And then Alonso also made a badly expressed remark about artists
    "There are fewer artists that impact sales than there are writers, Alonso said, and they’re harder to promote. “It’s harder to pop artists these days,” he said. “There is no apparatus out there. There is no Wizard Magazine out there that told you who the hot top 10 were. We don’t have that anymore. We can hype our artists all we want, but I don’t know if we know how many artists, besides maybe McNiven and Coipel, absolutely move the needle on anything to be drawn."

Wizard was definitely useful to the comics companies. But I think Marvel has also noticed that the biggest fan favorite artists (with a few exceptions) have trouble with deadlines. Writers are different. When a book is late, it is almost always because of the artist and almost never because of the writer (Kevin Smith being a ridiculous exception). Also artists make more per page. So if you focus your hype on writers you (a) don't create a demand for habitually late artists and (b) you don't find yourself beholden to an artist who already makes more per page than most writers and will start to demand even more per page.

    I understand what he's follow the writers to a great extent. But I think it has to be a balance. Marvel used to have a house style, which was everyone follow Kirby's lead. DC had a house style too I imagine. I consider myself "old school". There are some artist that IMO are too stylized for my taste and detract from the story. I also think Marvel puts too much stock in Bendis. They have a lot of new writers on staff and guys like Brubaker and Hickman have gone back to their creator owned stuff.

Bendis supposedly is high in demand, although I've never fully trusted that impression. To take one example: If you can't sell an Avengers book that has both Spider-Man and Wolverine on the cover, your stories must really be unbearably horrible. Which, by the way, they were, in my opinion. But the average fan is apparently more forgiving. Jokes, explosions, mysteries, and sights they never thought they would see are apparently enough for the average fan. They don't care about the emotional intensity, prolonged suspense or highly choreographed fights that used to be the core of what a Marvel comic was. They just want things they can talk about on the internet. Bendis cynically gives it to them, pushing comics downward toward the lowest common denominator.

    As for the Moon Girl title, linked above in the coming attractions, they have a different distribution deal from what I understand. They don't just deal with Diamond Distributers. They also work with Scholastic Books for younger readers. I checked out the issue with Doom a while back and IMO it's a cute book, not quite canon but in some kind of grey area. I think it's harmless and a nice all ages book. That's how you try to get the fans of the future.

Based on the preview, this Moon Girl arc is setting up a Moon Girl, Ben, and Johnny team, which, perhaps amazingly, really seems like it would make a fun (and perhaps even successful) cartoon.

Posted with Google Chrome 61.0.3163.100 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software