-
Think OUTSIDE the Box! For the BEST in Repro & Custom Packaging! -
He's always been solid for me. From "Superman" to "Zero Hour" to "Booster Gold" he always tells a good story. Heck I've even enjoyed that "Teen Titans" revival he did.
He just did art for the "Human Bomb" revival. I bought the first issue but couldn't get in to the story to go further than that...Jerry Ordway is VASTLY under-utilized these days.
Others may disagree but his "Power of Shazam" was one of the high points for that character since he's been published by DC...Think OUTSIDE the Box! For the BEST in Repro & Custom Packaging!Comment
-
Power of Shazam is the character's high point at DC since they bought him. Jeff Smith's should have been good, but.... not so much.You must try to generate happiness within yourself. If you aren't happy in one place, chances are you won't be happy anyplace. -Ernie BanksComment
-
Captain Marvel is just a difficult character to get right. Since Crisis, DC has tried to shoehorn him into its regular continuity, but few have been able to make it work, other than Ordway. Johns and Goyer did some good work with him in JSA.
I've enjoyed Johns and Frank's backup story in JL. I don't care for the reworked costume, but the story has been fun, but too drawn out. When it's done and collected, I'd suggest folks trying it.
While it wouldn't sell as a comic, I think a Captain Marvel cartoon withe the tone of the Brave and Bold cartoon might be fun. Or even going more satirical like the old Bullwinkle and Rocky cartoons. Playing off Captain Marvel's innocence and straight forward view might work better if humor was at the forefront as well as adventure.Comment
-
The fact that DC/Warners refuses to exploit Captain Marvel as a kids cartoon just baffles me. It could be their next Ben 10.
Kids love the idea of becoming adult. If they walked in our shoes, they'd change their minds, but hey, kids always have loved this wish-fulfillment idea.
ChrisComment
-
>The fact that DC/Warners refuses to exploit Captain Marvel as a kids cartoon just baffles me.
DC doesn't seem to care for splitting their setting. Either EVERYTHING is for kids, or EVERYTHING isn't for kids. For the last 20 years all their junior reader stuff seems like it's been shuffled off to the side. No doubt to make room for the "real" stories. (Even their WB stuff back in the day didn't get nearly the hype you'd expect.) I suspect this is 'cos they're still married to the late 80's concept of comics.
Don C.Comment
-
^Which is really a near-sighted approach because as much as I enjoy more sophisticated stories even with super heroes, the characters/comics never sold better than when they were intended for children and printed as inexpensively as possibly.
I don't really want comics to be rolled back to the content of the 40s, or 60s or even the 70s or 80s, but it seems there is a balance that could be struck.
Kids of the 70s and early 80s are probably the last group of kids who began getting comics as children, 5- to 10 years old. I'm assuming most new readers today begin in their teens or maybe even older.
If I were a comic company or a licensing company, I'd want to hook the kids on the characters and story format earlier than teens. With web comics, there are even greater opportunities. Just like young kids learned to operate a TV or radio back in the 70s, young children today could learn to look at, read and begin to appreciate comics (web or printed) at an early age.
If I were DC and Marvel, I'd do my very best to have gateway material geared to elementary school kids and even first-year readers. Both companies have a ton of material at their disposal that could be used to develop new comics readers, even help kids to learn to read, period.
It may not be feasible to print the material for sale, but setting up a web comics site that children could access through their schools or even at home through password systems issued at school would be a way to not only introduce comics as a story-telling medium and their characters to kids but also help teach them to read and grow into enjoying to read.
DC and Marvel could use their tamer material from the 50s, 60s, 70s which were geared to kids because of the comics code and even with characters like Superman, Batman and Captain Marvel, material from the 40s. Even if it were only Spidey Super Stories and Super Friends, it would be something.
Selections could be made that are somewhat educational. I truly believe my love for history and literature was cultivated by comics because comics introduced so many literary characters and ideas as well as bits and pieces of history that made me more interested in learning more about them.
Probably will never happen, but sometimes its fun to be a little bit idealistic.Comment
-
I'd wager they are more married to the early 90s concept of comics, given the look and much of the staff they hired for the New 52. Who knows, maybe someone higher at Warners decreed such a thing since that was the last time comic sales spiked. And then of course, there's Jim Lee at the wheel.I suspect this is 'cos they're still married to the late 80's concept of comics.
It does seem a shame that DC doesn't try to hit the middle of the road with titles that aren't "childish" or even cartoon-like. Put some of the more traditional artists on the titles like Jurgens and Ordway, and keep the story content similar to the late 70s early 80s. That way it would appeal to kids and many older fans who don't care for the new "extreme' approach. I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending a "New 52" comic to a kid under the age of, at least 11, honestly.
ChrisComment
-
Yeah, I've got a couple of boxes of comics from the last few years that I thought about donating to my church's youth group, but I don't know if they'd let me attend w/o having to walk the aisle for repentance if I did so, lol.Comment
-
>the characters/comics never sold better than when they were intended for children and printed as inexpensively as possibly.
Well.... sales in the 90's were pretty high, but that was the peak of the speculator boom.
>I'd wager they are more married to the early 90s concept of comics
I think you're right, but the 90's stuff was the end result of the mid to late 80's. It's what happens when the designer comic idea gets taken to it's illogical but inevitable conclusion. People were just as slavishly devoted to Byrne and Miller.... for the same reasons.... as Lee and Liefield; but the earlier guys coming in at the beginning of the wave were still expected to come through with some stories. That got refined down to pure name recogniton in the 90's, scaring off the readers.
>it seems there is a balance that could be struck.
They really should. For a medium to remain healthy you need new readers, and to get new readers you need new content. The problem the Big Two-ish are having is that they're still trapped in the 80's "comics = superheroes, and superheroes work like THIS" mindset. Unfortunately, I think a lot of their long term fans are as well; meaning anything they do that IS different.... and therefore might attract a new reader.... is rapidly poo-poo'd by the fan community. (Usually before it even comes out.) That's why I say the 80's boom was actually the beginning of the end for the Big Two-ish. The formula worked really well for a decade or so, which is pretty good; but it was a kind of scorched earth approach, meaning they couldn't change gears once it came to a halt.
>Kids of the 70s and early 80s are probably the last group of kids who began getting comics as children, 5- to 10 years old.
Nope; and again I must mention "Prince of Tennis." Kids today came into comics AS kids.... with stuff like Yugi-Oh and Dragonball. The Big Two-ish dying off opened the door to stuff kids wanted to read; and a whole new branch of comics came out of it. The oldster fans missed it 'cos of that aforementioned preconception of just what a comic is. The current and preceeding generation of comic readers didn't have that, and comics overall did quite well because of it.
>It does seem a shame that DC doesn't try to hit the middle of the road with titles that aren't "childish" or even cartoon-like.
....or even ones that are. There's enough material there you could be producing books for all ages and tastes if you wanted.
>If I were DC and Marvel, I'd do my very best to have gateway material geared to elementary school kids
That goes with the previous point too. The reason the Japanese stuff won for the last decade was PRECISELY THIS. They brought in material for the kids, and added new stuff appropriate for their aging readers. They also published material for a wide variety of readers, printed it cheaply and made it readily available.
So yeah; the plan works. Works damned well. But that's where I think the Big Two-ish.... AND their fans.... are stuck in a cognitive rut. We keep getting more of the same, slightly tweaked. I don't think going back to the older stuff that WE read as kids is a good idea either. It's not relevant. You need new stuff for new readers. And I don't think "cartoon like" is exactly a problem for the current comic generation, considering the books that have been winning. That's a holdover from the old ways too. (You can draw big eyes if you're Art Adams or Bret Blevins, but not if you're Osamu Tezuka....)
>With web comics, there are even greater opportunities.
There really is, but the bigger companies operate under a profit model that doesn't let them utilize the web. There's a whole HUGE web comic culture going on out there; big and diverse.
>Put some of the more traditional artists on the titles like Jurgens and Ordway, and keep the story content similar to the late 70s early 80s. That way it would appeal to kids and many older fans who don't care for the new "extreme' approach.
I don't think that's a good idea at all. It's still living in the past. (Even the "extreme" refrence.) It's still more of the same.... that doesn't work. I might use guys like Ordway, not for the name.... nobody under 40 is gonna care.... but because he does delightful work. (You'd have to find a good match story-wise for him though. I might not put him on the Punisher. Or maybe I would, just to see what happens....) You need to find what kids want NOW; not what we wanted as kids. What you propose might make the oldsters like us happy, but if kids really wanted to see 70's style stuff they'd go to the book store and buy some compilations of 70's stuff. Or back issues.
It's a shame that all the old crowd; fans and pros, got form the Japanees stuff was "big eyes and speed lines" since there's a lot of good storytelling technique there. Stuff that could be used by anyone, and stuff that the current crop of comic fans grew up on. (It's also a shame that comics from Britain, France and Italy get so little play here; for the same reason.)
>I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending a "New 52" comic to a kid under the age of, at least 11
Which makes sense, since way back when it started they said their target audience was males, late teens to early twenties. In other words, the same old crowd from the late 80's.
*sigh*
>I'VE been embarrassed by some of the stuff I've read in the last couple of years!
Haw! I grew up on stuff like Howard Cruse, Reed Waller and Robert Crumb. For me the New 52 rates as a wishy-washy attempt to be controversial and "mature."
....which is my OTHER big peeve with the Big Two-ish; every so often they get it in their minds to go all grownup and controversioal, and then they halfass it with material artificially punched up and riddled with plausible deniability. Resulting in "grownup" stories with no appeal to an older reader, but too questionable for younger ones.
That's not new, I've had that problem with them since I was a kid. (Hence why I didn't care for superheroes as a youngster.) It still bugs me though.
*grrrr!*
Don C.Last edited by ctc; Feb 23, '13, 11:12 AM.Comment
-
Sales were high in the early 90s, but comics across the board had better sales numbers in the 1940s and it wasn't the same book with 8 different covers. Readers weren't buying multiple copies at the time either. Many comics bought in the 90s have never been read, while publishers in the 40s assumed each issue had multiple readers. Though it was diminishing, comics were still available in drug, grocery and convenience stores into the early 1990s. It was the implosion and consolidation of distributors caused by the collapse of the speculator market that closed the door on widespread distribution comics in venues other than comic stores.well.... sales in the 90's were pretty high, but that was the peak of the speculator boom.]
Manga maybe be a big deal where you live, but it doesn't really register where I do. Now, if you are speaking of the cartoons that were inspired by manga, no doubt. But, that's off the point of comics as a medium. Cartoons is a different story-telling medium than cartoons even if using the same characters. Super heroes are more prevalent today than ever, but in terms of children reading comics of any sort the numbers just aren't there.Nope; and again I must mention "Prince of Tennis." Kids today came into comics AS kids.... with stuff like Yugi-Oh and Dragonball
That's the excuse, but it's actually their closed minds. American comics companies better find a way to capitalize on the digital format or they will eventually find themselves without an audience.There really is, but the bigger companies operate under a profit model that doesn't let them utilize the web
"Grown-up" and controversial don't necessarily equate to sex and profanity and violence in my mind, which I guess is what DC has added. Certainly, those subjects can be handled in a grown-up or mature way, but I've found when the word mature is used with American comics, it reads more prurient, adolescent or even boorish to me.which is my OTHER big peeve with the Big Two-ish; every so often they get it in their minds to go all grownup and controversioal, and then they halfass it with material artificially punched up and riddled with plausible deniability. Resulting in "grownup" stories with no appeal to an older reader, but too questionable for younger ones.Comment
-
Larfleeze Is Probably my Favorite Character Created in the Last 6yrs or so...
I Think He is so Awesome, Hell ..., I even Made a Custom Mego Of him, and 2 this Date the Only 1 I've seen. lol. I really liked the GL Toon Today with his Guest Shot too.
Where as the Rest of the Labled "Skittle Rainbowed" Out Corps can seem somewhat Reduntant...., Because of the Advarce Personality Swing ..., I just think its a Fun Read...., And Fun Really doesn't even Exsist Anymore in Comics, or is just far and few between.
I'd Be real Interested in that Book ...., Even With Kolins Drawing It..., Which in Recent Years, I have just not been a Real Fan of Kolins..., Too Messy for My Interests..., I wish He would Tone it down a Touch like his More so Previous Work.
I won't even Bat an Eye At the Rest. ...Last edited by BlackKnight; Feb 23, '13, 1:48 PM.... The Original Knight ..., Often Imitated, However Never Duplicated. The 1st Knight in Customs.
always trading for Hot Toys Figures .
Comment
-
Your Lar Fleeze is an excellent figure. I think the character works well off of other characters, but for me, I don't know if if a solo title with him would hold my interest. Kollins' art would be a hindrance to me, too. But, it might be really good.
I was encouraged by an article I read yesterday about Green Lantern. maybe this Venditti guy can do something good with Hal. http://www.newsarama.com/comics/new-...interview.htmlComment
-
>It was the implosion and consolidation of distributors caused by the collapse of the speculator market that closed the door on widespread distribution comics in venues other than comic stores.
That was definitely part of it, but you had the squeeze start earlier.... back in the 70's to some degree. Notable for the "DC Implosion," but times were tough all around. Until Star Wars. It comes and goes; during the late 70's the Big Two-ish rode the wave and won. We're at the cusp of another implosion and it's kind of up in the air who's gonna win this time. But SOMEONE will; thanks to wider distribution and ther advent of compilations/book store copies comics in general have been doing quite well.
>Manga maybe be a big deal where you live, but it doesn't really register where I do.
SOMEBODY'S buying all them books.... The Japanese stuff doesn't go at comic shops, so if that's where you frequent then there wouldn't be anything; but bookstores did brisk business, and I think a lot of kids picked them up online. At any rate; the stuff sold phenominally for a long time, and still does well. There was such a staggering amount of material published it couldn't have been a small cadre of hardcore fans fuelling the industry; especially since there's no value in buying multiple copies.
>Super heroes are more prevalent today than ever, but in terms of children reading comics of any sort the numbers just aren't there.
That's true; and I think for the Japanese stuff the reason they worked together better is 'cos there's always been a tighter connection between them. A lot of the big animation studios were owned by the same folks producing the comics. So there's been a tendency for a more direct translation from comic to cartoon. Here, each new cartoon series creates it's own identity; tweaking the story and altering the mix. It worked okay back in the day because "continuity" wasn't the big buzz word. After the 80's you had folks attracted to the big story arcs in the comics, so in the 90's you had them try adding them to the cartoons; with mixed results. Someone following one would be somewhat baffled by the other, 'cos of the differences and the expectations that whatever version they'd seen was "THE" version. I suyspect that's why you see the comics drift closer to the movie versions whenever a big film comes out; they're trying to shorten the divide so's to pull in some of the film audience. As to why millions of folks seeing a "Batman" movie doesn;t translate into thousands of new readers; I'm at a loss to explain. You'd think there'd be a bit of crossover; due to volume if nothing else.
>"Grown-up" and controversial don't necessarily equate to sex and profanity and violence in my mind, which I guess is what DC has added. Certainly, those subjects can be handled in a grown-up or mature way, but I've found when the word mature is used with American comics, it reads more prurient, adolescent or even boorish to me.
I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I usually giggle when I see "For Mature Audiences" on the cover of anything the Big Two-ish produce. I stil feel that the only real mature audience book the Big Two-ish ever put out was "Marvels."
Don C.Comment
Tweet
Comment