|
|
Post by electricmastro on Sept 2, 2019 13:49:48 GMT -5
At ew.com/comic-con/2019/07/17/jonathan-hickman-previews-house-of-x-powers-of-x/, Jonathan Hickman said: "I think one of the big mistakes that some people make at Marvel Comics is that we are reactive to what they’re doing in the Marvel films,” Hickman says. “We should not be taking our creative cues from the direction they’re taking things in the movies. That kind of defeats the point. They have a billion dollars to play with, and we don’t. You can’t compete in that matter, and you shouldn’t. My argument has been [that] I should always be way out in front of that stuff. All of that stuff is being drawn from source material. It goes back to, are you being destructive or are you being additive? If you’re being additive and you’re on the big books, it’s inevitable that some of that stuff is going to get used. When Marvel films gets around to the X-Men and we’ve done interesting stuff and they want to use it, that’s awesome. If they don’t, then they don’t. One makes your job expendable, the other one makes you priceless. I like having value to my work." And I think what Hickman said can say quite a bit on the current philosophies being used while writing the comics, not just simply creative cues, but might even, at least I suspect, have to do with keeping certain status quos so as to satisfy newcomers that became fans of certain characters through the movies they came to care about so much and have an expectation of the comics being similar, which can be achieved through the use of reboots (e.g. One More Day rebooting Spider-Man's status quo, New 52 rebooting Batman's status quo, etc.). This sort of philosophy might also play into constant renumbering of books starting back at #1 so as to always give newcomers more assurance as to where to start when getting into comics, potentially boosting the sales of #1 issues even further, which in of itself can sometimes spawn even more #1 issues through related event tie-ins. With a simple crossover event or renumbering, it might work for a short-term boost in sales, but when playing the long-term, and overdoing it on events and renumbering of multiple long-running titles with similar names (e.g. Spider-Man 2099 (2015), Spider-Man (2016), Peter Parker: The Spectacular Spider-Man (2017), The Amazing Spider-Man (2018), all of this may probably do more to hurt sales than improve them in the end. A lot of this is just my speculation, but what do you guys think? |
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on Sept 2, 2019 14:35:18 GMT -5
If comics hadn't been reactive to super-heroes in othe rmedia, many of the most popular elements in comics would not have existed in comics. Yes, but with that said, I think the main point is that is there such a thing as being *too* reactive? |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 4, 2019 0:35:43 GMT -5
I'm not a great fan of Hickman but I don't see anything wrong with what he's saying here: to me it sounds more like that he'd prefer to see comics writers following their own muse rather just imitate whatever the movies happen to be doing: IOW, be leaders rather than followers. Whether that's possible at the Big 2 in the current state of the industry is of course another thing altogether.
Have comics really always imitated the moves or tv shows? Maybe, maybe not - Did the Wonder Woman or Hulk comics imitate the tv shows of the time? I don't recall the Hulk comics doing so, not even the magazine, but never read WW enough to judge. Did Spider-Man comics imitate the Spider-Man cartoon?
I think I heard somewhere that the Batman comics imitated the tv show for a few years, but did the more acclaimed eras of Batman - Neal Adams, Englehart/Rogers, Miller - do so?
But anyway, one big difference now is that there are way more comics-based movies and tv series than there ever were at any time up to the 80s, at least as far as the superhero stuff goes. So even if we grant that this was always standard practice, the effect would be much different today, because it would affect more character and series.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 4, 2019 5:45:59 GMT -5
The only move I can think of is to make Nick Fury into the Samuel Jackson version. I never had any use for the original Fury, and I thought he was overrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Sept 4, 2019 7:41:18 GMT -5
The only move I can think of is to make Nick Fury into the Samuel Jackson version. I never had any use for the original Fury, and I thought he was overrated. The didn't make Fury into the Samue Jackson version. They created a second character, also called Nick fury, who looked ike Jackson; the original version is still around. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Sept 4, 2019 8:03:08 GMT -5
I thought he turned into the new Watcher in that terrible mini series a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Sept 4, 2019 8:27:28 GMT -5
Have comics really always imitated the moves or tv shows? Maybe, maybe not - Did the Wonder Woman or Hulk comics imitate the tv shows of the time? I don't recall the Hulk comics doing so, not even the magazine, but never read WW enough to judge. Did Spider-Man comics imitate the Spider-Man cartoon? I think I heard somewhere that the Batman comics imitated the tv show for a few years, but did the more acclaimed eras of Batman - Neal Adams, Englehart/Rogers, Miller - do so? Yes, they really have. The Wonder Woman comic completely changed when the '70s TV series debuted, changing its setting to World War II and conforming to the program's continuity (Diana Prince as a Navy yeoman instead of an Army lieutenant, Etta Candy as a WAC instead of a coed, General Blankenship instead of General Darnell, dark-haired Steve Trevor, blonde Hippolyta), then changed back as soon as the show was cancelled). The Hulk comic didn't reflect the TV series but the Rampaging Hulk magazine did, changing title to the simpler Hulk, focusing on Banner-as-drifter having more realistic adventures, and removing virtually all references to the larger Marvel Universe. The Spider-Man comic didn't need to reflect the '60s cartoon, as the latter was a faithful (albeit simplified) adaptation of the former. And while the Batman titles did have a lengthy and irritating flirtation with camp thanks to the TV show, Julius Schwartz couldn't move fast enough to reverse the trend once the program was off primetime so, no, the Bronze Age books were free of that influence.
Cei-U! I summon the rundown!
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 4, 2019 12:36:09 GMT -5
So in other words, yes they have - sometimes, not always.
And those times tended not to be the most acclaimed or memorable creatively for the series or character in question
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 4, 2019 16:43:29 GMT -5
No doubt, but that doesn't mean we have to take that same POV. Hickman is a writer, not an executive, so naturally he take's the artistic viewpoint. Let the execs worry about the business side, creators and fans are more concerned with the creative side.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Sept 4, 2019 20:57:37 GMT -5
Regardless of his motives, I still like what he's saying: I'll always side with creators fighting against business-driven restrictions even if it's a losing battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on Sept 4, 2019 21:18:38 GMT -5
I'm not a great fan of Hickman but I don't see anything wrong with what he's saying here: to me it sounds more like that he'd prefer to see comics writers following their own muse rather just imitate whatever the movies happen to be doing: IOW, be leaders rather than followers. Whether that's possible at the Big 2 in the current state of the industry is of course another thing altogether. Have comics really always imitated the moves or tv shows? Maybe, maybe not - Did the Wonder Woman or Hulk comics imitate the tv shows of the time? I don't recall the Hulk comics doing so, not even the magazine, but never read WW enough to judge. Did Spider-Man comics imitate the Spider-Man cartoon? I think I heard somewhere that the Batman comics imitated the tv show for a few years, but did the more acclaimed eras of Batman - Neal Adams, Englehart/Rogers, Miller - do so? But anyway, one big difference now is that there are way more comics-based movies and tv series than there ever were at any time up to the 80s, at least as far as the superhero stuff goes. So even if we grant that this was always standard practice, the effect would be much different today, because it would affect more character and series. Yeah, it's true that movies and shows based on the comics have been around for a long time, but at the same time, I'm sure it's also reasonable to say that the success of media and the culture centered around it in general in the 2010s is considerably different than how it was in the 1970s. It makes one wonder how many Wonder Woman writers were thinking similarly to Hickman back when the Wonder Woman show was new, or when the Hulk show was new. |
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on Sept 4, 2019 22:02:43 GMT -5
You take a job as a hired gun, understand, that's what you are, it's your job to execute what your client (the publisher) wants, or to provide ideas they can approve or amend as they see fit. How many other companies allow their temporary employees (freelancers are not even staff at the companies) to tell them how to run their business? -M This isn't about writers telling execs how to do their job, but now that you mention it, would that be any radically different from execs telling writers how to do their job, or are you implying that writers shouldn't have any of their creative freedom at all as long as they're working for DC or Marvel? |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Sept 4, 2019 22:45:51 GMT -5
Regardless of his motives, I still like what he's saying: I'll always side with creators fighting against business-driven restrictions even if it's a losing battle. Even when it's a bit hypocritical-when Marvel was launching Marvel Now, Hickman wanted to be the guy on Avengers because it had the most eyes on it because of the movies, and had no problem making things more like the movies and doing an event (Infinity) driven by Thanos because Thanos was in the movies, saying things like, I was never a big Thanos fan, but it's who fans and Marvel wants so we're doing it and I save my best ideas for stuff I own and am willing to do what is needed on my work-for-hire stuff, and then left Marvel after he built his fan base to do creator-owned stuff until the momentum and his audience had shrunk a bit because he had been away from the big 2 for a few years. Then he looks to come back, can't get the deal he wants from DC (a deal like Bendis got), so comes back to Marvel where suddenly he is a champion of staying away from other visions and anti-synchronicity. So which is it Jonathan, what you say, or what you do? You can't say you're championing creative vision and sell out every time Marvel asks you to so you can build your own audience. -M You are attributing a lot of beliefs, attitudes and motivations to the guy. Assuming you are not marriage-level intimate, between some and (more likely) almost all of this is idle speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Sept 4, 2019 22:56:48 GMT -5
And I think there's a lot of truth to what Hickman's saying even from a business standpoint - Marvel and DC should want new characters and IP that can be featured in movies, games, and action figures... as Hickman did with the Black Order. A lot of current Marvel and DC characters are between 40 and 80 years old, which makes it a little difficult for them to capture the current cultural zeitgeist.
|
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on Sept 4, 2019 23:08:14 GMT -5
Even when it's a bit hypocritical-when Marvel was launching Marvel Now, Hickman wanted to be the guy on Avengers because it had the most eyes on it because of the movies, and had no problem making things more like the movies and doing an event (Infinity) driven by Thanos because Thanos was in the movies, saying things like, I was never a big Thanos fan, but it's who fans and Marvel wants so we're doing it and I save my best ideas for stuff I own and am willing to do what is needed on my work-for-hire stuff, and then left Marvel after he built his fan base to do creator-owned stuff until the momentum and his audience had shrunk a bit because he had been away from the big 2 for a few years. Then he looks to come back, can't get the deal he wants from DC (a deal like Bendis got), so comes back to Marvel where suddenly he is a champion of staying away from other visions and anti-synchronicity. So which is it Jonathan, what you say, or what you do? You can't say you're championing creative vision and sell out every time Marvel asks you to so you can build your own audience. -M You are attributing a lot of beliefs, attitudes and motivations to the guy. Assuming you are not marriage-level intimate, between some and (more likely) almost all of this is idle speculation. Not to mention how Hickman might have changed his opinion since then. |
|
