The Comic Book Audience: Does anyone here side with or disagree with what this creator is saying?

[The S0/\/\@7ic Si/\/\[]Dl370n]

I'd say so, yes. To both questions.
One couldn't even say that raising a level of inclusivity would even be at risk of hurting sales, but still I'd think it most certainly just or not unfair, to be pointing out the Big 2 as apparently the least inclined onto becoming more inclusive or more progressive, of any publishers of whatever type of product or at least where reading or entertainment would be concerned.

The publishers or overseeing part to such mind you, so not necessarily the creative department as comprized of all the artists and writers. But their job would seem to work timely until getting paid what they'd get, with holding themselves to their contracts if any.

And I would think it could also be said that the Big 2 would be in business not solely for the sake or state of comics or stories and/or creativity, nor for the sake of fans, but for milking what properties or copyrights they can be to milk for the sake of exploiting what business and market influence they could be to have or get.

Just like how Facebook isn't merely for *social use*, or how Hotmail or Yahoo wouldn't merely be for creating proper email accounts with, but instead they'd primarily get maintained or realized so their corporate proprietors realize themeselves influence and marketability.
Any media platforms from like the 1800s up to now (print, radio and tv, internet) have all primarily functioned as business platforms in themselves, by means of popularization and monopolization and market shares. So most popular or most sold won't hardly mean *best* or *most beneficial* necessarily at all.

Is is really the first time any of that would be dawning on you?

How does deliberately chaining themselves to a limited (and stagnant) cultural/racial demographic help them grow or benefit as a business?

One would think that, as businesses that answer to shareholders, they would be doing anything they can in order to gain an expanded, larger potential market and potentially generate more income.

And really? DC and and Marvel would actually be hurting their sales by publishing/promoting more Black, Asian, Latino and LGTBT heroes in their comics?

Translation: "Is it marketable?" If the layout is boring tbe answer is no.

Part of the quote in the OP is about sales. If the writer is self honest enough to hire a deaf queer artist with the layout of Will Eisner with a touch of Steranko with finishes like Lucien Freud or Bradstreet, the author will see a rise in sales, full stop.


Sales went down on X Men and Marvel brought in Adams and Palmer. BOOM! Sales up.

It's a style, same as the infinite number of art styles in comics. And no one has seemingly trashed it, given the book's gotten plenty of high praise. Plus that's just one page.

There have been tons of issues in Bendis books where the characters have done literally nothing but sit/stand around and talk throughout the whole issue, and they still sell in the top 10.

There have been tons upon tons of books with some of the best art (coupled with the best writing) have still tanked.

[TroubleWithTrebles]

They would be if those books had boring layout and looked like some production assistant at HuffPost did the art.

[The S0/\/\@7ic Si/\/\[]Dl370n]

They would be if those books had boring layout and looked like some production assistant at HuffPost did the art.

You see this?

http://comicsalliance.com/xombi-1-make-preview/

http://www.goodcomicbooks.com/interv...bis-john-rozum

http://io9.com/5804991/in-this-previ...rtal-meets-god

That still tanked. Critical acclaim, plus the artist was coming off a highly-praised Batman run. Yet, it didn't even make it past 7 issues.

And also, how do you explain Swamp Thing's low sales?

[The S0/\/\@7ic Si/\/\[]Dl370n]

And you avoid the point that the xombi art is TWICE as good, or more than the sample in the OP, which means the art and project in the OP is thus bound to do half as well as Xombi.

The point is that Xombi still tanked. HARD.

Getting "top-notch" art (unless the artist is some mega-popular superstar artist) is not going to all of a sudden solve this book's problems.

As I said, there have been tons upon tons of books with some of the best art, and coupled with the best writing, that have still tanked or failed to catch on.

[TroubleWithTrebles]

And books with bad art where the tanked sales went way up when Adams was put on board. Which balances exactly against your point.

[Kees_L]

How does deliberately chaining themselves to a limited (and stagnant) cultural/racial demographic help them grow or benefit as a business?

No. I said that apparently they'd rather exclude if not alienate potential reading populaces entirely.
Or they wouldn't have mainly persisted at being 'slowest in class' at proving the least bit inclusive or progressive at all, even way beyond the 1950s and '60s, as up to this day and age.

And really? DC and and Marvel would actually be hurting their sales by publishing/promoting more Black, Asian, Latino and LGTBT heroes in their comics?

If you read the second line of my post you quoted you see I was stating the exact opposite of that:

One couldn't even say that raising a level of inclusivity would even be at risk of hurting sales, but still I'd think it most certainly just or not unfair, to be pointing out the Big 2 as apparently the least inclined onto becoming more inclusive

I've said it once before in this thread but. At times you've come across as almost willfully avoidant in this discussion, but if you honestly didn't get what I was saying, I shouldn't hold such against you. Please read a little more carefully 'though, if you could.

Is English not your first language? is my English so poor? Or how swiftly are you skimming posts you'd however choose to be replying to? Lemme repeat, as politely as possible: please read a little more carefully, if you could.

[Brian Cronin]

Calm the rhetoric down, folks, and avoid the use of profanity.

[ExcelsiorPrime]

They would be if those books had boring layout and looked like some production assistant at HuffPost did the art.

I am curious..what does a NON-boring page layout have? not being funny..I would like to know.

So I can avoid making one.

[Mister Mets]

To answer the thread question, I disagree with what the artist is saying. Very few people in comics will immediately make a living telling their stories without compromise.

There are probably other reasons his first project isn't selling well, a problem that's been faced by many professionals in the past.

His tone is negative, which doesn't exactly make me want to check out work inspired his worldview.

It's possible that I've missed out on some significant trends like hiring voiceover actors for trailers, or the significance of comicbookroundup.com, but it could also be that this guy's impression that this leads to success demonstrates that he has a few blind spots in his understanding of the industry.

A mistake in the promotional material is that he focuses on his own difficulties, as well as shortcomings in other comics, over what makes this project so worthwhile. Even with that, the hook "college girl struggles to overcome homicidal tendencies" just isn't terribly compelling for me.

If he can draw 2-4 pages a day at a level that merits publication at Image, he has other ways to build name recognition. I'm sure there are some name writers who want to make a creator-owned project at a faster rate than twelve issues a month. So that would be something for Larime Taylor to explore as a paying gig.

[TroubleWithTrebles]

To Legato: Example from crime drama: the baseball bat scene from Violent Cases, and the quiet speaking only scenes (with the Doctor) on other pages of that book.

The way Denys Cowan had the Question follow a suspect, without any action or costumes.

Killraven by P Craig Russell, including 'talking only" pages. Anything by him, really.

Concerns about pregnancy pages in Walking Dead WHEN variations in camera angle and "distance" has more rather than less variety.

The less "over the top" pages of the current Inhumans series.

Half of the non whimsical books by Oni Press.

Any of the top 10 EC Crime books (since this series in this thread is crime not horror).

Half of what Brereton does.

More later...

[TroubleWithTrebles]

To answer the thread question, I disagree with what the artist is saying. Very few people in comics will immediately make a living telling their stories without compromise.

There are probably other reasons his first project isn't selling well, a problem that's been faced by many professionals in the past.

His tone is negative, which doesn't exactly make me want to check out work inspired his worldview.

It's possible that I've missed out on some significant trends like hiring voiceover actors for trailers, or the significance of comicbookroundup.com, but it could also be that this guy's impression that this leads to success demonstrates that he has a few blind spots in his understanding of the industry.

A mistake in the promotional material is that he focuses on his own difficulties, as well as shortcomings in other comics, over what makes this project so worthwhile. Even with that, the hook "college girl struggles to overcome homicidal tendencies" just isn't terribly compelling for me.

If he can draw 2-4 pages a month at a level that merits publication at Image, he has other ways to build name recognition. I'm sure there are some name writers who want to make a creator-owned project at a faster rate than twelve issues a month. So that would be something for Larime Taylor to explore as a paying gig.

Yes, yes and yes. The quality of the writing is separate from any problems in the art.

And like many great screenwriters who try to direct their own films and don't do as well as when a trained director is at the helm, Larime and anyone else should accept that no matter what tools are used, a talent for composing shots, and body language within those shots, and how those relate to panel structure, is a separate innate talent, and you have it or you don't, like perfect pitch in singing.

[The S0/\/\@7ic Si/\/\[]Dl370n]

No. I said that apparently they'd rather exclude if not alienate potential reading populaces entirely.
Or they wouldn't have mainly persisted at being 'slowest in class' at proving the least bit inclusive or progressive at all, even way beyond the 1950s and '60s, as up to this day and age.



If you read the second line of my post you quoted you see I was stating the exact opposite of that:


I've said it once before in this thread but. At times you've come across as almost willfully avoidant in this discussion, but if you honestly didn't get what I was saying, I shouldn't hold such against you. Please read a little more carefully 'though, if you could.

Is English not your first language? is my English so poor? Or how swiftly are you skimming posts you'd however choose to be replying to? Lemme repeat, as politely as possible: please read a little more carefully, if you could.

My mistake. Read that as "could" instead of "couldn't" for some reason. Honestly, the way you worded some of your posts sort came off as a defense for said business practices when I viewed them. I apologize.

And books with bad art where the tanked sales went way up when Adams was put on board. Which balances exactly against your point.

And?

One example does absolutely nothing to negate the fact there have still been plenty of books with good art (plus good writing) that have bombed and tanked.

Good art and/or good writing alone doesn't help a book.

And did you say Adams?

Sales went down on X Men and Marvel brought in Adams and Palmer. BOOM! Sales up.

As in Neal "X-Men vol. 1" Adams? Wherein he did absolutely nothing to save the book and it still ended up cancelled?

On top of that, I definitely wouldn't consider art from the likes of Jack Kirby and Don Heck "bad" for whatever reason.

[TroubleWithTrebles]

My mistake. Read that as "could" instead of "couldn't" for some reason. Honestly, the way you worded some of your posts sort came off as a defense for said business practices when I viewed them. I apologize.



And?

One example does absolutely nothing to negate the fact there have still been plenty of books with good art (plus good writing) that have bombed and tanked.

Good art and/or good writing alone doesn't help a book.

And did you say Adams?



As in Neal "X-Men vol. 1" Adams? Wherein he did absolutely nothing to save the book and it still ended up cancelled?

On top of that, I definitely wouldn't consider art from the likes of Jack Kirby and Don Heck "bad" for whatever reason.

I always cite Kirby as an ultimate source of reference and a Great from whom to take inspiration, and he stopped full pencils EARLY in the X Men, and Heck is not in Kirby's tier at all, so no.

So, although you jump around a lot and fire questions willy nilly, we should not let you evade THIS one: while complaining that he is not making the same $ as people who trained themselves specifically for comics, how long has Larami been doing fully sequential pages?

[Mister Mets]

Yes, yes and yes. The quality of the writing is separate from any problems in the art.

And like many great screenwriters who try to direct their own films and don't do as well as when a trained director is at the helm, Larime and anyone else should accept that no matter what tools are used, a talent for composing shots, and body language within those shots, and how those relate to panel structure, is a separate innate talent, and you have it or you don't, like perfect pitch in singing.

I think we disagree on his artistic merits. It is worth noting that this is his first sequential work.

That said, at the moment, I think he has more value as an artist than as a writer.

His work is serviceable. I don't believe anyone is going to seek out his comics for his unique style, so he's not gong to break out the way Mike Mignola, or Jonathan Hickman did. But he's fast.

There may be a project out there where the ability to draw 36 issues worth of content in an year is important to a name writer. That would be a potential break for him.

[TroubleWithTrebles]

As for Swamp Thing, the drop in sales seems to correspond to the book becoming far more pagan (than supernatural with pagan elements) at a time when Conservatism is thriving. In the 70s you get The Ladt Unicorn and Wizards, then at the height of Reagan you get GI JOE and things that go boom.