The Comic Books and Comic Book movies thread

orpheus said:
the-nine-comics-everyone-should-be-reading.jpg


The Nine Comics Everyone Should be Reading - Comic Book Resources
Click to expand...

Superior Foes Of Spider-Man is really ****ing funny. It's going to end soon, though. :(
 
adgy-san said:
Good read, thanks for posting the link. I think the author is right on the money, personally, but for me... for the most part, it doesn't bother me. It's pretty rare that I buy a comic based solely on the artist attached to the book. A good artist is very important and can have a serious impact on the book, but I'm going to buy whatever Greg Rucka's name is on regardless of who's drawing it. I think a lot of people feel the same. A good writer can make a book worthwhile even if the art is subpar, but a great artist can only improve a poorly written book so much, you know?
Click to expand...

How many books these days have an above-the-title credit like that? It used to be more of a prestige thing, but has it just become a general marketing trend?

I don't have as clear a perspective on it, due to previously stated reasons. Maybe it is just my age, but I think neither artists nor writers really got significant above-the-title credit until the late '70s or early '80s, in general. Were there exceptions? Will Eisner, perhaps? Of course, that's coincidentally the same time when I personally started to recognize the artists and writers I enjoyed. After that, I went back to see which artists and writers I had loved in the past without paying attention to credit. Anyway, I digress.

I don't think that being a comic book artist, in general, has ever been the most fair or lucrative, with the early days of Image being the notable exception. Although the article does go further into depth, I think the headline, at least, is a little off. It's not as much about the diminishing role of artists, because that, for obvious reasons, cannot be diminished; it's about the diminishing treatment of artists, which, if true, is unfortunate.
 
LetTigerIn said:
How many books these days have an above-the-title credit like that? It used to be more of a prestige thing, but has it just become a general marketing trend?
Click to expand...

On actual, monthly books, it's rare not to see at least the last names of the creative team on the cover. Above the title is relatively common nowadays, too. Almost always with writer and artist both. On trades or collections, it's the same, but you do have trades that are released specifically to collect an author's run on the book fairly often. Especially from Marvel. It got especially bad 5 or so years ago when they would attract non-comic writers to books and then release the trades like this:

51EKou1WbOL._.jpg


DC did that, too. You almost never get a TPB dedicated solely to an artist's run.

I don't have as clear a perspective on it, due to previously stated reasons. Maybe it is just my age, but I think neither artists nor writers really got significant above-the-title credit until the late '70s or early '80s, in general. Were there exceptions? Will Eisner, perhaps? Of course, that's coincidentally the same time when I personally started to recognize the artists and writers I enjoyed. After that, I went back to see which artists and writers I had loved in the past without paying attention to credit. Anyway, I digress.
Click to expand...

I'm not actually sure when that started, or when I first noticed it. I want to say it was probably around the time Image started up that you started seeing the names above the title. In superhero comics, at least. If you're just talking about names on the cover, I don't know when that started, either, but I know Alan Moore's name was on the cover of most of his Swamp Thing run, along with the artist names.

I don't think that being a comic book artist, in general, has ever been the most fair or lucrative, with the early days of Image being the notable exception. Although the article does go further into depth, I think the headline, at least, is a little off. It's not as much about the diminishing role of artists, because that, for obvious reasons, cannot be diminished; it's about the diminishing treatment of artists, which, if true, is unfortunate.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Last month, I saw 2011's All-Star Superman on cable. I thought it had problems, but some things in it were incredibly brilliant, enough that I ended up loving it. I didn't realize until the end credits that it was based on a limited series from the mid-aughts by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely. I bought the collected version in order to compare.
 
LetTigerIn said:
Last month, I saw 2011's All-Star Superman on cable. I thought it had problems, but some things in it were incredibly brilliant, enough that I ended up loving it. I didn't realize until the end credits that it was based on a limited series from the mid-aughts by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely. I bought the collected version in order to compare.
Click to expand...

And Adgy-san unapologetic ode to Morrison begins in 3...2...1...:cheer2:
 
LetTigerIn said:
Last month, I saw 2011's All-Star Superman on cable. I thought it had problems, but some things in it were incredibly brilliant, enough that I ended up loving it. I didn't realize until the end credits that it was based on a limited series from the mid-aughts by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely. I bought the collected version in order to compare.
Click to expand...

It's the best Superman story I've ever read by a ****in' mile.

No apologetic ****s given. :)

I was given the Blu of the animated film for a gift a while ago, but haven't gotten around to watching it yet.
 
I got sidetracked from my reading a little, but, so far, the book is more detailed, as you'd expect. Plus, there are some changes and additions in the movie, presumably for wider appeal (if so, I disapprove), but some of it is only speculation, since I haven't read the whole book yet.

I'm really looking forward to getting near the end. That whole concept really took my breath away. I'm sure you can guess what part. I definitely would not spoil that for anyone. What a moment. I might have shed a tear. Can't remember now, but I'll make note when I reach there in the reading. That and the initial premise were two things that really struck me as inspired.

I don't think you have to be in a rush to watch the Blu. I'm guessing it will be more of an exercise in seeing where they differ. Not that it's terrible, but I was both let down and inspired upon finding out it was based on a Grant Morrison book (author credit over artist, hehe); let down because I was so initially hyped about the cleverness of the movie, but inspired to realize I had a new (old) book I really wanted to read.
 
GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY Movie Images Feature Benicio Del Toro as The Collector and Karen Gillan as Nebula | Collider
14 Things We Learned From The Guardians Of The Galaxy Trailer

What have we learned???? Well let me sum it up for you. That this is just straight up gonna be a lot of fun. And that James Gunn(who, unfairly, is fighting claims of sell-out from his twitter fans) has finally given me back what I have wanted all along...a comic book movie...that LOOKS LIKE A ****ING COMIC BOOK.

Still a lot to see here basically with no real showing of Lee Pace's Ronan, Rooker's Yondu, the Nova corps in action(you see Reilly/Serifinowicz...but C'MON!!! We wanna see the helmets!!!!) and...GLENN CLOSE! I am glad they basically made this a longform version of the footage they showed at SDCC 2013. That was a little tighter and they used Hooked on a Feeling to better effect, but thats minor quibbling. So...those of you who were pessimistic, 'a tree? A violent gun-toting raccoon????', how ya feeling about this now?
 
Last edited:
jerseydevil said:
GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY Movie Images Feature Benicio Del Toro as The Collector and Karen Gillan as Nebula | Collider
14 Things We Learned From The Guardians Of The Galaxy Trailer

What have we learned???? Well let me sum it up for you. That this is just straight up gonna be a lot of fun. And that James Gunn(who, unfairly, is fighting claims of sell-out from his twitter fans) has finally given me back what I have wanted all along...a comic book movie...that LOOKS LIKE A ****ING COMIC BOOK.

Still a lot to see here basically with no real showing of Lee Pace's Ronan, Rooker's Yondu, the Nova corps in action(you see Reilly/Serifinowicz...but C'MON!!! We wanna see the helmets!!!!) and...GLENN CLOSE! I am glad they basically made this a longform version of the footage they showed at SDCC 2013. That was a little tighter and they used Hooked on a Feeling to better effect, but thats minor quibbling. So...those of you who were pessimistic, 'a tree? A violent gun-toting raccoon????', how ya feeling about this now?
Click to expand...

Ok, so after looking at the link in this post:

-The whole "Gamora is essentially a cyborg" is disappointing. She doesn't have any "enhancements" or cybernetics in the comics. I wonder why they decided to give them to her in the movie?
-Similar gripe about Rocket. Why can't they just be aliens with different physical abilities?
-Don't really mind the change in Drax's origin, though I wonder if they're going to try and work in the "Created solely to destroy Thanos" thing. Maybe Thanos is responsibe for his family's death? I also wonder if Gamora's history with Thanos (as his adopted daughter) will make it in somehow.
-****ing Nebula looks way more awesome and badass than she did in the comics.

The gripes about cybernetics are minor, and super-nerdy, and it's not really going to bother me that much, I'm sure. I'm just glad the movie still looks like a ****ing blast.

Going to take a look at those other links now..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Now Chirping

  • No one is chatting at the moment.

Share this page

Back
Top