The Roundtable 4.17.04
Posted by Ben Morse on 04.17.2004
Reactions to the Wildstorm cancellations, more bad news for CG & more
NOTE: The individual opinions of each Roundtable contributor is their own, and is not representative of anybody but that contributor. Erik Larsen responds to Marvel’s ICON on Newsarama
John Babos (co-writer of Near Mint Memories): Erik Larsen is being pretty big about this whole thing.
While I don't mean to romanticize the comics business, Marvel is not being a good corporate citizen by poaching from other companies, BUT the invite-only nature of ICON makes it an attractive pitch for creators considering Marvel exclusivity. We may get some good new stuff or some existing creator owned projects by hot Marvel-exclusive creators. It’s a good business move for Marvel, but it’s the "how", in terms of how one conducts business, that's my issue around ICON.
If this was DC doing this (i.e. poaching), I can't help but feel that online fanboys and girls would be going nuts - you know the whole "AOL Comics" nonsense.
I think ICON may the kick-in-the-pants Image needs to kick their creative plans into high gear. DC too. Competition is good, no question.
In the end, this whole thing could be good for the industry. Right now, it’s only good for Marvel and established creators (that go exclusive with them). Hopefully, Image will do more for the little guy or creator trying to break in, since ICON doesn't. Maybe DC should start doing something in that vein too to advance creator rights a bit more, particularly for newbies.
It’s easy to take "risks" on established talent's pitching creator-owned projects. The challenge is the newbie projects. Image will still be the standard bearer for creator rights in this business.
Way to go Erik. Your comments look good on you and Image.
What ties Marvel, DC, Image and the others together: their collective challenge of getting more people and new people buying and reading comics. That's why I think being a good corporate citizen AND making good business moves for your company are mutually important, not mutually exclusive. Hopefully we'll see more cooperation in the future beyond FCBD [Free Comic Book Day].
Tim Stevens (writer of DC News & Views): That perspective strikes me as a little odd. The only group of people I ever heard actually call DC "AOL Comics" was Marvel, Bill Jemas specifically. The bulk of ill will these days is aimed toward Marvel. I do agree that such an announcement would probably not be hailed as such a wonderful step in the right direction at DC but I think that has more to do with people generally being used to DC getting great pick ups (creators, Wildstorm) so it would strike people as less unique. But people shouting their outrage if this was DC? That strikes me as highly unlikely.
Wow, I just re-read my response. That is some of the worst writing...ever. Still I stand by what I said. I severely doubt DC would be raked over the coals for such a move. Am I missing some severe anti-DC rhetoric and if so, where is it?
Gary Day (411 reviewer): Big deal. Bendis feels this is the way he wants to go with Powers. As far as Kabuki, well, we'll be lucky to see 2 issues of that, given Mack's track record. We may see a few assorted mini-series out of the Icon imprint, but Marvel has alienated way too many creative types for there to be any sort of rush to
publish for them.
Although it is kind of interesting to watch Brian Bendis turn into something like Stan Lee back in the 60's--one writer pretty much dominating the entire line, setting the tone and driving the stories. CrossGen pulls out of Free Comic Book Day 3
John Babos: I think it’s pretty sad, but it’s a business decision by CG. Although, I think American Power was doomed even before it launched due to Internet and Comic Fanatic hypocrites. I think that Chuck Dixon is right when he writes that "it astounds me that you can publish any kind of stories you want trashing the USA and be
lauded as 'daring.' But portray terrorists as the animal scum they are and you're dragged over the coals."
I've contributed to the debate at Newsarama on this by posting the following:
"While I can understand the initial concern about how terrorists would be portrayed in AP and whether this would further stereotyping or racializing of certain communities, Chuck's point is valid. Joe Kelly was lauded for being "bold" with his Superman vs. Prez
Bush/LL issue of JLA, BUT was only criticized because the story was not told effectively enough. CG can censor itself for sure, but it’s the net hypocrites that condemn AP (before they read an actual issue), and in same breath laud Joe Kelly for his JLA issue, that should give their own heads a shake. I'd have more respect for the pro-Kelly-JLA-Bush/LL-comic "fans" if they stuck to the principles of creator rights that they purport to and support the right to produce AP in the first place. Dixon is the victim of a double standard by "fans". Pot-kettle-black-period."
Tim Stevens: This is too bad. It is a shame that CrossGen won't have any representation of the table for Free Comic Book Day, especially with the string of bad luck that has recently befallen them. A little interest generating might have been a nice morale boost.
However, (and very unsurprisingly), my focus is the whole "censorship" issue in reference to American Power. The 'net has rather quickly devolved into two main camps: those than like Tron and those that love Tron...I mean, those that are pleased to see AP fall by the wayside and those that bemoan it as an act of censorship and that anyone who is happy to see it not be published is anti-American, anti-Free Speech, etc.
First off, if it is not a satire (which I still think it was to be), then I get not being interested in the book. I understand that for a lot of people, anything having to do with being commercial in reference to terrorism or September 11th is a touchy subject. I assume that for many who do not agree with the "message" of AP (which is believed to be, if it hits us, we hit it, although that remains an unproven assumption) the book becomes all the more difficult to view rationally. Thus, I would argue that those happy to see it go are not necessarily celebrating censorship or the crushing of the First Amendment. It is like this, if I hear tomorrow that Rush Limbaugh is off the radio, I am more than a little pleased. Now, if it turns out to be an act of censorship, then yes, I am opposed to his removal from the airwaves. So my first gut reaction is pleasure, sure, but in the end, I still am for free speech, regardless of who is doing it.
It is disappointing to me to see Dixon jump on the "they're Anti-American" bandwagon as well. I am already on the record with my love for the man's work, but his politics...eh. Anyway, the idea hinted at in his comments is basically a retread of the "with us or against us" mentality…as if, because people didn't want to see AP or were uncomfortable with it, they are weird or wrong.
Which is kind of why the disappearance of AP is too bad. It was another perspective that some people didn't share and/or didn't agree with. If the book was cancelled purely on the basis of pre-release controversy, it is a damn shame. If it was a satire or jingoistic or even handed or whatever it ended up being, it still had a right to be on that shelf.
What? American Power? Well, yeah, it's a shame that we won't get to see it... now nobody will ever know whether all the controversy was actually meaningful or not.
But I did really love Tron.
Kevin Rapp (411 reviewer): Paul O' Brien on American Power's cancellation
He's got some good thoughts, well worth reading.
The book was (at least the cover was) purposefully offensive propaganda, using 9/11 as a shameless marketing tactic. I'm not sorry it's gone.
A major argument for the book was citing the Captain America slugging Hitler event, to which I address with the following point.
That was the 1940's. There were a LOT of things that were more socially acceptable then (like having a separate drinking fountain labeled "Colored", for instance). Newsflash: It's 2004.
During the war, there was a Warner Bros. cartoon called "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips", where Bugs Bunny called some Japanese soldiers "slant-eyes" and "monkeyface". Right now, if Mickey Mouse started calling people "towelheads", there'd be a complete shitstorm about it, and understandably so. Saying "but it was okay 60 years ago!" isn't a valid defense. You might as well just say "why can't we be socially reprehensible now?"
Gary Day: I haven't really been following the AP issue that closely, since what I've seen and read about the title pretty much turned me off. It basically struck me as Chuck Dixon spewing some right wing rhetoric (as he is occasionally wont to do), which is not something I care to dirty my hands with. Having said that--I think Dixon and CrossGen have every right to create and publish whatever their hearts desire. If people find it tasteless or offensive, too bad. They're welcome to voice their opinions about it and no one will force them to shell out the sheckels for it if they don't want to. But no one has a right to say that it shouldn't be done.
The greater issue of the developments at CrossGen is something I have paid attention to, since I used to be an avid fan of the Sigilverse, and I was an enthusiastic supporter of theirs for quite a while. However, it's clear they lost their vision when they first ran out of money. If at some point they do end up closing up shop (as seems likely now), they won't be missed, since they've already pretty much killed everything that made the company special to begin with.
I'd just like to be the first one to put forth the notion that the ever-acquisitive DC buy up all the Sigilverse properties, hire Tony Bedard as editorial coordinator for the line, and bring 'em back, done right. Negation, Mystic, Meridian and Scion deserve another shot at glory. She-Hulk given the green light through issue #12
Paul Sebert (writer of Marvel News & Views): Personally I think this is great news as well, I snagged an advance copy of issue #2 last week, and, well, I can't quite remember the last time I laughed so hard at a comic. Batman City of Light maybe, but unlike BCoL, She Hulk's a comedy. DC cancels Wildcats Version 3.0 and suspends all future trade paperbacks citing poor sales
Jesse Baker (411 reviewer): This is a big ass deal since Wildcats, not counting Sleeper, which is a series of mini-series, has been Wildstorm's most critically acclaimed ongoing series. And it also sends a "nothing is safe" message that we all should be aware of.
If DC can arbitrarily cancel Wildcats due to "low sales", who's to say that they won't cancel Sleeper? Or Stormwatch?
Furthermore this sends the message YET AGAIN that quality risk-taking books like Wildcats (which was a s---book until Casey took it over and gave it a distinct voice and made it a quality level book that took chances with the way it presented super-heroes) get cancelled while s--- by the numbers and utterly banal spandex books like Outsiders keep getting published.
Kevin Rapp: Jesse pretty much nailed my thoughts on it.
So much for trying something interesting in superhero comics. The lack of fan interest in anything remotely different makes it really easy for people who want good stories to be apathetic about mainstream comics. But, hey, bring on more Jim Lee comics, right?
Let's hope the marketing pushes and quick trades keep Sleeper above the red. And let's hope for the best for enjoyable Vertigo books like the Losers, which may not survive, either. And let's hope that the trend of not trying interesting superhero books doesn't continue with Brian K. Vaughan's Ex Machina, which looks to be the most promising and interesting new book of 2004.
That's a lot of hoping...
Ben Morse (co-Editor-In-Chief of 411, writer of The Watchtower): I will certainly mourn the passing of Wildcats (even if I didn’t read it), but I hardly think it’s fair to blame us fans who enjoy Jim Lee comics. To make a statement like that is both elitist and also ignorant of the way the free market economy works.
Rapp: You missed the point, I think, Ben.
The statement was criticizing the trend of putting flashy art with a story that isn't even pretending it's accomplishing anything besides showing off flashy art (a.k.a the 90's style, a.k.a. Hush). For me, there's no substance to these comics (they're like cotton candy, tasty but complete fluff). Wildcats, however, had substance and something to say. It was a take on superheroes that was fresh, innovative, and exciting.
Criticizing such a trend is not ignorant of the economy, not even remotely, since this trend CRASHED the industry, remember? I'd consider that to be considerably well aware of the economy.
I was not blaming fans of Jim Lee for Wildcats' demise, I was criticizing fans who want nothing more than safe corporate superheroes that have nothing interesting to say (this is for blind followers of X-Books as much as it is for people who only read Jim Lee books as much as it is for people who only read the Superman titles). Get outside the bubble, people.
It may be an elitist point, but what's wrong with elitism, anyway?
Morse: You defeat yourself with your own argument, Kevin. You ask people to get outside the bubble of their "safe" old-fashioned super heroes, yet you refuse to get outside your own bubble that does not include those titles. At the very least you are saying it is wrong to like one thing and right to like another, something no one person or even group of people have the right to do.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you're approaching this very subjectively, not at all objectively...which, again, is your right.
As far as economically, while I see your viewpoint of what crashed the market before, basing cancellation of books on what a small “elite” group of fans deem good as opposed to appealing to the consumer majority is just poor business.
Matt Morrison (writer of Looking To The Stars): Ignoring the contention that Hush was mindless fluff (Jeph Loeb is, for my money, one of the best writers working today), I've got to challenge the whole argument, Kevin.
As for what's wrong with being an elitist... well, that's another thing that killed the industry in part. Sure, it's easy to blame everyone copying Liefeld and the swarm to put out as many #1 titles as possible regardless of quality, putting art over the story and everything else for the fall of the comic book market. And to be sure, those were factors. But the elitists played a part too. And I don't just mean the elitists who would sooner be found in a bathtub with their kidneys removed and soiled diaper around them then... gasp, actually read a traditional superhero book that might actually be good! I mean the elitists who see no reason why Chris Claremont should make his work more accessible to the new readers. I mean the elitists who see no reason why a whole page should be wasted on "Previously on Daredevil..." I'm talking about the elitists who mock every single move made by the companies as "an attempt to sell out". It's the freaking business world, folks. If they don't make money, they can't keep printing the artsy fartsy crap YOU like.
Now I'll admit to having never read an issue of Wildcats 3.0. Why? Two reasons. First, I never liked Wildcats in any incarnation. In fact, I've never really been fond of the Wildstorm Universe except for the rare issues of Gen 13 written by somebody who realized the book worked best as a satire. (James Robinson comes to mind) The second reason, is that I've never really liked Joe Casey's work on anything...
I know, this makes me a raging heretic and I'm sure I'll get a lot of angry e-mail over this. It's the same way with Gotham Central. I think Ed Brubaker is a brilliant writer and I liked what I read of his stuff. The fact is, me personally, I'd rather read Batman Adventures than the comic equivalent of NYPD Blue. Does this make me a bad person? No. I'm exercising my right to buy what I want, which, last time I checked, was the whole concept behind the capitalist economy....
The thing is, I hardly limit myself to anything. I buy a even mix of Marvel and DC books with a lot of Indy titles. Lots of superhero books, but a bit of comedy and fantasy too. About the only hard set rule I have is that I don't buy any book written by a writer whose work I can't stand.
I realize however, that I am the exception in this and that there are tons of DC Fanboys, Marvel Militants and the various elitists lead by Warren Ellis and his ilk who shoot at anything wearing a cape and ask questions later. Each of them tend to stick to their own arguments as to why they make theirs Marvel, stick with the Distinguished Competition or scream riot about the "geezers" reading comic books instead of "graphic novels", all the while forgetting that their idol who swore he was retiring from funny books is now working for Marvel writing the Fantastic Bloody Four of all people.
So, yeah. Kevin... you have a point in that insularity does kill off a lot of good works. But you know what? How is a tarred and feathered superhero fan like me ignoring a book like Wildcats 3.0 because of my tastes any different than you avoiding Jim Lee books because you figure anything he's drawing is going to have a crap story?
Mike Maillaro (411 reviewer): Personally, I have not had interest in a WildC.A.T.s comic since the early 90's. Remember, this is Wildcats Version 3.0, which means it's already been scrapped and started over twice. Unlike Sleeper, which has been a hot seller in trades, Wildcats Version 3.0 has had flat sales all around. I would guess that most people felt like I do, who really cares about a new Wildcats series? It might have been good, but I never had any interest at all in reading it. Tacking on a hip "3.0" at the end of something doesn't work for me.
I am looking for more fun in my comics, and from the previews I read of Wildcats, it just looked like another dark, grim and gritty book. As far as I am concerned, this is no big loss. I am just hoping Joe Casey doesn't end up back on the X-Men or Superman books.
Chris Delloiacono (411 reviewer, co-writer of Near Mint Memories): I feel for people every time a series gets cancelled. It really doesn't matter what the book is, it was probably someone's favorite. I heard many good things about Wildcats Version 3.0, but I never tried it. Mainly because I was never a big fan of the team in the past. The big turnoff for me was that the book looked nothing like the team I remember.
I looked at the recent sales figures and it does seem like a slightly odd move, as there are Wildstorm titles that sell well below it (Sleeper included, but as Mike said, brisk TPB sales and critical acclaim have kept that book around). The trend in the industry seems to be moving back toward costumes and classic superheroing again. So, I would think another re-launch might be on the way later in the year.
On Thursday, it was announced that Stormwatch: Team Achilles has also been cancelled
Delloiacono: Batten down the hatches for more reaction; It was just announced that Stormwatch: Team Achilles has been cancelled. It's another one of WS's bigger named titles, but one that was selling even worse than Wildcats. It's funny, because the night the Wildcats deal came down, I looked at the sales figures from January and saw that Stormwatch sales were quite a bit lower than Wildcats. So, that seemed like a strange move at the time. Now it makes more sense.
The sad reason that these books are getting cancelled is that there just wasn't enough support for them. DC did recently attempt to boost sales on both books with the Coup De'Etat event. My assumption is when they saw the latest sales figures for the next regular issue of the titles there was no increase.
As for the idea that books like “Hush” are crap, that just doesn't stick with me. As Matt said, Jeph Loeb is one of the best writers in the industry. Jim Lee art does not mean that a book has poor writing. That's just ludicrous. I've never read either book and that's the whole reason I'm not commenting much on the titles themselves. I go back to my earlier statements, anytime a book gets canned, people lose their jobs and fans lose their favorite book. Even in the boom years, comics got cancelled all the time. It's a sad fact of the comic industry.
Rapp: Loeb is okay at times, but I think he's incredibly overrated. I think Hush was utterly horrible, for reasons I'll go into if someone really wants to know. But, the point of most consequence (for this particular topic) is most of the characters in the story were in there for the sole purpose of "let's see what they look like Lee-ified". There's a difference between "playing to the strengths of the artist" and "here's a sketchbook of your favorite characters". Hush crossed that, in my opinion. It sums up everything that I don't like about 90's comics, which is why I brought it up in the first place.
It's easy to blame the Image style because that's what destroyed the industry, because that's the reason why it crashed. The vast majority of comics sucked, hence numerous companies went bankrupt. Seems pretty logical to me. And, people really complain about the "Previously On" pages? I think they're great.
Some diversity. That's ALL I'm asking for. The people who only buy Uncanny X-Men aren't comic book fans, in my opinion, they're really only Uncanny X-Men fans. And if that's all you want to be, then more power to you. But for those of you who are actually interested in comic books as a medium, then try something else, too.
You guys are making the incorrect assumption that I don't try out these books. I read all of "Hush" and hated it. I've tried Geoff Johns' work on JSA and Flash, and found it was competent, but not to my stylistic tastes. I read Supreme Power, and it doesn't do it for me. I've tried Austen's work on Uncanny and Exiles, and found that it was drop-dead horrific. There are some safe corporate works that do it for me (Ultimate Spider-Man), but there are bunches of others that I've tried and just don't like. But the key here is I at least made the effort to look for something that, while maybe not to my particular tastes, is recommended and possibly worth reading.
What I'm saying is that my opinion, while perhaps elitist, is most certainly informed.
What I'm saying is I want others to at least TRY something different. Try reading something besides just X-Books, is the essential argument. I'm not saying "death to mainstream superheroes", I'm saying "diversity".
Dig? 25-part Batman “War Games” crossover announced for the summer of 2004
Chris Delloiacono: Here we go again! Batman: War Games is going to be a 25-part crossover this summer. Haven't we seen enough of this stuff the last decade and a
half? I read all but three of the titles involved in the crossover regularly, so that's not a big deal.
The premise itself sounds interesting--essentially a rogues gallery battle for Gotham--but still, I am tired of these huge events. I want more self-contained storytelling as opposed to multi-issue arcs. So, I certainly don't want to see 25 part stories. As a whole though, the talent involved is very strong, and I'm sure the story will look and read quite well. This is a mixed bag in my opinion, but it could be worse.
Mike Maillaro: I usually like crossovers, but this is just annoying. This is the second Bat-crossover in less than two years. Is this really necessary. The real sad part is that I will probably end up picking this up, just because I have every issue of Batman and Detective going back 16 years.
STAY CURRENT