|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 18, 2017 0:17:26 GMT -5
It's costing too much to self-publish an indie akin to Warlock 5 in the 80's due to paper/print prices and make a go of it without agonizing risk, particularly in regions outside the USA, without resorting to Chinese printers.
There, I said it.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 18, 2017 4:47:00 GMT -5
It's costing too much to self-publish an indie akin to Warlock 5 in the 80's due to paper/print prices and make a go of it without agonizing risk, particularly in regions outside the USA, without resorting to Chinese printers. There, I said it. I'm guessing that having an online comic is what people are doing these days, in lieu of having actual paper representation.
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Jul 18, 2017 23:21:19 GMT -5
I'm a guy. I like the male power fantasy of superhero comic books in America. I like that the heightened reality where people have idealized height, and muscular bodies while being able to do incredible feats. I like that a lot of the women are drawn like Victoria's Secret models and walk/pose in unrealistic manners. Of course this does depend on the artist (no to Greg Land, yes to Neal Adams) Does that make me shallow? If it does...I don't seem to mind? There, said it.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 19, 2017 0:50:32 GMT -5
It's costing too much to self-publish an indie akin to Warlock 5 in the 80's due to paper/print prices and make a go of it without agonizing risk, particularly in regions outside the USA, without resorting to Chinese printers. There, I said it. I'm guessing that having an online comic is what people are doing these days, in lieu of having actual paper representation. Yes but the profits offered by digital are negligible or non existent or actually a 'loss-leader' losing money in the hopes of making money for a propper-paper publication. Considering the 'profits' (or lack thereof) earned by any artist who has not worked on a top 50 book before going digital (I stress this qualification for people who wish to reply), many people might opt to go online first, but they won't make a living (or half-living) from digital until they can do work that will get them hired for 'dead-tree-comics' by the Big 5 anyway. Unless they are not creating 'comics' per se, but digitally-publishing 'cartoons' (Hello, Bechdel, Ware, etc) which can be produced 5 times more quickly than Saga Pages, 1981 Elfquest pages, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 19, 2017 5:56:41 GMT -5
I'm guessing that having an online comic is what people are doing these days, in lieu of having actual paper representation. Yes but the profits offered by digital are negligible or non existent or actually a 'loss-leader' losing money in the hopes of making money for a propper-paper publication. Considering the 'profits' (or lack thereof) earned by any artist who has not worked on a top 50 book before going digital (I stress this qualification for people who wish to reply), many people might opt to go online first, but they won't make a living (or half-living) from digital until they can do work that will get them hired for 'dead-tree-comics' by the Big 5 anyway. Unless they are not creating 'comics' per se, but digitally-publishing 'cartoons' (Hello, Bechdel, Ware, etc) which can be produced 5 times more quickly than Saga Pages, 1981 Elfquest pages, etc. It seems like making a nice living in comics is like hitting the lotto.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jul 19, 2017 8:45:10 GMT -5
Unless they are not creating 'comics' per se, but digitally-publishing 'cartoons' (Hello, Bechdel, Ware, etc) which can be produced 5 times more quickly than Saga Pages, 1981 Elfquest pages, etc. Bechdel will occasionally toss a new Dykes to Watch Out for strip up on her web-site, but she mostly works in Graphic Novels and built up a following for her strip over the decades long before digital was even an idea. I suspect this isn't a huge income generator compared to graphic novel sales or lecture fees. (I'm pretty excited for the upcoming Fitness Memoir.) I really have no idea what you mean in regards to Chris Ware. I've seen some of his work syndicated in alternative weeklies which you can probably read on the web, but he's mostly doing magazine covers and graphic novels. I can not possibly imagine a world where it takes longer for the Pini's to draw a page than Chris Ware. There are (a small percentage of absolute top of the line) webcomic artists who make a decent living through merchandise and (increasingly) patron-style donations. I can't think of a major webcomic artist who has made the jump to working for "big 5." Examples, please?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 9:42:41 GMT -5
I read this essay after reading many recent threads here and it just struck me...
What Ellison was pointing out about sci-fi fans and editors in '67 is just as true about comic fans and editors of mainstream corporate comics today as what he said was then.
There I said it (or more actually Harlan did).
-M
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 19, 2017 9:50:02 GMT -5
I read this essay after reading many recent threads here and it just struck me... What Ellison was pointing out about sci-fi fans and editors in '67 is just as true about comic fans and editors of mainstream corporate comics today as what he said was then. There I said it (or more actually Harlan did). -M Bingo. The mainstream invaded the nerds ghetto and the nerds don't get to feel special any more.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jul 19, 2017 10:41:09 GMT -5
I'm guessing that having an online comic is what people are doing these days, in lieu of having actual paper representation. Yes but the profits offered by digital are negligible or non existent or actually a 'loss-leader' losing money in the hopes of making money for a propper-paper publication. Considering the 'profits' (or lack thereof) earned by any artist who has not worked on a top 50 book before going digital (I stress this qualification for people who wish to reply), many people might opt to go online first, but they won't make a living (or half-living) from digital until they can do work that will get them hired for 'dead-tree-comics' by the Big 5 anyway. Unless they are not creating 'comics' per se, but digitally-publishing 'cartoons' (Hello, Bechdel, Ware, etc) which can be produced 5 times more quickly than Saga Pages, 1981 Elfquest pages, etc. Interestingly, Wendy Pini did a digital first graphic novel. I agree with the general point that Cerebus style self-publishing is tough now-a-days. (And it was never, never easy.) There are quite a few mini-comics artists out there , but I don't know if any of 'em are making any money at it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2017 11:19:52 GMT -5
Yes but the profits offered by digital are negligible or non existent or actually a 'loss-leader' losing money in the hopes of making money for a propper-paper publication. Considering the 'profits' (or lack thereof) earned by any artist who has not worked on a top 50 book before going digital (I stress this qualification for people who wish to reply), many people might opt to go online first, but they won't make a living (or half-living) from digital until they can do work that will get them hired for 'dead-tree-comics' by the Big 5 anyway. Unless they are not creating 'comics' per se, but digitally-publishing 'cartoons' (Hello, Bechdel, Ware, etc) which can be produced 5 times more quickly than Saga Pages, 1981 Elfquest pages, etc. Interestingly, Wendy Pini did a digital first graphic novel. I agree with the general point that Cerebus style self-publishing is tough now-a-days. (And it was never, never easy.) There are quite a few mini-comics artists out there , but I don't know if any of 'em are making any money at it. Go to Cartoon Crossroads Columbus and you will meet a good number of people who are self-publishing and making a living at it. The website for the festival is here or check it out on Facebook. Of course you will not likely find any of their work in a comic shop because Diamond has no interest in doing any kind of actual work and would rather peddle the corporate comics and the merchandise related to it for the easy money, with only the biggest names (like Jeff Smith or Terry Moore) getting a nibble from Diamond. There's also a good number of folks making a living producing graphic novels for the imprints of what was the big 7 book publishers and not through the big 5 comics publishers Diamond caters too. Occasionally you can find the books buried in the Previews catalog in the mish mash that is their indy publisher section, but you can see the books prominently in actual bookstores and libraries. The problem is that Diamond is the gatekeeper to what can or can't be carried easily in comic shops, and the comic shop itself, as a specialty destination shop-an idea that went out of vogue with the turn of the century in modern retail markets, is a dinosaur not designed to meet the needs of anyone who is not buying mainstream corporate super-hero comics and the few publishers/books that make their bread and butter orbiting on the fringes of that market. There's a whole world of comics outside that market, and there is money to be made in that market, but you have to be willing to adapt to the current market and not try to succeed in a contemporary market trying to sell 20th century material using 20th century economic ideas and techniques, and be willing to work around the obstacles in getting to market created by the Diamond monopoly and gatekeeper tactics. -M
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 20, 2017 3:30:38 GMT -5
Unless they are not creating 'comics' per se, but digitally-publishing 'cartoons' (Hello, Bechdel, Ware, etc) which can be produced 5 times more quickly than Saga Pages, 1981 Elfquest pages, etc. Bechdel will occasionally toss a new Dykes to Watch Out for strip up on her web-site, but she mostly works in Graphic Novels and built up a following for her strip over the decades long before digital was even an idea. I suspect this isn't a huge income generator compared to graphic novel sales or lecture fees. (I'm pretty excited for the upcoming Fitness Memoir.) I really have no idea what you mean in regards to Chris Ware. I've seen some of his work syndicated in alternative weeklies which you can probably read on the web, but he's mostly doing magazine covers and graphic novels. I can not possibly imagine a world where it takes longer for the Pini's to draw a page than Chris Ware. There are (a small percentage of absolute top of the line) webcomic artists who make a decent living through merchandise and (increasingly) patron-style donations. I can't think of a major webcomic artist who has made the jump to working for "big 5." Examples, please? this rather supports my point, tho in a way it combats my point, bearing in mind my point was about digital-publishing purely. it's a dicey issue. I doubt anyone would pay for digital copies of ware/bechdel if they'd not been published physically/non digitally beforehand, and received all the accolades fore their minimalist/deconstructionist/memoire-work, which chi-chi- art critics love, the same critics who love butt-bisquit (aka Basquiat), and non-artists lie him. regardless of which demographic appreciates ware/bechdel, the point remains that their work will never take as long to produce as Nicola Scott's or Brian Bolland's (or Wendy Pini's when she was inking herself), and thus, due to the low profits of stuff on comixology and other 'digital-brands', if someone chooses the digital route, they'd be smart to embrace the minimalist [ware] thing, or the 'takes-no-work-really' memoire stuff of bechdel. otherwise the artist/auteur is putting in s much real work per page that the $ they get back from digital is nothing more than a 'less expensive diamond add' for the paper-publication version, which is where the money (right now) is at. As ware and bechdel know. since they're making their $$ outta hardcopies, as you pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jul 20, 2017 11:30:25 GMT -5
Bechdel will occasionally toss a new Dykes to Watch Out for strip up on her web-site, but she mostly works in Graphic Novels and built up a following for her strip over the decades long before digital was even an idea. I suspect this isn't a huge income generator compared to graphic novel sales or lecture fees. (I'm pretty excited for the upcoming Fitness Memoir.) I really have no idea what you mean in regards to Chris Ware. I've seen some of his work syndicated in alternative weeklies which you can probably read on the web, but he's mostly doing magazine covers and graphic novels. I can not possibly imagine a world where it takes longer for the Pini's to draw a page than Chris Ware. There are (a small percentage of absolute top of the line) webcomic artists who make a decent living through merchandise and (increasingly) patron-style donations. I can't think of a major webcomic artist who has made the jump to working for "big 5." Examples, please? this rather supports my point, tho in a way it combats my point, bearing in mind my point was about digital-publishing purely. it's a dicey issue. I doubt anyone would pay for digital copies of ware/bechdel if they'd not been published physically/non digitally beforehand, and received all the accolades fore their minimalist/deconstructionist/memoire-work, which chi-chi- art critics love, the same critics who love butt-bisquit (aka Basquiat), and non-artists lie him. regardless of which demographic appreciates ware/bechdel, the point remains that their work will never take as long to produce as Nicola Scott's or Brian Bolland's (or Wendy Pini's when she was inking herself), and thus, due to the low profits of stuff on comixology and other 'digital-brands', if someone chooses the digital route, they'd be smart to embrace the minimalist [ware] thing, or the 'takes-no-work-really' memoire stuff of bechdel. otherwise the artist/auteur is putting in s much real work per page that the $ they get back from digital is nothing more than a 'less expensive diamond add' for the paper-publication version, which is where the money (right now) is at. As ware and bechdel know. since they're making their $$ outta hardcopies, as you pointed out. While I don't disagree with your overall point... There's a lot of conjecture on your part, here. And the part where you get distracted and insult artists you don't like for no reason would be a really good thing to stop doing. "I can't stay on topic and have strange personal vendettas I bring up at random" is a particularly poor way to build credibility. Bechdel and Ware both worked their way up through syndication, Bechdel in gay magazines and newsletters, Ware in Village Voice style alternative weeklies. They might be better known as graphic novelists now, but that reflects years of work gaining a following and proving to publishers they could reliably produce content and had an audience that would follow them. If anything it seems (slightly) easier to gain a digital following than compete for one of a very small number of slots in the back of alternative weeklies. Although the idea that you can't make money as a primarily digital publisher is just flat out wrong. Sorry. The Control Alt Delete and PvP guys seem to be pulling in six figure incomes (Granted neither of these are incredibly well sourced) and I've heard Chris Onstad of my beloved Achewood fame say that he made a decent middle class income - before he got burned out and quit. I'm not an expert on webcomics by any means, and can certainly believe there are fewer webcomic creators making a decent living And, honestly, your focus on comparing speed between Chris Ware and... the woman who drew Secret Six? Right? Ok. Pause. Why the hell are we comparing a mainstream comic artist and a guy who works primarily (as of now) in high end graphic novels? Really, the overlap between self-publishers and Marvel/DC/Image factory style comics which you seem convinced exists? I don't see it. There's some overlap... Most aspiring professional class artists who end up at Marvel and DC have samples on the web now, and very 'cassionally Jeff Smith will write and draw Captain Marvel or the guy from Kopra will write the Ultimates... But the divide between self-publishers (digital or physical) who do everything and creators who want to write/draw/ink/letter in factory system comics is very wide right now. There just isn't a lot of overlap! The graphic novel/book store/Maus/Smile/Persepolis/Bone audience is very different than Diamond's wednesday warriors, who are comfortable with corporate product and uninterested in self-publishing. Wendy Pini can move back and forth between digital and hard-copy publishing because she has a following. The dude drawing the Avengers doesn't have a following outside the Avengers, and his audience will not follow him to self-published work. Also Nicola Scott is almost certainly faster than Chris Ware. Mainstream comics stress speed! You have to be fast to hack it drawing Wonder Woman and Earth 2. Chris Ware has to do one page a week for the Guardian. Wonder WOman comes out something like bi-weekly now. (Or something. It is SO HARD to care about current mainstream comics that do not have Squirrel Girl in them.) Also you seem to be convinced that the amount of time it takes to draw a comic page is completely based on how many lines are used? Am I following this? If so, untrue. Drawing good with a couple lines (the Alex Toth style) takes just as much effort and time as drawing crappy with a lot of lines. (The Jim Lee style.) Drawing good with a lot of lines probably ( Jeremy Bastion style) probably takes longest of all, though.
|
|
|
Post by lobsterjohnson on Jul 20, 2017 19:17:18 GMT -5
Dang it! I just read that the reprinted collections of Sandman Mystery Theatre were cancelled after Book 2. That's too bad.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 21, 2017 0:32:46 GMT -5
this rather supports my point, tho in a way it combats my point, bearing in mind my point was about digital-publishing purely. it's a dicey issue. I doubt anyone would pay for digital copies of ware/bechdel if they'd not been published physically/non digitally beforehand, and received all the accolades fore their minimalist/deconstructionist/memoire-work, which chi-chi- art critics love, the same critics who love butt-bisquit (aka Basquiat), and non-artists lie him. regardless of which demographic appreciates ware/bechdel, the point remains that their work will never take as long to produce as Nicola Scott's or Brian Bolland's (or Wendy Pini's when she was inking herself), and thus, due to the low profits of stuff on comixology and other 'digital-brands', if someone chooses the digital route, they'd be smart to embrace the minimalist [ware] thing, or the 'takes-no-work-really' memoire stuff of bechdel. otherwise the artist/auteur is putting in s much real work per page that the $ they get back from digital is nothing more than a 'less expensive diamond add' for the paper-publication version, which is where the money (right now) is at. As ware and bechdel know. since they're making their $$ outta hardcopies, as you pointed out. While I don't disagree with your overall point... There's a lot of conjecture on your part, here. And the part where you get distracted and insult artists you don't like for no reason would be a really good thing to stop doing. "I can't stay on topic and have strange personal vendettas I bring up at random" is a particularly poor way to build credibility. Bechdel and Ware both worked their way up through syndication, Bechdel in gay magazines and newsletters, Ware in Village Voice style alternative weeklies. They might be better known as graphic novelists now, but that reflects years of work gaining a following and proving to publishers they could reliably produce content and had an audience that would follow them. If anything it seems (slightly) easier to gain a digital following than compete for one of a very small number of slots in the back of alternative weeklies. Although the idea that you can't make money as a primarily digital publisher is just flat out wrong. Sorry. The Control Alt Delete and PvP guys seem to be pulling in six figure incomes (Granted neither of these are incredibly well sourced) and I've heard Chris Onstad of my beloved Achewood fame say that he made a decent middle class income - before he got burned out and quit. I'm not an expert on webcomics by any means, and can certainly believe there are fewer webcomic creators making a decent living And, honestly, your focus on comparing speed between Chris Ware and... the woman who drew Secret Six? Right? Ok. Pause. Why the hell are we comparing a mainstream comic artist and a guy who works primarily (as of now) in high end graphic novels? Really, the overlap between self-publishers and Marvel/DC/Image factory style comics which you seem convinced exists? I don't see it. There's some overlap... Most aspiring professional class artists who end up at Marvel and DC have samples on the web now, and very 'cassionally Jeff Smith will write and draw Captain Marvel or the guy from Kopra will write the Ultimates... But the divide between self-publishers (digital or physical) who do everything and creators who want to write/draw/ink/letter in factory system comics is very wide right now. There just isn't a lot of overlap! The graphic novel/book store/Maus/Smile/Persepolis/Bone audience is very different than Diamond's wednesday warriors, who are comfortable with corporate product and uninterested in self-publishing. Wendy Pini can move back and forth between digital and hard-copy publishing because she has a following. The dude drawing the Avengers doesn't have a following outside the Avengers, and his audience will not follow him to self-published work. Also Nicola Scott is almost certainly faster than Chris Ware. Mainstream comics stress speed! You have to be fast to hack it drawing Wonder Woman and Earth 2. Chris Ware has to do one page a week for the Guardian. Wonder WOman comes out something like bi-weekly now. (Or something. It is SO HARD to care about current mainstream comics that do not have Squirrel Girl in them.) Also you seem to be convinced that the amount of time it takes to draw a comic page is completely based on how many lines are used? Am I following this? If so, untrue. Drawing good with a couple lines (the Alex Toth style) takes just as much effort and time as drawing crappy with a lot of lines. (The Jim Lee style.) Drawing good with a lot of lines probably ( Jeremy Bastion style) probably takes longest of all, though. Okay. I get where you're coming from, but to fair to the mods, whose work is hard, I have to ask you to be careful about "While I don't disagree with your overall point... There's a lot of conjecture on your part, here. And the part where you get distracted and insult artists you don't like for no reason would be a really good thing to stop doing." That's a suggestion that is most likely better to leave to the mods. as for 'distractions/insults/etc., I'll do bullet points for my reply (and please bear in mind I very much respect 'where your head is at' with all of this', and I'll ask you to do the same): You seem to be very personally-affronted by some of my posts here, which I’d rather not be the case. I will do my best to tailor my future posts to be less affronting. But, the Personal is the Political. And these days, pop-media is considered ‘soft-power’ in the political realm, as spoken of on NPR and other places, which I completely agree with. Versus ‘hard-power’. However, i’f you’re allowed to enjoy operatic licence in ‘translating my post’ as you did, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. So, my reply: *’Vendetta’ in regards to what I post could be considered by others to be hyperbolic (I don’t consider it such; you have the right to use that adjective), but my problem with the use of ‘hyperbolic’ and ‘vendetta’ basically denigrates the notion of critique vs ‘review’. Critiques and review are separate and many film critics have bemoaned the fact that they’ve had to go from ‘critic’ to ‘reviewer’ and hold-back on ‘not nice’ comments about films, TV shows, comics, novels, etc. There are many reputable film critics (now reduced to ‘reviewers’) who speak directly against ’shaky-cam’ in genre films. *This seems to be the case not only in the realm of ‘art and storytelling’, but also in the realm of politics. I might disagree with some minor minutia of what you or Bert or Spoon say on the Politics thread but I respect their right to say what they do, and do not call it ‘snow flaking’ as others have. I don’t like ‘snow flaking’ as a term. An I respect your political views as well, but I’d venture the notion that Art, and the perception of art, is always political, and as you feel I’ve ‘had a vendetta’, I feel that the way in which you employed that word might accidentally shut my side of the conversation here down. *From a purely-writer-centric point of view, you might be in your rights to claim I went ‘off-topic’. unless-you’ve-drawn-or-painted-for-pay, no. From the artists’ perspective, no. As any comic, digital or ‘dead-tree-technology’ relies upon the artist to make the comic ‘happen’. Until the day dawns when digital comics no longer rely upon art to make a sale, I do not accept that I went ‘off-topic’. You are free to feel that I did; others (particularly those who know how long it takes to pencil/ink/colour a page takes, and factor that against *likely* sales of a digital comic, do not have to. *Unless they are an auteur, even an auteur employing circle-heads in web-comics and then later print-comics (i’m lumping graphic novels and trade paperbacks and comics into the same category here), and if the circle-head work is honest and not claiming to be anything ‘more than it is’, I completely support it, and enjoy it. Such as this, by a female creator: www.catanacomics.comher talent: *Her work is delightful, fresh, plays with old tropes while bothering to ‘add something new to the mix’. She is one of my top 5 fave new creators in comics. And she doesn’t rely on anything other than her talent to gain support. Nor does she make claims about her work, out of context, to make her work ‘more than it is’. *’Credibility’ is a 2 way street, compadre. Looking at your side of the street, I don’t ask you to ‘prove’ your credibility in anything you post. I look at your thoughts which you express here, and take them at face value. But credibility on any comics-community site is often a zero-sum-game, or worse, for anyone who says anything openly unpopular in said-communities. The public reactions to statements by Moore, Millar, Miller, Steranko, Adams and others have proven this. And no, I do not liken myself to the aforementioned Greats of the Industry We Love. But if the internet is an ‘anti-safespace’ for people like them, and also the female editor whom rightly slammed a BAD ‘notorious DC cover for its art’, then I, as a grunt (and if you’re a writer, you need an art-grunt), have less to worry about RE ‘credibility’ than they do, in the context of this sub-topic in this thread. I really feel that despite semantic differences, we'd both want the same support, the same profit, for the same people in today's comics marketplace. *edited to add: I can write/post a lonnnnnng post on what I love about Bechdel's career, and how I consider it so important, but I reserve the right to separate her work as a sociological visionary in sociology employing comics to do her 'good works' and give us the gift of the Bechdel Test, while - as I've been an illustrator - have no love for her actual 'art'.
|
|
|
Post by batusi on Jul 22, 2017 19:53:10 GMT -5
X-Men in it's current comic book form is LOST. There, I said it.
PS: The movie franchise is ROCKING!!!
|
|